Environmental Audit of the Goulburn River – Lake Eildon to the Murray River

ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT

ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT

OF THE GOULBURN RIVER –

LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

EPA Victoria 40 City Road, Southbank Victoria 3006 AUSTRALIA

September 2005

Publication 1010 ISBN 0 7306 7647 1

This publication is copyright. No part of it may be reproduced by any process except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968.

ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Environmental audit of the Goulburn River Lake Eildon to the Murray River I, John Nolan, of Nolan-ITU Pty Ltd, an environmental auditor appointed pursuant to the Environment Act 1970 (‘the Act’), having: i. been requested by the Environment Protection Authority Victoria on behalf of the Minister for Environment and Water to undertake an environmental audit of the Goulburn River— Lake Eildon to the Murray River—with the primary objective of obtaining the information and understanding required to guide the management of the Goulburn River towards providing a healthier river system. This included improvements towards meeting the needs of the environment and water users, thereby reducing the likelihood of further fish kill events in the future ii. had regard to, among other things, the: • Environment Protection Act 1970 (the Act) • Water Act 1989 • Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 • Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1998 • Fisheries Act 1995 • Heritage River Act 1992 • Safe Drinking Water Act 2003 • Emergency Management Act 1986 • Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act 1992 • Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 • State Environment Protection Policy (Water of Victoria) 2003

and the following relevant documents

• Victorian River Health Strategy • Goulburn Broken Regional Catchment Strategy • Draft Goulburn Broken Regional River Health Strategy • Murray-Darling Basin Commission’s (MDBC) Native Fish Strategy • Goulburn Eildon Fisheries Management Plan iii. consulted with members of the community as well as the following authorities and organisations: • Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority (CMA) • Goulburn-Murray Water (G-MW) • Environment Protection Authority • Department of Sustainability and Environment • Department of Primary Industries • Environment Victoria • VR Fish • Fisheries Co-Management Council • Yorta Yorta Nation • Victorian Farmers Federation • Goulburn Valley Environment Group

Environmental Audit i ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

• Nagambie Angling Club • Goulburn Valley Association of Angling Clubs iv. assessed the nature and extent of any harm or detriment caused to, or the risk of any possible harm or detriment which may be caused to, any beneficial use made of Goulburn River between Lake Eildon and the Murray River by the following activities: • Activity A: River flow regulation (including management of riparian zone) • Activity B: Fish kill response arrangements • Activity C: Biocides usage • Activity D: Irrigation drainage v. prepared the attached environment audit report in accordance with Section 53V of the Act hereby state that I am of the opinion that: 1. The Goulburn River downstream of Lake Eildon does not meet several environmental quality objectives of the State Environment Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria). Consequently the SEPP (WoV) requires that regional targets for environmental rehabilitation be set through an attainment program. Key parameters of concern are dissolved oxygen, turbidity, and biological indicators. 2. The water quality of the Goulburn River deteriorates as it flows downstream from Lake Eildon. 3. The dissolved oxygen concentration of the water below Lake Eildon appeared to be unusually low in the 2003/04 period compared to previous years. Low dissolved oxygen was associated with the fish kill downstream of the Goulburn weir in January 2004. 4. An expert review panel identified several potential threats to the health of the Goulburn weir pool and Lake Nagambie. Regular routine water quality and biological monitoring is not currently undertaken within the water bodies, Goulburn weir pool and Lake Nagambie. 5. A consolidated Goulburn River SEPP (WoV) Attainment Program has not been established nor is there a comprehensive framework for its establishment. 6. The Goulburn River is identified by the draft Goulburn Broken River Health Strategy (RRHS) as a high priority river which requires protection and enhancement. 7. The RRHS is the appropriate strategy for the protection of the environmental health of the Goulburn River below Lake Eildon. The final draft RRHS is about to be considered by the Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority’s Board before being sent to the Minister for endorsement. 8. The draft RRHS could be refined to provide a comprehensive and consolidated framework for the SEPP (WoV) Attainment Program. 9. The data presented on the river’s environmental, economic, or social assets has not been used in an integrated fashion to set goals, priorities and environmental targets for the River, particularly for reach 1 (below Lake Eildon), where there are competing beneficial uses. 10. The lack of clear management objectives for the Goulburn River between Lake Eildon and the Murray River has created significant uncertainty for government agencies involved in the management of the river and its catchment.

EPA Victoria ii ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

11. The draft RRHS recognises this and indicates that clear management objectives will be established for audit reaches 1, 2 and 3 by conducting a deliberate forum with major stakeholders and community representatives. Short-term resource condition targets (RCTs) and management action targets (MATs) are set for this reach including nutrient and turbidity targets. Longer-term RCTs and MATs are set for audit reach 4. 12. The draft RRHS indicates that a process will be put in place to monitor and audit native fish populations in audit reach 4 as required under the MDBC Native Fish Strategy. Monitoring of native fish within audit reaches 1, 2, and 3 does not appear to be proposed within the draft RRHS. In their response to the draft audit report on matters of fact DSE advised that ecological monitoring will be undertaken through the Sustainable Rivers Audit. 13. The linkages between policies and strategies that dictate the management arrangements for the Goulburn River could be improved; particularly the Regional River Health Strategy, the Goulburn Eildon Fisheries Management Plan, and the SEPP (WoV). 14. Environmental Water Reserves are currently being identified for all Victorian catchments through the development of sustainable water strategies. 15. There may be an inconsistency between SEPP (WoV) Clause 41 ‘Water Allocations and Environmental Flows’ and the Bulk Entitlement (Eildon-Goulburn Weir) Conversion Order 1995 as it relates to G-MW’s ability to implement measures to provide environmental flows. 16. Implementation of the Victorian Government’s White Paper ‘Our Water Our Future’, particularly the development of Environmental Water Reserves, may assist in addressing this inconsistency. 17. The White Paper advises that the Government will amend legislation to establish Environmental Water Reserves to set aside a share of water in rivers and aquifers across the state for the environment. 18. Native and introduced fish, including desirable species such as Brown and Rainbow trout, may be beneficial uses to be protected along the Goulburn River. 19. The water temperature of the Goulburn River downstream of Lake Eildon is up to 6.5oC cooler than it would have been prior to the construction of Sugarloaf Reservoir and subsequently Lake Eildon. 20. Cold water releases from Lake Eildon support a significant recreational trout fishing industry between Eildon and Seymour. Unfortunately this cold water will not support native fish. 21. Thermal water objectives have not been set for the Goulburn River and hence releases from Lake Eildon are not influenced by temperature considerations. 22. G-MW identifies river temperature fluctuations below Lake Eildon as a significant environmental risk in the G-MW Significant Environmental Risk Register. It is not clear what obligations G-MW has under its Environmental Management System (EMS) to reduce the risk. 23. While the Goulburn Eildon Fisheries Management Plan establishes specific management objectives for audit reach 1, the issue as to whether this reach should be managed as a cold-water fishery for recreational fishing of trout and other introduced species or should be ameliorated to allow for the re-establishment of native fish will not be resolved until a decision is made as to which beneficial uses are to be protected. This decision can only be made once the clear management objectives are established through the RRHS. 24. Scientists believe that the environmental health of Nagambie Lakes and the Goulburn weir pool is poor to moderate.

Environmental Audit iii ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

25. Few native fish are found upstream of Nagambie due to the Goulburn Weir acting as a barrier, and the influence of the cold water releases from the Lake Eildon. 26. A study is underway to determine the feasibility of constructing a fish ladder at the weir. 27. There is evidence of a depletion of native fish particularly within the Lake Nagambie system. 28. Anglers are concerned that the current management arrangements to control the level of the Goulburn weir pool and Lake Nagambie are adversely impacting on fish populations. 29. Each year Goulburn-Murray Water is able to take up to 1919 gigalitres of flow from the Goulburn River and release 1 400 gigalitres of water from Lake Eildon under the Bulk Entitlement (Eildon-Goulburn Weir) Conversion Order (the Bulk Entitlement) which came into effect on 1 July 1995. 30. Clause 15.1 of the Bulk Entitlement requires G-MW to propose a program to manage the environmental effects of its works to take water under the bulk entitlement. 31. The bulk entitlement is adjusted for each water saving measure that is identified and implemented. 32. Trout cod, Macquarie perch, Murray cod, Silver perch, Freshwater catfish, Murray hardyhead and Murray rainbowfish are listed as ‘threatened fauna’ under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (the FFG Act) and are found within the Goulburn River below Lake Eildon. 33. The FFG Act also lists ‘potentially threatening processes’ that may affect freshwater aquatic environments. Some of the key threatening processes which are relevant to the Goulburn River are alteration to the natural flow regimes, alteration to the natural temperature regimes, increase in sediment input, and prevention of passage of aquatic biota as a result of the presence of in-stream structures. 34. Action Statements have not been prepared for all threatened species and potentially threatening processes that are relevant to the Goulburn River downstream of Lake Eildon. 35. Generally there are clear distinctions between organisation’s roles and responsibilities for the management of the health of the Goulburn River. However the agency responsibilities for protecting the health of native fish are not clear. 36. About three fish kill events each year have been recorded within the Goulburn Broken catchment since 1997. It is not possible to identify whether these fish kills are an indicator of declining river health as there is not a consistent historical trend, nor whether the current frequency and severity of fish kills has changed significantly compared to pre- regulation conditions. 37. There is a broad range of fish kill causes without any one cause dominating. 38. The available monitoring records and data are insufficient to identify the environmental conditions that contributed to the January 2004 fish kill event downstream of the Goulburn Weir. 39. Several agency and multi-agency response protocols have been refined by knowledge gained from the January 2004 fish kill 40. While agency roles and responsibilities for emergencies involving fish kills are identified in the Emergency Management Act 1986 they not clearly articulated in all plans and protocols for such emergencies, or plans and protocols for fish kills that are not classified as emergencies (i.e. due to natural disease or drought conditions). In some cases agencies are not in full agreement on their respective responsibilities.

EPA Victoria iv ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

41. Despite the improvement in many of the government agencies’ fish kill response protocols following the January 2004 fish kills, there is significant uncertainty and frustration as to the roles and responsibilities of the key government agencies. This is primarily due to a lack of a robust State-based fish kill response protocol that is accepted and endorsed by all relevant agencies. 42. The on-ground management arrangements of the draft Interim Framework for a Multi Agency Response to Incidents in Waterways in the Goulburn Broken Catchment are consistent with those documented in the draft working document of the Environmental Incident Management Response Arrangements for Victorian Waterways. 43. The current agency and multi-agency fish kill response protocols are, in part, overlapping and inconsistent. 44. G-MW biocides usage in channels and drains is generally well controlled and complies with most requirements of the relevant regulations and standards. 45. G-MW does not store aquatic herbicides in or near surface waters, drainage lines or floodplains. All nine storage sites are at least 200 m away from surface waters and irrigation drainage lines. 46. The SEPP (WoV) advises that the EPA will work with protection agencies and others to develop guidance for the use of biocides in nor near surface waters. 47. The Auditor has been advised that there have been several instances in which guidance on herbicide usage has not been provided. 48. EPA sits on a reference committee to develop Victorian management guidelines for the use of herbicides on riparian land. The guidelines address use but not the storage of biocides in or near surface waters. 49. G-MW has obtained APVMA off-label permits to allow for the use of glyphosate and 2,4-D amitrole at a rate that is higher than the maximum application as stated on the label. Some permit requirements had not been fully complied with (eg. the start and finish spraying dates were not always met). 50. The estimated residual amitrole mean annual concentration in the Central Goulburn Irrigation Area is above the Australian Drinking Water Guideline trigger value. Channels are rarely used for drinking supply purposes. G-MW is understood to give prior notice to urban water authorities if they are to use biocides in channels and it is understood that the authorities then forgo diversion for a number of days. 51. G-MW estimates residual herbicide concentrations in channels and drains as mean annual rather than peak or seasonal estimates; hence are likely to be underestimates of peak concentrations. This will be off-set, in part, by biological degradation as this process is not considered in the G-MW estimate. 52. Further research and monitoring is required before the Auditor can be satisfied that the use of biocides will not have an adverse impact upon the health of the Goulburn River. 53. G-MW routinely monitors public drain flows, salinity, nutrients, dissolved oxygen, and suspended solids from a consistent set of sites. These sites incorporate at least 87% of the irrigation area that is currently provided with surface drainage. 54. The area of the irrigation drainage system that outfalls to the Goulburn River will increase by 44% over the next 20 years as the SIR Surface Water Management Strategy is fully implemented. This has the potential to increase contaminant loads to the Goulburn River. 55. The Goulburn Broken Water Quality Strategy targets a 50% reduction in the 1993/94 total phosphorus load from irrigation drains by 2016. Based upon phosphorus load estimates from the early 2000s the CMA is on track to achieve the 50% reduction target.

Environmental Audit v ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

56. G-MW has undertaken extensive non-routine monitoring of pathogens, biocides, metals, and biological indicators in drainage waters to determine their potential impact on receiving waters. 57. G-MW conducted a first tier risk assessment of the risks associated with pesticides used in Goulburn-Murray irrigation areas in 2003. The assessment did not focus on drains as a pathway for pesticides to be transported to streams. Dated 21 July 2005

John Nolan Environmental Auditor (appointed pursuant to the Environment Protection Act 1970)

EPA Victoria vi ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In response to a substantial kill of native fish in the Goulburn River downstream of the Goulburn Weir in January 2004, the Minister for the Environment and Water called for an independent environmental audit of the management of the Goulburn River. The primary objective of the audit was to obtain the information and understanding required to guide the management of the Goulburn River towards providing a healthier river system. This included improvements towards meeting the needs of the environment and water users, thereby reducing the likelihood of further fish kill events in the future.

Background

The Goulburn River flows from upstream of Woods Point to Barmah at its confluence with the River Murray. Along its path is Lake Eildon, between Mansfield and Eildon, and Lake Nagambie and the Goulburn weir pool south of Nagambie. Both of these water bodies are used to regulate the flow of water along the river. Water from the river is diverted from three primary irrigation supply channels and used to irrigate over 200 000 ha of land within the Goulburn Murray Irrigation District. This irrigation district creates significant economic value for the region and the state of Victoria. The main towns and cities along the river are Eildon, Yea, Seymour, Nagambie, Murchison and Shepparton. There are a wide range of recreational uses of the river, its water bodies and tributaries. These include angling, swimming, canoeing, boating, and rowing. The river is also a place of relaxation and enjoyment containing a number of threatened aquatic and terrestrial species, as well as native vegetation of special community significance. The river and its catchment is significant to the Yorta Yorta and Taunerong people who have occupied the area downstream of Lake Eildon. There are also sites of non-indigenous cultural significance such as the timber Chinaman’s bridge downstream of Seymour and the Goulburn flour mill at Murchison. Other important uses of the river include aquaculture, the generation of hydro-electric power at Eildon, human water consumption (after treatment), and the consumption of fish by anglers, their families and friends. In January 2004, there was a substantial fish kill along a 15 km reach of the river downstream of the Goulburn weir. The species killed included large Murray cod and other native species of high conservation value. Agencies involved in the response to this fish event were not able to definitively identify the cause of the fish kill. This fish kill has been the primary driver for this environmental audit of the Goulburn River between Lake Eildon and the Murray River.

Primary approach and issues

The primary approach and issues for consideration for the environmental audit of the Goulburn River between Lake Eildon and the Murray River are: 1. Identify the land and water management policies, strategies, plans and operational procedures that guide the management of the relevant reaches of the Goulburn River. 2. Identify roles and responsibilities of the organisations responsible for the management of the Goulburn River and determine the Acts of State and Federal Parliament under which these organisations undertake that management. 3. Identify any gaps or inconsistencies within 1 and 2 above.

Environmental Audit vii ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

4. Determine whether relevant policies, strategies, plans, procedures, roles and responsibilities are being followed, with particular reference to the period covering November 2003 to January 2004 inclusive. 5. Determine whether relevant policies, strategies, plans, procedures, roles and responsibilities are adequate. 6. Assess catchment management effectiveness in delivering recommended criteria. The project brief explicitly excludes an investigation into the most recent, or any other, fish kills and the development of a new response plan or fish kill protocol. The brief however does require an assessment of the emergency response plan(s) used in previous incidents, and the adequacy of changes to the plan(s).

Project brief development

As part of the consultation process to develop the project brief for the Auditor, EPA met with key stakeholders during late April 2004. These included the Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority (CMA), Goulburn-Murray Water (G-MW), Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE), Department of Primary Industries (DPI), the Yorta Yorta Nation, Environment Victoria (EV), VRFish and key local environment groups including Goulburn Valley Environment Group (GVEG).

Scope development

The detailed audit scope was prepared by the Auditor based upon the project brief. The outcomes of a technical workshop, held as part of the audit process, were also considered during its development. The primary workshop outcome was a list of the most significant threats to the environmental health of the Goulburn River below Lake Eildon. Prior to finalising the detailed audit scope the Auditor considered comments on the draft scope provided by members of the Reference Committee.

Expert support team

The Auditor was assisted by an Expert Support Team which is comprised of Dr Nicholas O’Connor (expert advice relating to the history of fish kills and river health), Dr John Tilleard (expert advice relating to flow regulation and threats to river health), Dr Vincent Clarke (specialist support in discussions with the Yorta Yorta Nation, and advising on cultural heritage matters), and Henry Jackson (advice on legal matters).

Audit activities

This environmental audit report has been prepared in accordance with Section 53V of the of the Environment Protection Act 1970. This section of the Act requires ‘the industry process or activity…’ being considered in the environmental audit to be specified. The audit has generally been restricted to an audit of the following activities: • Activity A: River flow regulation (including management of riparian zone) • Activity B: Fish kill response arrangements • Activity C: Biocides usage • Activity D: Irrigation drainage. Audit criteria, see section 3, were developed by the Auditor to assess compliance against these activities.

EPA Victoria viii ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Geographic context

The river segment for the audit is the main stem of the Goulburn River from below the Eildon Dam outlet structure to the Murray River. Inputs from Goulburn River tributaries, channels and drains are treated as point source flows. Where relevant, and where the data is available, the audit evidence and findings are specific to the following four individual river reaches. 1. Eildon Dam structure to the limit of the influence of backwaters of the Goulburn Weir (south of Nagambie—2 km south of the Mitchelstown Bridge). 2. Goulburn weir pool backwaters above Kirwans Bridge (to the limit of the influence of the weir) including Lake Nagambie, and the eastern and western backwaters. 3. Goulburn weir pool below Kirwans Bridge. 4. Goulburn River below the Goulburn weir pool to the Murray River.

Process of finalising the audit report

In March 2005, the draft audit report was submitted to auditees for the purpose of assessing whether the factual information they provided is correctly reported, and to the Reference Committee for comments on matters of fact as they related to the findings, conclusions, and recommendations. This final report has been prepared following the Auditor’s consideration of comments on matters of fact. A significant number of comments on matters of fact from the EPA, DSE and the CMA (as auditees) were related to the draft Goulburn Broken Regional River Health Strategy (the RRHS). Several of these comments referred to the fact that the March 2004 draft RRHS was referenced by the Auditor in the draft audit report and that this document had been superceded by the May 2005 draft. As the May 2005 draft RRHS had addressed many of the draft audit report findings, the Auditor decided to remove all main report references to the March 2004 draft RRHS and replace them with the May 2005 references. Some of the key changes (improvements) in the May 2005 draft RRHS are: • modifying the risk assessment process • including short-term RCTs and MATs for audit reach 1 • committing to establish a process to establish management objectives for audit reaches 1, 2 and 3 • linking the FFG Act threatened species and threatening processes Action Plans with the RRHS.

Other actions were initiated following the release of the draft audit report to auditees. These included communication between DPI and G-MW to address specific biocides management issues, and resolution of the resource manager role for the Goulburn River.

Key findings and high priority recommendations

The primary findings and high priority recommendations are presented below for each of the four audit activities.

Environmental Audit ix ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

A qualitatitive risk based assessment methodology has been applied to identify the priority of the recommendations. All key findings are presented in Section 9. All recommendations, including priorities and suggested responsibility for implementation are presented in Section 11.

Activity A – River flow regulation

The audit activity As the Goulburn River is a highly regulated river, flow regulation (including management of riparian zone) was the primary activity subject to the audit. Flow regulation includes the operation and management of both urban and irrigation supply systems, management of environmental flows, and riparian management practices along the river including the Goulburn weir pool. The audit of this activity considered evidence against 13 criteria. These criteria addressed key State Environment Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria) objectives and program requirements, key aspects of the Goulburn Broken Regional River Health Strategy, and issues associated with water allocations and environmental flows, thermal water quality objectives, Lake Nagambie and the Goulburn weir pool, management of bulk water entitlements, threatened species and threatening processes, and responsibility for the protection of native and valued introduced fish.

State Environment Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria)

Primary findings The Goulburn River downstream of Lake Eildon does not meet several environmental quality objectives of the State Environment Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria). Consequently the SEPP (WoV) requires that regional targets for environmental rehabilitation be set through an attainment program. Key parameters of concern are dissolved oxygen, turbidity, and biological indicators. The water quality of the Goulburn River deteriorates as it flows downstream from Lake Eildon. The dissolved oxygen concentration of the water below Lake Eildon appeared to be unusually low in the 2003/04 period compared to previous years. Low dissolved oxygen was associated with the fish kill downstream of the Goulburn weir in January 2004. An expert review panel identified several potential threats to the health of the Goulburn weir pool and Lake Nagambie. Regular routine water quality and biological monitoring is not currently undertaken within the water bodies, Goulburn weir pool and Lake Nagambie. A consolidated Goulburn River SEPP (WoV) Attainment Program has not been established nor is there a comprehensive framework for its establishment.

High priority recommendations Establish an integrated routine water quality monitoring evaluation and reporting program which can be used to determine whether the endorsed Goulburn Broken Regional River Health Strategy (RRHS) and the SEPP (WoV) Attainment Program targets are being met. Investigate the cause of the low dissolved oxygen below Lake Eildon between July 2002 and June 2003. Address the potential environmental threats to the health of Lake Nagambie and the Goulburn weir pool and establish permanent water quality monitoring stations within these water bodies.

EPA Victoria x ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Assess whether summer and late spring releases from the Goulburn Weir’s vertical lift gates will increase downstream dissolved oxygen levels and are technically feasible for short-term periods. If so, consider releases from the vertical lift gates when the dissolved oxygen falls below agreed trigger levels to reduce the risk of fish kills. Establish a SEPP (WoV) Attainment Program for the Goulburn River between Lake Eildon and the Murray River including the Goulburn weir pool and Lake Nagambie.

Goulburn Broken Regional River Health Strategy

Primary findings The Goulburn River is identified by the draft Goulburn Broken River Health Strategy (RRHS) as a high priority river which requires protection and enhancement. The RRHS is the appropriate strategy for the protection of the environmental health of the Goulburn River below Lake Eildon. The final draft RRHS is about to be considered by the Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority’s Board before being sent to the Minister for endorsement. The draft RRHS could be refined to provide a comprehensive and consolidated framework for the SEPP (WoV) Attainment Program. The data presented on the river’s environmental, economic, or social assets has not been used in an integrated fashion to set goals, priorities and environmental targets for the River, particularly for reach 1 (below Lake Eildon), where there are competing beneficial uses. The lack of clear management objectives for the Goulburn River between Lake Eildon and the Murray River has created significant uncertainty for government agencies involved in the management of the river and its catchment. The draft RRHS recognises this and indicates that clear management objectives will be established for audit reaches 1, 2 and 3 by conducting a deliberate forum with major stakeholders and community representatives. Short-term resource condition targets (RCTs) and management action targets (MATs) are set for this reach, including nutrient and turbidity targets. Longer-term RCTs and MATs are set for audit reach 4. The draft RRHS indicates that a process will be put in place to monitor and audit native fish populations in audit reach 4 as required under the MDBC Native Fish Strategy. Monitoring of native fish within audit reaches 1, 2, and 3 does not appear to be proposed within the draft RRHS. In its response to the draft audit report on matters of fact the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) advised that ecological monitoring will be undertaken through the Sustainable Rivers Audit. The linkages between policies and strategies that dictate the management arrangements for the Goulburn River could be improved; particularly the Regional River Health Strategy, the Goulburn Eildon Fisheries Management Plan, and the SEPP (WoV).

High priority recommendations Finalise the RRHS and develop a linked SEPP (WoV) Attainment Program after taking full account of the social and economic needs as well as environmental risk aspects for all audit reaches. Update the short-term RCTs and MATs for audit reaches 1, 2 and 3 once clear management objectives are established and review existing targets for audit reach 4. Ensure that the RRHS aspirational targets, RCTs and MATs for native and exotic fish are considered in the development of the Goulburn River’s Environmental Water Reserve.

Environmental Audit xi ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Water allocations and environmental flows

Primary findings Environmental Water Reserves are currently being identified for all Victorian catchments through the development of sustainable water strategies. There may be an inconsistency between SEPP (WoV) Clause 41 ‘Water Allocations and Environmental Flows’ and the Bulk Entitlement (Eildon-Goulburn Weir) Conversion Order 1995 as it relates to G-MW’s ability to implement measures to provide environmental flows. Implementation of the Victorian Government’s White Paper ‘Our Water Our Future’, particularly the development of Environmental Water Reserves, may assist in addressing this inconsistency. The White Paper advises that the Government will amend legislation to establish Environmental Water Reserves to set aside a share of water in rivers and aquifers across the state for the environment.

High priority recommendations Complete the identification of Environmental Water Reserves requirements for the Goulburn River. Ensure that the Environmental Water Reserve requirements are consistent with the negotiated flow regime arising out of the completion of the RRHS’s environmental flow program and the RRHS aspirational targets, RCTs and MATs for all Goulburn River reaches. Seek clarification as to the best way forward to resolve the likely inconsistency between the SEPP (WoV) Clause 41 ‘Water Allocations and Environmental Flows’ and Bulk Entitlement (Eildon-Goulburn Weir) Conversion Order 1995 as it relates to G-MWs ability to implement measures to provide environmental flows. Reform the Water Act 1989 as soon as practical to allow for the effective establishment of Environmental Water Reserves. In doing so, consideration should be given to Phillip Fox’s (2005) ‘Recommendations for Legislative Implementation of the White Paper’s Proposed Reform’.

Thermal water quality objectives

Primary findings Native and introduced fish, including desirable species such as Brown and Rainbow trout, may be beneficial uses to be protected along the Goulburn River. The water temperature of the Goulburn River downstream of Lake Eildon is up to 6.5oC cooler than it would have been prior to the construction of Sugarloaf Reservoir and subsequently Lake Eildon. Cold water releases from Lake Eildon support a significant recreational trout fishing industry between Eildon and Seymour. Unfortunately this cold water will not support native fish. Thermal water objectives have not been set for the Goulburn River and hence releases from Lake Eildon are not influenced by temperature considerations. G-MW identifies river temperature fluctuations below Lake Eildon as a significant environmental risk in the G-MW Significant Environmental Risk Register. It is not clear what obligations G-MW has under its Environmental Management System (EMS) to reduce the risk.

EPA Victoria xii ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

While the Goulburn Eildon Fisheries Management Plan establishes specific management objectives for audit reach 1, the issue as to whether this reach should be managed as a cold- water fishery for recreational fishing of trout and other introduced species or should be ameliorated to allow for the re-establishment of native fish will not be resolved until a decision is made as to which beneficial uses are to be protected. This decision can only be made once the clear management objectives are established through the RRHS.

High priority recommendations Determine G-MW obligations under its EMS to reduce the risk of temperature fluctuations below Lake Eildon on flora, fauna, loss of habitat and loss of amenity. Consider closer integration of the Goulburn Eildon Fishery Management Plan with the RRHS to ensure that the RCT targets of both strategies are consistent and are developed through the same stakeholder consultation process. In the development of long-term RRHS RCTs and MATs for audit reach 1, consider the social and economic, as well as the environmental, impacts of providing for warmer water releases from Lake Eildon and the inability to provide an optimal temperature regime for both native fish and introduced species.

Goulburn weir pool and Lake Nagambie

Primary findings Scientists believe that the environmental health of Nagambie Lakes and the Goulburn weir pool is poor to moderate. Few native fish are found upstream of Nagambie due to the Goulburn Weir acting as a barrier, and the influence of the cold water releases from the Lake Eildon. A study is underway to determine the feasibility of constructing a fish ladder at the weir. There is evidence of a depletion of native fish particularly within the Lake Nagambie system. Anglers are concerned that the current management arrangements to control the level of the Goulburn weir pool and Lake Nagambie are adversely impacting on fish populations.

High priority recommendations Consider the viability of constructing a fish ladder at the Goulburn weir having regard to the outcomes of the feasibility study. The viability should be considered in consultation with relevant stakeholders including local angling committees. Obtain an improved understanding of ecological processes within the Nagambie Lakes system. This should be achieved by addressing the knowledge gaps identified in the 2002 assessment by the scientific expert panel.

Management of bulk water entitlements

Primary findings Each year Goulburn-Murray Water is able to take up to 1919 gigalitres of flow from the Goulburn River and release 1 400 gigalitres of water from Lake Eildon under the Bulk Entitlement (Eildon-Goulburn Weir) Conversion Order (the Bulk Entitlement) which came into effect on 1 July 1995. Clause 15.1 of the Bulk Entitlement requires G-MW to propose a program to manage the environmental effects of its works to take water under the bulk entitlement. The bulk entitlement is adjusted for each water saving measure that is identified and implemented.

Environmental Audit xiii ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

High priority recommendations Revise the Bulk Entitlement to ensure that the environmental obligations for managing the Environmental Water Reserve are clear, transparent and auditable. Continue to amend the Bulk Entitlement as each water saving measure is identified and implemented and the Environmental Water Reserve is established.

Threatened species and threatening processes

Primary findings Trout cod, Macquarie perch, Murray cod, Silver perch, Freshwater catfish, Murray hardyhead and Murray rainbowfish are listed as ‘threatened fauna’ under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (the FFG Act) and are found within the Goulburn River below Lake Eildon. The FFG Act also lists ‘potentially threatening processes’ that may affect freshwater aquatic environments. Some of the key threatening processes which are relevant to the Goulburn River are alteration to the natural flow regimes, alteration to the natural temperature regimes, increase in sediment input, and prevention of passage of aquatic biota as a result of the presence of in-stream structures. Action Statements have not been prepared for all threatened species and potentially threatening processes that are relevant to the Goulburn River downstream of Lake Eildon.

High priority recommendations Complete FFG Action Statements for all threatened species and threatening processes that are relevant to the Goulburn River below Lake Eildon. As Action Statements are completed review and update the RRHS to ensure that it is consistent.

Responsibility for the protection of fish

Primary findings Generally there are clear distinctions between organisations’ roles and responsibilities for the management of the health of the Goulburn River. However the agency responsibilities for protecting the health of native fish are not clear.

High priority recommendations Clarify the roles of and responsibilities of government agencies for protecting the health of native and exotic fish populations.

Activity B – Fish kill response arrangements

The audit activity The intention of the audit against this activity is to determine whether the extent of fish kills within the Goulburn River system is an indicator of declining river health and whether the current response arrangements to fish kill events are sufficient to guide management in providing a healthier river system.

EPA Victoria xiv ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Primary findings About three fish kill events each year have been recorded within the Goulburn Broken catchment since 1997. It is not possible to identify whether these fish kills are an indicator of declining river health as there is not a consistent historical trend, nor whether the current frequency and severity of fish kills has changed significantly compared to pre-regulation conditions. There is a broad range of fish kill causes without any one cause dominating. The available monitoring records and data are insufficient to identify the environmental conditions that contributed to the January 2004 fish kill event downstream of the Goulburn Weir. Several agency and multi-agency response protocols have been refined by knowledge gained from the January 2004 fish kill. While agency roles and responsibilities for emergencies involving fish kills are identified in the Emergency Management Act 1986 they are not clearly articulated in all plans and protocols for such emergencies, or plans and protocols for fish kills that are not classified as emergencies (i.e. due to natural disease or drought conditions). In some cases agencies are not in full agreement on their respective responsibilities. Despite the improvement in many of the government agencies’ fish kill response protocols following the January 2004 fish kills, there is significant uncertainty and frustration as to the roles and responsibilities of the key government agencies. This is primarily due to a lack of a robust State-based fish kill response protocol that is accepted and endorsed by all relevant agencies. The on-ground management arrangements of the draft Interim Framework for a Multi Agency Response to Incidents in Waterways in the Goulburn Broken Catchment are consistent with those documented in the draft working document of the Environmental Incident Management Response Arrangements for Victorian Waterways. The current agency and multi-agency fish kill response protocols are, in part, overlapping and inconsistent.

High priority recommendations Develop a robust, State-based fish kill response protocol that has the support of all agencies and builds upon the EPA’s Interim Fish Kill Protocol. Refine the draft Interim Framework for a Multi Agency Response to Incidents in Waterways in the Goulburn Broken Catchment to ensure that it reflects the state-based protocols. (This could be a regionally-based model for other CMA regions within the State.) Refine the current agency-based fish kill response protocols to ensure they reflect the recommended state-based protocols.

Activity C – Biocides usage

The audit activity Biocides include herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides. This audit of this activity was limited to the use, storage and transport of herbicides by Goulburn-Murray Water to control the growth of aquatic weeds in public irrigation channels and drains.

Environmental Audit xv ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Key findings G-MW biocides usage in channels and drains is generally well controlled and complies with most requirements of the relevant regulations and standards. G-MW does not store aquatic herbicides in or near surface waters, drainage lines or floodplains. All nine storage sites are at least 200 m away from surface waters and irrigation drainage lines. The SEPP (WoV) advises that the EPA will work with protection agencies and others to develop guidance for the use of biocides in nor near surface waters. The Auditor has been advised that there have been several instances in which guidance on herbicide usage has not been provided. EPA sits on a reference committee to develop Victorian management guidelines for the use of herbicides on riparian land. The guidelines address use but not the storage of biocides in or near surface waters. G-MW has obtained Agricultural Products and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) off-label permits to allow for the use of glyphosate and 2,4-D amitrole at a rate that is higher than the maximum application as stated on the label. Some permit requirements had not been fully complied with (eg. the start and finish spraying dates were not always met). The estimated residual amitrole mean annual concentration in the Central Goulburn Irrigation Area is above the Australian Drinking Water Guideline trigger value. Channels are rarely used for drinking supply purposes. G-MW is understood to give prior notice to urban water authorities if they are to use biocides in channels and it is understood that the authorities then forgo diversion for a number of days. G-MW estimates residual herbicide concentrations in channels and drains as mean annual rather than peak or seasonal estimates; hence are likely to be underestimates of peak concentrations. This will be off-set, in part, by biological degradation as this process is not considered in the G-MW estimate. Further research and monitoring is required before the Auditor can be satisfied that the use of biocides will not have an adverse impact upon the health of the Goulburn River.

High priority recommendations Review EPA arrangements for providing advice to stakeholders on the use of herbicides near water bodies. Promote information exchange between agencies on agricultural chemicals and the potential environmental impacts. Conduct independent audits of G-MW’s use of herbicides in channels, drains and other waters, in particular acrolein (Magnacide H) and chemicals used under APVMA off-label permits. Recalculate residual herbicide concentration estimates in channels and drains to account for peak concentrations and biodegradation processes and to include 2,4-D amine as well as amitrole and glyphosate. This should also include determining the proportion of the herbicide that ends up at the drain outlet as run-off. These calculations should be verified with in situ measurements. If ANZECC (2000) criteria are exceeded or likely to be exceeded, a contingency plan should be implemented.

EPA Victoria xvi ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Activity D – Irrigation Drains and Channels

The audit activity G-MW operates and manages an extensive irrigation supply and drainage system downstream of the Goulburn River. Some of these channels and drains outfall to the Goulburn River primarily downstream of Shepparton. The audit considered evidence associated with two irrigation drains operated by G-MW in terms of compliance with Clause 51 of the SEPP (WoV) which requires drains to be managed so that they are not harmful to humans or have unacceptable impacts on animals, and evidence associated with the implementation of the multi-agency Irrigation Drainage Memorandum of Understanding.

Key findings G-MW routinely monitors public drain flows, salinity, nutrients, dissolved oxygen, and suspended solids from a consistent set of sites. These sites incorporate at least 87% of the irrigation area that is currently provided with surface drainage. The area of the irrigation drainage system that outfalls to the Goulburn River will increase by 44% over the next 20 years as the SIR Surface Water Management Strategy is fully implemented. This has the potential to increase contaminant loads to the Goulburn River. The Goulburn Broken Water Quality Strategy targets a 50% reduction in the 1993/94 total phosphorus load from irrigation drains by 2016. Based upon phosphorus load estimates from the early 2000s the CMA is on track to achieve the 50% reduction target. G-MW has undertaken extensive non-routine monitoring of pathogens, biocides, metals, and biological indicators in drainage waters to determine their potential impact on receiving waters. G-MW conducted a first tier risk assessment of the risks associated with pesticides used in Goulburn-Murray irrigation areas in 2003. The assessment did not focus on drains as a pathway for pesticides to be transported to streams.

High priority recommendations Develop a co-ordinated and prioritised monitoring program for pathogens, biocides, metals, and biological indicators in drainage water and sediments. This should build upon the outcomes and recommendations of risk assessments, including the first tier assessment of biocides, and previous reports of non-routine drain monitoring conducted over the past five years. Extend the first tier assessment of the risks associated with pesticides used in Goulburn- Murray irrigation areas to include an assessment of the risk to beneficial uses associated with herbicide spraying of drains and channel outfalls.

Environmental Audit xvii ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

1 INTRODUCTION...... 1 1.1 Background...... 1 1.2 Objectives of the audit ...... 1 1.3 Primary approach and issues ...... 1 1.4 Auditor obligations ...... 1 1.5 Audit scope development ...... 2 1.6 Stakeholder engagement in the audit process ...... 2 1.7 Technical specialists ...... 4 1.8 Conflict of interest protocol...... 4 1.9 Audit process...... 4 1.10 Approach to addressing comments on matters of fact...... 5 2 AUDIT ACTIVITIES...... 8 2.1 Activities...... 8 2.2 Geographic context ...... 9 3 AUDIT CRITERIA...... 11 3.1 Activity A: River regulation ...... 11 3.2 Activity B: Response arrangements—fish kills...... 16 3.3 Activity C: Use of biocides ...... 17 3.4 Activity D: Irrigation drainage ...... 18 3.5 Audit criteria specific to audit river reaches ...... 19 4 SETTING THE SCENE...... 20 4.1 Goulburn River and its regulation ...... 20 4.2 Beneficial users of the river ...... 29 4.3 History of fish kills...... 32 5 THREATS TO RIVER HEALTH...... 42 5.1 Flow regulation ...... 42 5.2 Lowered water quality...... 50 5.3 Habitat degradation...... 51 5.4 Alien species ...... 53 5.5 Exploitation ...... 53 5.6 Diseases ...... 53 5.7 Translocation and stocking ...... 54 5.8 Other potential threats...... 55 6 ACTS, POLICIES, STRATEGIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ...... 57 6.1 State legislation ...... 57 6.2 Federal legislation—Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act ...... 64

EPA Victoria ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

6.3 State Environment Protection Policy—Waters of Victoria (2003) ...... 64 6.4 National strategies and plans ...... 65 6.5 The Victorian Natural Resources Management Framework ...... 69 6.6 State strategies, plans and agreements...... 70 6.7 Regional strategies and plans...... 76 6.8 Fish kill response plans ...... 85 6.9 State water entitlements and agreements...... 88 6.10 Agency roles and responsibilities for river health...... 91 7 BENCHMARKING RIVER HEALTH ...... 96 7.1 Overview of benchmark indicators ...... 96 7.2 Audit reach 1—River health benchmark ...... 99 7.3 Audit reach 2—River health benchmark ...... 102 7.4 Audit reach 3—River health benchmark ...... 104 7.5 Audit reach 4—River health benchmark ...... 105 7.6 Conclusions ...... 108 8 SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE...... 111 8.1 Activity A: River flow regulation ...... 111 8.2 Activity B: Fish Kill Response Arrangements...... 139 8.3 Activity C: Use of biocides ...... 146 8.4 Activity D: Irrigation drainage ...... 153 9 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...... 163 9.1 Criterion 1—Environmental quality objectives and indicators...... 163 9.2 Criterion 2—Attainment program ...... 165 9.3 Criterion 3—Catchment management authorities ...... 165 9.4 Criterion 4—Regional target setting ...... 166 9.5 Criterion 5—Water allocations and environmental flows ...... 168 9.6 Criterion 6—Thermal water quality objectives...... 169 9.7 Criterion 7—Other river health objectives and targets...... 169 9.8 Criterion 8—Water Act—Environmental management obligations...... 171 9.9 Criterion 9—Bulk Water Entitlements and Agreements ...... 172 9.10 Criterion 10—G-MW operational licence ...... 174 9.11 Criterion 11—Other Acts relevant to river health ...... 174 9.12 Criterion 12—Legislation, Policies and Strategies...... 176 9.13 Criterion 13—Organisational roles and responsibilities ...... 177 9.14 Criteria 14—Fish kill response arrangements ...... 177 9.15 Criterion 15—WoV—Chemical management...... 179

Environmental Audit ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

9.16 Criterion 16—Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act ...... 180 9.17 Criterion 17—Irrigation drains and channels ...... 182 9.18 Criterion 18—Irrigation Drainage Memorandum of Understanding...... 183 9.19 Disease to native and introduced fish populations ...... 183 10 CONCLUSIONS ...... 184 10.1 Conclusions with level of conformance...... 184 10.2 Statement of conformance and primary evidence sources ...... 188 11 PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS...... 190 12 REFERENCES...... 202 13 INITIALISMS ...... 210 14 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... 213

APPENDICES A: Detailed Audit Scope B: Policies and Strategies C: Goulburn River water quality data (2002–2004) D: Qualitative risk assessment for prioritisation of recommendations

EPA Victoria xx ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

In response to a substantial kill of native fish in the Goulburn River downstream of the Goulburn Weir in January 2004, the Minister for the Environment and Water called for an independent environmental audit of the management of the Goulburn River.

1.2 Objectives of the audit

The primary objective of the audit was to obtain the information and understanding required to guide the management of the Goulburn River towards providing a healthier river system. This includes improvements towards meeting the needs of the environment and water users, thereby reducing the likelihood of further fish kill events in the future.

1.3 Primary approach and issues

The Environment Protection Authority (EPA) prepared the project brief in consultation with stakeholders from government agencies and community organisations through a series of meetings. The primary approach and issues for consideration for the audit as identified in the June 2004 project brief are listed below. 1. Identify the land and water management policies, strategies, plans and operational procedures that guide the management of the relevant reaches of the Goulburn River. 2. Identify roles and responsibilities of the organisations responsible for the management of the Goulburn River and determine the Acts of State and Federal Parliament under which these organisations undertake that management. 3. Identify any gaps or inconsistencies within 1 and 2 above. 4. Determine whether relevant policies, strategies, plans, procedures, roles and responsibilities are being followed, with particular reference to the period covering November 2003 to January 2004 inclusive. 5. Determine whether relevant policies, strategies, plans, procedures, roles and responsibilities are adequate. 6. Assess catchment management effectiveness in delivering recommended criteria. The project brief explicitly excludes an investigation into the most recent, or any other, fish kills and the development of a new response plan or fish kill protocol. The brief however does require an assessment of the emergency response plan(s) used in previous incidents, and the adequacy of changes to the plan(s).

1.4 Auditor obligations

The Minister directed the audit to be an independent, statutory audit, with the detailed scope being developed by the auditor based upon the project brief prepared by the EPA in consultation with stakeholders from government agencies and community organisations through a series of meetings. The process adopted to develop the detailed scope is presented in Section 1.5 below.

Environmental Audit 1 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

EPA assisted with the administration and project management of the audit. The audit itself was undertaken by John Nolan, a third party Auditor, independent of any Government department or Authority. The audit was undertaken in accordance with Part IXD of the Environment Protection Act 1970 (‘the Act’), by an Environmental Auditor (appointed pursuant to the Environment Protection Act 1970).

1.5 Audit scope development

The detailed audit scope was developed by the Auditor following consideration of the project brief and after considering information provided by: • the Technical Workshop which was held on Friday 16 July 2004 • individual discussions with a broad range of stakeholders including governmental agencies, the Local Community Network, environmental groups, fish protection bodies, the Yorta Yorta nation, recreational users, water users, landowners, and other interested organisations • consultation with the Reference Committee on Wednesday 21 July 2004 including the consideration of comments on a preliminary draft detailed audit scope by members of the Reference Committee.

Outcomes of the Technical Workshop are presented in the detailed Audit Scope (Appendix A). A full list of stakeholders consulted during the development of the detailed scope is presented in Section 14. The detailed audit scope (Appendix A) addresses high priority geographical areas, environmental conditions, and management issues for achieving the primary audit objective. The audit scope describes: • the activities to be audited and the geographic extent • river health indicators • the approach to benchmark the health of the river • the audit criteria • the audit process.

1.6 Stakeholder engagement in the audit process

1.6.1 Project brief development

As part of the consultation process to develop the project brief for the Auditor, EPA met with key stakeholders during late April 2004. These included the Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority (Goulburn Broken CMA), Goulburn-Murray Water (G-MW), Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE), Department of Primary Industries (DPI), the Yorta Yorta Nation, Environment Victoria (EV), VRFish and key local environment groups including Goulburn Valley Environment Group (GVEG).

1.6.2 Conduct of the audit

The Auditor consulted with three stakeholders’ groups during the conduct of the audit. These groups and their roles and responsibilities are identified below.

EPA Victoria 2 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Reference Committee

The Reference Committee is made up of manager/director level representatives from G-MW, EV, DSE, Goulburn Broken CMA, DPI, Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF), Fisheries Co- management Council (FCC) and the EPA. This group met with the Auditor on 21 July 2004 to be briefed on the draft audit scope prepared by the Auditor and to provide strategic input to the scoping process. Each member communicated outcomes from the meeting to their own organisation. Most Reference Committee members provided written comments to the Auditor on the draft detailed audit scope. Verbal comments were also received from the Goulburn Broken CMA. The Auditor considered all comments and clearly documented how the comments raised were considered in the development of the final audit scope. The Auditor’s response was publicly available as an attachment to the detailed audit scope. The Reference Committee also met following the preparation of the draft audit report. Committee members had the opportunity to provide comments on matters of fact as they relate to the audit findings, conclusions, and recommended actions prior to the finalisation of the report by the Auditor.

Local Community Network

The Local Community Network is made up of local/regional interest groups, including the GVEG, VRFish/Nagambie Angling Club, Underra Angling Club, Goulburn Murray Fly Fishing Club, Water Table Watch, Dhurringile and District Landcare Network, Goulburn Murray Landcare Network, Nagambie Landcare and Riparian Association, Nagambie Lakes Management Committee and Tahbilk Winery. This group met with the Auditor on 16 June 2004. The meeting gave the Auditor the opportunity to explain how the audit will be conducted, and Local Community Network members the opportunity to provide the Auditor with information as well as a local and historical context. One-on-one meetings were held between the Auditor, and in some cases the members of his Expert Support Team, and Local Community Network members. These were arranged by agreement between the parties. One-on-one meetings were also held between the Auditor and with other interested community members as requested. A full list of one-on-one meeting participants is provided in Section 14.

Technical Workshop participants

A facilitated Technical Workshop was held on 16 July 2004. The workshop was attended by the Auditor, his Expert Support Team, and technical specialists. The technical specialists were nominated by the Reference Committee. The technical specialists who were invited and attended the workshop included representatives from DSE (Arthur Rylah Institute and Freshwater Biodiversity Policy), Monash University (Water Studies Centre), G-MW, Environment Victoria, Goulburn Broken CMA, EPA, FCC, DPI (Fisheries), Native Fish Australia, as well as the Auditor and members of his Expert Support Team. The purpose of the Workshop was to: 1. provide an opportunity for the technical specialists to comment on a draft report which reviewed data on the incidence of fish kills within the Goulburn Broken system. This report was prepared by Dr Nicholas O’Connor, a member of the Auditor’s Expert Support Team (the final review report is provided in Section 4.3 of this audit report).

Environmental Audit 3 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

2. workshop the development of a risk-based approach for the detailed scoping of the audit. 3. advise on the geographic extent of the activities to be audited. 4. provide background information to the Auditor that may be relevant to the conduct of the audit. 5. provide an opportunity for technical specialists to raise general questions and concerns. At the Workshop it was agreed that the technical specialists had sufficient experience to advise the Auditor on the major risks (threats), and to determine the most significant threats, to the environmental health of the Goulburn River within the geographic extent of the activities to be audited. This was considered preferable to the Auditor ‘re-inventing the wheel’ by developing and implementing a risk-based approach for the detailed scoping when the assembled specialists had been responsible for a large component of the environmental research on the Goulburn River over the past 10 to 20 years. A copy of the outcomes of the Workshop with the list and prioritisation of the major threats to the health of the Goulburn River is provided in Appendix A.

1.7 Technical specialists

The Auditor was assisted by an Expert Support Team which has been approved by the EPA. The team members and the areas of specialist advice are listed below: • Dr Nicholas O’Connor—expert advice relating to the history of fish kills and river health • Dr John Tilleard—expert advice relating to flow regulation and threats to river health • Dr Vincent Clarke—specialist support in discussions with the Yorta Yorta Nation, and advising on cultural heritage matters.

1.8 Conflict of interest protocol

On 18 June 2004 the Auditor submitted a Conflict of Interest Declaration to the EPA. This declaration listed projects that Nolan-ITU and the Expert Support Team had conducted within the Goulburn River catchment. It also advised on the protocol that the Auditor had put in place to ensure that none of the audit findings were based in full, or in part, on work previously or currently undertaken by the Auditor and his Expert Support Team. This protocol has been implemented and the Auditor is satisfied that the audit findings are not based on previous work undertaken by the Auditor and/or his Expert Support Team. The Auditor used the protocol to seek EPA confirmation that possible consultancies would not constitute a conflict of interests. The EPA responses are summarised as follows: 1. 20 August 2004—there is no conflict of interest in regard to Nolan-ITU undertaking sampling within water supply channels on behalf of Goulburn-Murray Water. 2. 30 December 2004—there is no conflict of interest associated with a project in which Dr Nicholas O’Connor, a member of the Expert Support Team, would be evaluating the environmental effects of implementation of ‘Total Channel Control’ technology in the Shepparton Irrigation Region.

1.9 Audit process

The overall audit process, once the detailed audit scope had been prepared, has been as follows:

EPA Victoria 4 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

1. Prepare an audit quality plan for the audit that is in compliance with Nolan-ITU’s third party certified ISO 9001:2000 Quality Management System. The audit quality plan incorporated the audit objectives, audit criteria, and involved the identification of auditees, and the scheduling of written information requests and meetings and interviews. 2. Conduct an audit team meeting, with all Expert Support Team members, to workshop and peer review and finalise the audit quality plan. 3. Notify auditees. 4. Conduct inspection of key reaches of the river and activities along the river. 5. Prepare list of evidence required to assess compliance with audit criteria. 6. Submit written requests, or arrange audit meetings, to obtain evidence from relevant auditees. 7. Receive responses to the requests. 8. Conduct additional audit meetings for further clarification as required. 9. Prepare the initial draft report for peer review by Expert Support Team members. 10. Submit a draft audit report to the EPA to ensure that the detailed scope of work has been completed. 11. Address any omissions of scope items as identified by the EPA and engage a professional editor of technical reports to finalise the language of the audit and to ensure the report is suitable for publication. 12. Once the EPA is satisfied that the detailed scope of work has been completed, submit draft report to auditees for the purpose of assessing whether the factual information (the evidence) they provided is correctly reported. (This assessment will not include a review of factual information provided by others.) At the same time submit the draft report to the Reference Committee for comments on matters of fact as they relate to the findings, conclusions, and recommendations. 13. Submit final report, in PDF digital form, to the Minister for the Environment and Water. The audit report has been prepared in the absence of any direction by any third party on the interpretation or the adequacy of the evidence used to draw the findings, conclusions and recommendations. Figure 1.1 is a flow chart showing the chronology of the audit processes that the Auditor adopted.

1.10 Approach to addressing comments on matters of fact

In March 2005 the draft audit report was submitted to auditees for the purpose of assessing whether the factual information they provided is correctly reported, and to the Reference Committee for comments on matters of fact as they relate to the findings, conclusions, and recommendations. This final report has been prepared following the Auditor’s consideration of comments on matters of fact.

Environmental Audit 5 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

A significant number of comments on matters of fact from the EPA, DSE and the Goulburn Broken CMA were related to the draft Goulburn Broken Regional River Health Strategy (the RRHS). Several of these comments referred to the fact that the March 2004 draft RRHS was referenced by the Auditor in the draft audit report and that this document had been superceded by the May 2005 draft. As the May 2005 draft RRHS had addressed many of the draft audit report findings, the Auditor decided to remove all main report references to the March 2004 draft RRHS and replace them with the May 2005 references. Some of the key changes (improvements) in the May 2005 draft RRHS are: • modifying the risk assessment process • including short-term RCTs and MATs for audit reach 1 • committing to establish a process to establish management objectives for audit reaches 1, 2 and 3 • linking the FFG Act threatened species and threatening processes Action Plans with the RRHS.

Appendix B of the audit report includes a description of the draft March 2004 RRHS to demonstrate the areas in which it has been revised.

EPA Victoria 6 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Figure 1.1: Audit process flow chart

Engagement of Auditor

Audit pre paration

Facilitate Technical

Stakeholder Release Draft Report on Workshop to provide the consultation with the the Incidence of Fish opportunity to comment on Finalisation of Local Community Kills within the the incidence of fish kills detailed audit scope Network, agencies and Goulburn Broken and to seek input to the individuals system risk-based audit approach

Attainment of evidence

Prepare list of evidence Submit written requests requirements for evidence to auditees

Conduct audit

Conduct inte rviews with Prepare draft audit auditees as required report

Audit report finalisation

EPA sign off that Reference Commi ttee detailed scope of Auditee assessment provision of comments Finalisation of of whether their on matters of fact as the audit Publication work has been they relate to the completed factual information is correctly reported findings, conclusions & recommendations

Environmental Audit 7 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

2 AUDIT ACTIVITIES

2.1 Activities

The Environment Protection Act 1970 defines an ‘environmental audit’ as a total assessment of the nature and extent of any harm or detriment caused to, or the risk of any possible harm or detriment which may be caused to, any beneficial use made of any segment of the environment by any industrial process or activity, waste, substance (including any chemical substance) or noise. This environmental audit report has been prepared in accordance with Section 53V of the of the Environment Protection Act 1970. This section of the Act requires ‘the industry process or activity…’ in respect of which the environmental audit is conducted to be specified. This environmental audit of the management of the Goulburn River has been restricted to an audit of the following activities: • Activity A: River flow regulation (including management of riparian zone) • Activity B: Fish kill response arrangements • Activity C: Biocides usage • Activity D: Irrigation drainage and other specific activities, as identified in the conduct of the audit, that are considered to contribute to the following threats to the health of the Goulburn River: • flow regulation (including thermal pollution) • habitat degradation • lowered water quality • barriers • alien species • exploitation • diseases • translocation and stocking.

These threats were identified at the Technical Workshop and are consistent with the Murray- Darling Basin Commission (MDBC) Native Fish Strategy (MDBC 2003) and the Victorian River Health Strategy (DSE 2002) as being the key threats to native fish recruitment and survival along the Goulburn River. Flow regulation and reduced water quality were considered by Technical Workshop participants to be the highest priority threats to consider. River flow regulation (including management of riparian zone) was the primary activity subject to the audit. It includes the operation and management of both urban and irrigation supply systems, management of environmental flows, and riparian management practices along the river including the Goulburn weir pool. Biocides usage and irrigation drainage are addressed as separate activities within the audit due to specific concerns raised by stakeholders through the Local Community Forum and the Technical Workshop.

EPA Victoria 8 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

2.2 Geographic context

Audit reach Description 1 Eildon Dam structure to the limit of the influence of backwaters of the Goulburn Weir (south of Nagambie—2 km south of the Mitchelstown Bridge). Stream Management Unit U1 ‘Mid Goulburn River’ with reaches 9–14. 2 Goulburn weir pool backwaters above Kirwans Bridge (to the limit of the influence of the weir) including Lake Nagambie, and the eastern and western backwaters. 3 Goulburn weir pool below Kirwans Bridge. 4 Goulburn River below the Goulburn weir pool to the Murray River. Stream Management Unit L1 ‘Lower Goulburn River and Floodplain’ with reaches 1–8.

Reaches 1 and 4 are consistent with the stream management units U1 and L1 (respectively) of the draft Goulburn Broken Regional River Health Strategy (draft RRHS). Neither of these stream management units includes either of audit reaches 2 and 3. Section 3.1 of this audit report identifies the audit criteria for which the audit evidence and findings are specific to individual audit reaches, and those for which the evidence and findings applies to all reaches. Section 4.3 (History of fish kills) considers the Broken Creek system as well as the Goulburn River as the Auditor considered that the broader knowledge would assist in the assessing compliance with audit criterion 14 ‘The occurrence of fish kills is increasing and the current response arrangements for managing Goulburn river fish kill events are adequate’. The land segment for the audit was constrained to the pre-regulation flood plain including cut- off wetland systems.

Environmental Audit 9 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Figure 2.1: Location of audited river reaches and significant features

EPA Victoria 10 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

3 AUDIT CRITERIA

The process of undertaking an environmental audit is ‘a systematic, documented verification process of objectively obtaining and evaluating audit evidence to identify whether specified environmental activities, events, conditions, and management systems or information about these matters conforms with audit criteria and communicating the results of this process to the client’ (AS/NZS, ISO 14050:1999, Environmental Management—Vocabulary). The audit process adopted for this audit has involved the collection and collation of sufficient evidence to allow the Auditor to make a judgement as to whether the audited activities conform to the audit criteria. Findings, conclusions and recommendations were then drawn from the evidence. Audit criteria have been developed to allow for a verification process to determine whether the four activities subject to the audit have resulted in any harm or detriment caused, or any risk of any possible harm or detriment which may be caused, by any industrial process or activity, waste, substance or noise to any beneficial use made of any segment of the environment. Harm or detriment to the environment, or risk of harm or detriment to the environment, for an audited activity is assumed to have a significant likelihood of occurrence if the audit criteria are not substantially conformed to by the activity. The audit criteria adopted for each of the four activities subject to the audit are listed below. The full list of audit tasks for the audit criteria are presented in the detailed audit scope (Appendix A). For some audit criteria, evidence was obtained through selective sampling, as an indicator of overall conformance, rather than from an analysis of all the data. For example, conformance with the State Environment Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria), termed the SEPP (WoV), environmental quality objectives (under the audit of Activity A: River regulation) was determined on the basis of two years of data rather than the full historical suite of monitoring records. The audit evidence is presented in Sections 4 to 7 of this audit report.

3.1 Activity A: River regulation

River flow regulation (including management of riparian zone) is the primary activity subject to the audit. It includes the operation and management of both urban and irrigation supply systems, management of environmental flows, and riparian management practices along the river including the Goulburn weir pool. For this activity evidence was assessed against 13 audit criteria. These are listed below. The order of the criteria has been modified slightly from the detailed audit scope (Appendix A) to reflect the manner in which the audit has been conducted (i.e. audit criteria relating to the SEPP (WoV)’s attainment program are addressed in parallel).

Environmental Audit 11 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

3.1.1 Criterion 1: SEPP (WoV) Cl. 11—Environmental quality objectives and indicators

Background

The SEPP (WoV) is an instrument of the Environment Protection Act 1970, and is administered by the EPA, which is responsible for ensuring its overall implementation. It provides a legal framework for State and local government agencies, businesses and communities to work together to protect and rehabilitate Victoria’s surface water environments. The environmental quality objectives describe the level of environmental quality needed in the Goulburn River to avoid risks to the beneficial uses to be protected.

Criterion

SEPP (WoV) environmental water quality objectives and indicators are being met for all beneficial uses to be protected.

3.1.2 Criterion 2: SEPP (WoV) Part VI—Attainment program

Background

The SEPP (WoV) attainment program provides a series of environment management practices and actions that protection agencies, businesses and communities need to implement to improve environmental quality and help protect beneficial uses.

Criterion

A framework is in place to develop an attainment program for the Goulburn River and it has been used and appropriately applied.

Criterion 3: SEPP (WoV) Cl. 15—Catchment management authorities

Background

The SEPP (WoV) outlines Catchment Management Authorities’ (CMAs’) responsibilities in relation to implementing the SEPP (WoV). Responsibilities include the co-ordination of ecologically sustainable development and use of catchments, floodplains and waterways, and where relevant estuaries and coasts, through many mechanisms including the protection and rehabilitation of water quality, flow and aquatic habitats. These responsibilities should be embodied in the Goulburn Broken Regional Catchment Strategy (Goulburn Broken RCS) and supporting plans, particularly the draft RRHS once it is finalised.

Criterion

EPA Victoria 12 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

3.1.3 Criterion 4: SEPP (WoV) Cl. 24—Regional target setting

Background

The SEPP (WoV) identifies the importance of CMAs working with protection agencies, regional communities and business to develop Government approved Regional Catchment Strategies (RCS) and plans. RCSs and plans should identify the regional environmental, social and economic values of surface waters and after careful consideration of environmental social and economic needs, set appropriate goals, priorities and environmental targets for catchment and coastal environments.

Criterion

Consistency of the RCS and supporting plans with regional target setting obligations under Clause 24 of the SEPP (WoV).

3.1.4 Criterion 5: SEPP (WoV) Cl. 41—Water allocations and environmental flows

Background

To protect aquatic ecosystems, adequate environmental flows need to be released from Lake Eildon and the Goulburn Weir to waterways, wetlands, lakes and estuaries. To enable this, the SEPP (WoV) describes how relevant protection agencies can develop and implement measures to provide environmental flows.

Criterion

Compliance with obligations under Clause 41 of the SEPP (WoV)—Water allocations and environmental flows—either by being met or being in the process of being met.

3.1.5 Criterion 6: SEPP (WoV) Cl. 42—Thermal water quality objectives

Background

Releases of flow from Lake Eildon and the Goulburn Weir need to be managed to provide flows of a suitable quality, quantity and seasonal pattern to protect beneficial uses. The SEPP (WoV) identifies environmental risk to beneficial uses through altered temperature and the need to implement measures to minimise these risks.

Criterion

Compliance with obligations for controlling water temperature, if any exist, in the Goulburn River below Lake Eildon and above Lake Nagambie.

Environmental Audit 13 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

3.1.6 Criterion 7: RCS with other river health targets

Background

The Goulburn Broken RCS and the draft RRHS summarises a number of river health objectives and targets. These objectives and targets should be consistent with other federal and state targets such as the Victorian River Health Strategy and the MDBC’s Living Murray Initiative.

Criterion

Consistency of Goulburn Broken RCS and the draft RRHS with overarching river health strategies and plans; particularly objectives and targets.

3.1.7 Criterion 8: Obligations under the Water Act

Background

The Water Act 1989 identifies a range of environmental obligations and responsibilities of authorities that are relevant to the Goulburn River. Several of the more significant obligations are identified in the audit criterion.

Criterion

Compliance with environmental management obligations under the Water Act.

3.1.8 Criterion 9: Obligations under Bulk Water Entitlement Conversion Orders.

Background

G-MW under the Bulk Entitlement (Eildon-Goulburn Weir) Conversion Order 1995, the Goulburn Valley Regional Water Authority (GVRWA) under its bulk water entitlement and Pacific Hydro and South Hydro through their agreements to generate hydroelectricity from Lake Eildon releases must all comply with their obligations, which include significant environmental commitments. This audit criterion is conformance with the environmental commitments associated with the above obligations.

Criterion

Compliance with environment related obligations under Bulk Water Entitlements and Water Supply Agreements.

EPA Victoria 14 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

3.1.9 Criterion 10: Obligations under Government service agreement

Background

G-MW must comply with its obligations to the Victorian Government through its service agreement. This audit criterion assesses conformance with the environmental commitments associated with the above obligations as it relates to the environmental health of the Goulburn River.

Criterion

G-MW compliance with obligations under a State Government Operational Licence, if it exists, as it relates to the environmental health of the Goulburn River.

3.1.10 Criterion 11: Other Acts where relevant to river health

Background

There are a range of other Acts of Parliament that identify environmental obligations, and other obligations that may impact on river health, which are relevant to the Goulburn River. This audit criterion is conformance with a few of the more significant environmental obligations associated with some of the key Acts including the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act and the Catchment and Land Protection Act.

Criterion

Identify whether key obligations relevant to the protection of endangered species, river water quality and the control of riparian land along the Goulburn River under Acts of Parliament are being met. 3.1.11 Criterion 12: Legislation, policies and strategies

Background

Land and water management legislation, policies, strategies, plans and operational procedures (as they relate to environmental health) that guide the management of the designated reaches of the Goulburn River should be consistent. This audit criterion is consistency between legislation, policies, strategies, plans and operational procedures as it relates to the health of the Goulburn River. Attention is given to gaps, overlaps and duplication.

Criterion

Consistency between legislation, policies and strategies in regard to the health of the Goulburn River.

Environmental Audit 15 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

3.1.12 Criterion 13: Organisational roles and responsibilities

Background

The roles and responsibilities of the organisations responsible for the management of the Goulburn River from a river health perspective should be unambiguous and duplication of roles and responsibilities should not occur. This audit criterion is consistency between organisational roles and responsibilities as they relate to the health of the Goulburn River. Attention is given to gaps, overlaps and duplication.

Criterion

Consistency between organisational roles and responsibilities relevant to the health of the Goulburn River.

3.2 Activity B: Response arrangements—fish kills

For this activity evidence was assessed against the criteria below. 3.2.1 Criteria 14: Fish kill response arrangements

Background

The intention of the audit against this activity is to determine whether the extent of fish kills is an indicator of declining river health and whether the current response arrangements to fish kill events in the Goulburn River are sufficient to guide management in providing a healthier river system. This will be evaluated from the perspective of:

- investigations required to determine the cause of fish kills - the learning process to improve the overall understanding of fish kill causes, and how prevention can be built into management actions - clarity with respect to roles in fish kills. This intent is broader and less specific than the initial audit criterion proposed by the Auditor. It was to ‘ascertain whether relevant policies, strategies, plans, procedures and responsibilities were followed in the response of the January 2004 fish fill’. The Auditor modified the intent of the this audit criterion to the adopted criterion after receiving the following advice from the EPA: The intention of criterion 14, as outlined in the detailed scope, is to ‘ascertain whether relevant policies, strategies, plans, procedures and responsibilities were followed in the response of the January 2004 fish kill’. …the primary audit objective…is to ‘Obtain information and understanding to guide the management of the Goulburn River towards meting a healthier river system. This will include improvements towards meeting the needs of the environment and water users, therefore reducing the likelihood of further fish kill events’. In regard to the primary audit objective, the intention of the audit against this activity is to determine whether the extent of fish kills is an indicator of declining river health and whether the current response arrangements to fish kill events in the Goulburn River are sufficient to guide management in providing a healthier river system.

EPA Victoria 16 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

The first audit task for this criterion is to examine the frequency and types of fish kill events to see if their occurrence is increasing or causes are systematic. The second audit task for this criterion is to determine whether the management of fish kills through the response arrangements: • meets the legislative and policy requirements for managing a fish kill. • identifies agency responses and makes relevant staff aware of the response arrangements, and are trained and equipped to undertake the assigned roles. • covers all needs for management of such events. • is refined by knowledge gained by the response to fish kills. • provides for sufficient information and evidence to be collected prior to, during, and after the fish kill to identify the cause. • provides for a process of review, follow up of actions, and refinement of management in order to reduce or eliminate the likelihood of the incidence and severity of future fish kills.

Criteria

14a: The occurrence of fish kills in the Goulburn River is increasing. 14b: The current response arrangements for managing Goulburn River fish kill events are adequate.

The ‘fish kill’ criteria listed in the detailed audit scope was: Evaluate the extent of fish kills as an indicator of river health and current response arrangements in providing for a healthier river On reflection the Auditor formed the opinion that this audit criteria could not be audited, and hence adopted the above criteria (14a and 14b) as they are consistent the audit intent.

3.3 Activity C: Use of biocides

Biocides usage was adopted as a specific auditable activity due to concerns raised by stakeholders through the Local Community Forum and the Technical Workshop. For this activity evidence was assessed against the criteria below.

3.3.1 Criterion 15: SEPP (WoV) Cl. 37—Chemical management

Background

This audit criterion is conformance with Clause 7 of the SEPP (WoV) obligations as it relates biocides storage, training, use, contingency planning and emergency response to spills.

Criterion

Conformance with the biocides storage, training, use, contingency planning and emergency response obligations of Clause 37 of the SEPP (WoV).

Environmental Audit 17 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

3.3.2 Criterion 16: Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act

Background

This audit criterion is conformance with the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act as it relates to herbicide application rates in G-MW channels and drains.

While it is recognised that herbicides and other biocides are used within the catchment (and outside of drains and channels) and hence pose a risk to the health of streams, the audit is limited to channels and drains as they ultimately discharge to streams.

Criterion

Conformance with Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act as it relates to herbicide application rates in G-MW channels and drains.

3.4 Activity D: Irrigation drainage

Irrigation drainage was adopted as a specific auditable activity due to concerns raised by stakeholders through the Local Community Network and the Technical Workshop. For this activity evidence was assessed against the criteria below.

3.4.1 Criterion 17: SEPP (WoV) Cl. 51(2)—Irrigation channels and drains

Background

This audit criterion is conformance with Clause 51(2) of the SEPP (WoV) obligations as it relates to the management of irrigation drains. The assessment is focussed on two public drains. These are the Rodney Main Drain which discharges to the Goulburn River upstream of McCoys Bridge (on the Murray Valley Highway) and Shepparton Drain No. 3 which discharges to the river via Reedy Swamp north of Shepparton. The criterion for their selection was that the two drains should be on opposite sides of the Goulburn River.

Criterion

Conformance with Clause 51 (2) of the SEPP (WoV)—Irrigation channels and drains.

3.4.2 Criterion 18: Irrigation Drainage Memorandum of Understanding (IDMoU)

Background

The IDMoU was established to implement strategies to minimise the environmental impact of irrigation drains on receiving waters. The objective of this audit criterion is to determine conformance with the implementation schedule.

Criterion

Conformance with the IDMoU.

EPA Victoria 18 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

3.5 Audit criteria specific to audit river reaches

Table 3.1 identifies river reaches that are subject to the audit for which each audit criterion applies. Table 3.1: Audit criteria specific to river reaches

Audit criteria Audit findings specific to reaches 1. SEPP (WoV) environmental water quality objectives and indicators are being met 1 and 4 for all beneficial uses to be protected 2. A framework is in place to develop an attainment program for the Goulburn River All and that it has been used and appropriately applied 3. The Goulburn Broken CMA has worked with stakeholders to develop a Government All approved RCS and plans, which identify the regional environmental, social and economic values of surface waters and, after careful consideration of environmental, social and economic needs, set appropriate goals, priorities and environmental targets for the catchment 4. Consistency of the RCS and supporting plans with regional target setting 1 and 4 obligations under Clause 24 of the SEPP (WoV) 5. Compliance with obligations under Clause 41 of the SEPP (WoV)—Water All allocations and environmental flows—either by being met or being in the process of being met 6. Compliance with obligations for controlling water temperature, if any exist, in the 1 Goulburn River below Lake Eildon and above Lake Nagambie 7. Consistency of Goulburn Broken RCS and the draft RRHS with overarching river 1 and 4 health strategies and plans; particularly objectives and targets 8. Compliance with environmental management obligations under the Water Act 2 and 3 9. Compliance with environment related obligations under Bulk Water Entitlements 1 and 4 and Water Supply Agreements 10. G-MW compliance with obligations under a State Government Operational Licence, All if it exists, as it relates to the environmental health of the Goulburn River 11. Identify whether key obligations relevant to the protection of endangered species, All river water quality and the control of riparian land along the Goulburn River under Acts of Parliament are being met 12. Consistency between legislation, policies and strategies in regard to the health of All the Goulburn River 13. Consistency between organisational roles and responsibilities relevant to the All health of the Goulburn River 14 a: The occurrence of fish kills in the Goulburn River is increasing All b: The current response arrangements for managing Goulburn River fish kill events are adequate 15. Conformance with the biocides storage, training, use, contingency planning and 4 emergency response obligations of Clause 37 of the SEPP (WoV) 16. Conformance with Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act as it 4 relates to herbicide application rates in G-MW channels and drains 17. Conformance with Clause 51 (2) of the SEPP (WoV)—Irrigation channels and 4 drains 18. Conformance with the IDMoU All

Environmental Audit 19 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

4 SETTING THE SCENE

This Section of the audit report provides an overview of the Goulburn River and its regulation, the beneficial users of the river, and the history of fish kills in the Goulburn Broken catchment. This information forms part of the audit evidence considered by the Auditor.

4.1 Goulburn River and its regulation

The ways in which the Goulburn River (below Eildon Dam) and its tributaries have been changed from their natural condition and regulated, mainly to provide water for irrigation and stock and domestic supplies are described below together with details on the main structures and flow diversions. Information is drawn from reports (published and unpublished) and data records.

4.1.1 The Goulburn River catchment

The Goulburn River basin is Victoria’s largest, covering over 1.6 million hectares or 7.1 % of the State’s total area. The terrain varies significantly across the catchment, from the high ranges and mountains of the Great Dividing Range in the south, to the flat country of the Murray Plain to the north. The high country in the south east experiences cold winters with persistent snow and an average annual rainfall greater than 1 600 mm. Rainfall decreases northward, and in the far north of the catchment is less than 450 mm per year. Vegetation has been retained over much of the mountainous south of the catchment, where slopes are steepest. However clearing for agriculture has been extensive in the valleys and plains. The Goulburn River itself is 570 km long, flowing from upstream of Woods Point to Barmah at its confluence with the River Murray. The regulated river has a mean flow of 3 040 GL/yr, which represents 13.7% of the state’s total discharge to the Murray River (draft RRHS, Goulburn Broken CMA 2004). Each year water from Lake Eildon and the Goulburn River is used to irrigate over 200 000 ha of land by a series of channels and weirs. On its release from Lake Eildon, water flows down the Goulburn River to Goulburn Weir where it is diverted north-east via the East Goulburn Main Channel and north-west via the Stuart Murray and Cattanach Canals. The Stuart Murray and Cattanach Canals transfer water to Waranga Basin, an off-stream storage serving the western part of the Goulburn system including part of the domestic and stock system. From Waranga Basin water is transferred further westwards via the Waranga Western Channel. This channel is capable of supplying water as far as Ouyen, some 600 km from Lake Eildon.

4.1.2 Tributaries to the Goulburn River

There are many tributary streams flowing into the upper Goulburn River where the catchment is hillier and streams originate in the Great Dividing Range. Below the Goulburn Weir and towards the Murray River the land is much flatter and there are fewer tributaries. It is within this reach that constructed drains outfall to the Goulburn River. The larger tributaries flowing into the Goulburn River within the geographic extent of the audit are listed in Table 4.1.

EPA Victoria 20 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Table 4.1: Larger tributaries of the Goulburn River

Location on Goulburn River Tributary Between Eildon Dam and Goulburn Snobs Creek Weir Rubicon River Acheron River Home Creek Yea River King Parrot Creek Dabyminga Creek Sunday Creek Sugarloaf Creek Hughes Creek Major Creek Downstream of Goulburn Weir Creightons Creek Castle Creek Seven Creeks Broken River

4.1.3 Goulburn River flows and diversions

Figure 4.1 presents the mean annual flows along the Goulburn River and its tributaries downstream from Lake Eildon as well as for the Broken Creek at Rices Weir. The flow increases significantly down to the Goulburn Weir due to tributary streams. The loss of flow as a result of irrigation diversions is clearly evident downstream of the weir. The flow increase downstream of Shepparton is due mainly to the inflow from the Broken River.

Environmental Audit 21 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Figure 4.1: Annual flow volumes recorded on Goulburn River and tributaries

Broken Creek at Rices Goulburn River at McCoy Broken River at Goulburn River at Castle Creek at Pranjip Creek at Goulburn River at GOULBURN Goulburn River at King Parrot Creek at Acheron River at Rubicon River at Goulburn River at 0 500 1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 Average GL/yr

Notes: Annual flows are from gauge records over at least 19 years, except the Broken River gauge that has 13 years of records. The periods of record are not consistent between the gauges. The gauges on the tributaries are located significant distances upstream of the Goulburn River. Not all tributaries have flow gauges. Table 4.2 summarises the major diversions from the Goulburn River. Table 4.2: Summary of major diversions from the Goulburn River

Annual diversion volumes (GL) Diversions 2000–01 2001–02 2002–03 2003–04 Goulburn Weir three distributary channels 1 373 1 514 949 1 476 Waterway licence holders 31 43 25 31 Authorities with bulk entitlement 23 17 18 24 Total 1 427 1 574 992 1 531

The ‘Authority with bulk entitlement’ annual diversion volumes include a small volume diverted to Melbourne at the top of Wallaby Creek, a tributary stream of the Goulburn River. All of the water diverted through the three distributary channels from Goulburn Weir is used for irrigated pasture (mostly dairying), horticulture (mostly stone fruit), stock and domestic purposes and town water supplies. This data confirms that the three distributary channels at the Goulburn Weir divert large volumes of water for irrigation. Diversions by waterway licence holders (who pump directly from the river) and authorities with bulk entitlements, including the Goulburn Valley Region Water Authority (GVRWA), are much smaller in comparison.

EPA Victoria 22 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

4.1.4 Irrigation drains

The Goulburn River supplies water to the Shepparton Irrigation Region (SIR). An extensive network of irrigation drains has been constructed in this region to prevent waterlogging and reduce the incidence and severity of soil salinisation. The irrigation drains within the Central Goulburn and the Shepparton Irrigation Areas of the SIR either fully or partially outfall to the Goulburn River within Audit Reach 4 (downstream of Murchison). Table 4.3 lists the irrigation drainage areas that outfall to the Goulburn River together with their catchment area and the area requiring drainage as of 2000 as identified in the SIR Surface Water Management Strategic Review (Goulburn Broken CMA June 2002) Table 4.3: Drainage areas outfalling to the Goulburn River

Irrigation area Drainage area Catchment area Area requiring (ha) drainage (ha) Central Goulburn Ardmona 9420 5730 Coomboona 15360 8900 Cobram 7100 1660 Rodney 17230 10680 Randall NA NA Tongala 14930 2160 Undera NA NA Wyuna 22750 14340 NA Toolamba 8740 4410 NA Kialla 17110 5970 Shepparton Drains 2 to 9 9800 540 (Incl. 5A & 8A) Totals 122440 54390

Source: Surface Water Management Strategy Review, Shepparton Irrigation Region, Goulburn Broken CMA (June 2002).

Table 4.3 suggests that 44% of the SIR catchment that drains to the Goulburn River still requires surface drainage under the Goulburn Broken Surface Water Management Strategy. It is noted that the strategy aims to provide surface drainage to about 90% of the SIR. The potential river health impact of increased drain outfalls to the Goulburn River, as planned for above, is addressed in the audit findings associated with Activity D (Irrigation drainage).

4.1.5 Main structures in Goulburn River catchment

Lake Eildon Dam

Construction of the original storage, which was known as Sugarloaf Reservoir, took place between 1915 and 1929. Between 1951 and 1955 the storage was enlarged to its present capacity of 3 390 GL. The dimensions of the current storage are shown in Table 4.4.

Environmental Audit 23 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Table 4.4: Dimensions of Lake Eildon Dam

Parameter Dimensions Height 79 m Length 983 m Spillway gates x 3 20 m long x 6 m high Pondage gates x 3 20m wide x 7.3m high Surface area at FSL 13 840 ha Length of shoreline at FSL 483 km Maximum depth 76 m

Water is released from the storage through a 7 m outlet tunnel to a hydro-electric power station that is managed by Southern Hydro and that can generate up to 135 MW. When the storage is full, water can leave Lake Eildon over the 300 000 ML/d spillway, which is controlled by three vertical lift gates. The 5 200 ML Eildon pondage below the dam temporarily detains water discharged from the power station. The pondage weir contains three vertical lift gates that further control releases. In June 2004, the storage volume had dropped to less than 600 GL, i.e. less than 20% of its capacity. In addition to the release from the power station and the spillway there are three cone valves in the spillway wall, not connected to the power station, that can release 20 000 ML/d (depending on storage levels). There is also a small 4.5 MW capacity power station on the Eildon pondage operated by Pacific Hydro.

Goulburn Weir

The Goulburn Weir was completed in 1890 and was upgraded in the 1980s. It is located some 213 km downstream of the Eildon Dam outlet. A photograph of the weir is shown in Figure 4.2. Figure 4.2: Goulburn Weir (from G-MW website)

EPA Victoria 24 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

The main function of the weir is to lift the water surface to allow diversion of gravity flows through 3 offtake channels; the East Goulburn Main Channel, the Stuart Murray Canal and the Cattanach Canal. Flows also continue over the weir to the Goulburn River downstream. The weir creates an extensive backwater that extends south of Lake Nagambie. These features are shown on Figure 4.3. Figure 4.3: Goulburn Weir system (from Perriss 2004)

At full supply level (FSL), the Goulburn weir pool has a volume of 25 GL and covers an area of 130 ha. The greatest depth of the weir pool behind the weir wall is about 12 m below full supply level. The main weir currently comprises a 210 m long concrete and masonry fixed wall topped by steel radial and vertical lift gates. The nine radial gates on the eastern side of the weir are undershot, i.e. they are designed to operate by lifting and allowing water from the weir to flow underneath. Water can only flow over the top of the radial gates in flood events. There are two vertical lift gates in the western side of the weir that have been retained for heritage purposes and are not normally used. Water is released over these gates in emergency circumstances, such as following the January 2004 fish kill, as there are health and safety issues with its operation and accurate measurement of flow is not possible. It is likely that the temperature and dissolved oxygen concentration of releases from the vertical lift gates would be higher than for the nine radial gates, however the significance of any alteration to the temperature and dissolved oxygen concentration is not known. Immediately to the west of the vertical lift gates is the offtake regulator for the Stuart Murray Canal. It was originally constructed in 1890 along with the weir, and has been refurbished twice since. It consists of a combination of vertically pivoted and radial gates set in a concrete sill.

Environmental Audit 25 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

The Cattanach Canal offtake lies at the head of an excavated, 100 m long, 3.7 m deep channel that is cut into the western side of the weir pool approximately 800 m south of the Stuart Murray Canal offtake. Consisting of three radial gates set in concrete bays, it and the canal were constructed in 1956 to accommodate the additional flows generated by the enlargement of Lake Eildon. The East Goulburn Main Channel offtake is located in a small bay of the Goulburn weir pool, 1 km to the east of the weir. There is a 20 m long, 3 m deep excavated channel that leads up to the offtake. The offtake consists of two structures; an undershot vertical lift gate and the second with two undershot vertical lift gates. Table 4.5 summarises capacity, release method and height data for the Goulburn Weir and each of the main channels it supplies. Table 4.5: Dimensions of Goulburn Weir and main supply channels

Offtake structure Design capacity Release method Release height (ML/d) below FSL (m) Radial gates to Goulburn 90 000 (lake at Undershot radial gates set on 3.450 River FSL) weir wall Vertical lift gates to 7 200 (lake at Overshot vertical lift gates 0.000 Goulburn River FSL) recessed into weir wall Stuart Murray Canal 3 520 (using 4 Undershot vertically pivoted and 2.133 radial gates only radial gates set on sill can pass Canal capacity easily) Cattanach Canal 3 690 (3 radial Undershot vertically pivoted and 3.683 gates can pass radial gates set on sill Canal capacity easily) East Goulburn Murray 1 550 Undershot radial gates set on sill 3.073 (East) East Goulburn Murray 1 055 Undershot vertical lift gate set on 2.443 (West) sill

Waranga Basin

The Waranga Basin is an earthen dam, located west-north-west of Murchison, which was constructed on a former swamp site. It was completed in its current form in 1926. The Basin is an off-river storage, where water is diverted from the Goulburn River at Goulburn Weir, via the Stuart Murray Canal and Cattanach Canal. The Basin also has a small catchment area of its own. The capacity is 411 GL making Waranga Basin one of the largest storages in the Goulburn System.

4.1.6 Changes to flow patterns

Lake Eildon and its operation has affected the hydrology of the Goulburn River (CRC for Freshwater Ecology 2003b) by: • causing a reversal of the seasonal pattern of flow above the Goulburn Weir (i.e. maximum flow in summer and autumn of 6 000 to 11 000 ML/day, and minimum flows in winter and spring of 120–250 ML/day)

EPA Victoria 26 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

• altering flow duration by truncating the high flows (maximum flow reduced), increasing medium sized flows and decreasing low flows • decreasing the average annual flow downstream of the Goulburn Weir • decreasing the return frequency of flood events • decreasing the flood magnitudes for a given return frequency • decreasing downstream sediment loads.

The flow reversal that results from regulated releases is most pronounced immediately downstream of the lake. Floodwaters captured by the Lake Eildon are released as higher than natural medium and low flows over summer and autumn. This is illustrated in Figure 4.4. (The regulated environment is shown as ‘recorded’ and the estimated pre-regulation environment is shown as ‘modelled’.) Figure 4.4: Modelled and recorded Goulburn River monthly flows at Alexandra (Source: CRC for Freshwater Ecology 2003b)

The pattern of monthly flow downstream at Murchison (downstream of the Goulburn Weir) is similar to that of the natural flow regime but has been greatly dampened due to the diversion of water at Goulburn Weir (Figure 4.5). A flow event with a 10-year ARI (average recurrence interval) under current flow regimes is equivalent to a 2-year ARI event under the natural flow regime. Figure 4.5: Modelled and recorded Goulburn River monthly flows at Murchison (Source: CRC for Freshwater Ecology 2003b)

Environmental Audit 27 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Figure 4.6 also compares flows recorded at Eildon below the dam with flows recorded at Murchison downstream of the Goulburn Weir. Three main points are illustrated: • higher summer and autumn flows and lower winter flows are recorded below the Lake Eildon, showing the reversal of the natural flow regime • the summer flows are significantly lower at Murchison compared to downstream of Lake Eildon due to large diversions of flows at the Goulburn Weir • the peak daily flows downstream of the Goulburn Weir have reduced significantly since 1997, except for 2000, as a result of drought conditions. Thus for an extended period of close to eight years there have been no significant winter/early spring flooding flows.

Figure 4.6: Goulburn River recorded daily flows (Source: Victorian Water Resources Data Warehouse)

30000 Murchison

25000 Eildon

20000

15000

Daily Flow ML/d 10000

5000

94 95 96 02 03 04 Jan-85 Jan-86 Jan-87 Jan-88 Jan-89 Jan-90 Jan-91 Jan-92Jan-93 Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan-97 Jan-98 Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01Jan- Jan- Jan-

4.1.7 Summary

Aspects of the river and its regulation which are relevant to the audit activities and the audit criteria: 1. Changed hydrology of the river (high summer and low winter flows) 2. Potential for additional drain outfalls 3. The Goulburn Weir and the Eildon Dam acting as physical barriers 4. Opportunity to release water from different levels at the Goulburn Weir 5. Only able to release from a single outlet tunnel at the Eildon Dam. These are discussed further in Section 5 (Threats to river health).

EPA Victoria 28 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

4.2 Beneficial users of the river

Some of the high value asset and values identified in the May 2005 draft RRHS (Table 5.7) along the four audited reaches are: • Heritage River status (audit reaches 1, 2, 3 and 4) • High overall environmental significance (audit reaches 1) • High overall social significance (audit reaches 1,2, and 3) • Association with wetlands of national significance (reach 4) • Threatened aquatic species (audit reaches 1,2, 3, and 4).

Audit reaches 1 and 4 are classified in the draft RRHS as Stream Management Units U1 and L1 respectively. These are identified as high priority waterways which should be protected and enhanced. These reaches are considered to be modified aquatic systems that do not currently meet the characteristics of an ecologically health river. The definition of an ecologically healthy river is provided in the Victorian River Health Strategy. (This definition is slightly different than that provided in the May 2005 draft RRHS.) The following beneficial users of the river to be protected are categorised in accordance with the SEPP (WoV). These beneficial uses are not defined in the SEPP (WoV).

4.2.1 Primary contact recreation

The Goulburn River is popular for swimming particularly during the summer period. Water is used for potable supply after treatment. It is noted that there are many offtakes for town water supply on systems. Although not managed directly as a potable supply it is necessary to manage for risks that may impact as per the Safe Drinking Water Act. G-MW has some responsibility in this area.

4.2.2 Secondary contact recreation

Fishing

Fishing for introduced and native species is a popular activity along the Goulburn River. Introduced Brown trout and Rainbow trout are popular to anglers and are stocked in the Eildon Pondage at the top end of audit reach 1. DPI has advised that some experimental salmonid stocking has occurred in the Goulburn River downstream of the Goulburn Weir. They are found in audit reach 1 throughout the year as they thrive within the lower temperature water that is released from Lake Eildon. The Goulburn Eildon Fisheries Management Plan also refers to small numbers of Redfin perch above Alexandra with Murray Cod and Golden perch being taken occasionally between Yea and Seymour. Between Seymour and Nagambie the Management Plan states that the river contains Redfin perch to about 1.5 kg, some ‘good’ Brown trout, and a few Murray cod. Trout numbers are lower downstream of Seymour than above. Freshwater spiny crayfish are sought. Apart from Macquarie perch, native fish are rarely found upstream of Lake Nagambie, as Lake Eildon has altered the hydrology and water temperature along this river reach.

Environmental Audit 29 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

The Goulburn Eildon Fisheries Management Plan advises that until the early 1980s, Lake Nagambie (Reach 2) was regarded as a notable Redfin perch, Golden perch, and Freshwater spiny cray fishery. River blackfish, Catfish and Murray cod were also caught. Since then the abundance of all of the above species has declined significantly. This opinion is supported by SKM (2002) in an ecological review of the status of the Lake Nagambie system. This report particularly notes a decline in the abundance of Golden perch in the lake in the early 2000s. Trout cod, Macquarie perch, and Golden perch are found downstream of the Goulburn Weir in Audit Reach 4. Representatives from the Goulburn Valley Anglers Association and the Nagambie Angling Club, who have been fishing the Goulburn River throughout their lifetime, have also reported a general decline in the abundance of native fish in audit reaches 2, 3, and 4 over the last 30 years.

Canoeing

Canoeing is also popular especially in flood time and is common between Shepparton and the Murray River and above Goulburn Weir.

Boating

Speed boating is popular at Lake Nagambie.

Rowing

Rowing is popular in Lake Nagambie. Lake Nagambie is now recognised as the premier rowing venue in Victoria.

4.2.3 Aesthetic enjoyment

The Goulburn River is a place of relaxation and enjoyment for many people. The natural environment is recognised as containing a number of species of local significance (those with special community significance rather than conservation significance) including the Koala, Murray cod, Platypus, Kingfisher and the Wedge-tailed eagle (Goulburn Broken CMA 2004b) which provide great interest and pleasure to local residents and tourists. River red gums, wild flowers and Wattle are also commonly described as having special community significance. Murray cod is a threatened species under the EPBC Act and the FFG Act. Scenic landscapes are found between Molesworth and Seymour, and from below Seymour to Echuca-Goulburn Broken RCS (Goulburn Broken CMA 2002). Many people have been camping and bushwalking along the Goulburn River throughout their whole lifetime. Camping and walking is particularly popular around the backwaters of the Goulburn weir pool including Lake Nagambie. Bushwalkers and campers who are very familiar with the river are aware that the current flows are unnatural.

4.2.4 Indigenous cultural and spiritual values

Both the Yorta Yorta and Taunerong people have occupied the Goulburn River catchment downstream of Eildon Dam. The Yorta Yorta people originally occupied a unique stretch of territory located in the Murray- Goulburn region downstream of the Nagambie area.

EPA Victoria 30 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

The original Yorta Yorta territory was both rich and abundant in natural food sources. Being river-based people, most of their time was occupied by fishing, as the majority of food was provided by a network of rivers, lagoons, creeks and lakes which were, and are still, regarded as the life-source of the Yorta Yorta people. Archaeologists refer to this type of environment as a broad-based economy which is capable of producing a broad range and variety of food. Today the Goulburn River and its floodplain is still regarded by the Yorta Yorta people as a significant part of their tribal land which was taken from them by force; the resting place of their ancestors, who are buried there, and their spirits; and the keeping place of their cultural heritage.

4.2.5 Non-Indigenous cultural and spiritual values

Cultural heritage sites include the timber Chinamans bridge, the steel-girder rail bridge at Seymour, Days Flour Mill at Murchison, the Goulburn Weir, and the town water supply pump at Murchison.

4.2.6 Agriculture and irrigation

Water diverted from the Goulburn Weir for irrigation is supplied to horticulture, cropping, grazing and dairying enterprises. All of the water diverted from the Goulburn Weir for irrigation is used for irrigated pasture (mostly dairying), horticulture (mostly stone fruit), stock and domestic purposes and town water supplies. Diversions by waterway licence holders (who pump directly from the river) and authorities with bulk entitlements, including the Goulburn Valley Region Water Authority (GVRWA), are small in comparison to diversions for irrigation purposes. Water is first allocated for high security stock and domestic, urban and industrial uses. Water is then allocated to cover as much of the current irrigation season’s water right and diversion licensed volume as is possible.

4.2.7 Aquaculture

Since 1998, the aquaculture industry in the catchment has grown at 10–18% a year. Salmonoid fisheries represent $10 million of the aquaculture total of $10.7 million, with all farms being adjacent to the Goulburn River or its tributaries, between Lake Eildon and Nagambie. These trout and salmon fisheries are dependent on the cold water that flows from the bottom of Lake Eildon and from the surrounding alpine areas (Goulburn Broken CMA 2003).

4.2.8 Industrial and commercial use

Water is released from Lake Eildon through a 7 m outlet tunnel to a hydro-electric power station managed by Southern Hydro that can generate up to 135 MW. Pacific Hydro has a right to generate hydro power from a turbine on gate 4 of the Eildon pondage downstream of the Eildon Dam (and downstream of Southern Hydro). Pacific Hydro only have a small capacity to generate power (4.5 MW) and do not have control of releases as they operate when Southern Hydro releases water and when G-MW release for irrigation supply.

Environmental Audit 31 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

4.2.9 Human consumption after appropriate treatment

Water from the river is utilised for human consumption after treatment. The water is diverted from the river primarily through Goulburn Valley Region Water Authority’s Bulk Entitlements.

4.2.10 Fish, crustacea and molluscs for human consumption

Native and exotic fish caught in the Goulburn River by recreational anglers are generally consumed by the anglers, their families and friends.

4.3 History of fish kills

A review of recent fish kill events in the Goulburn Broken catchment was undertaken to assist in auditing Activity B (Fish kill response plan). A range of relevant agencies were contacted with requests to supply any information or records they held on the date, location and other details of fish kill events within the Goulburn Broken catchment. The EPA’s Freshwater Sciences Unit supplied the entire contents of their database of Victorian fish kill events, which currently covers the period from 2002/2003 to 2003/2004. G-MW supplied data from their Environmental Management System, which covered the period from 1998 to the present. In addition to these records, information on a small number of additional events was supplied by the EPA North-East Regional Office, staff at the DSE (Mr Bill O’Connor) and the DPI (Mr Mike Hosking and Mr Dave Trickey). Most of the data covers the period from 1997 to the present. Other contacted agencies replied that they did not keep fish kill event records. All data supplied was compiled in an MS Excel spreadsheet and incorporated into a GIS layer for mapping. A further analysis involved recoding some of the descriptive variables associated with each record into discrete categories so that a brief statistical analysis could be undertaken. Although this involved taking some liberties in classifying the material due to the insufficient nature of some of the described causes, the resultant analyses provide a useful overview of the nature of fish kill events in the catchment.

4.3.1 Fish kill data for the Goulburn Broken catchment

Twenty-three reasonably reliable descriptions of fish kill events were compiled for the years 1997 to 2004. A further single event from 1982 was also included since it was clearly recalled by a regional Fisheries Officer. It is reasonable to conclude that the number of events recorded in the catchment is less than the true number of events as not all events will be observed nor all observed events reported. However the number of reported events does appear to be about the same order of magnitude as records maintained for NSW by NSW Fisheries (Lugg 2000) after taking into account the different areas covered. The above 23 fish kill events include the January 2004 event that occurred in Boosey Creek in the vicinity of a stormwater drain sourced from the township of Tungamah. Another fish kill event occurred at the same location in January 2005. This has not been included in description of fish kills presented below as it is outside of the audit period. The Goulburn Broken data shows that most of the reported events were downstream of Goulburn Weir (Figure 4.7). Breakdowns of events by various attributes are presented in Figure 4.8 to Figure 4.12. Of the range of recorded causes, low flow was implicated on five occasions, the herbicide Acrolein on four occasions (used by Goulburn-Murray Water to control weeds in irrigation channels), spills on three occasions, blackwater events on three occasions, and the remaining causes (unknown, low water, dumping, boating, low dissolved oxygen, and the epizootic haematopoietic necrosis (EHN) virus) on one or two occasions only (Figure 4.8).

EPA Victoria 32 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

It is noted that the identified causes in Figure 4.8 are ‘recorded’ causes. It may be that some recorded causes may be a result of an actual cause. For example for a recorded cause of ‘low dissolved oxygen’ may have been caused by a blackwater event. There were five events recorded in 2002 and two or three in the other years between 1997 and 2004 (Figure 4.9). Please note that the 1982 fish kill data is not shown for graphical reasons. Most events occurred in summer and to a lesser extent in spring (Figure 4.10). There were markedly more events recorded in regulated streams (6 events) and irrigation channels (5 events) than in other habitats (tributary streams, lakes, irrigation drains, reservoirs) (Figure 4.11). The largest kill events were associated with single events in each of following habitat types; irrigation channels, irrigation drains, regulated streams and regulated river (Figure 4.10). The last two events were among the largest and included the event on Broken Creek in November 2002 and the event on the Goulburn River in January 2004. The maximum number of fish recorded as killed in these events totalled a few hundred. The true numbers killed are likely to be much greater. In all cases no systematic surveys of fish carcasses were undertaken. In addition, many of the specimens killed were large Murray cod and other large native species with a high conservation value. The Goulburn River event in particular is reported to also have involved the death of several thousand minnows and fingerlings (EPA April 2004). This probably includes Galaxids and Australian smelt.

Environmental Audit 33 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Figure 4.7: Map of recorded fish kills in the Goulburn Broken catchment 1997–2004

EPA Victoria 34 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Figure 4.8: Breakdown of reported likely causes of fish kill events1

6 6

5 5

4 s ons i 4 n at o i t v r a e v r s e b

s 3 b 3 O

of O f o

r ber e m b u

m 2 N u 2 N

1 1

0 0 Unk no w n Acrolein Dumping Low DO EHN V ir us Unk noLow wn Flow AcroLowlein WaterDumpinBog ating Low DOSpill EHBNla Vcikrwusater Event Low Flow Low Water Boating Spill Blackw ater Event Repor ted Likely C ause Reported Likely Cause

Descriptions Low DO Low concentrations of dissolved oxygen not associated with a blackwater event Acrolein A channel weed control herbicide whose inappropriate use can kill fish Dumping Illegal discharges Low water Lake habitats Low flow Riverine habitats Spill Accidental industrial discharges Boating Death of fish cause by power boat propellers EHN virus A naturally occurring fish pathogen Blackwater Heavy loads of dissolved organic matter entering rivers, usually after heavy rains causing decreases in dissolved oxygen

1 This graph excludes the January 2004 Goulburn River event.

Environmental Audit 35 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Figure 4.9: Breakdown of recorded fish kill events by year

[Not shown (for graphical reasons) is one event in the Goulburn River recorded in 1982]

6 6

5 5

s 4 ons i n t o a i t v a er v er

3s obs b

o 3

of f o

r e mber b u m N

N 2

1 1

0 0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Year Year

Figure 4.10: Breakdown of recorded fish kill events by season

14 14

12 12

10 10 ns s o n o ati i t v a r 8 v e r

s 8 e b s b O

of O f r

o 6 e

b 6 e m b u m N u N 4 4

2 2

0 0 SpringSummerWinterAutumn SpringSummerWinterAutumn Season Season

EPA Victoria 36 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Figure 4.11: Breakdown of recorded fish kill events by habitat type [This graph excludes the January 2004 Goulburn River event]

7 7

6 6

5 5 ns s o i n o i at t v a r 4 v e r

s 4 e b s b O O

f of r

o 3

r 3 e b mbe u m N u

N 2 2

1 1

0 0 Irrigation Channel Lake Reservoir Regulated River Irrigation ChaTnrnibutel ary LakIerrigation DrainReseRregulvoir ated strReamegulated River Tributary Irrigation Drain Regulated stream Hab itat Type Hab itat Type

The distinction between a regulated river and an unregulated stream is arbitrary. Typically the Goulburn River downstream of Lake Eildon and the Murray River are considered to be ‘regulated rivers’ while anything identified as a creek, including Broken Creek is considered to be an ‘unregulated stream’.

Environmental Audit 37 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Figure 4.12: Number of fish recorded killed by habitat type [The single regulated river point indicates the Goulburn River event in January 2004 and does not include ‘several thousand’ smaller fish which were not accurately recorded] 500 500 d e l d l i e l l

i 400 k

400 d ted k r e t r o epo p r e h

r 300 s h 300 fi s i f f

o f

r o

e r b e b 200 m

u 200 n

e ate num t a m i x m i o x r 100 o p

r 100 p p A p A

0 r r y e i n

0 el e l k o r r ai y e i n am v i e m v r i r e k o e r a n La a a utar v r ann v r i t e t n D e b r h La i u r s D a R d R r e t s

b h on e i s i s C d n T d t r t

Re C e o e a i

d l t T t t on Re n ga e a a i a l t Median o r gu i g u a r i t l e I gati gul Median r g i a u r r R e Non-Outlier Range e I g g i Ir R r R e Ex Ntroemn-Oesutlier Range Ir R Habitat Type Extremes Habitat Type

4.3.2 Summary of the recent Goulburn River and Broken Creek fish kill events

Two of the most recent significant events in the Goulburn Broken catchment were relatively well documented and a brief review of what took place may provide some insight into the health of the Goulburn River and its tributaries. Information on a 2002 fish kill event in Broken Creek at Rices Weir is summarised from (Robinson 2002) and (Butcher 2003a, 2003b) while information on the 2004 fish kill event in the Goulburn River downstream of Goulburn Weir is drawn from Perriss (2004) and G-MW (May 2004). Detailed accounts may be found in the above references.

The Broken Creek fish kill (October 2002)

On 23 October 2002, dead Murray cod started to surface in the pool of Rices Weir on Broken Creek about half way along its length. Within a week, 179 dead Murray cod and 6 Carp were recovered from a 2-kilometre section of the weir pool. 2002/2003 was a year of exceptionally low flow. The following observations, which were made at the time of the fish kill, were reported by Butcher (2003a): • Low levels of dissolved oxygen (DO) and very heavy growths of duckweed (Azolla) were reported (up to 30 cm deep). • DO levels were particularly low near the bed of the weir pool.

EPA Victoria 38 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

• Large amounts of decaying Azolla could have resulted in a sudden organic loading on the system, which depressed oxygen levels particularly near the bottom sediments. The low DO levels in combination with high levels of organic matter and high temperatures could have resulted in rapid generation of sulphides from the sediments. In addition to the stressful and potentially lethal DO levels death could also have been caused by sulphide toxicity. • Flows could not pass through the downstream gates of Rice’s Weir during 90% of spring 2002 (Figure 4.13 as sourced from Butcher (2003b)). Consequently the weir pool provided good conditions for nutrient accumulation and Azolla to proliferate and trapped fish at the same time.

The EPA has advised that the total nitrogen and total phosphorus concentration within Broken Creek are typically above the environmental quality objectives of 0.9 mg/L and 0.045 mg/L (75th percentile) respectively for the Murray and Western Plains segment. Based on the points above, while the cause of fish deaths is likely to be low dissolved oxygen and possibly sulphide toxicity, the ultimate cause was insufficient flows through the weir pool. (It is noteworthy that the extremely low flows in March 2003 did not result in a fish kill event.) Figure 4.13: Monthly flow in Broken Creek at Rice’s Weir—1997/98 to 2002/2003

Broken Creek Flow @ Rice's Weir 18 1997/98 16 1998/99 1999/00 14 2000/01 2001/02 12 2002/03 10

4 October 2002 fish kill 2

0 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

The Goulburn River fish kill (January 2004)

On 14 January 2004 holiday-makers contacted G-MW at Goulburn Weir near Nagambie to report large numbers of dead fish in the Goulburn River just downstream of the weir. G-MW immediately confirmed that thousands of dead fish were floating in the plunge pool immediately below the concrete plinth of the weir structure. Over the next few days, different government agencies reported dead and dying fish in a 15 km stretch of the river downstream of the Goulburn Weir. Subsequently dead mussels started appearing in the Cattanach Canal on 27 January 2004. Although the water in this canal comes from the same source as the water in which the dead fish were found, there is debate within the scientific community as to whether these two events are linked.

Environmental Audit 39 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

The Goulburn Broken CMA convened a scientific workshop relating to the January 2004 fish kill. Nine hypotheses are presented as being potentially responsible for the fish deaths. These are: Hypothesis 1: Low dissolved oxygen levels in the Goulburn weir pool were responsible for the fish deaths. Hypothesis 2: Low dissolved oxygen levels in the Goulburn River upstream of the Lake Nagambie system were responsible for the fish deaths. Hypothesis 3: A toxic discharge into the Goulburn River or Lake Nagambie system was responsible for the fish deaths. Hypothesis 4: Combination of 1 and 2. Low dissolved oxygen levels in the Goulburn weir pool together with low dissolved oxygen levels in the Goulburn River upstream of Lake Nagambie system were responsible for the fish deaths. Hypothesis 5: Septic tank effluent was responsible for the fish deaths. Hypothesis 6: The release of anoxic water from the base of the lake (stratification) may have resulted in the use of O2 (sulphides to sulphate, ammonia to nitrate, Fe2+ to Fe3+, Mn2+ to Mn4+). This would result in high sulphate, manganese and iron concentrations and low dissolved oxygen. Hypothesis 7: Effluent or discharge to the stream was responsible. Hypothesis 8: Toxin within the water was responsible. Hypothesis 9: Blackwater was responsible. There was a flow peak prior to the event, bringing blackwater into the system. Blackwater in Goulburn River was identified downstream following the event. These hypotheses were provided to EPA for consideration in its scientific assessment of the fish kill. Two fish pathology reports were prepared by the Victorian Institute of Animal Science (VIAS) to assist in determining the cause of the fish deaths downsteam of the Goulburn Weir. Protozoan infection was considered to be a possibility in the first of the reports, and rejected in the second report. It is not clear as to whether protozoan infection caused the mussel deaths in the Cattanach Canal. The EPA concluded that low DO and associated effects, including possible sulphide toxicity, seem the most likely cause of the fish deaths downstream of Goulburn Weir. The low DO may have been related to strong winds which caused water in the weir pool to mix with poor quality bottom water and/or poor quality water from backwater areas of the Lake Nagambie system. Such an event, which appears to be supported by temperature data from the Goulburn and Kirwans Bridge that indicates a mixing event around the time of the fish kill, could have transported low DO water and sediment toxicants, including sulphide, into the main river channel. Furthermore, it is possible that a combination of relatively low DO concentrations upstream of Lake Nagambie and within the lake system led to very low DO levels in the Goulburn River downstream of the Goulburn Weir. There is insufficient information available to determine the cause of the low DO concentrations in Goulburn River upstream of the Lake Nagambie system.

EPA Victoria 40 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

An improved understanding of ecological processes within the Lake Nagambie system should assist in the development of management measures to prevent future fish kill events. The EPA (Perriss 2004) considered that the key to preventing future fish kill events in the Lake Nagambie system was the development of a better understanding of the system itself. This view echoed that of an expert panel assembled by G-MW for an ecological review of Lake Nagambie (SKM, February 2002). The expert group identified 33 key knowledge gaps in understanding the ecological status of Lake Nagambie including the need for improved ecological and hydrological models and other information.

Environmental Audit 41 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

5 THREATS TO RIVER HEALTH

The MDBC (2003) Native Fish Strategy for the Murray Darling Basin 2003–2013 (the NFS) identified eight key threats to native fish management in the basin. These are: • flow regulation • habitat degradation • lowered water quality • barriers • alien species • exploitation • diseases • translocation and stocking.

At the Technical Workshop held on 16 July 2004 to assist the Auditor to develop the detailed audit scope, the technical specialists identified native fish as a key indicator of the overall health of the Goulburn River. Key environmental conditions (that) that could have a significant influence on the health of the Goulburn River were identified at the Technical Workshop held on 16 July 2004. These conditions are presented in Appendix A (Detailed Audit Scope). These were generally consistent with the threats identified in the NFS, with the three key environmental conditions being flow regulation, water quality, and barriers. Each of the key threats identified in the NFS as well as activities on riparian land, urban activities, and climate change are discussed below in terms of their potential impact on the health of the Goulburn River.

5.1 Flow regulation

Flows in the Goulburn River are highly regulated below Lake Eildon (Section 4.1). Flow regulation can potentially impact on the following environmental values: • geomorphology • vegetation • river and floodplain linkages • fish (barriers to movement and cold water pollution) • macroinvertebrates • water quality • loss of flow seasonality • bench inundation • floodplain and wetland inundation • flood pulses • loss of low to medium flows • permanent flooding and high water

EPA Victoria 42 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

• loss of flow variation.

An overview of each of these potential ‘flow regulation’ impacts is presented below.

5.1.1 Geomorphology

Erskine et al. (1993) described channel changes associated with Lake Eildon. Lake Eildon traps approximately 99% of the sediment load carried by upstream tributaries, which has leads to less bed material being transported downstream. However, there has been little bed degradation between Lake Eildon and Nagambie, despite the large reduction in sediment load. This is because regulated flows and dams spills are not generally able to move deposited sediments and tributary inflows are an ongoing source of sediment. The bed of the river has become armoured by the concentration and sorting of coarse gravels that form a protective layer over finer sediments. There is also some evidence that the river channel in the upper Goulburn River has contracted since the construction of Lake Eildon. Bank erosion rates are low due to a combination of flood suppression and bank protection works. Below Nagambie, the main flow change has been a large increase in the duration of low flows. This has led to the river cutting a narrower channel, with steep, actively eroding bank toes, and a low bench formed at the channel edge. It is possible that the steepening of the bank toe is leading to slump failures in the banks. Also reported is a possible increase in flood frequency downstream of Shepparton as distributary channels have been blocked, and the floodplain has been constrained by levees.

5.1.2 Vegetation

River regulation has the potential to affect plant communities in all the major habitats of the river channel and floodplain. More constant water levels provide conditions that are less conducive to the survival of native species and favour invaders such as willows as well as potentially nuisance native species such as Cumbungi (Typha spp.). Changes in the timing of floods, or in the timing of low-flow periods, affects those plant species with life cycle stages that are cued to particular seasons, such as germination, establishment, flowering. Species that grow over winter are disadvantaged, whilst summer-growing species are encouraged, leading to changes in species composition and dominance. The native vegetation of floodplains is also threatened by changes in flood flows. Flow regulation has reduced the frequency of out-of-channel floods and has caused flood events with shorter durations. These effects result in the floodplain becoming generally drier and in changes to the pattern of vegetation that occur over time. The long-term persistence of wetland plant communities dependent on a wet phase to grow and set seed may become at risk. Flood intolerant species, including terrestrial and opportunistic species, establish more readily and persist for longer. Drier conditions also reduce the growth and vigour of long-lived species such as River red gums. Cold water releases from Lake Eildon can reduce the growth rate of macrophytes in the river channel downstream of the dam. Reduced sediment loads in the reaches downstream of Lake Eildon and the resultant bed armouring have reduced the benthic habitat available for in- channel macrophytes.

Environmental Audit 43 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

5.1.3 River and floodplain linkages

Another human influence on Goulburn River flows is the construction of levees, particularly along the lower Goulburn below Shepparton, which change the natural flow patterns by controlling flood flow extents. Levees change the interaction between the river and its floodplains. Floodplains play an essential functional role in riverine ecosystems and contribute significantly to regional diversity. Floodplains provide an array of habitats for species, including many aquatic organisms adapted to the non-flowing billabongs and backwaters. Floodplain systems also support microbial and zooplankton communities that are more diverse than in the associated river systems. Floodplain wetlands may serve to inoculate the parent system during high flow events, contributing to biodiversity and re-colonisation processes. In the upper Goulburn River between Lake Eildon and Goulburn Weir, the movement of floodwater on the floodplain has a longitudinal pattern, i.e. through channels and flood runners that flow parallel to the main channel, as well as laterally across the floodplain. Whilst there are fewer levees along this section of the river than in the lower Goulburn, flood runners often have block banks that halt the flow of water between the floodplain and the channel. Along the lower Goulburn, the river channel is perched, with both natural and constructed levees. There are different types of wetlands present containing very different flora and fauna assemblages and biodiversity values. The River red gum of the riverine grassy woodland and riverine sedgy forest is a good source of organic matter that is food for macroinvertebrates when transported back to the river channel and to wetlands.

5.1.4 Fish

This Section of the audit report summaries the role of Fisheries Victoria in the management of recreational fishing along the Goulburn River and the threats to native fish and salmonids.

Management

Fisheries Victoria is the key fisheries management agency. It seeks to provide positive ecologically sustainable outcomes for the Goulburn River. The Goulburn Eildon Fisheries Management Plan (DNRE 2002a) was prepared for Fisheries Victoria by a steering committee comprised of representatives from major stakeholder groups, with input from anglers, other interested stakeholders and the wider community. The plan deals with issues relevant to the Goulburn Eildon recreational fishery. This includes audit reaches 1, 2 and 3.

Native fish

Barriers to movement and migration Fish passage is required for all species, not just those that migrate (i.e. fish passage is also required for local movement). The Eildon Dam, Eildon pondage and Goulburn Weir act as complete barriers to fish movement and migration, effectively separating fish populations in the upper reaches of the Goulburn River from those in the wider Murray-Darling Basin. Apart from these barriers, fish passage through most of the main stem of the Goulburn River is generally not impeded, although several smaller structures within the river channel have been identified (McGuckin and Bennett 1999) that may potentially act as barriers under low flow conditions.

EPA Victoria 44 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Construction of block banks and levees has also occurred in many locations along the length of the river. These structures reduce connectivity between the channel and its floodplain, thereby reducing access to the floodplain for fish and preventing refilling of wetland habitats. Changes in the timing and magnitude of flows can affect the native fish communities of the Goulburn River in a number of ways. The unimpeded passage of fish throughout streams is crucial for spawning, migrations, re- colonisations, general movement and habitat selection. Several native fish species require low summer flows for successful spawning and recruitment (Humphries et al. 1999). The high flows that now occur between Lake Eildon and Goulburn Weir throughout summer and autumn are likely to reduce breeding success and recruitment for these species. A reduction in the frequency and magnitude of overbank flows in the upper and lower reaches of the Goulburn River has reduced the connectivity between the river and its floodplain. This is likely to reduce spawning opportunities for species that may require floods for successful spawning and/or recruitment (e.g. Golden perch and Silver perch) and may also result in the drying out of habitat for species that utilise floodplain wetlands (e.g. Flat-headed galaxias, Freshwater catfish). There has also been a reduction of within-channel flushes in the Goulburn River, particularly below Goulburn Weir. Flushes within the 30th to 80th % exceedance flow have been shown to be important in initiating migration by Golden perch and Silver perch (Mallen-Cooper et al. 1995) and are also important for the input of organic matter that forms the basis of the food- chain on which fish rely (Robertson et al. 1999).

Cold water pollution Temperature is considered to be important in initial spawning of native fish. Koehn and O’Connor (1990) list, where available, the temperature requirements for native fish in Victoria. These range from about 20oC for Murray cod, 17–18oC for Trout cod, 16 oC for Murray perch, 23oC for Golden perch, and 12–20oC for Freshwater blackfish. Prior to the construction of the Eildon Dam, the median January water temperature in the Goulburn River above Seymour was about 19.50C (Ryan et al. 2001) and the average temperature range of 7.4oC to 19.5oC (Gippel and Finlayson 1993). This is an optimum temperature range for the spawning and rearing of most native fish that are present in the Goulburn River. The median January water temperature below Lake Eildon is now about 12.50C (Ryan et al. 2001) and ranges from of 9.9oC to 13.5oC (Gippel and Finlayson 1993). The significant reduction in the water temperature is due to the release of cold water from the lower levels of Lake Eildon. This temperature is too low for the spawning and rearing of most native fish, hence has an adverse impact upon the health of native fish. The cold water effect reduces downstream of Seymour with only a minor difference in temperature from pre-regulated levels apparent 200 km downstream. The problem arises when water contained in deep impoundments thermally stratifies, resulting in a layer of cold water on the bottom of the dam, known as the hypolimnion. As most dams are fitted with low-level outlet structures, deep water is released downstream. When these releases are outside the 20th to 80th percentiles of natural stream temperatures, cold water pollution is deemed to have occurred. Impacts of cold water pollution include the lowering of summer temperatures, elevated winter temperatures, reduced seasonal and diel amplitude, delay of the summer peak and rapid temperature reductions. Ryan et al. (2001) assessed the status of cold water releases from Victorian dams and advised that although alteration to natural temperature regimes has been listed as a FFG Act threatening process since 1992, little has been done to address the issue.

Environmental Audit 45 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Ryan et al. (2001) reviewed water temperature along the Goulburn River including downstream of Seymour from 1977 to 1990. During this time the impacts of cold water releases were observed by the lowered maximum temperatures, an impact that would be likely to have occurred at least as far as Lake Nagambie. Temperatures at Seymour, 138 km below the Eildon Dam, are sufficiently depressed to be marginally suitable for native fish spawning. The effects of cold water releases on native fish include reductions in metabolic and physiological rates, loss of cues for gonad maturation and spawning, and reduced river productivity. These effects have resulted in the alienated of the section of the river between Lake Eildon and Seymour from habitation by native fish species. This is due to reduced growth rates of fish, higher rates of mortality due to disease and predation, lack of breeding, recruitment failure and reductions in food resources (Ryan et al. 2001). Some of the alienated native fish are threatened species under the FFG Act. These include Murray cod, Trout cod, Silver perch, Golden perch and Macquarie perch (Ryan et al. 2001). The Goulburn Eildon Fisheries Management Plan (DNRE 2002a) identifies Murray cod and Golden perch as being taken occasionally between Yea and Seymour however neither species supports a fishery in this area, and Macquarie perch has been reported from the mouth of the Yea River.

Introduced fish

The Goulburn River between Lake Eildon and the Goulburn Weir experiences large seasonal fluctuations in flows due to irrigation releases from Lake Eildon. The Goulburn Broken CMA have expressed concern that reduced winter flows above Alexandra (when the lower base flow level of 120 ML/day applies) may have an impact on the resident trout population by alienating suitable spawning habitat. In the Upper Goulburn Waterway Plan (1998), the CMA suggested using some of the 80 GL annual environmental water allocation to provide unspecified ‘moderate but elevated, stable base flows’ over the winter period (Brown 2003). The issue of increased winter base flows is also taken up in the Goulburn Eildon Region Fisheries Management Plan (GERFMP) (DNRE, June 2002a). The GERFMP states that a major impediment facing the fishery is the impact of low regulated winter flows on the natural recruitment of trout. The chief management strategy identified to deal with this potential problem was to seek ‘a review of the environmental allocation for the Goulburn River with the purpose of ensuring the sustainability of the fishery, particularly downstream of Eildon Pondage to the Rubicon River junction’. DPI’s Paul Brown recently undertook an investigation of the effects of changing water flows in the Goulburn River downstream of the Lake Eildon outlet structure and above the Goulburn Weir on the spawning and fry rearing phases of the life cycle of Brown trout and Rainbow trout (DPI 2004). Spawning is the phase in the life cycle of a trout when adult fish bury their eggs in gravel nests. Fry rearing is after eggs hatch and small larvae begin to feed and grow as juvenile trout (or fry). Modelling was conducted to determine whether the water flow regime in the Goulburn River was having an impact on the critical spawning and rearing stages of Brown trout and Rainbow trout.

Spawning During spawning both Rainbow and Brown trout prefer moderate water flows. The outcomes of modelling in relation to spawning for the two trout types investigated are shown in Table 5.1. Results indicate high availability of the required conditions for spawning for both trout types in the Goulburn River for the ten-year modelled period between 1990 and 1999.

EPA Victoria 46 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Table 5.1: Suitability of Goulburn River flows for trout spawning

Item Brown trout Rainbow trout Required river flows for maximum spawning habitat 860–1 200 ML/d 2 160 ML/d % of time during 1990–1999 for which maximum 75%–85% 88% spawning habitat was available in Goulburn River

Source: DPI 2004

Fry rearing During the fry rearing season (i.e. the spring–summer period) for Brown trout and Rainbow trout periods of low flow are required. The outcomes of modelling in relation to fry rearing for the two trout types investigated are shown in Table 5.2. Results indicate low availability of the required conditions for fry rearing for both trout types in the Goulburn River for the ten-year modelled period between 1990 and 1999. This is because river flows during the fry rearing season are typically greater than 4 000 ML/d. Table 5.2: Suitability of Goulburn River flows for fry rearing

Item Brown trout Rainbow trout Required river flows for maximum fry rearing habitat 260 ML/d 90 ML/d % of time during 1990–1999 for which maximum fry 18–25% 4% rearing habitat was available in Goulburn River

Source: DPI 2004

The research indicates that the survival of trout fry in the Goulburn River may be limited by lack of suitable fry rearing habitat, and that the best way to increase the recruitment of juvenile Brown trout and Rainbow trout to the mid-Goulburn trout fishery would be to increase fry habitat. Such habitat would need to be able to function effectively during the Spring– Summer period. The main bottleneck in trout production is the area required by trout fry during the early irrigation season. Habitat modelling indicated that the maximum area of Rainbow trout fry habitat is attained during low flows (i.e. around 90 ML/day) and this area declines rapidly as flow increases. Low flows provide a greater area of low water velocities that suit trout fry. As discharge increases the area of suitable low flow velocities decreases. During the period when Rainbow trout fry habitat is required (September to February), mean flows in the period 1990– 1999 were greater than 4 000 ML/day and this meant that there was only 4% of the maximum potential fry habitat available at lower flows. To overcome the bottleneck of fry-production, Brown (2003) recommended further investigation of the use of constructed fry-habitat to enhance survival of trout fry through to the juvenile stage. Brown (2004) suggested a winter flow target of around 260 ML/day to optimise area for Brown trout redds (i.e. trout spawning beds).

Temperature effects Audit reach 1 supports a trout population that is a significant recreational fishing and tourism asset. Trout survive well in the cold water downstream of Lake Eildon (Pollino et al. 2000).

Environmental Audit 47 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Recent modelling studies undertaken by Brown (2004) have demonstrated that the potential for Brown trout growth reduces by increasing the average daily river temperature by 2°C and 4°C. Brown (2004) concluded that the quality and quantity of Brown trout that would be available under a 2°C and 4°C higher temperature regime would be unlikely to sustain a viable, high quality trout fishery. G-MW has advised that it has received a number of inquiries from the Goulburn commercial salmonid industry and recreational anglers during the recent drought concerning Eildon summer release water being too warm (i.e. of releases being too close to pre-dam temperature patterns).

5.1.5 Macroinvertebrates

The more constant flows in the river are likely to impact on the macroinvertebrate communities. Lack of flow variation, and particularly the reduction in low flows, decreases the available habitat zones provided by aquatic plants, edge vegetation and gravel bars. Shallow gravel beds provide sun-lit hard surfaces for the growth of algae (food for grazers), cracks and crevices which trap coarse organic material (food for shredders), fast flowing water from which filter-feeders can collect food, and hiding places to avoid predation. Lack of flow variation also decreases the zones with exposure to light where photosynthesis can take place. The reduction in higher flow ‘flushes’ provides a risk that fine sediments are not mobilised and that biofilm layers will be smothered and that respiration of some macroinvertebrate taxa will be curtailed. Macroinvertebrates also rely on the natural supply of organic material from the floodplain and this is affected by the reduced frequency of flow events that connect the floodplain and channel. Macroinvertebrate communities immediately downstream of Lake Eildon are likely to have declined due to a number of factors. Cold water released from Lake Eildon is likely to slow the growth rate of aquatic macroinvertebrates, increase their exposure to predation and disease, and reduce reproduction success in some species. Armouring of the riverbed, where larger stones overlay finer sediments, has been observed in the Goulburn River and can be partly attributed to Eildon Dam. The armouring reduces the shelter and organic material available to macroinvertebrates. It is noted that the presence of Lake Eildon (acting as a large ‘settling pond’) also changes the nature and quantity of macroinvertebrate food resources downstream.

5.1.6 Water quality

Direct relationships between flow and water quality (nutrients, salinity, DO, pH, and other parameters) are difficult to establish due to the presence and operation of Lake Eildon and the Goulburn Weir. For example, Cottingham et al. (1995) found weak relationships between flow and the concentrations of the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus and Olive and Fredricks (1997) found no simple relationship between flow and turbidity in the Goulburn River at Shepparton. Lake Eildon and Lake Nagambie act as sediment traps, capturing a high proportion of the suspended load carried by the river. However, since the river has a naturally low sediment yield, this is not a big risk to water quality. Water management indirectly affects water quality conditions due to the discharge of irrigation drainage waters and from water returned from intensive animal industries such as fish farms. A detailed discussion of the Goulburn River water quality is presented in Section 9 (Audit findings—Criterion 1).

EPA Victoria 48 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

5.1.7 Loss of flow seasonality

The rainfall patterns in the southern half of the Murray-Darling basin are highly variable, however most of the run-off occurs during winter and spring. Storages such as Lake Eildon are designed to capture these flows and make them available downstream for irrigation during the naturally dry summer and autumn. This results in a seasonal inversion of the natural flow pattern producing high flows in summer–autumn and low flows during the winter–spring (CRC Freshwater Ecology and CRC Catchment Hydrology 2003). This is particularly evident in the reaches downstream from the storage and upstream from major irrigation offtakes and is demonstrated by Figure 4.4 for monthly flows at Alexandra. Between Lake Eildon and the Goulburn Weir this seasonal flow inversion results in: • high water velocity during summer–autumn which creates conditions that are poor or unsuitable for expansion, growth or recruitment of in-channel macrophytes. • constant high water levels during summer–autumn that effectively reduce the riffle (an area of coarse substrate above which water flows and at a depth shallow enough to allow photosynthetically active radiation) habitat for some invertebrates and fish. • constant high water levels during summer–autumn that inundate river bars and benches potentially disrupting biochemical processes such as the cycling of carbon and nutrients that contribute to processes such as production and respiration. • constant high water levels during summer–autumn that reduce the availability of shallow water habitat favoured by macrophytes and seedlings and small fish (CRC Freshwater Ecology and CRC Catchment Hydrology 2003).

5.1.8 Bench inundation

High summer water levels have confounded the natural frequency and duration of bench inundation in certain parts of the Goulburn (Lake Eildon to Nagambie) meaning that the frequency of inundation has been reduced but the duration has increased. For example, river benches from Lake Eildon to Molesworth were inundated by 3 to 4 events lasting 1 to 8 days in the summer autumn period under natural conditions. Now they are inundated 1 to 2 times by events lasting 60 to 80 days (CRC Freshwater Ecology and CRC Catchment Hydrology 2003). Such modifications to patterns of wetting and drying can affect microbial processes such as those responsible for carbon metabolism and nutrient cycling and influence the plant species that grow on benches (e.g. flood-tolerant short-lived terrestrial, in-channel macrophytes).

5.1.9 Floodplain and wetland inundation

One of the major effects of Lake Eildon and irrigation supply is the reduction of floodplain and wetland inundation frequency along the Goulburn River. An inundation event in the area of the river between Lake Eildon and Molesworth that would occur annually under modelled natural flow regimes now occurs every 10 years (CRC Freshwater Ecology and CRC Catchment Hydrology 2003). Extending the inter-flood duration from one to nearly 10 years places considerable stress on wetland and floodplain ecosystems and their fauna. This affects organisms living on the floodplain especially those that are fixed (such as trees) or have limited mobility (such as frogs). If not replenished, seed banks and egg banks become depleted in number.

Environmental Audit 49 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

5.1.10 Flood pulses

Both the frequency and duration of flood pulses between Lake Eildon and Nagambie have been affected by higher summer–autumn irrigation flows. Flood pulses are now of longer duration but smaller magnitude than natural. Flood pulses below the Goulburn Weir and Loch Garry are longer than natural during summer and shorter during spring. It is considered important to maintain the natural frequency and duration of spring and summer flood pulses particularly given the higher turbidity and deposition of fine sediments noted in the lower reaches of the river.

5.2 Lowered water quality

The following activities can potentially lower the water quality of the Goulburn River: • usage of biocides • chemical spills • irrigation drainage • other contamination sources.

An overview of each of the potential impacts of the activities is presented below.

5.2.1 Biocides

Biocides include herbicides, pesticides and fungicides. Biocides are used in the Goulburn Broken catchment for agriculture to suppress weed growth in irrigation channels and drains, and other purposes. Biocide usage is an audit activity (see Section 9.15: Audit findings— Criterion 15—WoV—Chemical Management for findings in relation to biocides).

5.2.2 Chemical spills

Major spill events associated with illegal dumping, transport accidents and other causes generally receive great publicity and are perceived by the public to be a significant cause of environmental degradation. Some of the most spectacular and extreme cases of environmental damage to river health come under this category. Examples are: • explosions and fires or negligence at major industrial facilities (e.g. the Sandoz chemical spill into the Rhine in Switzerland in 1986) • accidents, sabotage or negligence associated with fuel transport (e.g. Exxon Valdez, Alaska 1989) • collapse of retaining walls on effluent ponds or tailings dams at mine sites (e.g. the Tisza River cyanide spill in Hungary in 2000, the Ok Tedi River in PNG in 1984). Major accidents and spill events in the Goulburn Broken Catchment like those noted above are rare, however less extreme spill events are likely to be relatively common (Ecos Environmental Consulting 2004). For example diesel pumps are commonly used to pump water for diverters on the banks of the Goulburn River and hence there is potential for diesel fuel losses impacting upon aquatic ecosystem health.

EPA Victoria 50 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

5.2.3 Irrigation drainage

As part of implementing Victoria’s Nutrient Management Strategy for Inland Waters, catchment based nutrient management plans have been prepared. In each of the plans covering the northern Victorian area, irrigation drainage has been identified as a major contributor of nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen) to waterways. In 2000 Nolan-ITU undertook an independent review of the environmental aspects of Victoria’s surface drainage program in irrigation areas (Nolan-ITU 2001). The purpose of the review was to inform state and federal ministers of the evolutionary processes, environmental outcomes and monitoring programs in place for surface drainage within the Goulburn-Murray Irrigation District. A detailed assessment of the historical and current impact of the program on the terrestrial and aquatic environment was undertaken with recommendations for the future of the program. Subsequent to the review, the Irrigation Drainage Memorandum of Understanding (IDMoU) was developed (refer Section 6.6). Irrigation drain outfalls discharge nutrients to the Goulburn River. These drains provide drainage to irrigated properties (low and high intensity). Some 200 000 ha of the irrigated catchment of the Goulburn Broken is already served by drains and a further 250 000ha will be drained over the next ten years as part of the SIR Surface Drainage Strategy. The 200 000 ha of irrigated catchment contributes an estimated 169 tonnes of total phosphorus in a typical year (Feehan and Plunkett 2003). This is predicted to increase to 208 tonne/yr unless nutrient management options are implemented. In response to this, and the occurrence of algal blooms, the Goulburn Broken Water Quality Strategy has a target of reducing phosphorus loads from irrigation drains by 50% to around 85 tonne/yr over ten years (Feehan and Plunkett 2003). Non-routine monitoring of pathogens, biocides, and metals is undertaken by G-MW. Irrigation drainage is an audited activity (Activity D).

5.3 Habitat degradation

5.3.1 Sedimentation

The Goulburn catchment has been identified as a significant source of turbidity and sediment, particularly downstream of the Goulburn Weir (see Section 9.1: Audit findings—Criterion 1— Environmental Quality Objectives and Indicators). It has been estimated that the Goulburn River contributes some 37% of the flow and 58% of the sediment relative to all streams entering the Murray River upstream of the Murrumbidgee junction (Goulburn Broken CMA 2002). Monitoring of both dryland catchments and irrigation drains indicates wide variation in suspended sediment export rates. Increased sedimentation relates to increased rates of erosion when the soil is denuded of vegetation and exposed to the impacts of wind and rainfall causing surface loss of soil particles. Agricultural practices along the Goulburn River and the development of infrastructure such as roads, mines and urban development have contributed to soil loss and the contamination of waterways with large quantities of clay minerals and soil nutrients. Nutrient inputs to waterways can be by attachment to suspended sediments and therefore many nutrient management activities focus on the reduction of sediment inputs. However, turbidity and suspended sediment have ecological implications in their own right, particularly as they affect light penetration of the water column.

Environmental Audit 51 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

5.3.2 In-stream habitat

Habitat can be defined as the locality or external environment in which an organism lives. Habitat is a major determinant of aquatic community potential as it provides refuge, feeding and breeding areas for animals and plants (SKM 2003b). In-stream habitats in the Goulburn River include a diversity of channel configuration, water velocity, water depth, substrate and objects providing cover. In relation to fish, population size is closely related to the quality of habitat. For example River blackfish (Gadopsis marmoratus) abundances correlate closely with low water velocity and the presence of wood debris and logs. Fish seek habitats that may provide shelter from predators and competitors, high flow velocities and provide ready assess to food and spawning sites. Logs, trees and wood debris occur naturally in streams and are essential components in the stream ecosystem. Streams are not necessarily tidy and often contain cluttered assemblages of in-stream objects such as logs, boulders, wood debris and plants, a diversity of depths and water velocities and substrate topography. The removal of in-stream habitat by de-snagging and stream clearing has been widespread in the Goulburn River and is particularly detrimental to many fish species which are dependent on in-stream objects for habitat and spawning sites. Channelisation and drainage of swamps has also contributed to the degradation of in-stream habitat and impacted upon many plant and animal species.

5.3.3 Weeds

The Goulburn Broken Catchment has 70 species of declared noxious weeds and a number of emerging environmental and agricultural weeds. In Victoria declared noxious weeds are classified as State Prohibited, Regionally Prohibited and Regionally Controlled. Weeds are a high priority environmental issue and have a major impact on the quality of remnant vegetation in the catchment. Agricultural weeds within the catchment pose considerable threats to agriculture. These weeds include: • Arrowhead • Kylinga • Carpet grass • Parramatta grass.

Environmental weeds are plant species that predominantly invade natural areas and compete with or choke native plant communities. Environmental weeds in the Goulburn Broken catchment include: • Arum lily • Chicory • Yellow water lily • English ivy • Gazania • Madeira winter cherry.

Although classified as agricultural and environmental weeds, these weeds have the potential to impact upon aquatic ecosystem health.

EPA Victoria 52 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Of particular concern in irrigation areas are the emerging aquatic and pasture weeds for which there are currently limited control options (Goulburn Broken CMA 2003).

5.4 Alien species

Below Eildon Dam and above Nagambie the Goulburn River contains an abundance of alien (introduced) species including socially desirable species such as Brown and Rainbow trout, Redfin perch, Gold fish; and non desirable species such as Carp which are increasing in numbers (Goulburn Eildon Fisheries Management Plan, DNRE 2003b). Their abundance is due to a range of factors including the cold water released from Eildon Dam, and the Goulburn Weir that acts as a physical barrier to the upstream movement of native fish. Alien species are identified in the NFS as a threat to native species (MDBC 2003). The threatening process is listed as ‘competition with and/or predation by carp, gambusia, oriental weratherloch, redfin perch, and trout’. Of these species Carp, Trout, and Redfin perch are abundant in audit reach 1. The abundance and attributes of some introduced fish, including Carp, continue to cause damage to habitats and populations of native fish species (MDBC 2003b). Carp are considered to be particularly troublesome as they are fast breeding and can achieve large population numbers in a relatively short period of time (MDBC 2003b). DPI Fisheries has advised that translocation protocols and greater community understanding should ameliorate further translocation risks. Protocols are identified in the Goulburn Eildon Fisheries Management Plan (DNRE 2003b) under ‘specific objectives and fisheries management strategies’. Some of these are quite broad; e.g. minimise the impact of Carp and reduce numbers of Carp for the Goulburn River—Seymour to Nagambie.

5.5 Exploitation

Recreational fishing pressure is a threatening pressure on depleted stocks, as is illegal fishing. There are no commercial fishing licences for the Goulburn River, although commercial harvesting can occur in special circumstances. The Goulburn Eildon Fisheries Management Plan has fisheries management strategies for the protection of some native fish from recreational fishing. These include Spiny crayfish, Trout cod and Maccquarie perch that are found in small numbers upstream of Lake Nagambie.

5.6 Diseases

There is a wide range of fish diseases that can be responsible for fish kill events. In most cases disease is caused by infectious microorganisms or parasites but occasionally other factors such as environmental stress or cancers may be the cause. Frequently disease outbreaks are associated with extreme environmental conditions or in environments that are at the boundaries of a species’ natural distribution. For example, populations of Bony bream may suffer outbreaks of fungal infection in winter in southern Australia but rarely suffer such outbreaks in northern Australia. Diseases may be caused by: • bacteria • fungus • viruses • protozoa (single-celled parasites)

Environmental Audit 53 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

• metazoan parasites (multicellular parasites such as flukes and nematodes).

EHN virus Epizootic haematopoietic necrosis (EHN) is a highly infectious viral disease of Redfin perch (Perca fluviatilis) and Rainbow trout (Oncorynchus mykiss). Many other species are susceptible to the virus experimentally. These species include Macquarie perch (Macquaria Australasica), Mosquito fish (Gambusia affinis), Silver perch (Bidyanus bidyanus) and Mountain galaxias (Galaxias olidus) (OIE 2000). The virus is readily spread in water, but infection can be transmitted between aquaculture establishments with movements of fish. As the virus is highly resistant it can be spread on inanimate objects such as fishing gear. The disease has been recorded only from south-eastern Australia and been responsible for fish deaths in the Goulburn Broken catchment. Outbreaks in both Redfin perch (Perca fluviatilis) and trout typically occur in summer when the water temperature is above 11°C. Rainbow trout are susceptible experimentally at temperatures ranging from 8°C to 21°C, while Redfin perch (Perca fluviatilis) are less easily infected at temperatures below 12°C. Natural out-breaks in Redfin perch (Perca fluviatilis) typically involve all age classes when the virus is first introduced to an area, but thereafter annual epizootics in juveniles are seen. In Rainbow trout (Oncorynchus mykiss), mortalities may be seen in any age class, but are most noticeable in fingerlings <125 mm in length to caudal fork. Poor water quality and intercurrent disease exacerbates the infection process and may precipitate an outbreak in trout. The clinical signs are non-specific in trout and include an increase in the mortality rate, often associated with poor water quality and general signs of ill-health. These may include fin erosions, skin discoloration and weak swimming. In Redfin perch (Perca fluviatilis), a sudden increase in mortality rate is sometimes preceded by lack of appetite and inactivity. In their response to the draft audit report on matters of fact both DPI and DSE have advised that the EHN virus has recently been discovered to be endemic to south-eastern Australia. DPI has advised that the natural Australian host remains unknown but could be a native fish, amphibian, or reptile.

5.7 Translocation and stocking

The composition and evolution of native fish populations can be threatened by the liberation of fish outside their natural range or from hatcheries. This is true for both native and introduced fish species. Natural populations of native fish are threatened by the potential release (translocation) of genetically restricted material from native fish aquaculture operations using limited broadstock (MDBC 2003). The release of such material has the potential to reduce the genetic fitness and hence viability of fish populations. Aquaculture is a developing industry in the Goulburn River, particularly within the upper reaches of audit reach 1 which is considered to be a key salmonid water. Measures to protect native fish from adverse impacts need to keep pace with this development. The risk of exotic and endemic disease and parasites to native fish and desirable alien fish species is a serious problem that can emerge from fish stocking or aquaculture enterprises if not properly managed.

EPA Victoria 54 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Guidelines for Assessing Translocations of Live Aquatic Organisms in Victoria were approved by the Secretaries of the Department of Primary Industries (DPI) and Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) and released in December 2003. The purpose of the Guidelines is to provide a risk assessment and administrative framework for proposals to translocate live aquatic organisms into and within Victoria that require approval under the Victorian Fisheries Act 1995, the FFG Act 1988, and the National Policy for the Translocation of Live Aquatic Organisms.

5.8 Other potential threats

5.8.1 Activities on riparian land

From an ecological perspective, riparian land is regarded as ‘the area of land that adjoins, regularly influences, or is influenced by a river’ (DNRE, June 2002a). Riparian land is important in an aquatic and terrestrial sense. It is vitally important to the health of a waterway. Riparian land with intact vegetation provides: • organic matter to a river—a major food source for in-stream biota • a supply of woody debris within the river, which forms key habitat areas for many fish and invertebrates and influences the shape of the river substrate • a source of shade in upland areas which influences water temperature and light penetration, and therefore regulates in-stream primary production • stability to banks, minimising erosion in many areas.

Along the Goulburn River riparian land has undergone major changes since European settlement relating to increased pressure arising from development and use of adjacent land and recreational activities. Vast areas along the Goulburn River are unfenced and the predominant surrounding land use includes grazing and cropping. In many areas cropping occurs to the water’s edge and contributes to the high turbidity experienced in parts of the upper and lower reaches. Stock have unlimited access to the water and have frequently been observed grazing on riparian land and aquatic vegetation resulting in degradation and fragmentation of the riparian zone. Other activities along the riparian zone that pose threats to the health of the Goulburn River are: • stream-side spraying and spray drift • clearing • erosion • recreational use (e.g. trampling of understorey layers) • weed invasion • stream crossings (e.g. roads, powerlines) • removal of timber for firewood.

Environmental Audit 55 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

5.8.2 Urban activities

The major towns along the Goulburn River include Shepparton, Mooroopna, Murchison, Nagambie, Seymour, Yea and Eildon. The current Goulburn Broken RCS advises that as of 1996 the Goulburn Broken region had a residential population of 189 590 with large numbers living in the Greater City of Shepparton, Moira Shire and Campaspe Shire (Goulburn Broken CMA 2003). The population was predicted to grow at an annual rate of 0.6% to reach 210 000 (approximately) by 2021. Economic activity within the urban areas includes food processing, transport, retail and wholesale trade, manufacturing, construction, property and business services. Activities within urban centres can threaten the health of the Goulburn River in several ways. These include: • stormwater drains and wastewater treatment plants as nutrient sources • stormwater drains as a disposal route for accidental and deliberate spills of pollutants • infrastructure development as a contributor for soil losses, increased sedimentation in waterways and gross pollutants including large litter objects which adversely impact upon the aesthetic appearance of waterways and have direct impacts upon native flora and fauna.

5.8.3 Climate change

The whole Goulburn Broken Catchment is expected to undergo a significant change in climate because of increased concentrations of greenhouse gases. Climate change has implications for the long-term sustainability of our environment, economy and community. It will provide conditions that favour the survival and spread of pest species, increase the likelihood of fire and directly affect the physiology of most plant and animal species (Goulburn Broken CMA 2003). Work by CSIRO predicts that by 2030, annual average temperatures will be 0.4 to 2.0°C higher over most areas of Australia. By 2070, this could be 1.0 to 6.0°C. The number of winter days below 0°C will decrease from the present average of 15 days to 6–13 days in 2030 and 0–9 days by 2070. More frequent intense rainfall events are likely to occur (Goulburn Broken CMA 2003). Species will need to adapt to changing environmental conditions or migrate to other areas or become extinct. Climate warming may particularly impact on species at the upper limit of their temperature range, such as trout (Brown 2004), with a limited ability to adapt. Wetland and riverine environments currently affected by reduced environmental flows will be under further pressure if rainfall runoff into these waterbodies decreases.

EPA Victoria 56 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

6 ACTS, POLICIES, STRATEGIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

This Section of the audit report presents a summary of relevant audit evidence associated with: • Victorian legislation • Federal legislation • State Environment Protection Policies • Federal Strategies and Plans • Victorian Natural Resources Management Framework • State Strategies, Plans and Agreements (including the Victorian Natural Resources Management Framework) • Regional Strategies and Plans • State Water Entitlements and Agreements • Fish Kill Response Plans • Agency roles and responsibilities.

A full compilation of the above relevant information is presented in Appendix B except for the ‘Agency roles and responsibilities’ which are presented in Section 6.

6.1 State legislation

The State Acts which are considered relevant to the audit are: • Environment Protection Act • Water Act • Catchment and Land Protection Act • Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act • Fisheries Act • Heritage River Act • Safe Drinking Water Act • Emergency Management Act • Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act.

A description of each of these Acts is presented below.

6.1.1 Environment Protection Act

The purpose of this Act is to create a legislative framework for the protection of the environment in Victoria having regard to the principles of environment protection. Key aims of the Environment Protection Act 1970 include sustainable use and holistic management of the environment, ensuring consultative processes are adopted so that community input is a key driver of environment protection goals and programs and encouraging a co-operative approach to environment protection.

Environmental Audit 57 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

To help achieve these aims, the following principles of environment protection were added to the Act in 2001: • principle of integration of economic, social and environmental considerations • precautionary principle • principle of intergenerational equity • principle of conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity • principle of improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms • principle of shared responsibility • principle of product stewardship • principle of wastes hierarchy • principle of integrated environmental management • principle of enforcement • principle of accountability.

Under the EP Act the Governor in Council has declared the State Environment Protection Policy (WoV) to be observed. Compliance with a number of clauses from this policy has formed part of the audit criteria. Under the Act, a person is guilty of an indictable offence when that person: • Is the occupier of a scheduled premises from which waste is discharged or deposited onto land or into waters without a licence where a licence is required by this Act, or is in contravention of the licence. • Contravenes any rules or requirements relating to industrial waste specified in a waste management policy, or contravenes any regulations relating to industrial waste, or causes or permits an environmental hazard. • Dumps or abandons or permits to be dumped or abandoned a particular kind of industrial waste at a place not being a site licensed to accept industrial waste of that kind under this Act; or at a site which is licensed to accept industrial waste under this Act without the knowledge or consent of the licence holder.

Section 53 of the EP Act 1970 provides for the appointment of environmental auditors; and a system of environmental audit of the risk of any possible harm or detriment to a segment of the environment caused by any industrial process or activity, waste, substance or noise for use in the planning, approving, regulating, managing or conducting of activities and in the protection of the environment. This audit is a statutory audit which is being conducted under section 53 of the Act.

6.1.2 Water Act

The Water Act 1989 provides the legislative framework for allocating and managing the State’s water resources. The Act outlines the rights to water of the Crown, individuals and authorities by creating a number of different types of legal entitlements, establishing planning processes for allocating water entitlements and establishing water trading mechanisms. This Act has the following purposes: • to re-state, with amendments, the law relating to water in Victoria

EPA Victoria 58 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

• to provide for the integrated management of all elements of the terrestrial phase of the water cycle • to promote the orderly, equitable and efficient use of water resources • to make sure that water resources are conserved and properly managed for sustainable use for the benefit of present and future Victorians • to maximise community involvement in the making and implementation of arrangements relating to the use, conservation or management of water resources • to eliminate inconsistencies in the treatment of surface and groundwater resources and waterways • to provide better definition of private water entitlements and the entitlements of authorities • to foster the provision of responsible and efficient water services suited to various needs and various consumers • to provide recourse for persons affected by administrative decisions • to provide formal means for the protection and enhancement of the environmental qualities of waterways and their in-stream uses • to provide for the protection of catchment conditions • to replace many forms of detailed administrative supervision of authorities with general supervision by the Minister, through approved corporate plans and express directions • to continue in existence and to protect all public and private rights to water existing before the commencement of the relevant provisions of this Act.

6.1.3 Catchment and Land Protection Act

The Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 has an objective of establishing a framework for the integrated and co-ordinated management of catchments which will: • maintain and enhance long-term land productivity while also conserving the environment • aim to ensure that the quality of the State’s land and water resources and their associated plant and animal life are maintained and enhanced.

The Act established the Goulburn Broken CMA and provides for the development of Regional Catchment Strategies (RCSs) which, among other things, must assess the nature, causes, extent and severity of land degradation of the catchments in the region and identify areas for priority attention. Local planning schemes must have regard for the Goulburn Broken RCS. Section 24(2)(c) of the Act states than an RCS must ‘identify objectives for the quality of the land and water resources of the catchment in the region’.

6.1.4 Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act

The Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (the FFG Act) is the key piece of Victorian legislation for the conservation of threatened species and communities and for the management of potentially threatening processes. The flora and fauna conservation and management objectives of the Act are to: • guarantee that all taxa of Victoria’s flora and fauna…can survive, flourish and retain their potential for evolutionary development in the wild • conserve Victoria’s communities of flora and fauna

Environmental Audit 59 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

• manage potentially threatening processes • ensure that any use of flora or fauna by humans is sustainable • ensure that the genetic diversity of flora and fauna is maintained • provide programs: (i) of community education in the conservation of flora and fauna (ii) to encourage co-operative management of flora and fauna through, amongst other things, the entering into of land management co-operative agreements under the Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987 (iii) of assisting and giving incentives to people, including landholders, to enable flora and fauna to be conserved • encourage the conserving of flora and fauna through co-operative community endeavours.

A public authority must be administered so as to have regard to the flora and fauna conservation and management objectives. An Action Statement must be prepared when threatened species and communities and potentially threatening processes are listed under the FFG Act. These statements provide background information about the species, including its description, distribution, habitat, life history, the reasons for its decline and the threats which affect it. They also state what has been done to conserve the species and what will be done. Action statements are designed to apply for three to five years, after which time they will be reviewed and updated.

Barred galaxias, Trout cod, Macquarie perch, Murray cod, Silver perch, Freshwater catfish, Murray hardyhead, and Murray rainbowfish are listed as threatened fauna under the Act. There are also a number of ‘potentially threatening processes’ listed under the Act that affect freshwater aquatic environments. The Act also lists ‘potentially threatening processes’ that may effect freshwater aquatic environments. These include the following that relate to the Goulburn River: • alteration to the natural flow regimes of rivers and streams • alteration to the natural temperature regimes of rivers and streams • degradation of native riparian vegetation along Victorian rivers and streams • increase in sediment input into Victorian rivers and streams due to human activities • input of toxic substances into Victorian rivers and streams • introduction of live fish into waters outside their natural range within a Victorian river catchment • prevention of passage of aquatic biota as a result of the presence of in-stream structures • removal of wood debris.

Copies of all of the above FFG Action Statements which are relevant to the Goulburn River have been determined to be available through the DSE’s Customer Service Centre on 136 186. In addition there are relevant recovery plans to be completed under the EPBC Act. Few of these Action Statements are found on the DSE website. These potentially threatening processes have not been prioritised despite alteration of the natural flow regimes and alteration of the natural temperature regimes being recognised in the draft RRHS (Appendix 7) as significant risks.

EPA Victoria 60 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

6.1.5 Fisheries Act

The purpose of the Fisheries Act 1995 is to: • provide for the management, development and use of Victoria’s fisheries, aquaculture industries and associated aquatic biological resources in an efficient, effective and ecologically sustainable manner • protect and conserve fisheries resources, habitats and ecosystems including the maintenance of aquatic ecological processes and genetic diversity • promote sustainable commercial fishing and viable aquaculture industries and quality recreational fishing opportunities for the benefit of present and future generations • facilitate access to fisheries resources for commercial, recreational, traditional and non- consumptive uses • promote the welfare of persons engaged in the commercial fishing industry and to facilitate the rationalisation and restructuring of the industry • encourage the participation of resource users and the community in fisheries management.

The Act and the Fisheries Regulations 1998 provide Victoria’s framework for sustainable use of living aquatic resources, protection of fish habitats, promotion of sustainable quality recreational fishing opportunities, facilitation of access for a range of uses, and community involvement in fisheries management. As set out in the first objective of the Act, the over-riding principle in the management of Victoria’s fisheries is that they should be managed on an ecologically sustainable basis. Day to day administration of the Act is the responsibility of Fisheries Victoria, acting as a division of DPI.

6.1.6 Heritage Rivers Act

The purpose of the Heritage Rivers Act 1992 is to make provision for Victorian heritage rivers by providing for the protection of public land in particular parts of rivers and river catchment areas in Victoria which have significant nature conservation, recreation, scenic or cultural heritage attributes and to make related amendments to other Acts. Eighteen key Victorian ‘heritage river areas’ as well as 26 relatively undisturbed ‘natural catchment areas’ are protected under the Heritage Rivers Act. The Goulburn River Heritage Area includes all of the Goulburn River downstream of the Lake Eildon. A managing authority of a heritage river area must, in so far as it is consistent with the authority’s duty to manage the area responsibly: • take all reasonable steps to ensure that the significant nature conservation, recreation, scenic or cultural heritage attributes of the area are protected • subject to the above, take all reasonable steps to provide opportunities for other recreational activities, landscape appreciation and education within the area • take all reasonable steps to ensure that that part of the river which is in the area is maintained without further interference with its free flowing state except as otherwise provided in the Act.

Environmental Audit 61 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

An impoundment, artificial barrier or structure that impedes the passage of water fauna must not be constructed in a heritage river area specified in Column 1 of Schedule 3 unless the Governor in Council by notice published in the Victoria Government Gazette, approves its construction in that area. In addition any new water diversion from a waterway upstream from the lowest point of a heritage river area must not significantly impair the nature conservation, recreation, scenic or cultural heritage attributes of the heritage river area.

6.1.7 Safe Drinking Water Act

The Safe Water Drinking Water Act 2003 is the first of its kind in Australia. The Act places obligations on water suppliers to provide safe, good quality drinking water. The new Act applied from 1 July 2004. The Act applies to the DPI, DHS, EPA, Parks Victoria, the Goulburn Valley Regional Water Authority, and G-MW (to the extent that these bodies are involved in the supply of drinking water). The objectives of the Act are to: • protect public health in Victoria, in relation to drinking water supplies • create a consistent statewide regulatory framework for drinking water quality • establish and implement comprehensive risk management strategies for drinking water quality that covers the overall delivery chain from the catchment to consumer supplies • give Victorians access to objective information about the quality of drinking water that they receive • provide communities with the opportunity to establish local non-health related standards for drinking water quality • ensure that proposed drinking water standards are subjected to a rigorous benefit–cost analysis • provide clarity of roles of the various parties who may be involved in the management of incidents concerning drinking water.

The latter is relevant to the management of fish kills, and contamination events, where drinking water is potentially affected. Part 4 Division 2 (Incident Management) section 34 describes the power of the Secretary if there is a risk to public health. It states: (1) This section applies if the Secretary believes on reasonable grounds that any drinking water supplied by, or in the possession of, a water supplier or water storage manager is, or may be, or may become, a risk to public health. (2) The Secretary may direct the water supplier or water storage manager— (a) to give the Secretary specified information to enable the Secretary to confirm whether a risk to public health exists and to assess the nature and severity of the risk; and (b) to take specified corrective action in relation to the water to safeguard public health; and (c) to purify water to a specified standard; and (d) to monitor the water supply in a specified manner; and

EPA Victoria 62 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

(e) to give the Secretary one or more written reports of any action taken by it to comply with any direction given under this sub-section.

6.1.8 Emergency Management Act

The Emergency Management Act 1986 sets up arrangements to provide for the management and organisation of the prevention, response and recovery phases of emergencies, involving all relevant government and non-government agencies. The Act defines emergency broadly, as the actual or imminent occurrence of an event which endangers the safety or health of persons, or which destroys, damages or threatens property or endangers or threatens the environment in Victoria. Victoria’s arrangements are, accordingly, operative for any relevant incident. The Act: • creates the position of Coordinator-in-Chief of Emergency Management • creates the Victoria Emergency Management Council, to advise the Coordinator-in-Chief on all matters • creates planning and management arrangements for response and recovery • specifies certain duties of municipal councils related to emergency management • provides for declaration of a State of Disaster and certain special powers • sets up a compensation scheme for volunteer emergency workers not otherwise covered by such schemes • provides for the declaration of an Emergency Area and the power to exclude the public.

From the perspective of this audit the Emergency Management Act can be used to create planning and management arrangements for response to and recovery from emergencies where human health is potentially impacted upon by poor water quality associated with contamination events or significant fish kills. The Emergency Management Manual under the Emergency Management Act identifies agency responsibilities for emergencies. The EPA, Parks Victoria, and Melbourne Water are identified as being the control agency for pollution into inland waterways and the DHS is the control agency for food/drinking water contamination and human disease.

6.1.9 Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act

The purposes of the Agricultural and Veterinary (Control of Use) Act 1992 are as follows: (a) to impose controls in relation to the use, application and sale of agricultural and veterinary chemical products, fertilisers and stock foods and the manufacture of fertilisers and stock foods, for the purpose of: • protecting the health of the general public and the users of those products • protecting the environment • protecting the health and welfare of animals • protecting domestic and export trade in agricultural produce and livestock • ensuring that a product is effective for the purposes described on its label • promoting uniformity of regulation throughout Australia.

Environmental Audit 63 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

(b) to impose controls in relation to agricultural spraying and to provide protection against financial loss caused by damage to plants and stock from agricultural spraying (c) to impose controls in relation to the production of agricultural produce to avoid the contamination of food for human consumption.

6.2 Federal legislation—Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act

The primary federal legislation relevant to the audit is the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act). The EPBC Act regulates actions that have, will have or are likely to have a significant impact on matters of national environmental significance. Matters of national environmental significance include the world heritage values of a declared world heritage property, listed threatened species and migratory species, and the environment of a Commonwealth marine area. The EPBC Act contains offences for injuring, killing, failing to notify taking, etc. a listed species. Actions that are likely to have a significant impact on a matter of national environmental significance are subject to a rigorous referral, assessment, and approval process under the Act. An action includes a project, development, undertaking, activity or series of activities. Several threatened species of fauna within the Goulburn Broken catchment are listed under the EPBC Act 1999 (Table 6.1). Aquatic fauna including Barred galaxias, Murray cod, Trout cod, and Macquarie perch are classified as endangered species within the Goulburn River.

6.3 State Environment Protection Policy—Waters of Victoria (2003)

The SEPP (WoV) provides the legal framework for State and local government agencies, businesses and communities to work together to protect and rehabilitate Victoria’s surface water environments. It supports Victoria’s catchment and coastal management processes and associated community decision making. The purpose of the SEPP (WoV) is to help achieve sustainable surface waters by: 1. setting the environmental values and beneficial uses of waters that Victorians want, and the environmental quality to protect them 2. setting within a 10-year timeframe goals for protection agencies, businesses and communities, and means by which they can be met. Clauses of the SEPP (WoV) of particular relevance to the audit criteria which have been applied to the four audited activities are presented in Appendix B. These are: • Segments (Cl. 9) • Beneficial uses (Cl. 10) • Environmental quality objectives and indicators (Cl. 11) • Attainment program (Cl. 12 to 58) • Catchment management authority responsibilities (Cl. 15) • Regional target setting (Cl. 24) • Releases from water storages (Cl. 42).

The beneficial uses to be protected within audit reaches 1 to 4 of the Goulburn River are the ‘Cleared hills and coastal plains’ and the ‘Murray and western plains’ segments of the SEPP (WoV). The beneficial uses for these segments are:

EPA Victoria 64 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

• primary contact recreation • secondary contact recreation • aesthetic enjoyment • indigenous cultural and spiritual values • non-indigenous cultural and spiritual values • agriculture and irrigation • aquaculture • industrial and commercial use • human consumption after appropriate treatment • fish, crustacea, and molluscs for human consumption.

The environmental quality objectives describe the level of environmental quality needed, in most surface waters, to avoid risks to beneficial uses and to protect them. If an objective is not attained, the beneficial uses are likely to be at risk. The non-attainment of an objective will trigger further investigation to assess risks to beneficial uses. If a risk is posed to beneficial uses, mitigating actions (that are consistent with the attainment program) need to be implemented. The SEPP (WoV) is closely aligned with the national water quality management strategy and must be taken into consideration in the development of all state and regional water quality management strategies.

6.4 National strategies and plans

The key national strategies and plans are: • National Water Quality Management Strategy • The Living Murray • Native Fish Strategy for the Murray Darling Basin • Sustainable Rivers Audit • Climate Change Strategy • National Waters Initiative

A description of each of these strategies and plans is presented below.

6.4.1 National Water Quality Management Strategy

The National Water Quality Management Strategy (NWQMS) outlines a three-tiered approach to water quality management at: • the national level—setting the vision for achieving sustainable use of water resources • the State or Territory level—implementation through state water quality planning and environmental policy processes • the Regional or catchment level—through local and catchment management strategies developed and implemented by the relevant stakeholders.

Environmental Audit 65 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

6.4.2 The Living Murray (2004)

The Living Murray is a Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council (MDBC 2004) initiative about restoring the health of the River Murray and the Murray-Darling Basin by protecting the things the River Murray means to Australians. These include prosperity, irrigation, industry and clean water, natural landscape, history, culture and tradition. The Living Murray also identifies what constitutes a healthy working river and what is needed to achieve it. The strategy addresses the environmental needs of the River Murray and the role that tributaries have to play in providing adequate flows. This will involve the Goulburn River. The Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council at its meeting in March 2004 decided on a clear path forward for the Living Murray initiative for the rest of 2004.

6.4.3 Native Fish Strategy for the Murray-Darling Basin (2003)

The Native Fish Strategy (NFS) for the Murray Darling Basin (MDBMC 2003) was developed by the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council in 2003. It provides a response to key threats to native fish populations in the Murray-Darling Basin. The NFS is intended to be implemented within the context of the MDBC’s Integrated Catchment Management Policy. The NFS has the following vision and overall goal: Vision: to ensure that the Basin sustains viable fish populations and communities throughout its rivers Goal: to rehabilitate native fish communities in the Murray–Darling Basin to 60 per cent of their estimated pre-European settlement levels after 50 years of implementation Within the NFS a range of actions have been identified and designed to achieve objectives directed at improving the status of native fish populations in the Basin. Eight key threats to native fish management in the Murray-Darling Basin are identified in the NFS (Table 6.1).

EPA Victoria 66 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Table 6.1: Key threats to native fish management Source: Native Fish Strategy (MDBC 2003)

Threat Threatening process Flow regulation Loss of water to other uses, critical low flows, loss of flow variation, loss of flow seasonality, loss of low to medium floods, permanent flooding and high water, increased periods of no flow Habitat degradation Damage to riparian zones, removal of in-stream habitats, sedimentation Lowered water quality Increased nutrients, turbidity, sedimentation, salinity, artificial changes in water temperature, pesticides, and other contaminants Barriers Impediments to fish passage resulting from the construction and operation of dams, weirs, levees, culverts etc., and non-physical barriers such as increased velocities, reduced habitats, water quality and thermal pollution (changes in water temperature) Introduced species Competition with and/or predation by Carp, Gambusia, Oriental weatherloach, Redfin perch (Perca fluviatilis) and trout Exploitation Recreational and commercial fishing pressure on depleted stocks, illegal fishing Diseases Outbreak and spread of EHN (Epizootic Haematopoietic Necrosis) virus and other viruses, diseases and parasites. (Note. DSE has advised that EHN may be endemic to south eastern Australia it may not pose a threat to native fish. ) Translocation and stocking The loss of genetic integrity and fitness caused by inappropriate translocation and stocking of native species

The NFS recognises that its implementation will require partnership between government and the wider Basin community. The involvement and on-ground activities of non-Government organisations, such as the Goulburn Broken CMA, are recognised within the NFS for their potential to support the implementation of the strategy. While targets have not been formally identified in the NFS, a range of indicators has been identified that outlines the level of implementation required by 2013.

6.4.4 Sustainable Rivers Audit

The Sustainable Rivers Audit, an initiative of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, is being undertaken to benchmark river health across the Murray-Darling Basin and provide information to guide the long-term management of riverine resources in the Basin. The Sustainable Rivers Audit aims to: • determine the ecological condition and health of river valleys in the Murray-Darling Basin • provide a better insight into the variability of river health indicators across the Basin and over time • help detect trends in river health over time • trigger changes to natural resource management by providing a more comprehensive picture of river health than is currently available.

Environmental Audit 67 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

The Audit uses scientific indicators to determine the current status of the Basin’s rivers and any potential trends. The Goulburn Broken Catchment is one of 23 river valleys within the Basin that will be the focus of audit activities. The initial Sustainable Rivers Audit process will occur over six years (2004–2010) and will focus on assessing indicators of river health related to: Fish: Fish communities and populations will be sampled during normal flow conditions, across entire river valleys in the one season, and once every three years at all 23 valleys in the Basin. Macroinvertebrates: Macroinvertebrate (small animals such as aquatic insects) populations will be sampled during normal flow conditions, across entire river valleys in the one season, and once every two years across the Basin. Hydrology: nformation will be collected every six years and evaluated using long- term river flow sequences, developed by the states. When there are major changes to river flows through new structures being built or environmental flow allocations, additional computer modelling will be needed. Indicator themes to be further developed over the next three years include floodplains, riparian vegetation and physical form of river channels. The Audit consists of: information collection, data analysis and assessment and interpretation of the results. Information collection is undertaken by the states/territory under the guidance of a cross-jurisdiction working group. Each jurisdiction has responsibility for monitoring and modelling activities for the valleys in their state/territory. The MDBC will provide central coordination for the Audit and will assist with analysing and reporting results.

6.4.5 Climate Change Strategy

The Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council has identified climate change as one of the six risk factors which could threaten long-term water supply (quantity and quality) security in the Basin. The proposed MDBC Climate Change project is intended to focus on current climate and its drivers, as well as short-term and long-term projections.

6.4.6 National Water Initiative

The Council of Australian Governments (COAG) agreed to implement the National Water Initiative. The initiative aims to: • increase the security of water access entitlements • encourage the expansion of water markets • enable best practice water pricing • ensure ecosystem health and protect environmental assets • improve monitoring information • encourage water conservation in our cities.

An intergovernmental agreement designed to facilitate implementation of the initiative is under development.

EPA Victoria 68 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

6.5 The Victorian Natural Resources Management Framework

As part of the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality, Commonwealth and State Governments through the Natural Resources Management Ministerial Council have signed an agreement for target setting for natural resource management, including salinity and water quality. The framework states that targets will be set by regional bodies as a core element of integrated regional natural resource management plans. Of particular importance is the approach used in the framework where targets can be characterised as: • aspirational targets—vision or goals for natural resource management in a region about the desired condition of their natural resources in the longer term (e.g. 50+ years). • achievable RCTs—specific, timebound and measurable targets, relating largely to resource condition over 10–20 years. These targets must be pragmatic and achievable. • MATs—short-term targets (1–5 years), relating mainly to management actions or capacity-building.

In line with these targets, Victoria is supporting the establishment of the hierarchy of targets through the regional planning process outlined in the Regional Catchment Strategy guidelines and more specifically for river health and water quality through the Victorian River Health Strategy and the SEPP (WoV). The following figure illustrates the relationship between Commonwealth, State and Regional policy and planning arrangements for water quality and river health management in Victoria.

Environmental Audit 69 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Others relevant strategies e.g. • National Principles for the Provision of Water for Ecosystems NAP NWQMS • MDBC Algal Management Strategy • MDBC Salinity and Drainage Strategy

VRHS SEPP WoV

Other relevant strategies e.g. • Salinity Framework •NMS

Regional Catchment Strategies (CMAs) sets regional priorities across issues and catchments

Other regional strategies e.g. River Health Strategies Native Vegetation Plans Identifies: Pest Plants & Animals • environmental, cultural,social Biodiversity Action Plans & economic assets • threats Other dryland plans inc. • opportunities Dryland salinity plans • broad priorities

Other river health issue based action plans Waterway Management Plans Water Quality Crown Frontage Plans Nutrient/Water Quality Floodplain management plans Management Plans Rural Drainage Plans Salinity Management Plans Streamflow Management Plans Bulk Entitlement Groundwater Management Plans Fisheries Management Plans

Targets from each are integrated and then relate back to assets. Targets can be articulated as resource condition objectives.

Multi-benefit - integrated 3 year works program

6.6 State strategies, plans and agreements

The key State strategies, plans and agreements are: • Victorian River Health Strategy • Victorian Nutrient Management Strategy for Victorian Inland Waters • Victoria’s Salinity Management Framework • The White Paper (Future Directions)

EPA Victoria 70 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

• G-MW Statement of Obligations • Irrigation Drainage MOU • Yorta Yorta Co-operative Management Agreement.

A description of each of these strategies, plans, and agreements is presented below.

6.6.1 Victorian River Health Strategy (2002)

Victoria’s River Health Strategy (VRHS) (DNRE August 2002) provides an integrated framework for the management of Victoria’s rivers and streams. The VRHS is based on the principles of ecologically sustainable development and integrated catchment management. Like the SEPP (WoV), it builds on and extends the approaches and steps outlined in the NWQMS Implementation Guidelines. The VRHS includes: • a vision for the management of rivers in Victoria • statewide targets for river restoration • a planning framework • criteria for policy setting for investment in river protection and restoration • an overview of government policy relating to management of activities affecting river health, including environmental flows and water allocation • institutional arrangements for the management of river health in Victoria.

The objective of the VRHS is to ‘achieve healthy rivers, streams and floodplains which meet the environmental, economic, recreational and cultural needs of current and future generations’. The VRHS defines an ecologically healthy river as a river with flow regimes, water quality and channel characteristics such that: • in the river and riparian zone, the majority of plant and animal species are native and the presence of exotic species is not a significant threat to the ecological integrity of the system • natural ecosystem processes are maintained • major natural habitat features are represented and are maintained over time • native riparian vegetation communities exist sustainably for the majority of the river’s length • native fish and other fauna can move and migrate up and down the river • linkages between river and floodplain and associated wetlands are able to maintain ecological processes • natural linkages with the sea or terminal lakes are maintained • associated estuaries and terminal lake systems are productive ecosystems. State-wide targets for river protection and restoration are included in the strategy2. These are being used to measure progress across Victoria. The targets are:

2 Section 4.3, Victorian River Health Strategy

Environmental Audit 71 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

All Heritage Rivers to be maintained at least to their current condition and their Heritage River values protected. 2021: • one major representative river reach in ecologically healthy condition in each major river class and • an increase of 3000 km in the length of rivers in excellent or good condition. 2011: • an improvement in the status of designated freshwater-dependent local species • significant improvements achieved in environmental flow regimes of 20 high value river reaches currently flow stressed • 4800 km of rivers with improvement of one rating in the measurement of riparian condition • an increase of 7000 ha of riparian areas under management agreements • 600 km of rivers where in-stream habitat has been reinstated • 95% of all highland and upland and 60% of all lowland monitoring sites will meet SEPP environmental quality objectives • 1000 high value public assets provided with appropriate level of protection. 2005: • an increase in length of river accessible to native fish by an additional 2000 km • significant improvement in floodplain linkages in ten areas of national and/or State significance • all rivers with either sustainable catchment limits or negotiated environmental flows in place • report on the second benchmarking of the environmental condition of Victorian rivers • a quarter of agricultural production produced from natural resources that are managed within their capacity. By 2015, this will increase to half of agricultural production (as stated in Victoria’s Salinity Management Framework). Included in the VRHS are guidelines for the development of Regional River Health Strategies, and the regional management framework for river-related activities. The VRHS specifies that the following five, ten, and community involvement target areas be addressed in regional river health strategies.

Five-year implementation target areas

• Number of rivers with negotiated environmental flow regimes • Number of rivers with improvements made to environmental flow regimes • Level of reduction in nutrient loads from priority sources within catchment • Area of riparian land under management agreements • Area or riparian land vegetated • Length of river subjected to riparian weed control • Number of barriers where fish passage restored

EPA Victoria 72 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

• Number of plans developed for areas of high social value

Ten-year resource condition target areas

• Length of river in excellent or good condition • Number of high value river reaches with adequate environmental flows • Reduction in nutrient loads at key monitoring sites within catchments • Reduction in salinity loads at key monitoring sites within the catchments • Reduction in sediment loads at key monitoring sites within the catchments • % monitoring sites meeting SEPP (WoV) objectives • Length of river with improvement of one in the measurement of riparian condition • Length of river with improvement of one in physical form sub-index • Length of river where instream habitat has been reinstated • Increase in river length made accessible for fish movement • Improved floodplain linkages • Number of high value public assets with appropriate level of protection from flooding • Number of high value environmental assets protected • Representative rivers in good or excellent condition • Value of Heritage Rivers maintained

Community involvement targets

• number of people involved in community monitoring • number of people participating in river health management programs

6.6.2 Victorian Nutrient Management Strategy for Victorian Inland Waters

The Victorian Nutrient Management Strategy (VNMS) provides the policy and planning framework for the management of nutrient levels in water bodies. The Strategy builds on the 1988 SEPP (WoV) which provided a framework for the management of point sources through licensing agreements. The Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (the predecessor of DSE) was responsible for the development and production of this strategy. The regional WQSs which have been developed under the auspices of the VNMS must incorporate SEPP (WoV) provisions to protect identified beneficial uses of waterways in catchments, by establishing environmental objectives (including nutrient targets) and the measures required to meet these objectives. The VNMS has been superseded by the VRHS. The Goulburn Broken WQS was developed under the auspices of the VNMS however future WQSs will be developed under the VRHS.

6.6.3 Victoria’s Salinity Management Framework

Victoria’s Salinity Management Framework details the state-wide strategy for protecting Victoria’s environment from salinity.

Environmental Audit 73 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

This Framework must incorporate SEPP (WoV) provisions to protect identified beneficial uses of waterways in catchments, by establishing environmental objectives (including salinity targets) and the measures required to meet these objectives. DSE is responsible for the development and production of the salinity management framework. The CMAs are responsible for developing the regional plans to implement the framework.

6.6.4 The White Paper (Future Directions)

The Victorian Government White Paper—Securing Our Water Future Together (Government of Victoria 2004) sets out an action plan to secure Victoria’s water future over the next 50 years. The following five fundamental principles for sustainable water management have been developed: • the management of water will be based on an understanding that a healthy economy and society is dependent on a healthy environment • the Government will maintain overall stewardship of all water resources irrespective of source, on behalf of all Victorians • water authorities will be retained in public ownership • users of the services our water systems provide should, wherever practical, pay the full cost, including infrastructure, delivery and environmental costs associated with that service • the water sector, charged with managing our water systems, will be capable, innovative and accountable to the Victorian community.

The White Paper is structured around seven chapters covering the following policy themes: • Chapter 1—A secure water future for Victoria • Chapter 2—Water resources and their allocation • Chapter 3—Restoring our rivers and aquifers for future generations • Chapter 4—Smarter use of irrigation water • Chapter 5—Smarter water use in our cities and towns • Chapter 6—Pricing for sustainability • Chapter 7—An innovative and accountable water sector.

6.6.5 G-MW Statement of Obligations

G-MW has a Statement of Obligations which has been made under Part 1A of the Water Industries Act 1994. The Statement of Obligations may include provisions relating to quality and water standards and the obligations of the water authority with respect to other public authorities. The Water Industries Act requires G-MW to comply with the Statement of Obligations.

6.6.6 Irrigation Drainage MOU (2004)

The Victorian government adopted an Irrigation Drainage Memorandum of Understanding (IDMoU) in 2004. DSE, the Goulburn Broken CMA, the North Central CMA, G-MW and the EPA are signatories to the IDMoU.

EPA Victoria 74 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

It is understood that DPI did not sign the IDMoU as they did not think that it was appropriate given that they provide these services to DSE through the Regional Management Plan agreement. DPI is engaged as a service provider by DSE (who is a signatory to the IDMoU) to implement the LWMPs consistent with the RMP and there is a service level agreement with DPI in relation to the provision of these services. The IDMoU clarifies the respective roles, responsibilities, and accountabilities of the government agencies with respect to the management of water quality and associated quantity in Surface Water Management Systems (SWMSs) that service irrigated land. The IDMoU specifies that its implementation program be divided into three distinct categories: • General issues • Short-term initial rapid processes (interim decision support systems) • Long-term final processes (final decision support systems).

The IDMoU includes a number of joint undertakings including the following: • Salinity management and water quality and water quality management activities must comply with Federal (including MDBC) and State legislation, policies and strategies, as well as regional community developed strategies and plans. • The signatory parties will work collectively with the shared aim of improving irrigation water management and water use efficiency and preventing irrigation induced tailwater from entering drainage systems.

Environmental Audit 75 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

6. Audit and Review Processes that provide for the review of the achievement of Management Action PIs and Resource Condition KPIs on a 5-yearly basis. The performance review process will be independently audited. The performance review and audit are part of the renewal process for LWMS/Ps, SWMIPs, KPIs and PIs on a 5-yearly basis. The process for setting PIs and KPIs must be the subject of an audit to ensure that the agreed process is followed. 7. Monitoring and Reporting. Monitoring requirements of KPI and PI is to be established as part of the risk-based target-setting process. 8. New Regulatory Tools such as water use licences, and water quality by-laws (G-MW and the two CMAs) with service or financial penalties for non-compliance with surface water management requirements, will be jointly explored.

6.6.7 Yorta Yorta Co-operative Management Agreement (2004)

The Yorta Yorta Co-operative Management Agreement (Department of Justice and DSE 2004) is a land and water management agreement reached between the State and Yorta Yorta Nation Aboriginal Corporation. The Agreement involves indigenous people in the management of their traditional land outside of a native title process. Through this Agreement the Government recognises the contribution that indigenous people can make to land management. The Agreement creates a forum for including the Yorta Yorta Nation in the management of major public lands within their traditional country. Crown Land affected by the Agreement includes specific parcels of public lands and waters along the Goulburn River.

6.7 Regional strategies and plans

The relevant regional strategies and plans are the: • Goulburn Broken Regional Catchment Strategy • Draft RRHS • Goulburn Broken Water Quality Strategy 1996–2016 • Shepparton Irrigation Region Land and Water Management Pan • Goulburn Eildon Fisheries Management Plan • Recreation Plan for the Goulburn River • Upper Goulburn Waterway Plan.

An overview of relevant aspects of each document is presented below.

6.7.1 Goulburn Broken Regional Catchment Strategy (2003)

The Goulburn Broken Regional Catchment Strategy (the ‘RCS’), prepared by the Goulburn Broken Region CMA is an overarching document that outlines the framework for integrated natural resource management activities within the Goulburn Broken catchment. Published in November 2003, the RCS outlines the Goulburn Broken CMA’s vision for the catchment on how its natural resources should be managed with a view to achieving environmental as well as economic and social benefits. The RCS vision is:

EPA Victoria 76 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

A catchment recognised locally, nationally and internationally for quality agricultural produce where community values contribute to the benefits of abundant and well- maintained environmental assets used for tourism and recreational activities. The environmental footprint of irrigation and dryland farming will be significantly reduced, with farmers occupying less land and using less water whilst managing their resources more sustainably. New opportunities will arise for increasing the ecosystem services provided by the land retired from agriculture and by improved environmental flows. The region’s economy will be robust, with much of the agricultural produce processed within the region, generating employment and wealth creation opportunities for a regional community actively engaging in natural resource management programs. The RCS is supported by a series of sub-strategies, action plans and technical papers that provide detail on resource use, asset threat and proposed actions for asset protection. These cover such areas as: Riverine health: Water quality; floodplain; waterways; riparian and in-stream native flora and fauna; flows; recreation; wetlands. Salinity: Dryland; irrigation. Biodiversity: Biodiversity integration strategy; native vegetation strategy; threatened species and non-threatened flora and fauna; non-vascular plants; invertebrates. Pest plants and animals: Rabbits; weeds. Other: Climate change; soil health. From a river management perspective the primary sub-strategy is the draft RRHS, published in March 2004 as a draft for public comment. In addition to the sub-strategies, regional investment plans have been developed that provide detail on proposed works and associated funding over annual and five-year timeframes. The overall planning framework of the Regional Catchment Strategy is illustrated in Figure 6.1. Figure 6.1: Regional Catchment Strategy—Planning Framework (Source: Goulburn Broken CMA 2003)

RCS Sets vision and directions. Identifies issues,is sues, and management options

Sub-strategies Regional Catchment Objectives, targets for Investment asset protection Annual and five year and enhancement works program

Environmental Audit 77 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

The RCS documents the identified natural, economic and social assets of the catchment; threats to the catchment’s natural assets; and outlines a program of works targeted towards achieving its vision. A series of targets have been set in the areas of water, land, biodiversity and climate change. Targets are separated under an established hierarchy as illustrated in Figure 6.2. Figure 6.2: Regional Catchment Strategy—targets hierarchy (Source: Goulburn Broken CMA 2003)

RCS Vision and Triple Bottom Line Goals

Aspirational Targets n

s 20-50 years n tio s ta t tio l n p u e s m m e Re su l p As m

I Medium-term Resource Condition Targets 10-30 years

Management Action Targets Works Actions and Capacity-building actions 1-10 years

Two aspirational targets related to water have been set by the RCS as follows: • maintain the condition of all reaches (benchmark 2003) of rivers and streams rated as ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ • improve the overall condition (benchmark 2003) of rivers and streams rated as ‘marginal’, ‘poor’, and ‘very poor’ by 2050.

RCTs and MATs are also documented in the RCS. In presenting these targets, the RCS makes reference to the relevant sub-strategy—e.g. a ‘Riverine Health Strategy’.

6.7.2 Draft Goulburn Broken RRHS (2004)

The Goulburn Broken Regional River Health Strategy (RRHS) has been developed under the framework of the VRHS. The VRHS requires the RRHS be integrated with the RCS. In preparing the audit report the Auditor has considered the March 2004 draft of the RRHS which was released for public consultation. Following the release of the draft audit report in March 2004 the Goulburn Broken CMA released the May 2005 draft. This draft has been released for comment by DSE, DPI, and the EPA. It will than be returned to CMA for Board endorsement and then to the minister for endorsement. The RRHS was developed by the Goulburn Broken CMA with clear communication and consultation with the relevant stakeholders in the region including water authorities, local government, land mangers, and indigenous communities.

EPA Victoria 78 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

The RRHS is a regional document and not just a CMA document. The discussion below is based upon the March 2004 draft unless the May 2005 draft is specifically referenced. Aside from setting action plans, the draft RRHS must provide 5-year implementation and 10- year RCTs for major river reaches of the Goulburn River and its tributaries. The RRHS must also set integrated in-stream water quality and river health objectives and include a monitoring, reporting and review program. RRHSs must take into account SEPP (WoV) requirements, targets and objectives. The EPA provided documentation of the ‘clarified’ 10-year RRHS RCTs agreed by DSE, the CMAs, and the EPA at a workshop held in early 2004. These are presented in Table 6.4 below. Table 6.4: Clarified 10-year RRHS RCTs

10-year RCTs to be included in Proposed clarifications and additions to 10-year Status RRHSs as outlined in the VRHS RCTs to be included in RRHSs from workshop Length of river in excellent or Length of river in excellent or good condition (as Compulsory in good condition measured by ISC#) (Can be increase or total but RRHS benchmark must be clear) Number of high value river Number of high value reaches meeting agreed Compulsory in reaches with adequate ecological flow objectives RRHS environmental flows Reduction in nutrients at key Reduction/improvement in nutrient Compulsory in monitoring sites within loads/concentrations at key monitoring sites RRHS catchments within catchments (note that key sites must be clearly defined) Reduction in salinity at key Reduction/improvement in salinity Compulsory in monitoring sites within loads/concentrations at key monitoring sites RRHS catchments within the catchments (note that key sites must be clearly defined) Reduction in sediment loads at Reduction/improvement in sediment Compulsory in key monitoring sites within loads/concentrations at key monitoring sites RRHS catchments within the catchments (note that key sites must be clearly defined) Length of river with Length of river protection/improvement in riparian Compulsory in improvement of one rating in condition as measured by ISC#) RRHS the measurement of riparian condition Length of river with Length of river protection/improvement of Compulsory in improvement of one rating in physical form sub-index (as measured by ISC#) RRHS physical form sub-index Length of river where instream Length of river where instream habitat has been To be part of habitat has been reinstated reinstated 5-year targets Increase in river length made Increase in river length made accessible for fish To be part of accessible for fish movement movement 5-year targets Improved floodplain linkages Improved floodplain linkages/functions (note this Optional in is difficult to determine) RRHS Number of high value public Number of high value public assets with Optional in assets with appropriate level of appropriate level of protection from flooding (note RRHS protection from flooding this is optional for RRHS)

Environmental Audit 79 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

10-year RCTs to be included in Proposed clarifications and additions to 10-year Status RRHSs as outlined in the VRHS RCTs to be included in RRHSs from workshop Number of high value Number of high value reaches/environmental Optional in environmental assets protected assets (including estuaries, wetlands, fish, etc) RRHS protected Representative rivers in good Representative and ecologically healthy Compulsory in or excellent condition rivers/reaches in good or excellent condition (as RRHS measured by ISC#) Value of Heritage Rivers Value of Heritage Rivers maintained Compulsory in maintained RRHS (if relevant) *% of monitoring sites meeting *% of relevant SEPP (WoV) objectives met for key Compulsory in SEPP (Waters of Victoria) monitoring sites (note that relevant objectives RRHS objectives and key sites must be clearly defined) **Protection/improvement of aquatic life (as Compulsory in measured by ISC#) at key monitoring sites (note RRHS that key sites must be clearly defined)

The strategy was released as a draft for public comment in March 2004. A revised draft was submitted by Goulburn Broken CMA to government agencies for final comments prior to submitting it to the CMA’s Board for approval. A key feature required of the draft RRHS is a register of all environmental, social and economic assets associated with the river.

Strategy aim

The stated aim of the draft strategy is to integrate actions from a variety of Goulburn Broken CMA strategies and programs to achieve the major Riverine RCTs outlined in the Regional Catchment Strategy (see Figure 6.2). The draft RRHS has four key objectives: • protecting the rivers that are of highest community value from any decline in condition • maintaining the condition of ecologically healthy rivers • achieving an ‘overall improvement’ in the environmental condition of the remainder of rivers • preventing damage from future management activities.

River management units of relevance to this audit are shown in Table 6.5. Table 6.5: Goulburn River management units of relevance to audit

Management unit Audit reach Length Catchment reach (km) numbers L1: Lower Goulburn 4 195 km 1–8 U1: Mid-Goulburn 1 145 km 9–14

EPA Victoria 80 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

High priority waterways

The draft RRHS identified 34 high priority reaches in the Goulburn River Catchment based on high community value and the designation of an ecologically healthy river (Goulburn Broken CMA 2004a). The basis for assigning high priority waterway status to a reach are: • heritage rivers • reaches associated with International or nationally significant wetlands • reaches designated as ecologically healthy rivers • representative rivers • reaches identified as environmental sites of significance • reaches with the only known record of water dependent nationally listed endangered flora and fauna species (under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, or Australian Rare Or Threatened (AROT) flora).

All audit river reaches along the Goulburn River have been classified as priority reaches. The draft RRHS has actions and targets applicable to the Goulburn River between Eildon Reservoir and its confluence with the Murray River. These are separately documented in the draft RRHS for the two management units.

Goulburn Weir to Murray River confluence (Management Unit L1)—Audit Reach 4 In this reach, actions and targets principally aimed to reduce the threat to identified high value assets are presented in Appendix B. The draft RRHS indicates that a further Ecological Risk Assessment will be undertaken to further investigate the seriousness of the threat posed by turbidity, and develop additional policy actions and RCTs as appropriate. It is noted that the draft strategy indicates that it may not be realistic to expect that the water quality objectives outlined in SEPP (WoV) can be met in some reaches,3 or that the timeframe to achieve the water quality objectives is within the life of the strategy.

Lake Eildon to Goulburn Weir (Management Unit U1)—Audit Reach 1 This river management unit (audit reach 1) was identified as a priority reach in the draft RRHS, because of the heritage river status. The draft RRHS indicates that there are conflicting values (e.g. fishing opportunities for trout, and Macquarie perch habitat) for this river reach hence protection of one value may be to the detriment of another value. With this in mind the May 2005 draft RRHS states that the Goulburn Broken CMA will establish clear management objectives for this reach of river. This will be achieved through a deliberate forum to establish clear achievable environmental objectives which provide direction for resolution of major widespread issues particularly for the migration of native fish, changes in the flow regime, and water temperature. Additionally the draft RRHS states that short-term MATs and RCTs will be established for this river reach through a reactive program guided by a table of suggested actions. These suggested actions include assessing flow deviation and undertaken on ground works as risk are identified.

3 Refer footnote to Table 9.2 of draft Goulburn Broken Regional River Health Strategy

Environmental Audit 81 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Actions and targets—water quality These actions and targets address phosphorus, nutrients (it is not clear whether this refers to nitrogen as well as phosphorus), turbidity, electrical conductivity, pH and dissolved oxygen. There is no evidence that heavy metals were considered when developing the draft RRHS.

Status of the draft The May 2005 draft RRHS has been released to DSE, DPI, and EPA for comment prior to being returned to the Goulburn Broken CMA for Board endorsement and then to the Minister for endorsement.

6.7.3 Goulburn Broken Water Quality Strategy 1996–2016

The Goulburn Broken Water Quality Strategy 1996–2016 (the WQS) is being implemented over the 20-year timeframe. This strategy has never been endorsed by the Victorian Government. The identified water quality goal for the Goulburn Broken catchment is to ‘improve and maintain water quality at optimum levels within and downstream of the catchment for native ecosystems, recreation, human and animal consumption, agriculture and industry’. An emphasis is placed in the strategy on nutrient reduction in response to blue green algal blooms that occurred during the early 1990s within the catchment (and elsewhere). These provided the impetus for the strategy development. Salinity is also identified as an important water quality issue however the strategy does not discuss it in detail, referring instead to other plans addressing salinity, i.e. Dryland Salinity Management Plan and Shepparton Irrigation Region Land and Water Salinity Management Plan. Other water quality issues such as pathogens, gross pollutants and biocides are regarded in the strategy as potentially important in the future. The three overarching objectives for water quality in the catchment are: Nutrients: to reduce potential phosphorus loads by 65% by 2016. Salinity: to maintain contributions to salinity levels of the Murray River from the Goulburn Broken catchment at or below 10 EC (electrical conductivity units) as measured at Morgan. ‘Other’: to maintain the impact of water quality issues other than nutrients and salinity at acceptable levels. Unlike the draft RRHS, the implementation programs are focussed on mainly on activities within the catchment that impact on water quality (e.g. irrigation drainage, dryland agriculture, wastewater treatment plants, etc.) rather than specific waterways. The Water Quality Strategy also provides reference to key activities that contribute to poor water quality. A series of Regional Catchment Strategy sub-strategies and Land and Water Management Plans also address key activities that are thought to contribute to water quality decline.

6.7.4 Shepparton Irrigation Region Land and Water Management Plan

The Shepparton Irrigation Region (SIR) covers about one third of the Goulburn Broken Catchment and the eastern area of the North Central Catchment. The SIR includes the municipalities of City of Greater Shepparton, Moira and Campaspe and the regional centres of Shepparton, Cobram, Echuca, and Kyabram. The irrigated area of 317 000 Ha uses 1.5 million ML/yr of water. The main primary industries are horticulture, dairying, cropping, viticulture, wool, forestry and grazing.

EPA Victoria 82 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

The Shepparton Irrigation Region Land and Water Management Plan is currently under review. It will be renamed as the Shepparton Irrigation Region Catchment Strategy or the Shepparton Irrigation Surface Water Management Implementation Plan. The revised SIR Catchment Strategy is a partnership between the local community and all levels of government. Community members and agency staff are committed to the strategy because they had input into the evolution of the Strategy. The SIRCS provides the framework for land, water and biodiversity management. The 30-year SIRCS has been underway for more than 10 years. The plan addressed salinity, water quality, river health, biodiversity and several other environmental issues of significance to the irrigated catchment area.

6.7.5 Goulburn Eildon Fisheries Management Plan (2002)

Regional Fisheries Management Plans are one of the main instruments for implementation of the Fisheries Act 1995 at a regional level. For the mid-Goulburn River between Lake Eildon and Goulburn Weir the Goulburn Eildon Region Fisheries Management Plan (GERFMP) is the relevant plan. The GERFMP seeks to ensure that the fishery is ecologically sustainable and provides year-round angling opportunities and a broadening community benefit. The goal of the GERFMP is to: ‘achieve the best possible match between the fisheries management arrangements and Victorian recreational fishers’ aspirations for the fisheries in the upper Goulburn region’. In so doing, it must: • ensure that the use and management of the fishery resource is consistent with the principles of ecological sustainability; • ensure that the management of the fishery is consistent with other conservation and natural resource management aims of the DSE, G-MW and the Goulburn Broken CMA; and • develop guidelines for the resolution of issues between user groups.

The objectives of the GERFMP are to: • manage the fisheries of the Goulburn/Eildon area to provide a wide variety of fishing experiences with year-round fishing opportunities for both native and introduced species • manage with a view to developing the fisheries to their full sustainable potential • promote improvements of aquatic and riparian habitat in relation to a wide range of threatening processes • promote improvements to the opportunities for improved production or access to target fish species • provide for the conservation and enhancement of recreational fishing target species and other freshwater fauna within the system.

Below Lake Eildon, the GERFMP identifies management strategies to address specific management objectives for each identified river reach. These include the Eildon Pondage, Eildon to Seymour, Seymour to Nagambie, and Nagambie Lakes. As an example 16 management strategies are identified for the Eildon to Seymour reach. These include maintaining bag limits and a winter closed season for trout, active encouragement of fish farms to prevent fish escaping and to adopt best practice effluent procedures, restoring priority habitats, and securing environmental flows.

Environmental Audit 83 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

6.7.6 Recreation plan for the Goulburn River above Nagambie

The Goulburn Broken CMA’s Upper Goulburn Implementation Committee recognises the importance of recreation and tourism, and the need to balance these needs with those of adjoining landowners. The committee is implementing the ‘Recreation Plan for the Goulburn River’. This addresses waterways above Nagambie but excludes Lake Eildon and Lake Nagambie. The Plan involves: • assessing the risks and impacts of the range of recreational activities undertaken throughout the catchment on the physical and ecological health of the waterways, particularly water quality, and the adjoining riparian zones • identifying appropriate facilities, regulation and level of services needed to maintain and support those recreational activities, who should deliver the services and who should pay for the various works needed.

An important part of the process is to ensure stakeholders who have an interest in waterways and adjoining land have the opportunity to express their concerns and issues they wish considered in the strategy development. These stakeholders include adjoining private landowners, farming and recreation groups, tourism operators, local government and public land managers.

6.7.7 Upper Goulburn Waterway Plan 1998

The Upper Goulburn Waterway Plan (Goulburn Broken CMA 1998), suggests that some of the 80 GL annual environmental water allocation, identified in the Bulk Entitlement (Eildon Goulburn Weir) Conversion Order 1995, should be provided to allow unspecified ‘moderate but elevated, stable base flows’ over the winter period (cited in Brown 2003). DSE has advised that this would require a renegotiation of the Bulk Entitlement.

6.7.8 Environmental Flow Recommendations for the Goulburn River below Lake Eildon (2003)

The CRC Freshwater Ecology and CRC Catchment Hydrology (2003) report on ‘Environmental Flow Recommendations for the Goulburn River below Lake Eildon’. This report was prepared by a scientific panel convened to identify the flows necessary to maintain and improve key environmental values in the regulated section of the Goulburn River which lies between Lake Eildon and the River Murray. The report is restricted to flows and not quality or temperature. The Scientific panel considered a range of potential flow-related risks as it developed the recommendations. The panel adopted the following vision for the Goulburn River as it considered environmental flow requirements: ‘A healthy working river that supports a diversity of natural ecosystems and processes, and thereby sustaining the human community of the Goulburn River catchment’. The project considered five reaches downstream of Lake Eildon. The recommended changes to the flow regime range from relatively minor interventions (e.g. increase in the minimum flows in a particular reach) to a combination of recommendations which address a number of flow-related issues along a length of river. These recommendations include placing upper limits to summer and autumn flows (audit reach 1) and increasing minimum flows to maintain the availability of deep water habitat preferred by native fish (audit reach 4).

EPA Victoria 84 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

The upper limit summer and autumn flow recommendation was to place an upper limit on summer and autumn base flows from Lake Eildon of between 1 000 ML/d and 3 000 ML/d to improve the natural ecological function. (The Eildon-Goulburn Weir BE Order requires irrigation releases from the Goulburn Weir offtake channels to be restricted to a maximum of 9 890 ML/yr and requiresriver flow downstream of the weir to be greater than 250 ML/yr). It was emphasised that the social and economic implications of these recommendations have yet to be considered. Balancing ecological, environmental, social and economic recommendations is yet to be considered. It was also noted that getting agreement on the ultimate package of flow recommendations to be adopted would require communication and negotiation during the Living Murray initiative and beyond. In their response to the draft audit report on matters of fact the Goulburn Broken CMA has advised on 10 June 2005 that this report will form the basis for the development of their Environmental Water Reserve Management Plans for the Goulburn River. Further, the CMA has advised that the Goulburn River Environmental Water Reserve Management Plans will be integrated into the strategy for the Gunbower and Barmah watering plans and are linked to the Living Murray process.

6.8 Fish kill response plans

The are several agency and intra-agency response plans that are in use, or under development that are relevant to fish kills within the Goulburn River catchment. These are described below. The relationship between the plans and their legal status and jurisdiction is discussed in the audit finding (Section 9.14).

6.8.1 G-MW Corporate Environmental Emergency Management Manual (May 2000)

G-MW’s Corporate Environmental Emergency Management Manual was initially issued in May 2000. It includes a Corporate Environmental Emergency Management Plan (CEEMP), contact and resource lists, forms, and related plans and procedures. The emergency response protocols of the CEEMP were last updated in May 2002. These response protocols were those that were used by G-MW in the January 2004 fish kill. The CEEMP establishes the Corporate Environmental Emergency Control Organisation. This is an alternative management structure which has the authority to take control of all relevant G- MW activities once an environmental emergency arises. Depending on circumstances, the normal management structure will apply to those parts of the business not affected by the emergency.

6.8.2 Draft Fish Deaths Emergency Management Plan (2002/03)

DPI’s draft Fish Deaths Emergency Management Plan is an emergency management procedure guideline. It has been prepared as a contingency to detail a framework and available resources for responding to fish deaths occurring in Victoria where fish carcasses in public waterways present water quality (health) risk emergency. The plan was prepared to be consistent with the Australian Interservice Incident Management System The 2002/03 draft was current as November 2004. DPI has advised that the above documentation will be updated upon the finalisation of the EPA’s Interim Fish Kill Protocol. The Plan’s Action Summary provides fundamental advice to DPI officers on how to manage a fish kill.

Environmental Audit 85 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Food/drinking water contamination and human disease DHS—Public Health

Pollution of inland waters EPA/Parks Victoria/Melbourne Water In addition, Parks Victoria is identified as a support agency for the pollution of inland waters. The draft Plan states that ‘as this framework is silent on fish deaths by natural causes such as drought it is likely that the cross over arrangements will require a partnership response: 1. In impoundments, dams and irrigation infrastructure—DPI/EPA and the controlling Water Authority. 2. All Kills originating from a land based source—EPA nominates responsible party. Notwithstanding anything above, the authority first being aware of a pollution incident should pass on all information to other authorities with shared responsibility’. The draft plan also states: ‘For land based sources EPA should nominate the responsible authority. If contaminate from a land based source reaches a waterway, the EPA would be the lead agency co-ordinating the investigation into the incident but DPI may still be called upon to be the lead combat authority and undertake the clean up of any pollution on the water. That is, EPA will not co-ordinate the response given the arrangements under the Emergency Response Act.’

6.8.3 Draft Designated Waterway Response Protocol (2003)

The Waterway Incident Protocol for the North East and Goulburn Broken Catchments was a draft at the time of the January 2004 fish kill. The draft Waterway Incident Protocol refers to the DPI’s draft Fish Deaths Emergency Management Plan. It transpired that as of January 2004 the draft protocol had not been formally approved, and therefore was not being used by EPA in the response to the January 2004 fish kill. The current status of the protocol is unclear.

6.8.4 Interim Fish Kill Protocol (2004)

The EPA’s Interim Fish Kill Protocol was finalised in November 2004. To ensure participation by agencies identified in the protocol, Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) are being drafted between EPA and the agencies. The Protocol advises that ‘Under the Emergency Management Manual of Victoria’, EPA is listed as the ‘control agency for pollution of inland waters’. Although many fish kills would not be considered emergency incidents (i.e. they are a result of disease or natural causes), the EPA has accepted the response manager role for fish kills, where there are no other response plans or agreements to designate other agencies. In these cases the EPA has advised that it would lead the investigation, however if there is a more applicable agency then it would hand the investigation over to that agency.

EPA Victoria 86 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

The Protocol includes the following Sections: 1. Background to fish kills 2. EPA role in fish kills 3. How to notify EPA of a fish kill 4. EPA to notify EPA units and relevant agencies 5. Regional response structure 6. Scientific investigations of fish kill incident 7. Legal action and cost of clean up 8. Media releases 9. Debrief session. The protocol also includes attachments listing EPA contact details, other relevant agencies to be contacted, and the Interim Fish Kill sampling protocols. There is also a Fish Kill Report Form. The protocol forms part of the Environmental Incident Management Response Arrangements for Victorian Waterways.

6.8.5 Draft Environmental Incident Management Response Arrangements for Victorian Waterways (2004)

A draft working document of the Environmental Incident Management Response Arrangements for Victorian Waterways provides examples of waterway incidents impacting on beneficial use, together with associated agreed response frameworks and lead Agencies. This draft working document was provided to the Auditor by EPA. In the document a range of agreed response frameworks related to specific incidents are being separately developed, e.g. the EPA’s Interim Fish Kill Protocol.

6.8.6 Interim Framework for a Multi Agency Response to Incidents in Waterways in the Goulburn Broken Catchment (2004)

The Interim Framework for a Multi Agency Response to Incidents in Waterways in the Goulburn Broken Catchment was developed in conceptual form by risk advisors Marsh Pty Ltd (Marsh 2004). Identified signatories to the framework are representatives from the following agencies: • Department of Primary Industries • Department of Sustainability and Environment • Environment Protection Authority • Goulburn Broken Regional Catchment Management Authority • Goulburn-Murray Water • Goulburn Valley Water • North East Region Water Authority • Department of Human Services.

Environmental Audit 87 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

The interim arrangements are intended to be utilised during incidents pending the development of a comprehensive, tested and finalised set of incident management arrangements for water-based pollution or public health events. The stated objectives of developing the framework are to: • minimise the impact of pollution incidents in receiving waters • provide a co-ordinated response to pollution incidents • clarify the roles and responsibilities for all agencies in dealing with pollution incidents • facilitate a co-ordinated and effective investigation and testing regime designed to identify cause and responsible body/person • apply the ‘polluter pays’ principle wherever possible.

The framework is divided into the following Sections: • Part 1: High level control framework • Part 2: Interim roles for key regional agencies • Part 3: On-ground management arrangements • Part 4: Specific waterway incident management framework by incident type (this part was referenced in the Table of Contents but was not documented in the version of the framework provided to the Auditor). The EPA’s Interim Fish Kill Protocol is listed as a reference document to the framework. The Goulburn Broken CMA indicated that in the event of a fish kill incident it would follow this interim framework.

6.9 State water entitlements and agreements

6.9.1 Bulk Entitlement (Eildon-Goulburn Weir) Conversion Order 1995

The Bulk Entitlement (Eildon-Goulburn Weir) Conversion Order 1995 was created under the Water Act 1989. The Order was made to convert Goulburn Murray Rural Water Authority’s entitlement to water from the waterway below Lake Eildon to a bulk entitlement. Clauses of the Order which are relevant to the environmental health of the Goulburn River are: • Clause 11—Passing flows • Clause 12.3—Releases • Clause 15—Environmental obligations.

Clause 4—Goulburn Resource Manager

EPA Victoria 88 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER d) investigate and mediate disputes between entitlement holders in the Goulburn Basin e) Investigate and deal with significant unauthorised uses of water within the Goulburn Basin f) Supervise the qualifications of any rights to water made by the Minister during periods of declared water shortage under section 13 of the Act.’

Clause 11—Passing flows

Clause 11 describes the Authority’s responsibility to provide minimum flows downstream of the Eildon Pondage, Goulburn Weir, and McCoy Bridge. Clause 11 requires as follows: • ‘A minimum flow of 120 ML/d from the Eildon Pondage Weir, or such greater flow as is required by Schedule 6; and • A minimum average weekly flow of 250 ML/d from the Goulburn Weir over any seven day period at a daily rate of no less than 200 ML/d; and • Any additional flow necessary to maintain a minimum average monthly flow at the McCoy Bridge gauging station of:

- 350 ML/d for the months of November to June inclusive at a daily rate of no less than 300 ML/d; and

- 400 ML/d for the months of July to October inclusive at a daily rate of no less than 350 ML/d.’

Clause 12.3—Releases

Clause 12.3 states that the Authority must not direct the Operator to release more water from Goulburn Weir than is required to meet the Authority’s commitment to supply primary entitlements unless: • releases are necessary

- to maintain the normal operating level of the Weir; or

- to repair or maintain the Weir; or

- to allow work to be undertaken within the weir pool; or • adjustments to releases are necessary to supply transfer of primary entitlements; or • releases, not exceeding 30 000 ML per year, are necessary to augment water available for use from the River Murray; or • the Resource Manager directs the Authority to direct the Operator to make additional releases, not exceeding 30 000 ML per year, to maintain water quality in the waterway.

Clause 15—Environmental obligations

Clause 15.1 ‘Environmental Obligations’ states that the Authority must propose to the Minister, within 12 months of the date of this Order, a program to manage the environmental effects of: • The authority’s works to take water under this bulk entitlement including:

- The effects on the bed and banks of the waterway in the vicinity of the Authority’s works

- Operational practices to remove silt from the works

Environmental Audit 89 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

- Operational practices to manage water quality in works on the waterway

- Operational rules to control releases from works to the waterway

- Operational rules to manage flood flows through works on the waterway. • Any increase in diversions by other Authorities under bulk entitlements supplied directly from the waterway.

G-MW must implement the program once approved by the Minister and keep a record of works undertaken. The bulk entitlement provides, amongst other provisions, for a minimum flow of 120 ML/d from Eildon pondage weir between May and September. The minimum passing flow can be increased to 250 ML/d in any month when the volume of inflow to Lake Eildon during the previous 24 months exceeds specified trigger flows. The trigger flows reflect the required inflows to allow a seasonal allocation of 200% of water right. Inflows to Lake Eildon have not exceeded the trigger flow values since at least year 2000. An additional passing flow of up to 80 GL must be released in November to replenish wetlands along the Goulburn River. However this release is subject to a number of flow conditions that have yet been met. The bulk entitlement also provides for the release of 30 GL to address downstream water quality issues, for example to ameliorate the impact of algal blooms. This provision has not yet been called on. The bulk entitlement permits all inflows to the Goulburn Weir up to a limit of 9 890 ML/d to be diverted to the three canals. This includes maximum flows of 3 600 ML/d for the Stuart Murray Canal, 3 690 ML/d for the Cattanach Canal and 2 600 ML/d for the East Goulburn Main Channel. G-MW is obliged to maintain a minimum average weekly flow of 250 ML/d in the Goulburn River immediately downstream of Goulburn Weir (daily rate of at least 200 ML/d). Minimum passing flows are also required at McCoys Bridge downstream on the Goulburn River. These are a minimum monthly average of 350 ML/d (daily rate of at least 300 ML/d) from November to June, and 400 ML/d (daily rate of at least 350 ML/d) from July to October.

6.9.2 GVRWA Bulk Entitlement (Shepparton) Conversion Order 1995

Goulburn Valley Region Water Authority (GVRWA) supplies water to the City of Greater Shepparton under the Bulk Entitlement (Shepparton) Conversion Order 1995. Information on compliance with any Goulburn River passing flows obligations was requested for the July 2000 to June 2004 period. The Bulk Entitlement places an annual diversion limit of 16 300 ML and a maximum diversion rate of 100 ML/day. Transfers from Mooroopna have since increased the Bulk Entitlement limit to 18 320 ML. There are no passing flows obligations.

6.9.3 Southern Hydro Agreement

Southern Hydro operates a larger power station at the Eildon Dam outlet and has rights to water through an agreement with G-MW titled ‘Eildon Agreement’ 1997. Copies of the schedules that relate to water flows were provided. Arrangements relating to the release of water into the Goulburn River are covered in Schedule B and Schedule D of the agreement.

6.9.4 Pacific Hydro Agreement

Pacific Hydro advised that it has no controls on water releases. The small 4.5 kW station is permitted to pass water that is released by G-MW.

EPA Victoria 90 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

6.10 Agency roles and responsibilities for river health

6.10.1 Department of Sustainability and Environment

DSE is also responsible for administering the Flora Fauna Guarantee Act 1988, the Wildlife Act 1975, the Murray Darling Basin Commission Act 1993, parts of the Water Act 1989 and parts of the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994, all of which create direct responsibilities for DSE with respect to river health. DSE works with the Goulburn Broken CMA, G-MW, the GVRWA, and other protection agencies, including EPA, to assist in the development and implementation of regional priority programs and regional targets. In particular DSE is involved in: • developing and implementing policy, strategies and programs at all three tier levels of the National Water Quality Management Strategy • producing the VRHS and the Salinity Management Framework • working with CMAs, DPI and EPA to produce RCSs and supporting plans and strategies • facilitating the setting of regional resource condition and management action management targets. These are developed by the CMAs with input from delivery partners and regional communities • developing cost–benefit analysis procedures. • producing the ‘Guidelines for the Development of Regional River Health Strategies’ and guidelines for other regional plans. • providing advice, reviewing all drafts for consistency with State policy and facilitating signoff of RRHSs, WQSs, stream flow management plans, large-scale restoration programs, and for the provision and management of Environmental Water Reserve.

DSE is responsible for policy development and investment. DSE is also responsible for administering the Flora Fauna Guarantee Act 1988, the Wildlife Act 1975, the Murray Darling Basin Commission Act 1993, parts of the Water Act 1989 and parts of the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994. All of these administration responsibilities include direct responsibilities with respect to river health.

6.10.2 Department of Primary Industries

The Department of Primary Industries (DPI) has a number of divisions that are relevant to river health. These are: • Regional Services and Agriculture • Fisheries (Fisheries Victoria) • Primary Industries Research Victoria • Catchment and Agricultural Services.

Environmental Audit 91 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

The Regional Services and Agriculture Division is responsible for the delivery of strategic services to the agriculture and food sector that are aimed at significantly enhancing wealth creation and sustainable use of natural resources. These services address key growth, environmental and social challenges across the agriculture value-chain from natural resource management, biosecurity, farm production and food processing, through to food quality for consumers. Catchment and Agriculture Services (CAS) focuses on the sustainable development of natural resources through innovative services that influence private land managers, industries, communities and landscapes. Fisheries Victoria is a division of DPI. In partnership with its stakeholders, Fisheries Victoria aims to facilitate the sustainable development of Victoria’s commercial and recreational fishing and aquaculture industries and manages Victoria’s marine and freshwater fish resources for the optimal benefit of the community. It is responsible for ensuring that the State’s fish resources are conserved by careful management of commercial and recreational fishing and of aquaculture. These responsibilities include compliance services and legislation/regulations regarding the taking of fish and crustaceans, the declaration of protected biota and noxious aquatic species including fish and aquatic plants, the production of fishery management plans, the issue of recreational licences, and the administration of recreational fishing licence trust funds. DPI provides technical and extension support for developing and implementing the RCS. For the Goulburn River, these services are provided through the Northern Irrigation and North East regional offices. Of particular importance is the research and development input provided by the department’s research institutes. DPI also develops partnerships with industry, communities, government departments and agencies to promote the policies set out in the SEPP (WoV) and the sustainable use of natural resources.

6.10.3 Environment Protection Authority

The EPA is a statutory body established under an Act of the Victorian Parliament in response to community concern about pollution. The EPA administers the EP Act 1970 and State Environment Protection Policies including the SEPP (WoV). The EPA has a statutory responsibility for issuing licences for point source discharges from scheduled premises under the Environment Protection (Scheduled Premises) Regulations 1996 and has a statutory responsibility to regulate site discharges to waterways from scheduled premises and facilitate the prevention of pollution where the beneficial use of waters is impacted. At the regional scale, the EPA plays a support role in the provision of strategic direction through its involvement with CMA Implementation Committees in their decision-making processes. For RCSs, the EPA is on the Statewide Accreditation Panel and is involved at the regional level in their development and implementation, including RCS supporting strategies and plans. The EPA is involved in the development and review of RRHSs, and is part of the government process for their endorsement.

EPA Victoria 92 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

The EPA also has a support role in natural resource target setting through its assistance to DSE in the development of target setting processes, and involvement with Implementation Committees and their target setting processes, and conducts monitoring to provide general information on the condition of Victoria’s water resources. It is also responsible for annual reporting on discharges to waterways and SWMSs from licensed premises, the number of licences, licensee performance and any change in licence status.

6.10.4 Parks Victoria

Parks Victoria is a statutory authority that reports to the Minister for Environment. The authority is responsible for the management of crown land surrounding the Goulburn River and its tributaries and is the custodian of a diverse estate of significant parks in Victoria.

6.10.5 Goulburn Broken CMA

The Goulburn Broken CMA was established in 1997 as the peak natural resource management body in the catchment to develop and oversee the implementation of the RCS and supporting plans, including the draft RRHS and the Water Quality Strategy. The Goulburn Broken CMA aims to ensure that land and water resources are protected and enhanced as well as improving the region’s social wellbeing, environmental quality and productive capacity in a sustainable manner. A Board appointed by the Minister for Environment and Water oversees the CMA’s activities. The CMA works with the community and partner organisations to deliver on-ground solutions to environmental issues. The CMA, using the provisions of section 180 of the Water Act 1989 has established three geographically based Implementation Committees. Through the RCS and supporting strategies and plans, the Goulburn Broken CMA is responsible for setting resource management aspirational, resource condition, and MATs. The Goulburn Broken CMA are the designated waterway managers for the Goulburn Broken region (see the Victorian Government White Paper—Securing our Water Future Together).

6.10.6 Goulburn-Murray Water

Goulburn-Murray Water is a rural water authority formed under the auspices of Water Act 1989. It manages Lake Eildon and the Goulburn Weir and the delivery of bulk water as well as storage management and recreation services. It is responsible for the licensing of regulated and unregulated surface water and groundwater diversions, and the provision of irrigation and drainage services in Irrigation Districts, and for the provision of domestic and stock supplies in Water Districts. The Natural Resources Unit provides a range of technical services including salinity mitigation, groundwater management and control, and water quality management to both G-MW’s other businesses and to external clients. The major external buyers include the Goulburn Broken CMA and DSE. The Goulburn irrigation supply system comprises storages, weirs and connecting channels that integrate the supply of water from the Broken, Goulburn, Campaspe and Loddon River catchments. Bulk water is delivered to supply points for nine other water authorities that deliver water for irrigation, domestic and stock, private diversion and urban consumption. In addition, releases from Eildon are diverted through hydro-electric power stations owned by Pacific and Southern Hydro. Goulburn-Murray Water is responsible for delivery of water services to customers on 2 620 serviced properties.

Environmental Audit 93 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

G-MW is also a key stakeholder in the development of the RCS, the draft RRHS, the Water Quality Strategy and Surface Water Management Implementation Plans. G-MW also supports the Goulburn Broken CMA in setting targets through its involvement with Implementation Committees in their decision-making processes.

6.10.7 Yorta Yorta Joint Body

The Yorta Yorta Management Agreement establishes an eight-member committee known as the Yorta Yorta Joint Body. Five members are soon to be appointed to represent the Yorta Yorta peoples, through the Yorta Yorta Nations Aboriginal Corporation (YYNAC), and three members are soon to be appointed to represent the State. The Joint Body will establish a forum for exchanging ideas, discussing management issues and making recommendations. The function of the Joint Body is to provide advice to the Minister for Environment in relation to management of designated crown land and waters. The joint body provides advice in relation to Kow Swamp, Barmah State Park, Barmah State Forest, and public land and waters along sections of the Murray and Goulburn Rivers. Creation of the Joint Body is a significant Government decision. Decision-making processes and land and water management outcomes will be influenced by, and benefit from, the formal involvement of traditional owners. In making any decision, the Minister will consider recommendations of the Joint Body along with the recommendations of other appointed boards, bodies and committees with advisory and management responsibilities. If advice received by the Minister is conflicting, the Minister will seek the advice of the Yorta Yorta Joint Body in relation to the conflicting matter before making a decision. The Minister for Environment retains ultimate decision-making authority.

6.10.8 Local government

Local government areas located within the geographic area of the audit are as follows: • Strathbogie • Murrindindi • Mitchell • Moira • City of Greater Shepparton. Local government has a number of responsibilities with the potential to impact on surface waters including the planning and approval of sustainable land use, domestic wastewater management, urban stormwater and, where relevant, floodplain management. In particular Councils can refuse to grant, or place appropriate conditions on, planning permit applications that are considered to pose a threat to water quality. Within the Goulburn Broken Catchment, local government must work with the EPA, CMAs and other protection agencies to ensure their municipal planning schemes, statutory approvals and municipal programs are consistent with the SEPP (WoV) and the RCS. Local government has provided key input to the development of the Goulburn Broken RCS. Successful implementation of the RCS relies upon the translation of the intent of the strategy and its supporting action plans into the Municipal Strategic Statements and local planning schemes. A schedule to the RCS has yet to be developed that describes in detail how the RCS can be adopted within planning schemes.

EPA Victoria 94 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

6.10.9 Murray-Darling Basin Commission

A framework has been established for the sustainable management of the Murray-Darling Basin’s water, land and other environmental resources. The framework includes Basin-wide policies and strategies, and is underpinned by investigations which provide the knowledge base for policies, strategies and on-ground management actions. The framework has been developed by the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council. The Natural Resources Management Strategies are the foundations of the Ministerial Council’s Basin-wide planning processes for natural resources management. The Natural Resources Management Strategy is supported by issue-specific strategies which provide a Basin-wide focus for responding to key natural resource management issues, through knowledge generation requirements to address the issues and the necessary policy and on-ground responses. These strategies are listed below: • Human Dimension Strategy • Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy • Basin Salinity Management Strategy • Floodplains Wetlands Management Strategy • Algal Management Strategy • Native Fish Strategy.

The Murray-Darling Basin Commission Act 1993 by scheduling these strategies gives them the force of law and creates an obligation for DSE, on behalf of the Victorian Government, to implement them.

Environmental Audit 95 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

7 BENCHMARKING RIVER HEALTH

The health of the Goulburn River has been benchmarked against the following three river health indicators: 1. Index of Stream Conditions 2. Victorian River Health Strategy (VRHS) definition of the characteristics of an ecologically healthy river 3. SEPP (WoV) environmental quality objectives for the Goulburn River for audit reaches 1 to 4. The results of the benchmarking exercise have been used as evidence in the auditing of the River Regulation activity (Activity A) against several criteria.

7.1 Overview of benchmark indicators

7.1.1 Index of Stream Conditions

The Index of Stream Conditions (ISC) scoring system was introduced in 1999 as an integrated measure of stream health. The ISC incorporates five stream health sub-indices which when combined can be used to detect long-term trends in stream condition. The ISC is commonly used by catchment management authorities, Landcare groups, DSE and EPA. The sub-indicators are: • hydrology—flow volume and seasonality • physical form—stream bank and bed condition, presence of and access to physical habitat such as woody debris, and the impacts of artificial barriers • streamside zone—quantity and quality of streamside vegetation and condition of billabongs • water quality—nutrient concentration, turbidity, salinity and acidity • aquatic life—diversity of macroinvertebrates.

Each sub-index is comprised of several supporting indicators. As the Goulburn River is a regulated river, the low hydrology sub-index score has a major impact on the total ISC score. Because of this impact, the method for scoring this sub-index is explained below. The hydrology sub-index is made up of three indicators of which the primary indicator ‘Amended annual proportional flow deviation’ is the most critical. It compares actual monthly flows in the stream with natural stream flows and is a measure of how much flows have been modified from natural conditions. As described in Section 5.1 and shown in Figure 5.1 there have been major modifications to the natural flow regime. For this reason the ‘Amended annual proportional flow deviation’ indicator score along all river reaches below Eildon Dam is low. Another hydrology indicator is flow variation resulting from catchment permeability. This indicator is more applicable in urban catchments, where there are substantial sealed areas; it is of minimal importance along the Goulburn River.

EPA Victoria 96 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

The final indicator relates to flow changes from hydroelectric stations. Peaking hydroelectric stations cause water surges that can affect stream conditions. Other stations generate power when water is released for other purposes and so are less likely to influence stream ecology. (The audit criteria do not explicitly address the river health impact of these water surges nor the dampening effect of the Eildon Pondage on these water surges.) The total ISC scores are calculated through an inverse ranking and scaling system, hence the total score is not necessarily the sum of the individual sub-indices scores. The maximum total ISC score is 50. The total ISC score classifications are: • Very poor 0–19 • Poor 20–25 • Moderate 26–34 • Good 35–41 • Very good 42–50 There are five ISC sites along audit reach 1 (upstream of the Goulburn Weir backwaters to Eildon Dam), eight downstream of the Goulburn Weir (audit reach 4), and one along Reach 2 (within the backwaters of the Goulburn Weir above Kirwans Bridge). ISC scores from 1999 were used for benchmarking purposes, as the more recent stateside ISC survey data had not been fully analysed at the time that this Section of the audit report was being prepared. Audit reach 2 was not benchmarked as its total ISC score (for the one site only) had not been compiled for the 1999 survey. ISC scores are not available for multiple sites along audit reaches 2 and 3 as they can only be applied to streams. The Goulburn Broken CMA has advised that DPI’s Arthur Rylah Institute is developing an index of wetland conditions. It is uncertain where this can be applied to regulated lakes such as the Goulburn weir pool and Lake Nagambie.

7.1.2 Characteristics of an ecologically healthy river

The VRHS states that an ecologically healthy river will have flow regimes, water quality and channel characteristics such that: 1. In the river and riparian zone, the majority of plant and animal species are native and the presence of exotic species is not a significant threat to the ecological integrity of the system. 2. Natural ecosystem processes are maintained. 3. Major natural habitat features are represented and are maintained over time. 4. Native riparian vegetation communities exist sustainably for the majority of the river’s length. 5. Native fish and other fauna can move and migrate up and down the river. 6. Linkages between river and floodplain and associated wetlands are able to maintain ecological processes. 7. Natural linkages with the sea or terminal lakes are maintained. 8. Associated estuaries and terminal lake systems are productive ecosystems. Characteristics 7 and 8 are not relevant to the Goulburn River since it is a tributary of the Murray River and does not end in a terminal lake or estuary.

Environmental Audit 97 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

The draft RRHS contains assessments of the condition of river and stream reaches throughout the catchment. The draft RRHS utilises the RiVERS database of ecological conditions to score river reaches along the Goulburn River against 19 measures. The draft RRHS links the six relevant VRHS ecologically healthy river characteristics with the RiVERS measures (Table A5.2 of the draft RRHS). For all river sub-reaches included within the RiVERS database (16 below Eildon Dam) a RiVERS score is allocated for each measure. The scores are rated from 1 (little or no risk) to 5 (high risk) with a zero score being indicative of no data. The RiVERS scores are based upon the criteria adopted for each measure (see Table A5.5 of the draft RRHS). The RiVERS measures for VRHS ecologically healthy river characteristic 4 ‘Native riparian vegetation communities exist sustainably for the majority of the river’s length’ are a subset of the measures applied to characteristic 2 ‘Natural ecosystem processes are maintained’. The benchmarking against the VRHS characteristics of an ecologically healthy river utilises the relevant RiVERS scores for the sub-reaches along each of the audit reaches. The RiVERS database has a score for temperature. While there are 6 sites along the Goulburn River at which temperature is monitored (see Section 8.6.1), the RiVERS score at each site is zero, which is indicative of insufficient data. This limitation has not influenced the audit findings and conclusions.

7.1.3 SEPP (WoV) Environmental Quality Objectives

The environmental quality objectives for the Goulburn River (Cleared Hills and Coastal Plains and Murray and Western Plains Segments) are specified in Schedule A of the SEPP (WoV) and in the Australian and New Zealand Guideline for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (ANZECC 2000). Where an objective is specified in both the SEPP (WoV) and ANZECC (2000) the former takes precedence. Both water quality and biological quality objectives are specified in the SEPP (WoV). The environmental quality objectives (water quality) include total phosphorus, total nitrogen, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, electrical conductivity and pH. For water quality objectives not described in SEPP (WoV) the environmental quality objectives are those specified in ANZECC (2000). Unless otherwise stated the level of ecosystem protection in ANZECC (2000) that needs to be protected is 90%, 95% or 99%, depending upon the degree of modification of the aquatic ecosystem. The SEPP (WoV) Table A2 lists biological environmental quality objectives.

Beneficial uses to protect

The environmental quality objectives describe the level of environmental quality needed, in most surface waters, to avoid risks to beneficial uses and to protect them. The beneficial uses of Goulburn River are documented in Section 4.2 of this audit report.

Water quality monitoring

Routine water quality monitoring on the Goulburn River is conducted as part of the VWQMN. Data from the VWQMN has been obtained from the DSE’s internet ‘Data Warehouse’. There are four sites along the Goulburn River below Lake Eildon where routine water quality measurements have been made between 1 July 2002 and 30 June 2004 (Table 7.2).

EPA Victoria 98 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Table 7.2: Victorian Water Quality Monitoring Network (VWQMN) sites

VWQMN Site Site location Audit Reach 405203 Downstream of Lake Eildon 1 405200 Murchison 4 405204 Shepparton 4 405232 McCoy Bridge 4

The water quality parameters analysed for at each VWQMN site are presented in Table C.1 (Appendix C). These are limited to those parameters which have either SEPP (WoV) or ANZECC (2000) water quality objectives for the Cleared Hills and Coastal Plains and the Murray and Western Plains Segments. Averages, maximums and the appropriate percentile—either 25th, 75th or maximum (see Table C.1, Appendix C)—were calculated for 1 July 2002 to 30 June 2003 and 1 July 2003 to 30 June 2004. Where pH and electrical conductivity had been measured in the field and subsequently analysed in a laboratory the latter measurement has been used to assess compliance. (Laboratory results were selected in preference to field measurements these measurements generally have a higher degree of quality control and auditability.) Information on dissolved oxygen is collected as mg/L, however, the SEPP (WoV) objective is presented as per cent saturation. To allow a comparison of the data with the objective therefore, the data had to be converted from mg/L to per cent saturation. This was undertaken by using formulas obtained from APHA (1995). The ANZECC (2000) Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality provide objectives for nitrates and nitrites and filterable reactive phosphorus, with the default trigger guideline for physical and chemical stressor parameters being that for lowland rivers in south-east Australia. The maximum toxicant result recorded in each year was compared with the ANZECC (2000) guideline. Tables C.2 to G.6 (Appendix C) present the water quality data for the four VWQMN sites from July 2002 to June 2004. A list of the exceedances excluding toxicants is presented in Table C.7. Although the SEPP (WoV) does not include environmental quality objectives for temperature, Clause 42 addresses risks associated with altered temperature associated with water storages such as Lake Eildon.

7.2 Audit reach 1—River health benchmark

Audit reach 1 is the reach of river between the outlet from the Eildon Dam to the backwaters of the Goulburn weir pool.

7.2.1 Index of Stream Conditions

The 1999 ISC scores for audit reach 1 are shown in Figure 7.1.

Environmental Audit 99 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Figure 7.1: ISC scores for reaches 10 to 14 (audit reach 1)

13 Hydrology Physical Form Reach 12 Streamside Zone Water Quality 11 Aquatic Life

0 10 20 30 40 50

Average ISC scores for the audit reach 1 sub-indices are presented in Table 7.3. The scores have been obtained directly from the DSE Data Warehouse. Table 7.3: Average ISC sub-index scores—audit reach 1

Hydrology Physica Streamsid Water Aquatic l Form e Zone Quality Life 0.0 7.6 4.8 9.0 8.0

The broad conclusions from the reported ISC audit reach 1 scores are: • the reported total ISC score for all individual reaches is very poor to poor • scores are average or better for sub-indices, except for hydrology.

The conclusions that can be drawn from the sub-indices ISC scores are presented below. Hydrology: The score is zero due to the low ‘Amended Annual Proportional Flow Deviation’ indicator. The hydroelectric station downstream of Eildon Dam is an opportunistic type and so it does not affect the hydrology sub-index score. Physical form: The score is moderate to good. Streamside zone: Three of the five sites have scores of five or less due to minimal streamside vegetation widths or large amounts of exotic vegetation. Water quality: The water quality score is good to very good. Aquatic life: The macroinvertebrate diversity is moderate to good.

7.2.2 Characteristics of an ecologically healthy river

The RiVERS scores for the 8 sub-reaches along audit reach 1 are presented in Table 7.4. The RiVERS scores are sourced from the March 2004 draft RRHS (which has subsequently updated in the May 2005 draft RRHS). These are aggregated across RiVERS measures and VRHS ecological healthy river characteristics.

EPA Victoria 100 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Table 7.4: VRHS ecologically healthy river characteristics—RiVERS scores—audit reach 1

VHRS characteristics RiVERS measures River reach—RiVERS scores (see Table A5.5 of the draft RRHS) Narrative summary of risk ratings 6U 9 10 11 12 13 14 11U Invertebrate composition 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 • Native fish diversity is lower than expected 1. Majority of plant and Native fish diversity 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 1 • Many exotic fish species animal species are native Proportion of exotic fish 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 • little or no threat from Exotic flora fair to poor exotic species Exotic flora 2 5 2 4 2 3 4 4 • Patchy data on invertebrate composition and no Exotic fauna 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 data on exotic fauna Flow deviation 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Riparian zone width 5 1 4 1 3 1 2 1 • Flow deviation score very poor Riparian continuity 5 1 5 2 3 5 4 2 • Riparian zone condition variable but poor in some 2. Natural ecosystem Riparian structural 3 reaches 5 0 3 2 3 3 3 processes are maintained intactness • Water quality trends and levels poor but no data for Water quality trend 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 some reaches • Water quality level 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 No temperature data for each reach Temperature 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bank erosion 2 5 1 3 1 1 2 3 Bed stability 1 5 1 3 1 1 1 3 • Stock access score very poor in most reaches (i.e. 3. Major natural habitat high degree of access) features are represented Channel modification 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 • Bank erosion, bed stability, channel modification, and are maintained over Streamside zone 2 3 2 5 3 3 4 5 time and in-stream habitat variable and poor in some In-stream habitat 3 5 1 3 2 1 2 3 reaches Stock access 5 5 5 5 5 1 5 5 Riparian zone width 5 1 4 1 3 1 2 1 4. Native riparian Riparian continuity 5 1 5 2 3 5 4 2 • Riparian zone condition variable but poor in some vegetation communities 1 Riparian structural 3 reaches exist sustainably 5 0 3 2 3 3 3 intactness 5. Passage for native fish and other fauna Barriers to fish passage 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 • Eildon Dam is a major barrier to fish passage maintained 6. Linkages between river, floodplain and Wetland connectivity 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 • Wetland connectivity is rated satisfactory wetlands maintained 1 VRHS Category 4 is subset of Category 2

Environmental Audit 101 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Table 7.4 also includes a narrative summary of the risk for each VRHS characteristic based on Appendix 7 of the draft RRHS. No reach along audit reach 1 achieved the criteria for an ecologically healthy river in every one of the measures in Table 7.4. The fish populations along audit reach 1 are dominated by exotic species, most notably trout, and native fish diversity is particularly low. Exotic flora (weed species including woody weeds) are a problem in some reaches. The riparian zone condition is variable including some reaches where it is poor. Stock access is a high risk along the whole section. Regulation of river flow is high and fish passage is poor due to the largely insurmountable barriers at Goulburn Weir and at the Eildon Dam. (It is noted that the Goulburn Broken CXMA has engaged consultants to conduct a feasibility study into the potential for fish passage at the Goulburn Weir.) Wetland connectivity is scored as satisfactory but this may be optimistic due to the high degree of flow regulation along this stretch of river.

7.2.3 SEPP (WoV) environmental quality objectives

Between July 2002 and June 2004 most SEPP (WoV) water quality environmental quality objectives were met at the reach 1 VWQMN site (405203) at Eildon. The exceptions were nitrates and nitrites over both years and dissolved oxygen, being below the 25th percentile limit, between July 2003 and June 2004. It is noted that the dissolved oxygen % saturation for 2003/04 (78.6%) is well below the 1985 to 2003 average for the 25th percentile. The cause of this departure has not been investigated as part of this audit. The EPA (2004c) draft ‘Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority Rivers and Stream Assessment’ report utilises 1997 to 2000 data for the assessment of conformance with the SEPP (WoV) biological environmental quality objectives. The report found that the biological environmental objectives were not met at any of the Goulburn River sampling sites along audit reach 1. Biological monitoring data for Carters Lane and Underra North for 2003/04 was compiled in a SEPP (WoV) biological indicators format after the primary audit assessment was completed, and hence has not been subject to the audit. The EPA has advised that based upon their assessment both sites failed to meet SEPP (WoV) objectives in 2003/04: although the SIGNAL scores meet SEPP (WoV) objectives, the other indicators do not.

7.3 Audit reach 2—River health benchmark

Audit reach 2 is the Goulburn weir pool backwaters above Kirwans Bridge (to the limit of the influence of the weir) including Lake Nagambie, and the eastern and western backwaters.

7.3.1 Index of Stream Conditions

There is one ISC site along audit reach 2. This single ISC site was not benchmarked as a total 1999 ISC score had not been compiled.

7.3.2 Characteristics of an ecologically healthy river

The outcomes of an expert panel assembled by G-MW for an ecological review of Lake Nagambie (SKM, February 2002) has been used to evaluate the ecological characteristics of audit reaches 2 and 3. The panel investigated five sites along audit reach 2. The panel’s observations on the values and issues of the five sites are summarised in Table 7.5. The reaches are listed in order from downstream to upstream.

EPA Victoria 102 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Table 7.5: Sites, values and issues audit—audit reaches 2 and 3

Site Values Issues • Some localised shoreline erosion • Protected from wave action by present narrow channel • Constant water level promotes • Abundant reed beds and River Red Cumbungi and Common reed Gum regeneration • Fragmentation of River red gum Picnic Point • Diverse habitat on islands and in stands on shoreline littoral vegetation • Water turbidity high • Control of aquatic weeds Waterlily • Rubbish from recreational activities and Cabomba has been effective present • Good habitat for aquatic fauna • Potential septic tank run-off from holiday shacks • Many exotic species of aquatic vegetation despite diversity of native • Aquatic vegetation diverse species Goulburn • No evidence of shoreline erosion • Water may have high salinity, salt Weir • Diverse waterbird habitat of a affected areas exist around the Backwater different type from rest of shoreline—threatens frog Nagambie Lake System populations • Stock access to margins in most areas has degraded riparian zone • Riparian zone is cleared to the water’s edge in most of the area • Extensive stock access and pugging • Some fencing and revegetation of of shoreline the riparian zone has taken place Goulburn • Bank erosion due to motor boat • River River red gums on one bank are in wave wash good condition and regenerating • and provided some habitat Undercutting of River red gums on bank • No River red gum recruitment and plenty of willows • High recreational usage • Apparent water quality and sediment Nagambie • Nagambie township water source quality problems possibly due to Pool • Aesthetic value as backdrop to urban stormwater inputs from roads Nagambie township and township • A large billabong with good habitat diversity • Carp present in the lagoon • Sheltered from wind and • consequent wave action Mowing of recreational areas Tahbilk infringes on riparian zone • No grazing on shoreline and no Lagoon • shoreline erosion Possible water quality issues associated with run-off from • Riparian diversity high and woody adjacent vineyard debris in water • Recreational area

SKM (February 2002) noted a decline in fish populations and a decrease in the average size of species within the Lake system since the 1980s. The species included Redfin perch, Golden perch, River blackfish, Freshwater catfish, and Murray cod. The possible causes of the decline are listed as fishing pressure, habitat degradation, downstream loss of fish (particularly Golden perch), and the annual lowering of the lake since 1980.

Environmental Audit 103 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

The Auditor has not attempted to utilise the above information to benchmark reach 2 against the VRHS characteristics of an ecologically healthy river. It is however noted that RiVERS scores has been calculated for sub-reach 9 of Management Unit U1 (Section 7.2.2). This is in the general vicinity of Lake Nagambie and hence is within audit reach 2. These scores have not been used in the benchmarking as the sub-reach results may not be representative of the entire audit reach.

7.3.3 SEPP (WoV) environmental quality objectives

Audit reach 3 could not be benchmarked against the SEPP (WoV) environmental quality objectives as there are no VWQMN sites along this reach.

7.4 Audit reach 3—River health benchmark

Audit reach 3 is the Goulburn weir pool below Kirwans Bridge.

7.4.1 Index of Stream Conditions

Audit reach 3 could not be benchmarked against the ISC as there are no ISC sites along this reach of the Goulburn River.

7.4.2 Characteristics of an ecologically healthy river

The outcomes of an expert panel assembled by G-MW for an ecological review of Lake Nagambie (SKM, February 2002) have been used to evaluate the ecological characteristics of audit reach 3 (the weir pool below Kirwans Bridge). The panel’s observations on the values and issues are summarised in Table 7.6. Table 7.6: Values and issues audit—audit reach 3

Values Issues • More erosion control necessary at some • Revegetation and log placement locations undertaken to reduce erosion on • Undercutting of banks threatening riparian margins River red gums • Emergent and littoral zone vegetation • Riparian River red gum trees appear stressed providing good bird habitat and little recruitment occurring • Abundant large woody debris in pool • Many exotic plant species in riparian zone providing habitat for fish, birds and turtles • Uncertainty about effects of septic tank run-off from shoreline housing

The Auditor has not attempted to utilise this information to benchmark Reach 3 against the VRHS characteristics of an ecologically healthy river.

7.4.3 SEPP (WoV) environmental quality objective

Audit reach 3 could not be benchmarked against the SEPP (WoV) environmental quality objectives as there are no VWQMN sites along this reach.

EPA Victoria 104 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

7.5 Audit reach 4—River health benchmark

Audit reach 4 is the reach of river between the Goulburn Weir and the Murray River.

7.5.1 Index of Stream Conditions

The 1999 ISC sub-indices scores for all reaches along audit reach 4 are shown in Figure 7.2. Figure 7.2: ISC scores for reaches 1 to 8—audit reach 4

6 Hydrology

5 Physical Form Reach Streamside Zone 4 Water Quality 3 Aquatic Life

0 10 20 30 40 50

Average reach 4 ISC scores for the sub-indices are presented in Table 7.7. Table 7.7: Average ISC sub-index scores for Goulburn River—audit reach 4

Hydrology Physical Streamside Water Aquatic Form Zone Quality Life 0 6.9 7.8 8.2 6.0

The broad conclusions from the reported ISC audit reach 4 scores are: • The reported total ISC score for all individual reaches were poor. • Scores are average or better for sub-indices, except for hydrology which has a zero score.

The conclusions that can be drawn from the sub-indices ISC scores are presented below. Hydrology: The score is zero due to the low ‘Amended annual proportional flow deviation’ indicator. Physical form: The score is moderate to good. Streamside zone: The score is good to very good based upon the state of the vegetation along the streamside zone. Water quality: The two lowest reaches have moderate scores but the water quality for the remaining sites was scored as good to very good. Aquatic life: The macroinvertebrate diversity is moderate to good.

Environmental Audit 105 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

7.5.2 Characteristics of an ecologically healthy river

The RiVERS scores for the 8 sub-reaches along audit reach 4 are presented in Table 7.8. These are aggregated across RiVERS measures and VRHS ecologically healthy river characteristics. Sub-reaches are numbered consecutively from the Goulburn River confluence with the Murray River (1) to immediately downstream of the Goulburn Weir (8). The RiVERS scores are sourced from the March 2004 draft RRHS (which has subsequently updated in the May 2005 draft RRHS). A narrative summary of the risk for each VRHS characteristic is also provided in Table 7.8. This summary is based on information in the draft RRHS. Table 7.8 suggests that the riparian zone along audit reach 4 is in generally good condition, native fish diversity and passage is also reasonably good but stock access, river regulation, declines in river water quality and channel modifications pose significant threats to overall river health. These factors may account for the state of invertebrate communities in the river which are degraded to varying extents in reaches where measurements have been made. Wetland connectivity is scored as satisfactory however this score may be optimistic given the high degree of flow regulation in the lower Goulburn River. Compared to pre-regulation flow regimes wetlands at higher elevations on the floodplain are likely to be inundated less frequently.

7.5.3 SEPP (WoV) environmental quality objectives

A list of SEPP (WoV) and ANZECC (2000) water quality–environmental quality objective exceedances at the three VWQMN sites along audit reach 4 is presented in Table 7.9. Table 7.9: SEPP (WoV)—Water quality objective exceedances—audit reach 4

Parameter VWQMN Site (and year of non- conformance) Nitrates and nitrites All 3 sites (02/03 and 03/04)

Dissolved oxygen Murchison, Shepparton (02/03 and 03/04) Filterable reactive McCoys Bridge (03/04) phosphorus Total phosphorus Shepparton, McCoys Bridge (02/03 and 03/04) Total nitrogen Shepparton, McCoys Bridge (03/04) Turbidity Shepparton (03/04) McCoys Bridge (02/03 and 03/04) As, Cr, Cu, and Zn McCoys Bridge (02/03 and 03/04)

The EPA (2004c) draft ‘Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority Rivers and Stream Assessment’ report utilises 1997 to 2000 data for the assessment of conformance with the SEPP (WoV) biological environmental quality objectives. The report found objectives were not met at any of the Goulburn River sampling sites along audit reach 4.

EPA Victoria 106 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Table 7.8: VRHS ecologically healthy river characteristics—RiVERS scores—audit reach 4

River reach—RiVERS scores (see Table A5.5 of the draft VHRS characteristics RiVERS measures Narrative summary of risk ratings RRHS) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Invertebrate composition 2 2 3 3 0 0 3 2 1. Majority of plant • Native fish diversity reasonably high but many exotic and animal species Native fish diversity 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 fish species are native little or no Proportion of exotic fish 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 • Invertebrate composition well below reference values threat from exotic Exotic flora 1 2 3 2 3 2 2 2 (i.e. degraded) species • No data on exotic fauna Exotic fauna 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Flow deviation 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 • Riparian zone width 5 4 5 4 5 5 5 4 Flow deviation score very poor • Riparian zone condition generally good 2. Natural ecosystem Riparian continuity 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 • Water quality trends and levels poor but no data for processes are Riparian structural intactness 4 4 5 5 5 5 4 4 some reaches maintained Water quality trend 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 • No temperature data for each reach Water quality level 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 2 Temperature 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bank erosion 2 3 4 3 2 2 2 2 • Bed stability 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 Stock access score very poor in most reaches (i.e. high 3. Major natural degree of access) Channel modification 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 habitat features are • Channel modification score poor in all reaches represented and are Streamside zone 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 maintained over time Moderate risks for bank erosion and in-stream habitat In-stream habitat 3 4 3 3 4 3 2 2 Stock access 5 5 5 1 1 5 5 5 4. Native riparian Riparian zone width 5 4 5 4 5 5 5 4 vegetation Riparian continuity 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 • Riparian zone condition generally good communities exist sustainably1 Riparian structural intactness 4 4 5 5 5 5 4 4 5. Passage for native • No significant barriers to fish passage in this fish and other fauna Barriers to fish passage 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 management unit maintained 6. Linkages between river, floodplain and Wetland connectivity 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 • Wetland connectivity is rated satisfactory wetlands maintained 1RHS Category 4 is subset of Category 2

Environmental Audit 107 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

7.6 Conclusions

A summary of the outcomes of the river health benchmarking is presented in Table 7.10. Table 7.10: Water quality objective exceedances—audit reach 4

Audit Reach

1 2 3 4

ISC score 17.6 (very poor) NA NA 21.6 (poor)

VRHS Characteristics 5 and 6 Not Not Characteristic 6 met, characteristic met, characteristics 1 benchmarke benchmarke characteristics 1 to 5 not s to 4 not met. d d met. SEPP (WoV) Nitrate, nitrite, total N, DO, Nitrate, nitrite, and DO phosphorus, turbidity, As, objectives not met NA NA Cr, Cu, and Zn objectives Biological objectives not met not met Biological objectives not met

Characteristic 5: Passage for native fish and other fauna maintained. Characteristic 6: Linkages between river, floodplain, and wetlands maintained.

7.6.1 ISC scores

The ISC scores are poor or very poor along audit reaches 1 and 4 due primarily to the major modifications to the natural flow regime. The physical form of the river, that includes the stream banks and bed condition and presence of physical habitat, is generally good along all reaches. Audit reach 1 scored highly for streamside zone condition, although some of the upstream reaches have limited native streamside vegetation. Audit reaches 1 and 4 ISC sites were scored ‘good’ to ‘very good’ for water quality. The only exceptions were the two lowest ISC reaches along audit reach 4 which had moderate water quality scores. The macroinvertebrate diversity is moderate to good.

7.6.2 Victorian River Health Strategy

Table 7.11 syntheses the results of the benchmarking against the VRHS characteristics of an ecologically healthy river. The table indicates that the Goulburn River is in generally better along audit reach 4 than along audit reach 1 as the upstream sections are more affected by river regulation, barriers to fish passage, and habitat degradation.

EPA Victoria 108 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Table 7.11: Reach by reach summary of assessment against VRHS

Reach Reach description Assessment against VRHS no. 1 Eildon Dam outlet River impacted by flow regulation with reduced native structure to the limit of fish diversity, increased proportions of exotic fish the influence of species, reduced water quality, poor quality physical backwaters of the habitat for native fish, poor fish passage and variable Goulburn Weir (south of quality of riparian zone. Nagambie) 2 Goulburn Weir River impacted by flow regulation with reduced native backwaters above fish diversity, poor quality physical habitat, many aquatic Kirwans Bridge (to the weed species, degraded lake margin in most areas due limit of the influence of to stock access, possible water quality and sediment the weir) including Lake quality problems. Nagambie, and the eastern and western backwaters 3 Kirwans Bridge to Riparian zone degraded, localised erosion problems, lack Goulburn Weir of River Red Gum recruitment, aquatic weeds problematic, reduced native fish diversity and barriers to fish passage (Goulburn Weir), possible water quality problems. 4 Goulburn River below Native fish diversity high, many exotic fish species, Goulburn Weir to the invertebrate communities below reference, water quality Murray River poor with data coverage very patchy, Riparian zone condition generally good, but stock access generally uncontrolled, channel modification significant, no significant barriers to fish passage and satisfactory wetland connectivity.

This outcome presented in Table 7.11 is consistent with the results of the risk assessment of the priority waterways undertaken by the Goulburn Broken CMA during the preparation of the draft RRHS. For reference purposes the results of the risk assessment for audit reaches 1 and 2 are presented in Appendix 7 of the draft RRHS and Table B.6 of Appendix B of this audit report. For all reaches the changes to the natural flow regime due to river regulation is considered to be the greatest risk to river health. Changes to the channel shape partly as a result of the flow changes and other factors is also significant along all reaches. Other factors vary in their effects depending on the reach. The impacts of cold water releases from Lake Eildon on the Mid-Goulburn section (audit reach 1) was also rated as a very high risk to the environmental values of this section of river (mainly due to the impacts on native fish populations).

7.6.3 SEPP (WoV)

The water quality is superior in reach 1 compared to reach 4 with a gradual deterioration in the concentration of total nitrogen, phosphorus, turbidity, As, Cr, Cu, and Zn as the river flows towards the Murray River. Nitrate, nitrite, and dissolved oxygen did not meet the SEPP (WoV) water quality environmental quality objective at various times between July 2002 and June 2004. Low DO has been linked with several fish kills within the Goulburn Broken catchment over the past 5 to 10 years.

Environmental Audit 109 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

The SEPP (WoV) biological objectives were not met during the late 1990s at any of the Goulburn River sampling sites along audit reaches 1 to 4. The EPA has advised that the biological objectives were not meet in 2003/04 at the two sites along audit reach 4 for which reports were prepared. Overall the Nagambie Lakes expert panel felt that the Lake Nagambie system (audit reaches 2 and 3) has a diversity of both biological and structural components, and concluded that, overall and despite changes and problems, its ecological condition was positive, and that there was a solid basis for a sustainable future. The panel considered that probably the greatest threat to the ecology of the system is from factors such as the changed water regime and catchment impacts on water quality and sedimentation. The Auditor is of the opinion that while there may be a solid base for a sustainable future, the fish kill of January 2004 and the reported decline in the size and population of fish within the Nagambie Lake system is indicative of a deterioration in ecological condition. The decline is reported by SKM (February 2002) and anglers associated with the Nagambie Anglers Association, and the Goulburn Valley Anglers Association. As there is not a clear and transparent cause of the decline, it is necessary to obtain an improved understanding of ecological processes within the lake system. This should be achieved by addressing the knowledge gaps identified by SKM (February 2002).

EPA Victoria 110 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

8 SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

The summary of key audit evidence for the audited activities is presented in this Section of the audit report. The activities are: • river flow regulation (Activity A) • fish kill response arrangements (Activity B) • biocides usage (Activity C) • irrigation drainage (Activity D).

The key audit evidence builds upon the information presented in Sections 4 to 7 and the Appendices. The findings, which have been derived from this evidence, are documented in Section 9. For some audit criteria, the assessment of activity conformance is restricted to a sample of the full suite of available information as an indicator of overall conformance. Several audit tasks have been undertaken to assess conformance with some criteria. The focus of the audit tasks which assess conformance against SEPP (WoV) based criteria on the post June 2003 period when the most recent SEPP (WoV) variation was declared. The audit findings for each activity are presented below.

8.1 Activity A: River flow regulation

Flow regulation along the Goulburn River downstream of the Eildon Dam outlet includes the operation and management of both urban and irrigation supply systems, the management of passing and environmental flows, and riparian management practices along the river and the Goulburn weir pool including Lake Nagambie. The threats associated with river flow regulation, including reduced water quality associated with regulation, were identified as being of the highest priority for active management from a river health perspective at the audit’s Technical Workshop of 16 July 2004. At this Workshop native fish recruitment and survival was identified as the primary indicator of river health. Flow regulation is identified as the key threat to native fish recruitment and survival in the MDBC Native Fish Strategy.

8.1.1 Criterion 1—Environmental quality objectives and indicators

Audit criterion

SEPP (WoV) environmental water quality objectives and indicators are being met for all beneficial uses to be protected.

Summary of evidence

Environmental water quality objectives The environmental quality objectives for the Goulburn River are specified in Schedule A of the SEPP (WoV) and in the Australian and New Zealand Guideline for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (ANZECC 2000). Where an objective is specified in both the SEPP (WoV) and ANZECC (2000) the former takes precedence.

Environmental Audit 111 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

The SEPP (WoV) provides objectives for total phosphorus, total nitrogen, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, electrical conductivity and pH. It also specifies that ANZECC (2000) should be used as the objective for toxicants and that 99 % is the appropriate trigger value for protection. It also provides biological environmental quality objectives. The ANZECC (2000) guidelines provide objectives for nitrates and filterable reactive phosphorus, with the default trigger guideline for physical and chemical stressor parameters being that for lowland rivers in south-east Australia. The maximum toxicant result recorded in each year was compared with the ANZECC (2000) guideline. Beneficial uses to protect The environmental quality objectives describe the level of environmental quality needed, in most surface waters, to avoid risks to beneficial uses and to protect them. The beneficial uses to be protected are slightly to moderately modified aquatic ecosystems (Section 4.2) with water suitable for: • primary contact recreation • secondary contact recreation • aesthetic enjoyment • indigenous cultural and spiritual values • non-indigenous cultural and spiritual values • agriculture and irrigation • aquaculture • industrial and commercial use • human consumption after appropriate treatment • fish, crustacea, and molluscs for human consumption.

Water quality monitoring There are four sites along the Goulburn River below Lake Eildon where routine water quality measurements have been made between 1 July 2002 and 30 June 2004. The water quality parameters analysed at each site which have either SEPP (WoV) or ANZECC (2000) water quality objectives are documented in Appendix B. Tables C.2 to C.6 (Appendix C) present the water quality data for the four sites from July 2002 to June 2004. A list of the exceedances is presented in Sections 7.2.3 and 7.5.3 of this Audit report.

8.1.2 Criterion 2—Attainment Program

Audit criterion

A framework is in place to develop an Attainment Program for the Goulburn River and that it has been used and appropriately applied.

Summary of evidence

A key component of the SEPP (WoV) is the Attainment Program. The Attainment Program provides a series of environment management practices and actions that protection agencies, businesses and communities need to implement to improve environmental quality and help protect beneficial uses. The Attainment Program includes:

EPA Victoria 112 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

• Clause 12 Practicality • Clauses 13 to 23 Responsibilities • Clauses 24 to 26 Guidance • Clauses 27 to 39 Waste and Wastewater Management • Clauses 40 to 49 Water Management • Clauses 50 to 58 Catchment Management. This environmental audit of the Goulburn River includes auditing of activities against criteria established for aspects of following SEPP (WoV) clauses: • Clause 15 (Responsibility—Catchment management authorities) • Clause 24 (Guidance—Regional target setting) • Clause 37 (Waste and wastewater management—Chemical management including biocides) • Clause 41 (Water management—Water allocations and environmental flows) • Clause 42 (Releases from water storages—Temperature) • Clause 51 (Irrigation, drains, and channels).

The audit has not addressed attainment program matters associated with the licensing of waste and wastewater discharges relating to scheduled activities. The EPA has advised that the SEPP (WoV) does not specify a requirement for consolidated catchment based attainment programs as they will vary based on the catchment scale that is being considered and also such programs may vary from time to time. It has also advised that it provides CMAs with information on how to implement the SEPP (WoV) in RRHSs. This information was not provided to the Goulburn Broken CMA at the time it was developing its RRHS. While the question as to whether the Attainment Program framework has been used and appropriately applied is addressed below in the findings, it is also addressed in the determination of conformance with the audit criteria established for each of the above SEPP (WoV) Attainment Program elements.

8.1.3 Criterion 3—Catchment management authorities

Audit criterion

The Goulburn Broken CMA has worked with stakeholders to develop a Government approved RCS and plans, which identify the regional environmental, social and economic values of surface waters and, after careful consideration of environmental, social and economic needs, set appropriate goals, priorities and environmental targets for the catchment. Clause 15 of the SEPP (WoV) requires the Goulburn Broken CMA to develop a Government approved Goulburn Broken Regional Catchment Strategy (RCS) and plans, which identify the regional environmental, social and economic values of surface waters and, after careful consideration of environmental, social and economic needs, set appropriate goals, priorities and environmental targets for the catchment.

Environmental Audit 113 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Summary of evidence

The draft RRHS is a supporting plan to the RCS, and as such it is considered by the Auditor to be the primary vehicle to identify the environmental, social and environmental values of the Goulburn River. The draft RRHS identifies 14 river reaches along the Goulburn River downstream of the Eildon dam. These reaches are all identified as ‘highest priority reaches’ (Table 5.4 of the draft RRHS).

Stakeholder engagement The preparation of the draft RRHS has been led by the River Health and Water Quality Co- ordinating Committee which included representatives from the CMA, the EPA, DPI, G-MW and the Goulburn Valley Regional Water Authority, and five community members (including the Chairperson). The committee was supported by a Technical Panel of acknowledged specialists. Assistance was also provided by DSE, and the Yorta Yorta, Bangerang, and Taungurang indigenous groups. Section 3.1 of the May 2005 draft RRHS describes the detailed RRHS consultation process involving various Goulburn Broken CMA committees and regional partners including indigenous groups, the general public, landcare groups, and community groups. Participating CMA committees included the Implementation Committees, relevant Waterway Working Groups, and the Biodiversity Committee. The extent of engagement in preparing the draft RRHS with businesses, Angler Associations and environmental NGOs is not clear to the Auditor. DSE has advised that the draft RRHS was developed with clear communication with relevant stakeholders including water authorities, business, land managers, and local government. The EPA advised that it is satisfied that the draft RRHS stakeholder engagement and development process has been appropriate, the content of the draft RRHS is sound, and that it has gone a considerable way in progressing the implementation of SEPP (WoV) which should lead to measurable improvements in the environment.

Identification of surface waters’ environmental, social, and economic values In developing the draft RRHS, the Goulburn Broken CMA used the RIVERS database as its principal information source. The database integrates data on environmental assets, social assets and economic assets.4 The RiVERS database was populated using a statewide database and confirmed during stakeholder and community workshops. The database has been used in the draft RRHS as a decision support tool for identifying priority reaches and priority actions based on identified threats. All data used in the RiVERS model is available in the March 2004 draft RRHS in the document ’Waterways in Focus’. The assets are generally consistent with the assets listed in the VRHS that need to be considered in the development of a draft RRHS. The draft RRHS provides a data score (between 0 and 5) for environmental, social, and economic assets (values and threats) for each river reach with higher values indicating an ‘increasing value’ (Section 4 of the draft RRHS). The data scores are presented in Appendix 5 of the May 2005 draft RRHS. A risk-based assessment approach has been used in the May 2005 draft RRHS to provide an objective measure of the risk to the identified environmental, economic, or social particular asset of the Goulburn River by a particular threat.

4 Appendix 1 of draft RRHS

EPA Victoria 114 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

8.1.4 Criterion 4—Regional target setting

Audit criterion

Consistency of the RCS and supporting plans with regional target setting obligations under Clause 24 of the SEPP (WoV).

Summary of evidence

Regional target setting process Clause 10(2) of the SEPP (WoV) states that some beneficial uses may not be fully obtained in all segments within the 10-year life of the Policy. In these cases the regional catchment and coastal management processes will set regional targets to be achieved over the Policy’s life, as provided for in Clauses 15, 16, and 24. These targets must be set for rehabilitation (Clause 11(3)). Not all beneficial uses will be able to be fully protected, and not all environmental quality objectives will be met within the lifetime of the SEPP (WoV). Therefore regional targets as described in Clause 24 of the SEPP (WoV) are required (see Section 8.1.1 for further details). The regional target setting process for progressive rehabilitation of the Goulburn River, as described in Clause 24 of the SEPP (WoV), should include three types of targets. These are: 1. regional aspirational targets that are based on maximising the protection of beneficial uses and the attainment of the Policy’s environmental quality objectives 2. regional RCTs that provide measurable and time-bound progress towards the attainment of regional aspirational targets by taking into account regional environmental, social and economic values 3. regional MATs that are set to assess the implementation of rehabilitation actions that will lead to the achievement of regional RCTs. In advice to the Auditor the EPA has advocated that these three target types be quantitative. The following specific examples were provided: • Aspirational targets—For reach ‘A’ it is aimed to meet SEPP (WoV) environmental quality objectives by 2021. Implementation targets (MATs) and RCTs would then be set to progress towards achieving SEPP (WoV) in 2021. • RCTs—75% of monitoring sites should meet all SEPP (WoV) environmental quality objectives by 2015. • MATs—The SEPP (WoV) objectives will be used to assess aquatic ecosystems in the high priority reaches. Clause 24 also states that ‘the EPA and the DSE will work with catchment management authorities…to establish a process and timelines for development of targets’. The 10-year targets for RRHSs were clarified at a workshop held between the DSE, the CMAs, and the EPA in early 2004. The proposed clarifications and additions are presented in Table 6.4 of this audit report. The EPA has advised that it has provided information to the Goulburn Broken CMA to provide guidance as to the linkage between the SEPP (WoV) and the VRHS, and how this should be incorporated into the RRHS (this has not been observed during the preparation of the audit report).

Environmental Audit 115 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Regional targets Target setting for progressive rehabilitation of the Goulburn River is specified in the RCS, the Goulburn Broken Water Quality Strategy 1996–2016 (WQS) and the draft RRHS, which are presented in Table 8.1. An indicative set of target areas to be included in RRHSs and related action plans are listed in Box 5.2 (page 53) of the VRHS. The target areas include 5-year implementation, 10-year implementation, and community involvement. The 10-year implementation targets were modified in January 2004 by an inter-government target-setting group which included representatives from EPA, DSE and catchment management authorities.

EPA Victoria 116 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Table 8.1: Regional targets

Strategy Reach 1 Reach 4 Aspirational targets RCS Maintain the condition of all reaches (benchmark 2003) of rivers and streams rated as ‘good’ or ‘excellent’; and Improve the overall condition (benchmark 2003) of rivers and streams rated as ‘marginal’, ‘poor’, and ‘very poor’ by 2050. The above conditions are based upon the ISC. The ISC for all reaches are poor to very poor (Section 7.1). WQS Improve and maintain water quality at optimum levels for native ecosystems, recreation, human and animal consumption, agriculture and industry. Maintain Goulburn Broken salinity contributions at Morgan at <10 EC. Maintain and where possible reduce the impact of water quality issues, other than nutrients and salinity, to social, environmental, and economic assets. Draft RRHS Both river reaches are defined as high priority waterways on the basis that they are of greatest value to the community (Section 3 of the draft RRHS). It is unclear whether the aspiration targets for these reaches are to protect or to protect and enhance. The Goulburn Broken CMA has advised that it will clarify the draft RRHS to ensure it is clear that the aspiration target is to protect and enhance. RCTs RCS Defers to the draft RRHS. WQS Reduce potential catchment phosphorus loads by 65% from 1993/94 to 2016. 50% reduction in total P loads from irrigation drains 20% reduction in total P loads exported from dryland 80% reduction in total P loads exported from WWTPs Reduce loads of other pollutants (non salinity and nutrients) discharged to streams from stormwater) Reduce impacts of other water quality (non salinity and nutrients) issues especially surface water acidity and biocides to acceptable levels Monitor water quality and take appropriate action Draft RRHS Short-term RCTs will be primarily a reactive RCTs have been established program guided by a table of suggested actions. to address some threats. Medium- and long-term RCTs will not be set until clear management objectives are established for this reach of river through a deliberate forum to establish clear achievable environmental objectives which provide direction for resolution of major widespread issues particularly for the migration of native fish, changes in the flow regime, and water temperature. MATs RCS Defers to the draft RRHS. WQS See RCTs above. Draft RRHS As per RCTs for this river reach MATs have been established to address some threats. For other identified threats MATs have either been deferred, are general in nature, or are subject to carrying out additional investigations.

Environmental Audit 117 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

The RCS (November 2003) includes water related aspirational, resource condition, and MATs. These are broad based and establish linkages with the draft RRHS, the Wetlands Strategy, the WQS, and the Regional Floodplain Management Strategy. The WQS 1996–2016 includes eight programs directed toward achieving identified program targets. These targets do not refer to specific reaches of the Goulburn River, and are not segmented into RCTs and MATs. The non-nutrient and salinity targets are not quantitative. Further information on water quality objectives in the WQS water quality targets is provided in Section 7. The draft RRHS ‘riverine health’ RCTs are deferred to by the RCS. An Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) is proposed to address the threat of adverse water quality. This will be limited to pH (in audit reach 1) and pH, EC, and turbidity in audit reach 4. The Goulburn Broken CMA has advised that the ERA will follow the ‘Guidelines for Environmental Management Risk-Based Assessment of Ecosystem Protection’ (EPA October 2004) and will identify environmental priorities for resource condition and MATs for all Goulburn River reaches.

Monitoring and auditing process The RCS, and the WQS have established monitoring and auditing processes which are being undertaken. Historically there have been adequate physical and human resources to undertake the monitoring activities although at times resources have been stretched. A broad outline of proposed monitoring is presented in the draft RRHS. For the Goulburn River reach between Goulburn Weir and the Murray River confluence key monitoring components include: • condition of River red gum open forest/woodland and Yellow box and Grey box woodland/open forest communities • species composition of native fish community • size and age distribution and annual recruitment of Murray cod and Silver perch • wetland condition.

The draft RRHS monitoring program does not directly reference the proposed actions and targets for the river reach below the Goulburn Weir. It states that the precise design of the monitoring program is beyond the strategy scope.5 For the reach between Lake Eildon and the Goulburn Weir the draft RRHS indicates no monitoring is required until objectives for the reaches are set.6

5 Section 13.6, draft RRHS 6 Refer Table 13.1, draft RRHS

EPA Victoria 118 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

The May 2005 draft RRHS outlines the development of the proposed river health based monitoring, evaluation and reporting (MER) program which will be based on the Goulburn Broken CMA (2004) ‘Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Strategy for the Goulburn Broken Catchment’. The May draft RRHS is unclear as to whether the monitoring will be limited to key environmental assets for protection. The adequacy of physical and human resources to undertake the monitoring activities in the future will be dependent on the scope of the final targets, the measures required to implement the targets, and the allocated budget. The draft RRHS identifies that an indicative investment of $100 million is required for the priority programs over the period 2004—2014.7 It is proposed that the investment be shared equitably amongst program beneficiaries using cost sharing principles for natural resource management as set out in the VRHS and outlined in the draft RRHS. In their response to the draft audit report on matters of fact, DSE has advised that the level of investment for the RRHS will be determined as part of the yearly investment process by DSE and from other funding sources available to the relevant stakeholders to implement identify actions. The funds provided to implement the RRHS (using the above process) will vary between stakeholders depending on their roles in river health management. The order and type of actions implemented from the strategy each year will be dependent on the level of funding available and the level of community commitment to those actions.

Extent of EPA and DSE involvement in developing the target setting process The EPA has been actively involved in the development of the draft RRHS, which includes a process and timelines for development of targets, in the following ways: • as a member of the CMAs River Health and Water Quality Committee and the Goulburn Broken RRHS Co-ordinating Committee (since early 2003) through its North-East Regional Office, both of which actively participated in the development of the draft RRHS • provision of information and advice to inform the development of the draft RRHS, in particular the development of appropriate regional targets through the Freshwater Science Unit • provision of guidance by the Freshwater Science and the Water and Catchment Policy Units, to ensure that consistency and compatibility between the draft RRHS and the SEPP (WoV) is achieved • review of various drafts by the North-East Region, the Freshwater Science Unit and the Water and Catchment Policy Unit.

DSE has assisted in the process of developing regional targets to achieve environmental quality objectives and Indicators through: • developing the ‘Guidelines for the Development of Regional River Health Strategies’ and guidelines for other regional plans • reviewing and approving the endorsement of RRHSs with the objective of ensuring that the RRHS is in line with the policy requirements of each organisation including the targets that have been set. (The RRHS endorsement process requires signoff from DPI, DSE, and EPA before it is sent to the Minister’s office for endorsement.)

7 Page 9, draft RRHS

Environmental Audit 119 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

In January 2004 a government target setting group with representatives from DSE, G-MW, EPA and the CMAs agreed to a set of RRHS targets. The intention of the agreement was to ensure that the targets of all RRHSs are in line with VRHS and SEPP (WoV) requirements and are agreed to by DSE and EPA. A consistent view within the region, is that the DSE Head Office resources are stretched and hence there are significant delays in the review and signoff facilitation of regional strategies and plans. This view is disputed by DSE who advise that the rigorous endorsement process requiring multiple agency signoff is the principle reason for the delay.

8.1.5 Criterion 5—Water allocations and environmental flows

Audit criterion

Compliance with obligations under Clause 41 of the SEPP (WoV)—Water Allocations and Environmental Flows—either by being met or being in the process of being met.

Summary of evidence

SEPP (WoV) Clause 41 objectives To protect aquatic ecosystems, adequate environmental flows need to be provided to waterways, wetlands, lakes and estuaries. To enable this: 1. Relevant protection agencies, particularly relevant water authorities, DSE and environment and catchment management authorities need to work with other protection agencies, businesses and communities to develop and implement measures to provide environmental flows. 2. No increased allocation from any river, stream, lake, wetland or estuary should be approved unless it is consistent with the Water Act 1989 and is subject to a process which is designed to provide environmental flows. 3. DSE will work with catchment management authorities, relevant water authorities and the EPA to develop a program to review and periodically independently audit the provision of environmental flows and their effectiveness in protecting beneficial uses. The term ‘allocation’ in Clause 41(2) is understood to mean an ‘entitlement’, i.e. the right to take and use water. (It is noted that water authorities make seasonal allocations based on the amount of water in storage which set the percentage of those rights that are available to their holders at a point in time.)

Development and implementation of measures to provide environmental flows The Bulk Entitlement (Eildon-Goulburn Weir) Conversion Order 1995 provides for minimum passing flows from the Eildon Pondage and over the Goulburn Weir. Conformance with these passing flow obligations is the subject of audit criterion 9. Whether or not the passing flows are adequate for river health is in part dependent upon what are the beneficial uses to be protected and the aspirational targets for the health of the river. The CRC for Freshwater Ecology (2003a), report on ‘Environmental Flow Recommendations for the Goulburn River Below Lake Eildon’ provides some direction on this matter. The Goulburn Broken CMA has advised that this report will form the basis of the development of the Environmental Water Reserve for the Goulburn River.

EPA Victoria 120 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Environmental flows beyond the minimum passing flow commitment can only be provided if an additional source of water is obtained (through water savings), or the government revises the Bulk Entitlement based upon the adoption of an Environmental Water Reserve which exceeds minimum passing flow requirements. This assessment is consistent with a legal opinion obtained by G-MW which suggests that the Bulk Entitlement minimum passing flow obligations take precedence over Clause 41 of the SEPP (WoV). The joint State Government–G-MW Water Savings Program is being developed, in part, to enable environmental flows to be released to the environment. Savings are to be achieved through major works to G-MW’s irrigation and water supply systems. The program generally involves replacing irrigation supply channels with pipes thus eliminating seepage and evaporative losses and providing customers with an improved level of service. In most cases G-MW designs and builds the pipeline or other water savings infrastructure, with costs being shared between the government and customers. The following documentary evidence of the Water Savings program has been inspected: 1. The Memorandum of Understanding on Water Savings between the Department of Natural Resources and Environment and G-MW (‘the MoU’). 2. The list of schedules to the MoU. 3. The following MoU schedules:

- D: Pilot of the Total Channel Control Technology system on Central Goulburn Number 2 Channel - E: The Normanville pipeline project. - F: The Katandra/Invergordon irrigation system refurbishment project—detailed evaluation - G: The Rochester 20 irrigation system refurbishment project—detailed evaluation.

In all cases the Victorian Government obtains the water savings. The government’s current priorities for water savings are increased environmental flows in the Snowy and Murray Rivers. This may involve improved Goulburn River environmental flows, as water must flow along the Goulburn River to allow the Snowy and Murray River environmental flows to be supplemented. Of the above water saving projects, the Normanville pipeline project (Project E) has been completed. G-MW has requested that DSE amend the Bulk Entitlement accordingly. G-MW has advised that Schedule I ‘Implementation phase of a project for improved measurement of small volume supplies in irrigation districts’ has saved a large volume of water and as a consequence the Bulk Entitlement (Eildon-Goulburn Weir) Conversion Order 1995 has been reduced. G-MW has advised that the Victorian Government intend to use the 3 600 ML/yr of saved water for environmental flows in the Snowy River.

Increased allocation from the Goulburn River G-MW has not approved any increased allocations from the Goulburn River system between July 2003 and June 2004.

Process to review and periodically audit the provision of environmental flows Under Clause 41, DSE must work with the Goulburn Broken CMA, G-MW, and the EPA to develop a program to review and periodically independently audit the provision of environmental flows and their effectiveness in protecting beneficial uses.

Environmental Audit 121 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

As there are no environmental flows released to the Goulburn River beyond the minimum passing flow requirements there has not been a need to review and independently audit environmental flows and their effectiveness in protecting beneficial uses. The process to review and audit the provision of environmental flows is outlined in the VRHS (2002) and the White Paper ‘Our Water Our Future’ (Victorian Government 2004). DSE is currently refining the above process outlined in the White Paper. It will include three components as described below. 1. Additional environmental monitoring (White Paper—Action 2.17). 2. Compliance of entitlements—the Water Act provides the legislative framework for allocating and managing the State’s water resources. All parties need to be aware of their responsibilities and meeting their obligations with a high level of transparency in the water accounting and reporting processes (White Paper—Actions 2.17, 2.18 and 7.1). 3. Periodic review of environmental flows, which will take place at a number of levels: • 15-year review. The Government will require an expert assessment of the State’s water resources at 15-year intervals. The review will determine whether the resource base has suffered a decline, and if the effect has fallen disproportionately on the environment or water users, and if river health is deteriorating for flow-related reasons. If either is the case the Minister will establish a further review (White Paper—Action 2.12). • Sustainable Water Strategies (SWSs) have a planning horizon of 15 years and beyond. One of the key components of an SWS is to understand where environmental flows are inadequate to meet objectives and take advantage of opportunities to remedy the situation (White Paper—Chapter 2). • Management of the Environmental Water Reserve (EWR). The White Paper established the EWR as the share of water set aside in rivers and aquifers to maintain the environmental values of a water system. A substantial part of the EWR is provided as run-of-the river flows, which will be defined through limits on consumptive use.

In some regulated systems, such as the Goulburn River, the EWR will also include specific water entitlements for the environment, which will require a Ministerially endorsed operating strategy. The operating strategy requirements are outlined in Appendix C of the White Paper. In developing an operating strategy, the CMAs will need to identify environmental objectives for target ecosystems, which is done through their RRHSs. The EPA is consulted in the development of these strategies to ensure that they are consistent with EPA policies and requirements. Beneficial uses as listed under the SEPP (WoV) are deemed to be a value attached to a natural resource asset. Actions 2.17, 3.1 and 3.14 of the White Paper indicate that it is the CMA’s responsibility to ensure the available water is maximised to meet the objectives and to identify where environmental flows are inadequate to meet the objectives.

8.1.6 Criterion 6—Thermal water quality objectives

Audit criterion

Compliance with obligations for controlling water temperature, if any exist, in the Goulburn River below Lake Eildon and above Lake Nagambie.

EPA Victoria 122 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Summary of evidence

Background Cold water releases from the lower levels of Lake Eildon support a salmonid fishing industry along the Goulburn River between Lake Eildon to Seymour. Lower maximum temperatures resulting from cold water releases are observed as far as Seymour (Ryan et al. 2001). Brown (2004) advises that an increase in the average daily temperature of between 2oC and 4oC would substantially reduce the potential for Brown trout growth. The same cold water releases have alienated this river reach from habitation by native fish species; some of which are listed as threatened species under the FFG and the EPBC Act. Anecdotal evidence indicates native fish were prevalent along this river reach prior to dam construction. The Goulburn Eildon Fisheries Management Plan has a specific objective for the river between the Lake Eildon and Seymour to manage the fishery to maximise the angling potential of the wild Brown trout in the upper section and a mixed fishery in the downstream section. Between Seymour and Nagambie the specific objective is to develop a mixed species fishery for trout, Murray cod, Golden perch, Redfin perch, and Freshwater spiny crayfish.

Review of Goulburn River temperature measurements As part of the audit, files and reports of Goulburn River temperature and stream flow covering the July 2003 to June 2004 period have been inspected to confirm the seasonal temperature regime at monitored Goulburn River monitoring locations. The temperature and stream flow monitoring data over the designated period has been sourced from six Thiess Services hydrographic and temperature data sets. These cover various monitoring points between Lake Eildon and the confluence with the River Murray. The Thiess Services third party Certificate of Registration for quality assurance under ISO 9001:1994 has been inspected. The supply and installation of environmental and hydrological stations including the collection and processing of data is covered in the Certificate. The covered period was from 11 March 2002 to 5 October 2003. The following SKM (2004) reports on the Goulburn Weir Flow and Ecology Review were inspected: • Goulburn Weir Flow Investigation (flows at gauging stations between Eildon and Murchison, including over most of the period of interest) • Goulburn Weir Temperature and Stratification Investigation December 2003–January 2004 • Goulburn Weir Water Quality Investigation (temperature at water quality monitoring stations between Eildon and Murchison).

These data and these reports confirm the seasonal temperature variations, the cold water temperature immediately downstream of the Eildon Dam, and the steady increase in temperature from Eildon to Nagambie as described in Section 5.1. The Auditor is also aware that G-MW maintains in situ thermistor chains in Lake Eildon and temperature probes in the Eildon Pondage and just downstream in the Goulburn River. Daily measurements of flow, dissolved oxygen and temperature from the pondage are publicly available via a G-MW telephone recorded message service. Real time measurement of a range of water quality parameters including temperature have been recorded since late 2004 following the installation of a Lake Diagnostic System in Lake Eildon.

Environmental Audit 123 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

When summer release temperatures depart from the seasonal norm, G-MW has advised that reports are provided to the local community and the commercial salmonid industry. The Auditor did not request or inspect these reports. G-MW has advised that departure from the seasonal norm is an extended period in which the river temperature immediately below Lake Eildon is above 19oC.

Requirements of SEPP (WoV) Clause 42 Clause 42 of the SEPP (WoV) is interpreted as requiring G-MW to assess if releases from the Eildon Dam and the Goulburn Weir pose an environmental risk to beneficial uses through variations in a number of river health parameters including temperature from downstream levels. Clause 42 goes on to state that if risks are identified measures must be implemented to minimise these risks. This raises the question as to whether salmonids, native fish, or both are beneficial uses. The EP Act specifies that SEPPs shall establish the basis for maintaining environmental quality sufficient to protect existing and anticipated beneficial uses. The EP Act defines ‘beneficial use’ as being a use of the environment which is declared in a SEPP (WoV). Clause 10 of SEPP (WoV) states that a beneficial use is defined in the Environment Protection Act 1970 and includes a current or future environmental value or use of surface waters that communities want to protect. The SEPP (WoV) states that ‘fish, crustacean and molluscs for human consumption’ are beneficial uses which must be protected in all rivers and streams. It does not however explicitly state whether historical ‘fish, crustacean and molluscs for human consumption’ beneficial uses are to be protected. Clause 42 of the SEPP (WoV) also refers to environmental risk to beneficial uses associated with variations of sediment, salt, nutrients, dissolved oxygen or other pollutants from downstream levels. The ‘Criterion 1—Environmental Quality Objectives and Indicators’ Section of the audit report includes recommendations to: • establish an integrated and routine water quality monitoring program with RCTs to assess whether releases from Lake Eildon and Goulburn Weir pose an environmental risk to beneficial uses • release summer and autumn flows to the Goulburn River from the Eildon Weir from above the gates, if technically feasible to increase DO concentrations.

G-MW legal advice G-MW’s legal advice is that the protection of native fish that pre-dated the construction of the Eildon Dam are exempt by Clause 10(1) from being a beneficial use as the current temperature regime would constitute a ‘background level’ for the purposes of the SEPP (WoV) and the temperature regime is too low to sustain native fish. G-MWs legal advisor then suggests that if G-MW causes or permits the condition of waters to so change as to make the waters potentially harmful to aquatic life by altering the temperature of the water, it may commit an offence in contravention of s. 39(1) of the EP Act. Legal counsel then suggested that this offence is aimed at protecting existing aquatic life and not possible future aquatic life which may return to the Goulburn River if temperature control measures are introduced.

EPA Victoria 124 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Auditor's legal advice It is necessary to consider whether the current temperature regime constitutes the ‘background level’, as if it were native fish would be exempt from a beneficial use (see Clause 10(1) of the SEPP (WoV)). The definition of ‘background level’ is set out in Part 1 of SEPP (WoV) defines ‘background level’ as the level of an indicator in surface waters or their aquatic ecosystem, outside the influence of any waste containing a measurable level of that indicator. ‘Indicator’ is defined as a measurement that provides information on the environmental quality of an environment. ‘Background level’ and ‘indicator’ are both sufficiently broad to encompass temperature. ‘Waste’ is defined in SEPP (WoV) as carrying the same definition as is set out in the EP Act. The EP Act defines ‘waste’ as including ‘any matter whether solid, liquid, gaseous or radioactive which is discharged, omitted or deposited in the environment in such volume, constituency or manner as to cause an alteration in the environment’. The definition of ‘waste’ is sufficiently broad as to include a controlled release from a dam. Therefore ‘background level’ of the relevant waterway must be considered free of the influence of any dam discharge. A further question arises as to whether the introduction of native fish to the relevant waterway is a beneficial use which must be protected in any event. The beneficial uses set out in Table 1 of SEPP (WoV) are sufficiently broad to include the reintroduction of native fish. For example, the beneficial uses of ‘aesthetic enjoyment’ and ‘indigenous/non-indigenous cultural and spiritual values’ are sufficiently broad to include the enjoyment of indigenous fish species. Additionally, if the relevant species are capable of human consumption, the beneficial use of ‘fish, crustacea and molluscs for human consumption’ certainly covers the reintroduction of such fish.

Concluding comment The above legal advice does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the future reintroduction of native fish to the Goulburn River below the Goulburn Weir is a beneficial use which is protected by SEPP (WoV). The SEPP (WoV) makes provision for regional variations (see especially Clauses 10(2) and (3) which make it clear that the 10-year life of SEPP (WoV) may be too short to allow for full attainment of all beneficial uses, associated with the slightly to moderately modified aquatic ecosystem, and that the modifications may make it difficult to achieve full attainment. While the draft RRHS identifies significant fauna, flora, and ecological vegetation class (EVC) along the mid Goulburn River (downstream of Eildon) it is not specific in regard to the beneficial uses to be protected.

G-MW approach to managing the environmental values of the mid Goulburn G-MW has advised that as there is not a policy position that encourages the use of audit reach 1 as a native fishery, in preference to a trout fishery, their risk reduction strategy along this reach has focussed on other environmental risks (e.g. Eildon houseboat sewerage upgrade and Eildon Storage Management Plan) and non-environmental risks (e.g. Eildon Dam safety upgrade). G-MW had indicated to the Auditor that its EMS lists ‘Damage to flora and fauna, loss of habitat or loss of amenity because of changes in waterway temperature caused by changes in our storage release rates’ as a significant risk, and that river temperature fluctuations below Lake Eildon are specifically cited as a Significant Environmental Risk in the G-MW Significant Environmental Risk Register.

Environmental Audit 125 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

While taking this approach (i.e. to focus on other environmental risks) G-MW continues to undertake thermal monitoring and support studies that provide information that should assist in the development of sustainable management arrangements along this river reach. These studies include: 1. In 2001, G-MW and its catchment partners funded an ecological risk assessment (Cottingham et al. 2004) of the Goulburn River. The study focussed on blue green algae and the risks to native fish stocks using a methodology that enabled quantification of risks to native fish. The study found that variations of release temperatures from background were a significant factor downstream of Lake Eildon, but not downstream of the Goulburn Weir. 2. G-MW has engaged the CRC for Catchment Hydrology and the Centre for Water Studies (University of Western Australia) to develop hydrologic and water quality models of Lake Eildon and the entire Goulburn catchment. The Lake Eildon model is in progress, and when complete, will include a reservoir and release temperature component. The Project Reference Committee includes representatives of government agencies, municipalities, interest groups and individuals which represent most, if not all, SEPP (WoV) beneficial users that are potentially affected by the temperature of Eildon releases. G-MW has advised that these stakeholders will receive reports on the potential for water temperature release impacts as model development progresses and that the completed model outputs will be made available to the catchment community so that all stakeholders can be regularly updated on these effects. While the Goulburn Eildon Fisheries Management Plan (DNRE 2002a) establishes specific management objectives for audit reach 1, the issue as to whether this reach should be managed as a cold-water fishery for recreational fishing of trout and other introduced species or should be ameliorated to allow for the re-establishment of native fish will not be resolved until a decision is made as to which beneficial uses are to be protected. This decision must be made once the clear management objectives are established through the RRHS. Amelioration would probably require an annual spring environmental flood and artificial destratification of the lake or the installation of a multi-port outlet (Gippel and Finlayson 1993). G-MW has advised that this would entail a capital investment of tens of millions of dollars.

8.1.7 Criterion 7—Other river health objectives and targets

Audit criterion

Consistency of the RCS and the draft RRHS with overarching river health strategies and plans; particularly objectives and targets.

Summary of evidence

The overarching river health strategies The overarching river health strategies are: • The MDBC Native Fish Strategy • The MDBC Living Murray Strategy • The MDBC Integrated Management Strategy • The Victorian River Health Strategy.

EPA Victoria 126 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

MDBC Native Fish Strategy The draft RRHS identifies the MDBCs Native Fish Strategy (NFS) threats (Table 1, p. 5) and targets (pp. 17, 18). The RCS and supporting plans do not have a process in place to monitor and audit native fish populations as required under the NFS (p. 17). The monitoring is required to determine whether native fish recruitment and survival targets are being met. The recruitment and survival of native fish species is a critical indicator of the overall river health and its communities (NFS p. 5). To sustain viable populations both recruitment and survival must be sustained. Monitoring of Trout cod and Spotted tree frogs is undertaken as part of the National Recovery Plan process for these species (Section 13.1 of the draft RRHS). The Auditor has not requested these data. A survey of fish communities in the lower Goulburn River was conducted between September 2003 and July 2004 by the Freshwater Ecology Section of the Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research on behalf of the Goulburn Valley Association of Anglers in 2003/04 (Koster et al. 2004). This was funded by the State Government’s Recreational Fishing Licence Fund and covers a three-year period ending in 2005/06. The survey included sampling at five regular study sites downstream of the Goulburn Weir (audit reach 1). These included the Cable Hole, immediately upstream of Murchison. DSE has also advised monitoring and auditing can also occur through targeted monitoring by DSE and Fisheries Victoria. The May 2005 draft RRHS states that a monitoring program for native fish diversity downstream of the Goulburn Weir will be developed in the implementation phase of the Goulburn environmental flow project. Further it states that the monitoring program needs to be designed for the conditions of Murray cod, Silver perch, Macquarie perch and the native grass species Alpine bent in various reaches of the catchment based upon size and age distribution. The RRHS indicates that the environmental flow project will be completed in 2010 (see Section 9.10—Additional actions for management unit U1). In the response to the draft audit on matters of fact DSE has advised that from 2005/06 monitoring will be undertaken to assess ecological responses to increases in environmental flows in the Goulburn River. This is to be undertaken by the CRC for Freshwater Ecology/e-Water. The VRHS indicates that DSE will develop a consistent cost-effective methodology for monitoring of fish communities as a key input to assessments of river health.

MDBCs Living Murray Strategy and the Integrated Management Strategy The draft RRHS RCTs for the river along audit reach 1 are consistent with the MDBCs Living Murray Strategy and the Integrated Management Strategy. The RCS includes as a Management Action Target to ‘negotiate caps and environmental flows for all rivers’. The draft RRHS includes as an action ‘complete Goulburn environmental flow project and implement recommendations with negotiated environmental flow regimes by 2010’.

Victorian River Health Strategy The Victorian River Health Strategy definition of an ecologically healthy river is provided in Section 7. The draft RRHS makes specific reference8 to the Victorian River Health Strategy definition of an ecologically healthy river.

8 Section 5.2, draft RRHS

Environmental Audit 127 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

A discussion paper on the process developed by the Goulburn Broken CMA in identifying ecologically healthy rivers in the Goulburn Broken catchment is presented in the RRHS. In undertaking this process, each reach of the Goulburn Broken catchment was assessed using the Goulburn Broken CMAs RiVERS database against a set of 19 criteria to determine whether it could be identified as a potentially ecologically healthy river. A total of five reaches were identified. None of the reaches of the Goulburn River downstream of Lake Eildon are included in the five identified reaches.

River conditions for a sustainable salmonid population The mid-Goulburn River between Lake Eildon and Goulburn Weir supports a sustainable trout fishery that is one of Victoria’s premier recreational fishing and tourism assets. This is in part due to the effect of cold-water discharges from Lake Eildon, the mid-Goulburn River. The environmental threats to this industry include low winter flows, elevated temperatures (during summer), and high flows in the early part of the irrigation season. The threats are described in greater detail in Section 5.1 (River flow regulation threats). High early irrigation season flows limit survival of the fry growth stage by reducing the available area of low flow velocities and if this effect were reduced, trout numbers could substantially increase (Brown 2003). Section 5.1 notes that an average daily increase in river temperature over 2°C would substantially reduce the potential for Brown trout growth. The quality and quantity of Brown trout that would be available under such strategies to mitigate cold-water flows would be unlikely to sustain a viable, high quality trout fishery. Brown (2003) has suggested a minimum winter flow downstream of Eildon Pondage of 250 ML/day to maintain a suitable trout spawning habitat. This would require a review of the environmental allocation for the Goulburn River. Brown (2003) also recommends further research into the use of constructed fry-habitat to enhance survival of trout fry through to the juvenile stage.

8.1.8 Criterion 8—Water Act—Environmental management obligations

Audit criterion

Compliance with environmental management obligations under the Water Act.

Scope

From a river health perspective, the Water Act 1989 purposes (s. 1) include: • to provide for the integrated management of the terrestrial phase of the water cycle • to ensure that the water resources are conserved and properly managed for sustainable use for the benefit of present and future benefits • to provide formal means for the protection of and enhancement of the environmental qualities of waterways and their in-stream uses.

The intent of this audit criterion is to determine whether DSE, G-MW and the Goulburn Broken CMA are generally meeting their environmental management obligations under the Water Act 1989. As it is impractical to assess compliance with all sections of the Act which may have environmental implications, the audit against this criterion has been limited to key sections which, if not complied with, may have adverse consequences for the beneficial uses of the Goulburn River. These sections are:

EPA Victoria 128 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

• Section 107—Authorities (Part 6, Division 3)—Environmental and recreational areas • Section 189—Waterway Management (Part 10, Division 2)—Functions of Authorities • Section 195—Waterway Management (Part 10, Division 2)—Control over connections and discharges • Section 199—Regional Drainage (Part 10, Division 3)—Functions of Authorities • Section 213—Water Management Schemes (Part 10, Division 5).

These sections are presented below.

Section 107—Authorities (Part 6, Division 3)—Environmental and recreational areas The Minister may at the request of an Authority, ‘declare land which is significant to the exercise of function of the Authority to be an environmental or recreational area’. Such an authority (i.e. G-MW) may make by-laws which apply to such areas that provide for, among other things, ‘the conservation and preservation of flora, fauna, and habitat, and control the introduction of new species, and the number of species’. Such areas could include the perimeter buffer around the Goulburn weir pool.

Section 189—Waterway Management (Part 10, Division 2)—Functions of Authorities Section 189 (Functions of Authorities) applies the following functions, in relation to designated waterways and designated land or works, to an Authority that has a waterway management district: a) to identify and plan for State and local community needs relating to the use and to the economic, social and environmental values of land and waterways b) to develop and to implement effectively schemes for the use, protection and enhancement of land and waterways. The Goulburn Broken CMA has the following powers to declare waterway, land and works under Section 188 of the Water Act: a) declare a waterway within its district or any part of a waterway within its district to be a designated waterway, or b) declare any of the following within its district to be designated land or works i. any works or part of any works in or over which water occasionally flows, whether in a defined, naturally occurring channel or not ii. any land which a) abuts a waterway b) is within 20 metres of a waterway and which is significant, whether because of its use or otherwise, for the stability, conservation or functioning of the waterway.

Section 195—Waterway Management (Part 10, Division 2)—Control over connections and discharges Section 195 requires that a person other than a licensee or a public statutory body must not, without an Authority’s consent, cause or permit: a) any drainage works to be connected to or discharge (whether directly or indirectly) into a designated waterway or designated land or works, or

Environmental Audit 129 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER b) the alteration or removal of any drainage works that are connected to or that discharge into a designated waterway or designated land or works within the Authority’s waterway management district.

Section 199—Regional Drainage (Part 10, Division 3)—Functions of Authorities Section 199 (Functions of Authorities) applies the following functions in relation to drainage systems within a waterway management district (or where ordered by the Minister) to the responsible Authority: a) to provide, operate and protect drainage systems, including the drainage of water into all designated waterways and all designated land or works within its district and, with the consent of the Minister, the drainage of water from that district into any waterway outside that district b) to develop and implement programs for the protection and enhancement of in-stream uses c) to investigate, promote and conduct research into any matter related to its functions, powers and duties in relation to drainage d) to educate the public about any aspect of drainage. An Authority must perform the above functions in an environmentally sound way.

Section 213—Water Management Schemes (Part 10, Division 5) Section 185(2) defines water management as the management of waterways, drainage or floodplains. Section 213 states that the Minister has the function: a) to cause assessment and investigations connected with water resources and the environment in connection with waterways to be undertaken b) to cause schemes for the improved management of waterways, drainage and floodplains to be prepared and implemented. In relation to water management schemes throughout the State, a water management scheme can apply to any area designated by the Minister.

Summary of evidence

The Auditor requested DSE, the Goulburn Broken CMA, and G-MW to provide evidence as to how they had complied with their obligations in regard to the above sections of the Water Act 1989. These responses were considered by the Auditor in preparing the audit findings for this criterion. Other evidence included the Irrigation Drainage Memorandum of Understanding (Government of Victoria 2004) and the Shepparton Irrigation Region’s Surface Water Drainage Strategy (Goulburn Broken CMA June 2002).

8.1.9 Criterion 9—Bulk water entitlements and agreements

Audit criterion

Compliance with environment related obligations under bulk water entitlements and water supply agreements.

EPA Victoria 130 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Scope

Auditing of the river flow regulation activity against this audit criterion was restricted to: • G-MWs Bulk Entitlement (Eildon-Goulburn Weir) Conversion Order 1995. • Goulburn Valley Region Water Authority’s Bulk Entitlement (Shepparton) Conversion Order 1995. • Pacific Hydro and Southern Hydro’s Agreements with G-MW to access releases to generate hydro-electricity. G-MW supplies water from the Goulburn System under the BE Order. Clauses of the Order which are relevant to environmental health of the Goulburn River are: • Clause 4 Goulburn Resource Manager • Clause 11 Passing flows • Clause 12.3 Releases • Clause 15 Environmental obligations. In addition the definition of Resource Manager (Clause 4) is relevant.

Clause 4 - Goulburn Resource Manager Clause 4 of the Bulk Entitlement Conversion Order states that the ‘Resource Manager’ means any person appointed by the Minister to do all or any of the following: a) prepare the Goulburn Basin Water accounts b) monitor whether entitlement holders in the Goulburn Basin comply with the conditions of their bulk entitlements c) direct the release of any water set aside for maintaining water quality in the Goulburn River d) investigate and mediate disputes between entitlement holders in the Goulburn Basin e) investigate and deal with significant unauthorised uses of water within the Goulburn Basin f) supervise the qualifications of any rights to water made by the Minister during periods of declared water shortage under section 13 of the Act.

Clause 11 - Passing flows Clause 11 is as follows: • A minimum flow of 120 ML/d from the Eildon Pondage Weir, or such greater flow as is required by Schedule 6 (i.e. up to 250 ML/d if the previous 24 months of flow to Eildon exceeds a specified amount). • A minimum average weekly flow of 250 ML/d from the Goulburn Weir over any seven day period at a daily rate of no less than 200 ML/d. • Any additional flow necessary to maintain a minimum average monthly flow at the McCoy Bridge gauging station of:

- 350 ML/d for the months of November to June inclusive at a daily rate of no less than 300 ML/d

- 400 ML/d for the months of July to October inclusive at a daily rate of no less than 350 ML/d.

Environmental Audit 131 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Clause 12.3 - Releases Clause 12.3 states that the Authority must not direct the Operator to release more water from Goulburn Weir than is required to meet the Authority’s commitment to supply primary entitlements unless: • releases are necessary

- to maintain the normal operating level of the weir; or

- to repair or maintain the weir; or

Clause 15 - Environmental obligations Clause 15.1 ‘Environmental obligations’ states that the Authority must propose to the Minister, within 12 months of the date of this Order, a program to manage the environmental effects of: • the Authority’s works to take water under this bulk entitlement including:

- the effects on the bed and banks of the waterway in the vicinity of the Authority’s works

- operational practices to remove silt from the works

- operational practices to manage water quality in works on the waterway

- operational rules to control releases from works to the waterway

- operational rules to manage flood flows through works on the waterway • any increase in diversions by other Authorities under bulk entitlements supplied directly from the waterway. G-MW must implement the program once approved by the Minister and keep a record of works undertaken. The period for which the audit was conducted was limited to July 2000 to June 2004. The audit tasks included an inspection of reports, records and/or data summaries.

Summary of evidence

Bulk Entitlement (Eildon-Goulburn Weir) Conversion Order 1995 The Bulk Entitlement (Eildon-Goulburn Weir) Conversion Order 1995 (BE Order) converted all of G-MWs entitlements to water from the Goulburn River to a Bulk Entitlement, on the conditions set out in the BE Order. Clause 6 prescribes the limits on G-MW’s share of water from the Goulburn River and sets a maximum annual threshold for releases from Lake Eildon. The share of the water is 1 919 million ML. Water can only be released (at G-MWs request to the Storage Operator) from the Eildon pondage and the Goulburn Weir for: • primary entitlements (Clause 7 and Schedules 1, 2 and 3). Minimum security requirements are specified in schedule 4

EPA Victoria 132 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

• minimum passing flows (Clauses 11 and 12.3) provided one of the four limits on releases from the Goulburn Weir in Clause 12.3 of the BE Order are complied with. The Bulk Entitlement conversion program included a broad review of the environmental water needs of the Goulburn River. Opportunities to increase environmental flows were limited due to the Government’s policy to maintain reliability of supply of consumptive users. The 80 GL embedded in the Bulk Entitlement (Eildon-Goulburn Weir) Conversion Order is specifically to target billabongs and other wetlands between Lake Eildon and Lake Nagambie and is released (when available according to trigger rules) at the discretion of the DSE within the boundaries of the BE. The rate of release from the Goulburn Weir and the Eildon pondage must not exceed the maximum permissible rates of changes of releases from the Goulburn Weir and the Eildon pondage approved by the Minister. The primary evidence used to audit against this criterion are the following annual performance reports prepared by the Goulburn Resource Manager: • 2000/01—‘Goulburn Bulk Entitlement (Eildon-Goulburn Weir)—G-MW reporting 2000/2001’ • 2001/02—‘Goulburn Resource Manager Complete Report 2001/02’ • 2002/03—‘Goulburn Resource Manager 2002/03 Report’.

The 2000/01 Goulburn Resource Manager report omits the compliance summary included in similar reports for other years, and this summary does not appear to exist elsewhere. However, all of this information is contained in Column 2 of the appendix to the 2000/01 report. As of November 2004 the 2003/04 report was being prepared. G-MW’s legal counsel has advised that the Authority must not direct the Storage Operator to release more water than required to meet G-MWs passing flow commitments and primary entitlements unless one of four conditions documented in the BE Order are met. The Auditor has reviewed the Goulburn Resource Manager’s reports for 200/01 to 2002/03 and the Eildon Pondage Weir (405 203) and the McCoy Bridge (405 232) gauging stations’ flow records from July 2000 to June 2004 to assess conformance with Clause 11. This assessment is limited to three sub-sections of Clause 11. The outcomes of this Audit task are presented in Table 8.2.

Environmental Audit 133 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Table 8.2: G-MW BE Order—Clause 11 non-compliances

Year Resource Manager Reports Auditor’s check Minimum flow of 120 ML/d from the Eildon Pondage (Note: For auditor check one record/month is available) 2000/01 3 days of flows of 119 ML/d Nil 2001/02 Nil 111 ML/d (5 June 2002) 2002/03 Nil Nil 2003/04 Not reviewed 115 ML/d (3 September 2003) 118 ML/d (6 November 2003) Previous 24 months’ flow to Lake Eildon allows for 250 ML/d 2000/01 NA Inflows to Lake Eildon from four of the main tributaries entering Lake Eildon—Goulburn 2001/02 River, Big River, Delatite River and Ford 2002/03 Creek—were checked for 24-month periods 2003/04 from 1998 to 2004. Less than the half of the trigger inflows in Clause 11 were recorded. Thus the minimum flow requirement from the Eildon Pondage Weir has remained at 120 ML/d, rather than 250 ML/d, for at least the last four years. Minimum flow at McCoys Bridge of 400 ML/d—July to October inclusive at a daily rate of no less than 350 ML/d (Note: For auditor check one record/week is available) 2000/01 Nil Nil 2001/02 Nil Nil 2002/03 1 day of 329 ML/d 329 ML/d (18 August 2002) 2003/04 Not reviewed Nil

Both the Goulburn Resource Manager reports and the Audit Check are generally consistent and suggest almost complete Clause 11 (Passing flow) compliance with only minor excursions. Subsequent to the 18 August 2002 non-conformance the G-MW Manager Water Resources advised the G-MW Goulburn Resource Manager that the low flows were caused by the unusually high pumping demand of the river for that time of the year. Releases from Goulburn Weir were increased from 252 ML/d to 302 ML/d from 13 August 2002, some days prior to the shortfall eventuating. However, because of the seven days’ travel time between Goulburn Weir and McCoys Bride, the flow increase did not reach McCoys Bridge until the day after the shortfall eventuated. The Auditor is not aware of any reported fish kills during this period. Additional water was sourced from the Goulburn channel system to assist maintaining flows in the Goulburn River pending the arrival of increased flow from Goulburn Weir. The average daily flow returned above the minimum requirement of 350 ML/d on the 19 August 2002. G-MW advised that subsequent to the breach there has been closer control of lower Goulburn operations, including use of demand forecasts for Goulburn Valley Region Water Authority demand and an arrangement to alter the timing of pumping for a large diverter group. G-MW has contracted measurement of flows at gauging stations relevant to these clauses to Thiess Environmental Services (Thiess). The contract requires Thiess to obtain certification for Quality Management in relation to such measurements. This requires third party auditing. A copy of Thiess’ Certificate of Registration for Quality Assurance under AS/NZS ISO 90001:1994 in relation to measurement and monitoring of flows in the Goulburn River downstream of Lake Eildon has been inspected.

EPA Victoria 134 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

The monitoring and auditing process includes feedback and corrective action. The Auditor also inspected G-MWs letter to DNRE of 30 August 1996 which included a suite of measures intended to meet the Clause 15 environmental obligations, and the response of G- MW to the Auditor’s request to demonstrate compliance with the environmental aspects of the BE Order. Under the BE Order releases to augment Murray River supplies can only be made in years when the seasonal allocation is greater than 150% of water right.

Bulk Entitlement (Shepparton) Conversion Order 1995 Goulburn Valley Regional Water Authority (GVRWA) supplies water to the townships of Shepparton, Mooroopna, Tallygaroopna, and Toolamba under the Bulk Entitlement (Shepparton) Conversion Order 1995. This is one of GVRWA’s 36 BE Orders. This Conversion Order has been inspected. The original Bulk Entitlement issued in 1989 places an annual diversion limit of 16 300 ML and a maximum diversion rate of 100 ML/d. Permanent transfers from both the Mooroopna and Toolamba Bulk Entitlements have since increased the Shepparton Bulk Entitlement limit to 18 320 ML. There are no minimum passing flow requirements. Information on compliance with Goulburn River obligations under the Bulk Entitlement (Shepparton) Conversion Order 1995 was requested from GVRWA for the July 2000 to June 2004 period. GVRWA has advised that annual diversions are reported annually to the Goulburn Resource Manager and that these diversions have been: • 2000/01 13 925 ML • 2001/02 14 373 ML • 2002/03 13 966 ML • 2003/04 13 353 ML.

Southern Hydro agreement Southern Hydro operates a power station at the Eildon Dam outlet and has rights to water through an agreement with G-MW titled ‘Eildon Agreement’ 1997. Copies of the schedules that relate to water flows have been inspected. Issues relating to the release of water into the Goulburn River are covered in Schedule B and Schedule D of the agreement. These were inspected. The ultimate responsibility for the specified flow in the river rests with G-MW as the Bulk Entitlement holder. They have the right under the ‘Eildon Agreement’ to specify the flow that is permitted to be released at any given time. G-MW advises Southern Hydro of the flows to be maintained downstream of the station via fax to the Control Room (these faxes are kept on file at the Southern Hydro Control Centre). Southern Hydro records the flow requirements. The flows are monitored live via the Scada control system by the Control Room staff and are logged in the Scada computer system at five-minute intervals.

8.1.10 Criterion 10—G-MW operational licence

Audit criterion

G-MW compliance with obligations under a State Government Operational Licence, if it exists, as it relates to the environmental health of the Goulburn River.

Environmental Audit 135 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Summary of evidence

G-MW does not have, and is not required to have, an operational licence with the State Government. It does have a Statement of Obligation (DSE 2005) under Part 1A of the Water Industry Act 1994 which it must comply with. The statement specifies G-MW obligations in performing its functions and exercising its powers. The Statement of Obligations came into effect in January 2005. Under its obligations G-MW must submit a Water Plan which sets out funding requirements and pricing proposals by September 2005. Clause 23 of the Statement of Obligations requires the authority to manage the impacts of its activities on any waterway or wetland to minimise the environmental impact on and risks to the aquatic ecosystem, and to liase with the Goulburn Broken CMA to ensure that environmental flow regimes are managed to maximise ecological benefits. Clause 13.1 requires the Authority to include measures to deal with incidents resulting in waste discharges to the environment as part of its risk management plans. Clauses 6, 11, 12, 17, 21 and 24 also refer to generic environmental management issues.

8.1.11 Criterion 11—Other Acts relevant to river health

Audit criterion

Scope

The audit task for this criterion included consideration of the following Acts of Parliament as they relate to the protection of endangered and threatened species, river water quality, and the control of riparian land along the Goulburn River: • Catchment and Land Protection Act • Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act • Heritage River Act • Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (Federal).

Key aspects of the following Acts as they relate to river health are addressed under the assessment of conformance of audited activities with other criteria: • Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act • Essential Services Act • Environment Protection Act • Emergency Management Act • Fisheries Act • Water Act • Water Industries Act.

EPA Victoria 136 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Summary of evidence

Catchment and Land Protection Act Under section 13 (Functions of an Authority) the Goulburn Broken CMA is required to prepare a RCS and to co-ordinate and monitor its implementation. Under section 14 the Goulburn Broken CMA must submit to the Minister and the Council on or before 31 August in each year a report on the condition and management of land and water resources in its region and the carrying out of its functions. Section 70 gives the DSE Secretary powers to direct landowners to prevent the growth or spread of State prohibited weeds. Evidence considered in the assessment of conformance against this audit criterion has included the Goulburn Broken RCS, recent Goulburn Broken CMA annual reports, and the Goulburn Broken CMA’s response to the Auditor’s request for information. The Auditor has received advice from agency staff in regards to section 70.

Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act Barred galaxias, Trout cod, Macquarie perch, Murray cod, Silver perch, Freshwater catfish, Murray hardyhead, and Murray rainbowfish are found within the Goulburn River and are listed as ‘threatened fauna’ under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988. Appendix 14 of the May 2005 draft RRHS notes that Action Statements have been prepared for the Barred galaxias and Trout cod. The Act also lists ‘potentially threatening processes’ that may affect freshwater aquatic environments. These include the following that relate to the Goulburn River: • alteration to the natural flow regimes of rivers and streams • alteration to the natural temperature regimes of rivers and streams • degradation of native riparian vegetation along Victorian rivers and streams • increase in sediment input into Victorian rivers and streams due to human activities • input of toxic substances into Victorian rivers and streams • introduction of live fish into waters outside their natural range within a Victorian river catchment • prevention of passage of aquatic biota as a result of the presence of in-stream structures • removal of wood debris.

Copies of the above FFG Action Statements have been determined to be available through the DSE’s Customer Service Centre on 136 186. Few of these Action Statements are found on the DSE website. In addition there are relevant recovery plans to be completed under the EPBC Act. These potentially threatening processes have not been prioritised despite alteration of the natural flow regimes and alteration of the natural temperature regimes being recognised in the draft RRHS (Appendix 7) as significant risks.

Environmental Audit 137 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Heritage Rivers Act The Heritage River Act provides for the protection of public land, in particular parts of rivers and river catchment areas in Victoria which have significant nature conservation, recreation, scenic or cultural heritage attributes. The Act defines a heritage river area and includes (in Schedule 1) reference to a plan showing the boundaries of all heritage river areas as lodged in the Central Plan Office. Nevill and Phillips (2004) advised that, as required by the Act, management plans are being prepared for heritage river areas. An impoundment, artificial barrier or structure that impedes the passage of water fauna must not be constructed in the Goulburn River heritage area, unless the Governor-in-Council by notice published in the Government Gazette approves its construction in that area. In addition any new water diversion from a waterway upstream from the lowest point of a heritage river area, specified in Column 3 of Schedule 3 of the Act, must not significantly impair the nature conservation, recreation, scenic or cultural heritage attributes of the area. Schedule 4 of the Act ‘Specific Land and Water Uses for Particular Heritage River Areas’ specifies that ‘timber-harvesting be permitted in the Lower Goulburn forests below Murchison, subject to the recommended principles and guidelines for river red gum harvesting operations’ in line with Land Conservation Council recommendation A5(m)(iii).

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC) regulates actions that have, will have or are likely to have a significant impact on matters of national environmental significance. Matters of national environmental significance include listed threatened species. Barred galaxias, Trout cod, Macquarie perch, Murray cod, and Murray hardyhead are threatened species under the EPBC Act. Under the EPBC Act, actions that are likely to have a significant impact on a matter of national environmental significance are subject to a rigorous referral, assessment, and approval process. An action includes a project, development, undertaking, activity, or series of activities. If the Australian Government decides that approval is required for a particular action, the proposed action is called a 'controlled action'. The proposal will then have to go through a formal assessment and approval process before it can proceed. If it is determined that approval is not required, the action is not a controlled action and may proceed once it has received any other necessary approvals, permits or licences.

8.1.12 Criterion 12—Legislation, Policies and Strategies

Audit criterion

Consistency between legislation, policies and strategies in regard to the health of the Goulburn River.

Scope

The assessment of the conformance of river flow regulation activity by the Auditor against the above criterion has involved the following three tasks: 1. Identify any gaps or inconsistencies within land and water management legislation, policies, strategies, plans and operational procedures (as they relate to environmental health) that guide the management of the designated reaches of the Goulburn River.

EPA Victoria 138 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

2. Identify whether the SEPP (WoV) environmental quality objectives and indicators, the VRHS objectives, and the NFS targets are likely to be achieved in the context of obligations under the Water Act, Bulk Entitlements, and other agreements. 3. Identify whether the above short-comings are addressed in the IDMoU, the Victorian White Paper, and/or the National Water Initiative. The scope was limited to evidence obtained in addressing all other audit criteria.

Summary of evidence

The evidence relevant to this audit criterion has been documented in Sections 6 and 7, and the preceding sub-sections of Section 8.

8.1.13 Criterion 13—Organisational roles and responsibilities

Audit criterion

Consistency between organisational roles and responsibilities relevant to the management of the health of the Goulburn River.

Scope

The audit tasks for this criterion are: • Identify whether the roles and responsibilities of the organisations responsible for the management of the Goulburn River, from a river health perspective, are unambiguous and whether duplication of roles and responsibilities occurs. • Identify any gaps or inconsistencies within roles and responsibilities of the organisations responsible for the management of the Goulburn River and the Acts of State and Federal Parliament under which these organisations undertake that management. The scope was limited to evidence obtained in addressing all other audit criteria.

Summary of evidence

The evidence relevant to this audit criterion has been documented in Sections 6 and 7, and relevant preceding and following sub-sections of Section 8.

8.2 Activity B: Fish Kill Response Arrangements

For this activity (Fish Kill Response Arrangements), auditing is limited to an evaluation of the activity's conformance with one criterion with two sub-elements.

8.2.1 Criteria 14a and 14b—Fish kill response arrangements

Audit criteria

14a: The occurrence of fish kills in the Goulburn River is increasing. 14 b: The current response arrangements for managing Goulburn River fish kill events are adequate.

Environmental Audit 139 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

The wording for this criterion has been modified slightly from the detailed audit scope to allow conformance to be determined. The audit scope criterion was ‘Evaluating the extent of fish kills as an indicator of river health and current response arrangements in providing for a healthier river’. Further clarification of the two sub criteria is provided below. 1. Examine the frequency and types of fish kill events to see if their occurrence is increasing or causes are systematic. 2. Determine whether the management of fish kills through the response arrangements: • meets the legislative and policy requirements for managing a fish kill • identifies agency responses, and that relevant staff are aware of the response arrangements and are trained and equipped to undertake the assigned roles • covers all needs for management of such events • is refined by knowledge gained by the response to fish kills • provides for sufficient information and evidence to be collected, prior to, during, and after the fish kill to identify the cause • provides for a process of review, follow up of actions, and refinement of management in order to reduce or eliminate the likelihood of the incidence and severity of future fish kills.

Summary of evidence

History of fish kills The history of fish kills in the Goulburn River is presented in Section 4.3 of this audit report.

Current fish kill response arrangements All emergency responses in Victoria are guided by the Emergency Management Manual of Victoria. The draft EPA working document ‘Environmental Incident Management Arrangements for Victorian Waterways’ lists a response framework and lead agencies for waterway incidents impacting upon beneficial uses. The Auditor has been advised that as of May 2005 discussions were occurring to resolve matters associated with the application of the response framework. For fish/water based biota kills the Interim Fish Kill Protocol (EPA, November 2004) is listed as the agreed response framework and the lead agency is defined as ‘EPA to lead and seek support as required’. The EPAs Interim Fish Kill Protocol documents the EPAs response arrangements for fish kills. The protocol forms part of the Environmental Incident Management Response Arrangements for Victorian Waterways. The EPA has advised that it is preparing a Memorandum of Understanding (MoUs) to encourage broad acceptance of the protocol. The Interim Framework for a Multi Agency Response to Incidents in Waterways in the Goulburn Broken Catchment (DPI 2004) proposes on-ground management arrangements (Part 3) that are consistent with the EPA’s draft working document ‘Environmental Incident Management Arrangements for Victorian Waterways’. The EPA’s Interim Fish Kill Protocol is listed as a reference document to the framework. Goulburn Broken CMA indicated that, in the event of a fish kill incident in the Goulburn Broken catchment, it would follow the interim framework. This document is expected to be finalised shortly.

EPA Victoria 140 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

G-MWs Corporate Environmental Emergency Management Manual (G-MW, May 2000) includes a Corporate Environmental Emergency Management Plan (CEEMP). The Manual and Plan are current as of February 2005. G-MW has advised that it applied the CEEMP to direct its response to the January 2004 fish kill. The draft Fish Deaths Emergency Management Plan (DPI 2002/03) describes the DPI’s roles and responsibilities in the event of a fish kill. DPI has advised the Auditor that it will update this plan once the EPA’s Interim Fish Kill Protocol is finalised. It is noted that the draft Designated Waterway Response Protocol (DPI, March 2003) does not cover the Goulburn Broken catchment; i.e. it is applied to the region of the North-East CMA, and it was not endorsed by the EPA. Further this appears to be superceded by the Interim Framework for a Multi Agency Response to Incidents in Waterways in the Goulburn Broken Catchment.

Conformance with legislative and policy requirements Relevant legislation and policies that guide agencies in their response to fish kills include the Emergency Management Act 1986, the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1985, and the SEPP (WoV). The EPA and Parks Victoria are responsible under the Emergency Management Act 1986 for the control of pollution of inland waters. The EP Act identifies the EPA as being responsible to investigate any event that pollutes or results in pollution to waterways and to ensure that clean up occurs as a result of a pollution incident. The EPA is also listed as the ‘control agency for pollution of inland waters’ under the ‘Emergency Management Manual of Victoria’. The EPA’s Interim Fish Kill Protocol states that ‘although the majority of fish kills would not be considered emergency incidents, for the moment EPA has accepted the response manager role for fish kills’. The Goulburn Broken CMA has responsibilities for waterways and drainage systems under the Water Act 1989, and the GVRWA is responsible for the provision of reticulated water and sewerage under the Water Act 1989. G-MW is a support agency for emergencies if the State Disaster Plan (DISPLAN) is activated under the Emergency Management Act 1986. DPI has statewide responsibilities for fisheries as defined under the Fisheries Act 1985. The DHS is responsible for responding to emergencies involving human health. All agencies have an over-riding responsibility to provide a safe working environment under the OH&S Act 1985. These roles and responsibilities are generally identified in the relevant agency fish kill-related Response Plans, with the exception of the DHS and Parks Victoria (in some plans only).

Agency awareness, training and equipping in response arrangements All G-MW appointments to Corporate Environmental Emergency Control Organisation positions must have senior executive or Board approval, which are subject to nominees attending a one- day environmental emergency induction course. All Corporate Environmental Emergency Control Organisation members attend desktop or field simulation training sessions annually. Key G-MW command and control and communications officers attend the SES two-day Introduction to Emergency Management course. The G-MW Environment Manager is conversant with G-MW’s roles and responsibilities with other response plans relevant to fish kills. Senior EPA officers are trained in incident investigation and emergency response through the EPA’s corporate training program.

Environmental Audit 141 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

In consultation with EPA, the DPI has recently developed a training package that covers the methodology for collection of fish samples, storage of samples and procedures for organising sample analysis. The training package is aimed primarily at DPI Fisheries Officers and Animal Health Officers to enable them to meet their obligations in the event of a fish kill. Other Agencies (e.g. G-MW, the Goulburn Broken CMA, local government and DSE) who may have an involvement in fish kills, either in the assessment phase, clean up phase or monitoring phase, are invited to attend training sessions so they become familiar with processes and tools being used to achieve a standard response to fish kills. The training includes a one-day workshop. Training sessions cover the following areas: • fish kill incidents • incident procedures in the wild—EPA interim fish kill protocol • incident procedures in aquaculture establishments • preparation for an on-site survey • kit content and its use and safety.

Officers from the EPA’s Emergency Response Co-ordination Unit and relevant staff from regional offices including the north-eastern region are scheduled to attend training sessions using the above DPI training package. This will occur at DPI’s Attwood laboratory. This training is intended to augment earlier in-house and external training provided to relevant EPA officers. DPI has prepared a fish kill kit that includes the required items for sample collection and storage. This kit forms an important component of the training package. Training in the contents and use of fish kill kits is provided to nominated EPA regional officers at the Attwood laboratory. The EPA Interim Fish Kill Protocol has been distributed to relevant agencies including DPI, DSE, G-MW, and the Goulburn Broken CMA. Relevant staff in G-MW, DPI, and the EPA have access to appropriate training program and are equipped to undertake the assigned roles. The Auditor has been unable to determine whether the level of awareness and training is adequate for Goulburn Broken CMA, the DHS, and Parks Victoria officers. The Auditor has not attempted to assess the general level of awareness of agency staff in fish kill response protocols.

Coverage of management need for management of fish kills The primary management needs for a fish kill are considered to be: • allocation of responsibilities for co-ordinating the fish kill response • protocols for communicating to relevant stakeholders including the community • clean up of the dead fish to minimise environmental losses and limit human health risks • rapid sampling and pathological analysis to identify the cause of the fish death • review of river health information to identify the environmental conditions that contributed to the fish kill • debriefing to learn from the experience, and to refine the knowledge base and fish kill response protocols to reduce the likelihood and severity of future fish kills. The coverage of these needs within the three primary fish kill response protocols is documented in Table 8.3.

EPA Victoria 142 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Table 8.3: Fish kill response protocols—coverage of management needs

Task Interim Fish Kill Interim Fish Deaths Protocol Framework Emergency for a Multi Management Agency Plan Response Allocation of responsibilities for co- Only EPA Extensive Limited ordinating the fish kill response Protocols to communicating to relevant EPA Adequate Non specific stakeholders including the community Clean up of the dead fish to minimise EPA to direct other EPA DPI with environmental losses and limit human health agencies support risks Rapid sampling and pathological analysis to Yes—site Defer to EPA identify the cause of the fish death investigation, water, Interim Fish algae, and fish Kill Protocol pathology Review of river health information to identify Nil Defer to Nil the environmental conditions that Interim Fish contributed to the fish kill Kill Protocol Debriefing to learn from the experience, and Yes, not clear if there Defer to Nil to refine the knowledge base and fish kill is a mechanism to Interim Fish response protocols to reduce the likelihood refine the knowledge Kill Protocol and severity of future fish kills base Refinement of protocols by knowledge gained by previous fish kill responses A draft of the Interim Fish Kill Protocol was in existence at the time of the January 2004 Goulburn River fish kill. It was reviewed and amended in November 2004. The Interim Framework for a Multi Agency Response to Incidents in Waterways was developed in response to the January 2004 fish kill.

Adequacy of collected information to identify the cause Attachment 3 of the Interim Fish Kill Protocol documents the investigation, sampling and analysis protocols for a fish kill. The protocol identifies in situ water quality testing requirements (DO, temperature, EC) at the top, middle, and bottom waters. The only guidance as to the scope of laboratory analysis is ‘Freshwater Sciences can provide advice on what water sampling is needed’. The DPI—Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals audit of G-MW’s record keeping, restricted chemical use and APVMA off-label permit use of biocides also reviewed the water quality analysis conducted to assist in the identification of the January 2004 fish kill. Arising out of this review DPI suggested the following should all be considered in adequate detail if risks to aquatic organisms from agricultural chemical use are to be reduced: • Consideration be given to the dominant surrounding land uses; particularly industries and farming practices with high chemical inputs and use patterns, their proximity to waterways and potential for spray drift and run-off water to be carried into those waterways. The consideration should also include the cumulative impacts of multiple chemical uses in a general area.

Environmental Audit 143 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

• Several common agricultural chemicals are recognised marine pollutants or are highly toxic to fish and aquatic organisms. A range of common fungicide and insecticides fit this description. Many of these chemicals could be expected to be used in varying amounts in the Goulburn system with unknown risk to aquatic organisms. • There was a relatively small range of chemical types analysed in reaction to the fish deaths in early 2004. It is difficult to see why some of these chemicals were chosen above others more likely to be used in the area or known to be toxic to fish. Study into how this was the case was not within the scope of the DPI audit however, there appears to be little or no communication between the relevant agencies when trying to obtain this type of relevant background information. Targeted sampling would be more beneficial in an instance such as this rather than analysing for chemicals which may have had a low chance of being used in a particular area. • The samples submitted for analysis following the fish deaths did not include those analytes of the herbicides regularly used by GMW. Most of the chemicals listed as being analysed would also be unlikely to be used in any great quantities in the area. All the reported nil detections of agricultural chemicals from the submitted samples were for insecticides. The presence of herbicides or fungicides was seemingly not part of the analysis results released on the GMW website. At this late stage it is unknown what relevance this may have had to the fish deaths, if any.

DPI then recommended the following in relation to the collection and assessment of data associated with fish kills: • Suggest greater information exchange between agencies to assist intelligence gathering concerning agricultural chemicals and the potential environmental impacts. This type of assessment of agricultural chemical use could then lead to reducing the risk to the environment and a greater understanding of the type of analysis required in the event of any fish deaths where agricultural chemicals are suspected. • Suggest more regular independent audits of GMW’s use of herbicides, in particular acrolein (Magnacide H) and chemicals used under APVMA off-label permits.

Upon considering the DPI report G-MW has advised that they believe that the DPI Auditor’s comments with respect to the chemicals G-MW used in and within the vicinity of Goulburn Weir may be the product of a misunderstanding. In particular G-MW advised that: • G-MW only ever used glyphosate in the vicinity of Goulburn Weir and the use of that chemical terminated in March 2003. The nearest use of any other herbicides by G-MW was a minimum of 12 km downstream of the weir structure. No Acrolein has been used in a channel or drain which outfalls to the Goulburn or Broken Rivers since approximately 2000. Acrolein is not used in storages or natural waterways. • EPA and G-MW surveyed riparian land users and derived the list of chemical analytes from information supplied by these land users and other activities known to be occurring in the vicinity. The DPI auditor did not request information on this aspect other than copies of the Certificates of Analysis for the chemical test undertaken by G-MW’s contracted laboratories and the State Chemistry Laboratory.

Adequacy of the process of review and refinement to reduce future fish kills

Learnings from the January 2004 fish kill debrief process A debrief process was initiated after the January 2004 fish kill. The was led by the Goulburn Broken CMA as it believed that their was a lack of leadership by designated control agencies under the Emergencies Management Act 1986. The debrief process involved:

EPA Victoria 144 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

• two debrief sessions held within two months of the fish kill • two facilitated stakeholder meetings held on 22 April and 13 May 2004 to further explore generic response arrangements.

All sessions and meetings were hosted by the Goulburn Broken CMA. The two debrief sessions were attended by the CMA, EPA, DPI, DSE, and G-MW. Meeting minutes have been inspected. The second session involved consideration of ‘cause’ possibilities and an incident debrief. Several participants at these debrief sessions have expressed concern to the Auditor that the above sessions did not constitute a formal debrief process as not all parties had adopted a common debrief protocol and hence it was not possible to debrief against a consistent set of protocols, only G-MW and the GVRWA had maintained incident logs, and that that the EPA incident controller did not attend the debrief. The following documents were inspected, thus confirming that these debrief meetings and facilitated stakeholder meetings were held: • notice of debrief meeting of 11 March 2004, entitled phase 1—incident response/process • notice of meeting of scientific panel of 11 March 2004, entitled phase 2—incident/causal factors • notice and minutes of debrief meeting of 22 April 2004 • notice of debrief meeting of 13 May 2004 • summary notes from the scientific panel discussion relating to the Goulburn Weir fish kill, in January 2004. In these notes nine hypotheses were presented as being potentially responsible for the fish deaths (Section 4.3).

At these meetings it was agreed that the EPA should take initial control of all fish kills as the cause of fish kills often take time to accurately determine, and investigations and cleanups need to be undertaken quickly. This EPA responsibility is confirmed in the Interim Fish Kill Protocol.

EPA response to the 2004 debrief process The EPA advised that it responded to the January 2004 fish kill by: • communicating key findings to stakeholders and the community by publishing a scientific report of the fish kill on the EPA website • refining and finalising the Interim Fish Kill Protocols in November 2004 • developing of the Interim Framework for a Multi Agency Response to Incidents in Waterways • issuing all field staff with a copy of the protocol and advice via regional managers • updating the operations manuals to incorporate the new protocol and associated instructions, which can be accessed by regional staff and those operating the pollution information line (PolWatch) • checking the status of all car investigation kits • relevant EPA field staff attending a DPI training program focussed on fish kill investigations.

Environmental Audit 145 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Concluding comment To the Auditor’s knowledge, apart from the debriefing process described in the Interim Fish Kill Protocol, there is no defined process in place to review and refine fish kill response protocols with the objective of gathering information to reduce the incidence and severity of future fish kills and improve response arrangements.

8.3 Activity C: Use of biocides

Biocides, also termed pesticides, include herbicides, insecticides and fungicides. The audit for this activity is limited to the following herbicides used by G-MW to control the growth of aquatic weeds in irrigation channels and drains: • aminotriazole (amitrole) • acrolein • 2,4 dichlorophenoxy acetic acid as dimethylamine salt (2,4-D) • glyphosate iso propylamine salt (glyphosate also commonly known as roundup).

G-MW also used sodium 2,2 dicchloropropionate (2,2-DPA) up until 1995. Since then its use has been discontinued. With the exception of acrolein the above herbicides are spot sprayed only onto emergent or aquatic weeds. Acrolein is injected directly into flowing water to treat submerged weeds. Typically drains and channels are treated with acrolein during summer, and the other three herbicides when the weeds are not submerged. The audit criteria for the ‘Use of Biocides’ activity is to assess compliance with: 1. Clause 37 of the SEPP (WoV) (criterion 15) 2. the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act (criterion 16). Biocides management aspects of the Dangerous Goods Handling and Storage Regulations have not been audited as the above SEPP (WoV) and the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act are considered to be more relevant to the health of the Goulburn River. The assessment only considers the threat of biocides to river health in audit reach 1 as G-MW channels or drains only occur downstream of the Goulburn Weir. It is acknowledged that biocides usage upstream of the Goulburn Weir has the potential to impact upon river health. This is through viticulture (numerous vineyards upstream of the Goulburn Weir), annual cropping (cereals and oils seeds) and pastures (lucerne and clover production).

8.3.1 Criterion 15—WoV—Chemical management

Audit criteria

15: Conformance with the biocides storage, training, use, contingency planning and emergency response obligations under Clause 37 of the SEPP (WoV).

Scope

Clause 37 of the SEPP (WoV) states: ‘Chemicals including biocides, fertilisers, oil and fuel, other hazardous substances and prescribed industrial wastes need to be managed to minimise environmental risks to beneficial uses. To ensure this:

EPA Victoria 146 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

1. Chemicals and hazardous substances must not be stored in or near surface waters, drainage lines or floodplains, unless the storage facilities prevent them from coming into contact with surface waters. 2. Protection agencies and businesses that use, store or transport chemicals and hazardous substances must develop and maintain plans for the avoidance of spills, leakages or breakdowns. Contingency plans need to include emergency holding and clean up measures, actions to minimise environmental risks to beneficial uses, methods for disposal of spilled materials and staff training in operating and emergency response procedures. 3. The Environment Protection Authority will work with protection agencies, businesses and communities to develop guidance for the use and storage of biocides and fertilisers in or near surface waters. In-stream and riparian chemical spraying practices need to be consistent with guidance approved by the Environment Protection Authority. In particular, in-stream and riparian spraying needs to be avoided in the Aquatic Reserves and Highlands segments.’ The auditing against this criterion is limited to G-MW activities from July 2003 and June 2004. While it is recognised that herbicides and other biocides are used within the area and hence pose a risk to the health of streams, the audit is limited to activities associated with the storage, transport, and use of biocides which are used along G-MW channels and drains. Both channels and drains ultimately discharge to streams.

Summary of evidence

Storage of biocides G-MW herbicides are stored at nine depots which are located outside of the Goulburn River floodplain and are at least 200 m from surface waters and irrigation drainage lines.

Development and maintenance of plans G-MW has developed and maintained several manuals and guidelines which are relevant to the storage and transport of biocides and the avoidance of spills, leakages or breakdowns. These are: • Herbicide Operating Instructions • Acrolein Instruction Manual • Acrolein Emergency Procedure Guide • Corporate Environmental Emergency Management Manual.

Herbicide Operating Instructions manual G-MWs Herbicide Operating Instructions (version 4), which provide details on G-MW’s herbicide storage, training and use, were inspected. The version inspected was valid from September 2004 to October 2005. The manual provides information on the management of terrestrial and aquatic weeds within channels and drainage systems, reservoirs, streams and land managed by G-MW and describes conditions under which herbicides may be used to control these weeds. The manual addresses G-MW usage and storage of herbicides, except for acrolein for which advice is addressed in the Acrolein Emergency Procedure Guide. The manual is intended for G-MW personnel and contractors.

Environmental Audit 147 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

The manual does not cover the transport of herbicides. In their response to the draft audit on matters of fact, G-MW has advised that with the exception of acrolein, herbicides used by G- MW are not classed as dangerous goods and so do not have transport requirements, that herbicides are delivered by chemical suppliers to G-MW stores, and that herbicides in spray vehicles are usually diluted. The manual states that if ‘any variations in herbicide treatments recommended by this manual are contemplated, written confirmation must be obtained from G-MW’s Manager, Aquatic Plant Services’. The manual covers duties of personnel, cleaning of equipment, usage reports, aquatic weed control, safety and safety equipment, and emergency response. The only advice with respect to weed control in streams and reservoirs is that ‘the chemical weed control method should be planned with the manager of the APS and the relevant reservoir controller’. The emergency response procedures documented in the manual are limited to the herbicide label, the supplier data sheets, the safe storage and handing information provided by the APS (which is kept in the storage building and made available to any spray operator), and the herbicide application pack issued by APS and should be kept in the driver’s side door of the vehicle.

EMS Corporate Environmental Emergency Management Manual Contingency planning and emergency response to spills are documented in G-MW’s EMS Corporate Environmental Emergency Management Manual. The Acrolein Emergency Procedure Guide also has procedures for contingency planning and emergency response to spills.

EPA guidance for the use and storage of biocides in or near surface waters The intent of Clause 37(3) of the SEPP (WoV) is not clear to the Auditor; i.e. whether the EPA is to develop a guideline similar to those prepared as part of the EPAs Best Practice Environmental Management series or simply to provide guidance upon request. EPA guidelines have not been developed for the use and storage of biocides and fertilisers in or near surface waters. The EPA interprets this clause as a requirement to work with organisations so that this guidance is developed. To achieve this, EPA sits on a reference committee (run by the Australian Cooperative Research Centre for Weed Management) to develop Victorian management guidelines for the use of herbicides on riparian land with the intention that it fulfil the requirements of the relevant SEPP (WoV) clause. A copy of these guidelines (in preparation) has been provided to the Auditor. While the draft guidelines address use, they do not assess storage requirements. As G-MW has not applied biocides at the Goulburn weir pool and along the riparian zone during the audited period (July 2003 to June 2004) it has not had the need to obtain EPA approval.

8.3.2 Criterion 16—Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act

Audit criteria

16: Conformance with the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act as it relates to herbicide application rates in G-MW channels and drains.

EPA Victoria 148 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

This criterion has been modified from ‘Conformance with…relates to biocides storage, training, use, contingency planning and emergency response to spills’ as documented in the Detailed Audit Scope (Appendix A) to ‘Conformance with…relates to herbicide application rates in G-MW channels and drains’, as the Act has a specific focus on use and application and the other aspects in the initial criterion 16 scope are addressed in audit criterion 15. The audit has not considered the use of herbicides, such as Brushoff (Metsulfuron methyl), Oust (Sulfometuron) or Simazine, which are used to control weeds growing along drains and channels in the catchment.

Scope

The Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act is administered by DPI. Section 19 of the Act ‘Off-label use of chemical products’ states that: 1. A person must not, otherwise than in accordance with a permit issued under Schedule 1, use a chemical product, fertiliser or stock food— (a) at a rate that is higher than the maximum application rate for that use, as stated on the label or (b) at intervals more frequent than the intervals for that use, as stated on the label. 2. For the purposes of sub-section (1)(a), “rate”, in relation to an agricultural chemical product, means the quantity per unit area, or per item. 3. A person must not, otherwise than in accordance with a permit issued under Schedule 1, use a chemical product, fertiliser or stock food in a particular manner or for a particular purpose or in particular circumstances if the label specifically states that the chemical product, fertiliser or stock food must not be used in that particular manner or for that particular purpose or in those particular circumstances. The auditing against this criterion is limited to G-MW activities between July 2003 and June 2004, and does not include herbicides and fungicides used by G-MW on land.

Summary of evidence

All agricultural chemicals must first be registered by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) prior to being used. Before agricultural chemicals above registered label rates, or contrary to label directions, can be used, an APVMA off-label permit must first be issued. These APVMA permits are valid for up to 5 years. The Central Goulburn Irrigation Area (west of the river) and the Shepparton Irrigation Area (east of the river) were the only G-MW irrigation areas where channel and drain outfalls discharged to the Goulburn River over the audit period. Selected G-MW Herbicide Application Reports as well as the G-MW summary of herbicide usage (G-MW Note to File of 26 October 2004—Herbicide Usage for Goulburn River Audit) have been inspected for the audit period. The DPI June 2004 audit findings of G-MW’s record keeping, restricted chemical use and APVMA off-label permit use of biocides have also been considered. The DPI audit was conducted by a DPI Chemical Standards Branch authorised officer.

Herbicide application rates The herbicides, and their application rates, used along these drains and channels since 2000 are shown in Table 8.4. Acrolein has not been used in these drains and channels since 2000 (G-MW Note to File dated 10 October 2004—Goulburn River Audit, 2003/04, Herbicide Usage).

Environmental Audit 149 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Table 8.4: Use of herbicides

Irrigation area Artificial Herbicide Application rate asset Central Goulburn Channels glyphosate (Weedmaster duo) @ 9 L/ha IA Drains General—glyphosate (Weedmaster 9 L/ha duo) and (Amitrole T) mix (glyphosate) 11 L/ha (Amitrole T) Arrowhead—glyphosate (Weedmaster 20 to 40 L/ha duo) Shepparton IA Channels 2,4-D amine (Amicide 625 LO) Not given (permitted use) Drains General—glyphosate (Weedmaster 9 L/ha duo) 20 to 40 L/ha Arrowhead—glyphosate (Weedmaster duo) Off-label use of herbicides The above application rates are less than or equal to the maximum application rate for that use, as stated on the labels, with the exception of Amicide 625-LO @10L/ha, and Weedmaster Duo @ 20-40L/ha. G-MW has APVMA permits granted for these two herbicide applications. The permits are: • 6341 (Amicide 625-LO) @10L/ha. • 6999 (Weedmaster Duo) @ 20-40L/ha.

DPI has noted that G-MW also has an APVMA permit (No. 7252) to use Weedmaster Duo, @20-40L/ha, along 20km of Broken Creek and Nine Mile Creek for the control of Arrowhead. The APVMA permits issued to G-MW require that the chemicals not be applied to areas inhabited by ‘protected, vulnerable or threatened native’ taxa. The following concerns were identified by DPI following their June 2004 audit of G-MW’s record keeping, restricted chemical use and APVMA off-label permit use of biocides: • Not all the required records were being adequately kept by G-MW when using Acrolein (Magnacide H). The Act requires several records to be kept as it is a Schedule 7 poison. • Some of the APVMA off-label permit requirements had not been fully complied with (e.g. the start and finish spraying dates were not always met). • There is little or no appraisal of ‘protected, vulnerable or threatened native’ taxa prior to spraying as the drains and channels are drained prior to spraying. DPI has advised that drainage would not necessarily exclude frogs, tortoises and yabbies from any pre-spray environmental appraisal.

DPI also advised that G-MW were of the opinion that fish deaths in irrigation supply channels following acrolein application were inevitable. G-MW has responded to the above DPI advice as follows: • At the lowest in-channel concentrations effective for submerged weed control, acrolein is likely to be lethal to fish.

EPA Victoria 150 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

• Whether or not fish will be killed by acrolein treatments depends primarily on whether they are present and can escape the acrolein. • Few fish are present in the channel system, most of which are the noxious carp. This may be due to the fact that the channels are dried out each winter, and where native fish are found at low points, Fisheries Victoria are notified and asked if they wish to relocate them, which sometimes occurs, particularly with Murray Cod. Anglers also target all species trapped at these low points. • There are usually a considerable number of immature carp killed by acrolein treatments each year—there does not appear to be any pattern. Few larger fish are killed. • Every few years there are other species involved, mostly redfin perch, rarely natives • According to our records there have been instances of 3 Murray Cod killed over the last 9 years (when G-MW started keeping reliable records of environmental incidents). One of those records involved a third party report of a large Murray Cod killed, but no carcass was ever found.

In the sense that, if fish are present in a channel treated with acrolein there is a high likelihood that they will be killed, the DPI Auditor draws the appropriate conclusion. However, we did not say that, and the vast majority of acrolein injections take place without any fish being killed, simply because of the low fish numbers in our channel system. In April 2005 G-MW advised the Auditor that they are currently conferring with DPI and the APVMA to determine how best to address the above issues. G-MW believe that the matter of acrolein record keeping is easily addressed and that trials should be conducted to determine post treatment residues for off-label application rates, and that listed species would be adequately protected if the residue concentrations were below the ANZECC risk thresholds. It is noted that while the SEPP (WoV) does not provide for the protection of beneficial uses in drains and channels, approval under the EPBC Act is required for an action that has, will have, or is likely to have a significant impact upon matters of national significance. Matters of national significance include listed threatened species including the following native fish that are present in the Goulburn River below the Eildon Weir—Murray cod, Trout (bluenose) cod, Barred Galaxias and Murray perch. Under sections 43B and 523 of the EPBC Act entitled ‘Actions which are lawful continuations of use of land etc.’ an action under the Act can be taken without approval if the action is a continuation of use that was occurring before the Act commenced (16 July 2000). In this case ‘maintenance works’ may normally fit into the category of continuation of use. G-MW considers its weed spraying to be a continuation of its previous maintenance activities and as it is not an intensification of their previous weed control activities the action does not require approval. It is noted that G-MW has advised that the Department of Environment and Heritage (DEH), which administers the EPBC Act, ruled that chemical weed control proposed to be used for the control of arrowhead in the River Murray in 2004, was not likely to have a significant impact on a matter of National Environmental Significance. It is understood that glyphosate is typically used for the control of arrowhead, and hence it is assumed that it is the usage of this biocide that was referred to DEH.

Conformance with ANZECC (2000) trigger values for herbicides Although not referenced in the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act, the Auditor has assessed whether the residual application concentrations in drains and channels comply with the Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (ANZECC 2000).

Environmental Audit 151 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

1995 Herbicide Usage Audit In 1995, G-MW commissioned CMPS&F (1995) to undertake an independent, aquatic biocides audit of all aspects of its use, storage, handling, transport and disposal of aquatic herbicides. As part of this audit concentrations of herbicides were analysed before, during and after herbicide applications under a variety of conditions. CMPS&F (1995) noted that the application concentrations of amitrole, acrolein, 2,4-D, and glyphosate exceeded criteria for the protection of aquatic ecosystems by two orders of magnitude and hence was non-conforming with the SEPP (WoV), as of 1995, which restricted herbicide applications to less than 100 times the aquatic ecosystem risk assessment criteria. This requirement was not carried forward from the previous SEPP (WoV) to the current SEPP (WoV) in 2003 and hence the SEPP (WoV) receiving water quality objectives only apply after discharge from drain and channel outfalls to the receiving waters. The SEPP (WoV), up until 2003, required that all herbicides must return to background concentrations within 12 hours. In the case of acrolein and 2,4-D the detection limit was above the threshold. The audit report noted some compliance issues relating to the fact that G-MW channels and drains were assigned the full suite of beneficial uses by the SEPP (WoV) in place at the time. The acrolein concentrations of the spray used to kill aquatic weeds would also be guaranteed to impact on other biota in the channel or drain, and if the channel or drain was assigned the same beneficial use status as a surface water, breaches of the SEPP (WoV) water quality objectives and indicators for aquatic ecosystems were likely. The current SEPP (WoV), as of June 2003, now excludes irrigation drains and channels from the definition of ‘surface waters’. Although the SEPP (WoV) does not attach beneficial uses to G-MW channels and drains, drain outfalls must comply with the SEPP (WoV).

ANZECC (2000) trigger values for herbicides The Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (ANZECC 2000) have set herbicide trigger values for irrigation waters, aquatic ecosystems, and drinking water. These are presented in Table 8.5. Table 8.5: ANZECC (2000) trigger values for herbicides

Trigger Concentration (mg/L) Herbicide Residual in Aquatic Drinking irrigation ecosystems water waters Table (Table 3.4.1)3 (Australian 4.2.12 2 Drinking Water Guidelines)4 aminotrtriazole (Amitrole T); 0.011 Insufficient 0.001 data acrolein (Magnacide H) 0.1 Insufficient 0.5 data 2,4-D amine (Amicide 625 LO) 0.011 0.28 0.03 glyphosate (Weedmaster duo). 0.011 1.2 1.0 1General limit for all herbicides in NSW. 2 Based upon adverse impacts on crop growth but do not consider impacts on aquatic ecosystems. 3Trigger level for 95% protection of species (they apply to slightly–moderately disturbed systems). 4 Australian Drinking Water Quality Guidelines (NHMRC and ARMCANZ 1996).

EPA Victoria 152 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

G-MW has provided the Auditor with their calculations of residual amitrole and glyphosate concentrations in the drainage waters exiting the Central Goulburn and Shepparton Irrigation Areas. 2,4-D amine (Amicide 625 LO) is not provided, as it was not used in the Central Goulburn and the Shepparton Irrigation Areas between July 2003 and June 2004 (the audit period). These calculations are presented in Table 8.6 together with the ANZECC (2000) aquatic ecosystem trigger levels. Table 8.6: G-MW estimates of residual herbicide concentrations in drainage waters

Central Goulburn IA Shepparton IA Parameter glyphosate amitrole glyphosate Drainage water to Goulburn River (ML) 2 481 2 481 681 Active ingredient (kg) 260.28 248.25 472 Active ingredient entering water—20% (kg) 52 50 94 Mean annual concentration (mg/L) 0.00278 0.00266 0.0184 ANZECC trigger level (95% level of 1.2 Not specified 1.2 protection) Concentration as a % of trigger level 0.23% - 1.53%

In preparing these estimates G-MW has assumed that 20% of the herbicide enters the water run-off from the plant or spray mist. The glyphosate mean annual herbicide concentrations in both the Central Goulburn and the Shepparton Irrigation Areas is less than the Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (ANZECC 2000) herbicide trigger values for irrigation waters, aquatic ecosystems, and drinking water. The amitrole mean annual concentration in the Central Goulburn Irrigation Area of 0.00226 mg/L is above the Australian Drinking Water Guideline trigger value of 0.001 mg/L. G-MW has advised that, in general, their channels are not a drinking water supply. Further G- MW states that where Bulk Entitlements are sourced from channels, the urban water authority is given prior notice of the treatment, including the herbicide involved, and they forgo diversion for a number of days. These authorities have responsibilities for testing raw and treated water which is used for drinking purposes for contaminants, including biocides. The Auditor has not sought further advice from G-MW and Goulburn Valley Regional Water Authority to determine the extent of channel water usage for drinking purposes and the adequacy of protocols applied to ensure that biocide contamination is not present.

8.4 Activity D: Irrigation drainage

There are two types of irrigation drainage systems; public drains and private (community) drains. These drains are designed to carry excess water off irrigated properties. The public drains are managed by Goulburn-Murray Water, while the private drains are managed by the beneficiaries. Irrigation drainage water is either reused by downstream irrigators or is discharged to receiving waters such as the Goulburn River and its tributaries. Possible sources of drain contamination are: • illegal pollution

Environmental Audit 153 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

• run-off from irrigated properties • groundwater inflows (where the drains intersect the watertable) • aquatic herbicide spraying in drains to control weeds.

Contamination within irrigation drainage systems may result in various ecological impacts in receiving waters such as increases in blue green algae, reduced fish abundance and diversity, reduced macroinvertebrate abundance and diversity, reduced plant abundance and diversity, and the spread of aquatic pest plants and animals (Cottingham et al. 2001). Possible contaminants include suspended solids, nutrients, salinity, dissolved oxygen, biocides and temperature. Drain discharges can also affect the stream function and morphology where there is terrestrial and riparian damage or loss, increased sedimentation and erosion, and reduced water quality. Discharges from irrigation drain outfalls should not adversely impact upon the beneficial uses of the Goulburn River and its tributaries as defined in the SEPP (WoV). The beneficial uses are listed in Section 8.1. G-MW drain outfalls within the Goulburn River catchment are located downstream of Shepparton. There are also some small capacity private drainage outlets upstream of Shepparton. These are associated with properties that licensed stream and groundwater diversion licences. The audit criteria for the irrigation drainage activity are: 1. Conformance with Clause 51(2) of the SEPP (WoV)—Irrigation Channels and Drains. 2. Conformance with the Irrigation Drainage Memorandum of Understanding (IDMoU) Implementation Program (Government of Victoria 2004).

8.4.1 Criterion 17—Irrigation drains and channels

Audit criterion

Conformance with Clause 51 (2) of the SEPP (WoV)—Irrigation Channels and Drains.

Scope

The introductory commentary to Clause 51 of the SEPP (WoV) states ‘Artificial irrigation channels and artificial irrigation drains need to be managed for the purposes for which they were constructed (see Clause 10). They must be designed and managed so that their waters are not harmful to humans or have unacceptable impacts on animals, and so that the impact of their flow, sediments, nutrients, salt and other pollutants on surface water and groundwater is minimised’. Clause 10 of the SEPP (WoV) states that artificial irrigation drains and channels are exempt from beneficial use classifications. Rather they ‘need to be managed for the purposes for which they have been constructed and must be designed and managed so that they are not harmful to humans or have unacceptable impacts on animals, and that their impact on surface waters is minimised’. Clause 51(2) states that to enable the above, relevant water authorities need to: • implement practices to minimise pollutants generated within irrigation channels and drains and to minimise the impact of discharges from irrigation channels and drains on surface waters

EPA Victoria 154 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

• monitor, on a priority basis, the impact of discharges from irrigation channels and drains on surface waters • work with the DSE, DPI, EPA, and catchment management authorities to identify a credible, independent audit system and use it to audit the impact of irrigation drain discharges on surface waters.

The auditing against this criterion is in part specific to the Rodney Main Drain (Public) which discharges to the Goulburn River immediately upstream of McCoys Bridge (on the Murray Valley Highway) and the Shepparton Drain 3 (Public), which discharges into the Goulburn River via Reedy Swamp north of Shepparton.

Summary of evidence

Relevant water authority The relevant water authority is G-MW. G-MW is responsible for developing surface drainage management guidelines for irrigated properties, developing design guidelines for primary drains and community surface drains, and for constructing, operating and maintaining the primary drains.

Implementation of practices to minimise pollution Practices to ‘minimise pollutants generated within irrigation drains and to minimise the impact of discharges from irrigation drains on surface waters’ have been trialled in the Shepparton Irrigation Region. G-MW in association with the Goulburn Broken CMA has initiated the D118 project titled ‘Nutrient Removal from Rural Drainage Systems Using Wetlands’. This project was commissioned to determine the potential for reducing nutrients from irrigation drainage systems using in-line wetland technology and batter stabilisation techniques. SKM (May 2000) reported the results of in-line wetland trial at Invergordon. The Auditor has not sought, or considered it necessary to obtain, further information on the application of in- line wetlands to minimise pollution. SKM (December 2002) reported on several drain batter stabilisation (revegetation) trials conducted around the SIR, including the Rodney Main Drain, over a two-year period commencing in 1998. Several revegetation techniques including hydromulching, to assist in seed germination, were investigated. SKM (December 2002) recommendations addressed revegetation, drain design, drain construction, drain operation and maintenance. One key recommendation was hydromulching of batters for new drains where vegetation re-establishment was unlikely within a short timeframe. G-MW advised the Auditor that: • a contract for drain batter hydromulching was let in November 2004. This follows a number of trials of different types of hydromulching and an assessment of their effectiveness. • they are exploring opportunities to apply the D118 findings to the Rodney Main Drain and Shepparton Drain 3. Further clarification has not been requested. • new maintenance practices have been applied across G-MW’s drains, including the Rodney Main Drain and Shepparton Drain 3. These include desilting on the drain bed only.

Environmental Audit 155 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Monitoring of drain discharge impacts on surface waters

Overview Of the Shepparton Irrigation Region (SIR) served by public drains: • 93% is continuously monitored for flow • 90% is continuously monitored for salinity • 87% is monitored for nutrients, pH, turbidity and suspended solids on a fortnightly basis.

This routine water quality and flow monitoring targets the larger public and community surface drains including the Rodney Main Drain. Fixed monitoring sites for flow, nutrients, pH, turbidity, and suspended solids monitoring are located as close to drain outfalls to rivers/creeks as possible. The above monitoring is undertaken at a consistent frequency. Irrigation drains within small catchments, generally less than 5000 ha, are not routinely monitored and do not have their flows continuously measured. These include most of the drains surrounding the Shepparton township, such as Shepparton Drain 3, which outfall to either Broken River or Goulburn River. (There is no flow, salinity, or nutrient monitoring of Shepparton Drain No. 3.) G-MW has advised that partly to compensate for this omission, many of the spot measurements are biased towards such drains. The monitoring for metals, pathogens, and biocides is not routinely conducted at fixed sites. G-MW engages contractors to sample and analyse irrigation drains for: • nutrients • pathogens • biocides and metals (in sediments) • biological indicators (near drain outfalls) • pesticides. In addition G-MW has undertaken a ‘first tier’ risk assessment of pesticides in terms of impacts on beneficial use, including the impact of channel outfalls on aquatic ecosystems. A summary of these monitoring and investigation programs is presented below.

Nutrients The WQS (2002) estimated that 47% of the total phosphorus loads that reached waterways within the CMA Region was sourced from irrigation drains. The strategy establishes a 20-year target to reduce the total phosphorus load from the drains within the catchment by 50% of the 1993/94 load. Since 2002/03 the SIR drain nutrient monitoring program has included 19 monitoring sites. These include the Rodney Main Drain, at Wells Creek. Each year the data is summarised and an assessment of the impact of irrigation on nutrient loads exported from the Goulburn catchment is undertaken. Reporting of the trend analysis up to 2002/03 is found in SKM (November 2004) ‘C806 A and B Shepparton Drain Nutrients: Trend Analysis of Nutrients in Irrigation Drains in the Shepparton Irrigation Region’, prepared on behalf of G-MW and the Goulburn Broken CMA. In addition annual reports on the drain flow and nutrient concentration monitoring are prepared by G-MW.

EPA Victoria 156 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

For the Rodney Main Drain, a significant flow reduction, coupled with a significant increase in total N and total P concentration compared to the mid 1990s was observed. Due to the reduction in flow there had been a significant reduction in nutrient loads. SKM (November 2004) notes that ‘the decreasing flow trend is consistent with the drought impacts that are currently being experienced in the area’. The term ‘significant’ as used above refers to statistical significance and not necessarily a large change to the quantity. SKM (November 2004) then concludes that overall the time trend analysis indicates that flow through the drains is decreasing and total N and total P concentrations generally have no significant trend associated with them. The flow trends were analysed independent of rainfall, irrigation deliveries and season, whilst the trends in nutrient concentration were analysed independent of flow, irrigation deliveries and season. The effect of flow on the load data has been considerable and all sites have shown very significant downward time trends in phosphorus load. This points to an overall trend towards of reduced phosphorous loads to drains even after climatic conditions are taken into account.

Pathogens In 2002 G-MW sampled twelve irrigation drain sites over eight weeks for a range of baseline parameters including pathogens (Nolan-ITU 2002). The sampling sites were: The Ardmona Main Drain, Bamawm Main Drain, Broken Creek upstream from Murray Valley Drain 13, Deakin Main Drain, Goulburn River at McCoy’s Bridge, Mosquito Main Drain, Shepparton Drain 12 and 2, Wyuna Main Drain, and Murray Valley Drains 13, 1/13, 7/13, 6, 7/6, and 11/6. The following six sites had a median faecal coliform count exceeding 1000 organisms/100 mL: • Murray Valley Drain 13 at the outfall • MV Drain 6 at Bearii • Wyuna Main Drain at MV Hwy • Deakin Main Drain at Gray Road • Ardmona Main Drain • Bamawm Main at Dargan’s Bridge.

The key conclusions were: • The median faecal coliform count exceeded 1000 organisms/100 mL in six of the above drains. • Salmonella was analysed for at the Murray Valley Drain 13 outfall but this was not detected. • Clause 50(6) of the SEPP (WoV) directs relevant agencies to enable landholders to develop effective management practices to reduce run-off of sediments, nutrients, litter, and other pollutants from agricultural drains.

The report recommended the following for high-risk irrigation drains: • A visual audit of the drain is undertaken to identify specific potential contaminant sources. • Fortnightly monitoring of the outfall. • Intense monitoring of a specific drain linked with visual inspection during a contamination event (determined at the outfall) is undertaken.

Environmental Audit 157 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

• Assessment of the implications and risks of non-compliance with EPA (EPA 1996) Guidelines for Wastewater Reuse (Publication No. 464) reuse and the ANZECC (2000) Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality.

A follow up passive drain pathogen sampling program was undertaken by Nolan-ITU in the 2004/05 irrigation season. Sampling occurred on a monthly basis on a range of drains across the Goulburn-Murray Irrigation District.

Biological indicators (macroinvertebrates and diatoms) WSL Consultants Pty Ltd monitored macroinvertebrates, diatoms and water in the receiving waters upstream and downstream of three irrigation drain outfalls between December 2003 and March 2004. These drains included the Rodney Main Drain (Wells Creek) and Toolamba Community Drain 4P Drain outfalls to the Goulburn River. Macroinvertebrates are common to all freshwater systems and play a major role in the functioning of the ecosystem. They comprise a variety of trophic groups, including filter feeders, algal grazers, leaf shredders, wood miners, predators and deposit feeders. Diatom assemblage composition is particularly responsive to fluctuations in nutrient concentrations and salinity. WSL (2004) reported: 1. Toolamba Community 4P Drain. An adverse impact was suggested due to macroinvertebrate indices (with the exception of the SIGNAL score) being poorer downstream, a large change in diatom assemblage downstream of the outfall, and DO and turbidity deterioration in December 2003. 2. Rodney Main Drain. An adverse impact was suggested due to a change in diatom assemblage downstream of the outfall (indicative of an increase in nutrients), and an EC deterioration, together with pH and temperature differences in December 2003. The report recommended that future biological monitoring should be undertaken seasonally (spring and autumn) and should subscribe to the minimum sampling requirements of the EPA (1998) ‘Publication No. 596—Point Source Discharges to Streams—Protocol for In stream Monitoring and Assessment’ with multiple sites upstream and downstream of irrigation drains.

Biocides and metals in sediments G-MW has undertaken regular sediment sampling of biocides and heavy metals in SIR irrigation drains since 1998. Feehan and Plunkett (2003) reported on the sampling and analysis of a range of biocides in irrigation drain sediments in 1998, 1999 and 2001. They reported: • biocides were not detected in drain sediments at 8 SIR locations (1998 and 1999) • a low level of a DDT breakdown product was detected at one of 13 sites in 2001.

In May 2002, sediment samples were obtained from eight sites including two along the Mosquito Depression at Tatura, three on Shepparton Drain 1A/12 at Union Road and four on Shepparton Drain No. 2 at McPhees Road. (Shepparton Drain No. 2 discharges into the Broken River.) Samples from all sites were analysed for metals, and samples from four sites were analysed for biocides. The parameters analysed are shown in Table 8.7. The concentrations of the parameters were compared with the ANZECC (2000) Interim Sediment Quality Guidelines (ISQG). Values below the ISGG—low indicate a low probability of toxic effects on benthic biota, and ISGC—high indicates a high probability.

EPA Victoria 158 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Table 8.7: Sediment metals and biocide analysis (SKM 2002)

Metals Biocides Arsenic Total DDT Antimony p.p-DDE Cadmium o.p-+p.p-DDD Chromium Chlordane Copper Dieldrin Lead Endrin Mercury Lindane Nickel Zinc

ANZECC (2000) advises that where the concentration was between the low ISQG-low and ISQG-high scores further studies may be warranted. Where the concentration is above the ISQG-high, this indicates that there is a high potential for toxic effects. The SKM (2002) sampling was directed towards the evaluation of a broad range of sites to achieve an overall assessment of drain sediment quality. Where sites showed concentrations well above the low ISQG score repeat sampling was undertaken. Of the eight sites SKM (2002) found ISQG-low exceedances for As (1 site), Cu (five sites), Pb (three sites), Zn (three sites), Ni (two sites), and Hg (five sites). The most exceedances were found along Shepparton Drain No. 2/2. Concentrations of DDE, DDD and DDT (total) were greater than the ISQG-low trigger at three sites and exceeded the ISQG-high trigger for DDE at Shepparton Drain 2/2. SKM (2002) advised that ‘DDE is an impurity and degradation product of DDT, a persistent organochlorine insecticide that has been banned for use in Australia since 1987 because of notoriety of bioaccumulating up the food-chain. The land use of the area sampled is horticulture, therefore it is not unreasonable to assume biocide applications continue to be or have been historically intensive. The inability to detect DDT in the sediment samples suggests that the DDE and DDD are residual contaminants and that DDT has not been applied recently’. This appears to be inconsistent with the above finding that DDT (total) concentration was above ISQG-low trigger for three of the four sites. The SKM (2002) recommended that: • further sediment sampling for metals and biocides in the vicinity of Shepparton Drain 2/2 upstream of Channel Road with the purpose of definitively establishing the threat posed by contaminants. • impetus for further studies on bioavailability or consideration of remediation would be based on compliance with ANZECC (2000) ISQG-high guidelines. • consideration be given to clearly defining the objectives of the sediment monitoring program and further develop the monitoring program based on these objectives.

Environmental Audit 159 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Pesticides first tier risk assessment G-MW initiated an investigation program into the risk of pesticides used in Goulburn-Murray Irrigation Areas. The program was termed EMP A2. It included the collation of inventory data by G-MW (G-MW 2001) and a First Tier Risk Assessment of pesticides used in the Goulburn- Murray Irrigation Areas by CSIRO and G-MW (CSIRO 2003). G-MW (G-MW 2001) investigated the major pesticides used in the range of irrigated cultures that exist within the boundaries of Goulburn-Murray Water’s irrigation areas. The investigation also reviewed on farm pesticide management practices, volumes of pesticides used, pesticide toxicity, application methods and time of use. The first tier risk assessment names humans and animals, fish (aquaculture), aquatic ecosystem (macro-invertebrates) and pastures as receptor groups. Exposure pathways considered were drift during application, discharge to irrigation drains, accidental spills and unlawful acts. The risks associated with discharge to drains appear to have been based upon agricultural applications only (i.e. excluding drain spraying for weed control) and have not been incorporated in the combined risk ranking as ‘it is unclear if run-off would reach irrigation channels’. While the Auditor agrees with this, the first tier risks assessment appears to be incomplete without an assessment of the risk to beneficial uses associated with drain and channel outfalls to receiving waters taking into account all pathways including in drain spraying of herbicides. This is consistent with the G-MW and CSIRO (CSIRO 2003) recommendation that the risk of pesticide contamination from irrigation drain outfalls be incorporated into combined risk as irrigation run-off waters discharge into natural waterways. The top 10 pesticides found to pose the highest overall risk are also listed below starting with the pesticide with the highest risk. • azinphos-methyl (insecticide) • copper hydroxide (fungicide) • parathion methyl (insecticide) • chlorpyrifos (insecticide) • omethoate (insecticide) • esfenvalerarate (insecticide) • methomyl (insecticide) • thiram (fungicide) • bifenthrin (insecticide) • mancozeb (fungicide).

These top ten are mainly used in fruit and vegetable production in the irrigation area, located mainly in the Goulburn-Murray Valley. The only other high risk insecticide, omethoate, is used in pastures, which is much more widespread land use in various districts. Azinphos-methyl was found to pose a 20 times more risk than copper hydroxide, 40 times more risk than parathion methyl, and 100 times more risk than omethoate. G-MW and CSIRO (CSIRO 2003) recommended that aquatic ecosystems should be monitored for organophosphate (azinphos-methyl, chlorpyrifos) and fungicide (copper hydroxide, metiram). The majority of these pesticides are used in fruit and vegetable production.

EPA Victoria 160 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Identify a credible, independent audit system for drain discharges The mechanism for identifying and implementing a credible audit system for irrigation drain discharges to surface waters is presented in the Government of Victoria’s (2004) IDMoU. The IDMoU audit framework provides for: • Special catchment analysis—before catastrophic events • Special independent catchment investigation—after catastrophic events • Performance review • Process audit (performance review) • Process audit (target setting).

The mechanisms to initiate these audit tasks are clearly stated in Section 8 of the IDMoU. The special catchment analysis and special independent catchment investigation are to be undertaken when specific triggers are met. The Auditor is not aware of any formal special catchment analyses and special independent catchment investigations undertaken to date. Performance reviews and audits must be undertaken every 5 years. The performance indicator and key performance indicator target setting and monitoring will identify the key components to be audited in the process audits. Only the process audits are required to be fully independent of the stakeholders and contracting party. G-MW has advised that it, along with other signatories to the IDMoU, will be involved in the detailed development of any audit system.

8.4.2 Criterion 18—Irrigation Drainage Memorandum of Understanding.

The Memorandum of Understanding for Irrigation Drainage Management and Water Quality (IDMoU) was signed by DSE, the Goulburn Broken CMA, the North Central CMA, the EPA and G-MW on 22 June 2004. The IDMoU is intended to articulate the day-to-day portfolio responsibilities and intentions of signatories to work co-operatively and in partnership to deliver sustainable surface water management in the Irrigation Districts of northern Victoria. The implementation of the IDMoU is overseen by the IDMoU steering committee that is convened by DSE.

Audit criterion

Conformance with the Irrigation Drainage Memorandum of Understanding Implementation Work Program.

Scope

The Implementation Work Program has three distinct categories, each with a set of implementation actions. These are general issues, short-term initial rapid response processes, and long-term final processes. The IDMoU Implementation Work Program (Section 10.4 of the IDMoU) requires completion of the following general issue tasks (tasks 2, 3, and 5) and the short-term interim process task (task 6a) by early 2005. Task 2: Development of detailed guidelines for reviews and reporting processes based on DSE principles (December 2004)—CMA, G-MW and DSE

Environmental Audit 161 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Task 3: Develop and advise each party of the detail of existing water quality incident reporting and management procedures and systems for SWMS Receiving Waterways (August 2004)—All Task 5: Document assumed cause and effect relationships between resource condition outcomes and management actions (October 2004)—CMA, G-MW Task 6a: Development of initial rapid decision support system for setting monitoring requirement guidelines (stations, parameters, type, and analysis)—January 2005— DSE (prime responsibility). Annual reporting is required for Water Quality and Data Collection Summary (CMA/G-MW), Water Quality Trend Analysis (CMA/G-MW), and Summary of Licence Discharges (EPA).

Summary of evidence

Hydro Environmental was engaged by G-MW (the IDMoU Implementation Project Manager) on behalf of the IDMoU Steering Committee on 8 September to develop the Initial Rapid Decision Support System (DSS) for implementation of the IDMoU. A copy of the engagement letter and the scope of work have been inspected. The letter of engagement noted that the project is to be effectively managed by DSE. The Hydro Environmental proposal involves meeting the Tasks 6a, 7a and 8a of the IDMoU Implementation Work Program. Hydro Environmental has advised that it expects to compete the development of the DSS by October 2005. A Project Reference Group has also been set up with members from all signatory agencies to the IDMoU to assist the implementation process for those deliverables under development by Hydro Environmental (i.e. the Interim Decision Support System). This group is responsible for providing technical input at key stages in the project.

EPA Victoria 162 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

9 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The findings and recommendations of the environmental audit for the audit criteria are presented below. The findings are drawn from the evidence presented in Sections 4 to 8 and the appendices. For many findings recommendations are not warranted. For all other findings, specific recommendations have been prepared. Consequently each recommendation is linked to the relevant finding. All recommendations appear in bold type. The recommendations are prioritised in Section 11 based upon the potential risks of harm to the health of the Goulburn River if the recommendations are not adopted in the medium term. Suggested agency responsibilities for implementation of the recommendations are also assigned in Section 11.

9.1 Criterion 1—Environmental quality objectives and indicators

Audit reach 1

1. The SEPP (WoV) water quality environmental quality objectives and indicators were generally met in audit reach 1 during 2002/03 and 2003/04. The exceptions were nitrates and nitrites (both years) and dissolved oxygen (2003/04 only). 2. The average dissolved oxygen percentage 25th percentile saturation level for 2003/04 was considerably lower than the average over the 1985 to 2003 period. Investigate the cause of the low dissolved oxygen in audit reach 1 between July 2002 and June 2003.

Audit reach 2 and 3

3. Water quality is not routinely monitored along audit reaches 2 and 3 as they are not streams. Establish permanent water quality monitoring stations within audit reaches 2 and 3. 4. The 2002 expert panel’s ecological review of Lake Nagambie and the Goulburn weir pool (audit reaches 2 and 3) identified septic tank systems in the Picnic Point area, run-off from the Tahbilk area and other environmental issues as posing potential threats to the health of the lake and the weir pool. Address the potential environmental threats to the health of Lake Nagambie and the Goulburn weir pool (audit reaches 2 and 3) which were identified in the expert panel’s 2002 ecological review.

Audit reach 4

5. The SEPP (WoV) water quality environmental quality objectives and indicators were not fully met during 2002/03 and 2003/04 at any of the three water quality monitoring sites in audit reach 4. Parameters for which the objectives were not met were nitrate, nitrite, dissolved oxygen, filterable reactive phosphorus, total phosphorus, total nitrogen, turbidity, As, Cr, Cu, and Zn. The period of non-conformance varied between parameters and monitoring sites.

Environmental Audit 163 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

6. Low dissolved oxygen was associated with a significant fish kill downstream of the Goulburn Weir in January 2004. Assess whether summer and late spring releases from the Goulburn Weir’s vertical lift gates will increase downstream dissolved oxygen levels and are technically feasible for short-term periods. (Technical issues include management of occupational health and safety risks and accurate flow monitoring.) If so, consider releases from the vertical lift gates when the dissolved oxygen falls below agreed trigger levels to reduce the risk of fish kills.

General

7. The SEPP (WoV) biological environmental quality objectives are not fully met at any of the sites sampled by the EPA along audit reaches 1 and 4. This finding is based upon the Auditor’s review of the EPA’s draft ‘Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority Rivers and Stream Assessment’ which utilised 1997 to 2000 biological data. 8. The Goulburn Broken CMA is responsible for determining whether the water quality objectives will be obtained over the 10-year life of the SEPP (WoV). 9. The Goulburn Broken CMA has not stated whether the SEPP (WoV) water quality objectives will be met, and when they will be met (i.e. within the ten-year of the SEPP (WoV) timeframe, in the long term, or not at all). Clarify, through the RRHS, whether and when the SEPP (WoV) water quality objectives will be met. 10. There is not an integrated and routine water quality monitoring program with appropriate resource condition targets (RCTs) to provide the necessary information to determine whether releases from Lake Eildon and the Goulburn Weir pose environmental risks to beneficial uses. Establish stream management unit RCTs, through the RRHS, for all SEPP (WoV) water quality and biological environmental quality objectives. If these are to be subject to an additional ecological risk assessment process, establish and apply short-term targets until the ecological risk assessment is completed. Establish an integrated routine water quality monitoring evaluation and reporting program which can be used to determine whether the endorsed RRHS and SEPP (WoV) Attainment Program targets are being met. The program should: • build upon existing monitoring programs and include ambient water quality monitoring • allow for the determination of whether releases from Lake Eildon and Goulburn Weir pose environmental risks to beneficial uses • include monitoring for turbidity, nutrients, temperature, dissolved oxygen and any other pollutants considered necessary.

11. The opportunity to achieve many of the SEPP (WoV) environmental quality objectives and indicators, VRHS objectives, and NFS targets, that are not currently achieved, within the 10-year timeframe of the SEPP (WoV) could be improved if aspirational targets, RCTs and management action targets (MATs) which reflect these objectives, are adopted. See recommendation for audit finding 14.

EPA Victoria 164 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

12. A few SEPP (WoV) water quality objectives are addressed by the Goulburn Broken Water Quality Strategy. This strategy has several broad catchment-based water quality objectives.

9.2 Criterion 2—Attainment program

13. SEPP (WoV) Attainment Programs can be established at the local scale, for specific river reaches, and at the catchment scale. 14. A consolidated Goulburn River Attainment Program has not been established nor is there a comprehensive framework for its establishment which is fully compliant with the SEPP (WoV) requirements. Establish a SEPP (WoV) Attainment Program for the Goulburn River between Lake Eildon and the Murray River including the Goulburn weir pool and Lake Nagambie. 15. The May 2005 draft RRHS provides a mechanism to achieve many of the Attainment Program elements as identified in Part 4 of the SEPP (WoV). There are however a significant number of SEPP (WoV) elements for which RRHSs are not considered the appropriate Attainment Program implementation vehicle. Examples are the management of wastewater discharges area mixing zones, groundwater management, and catchment management activities including forestry, recreational activities and extractive industries. 16. The May 2005 draft RRHS, which has been guided by the VRHS, is generally accepted by DSE, EPA, CMA and G-MW as being consistent with the SEPP (WoV). 17. The May 2005 draft RRHS could be refined to provide a comprehensive and consolidated framework for the SEPP (WoV) Attainment Program. For those aspects of the Attainment Program, for which there are other more appropriate implementation vehicles, the RRHS could confirm the necessary linkages or simply attach a list of attainment matters not covered by the RRHS. Identify and endorse the appropriate vehicle(s) for the Goulburn River SEPP (WoV) Attainment Program. This could be the RRHS or a separate attainment program that is effectively linked to the RRHS. Recognise complementary regulatory instruments, strategies and plans that are required to meet relevant objectives of the endorsed Attainment Program vehicle(s). Avoid duplication of river health target setting processes, by ensuring there are transparent linkages between relevant natural resource strategies and plans and the SEPP (WoV) Attainment Program. 18. The draft RRHS has not been endorsed by Government. In its absence the 2002 WQS provides a framework for some Attainment Program elements such as the target of a 65% reduction in phosphorus export from the entire catchment.

9.3 Criterion 3—Catchment management authorities

19. The May 2005 draft RRHS has been developed by the CMA in partnership with agency and community stakeholders. 20. The May 2005 draft RRHS documents the Goulburn River’s environmental assets, social assets and economic assets. These are located within the RiVERS database.

Environmental Audit 165 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

21. The May 2005 draft RRHS (Section 3) states ‘The regional environmental, social, and economic assets used in the draft RRHS equate in general terms to the beneficial uses protected by the SEPP (WoV)’. Document the linkages between the beneficial uses and the assets within the RRHS. 22. The draft RRHS identifies medium- and long-term RCTs and MATs for audit reach 4 and short-term RCTs and MATs, for guidance purposes, for audit reaches 1,2, and 3. The adequacy of the targets is addressed in Section 9.4 (Criterion 4—Regional target setting). 23. While the May 2005 draft RRHS risk-based assessment approach to rating the threats to the Goulburn River’s environmental, economic, or social assets has been a useful process, the information on these assets has not been used in an integrated fashion (such as Multiple Criteria Assessment) to set appropriate goals, priorities and environmental targets for the River, particularly for reach 1, where there are competing beneficial uses. For this reason the social and economic asset values do not appear to have been ‘carefully considered [in] setting the goals, priorities and targets’ for the draft RRHS as required under Clause 15 of the SEPP (WoV). Finalise the RRHS and develop a linked SEPP (WoV) Attainment Program after taking full account of the social and economic needs as well as environmental risk aspects for all audit reaches. This should be achieved through extensive stakeholder engagement and by using assessment tools such as Multi Criteria Assessment (utilising the outcomes of any additional water quality-related ecological risk assessment).

9.4 Criterion 4—Regional target setting

Aspirational targets

24. The May 2005 draft RRHS aspirational target for the Goulburn River below Lake Eildon is not clearly articulated. Section 5 of the RRHS states that the objectives for high priority waterways in the Goulburn River are ‘protecting the rivers that are of highest community value from any decline in condition, and maintaining the condition of ecologically healthy rivers’, whereas Program A which incorporates the Goulburn River reaches below Lake Eildon is based upon protection and enhancement of the high priority waterways. The Goulburn Broken CMA has advised the Auditor that the intent of the strategy for high priority waterways is to ‘protect and enhance’, and that this will be reflected in the introduction to the government endorsed RRHS. 25. The aspirational targets of the RCS, the WQS, and the SEPP (WoV) are generally consistent and are based upon improving the overall river health. For example the RCS aims to ‘improve the overall condition of rivers and streams rated as “marginal”, “poor”, and “very poor” by 2050’, and the SEPP (WoV) requires improvement in environmental quality where the environmental quality objectives are not met (Clauses 11 (3) and (4)).

Resource condition and MATs

26. The RCS includes water related RCTs and MATs. These are broad-based and establish linkages with the draft RRHS, the Wetlands Strategy, the WQS, and the Regional Floodplain Management Strategy. The RCS water related targets generally defer to the RRHS.

EPA Victoria 166 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

27. The May 2005 draft RRHS indicates that clear management objectives will be established for audit reaches 1, 2 and 3 by conducting a deliberate forum with major stakeholders and community representatives. Short-term RCTs and MATs are set for this reach, including nutrient and turbidity targets. Longer-term RCTs and MATs are set for audit reach 4. These generally reflect the VRHS requirements for RRHSs. Update the short-term RCTs and MATs for audit reaches 1, 2 and 3 once clear management objectives are established and review existing targets for audit reach 4. These targets should: • reflect the SEPP (WoV) Clause 24 requirements for regional target setting • consider the ‘Secondary Contact Recreational’, ‘Aquaculture’, and ‘Fish, Crustacea and Molluscs for Human Consumption’ beneficial uses as they relate to both native and exotic fish • be based upon a full evaluation of the environment, social and economic impacts • consider key threats to the assets (i.e. significant point source discharges) • include thermal water quality targets and fish recruitment and survival.

28. The RCTs and MATs for audit reaches 1 and 4 do not address all SEPP (WoV) environmental quality objectives. 29. The RRHS could provide a framework for the development of environmental quality RCTs based upon the SEPP (WoV) environmental quality objectives.

Precedence

30. The RRHS sits within the RCS framework. As a consequence the RCS aspirational targets, RCTs condition and MATs take precedence over the RRHS targets (for circumstances in which they may be in conflict). It is noted that the RCS references the RRHS and its sub- strategies (wetland, floodplain and water quality) for several river health RCT targets. Revise the Goulburn Broken RCS to ensure that it adopts all RRHS and sub- strategies RCTs and MATs and that other river health targets are removed.

General

31. The May 2005 draft RRHS target setting framework, while appropriate for addressing the threat of heavy metals to the Goulburn River, has not been applied to these parameters. Clarification is required to determine whether this is because metals have been investigated and found to be non-threatening or they have not been fully considered. 32. The May 2005 draft RRHS framework does not provide specific implementation programs to address SEPP (WoV) environmental quality objectives, as this is not a VRHS requirement. (The VRHS states that the SEPP (WoV) will recognise the regional catchment planning processes whereby regional communities set regional targets to move towards the SEPP (WoV) environmental quality objectives after consideration of social, economic, and social assets.) 33. The draft RRHS monitoring, evaluation and reporting program does not directly reference the proposed RCTs and MATs for audit reach 4. The draft RRHS does not require monitoring along audit reach 1 until objectives for the reaches are set. See recommendations for audit finding 10.

Environmental Audit 167 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

34. The adequacy of physical and human resources to undertake river health monitoring activities as specified in the May 2005 draft RHHS and to monitor the performance of the SEPP (WoV) Attainment Program will be dependent on the final RCTs and MATs required to implement the targets, and the allocated budget. 35. An indicative investment of $100 million is required to fund the RRHS over the period 2004–2014. The level of investment for the RRHS will be determined as part of the yearly investment process by DSE and from other funding sources available to the relevant stakeholders to implement identified actions. 36. The EPA and DSE have worked with the Goulburn Broken CMA to establish a process and timelines for the development of draft RRHS river health targets. This guidance includes the production and distribution of the DSE ‘Guidelines for the Preparation of a Regional River Health Strategy’ and the ‘Clarification of the 10-year targets required in regional river health strategies’. The later document lists reductions in nutrient, salinity, and sediment loads as well as % of relevant SEPP (WoV) objectives for key monitoring sites as RCTs. 37. Further development of the RCTs and MATs and the monitoring, evaluation and reporting program is required before an assessment of whether the RCS, the draft RRHS, and the WQS can provide for the progressive rehabilitation of the Goulburn River.

9.5 Criterion 5—Water allocations and environmental flows

38. Environmental flows can only be provided by amending the relevant Bulk Entitlement Conversion Order. 39. The environmental water reserves (EWRs) are currently being identified for all Victorian catchments through the development of sustainable water strategies. Complete the identification of EWR requirements for the Goulburn River. These requirements should be consistent with the RRHS aspirational targets, RCTs and MATs along all stream management units including the yet to be established management objectives for audit reaches 1, 2, and 3. 40. DSE, G-MW, and irrigators within the Goulburn catchment are working together to increase water availability for the environment by implementing water savings measures and allocating 20% of new sales water to the environment. Although these environmental flows are likely to be allocated to the Snowy and Murray Rivers, they will flow along the Goulburn River downstream of Lake Eildon. 41. G-MW did not approve increased entitlements from the Goulburn River system between July 2003 and June 2004. 42. Through the Victorian Government’s White Paper ‘Our Water Our Future’ expert assessments of the State’s water resources will be conducted every 15 years to determine whether river health is deteriorating for flow-related reasons. Additionally the VRHS states that the DSE will from time to time conduct audits of regional integrated floodplain and waterway management programs and the EPA will develop an auditing system to enable audits of the protection of beneficial uses. While there is an audit framework present, there is not a clear schedule in place to review and independently audit environmental flows and their effectiveness in protecting beneficial uses.

EPA Victoria 168 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Finalise the development of tool(s) to assess the effectiveness of environmental releases to Victorian streams. In developing the tool(s) consideration should be given to utilising the ISC, the RiVERS measures, and SEPP (WoV) water quality objectives as possible measures of the effectiveness. The national review of approaches to ecological responses to environmental flows monitoring being undertaken by the CRC for Freshwater Ecology should be considered in the development of the tool.

9.6 Criterion 6—Thermal water quality objectives

43. The water temperature of the Goulburn River downstream of Lake Eildon is up to 6.5oC cooler than it would have been prior to the construction of Sugarloaf Reservoir and subsequently Lake Eildon. 44. Thermal water objectives have not been set for the Goulburn River and hence releases from Lake Eildon are not influenced by temperature considerations. 45. G-MW identifies river temperature fluctuations below Lake Eildon as a significant environmental risk in the G-MW Significant Environmental Risk Register. It is not clear what obligations G-MW has under its EMS to reduce the risk. Determine G-MW obligations under its EMS to reduce the risk of temperature fluctuations below Lake Eildon on flora, fauna, loss of habitat and loss of amenity. 46. Native and introduced fish, including desirable species such as Brown and Rainbow trout and undesirable species such as Carp, may be beneficial uses to be protected along the Goulburn River. In general introduced species spawn and survive in cold water environments, such as provided by Lake Eildon releases, and native fish spawn and survive in warmer waters. 47. While the Goulburn Eildon Fisheries Management Plan establishes specific management objectives for audit reach 1, the issue as to whether this reach should be managed as a cold-water fishery for recreational fishing of trout and other introduced species or should be ameliorated to allow for the re-establishment of native fish will not be resolved until a decision is made as to which beneficial uses are to be protected. This decision can only be made once the clear management objectives are established through the RRHS. Consider closer integration of the Goulburn Eildon Fishery Management Plan with the RRHS to ensure that the RCT targets of both strategies are consistent and are developed through the same stakeholder consultation process. In the development of long-term RRHS RCTs and MATs for audit reach 1 consider the social and economic, as well as the environmental, impacts of providing for warmer water releases from Lake Eildon and the inability to provide an optimal temperature regime for both native and exotic fish.

9.7 Criterion 7—Other river health objectives and targets

48. Routine monitoring of the recruitment and survival of Trout cod and Spotted tree frogs is conducted as part of the National Recovery Plan along some reaches of the Goulburn River. 49. The three-year program to survey fish communities downstream of the Goulburn Weir (audit reach 4) undertaken by the Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research will be completed in June 2006.

Environmental Audit 169 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

50. Apart from the above program, routine monitoring of the recruitment and survival of threatened native fish that are present in the Goulburn River, including Barred galaxias, Murray cod and Macquarie perch, is not conducted. 51. The May 2005 draft RRHS indicates that a process will be put in place to monitor and audit native fish populations in audit reach 4 as required under the MDBC Native Fish Strategy. This process will be put in place in the implementation phase of the Goulburn environmental flow project. Monitoring of native fish within audit reaches 1, 2, and 3 does not appear to be proposed within the draft RRHS. In it’s response to the draft audit report on matters of fact DSE advised that ecological monitoring will be undertaken through the Sustainable Rivers Audit. Ensure that the RRHS process to monitor and audit native fish populations includes all threatened fish species. The monitoring program should obtain sufficient data to assess whether the RRHS fish-related aspirational targets, RCTs and MATs are being met. The program should be implemented as soon as practicable. Ensure that the RRHS aspirational targets, RCTs and MATs for native and exotic fish are considered in the development of the Goulburn River’s Environmental Water Reserve. 52. The May 2005 draft RRHS RCTs for audit reach 4 are consistent with the MDBCs Living Murray Strategy and the Integrated Management Strategy. 53. The draft RRHS makes specific reference to the VRHS definition of an ecologically healthy river and generally satisfies the VRHS objectives for regional river health strategies (Section 5.2.2 of the VRHS). 54. The Goulburn Eildon Fisheries Management Plan confirms that substantial recreation and aquatic investment has developed around salmonids along audit reach 1. The environmental threats to salmonids along this audit reach include low winter flows, elevated temperatures (during summer), and high flows in the early part of the irrigation season. 55. High early irrigation season flows limit the fry growth stage survival of trout by reducing the available area of low flow velocities. Trout numbers could increase substantially if these early season flows were reduced. 56. A minimum winter flow of 250 ML/day is considered necessary to maintain a suitable trout spawning habitat. 57. The Goulburn Weir acts as a barrier to the upstream movement of native fish. A study is underway to determine the feasibility of constructing a fish ladder at the weir. Consider the viability of constructing a fish ladder at the Goulburn weir having regard to the outcomes of the feasibility study. The viability should be considered in consultation with relevant stakeholders including local angling committees. 58. Anglers are concerned that the current management arrangements to control the level of the Goulburn weir pool and Lake Nagambie are impacting on fish populations. Review the current management arrangements for altering the level of the Goulburn weir pool and Lake Nagambie. Obtain an improved understanding of ecological processes within the Nagambie Lakes system (audit reaches 3 and 4). This should be achieved by addressing the knowledge gaps identified in the 2002 assessment by the scientific expert panel.

EPA Victoria 170 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

9.8 Criterion 8—Water Act—Environmental management obligations

Section 107—Authorities (Part 6, Division 3)—Environmental and recreational areas

59. To the Auditor’s knowledge G-MW has not requested the Minister to declare any environmental or recreational areas and by-laws have not been established to provide for the conservation and preservation of flora, fauna, and habitat. An environmental or recreational area could include a perimeter buffer around the Goulburn weir pool. Consider declaring a perimeter buffer around the Goulburn weir pool as ‘an environmental and recreational area’ under s. 107 of the Water Act. This would provide a powerful mechanism to provide for effective multiple use management including the preservation of native flora and fauna and minimising the risk of contaminated water entering Lake Nagambie and the Goulburn weir pool.

Section 189—Waterway Management (Part 10, Division 2)—Functions of Authorities

60. The Goulburn River has been declared a designated waterway, and the land within 20 m of the river is designated land. The Goulburn Broken CMA uses the RCS and supporting strategies and plans to meet its obligations under this section of the Water Act.

Section 195—Waterway Management (Part 10, Division 2)—Control over connections and discharges

61. As a public authority, G-MW is exempt from s. 195(1). G-MW obligation under s. 195(2) is: ‘A licensee or public statutory body that intends to do anything specified in sub- section (1) must, before doing it, notify the Authority of its intention and take into account any comments made by the Authority’. 62. G-MW meets s. 195(2) obligations by having proposals for such connections put on the agenda and reported on at the Goulburn Broken CMAs Shepparton Irrigation Region (SIR) Surface Water Management Strategy sub-committee meetings. This sub-committee oversees aspects of G-MW drain construction, including drainage connections to waterways and endorses G-MW budgets for drain construction and programmed works. Annual reporting of performance against programs is also carried out. Consider whether to place performance and reporting conditions on new drain connections.

Section 199—Regional Drainage (Part 10, Division 3)—Functions of Authorities

63. The Act is not clear as to how the Authority should demonstrate how it has performed the functions listed in s. 199 in ‘an environmentally sound way’. 64. The CMA does not have any obligations under s. 199 as it does not have a regional drainage scheme within its dryland area. 65. The CMA has an ‘Order in Council’ for regional drainage. As part of its obligations under the Order in Council the CMA has prepared: • the Regional Catchment Strategy • the May 2005 draft RRHS.

Environmental Audit 171 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

66. G-MW does not have any responsibilities under s. 199 as it is not a regional drainage authority. 67. G-MW derives the bulk of its drainage powers from s. 10 and s. 221 of the Water Act. Section 10 refers to the rights of an Authority to construct or operate works which may result in the drainage of any land. Section 221 lists the functions of an Authority in relation to irrigation. These include ‘drainage of those (irrigated) lands’, ‘plan for the future needs of the community in relation to…drainage and salinity mitigation’, and ‘develop and implement programs for improved…drainage practices’. 68. Within the Goulburn catchment, G-MW meets its s. 221 drainage obligations through the co-operative development and implementation of the SIR Surface Water Management Strategy and through its participation, as a signatory, in the 2004 Irrigation Drainage Memorandum of Understanding.

Section 213—Water Management Schemes (Part 10, Division 5)

69. There are no Division 5 water management schemes within the Goulburn River catchment.

9.9 Criterion 9—Bulk Water Entitlements and Agreements

Bulk Entitlement (Eildon-Goulburn Weir) Conversion Order 1995

70. The Bulk Entitlement (Eildon-Goulburn Weir) Conversion Order came into operation on 1 July 1995.

Clause 4—Goulburn Resource Manager 71. The letter of 14 August 1997 from DNRE (now DSE) appointing G-MW as the ‘Resource Manager’ for the Goulburn system has been inspected. G-MW has advised that the ‘Resource Manager’ appointment lapsed some time ago and the Resource Manager powers and responsibilities have reverted to the Minister. In its response to the draft audit report on matters of fact, DSE advised that G-MW has recently been reappointed as the Resource Manager.It is not clear to the Auditor how these responsibilities were administered during the lapse in the appointment. 72. G-MW continues to prepare Goulburn Resource Manager reports which are submitted to DSE on behalf of the Minister.

Clause 11—Passing flows 73. The Bulk Entitlement (Eildon-Goulburn Weir) Conversion Order minimum passing flow requirements are based upon a limited review of the environmental water needs of the Goulburn River. The passing flows were restricted by the Government’s policy to maintain reliability of supply for consumptive users. 74. Both the Goulburn Resource Manager reports and the Auditor’s check are generally consistent and suggest almost complete Clause 11 (Passing flow) compliance with only minor excursions. The Auditor is satisfied that the quality assurance procedures put in place by G-MW are adequate to address minor excursions from the Clause 11 requirements.

EPA Victoria 172 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Clause 12.3—Releases 75. Annual performance against Clause 12.3 requirements is documented in the Appendices to the annual Goulburn Resource Manager reports. These reports indicate complete compliance with the control of release obligations under Clause 12.3. 76. Releases of water from Eildon Dam to augment water available for use from the River Murray, and/or to maintain water quality in the waterway, did not occur between 2000/01 and 2002/03. DSE has advised that this is due to the seasonal allocation for consumptive use being less than 150% of the water right during these years. This trigger is not documented in the Bulk Entitlement (Eildon-Goulburn Weir) Conversion Order. Clause 15—Environmental obligations 77. G-MW wrote to DNRE (now DSE) on 30 August 1996 submitting a suite of measures for the Minister’s approval. A copy of the letter with the suite of measures which acted as a program to manage bulk entitlement-related environmental effects (as required under Clause 15.1) has been inspected. The program appears to be ‘strategic’ rather than operational as required under Clause 15.1. The DNRE (now DSE) and the Minister have not responded to the letter. 78. The Auditor has inspected three Goulburn Resource Manager annual reports and found that they have minimal information on the environmental aspects listed in Clause 15.1 apart from flow records. For this reason it is not possible to confirm compliance with the intent of Clause 15.1 of the BE Order. Respond to G-MW’s proposed program to manage the environmental effects of G-MW works as required under Clause 15.1 of the Bulk Entitlement (Eildon- Goulburn Weir) Conversion Order or suggest an alternative approach to meet these obligations. In doing so provide guidance to G-MW to assist the authority to refine the Annual Goulburn Basin Water accounts reports to reflect all environmental reporting requirements under Cl. 15.1. Revise the Bulk Entitlement (Eildon-Goulburn Weir) Conversion Order to ensure that the environmental obligations for managing the environmental water reserve are clear, transparent and auditable.

Monitoring and auditing process (in relation to Clauses 11, 12.3 and 15) 79. G-MW contracts Thiess to monitor, measure and analyse the hydrographic data they supply to G-MW. 80. For minor non-compliances of the Bulk Entitlement (Eildon-Goulburn Weir) Conversion Order, an internal report, including actions to prevent a recurrence, is submitted to G- MW management and drawn to the attention of DSE in the annual report. 81. The Auditor has inspected the G-MW internal memorandum of 25 September 2002 regarding the minor breach of the minimum passing flow at McCoys Bridge on 18 August 2002. As required this was brought to the attention of DSE in the 2002/03 Goulburn Resource Manager’s report. 82. G-MW is required to notify DSE immediately of more ‘significant’ breaches. To the Auditor’s knowledge no ‘significant’ breaches of environmental aspects of the BE Order Clauses 11, 12.3 and 14 have occurred over the audited period. This finding is based upon the Auditor’s subjective judgement of environmental significance, G-MW’s documentation of breaches, and the Auditor’s assessment of selected data sets. In the absence of guidance from DSE, G-MW currently decides what constitutes a ‘significant’ breach. Clarify what constitutes a ‘significant’ breach of the Bulk Entitlement (Eildon- Goulburn Weir) Conversion Order.

Environmental Audit 173 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

83. G-MW had advised that the Bulk Entitlement has been reduced recently to meet the water savings associated with Schedule I of the Water Savings Project. This is the ‘Project for Improved Measurement of Small Value Entitlement Supplied to Irrigation Districts’.

Bulk Entitlement (Shepparton) Conversion Order 1995

84. The Goulburn Resource Manager 2000/01 to 2002/03 reports confirm that GVRWA’s annual diversion is below the Bulk Entitlement (Shepparton) Conversion Order 1995 limit. In addition, the Resource Management reports state that the maximum daily diversion limit of 100 ML/d is not exceeded. Continue to amend G-MWs BE Order as the Environmental Water Reserve is established through the water savings program. The Environmental Water Reserve should be consistent with the negotiated flow regime arising out of the completion of the RRHS’s environmental flow program.

Southern Hydro and Pacific Hydro Agreements

85. As G-MW is ultimately responsible for water releases from Eildon Dam and the Eildon Pondage, it was not necessary for the Auditor to verify whether Southern Hydro and Pacific Hydro are meeting their contractual obligations for operating hydro-electric power stations.

9.10 Criterion 10—G-MW operational licence

86. G-MW does not, and is not required to, have an operational licence with the Government. 87. G-MW has a Statement of Obligations under the Water Industry Act 1994 which came into effect in January 2005. Clause 23 of the Statement of Obligations requires the Authority to manage the impacts of its activities on any waterway or wetland to minimise the environmental impact on and risks to the aquatic ecosystem, and to liase with the Goulburn Broken CMA to ensure that environmental flow regimes are managed to maximise ecological benefits. (Compliance with this responsibility has not been specifically assessed in the audit.)

9.11 Criterion 11—Other Acts relevant to river health

Catchment and Land Protection Act

88. Under the Catchment and Land Protection Act, ‘noxious weed’ means a State prohibited weed, a regionally prohibited weed or a regionally controlled weed. The Minister has the power to declare a plant a noxious weed under any of the categories. Section 70 of the Act gives the DSE Secretary power to direct landowners to prevent the growth or spread of State prohibited weeds. 89. The Auditor has been advised that there are several emerging riparian weeds in the Goulburn Broken catchment that are not declared noxious weeds and that the capacity of agencies to provide regulatory support to implement a co-ordinated weed control program is limited. Review processes for declaring noxious riparian weeds and ensure adequate resources are available to respond to emerging environmental and agricultural weeds.

EPA Victoria 174 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act

90. Trout cod, Macquarie perch, Murray cod, Silver perch, Freshwater catfish, Murray hardyhead and Murray rainbowfish are listed as ‘threatened fauna’ under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (the FFG Act) and are found within the Goulburn River below Lake Eildon. 91. The May 2005 draft RRHS (Appendix 14) notes that an Action Statement has been prepared for Trout cod. 92. The Act also lists ‘potentially threatening processes’ that may affect freshwater aquatic environments. These include the following that relate to the Goulburn River: • alteration to the natural flow regimes of rivers and streams • alteration to the natural temperature regimes of rivers and streams • degradation of native riparian vegetation along Victorian rivers and streams • increase in sediment input into Victorian rivers and streams due to human activities • input of toxic substances into Victorian rivers and streams • introduction of live fish into waters outside their natural range within a Victorian river catchment • prevention of passage of aquatic biota as a result of the presence of in-stream structures • removal of wood debris.

None of the above threatening processes are identified on the DSE web site as having approved action statements. Complete FFG Action Statements for all threatened species and threatening processes that are relevant to the Goulburn River below Lake Eildon. As Action Statements are completed review and update the RRHS to ensure that it is consistent. 93. DSE has advised that copies of all completed FFG Action Statements are available through the DSE’s Customer Service Centre. The Auditor has not been able to obtain copies via this service. 94. These potentially threatening processes have not been prioritised within the May 2005 draft RRHS despite alteration of the natural flow regimes and alteration of the natural temperature regimes being recognised in the draft RRHS as significant risks. Ensure that the RRHS RCTs are linked with and reflect threatened species and threatening processes Action Plans relevant to the Goulburn River. 95. Fisheries Victoria has developed the Aquatic Animal Disease Emergency Preparedness Guideline and the Guidelines for Assessing Translocations of Live Aquatic Organisms in Victoria as management tools to assist in protecting threatened aquatic species.

Heritage Rivers Act

96. The Auditor has not inspected the area. 97. The Auditor is not aware of any new impoundments, artificial barriers or structures that have been constructed along the Goulburn River since 2003.

Environmental Audit 175 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

98. No new water diversion (i.e. taking of water under a bulk entitlement, licence or agreement) from the Goulburn River upstream from the lowest point of the Goulburn River Heritage Area has been granted since 2003.

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act

99. Barred galaxias, Trout cod, Macquarie perch, Murray cod, and Murray hardyhead are threatened species under the EPBC Act. 100. Any modification to the operation and management of the Goulburn River which could potentially have an impact on the above endangered flora and fauna must be referred to the Australian Government. 101. The Auditor is not aware of any significant modifications to the operation and management of the Goulburn River since 2003 that could have triggered a referral under the EPBC Act. The finding associated with the use of biocides in G-MW channels and drains as it relates to the EPBC Act referral process is discussed in Section 9.16.

9.12 Criterion 12—Legislation, Policies and Strategies

102. G-MW’s legal counsel believes that there is an inconsistency between SEPP (WoV) Clause 41 ‘Water Allocations and Environmental Flows’ and G-MWs Bulk Entitlement (Eildon- Goulburn Weir) Conversion Order 1995 as it relates to G-MW’s ability to implement measures to provide environmental flows. Seek clarification as to the best way forward to resolve the likely inconsistency between the SEPP (WoV) Clause 41 ‘Water Allocations and Environmental Flows’ and Bulk Entitlement (Eildon-Goulburn Weir) Conversion Order 1995 as it relates to G-MWs ability to implement measures to provide environmental flows. 103. The overarching objectives of the RCS, the draft RRHS, and the VRHS, and the Murray Darling Basin Commission’s NFS are generally consistent. Until 5-year and 10-year RRHS targets are set for audit reach 1, it will not be possible to determine whether the RCT and MAT targets for the RRHS are consistent with the NFS. 104. The overall objectives of the VRHS, the RCS, and the SEPP (WoV) Attainment Program are consistent; that is to improve river health. 105. Implementation of the Victorian Government White Paper ‘Our Water Our Future’ will require reform of the Water Act. Many of the issues to be addressed in this reform are raised by Phillip Fox (2005) ‘Recommendations for Legislative Implementation of White Paper’s Proposed Reform’ on behalf of Environment Victoria, the Environment Defenders Office, the Australian Conservation Council, and the WWF. 106. Implementation of the White Paper ‘Our Water Our Future’, particularly the development of Environmental Water Reserves, may assist in addressing the inconsistency between the SEPP (WoV) Clause 41 (Water Allocations and Environmental Flows) and the Bulk Entitlement (Eildon-Goulburn Weir) Conversion Order. It will however be important to reform the BE Order to ensure that the environmental obligations for managing the EWR are clear, transparent and auditable.

EPA Victoria 176 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Reform the Water Act as soon as practical to allow for the effective implementation of the Victorian Government’s White Paper ‘Our Water Our Future’, particularly the development of Environmental Water Reserves. In doing so consideration should be given to Phillip Fox’s (2005) ‘Recommendations for Legislative Implementation of the White Paper’s Proposed Reform’.

9.13 Criterion 13—Organisational roles and responsibilities

107. Generally there are clear distinctions between organisation’s roles and responsibilities for the management of the health of the Goulburn River. However the agency responsibilities for protecting the health of native fish are not clear. Clarify the roles of and responsibilities of government agencies for protecting the health of native and exotic fish populations. 108. Under the Bulk Entitlement (Eildon-Goulburn Weir) Conversion Order 1995, G-MW is the authority (the holder of the bulk entitlement), the storage operator and the resource manager. Consider separating the Bulk Entitlement (Eildon-Goulburn Weir) Conservation Order resource manager responsibilities from operational responsibilities. Additional findings on organisational rules and responsibilities are presented in the findings on other audit criteria.

9.14 Criteria 14—Fish kill response arrangements

109. About three fish kill events each year have been recorded within the Goulburn Broken catchment since 1997. Over half of these events have occurred in summer. 110. It is not possible to draw any conclusions as to whether the fish kills within the catchment over the past decade are an indicator of declining river health as there is not a consistent historical trend. 111. It is not possible to determine whether the current frequency and severity of fish kills has changed significantly compared to pre-regulation conditions. 112. There is a broad range of fish kill causes without any one cause dominating. 113. The available monitoring records and data are insufficient to identify the environmental conditions that contributed to the January 2004 fish kill event downstream of the Goulburn Weir. 114. Several current response protocols have been refined by knowledge gained from the January 2004 fish kill 115. While agency roles and responsibilities for emergencies involving fish kills are identified in the Emergency Management Act 1986 they not clearly articulated in all plans and protocols for such emergencies, or plans and protocols for fish kills that are not classified as emergencies (i.e. due to natural disease or drought conditions). In some cases agencies are not in full agreement on their respective responsibilities. 116. The EPA’s Interim Fish Kill Protocol has been revised as a result of learnings from the January 2004 fish kill event. It still requires a process to upgrade the fish kill knowledge base which is necessary to inform future revisions to response protocols based upon minimising the incidence and severity of fish kills.

Environmental Audit 177 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

117. The current response protocols do not detail the necessary information and evidence to be collected prior to, during, and after the fish kill to identify the cause. These protocols can be improved to supplementing them with advice on where to take samples in and below storages, and to extend the water quality analysis to nutrients, metals and biocides when these are considered to be indicators of the likely cause of the fish kill event. Consideration could be given to prioritising the analytical program (e.g. temperature and DO analysed immediately). 118. Sound guidance on the possible causal factors of fish kill events in the reporting of fish kill events is not provided in any of the existing protocols. 119. Although the EPA’s Interim Fish Kill Protocol provides a debrief process, it does not provide a process for review, follow up of actions, and refinement of management in order to reduce or eliminate the likelihood of the incidence and severity of future fish kills. 120. There is a lack of a robust State-based fish kill response protocol that is accepted and endorsed by all relevant agencies. This has caused, and continues to cause, significant frustration to most agencies involved in responding to fish kills. Develop a robust State-based fish kill response protocol that has the support of all agencies and builds upon the EPA’s Interim Fish Kill Protocol. Aspects of the Interim Fish Kill Protocol which would need further development to create a robust State-based protocol are: • clearly identify agencies’ responsibilities • specify the training requirements for relevant officers across all agencies • specify mechanisms to review river health information following a fish kill • specify a process to upgrade the fish kill knowledge base • specify sample location advice, and nutrient, metals, and biocide sampling and analysis needs • specify a process for review, follow up of actions, and refinement of management in order to reduce or eliminate the likelihood of the incidence and severity of future fish kills • specify that the EPA, as chair of debrief sessions, should follow up after the debrief to facilitate and assist in the implementation of recommendations arising out of the debrief • provide guidance on what possible causal factors (i.e. beyond the water body and the immediate tributaries) should be investigated in the reporting of the event. This should include dominant surrounding land uses; particularly industries and farming practices with high chemical inputs and use patterns, their proximity to waterways and potential for spray drift and run-off water to be carried into those waterways. The consideration should also include the cumulative impacts of multiple chemical uses in a general area • specify central reporting requirements for fish deaths and greater notification arrangements between relevant agencies where agricultural chemicals are suspected

• specify independent sampling and laboratory analysis, where practicable, of water and biota with interagency consultation on the analytes to be tested where agricultural chemicals are suspected

EPA Victoria 178 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

• incorporate relevant elements of the DPI Fish Kill Emergency Management Plan.

121. The on-ground management arrangements of the draft Interim Framework for a Multi Agency Response to Incidents in Waterways in the Goulburn Broken Catchment (Part 3) are consistent with those documented in the draft working document of the Environmental Incident Management Response Arrangements for Victorian Waterways. Refine the draft Interim Framework for a Multi Agency Response to Incidents in Waterways in the Goulburn Broken Catchment to ensure that it reflects the state-based protocols. (This could be a regionally-based model for other CMA regions within the State.) 122. The current agency and multi-agency fish kill response protocols are, in part, overlapping and inconsistent. For example as the EPA’s Interim Fish Kill Protocol and DPI’s Draft Fish Deaths Emergency Management Plan are internal documents there is duplication of some responsibilities and activities. Refine the current agency-based protocols to ensure they reflect the state- based protocols and: (i) incorporate advice on where to take samples in and below storages (ii) extend the water quality analysis to nutrients, metals and biocides when these are considered to be indicators of the likely cause of the fish kill event (iii) include directions on appropriate collection of samples and specimens for subsequent pathology testing (iv) clarify who pays for the fish kill response (where possible this should be based upon the polluter pays principle). 123. Most relevant EPA, DPI and G-MW staff are trained and equipped to undertake their assigned roles under their respective fish kill protocols. The level of awareness by senior agency staff of their roles and responsibilities in the management of fish kill events has increased substantially since the January 2004 fish kill.

9.15 Criterion 15—WoV—Chemical management

124. G-MW does not store aquatic herbicides in or near surface waters, drainage lines or floodplains. All nine storage sites are at least 200 m away from surface waters and irrigation drainage lines. 125. G-MW has developed and maintained manuals and guidelines which address aspects of the storage, transport and use of biocides. 126. G-MW’s Herbicide Operating Instructions Manual: • outlines the duties of personnel, cleaning of equipment, usage reports, aquatic weed control, safety and safety equipment, and emergency response • covers the storage of herbicides but not the transport as, apart from acrolein, G- MW advises that the chemicals it uses are not classified as dangerous goods • advises that herbicides can only be applied based upon the conditions specified on the Product Label or the Minor Use Permits Issued by the Agricultural Products and Veterinary Medicines Association (APVMA).

Environmental Audit 179 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Revise G-MWs Herbicide Operating Instructions Manual to include procedures for the transport of biocides. 127. The emergency response procedures documented in the Herbicide Operating Instructions Manual are limited to the herbicide label, the MSDS, and the safe storage and handing information provided by the G-MWs Aquatic Plant Services (APS). The safe storage and handling information is kept in the storage building and made available to spray operators. 128. Contingency planning and emergency response to spills are documented in G-MW’s EMS Corporate Environmental Emergency Management Manual. The Acrolein Emergency Procedure Guide also has procedures for contingency planning and emergency response to spills. 129. G-MW’s contingency plans for emergency holding and clean up measures, methods for disposal of spilled materials and staff training in operating and emergency response procedures are documented in G-MW’s EMS Corporate Environmental Emergency Management Manual. 130. DPI’s advice that ‘G-MW staff appear to be adequately trained to carry out their weed spraying activities’ is accepted on the basis that DPI Chemical Standards Branch audited G-MWs record keeping, restricted chemical use and APVMA off-label permit use of biocides in June 2004. During the DPI audit G-MW APS staff were interviewed to determine their level of relevant knowledge. 131. The Auditor has been advised that there have been several instances in which EPA has not provided guidance on herbicide usage despite requests by G-MW, and that the EPA has not commented on usage guidelines proposed by G-MW despite the request of G- MW. Review internal arrangements for providing advice to stakeholders on the use of herbicides near water bodies. 132. EPA sits on a reference committee to develop Victorian management guidelines for the use of herbicides on riparian land. The guidelines address use but not the storage of biocides in or near surface waters. The EPA also offers guidance upon request. It is currently working with the fertiliser industry to support the rollout of their Fertcare program. Distribute and promote the Victorian management guidelines for the use of herbicides on riparian land to all relevant stakeholders as soon as they become available. Promote information exchange between agencies on agricultural chemicals and the potential environmental impacts. This could then lead to reducing the risk to the environment and a greater understanding of the type of analysis required in the event of any fish deaths where agricultural chemicals are suspected.

9.16 Criterion 16—Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act

133. G-MW has obtained APVMA permits to allow for the use of glyphosate and 2,4-D amitrole at a rate that is higher than the maximum application as stated on the label. 134. Some permit requirements had not been fully complied with (e.g. the start and finish spraying dates were not always met). Ensure the training program for G-MW’s Aquatic Plant Service licensed officers explicitly and clearly documents APVMA off-label reporting requirements.

EPA Victoria 180 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Conduct independent audits of G-MW’s use of herbicides in channels, drains and other waters, in particular acrolein (Magnacide H) and chemicals used under APVMA off-label permits. 135. There are a limited number of native fish deaths in channels as a result of spraying as it occurs when the channels are dry, apart from some deeper pockets, and Fisheries Victoria are notified and asked if they wish to relocate fish when they are identified prior to spraying. Obtain independent advice to determine whether approval is required for the existing channel and drain spraying under the EPBC Act. Approval is required for an action that has, will have, or is likely to have a significant impact upon matters of national significance. 136. G-MW now sprays channel and drain beds only (i.e. the batter is not sprayed) and on an as-required basis. Continue the current practice of spraying irrigation channel and drain beds only and on an as-required basis with possible changes to the dosage rates to suppress rather than kill weeds. 137. The G-MW estimates of residual herbicide concentrations in drains and channels are dependent upon the assumption that 20% of the herbicide enters the water as run-off. 138. The glyphosate mean annual herbicide concentrations in both the Central Goulburn and the Shepparton Irrigation Areas is less than the Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (ANZECC 2000) herbicide trigger values for irrigation waters, aquatic ecosystems, and drinking water. 139. The amitrole mean annual concentration in the Central Goulburn Irrigation Area of 0.00226 mg/L is above the Australian Drinking Water Guideline trigger value of 0.001 mg/L. Channels are rarely used for drinking supply purposes. G-MW is understood to give prior notice to urban water authorities if they are to use biocides in channels and it is understood that the authorities then forgo diversion for a number of days. (This has not been audited.) 140. The estimated residual concentrations are mean annual rather than peak or seasonal estimates; hence are likely to be underestimates of peak concentrations. This will be off- set by biological degradation as this process is not considered in the estimate. Recalculate residual herbicide concentration estimates in channels and drains to account for peak concentrations and biodegradation processes and to include 2,4-D amine as well as amitrole and glyphosate. This should also include determining the proportion of the herbicide that ends up at the drain outlet as run-off. These calculations should be verified with in situ measurements. If ANZECC (2000) criteria are exceeded or likely to be exceeded, a contingency plan should be implemented. (If not already in place the contingency plan should be developed as a matter of urgency.) 141. G-MW recognise that concentrations of biocides in surface waters are likely to occur in short duration spikes which are difficult to detect in a spot sampling program. As many biocides bind to suspended sediments, sampling of bed sediments generally provides a better assessment of biocide contamination on a region-wide scale. Identification of high contamination levels in the sediments should lead to a targeted water quality monitoring program.

Environmental Audit 181 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

9.17 Criterion 17—Irrigation drains and channels

142. G-MW has conducted and reported on trials to minimise pollutants generated within irrigation drains and their impact on receiving waters. Determine whether improved drain management practices have been applied to the Rodney Main Drain and Shepparton Drain 3. These include spraying and desilting on the drain bed only. 143. G-MW has advised that hydromulching has been initiated in targeted areas along new drains, and that spraying and desilting on drain batters is not currently practiced. 144. G-MW routinely monitors public drain flows, salinity, nutrients, DO, and suspended solids from the same regular sites which incorporate at least 87% of the irrigation area that is currently provided with surface drainage. This routine monitoring does not include outfalls that are serving irrigation areas of less than 5 000 ha or community drains. 145. The area of the irrigation drainage system that outfalls to the Goulburn River will increase by 44% over the next 20 years as the SIR Surface Water Management Strategy is fully implemented. This has the potential to increase contaminant loads to the Goulburn River. 146. The Water Quality Strategy targets a 50% reduction in the 1993/94 total phosphorus load from irrigation drains by 2016. Based upon phosphorus load estimates from the early 2000s the CMA is on track to achieve the 50% reduction target. Further monitoring and assessment is required to provide a level of confidence that this trend will continue taking the proposed increase in drained area and climatic conditions into account. Conduct annual reporting of drain outfall nutrient loads as total loads and loads/km (and/or load/ha) of drain. This will assist in determining whether the WQS total phosphorus reduction target can be achieved while the drain network is expanding. 147. G-MW has undertaken extensive non-routine monitoring of pathogens, biocides, metals, and biological indicators in drainage waters to determine their potential impact on receiving waters. Develop a co-ordinated and prioritised monitoring program for pathogens, biocides, metals, and biological indicators in drainage water and sediments. This should build upon the outcomes and recommendations of risk assessments, including the first tier assessment of biocides, and previous reports of non- routine drain monitoring conducted over the past five years. Consideration should be given to the sampling and analysis of the herbicides used by G-MW to control weeds in channels and drains as well as insecticides and fungicides. This task is generally consistent with the IDMoU Implementation Action Item 6b— ‘Setting of Monitoring Requirements using Initial Rapid Decision Support System’. Assess the implications and risks to river heath of non-compliance of drain pathogen concentrations against the EPA (1996) Guidelines for Wastewater Reuse (Publication No. 464) and the ANZECC (2000) Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality. 148. G-MW works with DSE, the EPA and the CMA to identify a credible, independent audit system and uses it to audit the impact of irrigation drain discharges on surface waters. 149. The IDMoU identifies a credible, independent audit system. The system could be improved by clarifying the trigger for undertaking a Special Catchment Analysis

EPA Victoria 182 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Improve the IDMoU audit system by clarifying the trigger for undertaking a Special Catchment Analysis. 150. G-MW conducted a first tier risk assessment of the risks associated with pesticides used in Goulburn-Murray irrigation areas in 2003. The assessment did not focus on drains as a pathway for pesticides to be transported to streams. Extend the first tier assessment of the risks associated with pesticides used in Goulburn-Murray irrigation areas to include an assessment of the risk to beneficial uses associated with herbicide spraying of drains and channel outfalls.

9.18 Criterion 18—Irrigation Drainage Memorandum of Understanding

151. The Auditor is not aware of significant progress on task 2 (Development of detailed guidelines for reviews and reporting processes based on DSE principles) of the IDMoU’s Implementation Schedule. 152. The development of existing water quality incident reporting and management procedures and systems (task 3 of the IDMoU Implementation Schedule) is underway. 153. The Auditor is not aware of significant progress on task 5 (Document assumed cause and effect relationships between resource condition outcomes and management actions). 154. The development of the initial rapid decision support system (task 6a) has commenced. Revise the Implementation Work Program to complete the general issues and short-term initial rapid response processes by October 2005. 155. While the reporting date for annual reports has not been specified, it is expected to be in June each year (based upon a commencement date of June 2004). It is anticipated that resources are available to prepare these reports as much of this reporting is currently undertaken. 156. Although DPI is required to work with agencies to minimise pollutants entering irrigation drains under Clause 51(1) of the SEPP (WoV) it is not a signatory to the IDMoU. As a service provider to DSE and the Goulburn Broken CMA, DPI has farm extension and research commitments in drained irrigation catchments and is responsible for the implementation of privately owned regional surface water management systems identified under regional Lands and Water Management Plans. Encourage DPI to become a signatory to the IDMoU as it has responsibilities under Clause 51(1) of the SEPP (WoV) to work with agencies to minimise pollutants entering irrigation drains and, as a service provider, it has farm extension and research commitments in drained irrigation catchments and is responsible for the implementation of privately owned regional surface water management systems identified under regional Lands and Water Management Plans.

9.19 Disease to native and introduced fish populations

157. The risk of disease and parasites to native fish and desirable alien fish species is a serious problem that can emerge from fish stocking or aquaculture enterprises. Both exotic and endemic disease outbreaks have potentially devastating effects on native and introduced fish. This has not been addressed through the audit, although it is acknowledged that Fisheries Victoria have developed management arrangements to prevent translocation for fish farms in the upper- and mid-Goulburn.

Environmental Audit 183 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

10 CONCLUSIONS

The conclusions of the environmental audit of the Goulburn River are presented in this Section of the report for each of the four audited activities.

10.1 Conclusions with level of conformance

Criterion 1—Environmental quality objectives and indicators

SEPP (WoV) environmental water quality objectives and indicators are being met for all beneficial uses to be protected.

Limited conformance There is also confusion due to the uncertainly as to the beneficial uses (including native fish and salmonids) to be protected.

Criterion 2—Attainment program

A framework is in place to develop an Attainment Program for the Goulburn River and that it has been used and appropriately applied.

Partial conformance This criterion has been partially met as the draft RRHS: • provides a partial framework for the development of an Attainment Program (conformance) • would require refinement to meet all Attainment Program framework needs (non- conformance).

The draft RRHS has yet to be endorsed by Government.

Criterion 3—Catchment management authorities

Partial conformance This criterion has been partially met as: • the Goulburn Broken CMA has worked with stakeholders to develop a Government approved RCS and Government approved plans (conformance) • the draft RRHS identifies the river’s environmental, social and economic assets (conformance) • social and economic needs have not been adequately considered in setting appropriate goals, priorities and environmental targets for the river (non-conformance).

EPA Victoria 184 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Criterion 4—Regional target setting

Consistency of the RCS and supporting plans with regional target setting obligations under Clause 24 of the SEPP (WoV).

Partial conformance

Criterion 5—Water allocations and environmental flows

Compliance with obligations under Clause 41 of the SEPP (WoV)—Water Allocations and Environmental Flows—either by being met or being in the process of being met.

Partial conformance The obligations under Clause 41 of the SEPP (WoV)—Water Allocations and Environmental Flows—are being met or are in the process of being met with the exception that a program to review and audit the provisions of environmental flows and their effectiveness in protecting beneficial uses has not been prepared. (The White Paper and the VRHS sets the framework for the review and audit process.)

Criterion 6—Thermal water quality objectives

Compliance with obligations for controlling water temperature, if any exist, in the Goulburn River below Lake Eildon and above Lake Nagambie.

Not applicable This criterion cannot be evaluated for conformance as, although the Goulburn Eildon Fisheries Management Plan has specific objectives which involve the management of the river along audit reach 1 for specific species which are temperature dependent for their health, there are no thermal objectives and the CMA is yet to establish clear management objectives for this reach of the river through the RRHS. Table 9.10 of the May 2005 draft RRHS describes the process for establishing clear management objectives for this reach of the river which will provide direction for resolution of major widespread issues, particularly the migration of native fish upstream of Goulburn Weir, changes to the flow regime, and reduced water temperatures.

Criterion 7—Other river health objectives and targets

Consistency of Goulburn Broken RCS and the draft RRHS with overarching river health strategies and plans; particularly objectives and targets.

General conformance Non-conformances are: • the RCS and supporting plans do not have a process in place to monitor and audit native fish populations • monitoring programs are not in place to determine the condition of Murray cod, Silver perch, Macquarie perch and other protected and endangered species.

Criterion 8—Water Act—Environmental management obligations

Compliance with environmental management obligations under the Water Act.

Environmental Audit 185 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

General conformance DSE, G-MW and the Goulburn Broken CMA are meeting their environmental management obligations under the Water Act 1989 sections discussed above. G-MW meets its Water Act s. 221 drainage obligations through the co-operative development and implementation of the Goulburn Broken Surface Water Management Strategy and through its participation, as a signatory, in the 2004 IDMoU.

Criterion 9—Bulk water entitlements and agreements

Compliance with environment related obligations under Bulk Water Entitlements and Water Supply Agreements.

General conformance Conformances are: • G-MW complies with the ‘Minimum passing flow’ requirements of the Bulk Entitlement (Eildon-Goulburn Weir) Conversion Order 1995. • GVRWAs annual diversion are below the Bulk Entitlement (Shepparton) Conversion Order 1995 limits. • Southern Hydro and Pacific Hydro can only release water when authorised by G-MW.

Non-conformances are: • Lack of clarity about how the Resource Manager’s powers and responsibilities are being administered by the Minister or his delegate. • Three dates identified by the Auditor out of 57 from January 2000 to September 2004 when flows were below the limit of 120 ML/d based on an independent check of information using available flow data. This information is inconsistent with the dates contained in the Goulburn Resource Manager Reports when flows were recorded below the limit of 120 ML/d. • No formal approval of the Environmental Program by the Minister. • Within the Goulburn Resource Manager reports there is minimal information on the environmental aspects listed in Clause 15.1 apart from flow records. For this reason it is not possible to confirm compliance with the Environmental Program.

Criterion 10—G-MW operational licence

G-MW compliance with oobligations under a State Government Operational Licence, if it exists, as it relates to the environmental health of the Goulburn River.

Not applicable G-MW does not have an operational licence with the Government.

Criterion 11—Other Acts relevant to river health

EPA Victoria 186 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

General conformance Obligations relevant to the protection of endangered species, river water quality and the control of riparian land along the Goulburn River under the following Acts of Parliament are being met: • Catchment and Land Protection Act • Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.

Obligations relevant to the protection of endangered species, river water quality and the control of riparian land along the Goulburn River under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act and the Heritage Rivers Act have been met with the exception that the Auditor has not inspected a management plan for the Goulburn River Heritage Area.

Criterion 12—Legislation, Policies and Strategies

Consistency between legislation, policies and strategies in regard to the health of the Goulburn River.

Not applicable It is not possible, or of assistance, to draw a conclusion as to the consistency between legislation, policies and strategies in regard to the health of the Goulburn River as the assessment has not been, nor can it be, comprehensive. It is more appropriate to put forward recommendations based upon the specific findings.

Criterion 13—Organisational roles and responsibilities

Consistency between organisational roles and responsibilities relevant to the health of the Goulburn River.

Substantial conformance

Criteria 14a and 14b—Fish kill response arrangements

14a: The occurrence of fish kills in the Goulburn River is increasing.

Unknown conformance Fish kills in the Goulburn River system (river, tributary streams, drains and channels) have predominantly occurred in late spring and summer downstream of the Goulburn Weir. It is not possible to determine whether there is a historical trend in the frequency of fish kill events in the Goulburn River system. 14 b: The current response arrangements for managing Goulburn River fish kill events are adequate.

Partial conformance The non-conformances are: • DSE, Parks Victoria, and the DHS responsibilities are not clearly identified. • The level of awareness of relevant staff from some agencies of the Fish Kill Protocols could be improved. • There are limited mechanisms to review river health information to identify the environmental conditions that contributed to the fish kill.

Environmental Audit 187 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

• The Interim Fish Kill Protocol does not establish a process to upgrade the fish kill knowledge base which is necessary to inform future revisions to response protocols based upon minimising the incidence and severity of fish kills. • The current response protocols may not provide for sufficient information and evidence to be collected, prior to, during, and after the fish kill to identify the cause. • The current response protocols do not provide a process for review, follow up of actions, and refinement of management in order to reduce or eliminate the likelihood of the incidence and severity of future fish kills.

Criterion 15—WoV—Chemical management

Conformance with the biocides storage, training, use, contingency planning and emergency response obligations of Clause 37 of the SEPP (WoV).

Substantial conformance The non-conformances are (i) the Herbicide Operating Instructions Manual does not cover the storage and transport of biocides; and (ii) the EPA has not developed or assisted in the guidelines for the storage of biocides in or near surface waters. (The EPA has assisted in the development of guidelines for the use of biocides in or near surface waters.)

Criterion 16—Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act

Conformance with Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act as it relates to herbicide application rates in G-MW channels and drains.

General conformance The non-conformance is incomplete compliance with all APVMA off-label permit requirements.

Criterion 17—Irrigation drains and channels

Conformance with Clause 51(2) of the SEPP (WoV)—Irrigation Channels and Drains

Partial conformance A prioritisation system for non routine drain monitoring has not been developed, and DPI needs to be encouraged to become a signatory to the IDMoU.

Criterion 18—Irrigation Drainage Memorandum of Understanding

Conformance with the IDMoU.

Partial conformance The IDMoU Implementation Work Program is behind schedule for some tasks.

10.2 Statement of conformance and primary evidence sources

The statement of conformance of the audited activity against each of all criteria is presented in Table 10.1.

EPA Victoria 188 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Table 10.1: Level of activity conformance with audit criteria

No Criteria Conformance 1 SEPP (WoV) environmental water quality objectives and indicators are Limited being met for all beneficial uses to be protected. 2 A framework is in place to develop an Attainment Program for the Partial Goulburn River and that it has been used and appropriately applied. 3 The Goulburn Broken CMA has worked with stakeholders to develop a Partial Government approved RCS and plans, which identify the regional environmental, social and economic values of surface waters and, after careful consideration of environmental, social and economic needs, set appropriate goals, priorities and environmental targets for the catchment. 4 Consistency of the RCS and supporting plans with regional target setting Partial obligations under Clause 24 of the SEPP (WoV). 5 Compliance with obligations under Clause 41 of the SEPP (WoV)—Water Partial Allocations and Environmental Flows—either by being met or being in the process of being met. 6 Compliance with obligations for controlling water temperature, if any Not applicable exist, in the Goulburn River below Lake Eildon and above Lake Nagambie. 7 Consistency of RCS and the draft RHHS with overarching river health Generally strategies and plans; particularly objectives and targets. 8 Compliance with Environmental Management Obligations under the Water Generally Act. 9 Compliance with Environment Related Obligations under Bulk Water Generally Entitlements and Water Supply Agreements. 10 G-MW compliance with obligations under a State Government Operational Not applicable Licence, if it exists, as it relates to the environmental health of the Goulburn River. 11 Identify whether key obligations relevant to the protection of endangered Generally species, river water quality and the control of riparian land along the Goulburn River under Acts of Parliament are being met. 12 Consistency of between legislation, policies and strategies in regard to Not applicable the health of the Goulburn River. 13 Consistency between organisational roles and responsibilities relevant to Substantial the management of the health of the Goulburn River. 14 The occurrence of fish kills in the Goulburn River is increasing (14a). Unknown The current response arrangements for managing Goulburn River fish kill Partial events are adequate (14b). 15 Conformance with the biocides management obligations under Clause 37 Substantial of the SEPP (WoV). 16 Conformance with the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Generally Use) Act as it relates to herbicide application rates in G-MW channels and drains. 17 Conformance with Clause 51(2) of the SEPP (WoV)—Irrigation Channels Partial and Drains. 18 Conformance with the Irrigation Drainage Memorandum of Understanding Partial Implementation Work Program.

Environmental Audit 189 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

11 RECOMMENDATIONS

All recommendations presented within the audit findings in Section 9 have been designated a priority based upon the potential risks of harm to the health of the Goulburn River if the recommendation is not adopted in the medium term.

11.1 Priority Ratings Classification

The priority rating classifications are: • extreme (E) • very high (VH) • high (H) • medium (M) • low (L)

The methodology used to rate the risks is presented in Appendix D together with the full results of the risk assessment. Suggested agency responsibilities for implementation have been assigned to each recommendation. All recommendations are presented in Tables 11.1 to 11.4 in accordance to their priority. No ‘extreme’ priorities were identified.

11.2 High priority recommendations

The very high and high priority recommendations are summarised below.

State Environment Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria)

Establish an integrated routine water quality monitoring evaluation and reporting program which can be used to determine whether the endorsed Goulburn Broken Regional River Health Strategy (RRHS) and the SEPP (WoV) Attainment Program targets are being met. Investigate the cause of the low dissolved oxygen below Lake Eildon between July 2002 and June 2003. Address the potential environmental threats to the health of Lake Nagambie and the Goulburn weir pool and establish permanent water quality monitoring stations within these water bodies. Assess whether summer and late spring releases from the Goulburn Weir’s vertical lift gates will increase downstream dissolved oxygen levels and are technically feasible for short-term periods. If so, consider releases from the vertical lift gates when the dissolved oxygen falls below agreed trigger levels to reduce the risk of fish kills. Establish a SEPP (WoV) Attainment Program for the Goulburn River between Lake Eildon and the Murray River including the Goulburn weir pool and Lake Nagambie.

Goulburn Broken Regional River Health Strategy

Finalise the RRHS and develop a linked SEPP (WoV) Attainment Program after taking full account of the social and economic needs as well as environmental risk aspects for all audit reaches.

EPA Victoria 190 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Update the short-term RCTs and MATs for audit reaches 1, 2 and 3 once clear management objectives are established and review existing targets for audit reach 4. Ensure that the RRHS aspirational targets, RCTs and MATs for native and exotic fish are considered in the development of the Goulburn River’s Environmental Water Reserve.

Water allocations and environmental flows

Complete the identification of Environmental Water Reserves requirements for the Goulburn River. Ensure that the Environmental Water Reserve requirements are consistent with the negotiated flow regime arising out of the completion of the RRHS’s environmental flow program and the RRHS aspirational targets, RCTs and MATs for all Goulburn River reaches. Seek clarification as to the best way forward to resolve the likely inconsistency between the SEPP (WoV) Clause 41 ‘Water Allocations and Environmental Flows’ and Bulk Entitlement (Eildon-Goulburn Weir) Conversion Order 1995 as it relates to G-MWs ability to implement measures to provide environmental flows. Reform the Water Act 1989 as soon as practical to allow for the effective establishment of Environmental Water Reserves. In doing so consideration should be given to Phillip Fox’s (2005) ‘Recommendations for Legislative Implementation of the White Paper’s Proposed Reform’.

Thermal water quality objectives

Determine G-MW obligations under its EMS to reduce the risk of temperature fluctuations below Lake Eildon on flora, fauna, loss of habitat and loss of amenity. Consider closer integration of the Goulburn Eildon Fishery Management Plan with the RRHS to ensure that the RCT targets of both strategies are consistent and are developed through the same stakeholder consultation process. In the development of long-term RRHS RCTs and MATs for audit reach 1, consider the social and economic, as well as the environmental, impacts of providing for warmer water releases from Lake Eildon and the inability to provide an optimal temperature regime for both native fish and desirable introduced species.

Goulburn Weir Pool and Lake Nagambie

Consider the viability of constructing a fish ladder at the Goulburn weir having regard to the outcomes of the feasibility study. The viability should be considered in consultation with relevant stakeholders including local angling committees. Obtain an improved understanding of ecological processes within the Nagambie Lakes system. This should be achieved by addressing the knowledge gaps identified in the 2002 assessment by the scientific expert panel.

Management of Bulk Water Entitlements

Revise the Bulk Entitlement to ensure that the environmental obligations for managing the Environmental Water Reserve are clear, transparent and auditable. Continue to amend the Bulk Entitlement as each water saving measure is identified and implemented and the Environmental Water Reserve is established.

Environmental Audit 191 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Threatened Species and Threatening Processes

Complete FFG Action Statements for all threatened species and threatening processes that are relevant to the Goulburn River below Lake Eildon. As Action Statements are completed review and update the RRHS to ensure that it is consistent.

Responsibility for the protection of fish

Clarify the roles of and responsibilities of government agencies for protecting the health of native and exotic fish populations.

Fish kill response arrangements

Develop a robust State-based fish kill response protocol that has the support of all agencies and builds upon the EPA’s Interim Fish Kill Protocol. Refine the draft Interim Framework for a Multi Agency Response to Incidents in Waterways in the Goulburn Broken Catchment to ensure that it reflects the state-based protocols. (This could be a regionally-based model for other CMA regions within the State.) Refine the current agency-based fish kill response protocols to ensure they reflect the recommended state-based protocols.

Biocides usage

Review EPA arrangements for providing advice to stakeholders on the use of herbicides near water bodies. Promote information exchange between agencies on agricultural chemicals and the potential environmental impacts. Conduct independent audits of G-MW’s use of herbicides in channels, drains and other waters, in particular acrolein (Magnacide H) and chemicals used under APVMA off-label permits. Recalculate residual herbicide concentration estimates in channels and drains to account for peak concentrations and biodegradation processes and to include 2,4-D amine as well as amitrole and glyphosate. This should also include determining the proportion of the herbicide that ends up at the drain outlet as run-off. These calculations should be verified with in situ measurements. If ANZECC (2000) criteria are exceeded or likely to be exceeded, a contingency plan should be implemented.

Irrigation drains and channels

Develop a co-ordinated and prioritised monitoring program for pathogens, biocides, metals, and biological indicators in drainage water and sediments. This should build upon the outcomes and recommendations of risk assessments, including the first tier assessment of biocides, and previous reports of non-routine drain monitoring conducted over the past five years. Extend the first tier assessment of the risks associated with pesticides used in Goulburn- Murray irrigation areas to include an assessment of the risk to beneficial uses associated with herbicide spraying of drains and channel outfalls.

EPA Victoria 192 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

11.3 Prioritised recommendations with responsibilities

All recommendations are presented in Table 11.1 together with the criterion and finding that they are associated with as well as the suggested responsibility and priority. Table 11.1: Prioritised Goulburn River audit recommendations ion

t y t bili i Criterion Finding Recommenda Respons Priority

1 2 Investigate the cause of the low dissolved oxygen in audit reach 1 CMA H between July 2002 and June 2003. G-MW 1 3 Establish permanent water quality monitoring stations within audit CMA H reaches 2 and 3. 1 4 Address the potential environmental threats to the health of Lake CMA VH Nagambie and the Goulburn weir pool (audit reaches 2 and 3) G-MW which were identified in the expert panel’s 2002 ecological review. 1 6 Assess whether summer and late spring releases from the CMA H Goulburn Weir’s vertical lift gates will increase downstream G-MW dissolved oxygen levels and are technically feasible for short-term periods. (Technical issues include management of occupational health and safety risks and accurate flow monitoring.) If so, consider releases from the vertical lift gates when the dissolved oxygen falls below agreed trigger levels to reduce the risk of fish kills. 1 9 Clarify, through the RRHS, whether and when the SEPP (WoV) CMA L water quality objectives will be met. 1 10 Establish stream management unit RCTs, through the RRHS, for all CMA M SEPP (WoV) water quality and biological environmental quality objectives. If these are to be subject to an additional ecological risk assessment process, establish and apply short-term targets until the ecological risk assessment is completed. 1 10 Establish an integrated routine water quality monitoring evaluation CMA H and reporting program which can be used to determine whether DSE the endorsed RRHS and SEPP (WoV) Attainment Program targets G-MW, are being met. The program should: GVRWA build upon existing monitoring programs and include ambient EPA water quality monitoring allow for the determination of whether releases from Lake Eildon and Goulburn Weir pose environmental risks to beneficial uses include monitoring for turbidity, nutrients, temperature, dissolved oxygen and any other pollutants considered necessary.

Environmental Audit 193 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER ion

t y t bili i Criterion Finding Recommenda Respons Priority

2 14 Establish a SEPP (WoV) Attainment Program for the Goulburn River CMA H between Lake Eildon and the Murray River including the Goulburn EPA weir pool and Lake Nagambie. 2 17 Identify and endorse the appropriate vehicle(s) for the Goulburn DSE M River SEPP (WoV) Attainment Program. This could be the RRHS or EPA a separate attainment program that is effectively linked to the RRHS. 2 17 Recognise complementary regulatory instruments, strategies and All L plans that are required to meet relevant objectives of the endorsed Agencies Attainment Program vehicle(s). 2 17 Avoid duplication of river health target setting processes, by All M ensuring there are transparent linkages between relevant natural Agencies resource strategies and plans and the SEPP (WoV) Attainment Program. 3 21 Document the linkages between the beneficial uses and the assets CMA L within the RRHS. 3 23 Finalise the RRHS and develop a linked SEPP (WoV) Attainment CMA VH Program after taking full account of the social and economic needs EPA as well as environmental risk aspects for all audit reaches. This should be achieved through extensive stakeholder engagement and by using assessment tools such as Multi Criteria Assessment (utilising the outcomes of any additional water quality-related ecological risk assessment). 4 27 Update the short-term RCTs and MATs for audit reaches 1, 2 and 3 CMA VH once clear management objectives are established and review EPA existing targets for audit reach 4. These targets should: reflect the SEPP (WoV) Clause 24 requirements for regional target setting consider the ‘Secondary Contact Recreational’, ‘Aquaculture’, and ‘Fish, Crustacea and Molluscs for Human Consumption’ beneficial uses as they relate to both native and exotic fish be based upon a full evaluation of the environment, social and economic impacts consider key threats to the assets (i.e. significant point source discharges) include thermal water quality targets and fish recruitment and survival.. 4 30 Revise the Goulburn Broken RCS to ensure that it adopts all RRHS CMA L and sub-strategies RCTs and MATs and that other river health targets are removed.

EPA Victoria 194 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER ion

t y t bili i Criterion Finding Recommenda Respons Priority

5 39 Complete the identification of EWR requirements for the Goulburn DSE VH River. These requirements should be consistent with the RRHS CMA aspirational targets, RCTs and MATs along all stream management units including the yet to be established management objectives for audit reaches 1, 2 and 3. 5 42 Finalise the development of tool(s) to assess the effectiveness of DSE M environmental releases to Victorian streams. In developing the tool(s) consideration should be given to utilising the ISC, the RiVERS measures, and SEPP (WoV) water quality objectives as possible measures of the effectiveness. The national review of approaches to ecological responses to environmental flows monitoring being undertaken by the CRC for Freshwater Ecology should be considered in the development of the tool. 6 45 Determine G-MW obligations under its EMS to reduce the risk of G-MW H temperature fluctuations below Lake Eildon on flora, fauna, loss of habitat and loss of amenity. 6 47 Consider closer integration of the Goulburn Eildon Fishery DPI H Management Plan with the RRHS to ensure that the RCT targets of DSE both strategies are consistent and are developed through the same CMA stakeholder consultation process. 6 47 In the development of long-term RRHS RCTs and MATs for audit CMA H reach 1 consider the social and economic, as well as the environmental, impacts of providing for warmer water releases from Lake Eildon and the inability to provide an optimal temperature regime for both native and exotic fish.

7 51 Ensure that the RRHS process to monitor and audit native fish CMA M populations includes all threatened fish species. The monitoring DSE program should obtain sufficient data to assess whether the RRHS DPI fish related aspirational targets, RCTs and MATs are being met. The program should be implemented as soon as practicable. 7 51 Ensure that the RRHS aspirational targets, RCTs and MATs for EPA H native and exotic fish are considered in the development of the CMA Goulburn River’s environmental water reserve. DSE 7 57 Consider the viability of constructing a fish ladder at the Goulburn CMA H weir having regard to the outcomes of the feasibility study. The G-MW viability should be considered in consultation with relevant stakeholders including local angling committees. 7 58 Review the current management arrangements for altering the G-MW, M level of the Goulburn weir pool and Lake Nagambie. CMA Angling assoc’ns

Environmental Audit 195 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER ion

t y t bili i Criterion Finding Recommenda Respons Priority

7 58 Obtain an improved understanding of ecological processes within CMA H the Nagambie Lakes system (audit reaches 3 and 4). This should G-MW be achieved by addressing the knowledge gaps identified in the Com- 2002 assessment by the scientific expert panel. munity Anglers 8 59 Consider declaring a perimeter buffer around the Goulburn weir G-MW M pool as ‘an environmental and recreational area’ under s. 107 of the Water Act. This would provide a powerful mechanism to provide for effective multiple use management including the preservation of native flora and fauna and minimising the risk of contaminated water entering Lake Nagambie and the Goulburn weir pool. 8 62 Consider whether to place performance and reporting conditions on G-MW M new drain connections. 9 78 Respond to G-MW’s proposed program to manage the DSE M environmental effects of G-MW works as required under Clause 15.1 of the Bulk Entitlement (Eildon-Goulburn Weir) Conversion Order or suggest an alternative approach to meet these obligations. In doing so provide guidance to G-MW to assist the authority refine the Annual Goulburn Basin Water accounts reports to reflect all environmental reporting requirements under Cl. 15.1. 9 78 Revise the Bulk Entitlement (Eildon-Goulburn Weir) Conversion DSE H Order to ensure that the environmental obligations for managing the environmental water reserve are clear, transparent and auditable. 9 82 Clarify what constitutes a ‘significant’ breach of the Bulk DSE M Entitlement (Eildon-Goulburn Weir) Conversion Order. 9 84 Continue to amend G-MW’s BE Order as the Environmental Water DSE VH Reserve is established through the water savings program. The Environmental Water Reserve should be consistent with the negotiated flow regime arising out of the completion of the RRHS’s environmental flow program. 11 89 Review processes for declaring noxious riparian weeds and ensure DSE M adequate resources are available to respond to emerging environmental and agricultural weeds. 11 92 Complete FFG Action Statements for all threatened species and DSE H threatening processes that are relevant to the Goulburn River CMA below Lake Eildon.

11 92 As Action Statements are completed review and update the RRHS DSE H to ensure that it is consistent. CMA 11 93 Ensure that all completed Action Statements for threatened species DSE L and potentially threatening processes are readily available to the public.

EPA Victoria 196 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER ion

t y t bili i Criterion Finding Recommenda Respons Priority

11 94 Ensure that the RRHS RCTs are linked with and reflect threatened CMA H species and threatening processes Action Plans relevant to the Goulburn River. 12 102 Seek clarification as to the best way forward to resolve the likely DSE H inconsistency between the SEPP (WoV) Clause 41 ‘Water CMA Allocations and Environmental Flows’ and Bulk Entitlement (Eildon- EPA Goulburn Weir) Conversion Order 1995 as it relates to G-MW’s ability to implement measures to provide environmental flows. 12 106 Reform the Water Act as soon as practical to allow for the effective DSE VH implementation of the Victorian Government’s White Paper ‘Our Water Our Future’, particularly the development of Environmental Water Reserves. In doing so consideration should be given to Phillip Fox’s (2005) ‘Recommendations for legislative implementation of the White Paper’s proposed reform’. 13 107 Clarify the roles of and responsibilities of government agencies for CMA EPA VH protecting the health of native and exotic fish populations. DSE DPI 13 108 Consider separating the Bulk Entitlement (Eildon-Goulburn Weir) DSE M Conservation Order resource manager responsibilities from operational responsibilities.

Environmental Audit 197 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER ion

t y t bili i Criterion Finding Recommenda Respons Priority

14 120 Develop a robust State-based fish kill response protocol that has All VH the support of all agencies and builds upon the EPA’s Interim Fish relevant Kill Protocol. Aspects of the Interim Fish Kill Protocol which would agencies need further development to create a robust State-based protocol are: clearly identify agencies’ responsibilities specify the training requirements for relevant officers across all agencies specify mechanisms to review river health information following a fish kill specify a process to upgrade the fish kill knowledge base specify sample location advice, and nutrient, metals, and biocide sampling and analysis needs specify a process for review, follow up of actions, and refinement of management in order to reduce or eliminate the likelihood of the incidence and severity of future fish kills specify that the EPA, as chair of debrief sessions, should follow up after the debrief to facilitate and assist in the implementation of recommendations arising out of the debrief provide guidance on what possible causal factors (i.e. beyond the water body and the immediate tributaries) should be investigated in the reporting of the event. This should include dominant surrounding land uses; particularly industries and farming practices with high chemical inputs and use patterns, their proximity to waterways and potential for spray drift and run-off water to be carried into those waterways. The consideration should also include the cumulative impacts of multiple chemical uses in a general area specify central reporting requirements for fish deaths and greater notification arrangements between relevant agencies where agricultural chemicals are suspected specify independent sampling and laboratory analysis, where practicable, of water and biota with interagency consultation on the analytes to be tested where agricultural chemicals are suspected incorporate relevant elements of the DPI Fish Kill Emergency Management Plan. 14 121 Refine the draft Interim Framework for a Multi Agency Response to All H Incidents in Waterways in the Goulburn Broken Catchment to agencies ensure that it reflects the state based protocols. (This could be a regionally based model for other CMA regions within the State.)

EPA Victoria 198 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER ion

t y t bili i Criterion Finding Recommenda Respons Priority

14 122 Refine the current agency-based protocols to ensure they reflect All H the state-based protocols and: agencies incorporate advice on where to take samples in and below storages extend the water quality analysis to nutrients, metals and biocides when these are considered to be indicators of the likely cause of the fish kill event include directions on appropriate collection of samples and specimens for subsequent pathology testing clarify who pays for the fish kill response (where possible this should be based upon the polluter pays principle). 15 126 Revise G-MW’s Herbicide Operating Instructions Manual to include G-MW L procedures for the transport of biocides. 15 131 Review internal arrangements for providing advice to stakeholders EPA L on the use of herbicides near water bodies. 15 132 Distribute and promote the Victorian management guidelines for EPA M the use of herbicides on riparian land to all relevant stakeholders as soon as they become available. 15 125 Promote information exchange between agencies on agricultural EPA DPI H chemicals and the potential environmental impacts. This could then G-MW lead to reducing the risk to the environment and a greater DSE understanding of the type of analysis required in the event of any fish deaths where agricultural chemicals are suspected. 16 134 Ensure the training program for G-MW’s Aquatic Plant Service G-MW M licensed officers explicitly and clearly documents APVMA off-label reporting requirements. 16 134 Conduct independent audits of G-MW’s use of herbicides in DPI, G- H channels, drains and other waters, in particular acrolein MW (Magnacide H) and chemicals used under APVMA off-label permits. 16 135 Obtain independent advice to determine whether approval is G-MW M required for the existing channel and drain spraying under the EPBC Act. Approval is required for an action that has, will have, or is likely to have a significant impact upon matters of national significance. 16 136 Continue the current practice of spraying irrigation channel and G-MW M drain beds only and on an as-required basis with possible changes to the dosage rates to suppress rather than kill weeds

Environmental Audit 199 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER ion

t y t bili i Criterion Finding Recommenda Respons Priority

16 140 Recalculate residual herbicide concentration estimates in channels G-MW H and drains to account for peak concentrations and biodegradation processes and to include 2,4-D amine as well as amitrole and glyphosate. This should also include the determination of proportion of the herbicide that ends up at the drain outlet as run- off. These calculations should be verified with in situ measurements. If ANZECC (2000) criteria are exceeded or likely to be exceeded, a contingency plan should be implemented. (If not already in place the contingency plan should be developed as a matter of urgency.) 17 142 Determine whether improved drain management practices have CMA M been applied to the Rodney Main Drain and Shepparton Drain 3. These include spraying and desilting on the drain bed only. 17 146 Conduct annual reporting of drain outfall nutrient loads as total CMA M loads and loads/km (and/or load/ha) of drain. This will assist in G-MW determining whether the WQS total phosphorus reduction target EPA can be achieved while the drain network is expanding. 17 147 Develop a co-ordinated and prioritised monitoring program for CMA VH pathogens, biocides, metals, and biological indicators in drainage G-MW water and sediments. This should build upon the outcomes and EPA recommendations of risk assessments, including the first tier assessment of biocides, and previous reports of non-routine drain monitoring conducted over the past five years. Consideration should be given to the sampling and analysis of the herbicides used by G-MW to control weeds in channels and drains as well as insecticides and fungicides. This task is generally consistent with the IDMoU Implementation Action Item 6b—‘Setting of Monitoring Requirements using Initial Rapid Decision Support System’. 17 147 Assess the implications and risks to river heath of non-compliance CMA EPA M of drain pathogen concentrations against the EPA (1996) G-MW Guidelines for Wastewater Reuse (Publication No. 464) and the ANZECC (2000) Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality. 17 149 Improve the IDMoU audit system by clarifying the trigger for DSE M undertaking a Special Catchment Analysis. 17 150 Extend the first tier assessment of the risks associated with CMA H pesticides used in Goulburn-Murray irrigation areas to include an G-MW assessment of the risk to beneficial uses associated with herbicide spraying of drains and channel outfalls. 18 154 Revise the Implementation Work Program to complete the general DSE M issues and short-term initial rapid response processes by October 2005.

EPA Victoria 200 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER ion

t y t bili i Criterion Finding Recommenda Respons Priority

18 156 Encourage DPI to become a signatory to the IDMoU as it has DSE L responsibilities under Clause 51(1) of the SEPP (WoV) to work with agencies to minimise pollutants entering irrigation drains and, as a service provider, it has farm extension and research commitments in drained irrigation catchments and is responsible for the implementation of privately owned regional surface water management systems identified under regional Lands and Water Management Plans.

Environmental Audit 201 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

12 REFERENCES

ACIL Tasman (2003) ‘Scope for Water Use Efficiency Savings as a Source of Water to meet increased Environmental Flows—Independent Review’, report prepared for the Murray Darling Basin Commission, March 2003. ANZECC—Australian and New Zealand Environment Conservation Council and Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand, (2000) ‘Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality’, National Water Quality Management Strategy, October 2000. APHA, (1995) ‘Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater’. Joint publication of the American Public Health Association and American Waterworks Association. Broken Creek Improvement Landcare Group (2004) ‘Submission prepared for Moira Shire combined planning permit Amendment C10 and planning permit application’ No 01/246. Brown (2003) ‘Effects of variable flow on trout spawning and rearing habitat in the Goulburn River’. Fisheries Victoria Research Report Series No. 3 December 2003. Brown (2004) ‘Predicting growth and mortality of brown trout (Salmo trutta) in the Goulburn River after mitigation of cold-water discharge from Lake Eildon, Australia’, New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 38:279–87. Brown, P (2004) ‘Trout spawning and rearing habitats in the Goulburn River’, in Fisheries Notes Research and Education, 12 July 2004 FN0578. Butcher, P (2003a) ‘A Draft Analysis of the November 2002 Broken Creek Fish Kill’. Goulburn- Murray Water draft report, February 3, 2003. Butcher, P (2003b) ‘Broken Creek Flow and Water Quality Information’. Goulburn-Murray Water draft not to file. No 2003/321/1. Reference No 1056077. July 2, 2003. CMPS&F (1995) ‘Environmental Audit of the Management of Aquatic Herbicides’, prepared for G-MW, July 1995. Co-operative Research Centre for Freshwater Ecology (2000) ‘Assessment of Ecological Risk Associated with Irrigation Systems in the Goulburn Broken Catchment’. Co-operative Research Centre for Freshwater Ecology (2002) ‘Independent Report of the Expert Reference Panel on Environmental Flows and Water Quality Requirements for the River Murray System’, February 2002. Co-operative Research Centre for Freshwater Ecology (2003a) ‘Environmental Flow Recommendations for the Goulburn River Below Lake Eildon’ Technical Report 01/2003. Report prepared by Cottingham, P Stewardson, M, Crook, D, Hillman, T, Roberts, J, and Rutherford, I. Co-operative Research Centre for Freshwater Ecology (2003b) ‘Flow Related Environment Issues Associated with the Goulburn River below Lake Eildon’. Cottingham, P, Amenta, V and Lidston, J (1995) ‘The occurrence of algal blooms and a review of nutrients in surface waters in the Goulburn and Broken river basins’. Report No 36/95, Water EcoScience, Melbourne. Cottingham, P, Beckett, R, Breen, P, Feehan, P, Grace, M and Hart, B (2004) ‘Assessment of Ecological Risk Associated with Irrigation Systems in the Goulburn Broken Catchment’, Technical Report 3/2001. Co-operative Centre for Freshwater Ecology, April 2001. CSIRO and Goulburn-Murray Water (2003) ‘First Tier Assessment of the Risks Associated with Pesticides used in the Goulburn-Murray Irrigation Areas’, May 2003.

EPA Victoria 202 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Department of Justice, and Department of Sustainability and Environment (2004) ‘Yorta Yorta Co-operative Management Agreement’, May 2004. Department of Natural Resources and Environment (Jan 1999) ‘Risk Management—Strategic Framework and Process’, Version 1. Department of Natural Resources and Environment (2001) ‘Status of Cold Water Releases from Victorian Dams’, November 2001. Department of Natural Resources and Environment (Jun 2002a) ‘Goulburn-Eildon Region Fisheries Management Plan’, June 2002. Department of Natural Resources and Environment (Jun 2002b) ‘Surface Water Management Strategy Review, Shepparton Irrigation Region’. Department of Natural Resources and Environment (Aug 2002) ‘Healthy Rivers, Healthy Communities and Regional Growth: Victorian River Health Strategy’. Department of Primary Industries (2003a) ‘Fish Deaths Emergency Management Plan: Draft’, 15 January 2003. Department of Primary Industries (2003b) ‘Guidelines for Assessing Translocations of Live Aquatic Organisms in Victoria’, December 2003. Department of Primary Industries, Environment Protection Authority, North East Catchment Management Authority, Goulburn-Murray Water and North East Region Water Authority (2003) ‘Designated Waterway Response Protocol’, March 2003. Department of Primary Industries, Department of Sustainability and Environment, Environment Protection Authority, Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority, Goulburn-Murray Water, Goulburn Valley Water, North East Region Water Authority, and Department of Human Services (2004) ‘Interim Framework for a Multi Agency Response to Incidents in Waterways in the Goulburn Broken Catchment’, November 2004. Department of Sustainability and Environment (2005) ‘Statement of Obligations—Goulburn- Murray Water Authority’. Issued under the Water Industry Act 1994. DeRose, RC, (2003) ‘Assessment of reductions in suspended sediment and Total P loads as a consequence of riparian rehabilitation in the Goulburn-Broken Catchment’, CSIRO Land and Water, contract report to Goulburn-Broken Catchment Management Authority, July 2003. DeRose, RC, Prosser, IP, Wilkinson, LJ, Hughes, AO, Young, WJ, (2003) ‘Regional Patterns of Erosion and Sediment and Nutrient Transport in the Goulburn and Broken River Catchments, Victoria’, CSIRO Land and Water report, January 2003. Dhurringile and District Community, (2004) ‘Dhurringile and District Local Area Plan— Preliminary draft for comment’, March 2004. Ecos Environmental Consulting, (2004) ‘Discussion Paper: Fish Kills and their Occurrence in the Goulburn Broken catchment’. Consultant's report prepared for Nolan-ITU, July 2004. EPA (1996) ‘Guidelines for Wastewater Reuse’, EPA Publication No. 464. EPA (1998) ‘Point Source Discharge to Streams—Protocol of In stream Monitoring and Assessment’, EPA Publication No. 596. EPA (1999) ‘The Health of Streams in the Goulburn and Broken Catchments’, EPA Publication No. 678. EPA (2002) ‘EPA Interim Fish Kill Response Protocol’, February 2002. EPA (Apr 2004) ‘The Goulburn Weir Fish Kill of January 2004’, EPA Scientific Assessment Report prepared by Stephen Perriss, Freshwater Sciences, April 2004.

Environmental Audit 203 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

EPA (Jun 2004) ‘Environmental Auditor Guidelines for the Preparation of Environmental Audit Reports on Risk to the Environment’, EPA Publication No. 952, June 2004. EPA (Jun 2004) ‘Environmental Auditor Guidelines for Conducting Environmental Audits’, EPA Publication No. 953, June 2004. EPA (Oct 2004) ‘Guideline for Environmental Management Risk-Based Assessment of Ecosystem Protection in Ambient Waters’, EPA Publication No. 961, October 2004. EPA (Nov 2004a) ‘Environmental Incident Management Arrangements for Victorian Waterways, Draft Working Document’. EPA (Nov 2004b) ‘Interim Fish Kill Protocol’. EPA (2004c) ‘Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority Rivers and Streams Assessment’. Erskine W, Rutherford, I, Ladson, A and Tilleard, J (1993) ‘Fluvial Geomorphology of the Goulburn River Basin’. Ian Drummond and Associates report to the Mid Goulburn Catchment Co-ordinating Group. Feehan, P and Plunkett, R (2003) ‘Managing Diffuse Sources of Nutrients from Irrigation Areas—Experiences from the Goulburn Broken Catchment, Australia’, paper presented at Diffuse Pollution Conference Dublin, 2003. Finlayson B and Ladson A(post 2003) ‘The Management of Environmental Flows in Victoria’. Fisher, PMJ, Murby, J, and Costanzo, S, (post 2002) ‘Evaluating pharmaceutical emissions from dairy farms: A pilot assessment’. Gippel, CJ and Finlayson, BL (1993) ‘Downstream Environmental Impacts of Regulations of the Goulburn River, Victoria’ paper presented at Hydrology and Water Resources Symposium 30 June–2 July 1993. Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority (1998) ‘Under Goulburn Waterway Plan’. Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority (June 2002) ‘Surface Water Management Strategy Review—Shepparton Irrigation Region’, June 2002. Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority (December 2002) ‘Water Quality Strategy 1996–2016’, December 2002. Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority (2002) ‘Water Quality Strategy 1996– 2016’, December 2002. Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority (2003) ‘Regional Catchment Strategy’, November 2003. Goulburn Broken CMA (2004) ‘Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Strategy for the Goulburn Broken Catchment’. Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority (2004) ‘Goulburn Broken Regional River Health Strategy 2004–2014, Draft for Public Comment’, March 2004. Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority (2004) ‘Goulburn Broken Regional River Health Strategy: Our Catchment—Status of the Riverine System, Volume 1B. Waterways In Focus’, March 2004. Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority (2005) ‘Draft Goulburn Broken Regional River Health Strategy 2005–2015’, May 2005. G-MW and Southern Hydro, (1997) ‘Schedule B, Schedule D and Schedule D—Revision’, to the Eildon Agreement, 1997.

EPA Victoria 204 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

G-MW (Sept 1998) ‘Lake Nagambie Storage Management Plan—Water Quality and Biodiversity Strategy’. G-MW (1999–2003) ‘Herbicide Application Reports’ for Goulburn weir pool spraying. G-MW (Sept 1999) ‘Environmental Management System Consolidated Significant Environmental Risks’, September 1999. G-MW (Mar 2000) ‘Lake Nagambie Seed Bank Study’, final report. G-MW (May 2000) ‘Corporate Environmental Emergency Management Manual’, May 2000. G-MW (Oct 2001) ‘Pesticide and Channel Contamination: Subproject 1: Pesticides Used in G- MW Irrigation Areas’, October 2001. G-MW and The Secretary to the Department of Natural Resources (Jun 2002) ‘Memorandum of Understanding about Water Savings Projects between The Secretary to the Department of Natural Resources and Environment and Goulburn-Murray Rural Water Authority’, 18 June 2002. G-MW (Oct 2003) ‘Goulburn Basin Water Accounts and Report on Compliance with Bulk Entitlements 2001/2002’, prepared for the Department of Sustainability and Environment, October 2003. G-MW (Mar 2004) ‘Goulburn Bulk Entitlements (Eildon-Goulburn Weir) 2000/2001’, prepared for the Department of Sustainability and Environment, March 2004. G-MW (May 2004) ‘Ecological Risk Associated with Irrigation in the Goulburn Broken—Stage 2—Milestone 5 and Final Report’, May 2004. G-MW (Jun 2004) ‘Goulburn Basin Water Accounts and Report on Compliance with Bulk Entitlements 2002/2003’, prepared for the Department of Sustainability and Environment, June 2004. G-MW (Sept 2004) ‘Herbicide Operating Instructions—Safe Handling of Herbicides—2004–05’, Version No 4, September 2004. Government of Victoria, Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act 1992, Act No 46/1992, Version No 032. Government of Victoria, Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994, Act No. 52/1994, Version No 024. Government of Victoria, Fisheries Act 1995, Act No. 92/1995, Version No 038. Government of Victoria, Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988, Act No 47/1988, Version No 0.30, Version incorporating amendments as at 29 June 2000. Government of Victoria, Heritage Rivers Act 1992, Act No. 36/1992, Version No. 010. Government of Victoria, ‘State Environment Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria) 2003’. Government of Victoria, ‘Water Act 1989, Bulk Entitlement (Eildon-Goulburn Weir) Conversion Order 1995’. Government of Victoria, Water Act 1989, Act No. 80/1989, Version No. 072, Version incorporating amendments as at 1 July 2004. Government of Victoria, Water Industry Act 1994, Act No. 121/1994, Version No. 044. Government of Victoria, (2004) ‘White Paper—Securing Our Water Together’. Government of Victoria, (2004) ‘Memorandum of Understanding for Irrigation Drainage Management and Water Quality’, 22 June 2004.

Environmental Audit 205 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Hart, BT, Lake, PS, Webb, JA and Grace MR, (2003) ‘Ecological risk to aquatic systems from salinity increases’, in Australian Journal of Botany, 2003, 51. Humphries P, King, AJ and Koehn JD (1999) ‘Fish flows and floodplains: links between freshwater fishes and their environment in the Murray-Darling River system, Australia’. Environmental Biology of Fishes. Hydro Environmental Pty Ltd (2004) ‘Development of Rapid Decision Support Systems to Support the Implementation of the Irrigation Drainage Memorandum of Understanding—Final’, prepared for Irrigation Drainage Memorandum of Understanding Steering Committee, September 2004. Koehn, JD and O’Connor, WG, (1990) ‘Biological Information for Management of Native Freshwater Fish in Victoria’, prepared at Department of Conservation and Environment, Freshwater Fish Management Branch, Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research, April 1990. Koehn, J, Stuart, I, and Crook, D (2004) ‘Linking the ecological importance of downstream fish movements to management of Murray-Darling Basin fish populations’, in Lintermans, M, and Phillips, B, eds (2004), ‘Downstream Movement of Fish in the Murray-Darling Basin—A workshop held in Canberra 3–4 June 2003: Statement, Recommendations and Supporting Papers’. Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Canberra. Koehn, JD, (2004). ‘The Loss of Valuable Murray Cod in Fish Kills: A Science and Management perspective’. In Lintermans, M and Phillips, B eds. ‘Management of Murray Cod in the Murray- Darling Basin-workshop held in Canberra, 3–4 June 2004: Statement, recommendations and supporting papers’. Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Canberra. in press. Koster, W, Crook, D and Fairbrother, P (2004) ‘Survey of Fish Communities in the Lowe Goulburn River’, Annual Report 2003/04. Report to the Goulburn Valley Association of Angling Clubs. Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research, Department of Sustainability and Environment, Heildelberg, Victoria. Ladson A and Finlayson B (2002) ‘Rhetoric and Reality in the Allocation of Water to the Environment: A Case Study of the Goulburn River, Victoria Australia’, published online in Wiley InterScience, (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/rra.680. Lugg, A (2000) ‘Fish Kills in New South Wales’. NSW Fisheries, 2000. Mallen-Cooper, M, Stuart, IG, Hides-Pearson, F and Harris, J (1995) ‘Fish Migration in the Murray River and Assessment of the Torrumbarry Fishway’. Final report for NRMS project N002, NSW Fisheries and CRC for Freshwater Ecology. Marsh Pty Ltd (2004) ‘Conceptual Framework for Multi-Agency Response—Goulburn Broken Catchment’, 15 June 2004. McGuckin, J and Bennett, P (1999) ‘An Inventory of Fishways and Potential Barriers to Fish Movement and Migration in Victoria’. Waterways Unit, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Victoria. McGuckin, J (2002) ‘An investigative study of the fish fauna of the Nagambie lakes and Chateau Tahbilk Lagoon’, report prepared for the Nagambie Angling Club, December 2002. Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council (2003) ‘Native Fish Strategy for the Murray-Darling Basin 2003–2013’. Murray-Darling Basin Commission (2003) ‘Protocol for Reporting and Investigating Fish Kills in the Murray–Darling Basin—Draft (November 2003)’. Murray-Darling Basin Commission (post 2002) ‘The health of the River Murray system— scientific advice and assessment’, Information Paper No 2, The Living Murray Initiative.

EPA Victoria 206 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Murray-Darling Basin Commission (2004) ‘The Living Murray—scoping of economic issues in the Living Murray, with an emphasis on the irrigation sector’, July 2004. Nevill, J, (2004) ‘Submission One’, submission to Malcolm Thompson, Assistant Secretary, Water Task Force, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet concerning Water Task Force, DPMC (2004) National Water Initiative Discussion Paper, 16 April 2004. Nevill, J, (2004) ‘Submission Two’, submission to Malcolm Thompson, Assistant Secretary, Water Task Force, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet concerning Water Task Force, DPMC (2004) National Water Initiative Discussion Paper, 16 April 2004. Nevill, J, and Phillips, N (2004) ‘The Australian Freshwater Protected Area Resource Book: the policy background, role and importance of protected areas for Australian inland aquatic ecosystems’ prepared for the Australian Society for Limnology Representative Reserves Working Group 1 March 2004 (Version 1.013). Nolan-ITU (2001) ‘Independent Review of the Environmental Aspects of Northern Victoria’s Surface Drainage Programs in Irrigation Areas’, prepared on behalf of Department of Natural Resources and Environment and Murray Darling Basin Commission, February 2001 Nolan-ITU (2002) ‘Irrigation Drain Pathogen Sampling in the Shepparton Irrigation Region Final Report’, prepared on behalf of G-MW, August 2002. Olive, L and Fredricks, D (1997) ‘Goulburn-Broken Water Quality Strategy: Analysis of Water Treatment Plant Data, Shepparton and Mooroopna’. Unisearch report to Goulburn-Murray Water. Page, R (2003) ‘The Water Question is not what is right—but what is left?’, paper presented at Sustainable Economic Growth for Regional Australia Conference, September 2003. Perriss, S (2004) ‘The Goulburn Weir Fish Kill of January 2004’. EPA scientific assessment report, Freshwater Sciences, April 2004. Phillips Fox (2005) ‘Recommendations for Legislative Implementation of White Paper’s Proposed Reforms, Draft Submissions on behalf of Environment Victoria, Environment Defenders Office, Australian Conservation Foundation and WWF’. Pollino CA, Feehan P, Grace, MR and Hart, BT (post 2003) ‘Fish Communities and Habitat Changes in the Highly Modified Goulburn Catchment, Victoria, Australia’. Pollino CA (2004) ‘Ecological Risk Associated with Irrigation in the Goulburn-Broken Catchment—Phase 2, Adverse changes to the abundance and diversity of native fish’. Prasad, A and Close, A (2002) ‘Analysis of Irrigation Returns from Irrigation Districts in New South Wales and Victoria’, MDBC Technical Report 2002/3, August 2002. Robertson, AI, Bunn, SE, Boon, PI and Walker, KF (1999) ‘Sources, sinks and transformations of organic carbon in Australian floodplain rivers’. Marine and Freshwater Research 50. Robinson, D (2002) ‘Investigation of Broken Creek on 5/12/02’. EPA Victoria Report. Sinclair, P (2004). ‘The Loss of Valuable Murray Cod in Fish Kills: A Community and Conservation Perspective ‘. In Lintermans, M and Phillips, B eds. ‘Management of Murray Cod in the Murray-Darling Basin-workshop held in Canberra, 3–4 June 2004: Statement, recommendations and supporting papers’. Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Canberra. in press. Ryan, T, Webb, A, Lennie, R and Lyon, J (2001) ‘Status of Cold Water Releases from Victorian Dams’, prepared for Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Victoria. SKM (Nov 1998) ‘Shepparton Drain Nutrients: Nutrients in Irrigation Drains in the SIR July 1997–June 1998’, report prepared for G-MW, November 1998.

Environmental Audit 207 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

SKM (May 2000) ‘D118—Nutrient Removal from Rural Drainage Systems Using Wetlands: Water Quality Analysis Report 16 November 2002 to 28 May 2000’. SKM (Aug 2001) ‘Shepparton Drains Sediment Study’, prepared for Goulburn-Murray Water, August 2001. SKM (Feb 2002) ‘Ecological Review of the Status of the Lake Nagambie System’, prepared for of G-MW, February 2002. SKM (Jul 2002) ‘Biocide and Metal Levels in Drain Sediments of the Shepparton Irrigation Region 2002’, report prepared for G-MW, July 2002. SKM (Dec 2002) ‘D118—Nutrient Removal from Rural Drainage Systems Using Wetlands: Final Report on Drain Batter Stabilisation Trials’, December 2002. SKM (Jul 2003a) ‘Lake Nagambie: Temperature and Stratification Investigation 2002/2003’. SKM (Jul 2003b) ‘Lake Nagambie—Wind Conditions 2002/2003’. SKM (Dec 2003a) ‘Guidelines and Protocols for the Management of Native Fish Habitat’ prepared for Murray Darling Basin Commission Project R2120, December 2003. SKM (Dec 2003b) ‘Review of Habitat Associations of Native Fish in the Murray Darling Basin’ prepared for Murray Darling Basin Commission Project R2105, December 2003. SKM (Mar 2004) ‘Goulburn Weir Flow and Ecology Review, Goulburn Weir Flow Investigation’, 9 March 2004. SKM (Mar 2004) ‘Goulburn River Flow and Ecology Review, Ecological Review of Goulburn Weir and the Goulburn River’, 4 March 2004. SKM (Mar 2004) ‘Goulburn River Flow and Ecology Review—Goulburn Weir Temperature and Stratification Investigation, December 2003–January 2004’, 4 March 2004. SKM (Jul 2004) ‘Weed Spraying in the Goulburn Weir Pool—Summary of Weed Management Activities in the Goulburn Weir Pool’, July 2004. SKM (Nov 2004) ‘C806 A and B Shepparton Drain Nutrients: Trend Analysis of Nutrients in Irrigation Drains in the Shepparton Irrigation Region’, prepared for G-MW and the Goulburn Broken CMA, November 2004. SKM (2004) ‘Goulburn Weir Flow and Ecology Review, Goulburn Weir Water Quality Investigation’. Sustainable Economic Growth for Regional Australia Conference (2003) ‘National Conference Communique’, summaries of key points made in formal and informal discussion with participants during the SEGRA Conference 15–17 Sept, 2003. Tan, Poh-Ling (2001) ‘Irrigators come first: Conversion of existing allocations to Bulk Entitlements in the Goulburn and Murray catchments, Victoria’ in Environmental and Planning Law Journal—Volume 18, No 2, April 2001. Urban and Regional Planning, Wodonga (2003) ‘Murray Valley Drain 11 Project, Summary Document’, Nov. 2003. Victorian Water Resources Data Warehouse. http://www.vicwaterdata.net/vicwaterdata/home.aspx VRFish Secretariat (post 2002) ‘The VRFish Inland Fishery Policy, Inland Stocking Policy, Trout 2000 Policy, Native Fish Management Policy, Habitat Management Policy’. Water ECOscience Pty Ltd, (1997) ‘Lake Nagambie Glyphosate Spraying Program Water Quality Monitoring Report’, report prepared for Goulburn-Murray Water, October 1997.

EPA Victoria 208 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Water ECOscience Pty Ltd, (1997) ‘Manual of Water Quality Monitoring Procedures—Glyphosate Monitoring Programme—97/98’, report prepared for Goulburn-Murray Water, November 1997. Water ECOscience Pty Ltd, (1998) ‘Lake Nagambie Glyphosate Spraying Program Water Quality Monitoring Report’, report prepared for Goulburn-Murray Water, August 1998. Webb, JA and Chan, TU, (2004) ‘Ecological Risk Associated with Irrigation Systems in the Goulburn-Broken Catchment—Phase II: Priority Risk—Blue Green Algal Blooms’, draft— February 17, 2004. Webb, JA and Hart, BT, (2004) ‘Environmental Risks from Salinity Increases in the Goulburn- Broken Catchment’, report prepared by Water Studies Centre, Monash University, Melbourne for Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority, August 2004. WSL (2004) ‘Biomonitoring of the Impacts of Discharges from Irrigation Drains’, prepared for G-MW, July 2004.

Environmental Audit 209 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

13 INITIALISMS

AIIMS Australian Interservice Incident Management System ANZECC Australian and New Zealand Environment Conservation Council APS Aquatic Plant Services APVMA Agricultural Products and Veterinary Medicines Authority ARI Average Recurrence Interval AROT Australian Rare or Threatened BE Order Bulk Entitlement Order BMP Best Management Practice CEEMP Corporate Environmental Emergency Management Plan CMA Catchment Management Authority CMPS&F Camp Scott and Furphy COAG The Council of Australian Governments CRC Freshwater Co-operative Research Centre for Fresh Water Ecology Ecology DEH Department of Environment and Heritage DHS Department of Human Services DISPLAN State Disaster Plan DNRE Department of Natural Resources and Environment DO Dissolved Oxygen DPI Department of Primary Industries Draft RRHS Draft Goulburn Broken Regional River Health Strategy DSE Department of Sustainability and Environment DSS Decision Support System EC Electrical Conductivity EHN Epizootic Heamotopoietic Necrosis EHNV Epizootic Heamotopoietic Necrosis Virus EMS Environment Management System EPA Environment Protection Authority EPBC Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 2000 EPBC Act Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 ERA Ecological Risk Assessment EV Environment Victoria EVC Ecological Vegetation Class

EPA Victoria 210 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

EWR Environment Water Reserve FCC Fisheries Co-management Council FFG Act Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 FSL Full Supply Level GERFMP Goulburn Eildon Region Fisheries Management Plan GIS Geographic Information System GL Gigalitre GMID Goulburn-Murray Irrigation District G-MW Goulburn-Murray Water GVEG Goulburn Valley Environmental Group GVRWA Goulburn Valley Regional Water Authority ha Hectare IDMoU Irrigation Drainage Memorandum of Understanding ISC Index of Stream Conditions ISQG Intern Sediment Quality Guidelines km Kilometre KPI Key Performance Indicators LCC Land Conservation Council LWMS/P Land and Water Management Strategies/Plans MCT Management Action Target MDBC Murray Darling Basin Commission ML Megalitre MoU Memorandum of Understanding NFS National Fish Strategy NWQMS National Water Quality Management Strategy PI Performance Indicator RCS Regional Catchment Strategy RCT Resource Condition Target RRHS Regional River Health Strategy SEPP (WoV) State Environment Protection Policy—Waters of Victoria SIR Shepparton Irrigation Region SKM Sinclair Knight Merz SWMIP Surface Water Management Implementation Plan SWMS Surface Water Management System SWS Sustainable Water Strategies TBL Triple Bottom Line

Environmental Audit 211 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

VIAS Victorian Institute of Animal Science VNMS Victorian Nutrient Management Strategy VRHS Victorian River Health Strategy VWQMN Victorian Water Quality Monitoring Network WQS Water Quality Strategy YYNAC Yorta Yorta Nations Aboriginal Corporation

EPA Victoria 212 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

14 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The independent audit of the Goulburn River was requested by the Minister for the Environment and Water following the fish kill downstream of the Goulburn Weir in January 2004. The primary objective of the audit was to obtain the information and understanding required to guide the management of the Goulburn River towards providing a healthier river system. In undertaking this independent audit, consultation has occurred with a broad range of stakeholders including governmental agencies, environmental groups, fish protection bodies, the Yorta Yorta Nation, recreational users, water users, landowners, and other interested organisations. The Auditor acknowledges the help of the following stakeholders during the audit. The Reference Committee Goulburn-Murray Water Peter Butcher Goulburn Broken CMA Wayne Tennant Environment Victoria Paul Sinclair Department of Primary Industries Greg Hayes Department of Sustainability and Stephen Nicol and Paul Bennett Environment Environment Protection Authority Paul Moritz, Tim Fisher, Peter Tange, Elizabeth Radcliffe and Doug Newton Fisheries Co-management Council Ron Lewis VR Fish Ray Page

Technical Workshop participants Neville Fowler—DPI Graeme Creed—Fisheries Co-Management Council David Trickey—DPI Ron Lewis—Native Fish Australia Anne Graesser G-MW John Koehn—DSE Arthur Rylah Institue David Tiller—EPA Bill O’Connor—DSE Freshwater Biodiversity Policy Elita Briggs –EPA Barry Hart—Monash University WSC Stephen Perriss—EPA Dr Carmel Pollino—Monash University WSC Peter Tange—EPA Lance Lloyd—Lloyd Environmental Consulting Paul Sinclair—Environment Victoria Wayne Tennant—Goulburn Broken CMA Stephen Nicol—DSE Mike Hosking—DPI

Environmental Audit 213 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Local Community Network VR Fish Mike Edwards Wally Cubbin Goulburn Murray Landcare Network Karen Brisbane Members from Nagambie Riparian Landholder Association Members from Nagambie-Miepol Landcare GV Association of Angling Clubs Fred Bloetz Undera Angling Club Richard Maxwell Nagambie Angling Club Wally Cubbin Rod Theobold Fred Bloetz Water Table Watch Richard Maxwell Tahbilk Winery Alistair Perbrick Nagambie Rowing Club Nagambie Lakes Management Committee Alistair Perbrick Shepparton Irrigation Region Implementation Committee Peter Gibson Goulburn Valley Environment Group Michael Lea Whyte Yorta Yorta Nation Lee Joachim VFF Gordon Weller Dhurringile and District Landcare Group John Lang Derek Edge Riverine Association/Nagambie Landcare Tim Perbrick Fisheries Co-Management Council Graeme Creed

EPA Victoria 214 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT

ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

APPENDICES

Environmental Audit 215 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Appendix A

Environmental Audit of the Goulburn River Detailed Audit Scope - 2 September 2004

1 Project Brief

This detailed audit scope has been prepared in response to the project brief issued to the auditor in June 2004. The brief was intended to guide the appointed environmental auditor engaged to undertake the statutory environmental audit of the management of the Goulburn River. The client for the statutory audit is the Minister for the Environment and Water.

The primary audit objective, the primary approach and issues for consideration for the audit documented in the project brief are presented below.

Primary Audit Objective

The primary audit objective is to:

Obtain the information and understanding to guide the management of the Goulburn River towards providing a healthier river system. This will include improvements towards meeting the needs of the environment and water users, therefore reducing the likelihood of further fish kill events in the future.

The audit report must contain management recommendations that are capable of being used to improve management practices.

Primary Approach and Issues for Consideration

The primary approach and issues for consideration for the audit as identified in the June 2004 Project Brief are listed below.

1. Identify the land and water management policies, strategies, plans and operational procedures that guide the management of the relevant reaches of the Goulburn River; 2. Identify roles and responsibilities of the organisations responsible for the management of the Goulburn River and determine the Acts of State and Federal Parliament under which these organisations undertake that management; 3. Identify any gaps or inconsistencies within 1 and 2 above; 4. Determine whether relevant policies, strategies, plans, procedures, roles and responsibilities are being followed, with particular reference to the period covering November 2003 to January 2004 inclusive; 5. Determine whether relevant policies, strategies, plans, procedures, roles and responsibilities are adequate; and 6. Assess catchment management effectiveness in delivering recommended criteria.

EPA Victoria 216 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

The audit is not an investigation into the most recent, or any other, fish kills and is not intended to provide a new response plan or fish kill protocol. It is however required to assess the emergency response plan(s) used in previous incidents, and the adequacy of changes to the plans. Irrigation Drainage Memorandum of Understanding

2 Development of the Detailed Audit Scope

The detailed audit scope has been developed following:

th the Technical Workshop which was held on Friday 16 July. (The key outcomes of the Technical Workshop are presented in Attachment 2).

individual discussions with a broad range of stakeholders including governmental agencies, the Local Community Network, environmental groups, fish protection bodies, the Yorta Yorta Nation, recreational users, water users, landowners, and other interested organisations. st consultation with the Reference Committee on Wednesday 21 July including the consideration of comments on a preliminary draft detailed audit scope by members of the Reference Committee.

The draft Table of Contents of the audit report, based upon the audit scope is presented in Attachment 2.

The detailed audit scope addresses high priority geographical areas, environmental conditions, and management issues for achieving the primary audit objective. The audit scope describes:

the activities to be audited and the geographic extent

river health indicators

the approach to benchmark the health of the river

the audit criteria

the audit process

3 Audit Activities and Geographic Extent

Activities

The EP Act (1970) defines an "environmental audit" as a total assessment of the nature and extent of any harm or detriment caused to, or the risk of any possible harm or detriment which may be caused to, any beneficial use made of any segment of the environment by any industrial process or activity, waste, substance (including any chemical substance) or noise.

The environmental audit report is to be prepared in accordance with Section 53V of the of the EP Act (1970). This section of the Act requires "the industry process or activity ...... " to be specified in respect of which the environmental audit is conducted.

Environmental Audit 217 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

This environmental audit of the Goulburn River will be restricted to an audit of the following activities:

Activity A: River flow regulation (including management of riparian zone) Activity B: Fish kill response arrangements Activity C: Biocides usage Activity D: Irrigation drainage

and other specific activities, as identified in the conduct of the audit, that are considered to contribute to the following threats to the health of the Goulburn River:

flow regulation (including thermal pollution)

habitat degradation

lowered water quality

barriers

alien species

exploitation

diseases

translocation and stocking

These threats were identified at the Technical Workshop and are consistent with the MDBC Native Fish Strategy as being the key threats to native fish recruitment and survival along the Goulburn River. Flow regulation and reduced water quality were considered by Technical Workshop participants to be the highest priority threats to consider.

River flow regulation (including management of riparian zone) will be the primary activity subject to the audit. It includes the operation and management of both urban and irrigation supply systems, management of environmental flows, and riparian management practices along the river including the Goulburn weir pool.

While biocides usage and irrigation drainage could be considered as sub-activities within the river flow regulation activity, they are addressed separately within the audit due to specific concerns raised by stakeholders through the Local Community Forum and the Technical Workshop.

Geographic Extent

The river segment for the audit is the main stem of the Goulburn River from below the Eildon Dam outlet structure to the Murray River with the inputs from the tributaries, channels and drains treated as point sources.

EPA Victoria 218 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Where appropriate the audit will independently consider the following Goulburn River reaches:

Eildon Dam outlet structure to the limit of the influence of backwaters of the Goulburn weir (south of Nagambie).

Goulburn weir backwaters above Kirwans Bridge (to the limit of the influence of the weir) including Lake Nagambie, and the eastern and western backwaters.

Goulburn weir pool below Kirwans Bridge.

Goulburn River below Goulburn weir to the Murray River.

In addition major fish kill data from the Broken system will be considered where it can lead to a greater understanding and knowledge of fish kills in the Goulburn River.

The land segment will be constrained to the pre-regulation flood plain (i.e., including cut off wetland systems).

4 River Health Objectives and Indicators

The audit will assess compliance against specific audit criteria for each of the audit activities. Several "river health indicator" criteria are included with compliance against the criteria being assessed against legislation, policy, strategy and guideline obligations. In addition performance against operational and management responsibilities, as they relate to threats to river health, are also addressed in the audit criteria.

River health indicators addressed through the assessment of compliance against the audit criteria include physical, chemical, and biological indicators. The "recruitment and survival of native fish" will be considered as a critical river health indicator for the whole of river. It will also recognise valued exotic fish species (including salmanoid) recruitment and survival in the river reach below the Eildon weir.

It is noted that at this time there is no single or transparent statement of Government policy or objectives in respect to current or future fish populations along the full length of the Goulburn River, and nor is there any simple quantifiable performance indicator or measure to audit. The Goulburn Eildon Region Fisheries Management Plan provides the only specific policy commitment relating to the management of fish populations in the Goulburn River.

Examples of key audit activities which recognise the "recruitment and survival of native fish" as a key river health indicator are:

benchmarking against the Victorian River Health Strategy (VRHS) Index of Stream Condition (ISC) as the basis of condition assessment.

determining whether the objectives and targets of the MDBC Native Fish Strategy and the MDBC Sustainable Rivers Audit (as it relates to native fish) are incorporated in the Goulburn Broken CMA’s Regional Catchment Strategy and supporting documentation and whether processes are in place to allow these objectives and targets to be met in the future.

Environmental Audit 219 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

determining compliance with the Waters of Victoria State Environment Protection Policy (WoV) environmental quality objectives and indicators. (These objectives and indicators are essential to sustain living organisms including fish).

determining whether the January 2004 fish kill response was informed and refined by knowledge gained by other historical fish kills and in particular whether there was sufficient background information, prior to, during, and after the fish kill to identify the cause The VRHS and the MDBC Native Fish Strategy objectives for native fish will also be used to assess the four designated reaches of the river system. The "Blue Book" VicFishInfo: Biological Information for Management of Native Freshwater Fish in Victoria by J.D. Koehn & W.G. O’Connor (DSE Parks, Flora and Fauna Division) will be a useful resource document in terms of spawning requirements, physio-chemical tolerances as well as other key biological data.

5 Benchmarking of River Health

As part of the scene setting for the audit, the environmental condition of each of the designated river reaches will be benchmarked using:

the most recent Index of Stream Condition (ISC) survey of 10 representative sites along the Goulburn River. This combines information on the biota, flow regime, water quality, and physical condition of the river.

the following characteristics of an ecologically healthy river as defined in the Victorian Healthy Rivers Strategy: - the majority of plant and animal species are native in the river and riparian zone; - native riparian vegetation communities exist sustainably for the majority of the river’s length; - native fish and other fauna can move and migrate up and down the river; and - linkages between river and floodplain and associated wetlands are able to maintain ecological processes.

These characteristics are also considered in the draft Goulburn-Broken River Health Strategy.

6 Audit Criteria

The process of undertaking an environmental audit is "a systematic, documented verification process of objectively obtaining and evaluating audit evidence to identify whether specified environmental activities, events, conditions, and management systems or information about these matters conforms with audit criteria and communicating the results of this process to the client" (AS/NZS, ISO 14050: 1999, Environmental Management - Vocabulary).

EPA Victoria 220 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

The audit process will establish audit evidence against the audit criteria presented below for each of the four activities subject to the audit. Findings and conclusions will then be drawn from the evidence.

For some audit criteria, evidence will be obtained through selective sampling, as an indicator of overall compliance, rather than from an analysis all of the data For example compliance with the Waters of Victoria State Environment Protection Policy (WoV) environmental quality objectives (under the audit of Activity A: River Regulation) will be verified on the basis of 2 years of data rather than the full historical suite of monitoring records.

The discussion for each audit criteria relates to the audit tasks that will be undertaken including the gathering of evidence to establish the audit findings.

Activity A: River Regulation (including management of riparian zone)

For this audited activity all of the "primary approach and issues for consideration" for the audit (see Section 1) will be addressed by validating evidence against each of the audit criteria, with the exclusion of:

Determine whether relevant policies, strategies, plans, procedures, roles and responsibilities are being followed, with particular reference to the period covering November 2003 to January 2004 inclusive.

Criterion 1: Compliance with Cl 11 of WoV - Environmental Quality Objectives and Indicators

Identify Beneficial Uses (Table 1 of WoV) for the Goulburn River. Cl. 11 of the WoV states that "environmental quality objectives describe the level of environmental quality needed, in most surface waters, to avoid risks to beneficial uses, and to protect them". Furthermore it states "Risks would be manifest, for example through human health impacts, the increased occurrence of fish kills and algal blooms, excessive growth of aquatic plants, sedimentation, loss of biodiversity and environmental flows, loss of cultural and spiritual values, objectionable odours, colours, taints, visible floating material, foam, oil or grease or dirty water".

Identify whether environmental quality objectives and indicators are met for beneficial uses (Tables A1 to A6). The environmental quality objectives are identified in Schedule A of the WoV and are specified in the Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality and Schedule A of the WoV. (The EPA has prepared an assessment of current attainment against WoV objectives for use in developing the Goulburn Broken CMA’s River Health Strategy and related management action and resource condition targets). Note where environmental quality objectives and indicators may not be attained in all segments within 10 years, or not at all, the WoV requires regional targets to be set (Clause 24).

Environmental Audit 221 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Criterion 2: Compliance with Cl 12 of WoV - Attainment Program

If the environmental quality objectives are not met in full, identify whether there is a framework for the development of appropriate attainment program targets for the Goulburn River and whether it has been used and appropriately applied.

Criterion 3: Compliance with Cl. 41 of WoV - Water Allocations and Environmental Flows

Determine whether the obligations under Clause 41 of the WoV ’Water allocations and environmental flows’ have been met.

Criterion 4: Compliance with Thermal Water Quality Objectives

Identify whether there are thermal objectives that may apply to the Goulburn River. This shoud include consideration of Clause 42 of the WoV ’Releases from Water Storages’.

Document data on thermal variations (temporal and for each of the designated river reaches).

If there are, determine whether they are met.

Criterion 5: Consistency of the Regional Catchment Strategy with Cl. 24 of the WoV - Regional Target Setting

Identify whether the Regional Catchment Strategy (RCS) and Plans have set regional targets for progressive rehabilitation of the Goulburn River that are consistent with Clause 24 of the WoV (for circumstances in which environmental quality objectives and indicators may not be attained in all segments within 10 years, or not at all).

Identify whether the RCS, Plans, and the Irrigation Drainage Memorandum of Understanding, have an established monitoring and auditing process, whether the process is being undertaken, and whether adequate resources are available to determine whether regional targets for progressive rehabilitation are being met.

Identify whether the RCS and Plans provide for the meeting of regional targets for progressive rehabilitation of the Goulburn River.

Criterion 6: Consistency of the Regional Catchment Strategy with Cl. 15 of the WoV - Catchment Management Authorities - Identification of the Regional Environmental, Social, and Economic Values of Surface Waters

Identify whether the RCS and Plans identifies the regional environmental, social, and economic values of surface waters, and after careful consideration of environmental, social, and economic needs, sets appropriate goals, priorities, and environmental targets for the catchment.

Identify whether consideration of environmental, social, and economic needs has been given to setting targets between June 2003 (the release of the new WoV) and June 2004.

EPA Victoria 222 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Criterion 7: Consistency of the Regional Catchment Strategy with other River Health Objectives and Targets

Identify whether the RCS river health and environmental objectives and targets are consistent with other State and Federal targets including: - Victorian Healthy Rivers Strategy - Sustainable Rivers Audit (MDBC) - Living Murray Initiative (MDBC) - Integrated Catchment Management Strategy (MDBC) - Native Fish Strategy (MDBC) - Recreational Strategy (MDBC) - National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality - Goulburn Eildon Region Fish Management Plan

Specifically identify whether the RCS and supporting Plans adopt the Victorian Healthy Rivers Strategy definition of an ecological healthy river, identify the MDBC Native Fish Strategy (NFS) threats (Table 1; pg 5) and targets (pg 17 and 18) and the long term targets are consistent with the MDBC’s Sustainable Rivers Audit, the Integrated Catchment Management Strategy, and the Living Murray Initiative.

Identify whether RCS and supporting plans have a process in place to monitor and audit native fish populations (pg 17, NFS), whether the process is being undertaken, and whether adequate resources are available. The process should allow for determination whether native fish recruitment and survival targets are being met. (The recruitment and survival of native fish species is a critical indicator of the overall river health and its communities (NFS; pg 5). To sustain viable populations both recruitment and survival must be sustained).

Determine whether the criteria for a sustainable Salmanoid fish populations downstream of the Eildon dam outlet structure and above the Goulburn weir are being met based upon the research of Paul Brown "Trout Spawning and Rearing Habitats in the Goulburn River" Marine and Freshwater Systems, Primary Industries Research Victoria (PIRVic), DPI.

Criterion 8: Compliance with Environmental Management Obligations under the Water Act

Identify up to 10 key Water Act (1989) obligations, and the responsibilities of Authorities, under: - Part 6 (Division 3) Clause 107 - Authorities - Environmental and Recreational Areas - Part 10 - Waterway Management as they relate to the environmental health of the Goulburn River.

Identify whether these obligations are being met.

Environmental Audit 223 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Criterion 9: Compliance with Obligations under Bulk Water Entitlement

Identify whether G-MW is complying with its obligations under the Bulk Entitlement (Eildon-Goulburn Weir) Conversion Order 1995 which are relevant to environmental health. The compliance will be limited to: - Clause 11 - Passing Flows - Clause 12.3 - Releases - Clause 15 - Environmental obligations The environmental obligations require G-MW to have a program to manage the environmental effects of the Authority’s works to take water under the Bulk Entitlement including:

- The effects on the bed and banks of the waterway in the vicinity of the Authority s works; - Operational practices to remove silt from the works; - Operational practices to manage water quality in works on the waterway; - Operational rules to control releases from works to the waterway; and - Operational rules to manage flood flows through works on the waterway.

Identify whether a monitoring and auditing process has been developed, is being undertaken, that there is a feedback corrective action in the audit process, and that resources are available to meet obligations under Clauses 11, 12.3, and 15 of the Bulk Entitlement (Eildon-Goulburn Weir) Conversion Order 1995.

Identify whether the Goulburn Valley Region Water Authority is complying with its obligations under the Bulk Entitlement (Shepparton) Conversion Order 1995 as they relate to Goulburn River passing flows.

Identify whether Pacific Hydro has a Bulk Entitlement, or another form of entitlement, and is complying with its obligations for releases from the Eildon Dam as a result of its electricity generation activities.

The evidence collected to assess against this audit criterion will be limited to July 2000 to June 2004.

Criterion 10: Compliance with Obligations under DSE Operational Licence

Identify whether G-MW is complying with its obligations under the DSE Operational Licence as it relates to the environmental health of the Goulburn River.

Criterion 11: Compliance with other Acts where relevant to River Health

Identify whether key obligations relevant to the protection of endangered species, river water quality and the control of riparian land along the Goulburn River under the following Acts are being met: - Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act - Catchment and Land Protection Act - Electricity Industries Act

EPA Victoria 224 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

- Environment Protection Act - Emergency Management Act - Fisheries Act - Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act - Heritage River Act - Safe Drinking Water Act - Water Act - Water Industries Act - Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (Federal)

Criterion 12: Consistency between Legislation, Policies, and Strategies

Identify any gaps or inconsistencies within land and water management legislation, policies, strategies, plans and operational procedures (as they relate to the environmental health) that guide the management of the designated reaches of the Goulburn River; The evidence to be used to validate whether this criterion is complied with will be limited to that obtained for validating compliance against criteria 1 to 11.

Identify whether the WoV environmental quality objectives and indicators, the VRHS objectives, and the NFS targets are likely to be achieved in the context of obligations under the Water Act, the Bulk Entitlement, and other agreements.

In forming recommendations arising out of the findings and conclusions identify whether these recommendations are addressed in the Irrigation Drainage Memorandum of Understanding, the Victorian White Paper and the National Water Initiative.

Criterion 13: Consistency between Organisational Roles and Responsibilities

Identify whether the roles and responsibilities of the organisations responsible for the management of the Goulburn River, from a river health perspective, are unambiguous and that duplication of roles and responsibilities does not occur.

Identify any gaps or inconsistencies within roles and responsibilities of the organisations responsible for the management of the Goulburn River and the Acts of State and Federal Parliament under which these organisations undertake that management. The evidence to be used to validate whether this criterion is complied with will be limited to that obtained for validating compliance against criteria 1 to 11.

Activity B: Fish Kills Response Arrangements

For this audited activity all of the "primary approach and issues for consideration" for the audit (see Section 1) will be addressed by validating evidence against the Criterion 14.

Environmental Audit 225 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Criterion 14: Evaluating the Extent of Fish Kills as an Indicator of River Health and Current Response Arrangements in Providing for a Healthier River

- investigations required to determine the cause of fish kills; - learning process to improve the overall understanding of fish kill causes, and how prevention can be built into management actions; and - clarity with respect to roles in fish kills.

The fist audit task is to examine the frequency and types of fish kill events to see if their occurrence is increasing or causes are systematic.

The second audit task is to determine whether the management of fish kills through the response arrangements: - meets the legislative and policy requirements for managing a fish kill. - identifies agency responses and that relevant staff are aware of the response arrangements, and are trained and equipped to undertake the assigned roles. - covers all needs for management of such events. - is refined by knowledge gained by the response to fish kills. - provides for sufficient information and evidence to be collected, prior to, during, and after the fish kill to identify the cause. - provides for a process of review, follow up of actions, and refinement of management in order to reduce or eliminate the likelihood of the incidence and severity of future fish kills.

The following evidence will be obtained in respect of both audit tasks: - relevant reports and records from previous fish kills. - the legislation and/or policy(s) that identify the principal authority for implementing the response, and the responsible authority. - documentation of the mechanisms the agencies have in place to meet their obligations. - statements from agencies in respect to their knowledge of current response arrangements, training and equipment provided to relevant staff and how planning systems are adjusted when causes are identified. Interviews with relevant staff will be conducted to confirm their knowledge and understanding. - the responsible authority under the EP Act and any other Act for identifying the cause of the fish kill. - records of previous events, incidents, debriefs for major fish kills, and any recommendations for improvements in response and knowledge needs that have been made and followed up.

EPA Victoria 226 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Activity C: Use of Biocides

For this audited activity the focus will be on one of the "primary approach and issues for consideration" for the audit (see Section 1):

Determine whether relevant policies, strategies, plans, procedures, roles and responsibilities are being followed - as they relates to use of biocides.

Criterion 15: Compliance with Cl. 37 of the WoV - Chemical Management (Biocides)

Determine compliance with Cl. 37 of the WoV obligations as it relates to biocides storage, training, use, contingency planning. and emergency response to spills. This will be limited to the July 03 to June 04 period, and to G-MW activities.

Criterion 16: Compliance with Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Act (Biocides)

Determine compliance with Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act as it relates to biocides storage, training, use, contingency planning and emergency response to spills. This will be limited to G-MW activities between July 2003 and June 2004.

Activity D: Irrigation Drainage

Criterion 17: Compliance with Cl. 51(2) of the WoV - Irrigation Channels and Drains

For this audited activity the focus will be on one of the "primary approach and issues for consideration" for the audit (see Section 1):

Determine whether relevant policies, strategies, plans, procedures, roles and responsibilities are being followed - as they relates to irrigation drainage.

Determine compliance with Cl. 51(2) of the WoV obligations as it relates to the management of irrigation drains. This will be limited to two public drains with discharges to the Goulburn River, downstream of Shepparton, between July 2003 and June 2004.

Determine whether a process has been established to ensure all relevant aspects of the Irrigation Drainage Memorandum of Understanding will be implemented.

Other measurable audit criteria will be established and audited against if obvious gaps in the preliminary audit findings and recommendations, as they relate to the primary audit objective, are identified.

Environmental Audit 227 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

7 Draft Table of Contents

The chapters of the draft Table of Contents (Attachment 2) for the audit report are organised in the following order:

Executive Summary

Introduction (Section 1)

Audited activities (Section 2)

Audit criteria (Section 3)

"Setting the Scene" and "Threats to River Health" (Sections 4 & 5)

Audit evidence (Section 6)

Audit findings (Section 7)

Audit conclusions (Section 8)

Recommendations arising out of the audit (Section 9)

The following comments are provided for clarification:

1. Section 1 includes a description of the consultation phase - see Section 1.4 "Stakeholder Engagement in the Audit Process". 2. Section 4.1 "Overview of the River & its Regulation" will be brief and will focus on the history of regulation. 3. Sections 1, 4, and 5 will be introductory, and hence are unlikely to be of a greater than 20 to 30 pages in length (in total). 4. The detailed documentation for Sections 6 is likely to be presented as appendices with a summary of key relevant information and discussion in the main report. Its structure within the main audit report may change to reflect the evidence requirements for each of the audit criteria. 5. The high level recommendations associated with each of the audited activities will be supplemented, where considered necessary, by supporting recommendations. Recommendations will also be split into those actions for which immediate action is considered necessary, and those for which action in the medium to long term is considered appropriate. Responsible organisations will be identified for each recommendation.

8 Audit Process

The detailed scoping has been completed (see above). It includes the confirmed audit objectives, activities to be audited, audit criteria, and draft content of the audit report. In addition the audit team has been finalised, with the appointment of an expert support team.

It is also noted that a large number of documents which will be used in the establishment of evidence have been obtained; either electronically, in hard form, or through meetings (all of which have been documented). Additional evidence will be obtained through a combination of written requests and meetings.

EPA Victoria 228 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

The overall steps to complete the audit are as follows:

1. Prepare an audit quality plan for the audit that is in compliance with Nolan-ITU’s third party certified ISO 9001: 2000 Quality Management System. The audit quality plan will incorporate the audit objectives, audit criteria, and involve the identification of auditees, and the scheduling of written information requests and meetings and interviews. 2. Conduct an audit team meeting, with all expert support team members, to workshop and peer review and finalise the audit quality plan. 3. Notify auditees. 4. Conduct inspection of key reaches of the river and activities along the river. 5. Prepare list of evidence required to assess compliance with audit criteria. 6. Submit written requests, or arrange audit meetings, to obtain evidence from relevant auditees. 7. Receive responses to the requests. 8. Conduct additional audit meetings for further clarification as required. 9. Prepare the initial draft report for peer review by Expert Support Team members. 10. Submit draft audit report to the EPA to ensure that the detailed scope of work has been completed. 11. Address any omissions of scope items as identified by the EPA and engage a professional editor of technical reports to finalise the language of the audit and to the ensure the report is suitable for publication. 12. Once the EPA is satisfied that the detailed scope of work has been completed, submit draft report to auditees for the purpose of assessing whether the factual information (the evidence) they provided is correctly reported. (This assessment will not include a review of factual information provided by others). At the same time submit the draft report to the Reference Committee for comments on matters of fact as they relate to the findings, conclusions, and recommendations. 13. Submit final report, in PDF digital form, to the Minister for the Environment and Water.

The audit report shall be independent and hence will be prepared in the absence of any direction on the interpretation of the evidence, or the adequacy of the evidence, used to draw the conclusions and recommendations. It is understood that stakeholders will have the opportunity of making submissions to the Minister on the findings, conclusions and recommendations.

Environmental Audit 229 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Environmental Audit of the Goulburn River Attachment 1 Key Outcomes of Technical Workshop (16th July 2004)

Key Environmental Conditions

Flows: appropriate requirements for fish recruitment appropriate requirements for habitat health aspects necessary for floodplain maintenance impacts from illegal extraction Water quality: conditions: thermal pollution, nutrients, turbidity, role of oxygen, biocides, ground and surface interaction pathogen land management practices: sedimentation, historical industrial activity (mining), riparian zone grazing, allocation of net water, "connectivity" between river and floodplain, landscape changes climate change unseasonality fish farms Fish barriers: Goulburn weir, Eildon weir, 3 channels from Goulburn Weir Flow and water quality are high priority conditions. Gap analysis should be applied to assess whether all aspect are "adequately" addressed in other processes.

What Actions Should be Considered to Reduce the Threat Associated with These Environmental Conditions

Group a: Institutional arrangements / clear vision for river and landscape management (High) Restoration of "more natural" flow regimes (High) Modification / removal of barriers (Medium) Improved thermal regime (Medium) Improved riparian / floodplain vegetation integrity; creation of floodplain reserves etc (High) Improved societal investment in river health (High) Establishment of effective benchmarks and monitoring on river health (High) Matching landscape capability to water use (High)

EPA Victoria 230 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Group b: Reset bulk entitlement in terms of flows; reset considering in-flows and longer term change (High) Pay on order for irrigation order (economic instruments) (Medium) Mandation of biocide use markers - evaluate their necessity; id alternatives (High to Very High) Introduction of "enviro bond" for biocide use / enviro insurance on levy (Medium) Address thermal pollution at Eildon and Nagambie (High) Installation of fish ladders at Lake Nagambie and in channels to Waranga Basin Continuous, alarmed water quality monitoring stations at storage outlets Group c: Identification of values that protection is sought for, where trade-offs can or cannot be made (V High) Weed management options, including examination of bans, acceptable reporting regimes (Medium to High) Riparian management: benchmarks (Medium) Thermal pollution: multi-level off points (depending on geographic area) Storage Management Plan: Lake Nagambie, Goulburn Weir (including fish / vegetation protection) (High) Fish barriers to channels (Medium - High) Appropriate monitoring (High) Enviromental flow regime / requirements (High)

Priority Geographic Areas

River segments Goulburn River excluding the upper Goulburn, excluding Broken Creek, and limited to in-flow from the Broken River Land segments Pre-regulation flood plain including major channels, drains and tributary streams (includes ’cut off’ wetland systems)

Environmental Audit 231 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Environmental Audit of the Goulburn River Attachment 2 Draft Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 INTRODUCTION...... 1.1 Background ...... 1.2 Objectives of the Audit ...... 1.3 Primary Approach and Issues ...... 1.4 Auditor Obligations...... 1.5 Audit Scope Development ...... 1.6 Stakeholder Engagement in the Audit Process ...... 2 AUDIT ACTIVITIES ...... 2.1 Activities ...... 2.2 Geographic Context...... 3 AUDIT CRITERIA...... 3.1 Activity A: River Regulation(including management of riparian zone).. 3.2 Activity B: Fish Kill Response Arrangements...... 3.3 Activity C: Use of Biocides ...... 3.4 Activity D: Irrigation Drainage...... 4 SETTING THE SCENE...... 4.1 Overview of the River and its Regulation ...... 4.2 Users of the River ...... 4.3 History of Fish Kills...... 4.4 Benchmarking River Health...... 5 THREATS TO RIVER HEALTH ...... 5.1 Flow Regulation...... 5.2 Lowered Water Quality...... 5.3 Barriers...... 5.4 Habitat Degradation...... 5.5 Fisheries Management...... 5.6 Activities on Riparian Land ...... 5.7 Urban Activities......

EPA Victoria 232 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

5.8 Climate Change ...... 6 AUDIT EVIDENCE...... 6.1 Legislation, Policies, And Agreements...... 6.2 Overaching Strategies and Plans...... 6.3 Operational Plans and Procedures...... 6.4 Roles and Responsibilities for River Management ...... 7 AUDIT FINDINGS ...... 7.1 Activity A: River Regulation (including management of riparian zone) 7.2 Activity B: Fish Kill Response Arrangements...... 7.3 Activity C: Use of Biocides ...... 7.4 Activity D: Irrigation Drainage...... 8 CONCLUSIONS ...... 8.1 River flow regulation (including management of riparian zone) 8.2 Fish kill response arrangements...... 8.3 Biocides usage ...... 8.4 Irrigation drainage ...... 9 RECOMMENDATIONS...... 9.1 River flow regulation (including management of riparian zone) ...... 9.2 Fish kill response arrangements...... 9.3 Biocides usage ...... 9.4 Irrigation drainage ......

APPENDICES

Environmental Audit 233 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Appendix B Policies and Strategies This section of the audit report presents relevant audit evidence associated with: • State Environment Protection Policies • Federal Strategies and Plans • State Strategies, Plans and Agreements (including the Victorian Natural Resources Management Framework) • Regional Strategies and Plans • State Water Entitlements and Agreements • Fish Kill Response Plans

The objectives and intent of the Acts, policies, and agreements, overarching strategies and plans are included in the evidence. This information was used for the preparation of the draft audit report of March 2005. This draft report was released to auditors and the Reference Committee for comments on Matters of Fact.

B.1 State Environment Protection Policies

B.1.1 SEPP (Waters of Victoria) The current State Environment Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria), termed the SEPP (WoV), is a declared variation to the 1988 SEPP (WoV). This 1988 SEPP (WoV) did not address diffuse sources of pollution effectively, so at the State level, these issues have relied heavily on other statewide policies focused on specific water quality related issues such as the Victorian Nutrient Management Strategy for Victorian Inland Waters (1995) and Victoria’s Salinity Management Framework (2000), which address the two most significant risks to water quality in Victoria; salinity and nutrients. The variation to the SEPP (WoV) was declared by an order in Council on 3 June 2003. The SEPP (WoV) provides the legal framework for State and local government agencies, businesses and communities to work together to protect and rehabilitate Victoria’s surface water environments. It supports Victoria’s catchment and coastal management processes and associated community decision making. Presented below are those clauses of the SEPP (WoV) of particular relevance to the audit criteria which have been applied to the four audited activities.

Purpose

The purpose of the SEPP (WoV) is to help achieve sustainable surface waters by: 1. setting the environmental values and beneficial uses of waters that Vicorians want, and the environmental quality to protect them 2. setting, within a 10-year timeframe, goals for protection agencies, businesses and communities, and means by which they can be met. The SEPP (WoV) is primarily implemented through catchment management processes where the Goulburn Broken CMA develops its RCS and the plans in which it identifies the regional environmental, social and economic values of the Goulburn River and, after consideration, sets appropriate goals, priorities and targets for the river.

EPA Victoria 234 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Segments

Within the policy area of the SEPP (WoV) different segments of the surface water environment are described, with different environmental quality objectives specified for each segment. The Goulburn River at Eildon is within the ‘cleared hills and coastal plain’ segment, while the plains are within the ‘Murray and western plains’ segment. There are four Victorian Water Quality Monitoring Network (VWQMN) sites along the Goulburn River below Eildon Reservoir where routine water quality measurements are undertaken. Measurements have been taken between 1/7/02 and 30/6/04. The SEPP (WoV) segments and audit ‘reaches’ for each of these sites is shown in Table B.2. Table B.2: SEPP (WoV) Segments for VWQMN Sites on the Goulburn River

VWQMN site Site location WoV segment Audit reach 405203 Downstream of Cleared hills and coastal 1 Eildon Reservoir plain 405200 Murchison Murray and western plains 4 405204 Shepparton Murray and western plains 4 405232 McCoy Bridge Murray and western plains 4

Beneficial uses

The beneficial uses to be protected for the ‘cleared hills and coastal plains’ and the ‘Murray and western plains’ segments of the SEPP (WoV) are the same (Table 1 of the SEPP (WoV). The beneficial uses for these segments, and hence for the Goulburn River, are as follows: • primary contact recreation • secondary contact recreation • aesthetic enjoyment • indigenous cultural and spiritual values • non-indigenous cultural and spiritual values • agriculture and irrigation • aquaculture • industrial and commercial use • human consumption after appropriate treatment • fish, crustacea and molluscs for human consumption.

Environmental quality objectives and indicators

Clause 11 of the SEPP (WoV) ‘Environmental Quality objectives and Indicators’ states: ‘Surface waters and their aquatic ecosystems need to be free of any substance at a level, or human impact, that would pose a risk to beneficial uses. Risks would be manifested, for example, through human health impacts, the increased occurrence of fish kills and algal blooms, excessive growth of aquatic plants, sedimentation, loss of biodiversity and environmental flows, loss of cultural and spiritual values, objectionable odours, colours, taints, visible floating material, foam, oil or grease or dirty water.

Environmental Audit 235 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

‘The environmental quality objectives describe the level of environmental quality needed, in most surface waters, to avoid risks to beneficial uses and to protect them. If an objective is not attained, the beneficial uses are likely to be at risk. The non-attainment of an objective will trigger further investigation to assess risks to beneficial uses. If a risk is posed to beneficial uses, mitigating actions (that are consistent with the attainment program) need to be implemented. ‘Environmental quality objectives and indicators specific to the policy area are described in Schedule A. ‘Although environmental quality objectives need to be attained as soon as practicable, the variation of environmental quality of surface waters on a State-wide scale will mean that: 1. the environmental quality of some surface waters will be better than the environmental quality objectives. In these cases, environmental quality should remain as close as practicable to background levels; 2. the environmental quality objectives for some surface waters may not be attained due to natural variation. In these cases, the background level becomes the environmental quality objective; 3. the environmental quality objectives may not be attained in all segments within the 10- year lifetime of the Policy. In these cases, regional targets need to be set for environmental rehabilitation (as outlined in clause 24); 4. the environmental quality objectives for some surface waters may not be attained due to extensive environmental modification. This should be taken into account when developing and prioritising actions to improve environmental quality and protect beneficial uses.’ The environmental quality objectives for the Goulburn River are specified in Schedule A of the SEPP (WoV) and in the Australian and New Zealand Guideline for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (ANZECC 2000) where the SEPP (WoV) does not describe specific objectives. Where an objective is specified in both the SEPP (WoV) and ANZECC, the former takes precedence.

Attainment program

Clause 12 of the SEPP (WoV) ‘Practicability’ states: ‘Over the lifetime of the Policy, environment management practices that effectively minimise environmental risks to beneficial uses need to be implemented for a range of activities. These may include the implementation of best practice if required to ensure effective environmental management. ‘This attainment program provides a series of environment management practices and actions that protection agencies, businesses and communities need to implement to improve environmental quality and help protect beneficial uses. Practices and actions included in the Policy need to be implemented on a priority basis to the extent practicable over its 10-year life, taking into account environmental, social and economic considerations’.

EPA Victoria 236 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Identification of values of surface waters in the RCS

Clause 15 of the SEPP (WoV) ‘Catchment management authorities’ states: ‘Catchment management authorities have a responsibility to coordinate the ecologically sustainable development and use of catchments, floodplains and waterways, and where relevant estuaries and coasts, through many mechanisms, including the protection and rehabilitation of water quality, flow and aquatic habitats. In carrying out these responsibilities, it is important that catchment management authorities work with protection agencies, regional communities and businesses to develop Government approved regional catchment strategies and plans, which identify the regional environmental, social and economic values of surface waters and, after careful consideration of environmental, social and economic needs, set appropriate goals, priorities and environmental targets for catchment and coastal environments. ‘During the lifetime of the Policy, a goal of catchment management authorities will be to work with the Department of Sustainability and Environment, the Department of Primary Industries, regional resource managers, municipal councils and industry sectors to assist urban and rural landholders to use land sustainably and to reduce the impact of catchment activities on surface waters. ‘In the Port Phillip and Western Port catchments, the Port Phillip and Western Port Catchment Management Authority, in consultation with stakeholders, needs to set priority programs and regional targets for catchment management. In the same region, Melbourne Water and the Port Phillip and Western Port Catchment Management Authority need to work in partnership and in consultation with stakeholders, to set priority programs and targets for waterway management.’

Regional target setting

Clause 24 of the SEPP (WoV) ‘Regional target setting’ states: ‘It is recognised that not all beneficial uses will be able to be fully protected, and not all environmental quality objectives will be met, within the lifetime of the Policy. In these cases, targets to drive the progressive rehabilitation of environmental quality need to be developed. ‘The regional target setting process needs to include: 1. regional aspirational targets that are based on maximising the protection of beneficial uses and the attainment of the Policy’s environmental quality objectives; 2. regional resource condition targets that provide measurable and time-bound progress towards the attainment of regional aspirational targets by taking into account regional environmental, social and economic values; 3. regional management action targets that are set to assess the implementation of rehabilitation actions that will lead to the achievement of regional resource condition targets. ‘Targets need to be set through regional catchment strategies and plans and where relevant, coastal action plans, led by catchment management authorities and regional coastal boards, as outlined in clauses 15 and 16. It is important that these regional targets are set through considering both State and regional environmental, social and economic values and result in the best overall outcome for regional and Victorian communities. It is also important that regional targets are set according to priorities for environmental protection and rehabilitation as determined through regional catchment and coastal planning processes, with priority given to maintaining beneficial uses in areas of high conservation value and maintaining beneficial uses that are currently protected.

Environmental Audit 237 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

‘The Environment Protection Authority and the Department of Sustainability and Environment will work with catchment management authorities and regional coastal boards to establish a process and timelines for development of targets.’

Releases from water storages

Clause 42 of the SEPP (WoV) ‘Releases from Water Storages’ states: ‘Releases of flow from water storages to surface waters need to be managed to provide flows of a suitable quality, quantity and seasonal pattern to protect beneficial uses. To ensure this, relevant water authorities and other water storage operators need to assess if releases from water storages pose an environmental risk to beneficial uses through altered flow patterns or variations of sediment, salt, nutrients, temperature, dissolved oxygen or other pollutants from downstream levels. If a risk is detected, relevant water authorities and other storage operators need to work with affected communities and stakeholders to implement measures to minimise these risks, monitor impacts on downstream surface waters and report impacts of water releases on beneficial uses to affected communities and stakeholders.’

B.2 National Strategies and Plans

B.2.1 National Water Quality Management Strategy The National Water Quality Management Strategy (NWQMS) outlines a three-tiered approach to water quality management at: • the national level—setting the vision for achieving sustainable use of water resources • the State or Territory level—implementation through state water quality planning and environmental policy processes • the Regional or catchment level—through local and catchment management strategies developed and implemented by the relevant stakeholders.

B.2.2 The Living Murray

The Living Murray is a Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council initiative about restoring the health of the River Murray and the Murray-Darling Basin by protecting the things the River Murray means to Australians. These include prosperity, irrigation, industry and clean water, natural landscape, history, culture and tradition. The Living Murray also identifies what constitutes a healthy working river and what is needed to achieve it. The strategy addresses the environmental needs of the River Murray and the role that tributaries have to play in providing adequate flows. This will involve the Goulburn River. The Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council at its meeting in March 2004 decided on a clear path forward for the Living Murray initiative for the rest of 2004.

B.2.3 Native Fish Strategy for the Murray-Darling Basin

The Native Fish Strategy (NFS) for the Murray-Darling Basin was developed by the Murray- Darling Basin Ministerial Council in 2003. It provides a response to key threats to native fish populations in the Murray-Darling Basin. The NFS is intended to be implemented within the context of the MDBC’s Integrated Catchment Management Policy.

Vision and goal

The NFS has the following vision and overall goal:

EPA Victoria 238 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Vision: to ensure that the Basin sustains viable fish populations and communities throughout its rivers Goal: to rehabilitate native fish communities in the Murray-Darling Basin to 60 per cent of their estimated pre-European settlement levels after 50 years of implementation Within the NFS a range of actions have been identified and designed to achieve objectives directed at improving the status of native fish populations in the Basin.

Key threats

Eight key threats to native fish management in the Murray-Darling Basin are identified in the NFS (Table B.3). Table B.3: Key threats to native fish management Source: Native Fish Strategy (MDBC 2003)

Threat Threatening process Flow regulation Loss of water to other uses, critical low flows, loss of flow variation, loss of flow seasonality, loss of low to medium floods, permanent flooding and high water, increased periods of no flow Habitat degradation Damage to riparian zones, removal of in-stream habitats, sedimentation Lowered water quality Increased nutrients, turbidity, sedimentation, salinity, artificial changes in water temperature, pesticides, and other contaminants Barriers Impediments to fish passage resulting from the construction and operation of dams, weirs, levees, culverts, etc., and non-physical barriers such as increased velocities, reduced habitats, water quality and thermal pollution (changes in water temperature) Alien species Competition with and/or predation by Carp, Gambusia, Oriental weatherloach, Redfin perch and trout Exploitation Recreational and commercial fishing pressure on depleted stocks, illegal fishing Diseases Outbreak and spread of EHNV (Epizootic Haematopoietic Necrosis Virus) and other viruses, diseases and parasites Translocation and The loss of genetic integrity and fitness caused by stocking inappropriate translocation and stocking of native species

Roles and responsibilities

Environmental Audit 239 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Targets

While targets have not been formally identified in the NFS, a range of indicators has been identified that outlines the level of implementation required by 2013. These are: • aquatic structural habitat values increased by 20 per cent • functional processes and river floodplain links re-established for 80 per cent of remaining wetland habitats through improved flow management • water quality that meets 90 per cent of all biological requirements • reinstatement of elements of the natural flow regime and connectivity important to sustain fish populations • reinstatement of 50 per cent of migratory pathways and 50 per cent of habitat for all native species currently affected by structural barriers • population declines stabilised in all threatened species and communities • no additions to threatened or declining fish conservation listings by Commonwealth or State government agencies, professional bodies or non-government organisations • the distribution and abundance of all exotic species reduced by 30 per cent • no introductions or outbreaks of damaging native fish diseases or parasites • native fish populations that are able to support a selective harvest of 10 per cent without negative impacts on them • threats to native fish populations by the translocation or stocking of native or alien species minimised by active management • 90 per cent of identified key partners actively engaged in the Native Fish Strategy • 50 per cent of the general community aware and supportive of the Native Fish Strategy.

The strategy indicates that targets will be formulated so they are consistent with the Sustainable Rivers Audit, the Integrated Catchment Management Policy Statement and the Living Murray Initiative. B.2.4 Sustainable Rivers Audit The Sustainable Rivers Audit, an initiative of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, is being undertaken to benchmark river health across the Murray-Darling Basin and provide information to guide the long-term management of riverine resources in the Basin. The Sustainable Rivers Audit aims to: • determine the ecological condition and health of river valleys in the Murray-Darling Basin • provide a better insight into the variability of river health indicators across the Basin and over time • help detect trends in river health over time • trigger changes to natural resource management by providing a more comprehensive picture of river health than is currently available.

EPA Victoria 240 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Fish: Fish communities and populations will be sampled during normal flow conditions, across entire river valleys in the one season, and once every three years at all 23 valleys in the Basin. Macroinvertebrates: Macroinvertebrate (small animals such as aquatic insects) populations will be sampled during normal flow conditions, across entire river valleys in the one season, and once every two years across the Basin. Hydrology: nformation will be collected every six years and evaluated using long- term river flow sequences, developed by the states. When there are major changes to river flows through new structures being built or environmental flow allocations, additional computer modelling will be needed. Indicator themes to be further developed over the next three years include floodplains, riparian vegetation and physical form of river channels. The Audit consists of information collection, data analysis, and assessment and interpretation of the results. Information collection is undertaken by the states/territories under the guidance of a cross-jurisdiction working group. Each jurisdiction has responsibility for monitoring and modelling activities for the valleys in their state/territories. The MDBC will provide central coordination for the Audit and will assist with analysing and reporting results.

B.2.5 Climate change strategy The MDBC is to undertake climate change research in the South-East Murray-Darling Basin. The research—known as the ‘South-East Australia Climate Project’—will be conducted in collaboration with the Managing Climate Variability Program, DSE and the Australian Greenhouse Office. The Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council recently identified climate change as one of the six risk factors which could threaten long-term water supply (quantity and quality) security in the Basin. The others were reforestation, increase in groundwater use, farm dams, bushfires and reduction in return flows from irrigation. MDBC’s interest is in the assessment of impacts of those risk factors on water resources quantity and quality. The proposed project will revolve around three themes, each with key questions and outputs, focusing on current climate and its drivers, as well as short-term and long-term projections. The themes include characterisation and attribution of current climate, high resolution climate projections, and seasonal forecasts. Knowledge is recognised as the key to development of any successful adaptation strategy hence the recently formed research funding partnership. Drawing upon outcomes from research such as the work described above, the MDBC intends to develop a strategy, formulate policies and propose measures to adapt to climate change.

B.2.6 National Water Initiative In February 1994 the Council of Australian Governments, consisting of the Prime Minister, Premiers, Chief Ministers and the President of the Australian Local Government Association, agreed to implement a ‘strategic framework to achieve an efficient and sustainable water industry’. Some of the key reforms included: • identification of stressed rivers and allocation of water for the environment • institutional reform • volumetric pricing of water for full cost recovery • ecologically sustainable water trading Environmental Audit 241 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

• protection of groundwater • water quality management • public consultation and community education.

Against this background and in recognition of the need for a national approach to integrated water resource management, in August 2003 the Council of Australian Governments reaffirmed its commitment to implementing the 1994 Water Reform Framework and agreed to develop a National Water Initiative. The initiative aims to: • increase the security of water access entitlements • encourage the expansion of water markets • enable best practice water pricing • ensure ecosystem health and protect environmental assets • improve monitoring information • encourage water conservation in our cities.

The Council agreed the Initiative would be detailed in an intergovernmental agreement between all Australian governments. Development of the draft Agreement has advanced to a point where consultation with key stakeholders is occurring. Discussions are currently focussed on the level of specificity needed for each of the key issues. The Initiative supports the Millennium Declaration ‘to stop the unsustainable exploitation of water resources by developing water management strategies at the regional, national and local levels which promote both equitable access and adequate supplies’, and the achievement of the World Summit on Sustainable Development 2005 target to address water allocation, protection, supply and distribution.

B.3 State strategies, plans and agreements

B.3.1 Victorian Natural Resources Management Framework As part of the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality, Commonwealth and State Governments through the Natural Resources Management Ministerial Council have signed an agreement for target setting for natural resource management, including salinity and water quality. The framework states that targets will be set by regional bodies as a core element of integrated regional natural resource management plans. Of particular importance is the approach used in the framework where targets can be characterised as: • aspirational targets—vision or goals for natural resource management in a region about the desired condition of their natural resources in the longer term (e.g. 50+ years). • achievable resource condition targets—specific, timebound and measurable targets, relating largely to resource condition over 10–20 years. These targets must be pragmatic and achievable. • management action targets—short term targets (1–5 years), relating mainly to management actions or capacity-building.

EPA Victoria 242 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

The figure below illustrates the relationship between Commonwealth, State and Regional policy

Others relevant strategies e.g. • National Principles for the Provision of Water for Ecosystems NAP NWQMS • MDBC Algal Management Strategy • MDBC Salinity and Drainage Strategy

VRHS SEPP WoV

Other relevant strategies e.g. • Salinity Framework •NMS

Regional Catchment Strategies (CMAs) sets regional priorities across issues and catchments

Targets from each are integrated and then relate back to assets. Targets can be articulated as resource condition objectives.

Multi-benefit - integrated 3 year works program and planning arrangements for water quality and river health management in Victoria.

B.3.2 Victorian River Health Strategy Victoria’s River Health Strategy (VRHS) provides an integrated framework for the management of Victoria’s rivers and streams. The VRHS is based on the principles of ecologically sustainable development and integrated catchment management. Like the SEPP (WoV), it builds on and extends the approaches and steps outlined in the NWQMS Implementation Guidelines.

Environmental Audit 243 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

The VRHS, prepared by the Department of Natural Resources and Environment (now integrated within the Department of Sustainability and Environment), provides the decision- making framework on the management and restoration of Victoria’s rivers. Published in August 2002, the strategy includes: • a vision for the management of rivers in Victoria • statewide targets for river restoration • a planning framework • criteria for policy setting for investment in river protection and restoration • an overview of government policy relating to management of activities affecting river health, including environmental flows and water allocation; • institutional arrangements for the management of river health in Victoria.

The objective of the VRHS is: to achieve healthy rivers, streams and floodplains which meet the environmental, economic, recreational and cultural needs of current and future generations. Under the strategy a vision has been set that establishes the condition of ‘ecologically healthy’ as the aspirational goal for river management and restoration of rivers in Victoria. The characteristics of an ecologically healthy river as defined in the strategy1 are as follows: An ecologically healthy river will have flow regimes, water quality and channel characteristics such that: • in the river and riparian zone, the majority of plant and animal species are native and the presence of exotic species is not a significant threat to the ecological integrity of the system • natural ecosystem processes are maintained • major natural habitat features are represented and are maintained over time • native riparian vegetation communities exist sustainably for the majority of the river’s length • native fish and other fauna can move and migrate up and down the river • linkages between river and floodplain and associated wetlands are able to maintain ecological processes • natural linkages with the sea or terminal lakes are maintained • associated estuaries and terminal lake systems are productive ecosystems. Apart from the aspirational goal listed above, statewide targets for river protection and restoration are included in the strategy2. These are being used to measure progress across Victoria. The targets are: All Heritage Rivers to be maintained at least to their current condition and their Heritage River values protected. By 2021: • one major representative river reach in ecologically healthy condition in each major river class and

1 Section 2.4.1 Ecologically Healthy Rivers, Victorian River Health Strategy 2 Section 4.3, Victorian River Health Strategy EPA Victoria 244 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

• an increase of 3000 km in the length of rivers in excellent or good condition. • By 2011: • an improvement in the status of designated freshwater-dependent local species • significant improvements achieved in environmental flow regimes of 20 high value river reaches currently flow stressed • 4800 km of rivers with improvement of one rating in the measurement of riparian condition • an increase of 7000 ha of riparian areas under management agreements • 600 km of rivers where in-stream habitat has been reinstated • 95% of all highland and upland and 60% of all lowland monitoring sites will meet SEPP environmental quality objectives • 1000 high value public assets provided with appropriate level of protection. • By 2005: • an increase in length of river accessible to native fish by an additional 2000 km • significant improvement in floodplain linkages in ten areas of national and/or State significance • all rivers with either sustainable catchment limits or negotiated environmental flows in place • report on the second benchmarking of the environmental condition of Victorian rivers • a quarter of agricultural production produced from natural resources that are managed within their capacity. By 2015, this will increase to half of agricultural production (as stated in Victoria’s Salinity Management Framework). Included in the VRHS are guidelines for the development of Regional River Health Strategies, and the regional management framework for river-related activities. Institutional arrangements for rivers, including the general roles of stakeholder groups (i.e. Commonwealth, State and Local governments, CMAs, Regional Resource Managers, Industry and Individuals) are also described.

B.3.3 Victorian Nutrient Management Strategy for Victorian Inland Waters The Nutrient Management Strategy provides the policy and planning framework for the management of nutrient levels in water bodies. The Strategy builds on the 1988 SEPP (WoV), which provides a useful and essential framework for the management of point sources through licensing agreements. DSE is responsible for the development and production of this strategy and the regional plans produced to implement this. This Strategy must incorporate SEPP (WoV) provisions to protect identified beneficial uses of waterways in catchments, by establishing environmental objectives (including nutrient targets) and the measures required to meet these objectives. DSE is responsible for the development and production of the Strategy and the regional plans produced to implement it.

B.3.4 Victoria’s Salinity Management Framework Victoria’s Salinity Management Framework details the statewide strategy for protecting Victoria’s environment from salinity.

Environmental Audit 245 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

This Framework must incorporate SEPP (WoV) provisions to protect identified beneficial uses of waterways in catchments, by establishing environmental objectives (including salinity targets) and the measures required to meet these objectives. This policy must link directly to the regional catchment planning process where priorities and regional targets to address water quality issues are outlined in RCSs and associated action plans. DSE is responsible for the development and production of the Framework and the regional plans produced to implement it.

B.3.5 The White Paper (Future Directions) The White Paper sets out an action plan to secure Victoria’s water future over the next 50 years. The following five fundamental principles for sustainable water management have been developed to spell out the framework for the Paper: • the management of water will be based on an understanding that a healthy economy and society is dependent on a healthy environment • the Government will maintain overall stewardship of all water resources irrespective of source, on behalf of all Victorians • water authorities will be retained in public ownership • users of the services our water systems provide should, wherever practical, pay the full cost, including infrastructure, delivery and environmental costs associated with that service • the water sector, charged with managing our water systems, will be capable, innovative and accountable to the Victorian community.

The White Paper is structured around seven chapters covering the following policy themes: • Chapter 1 – A secure water future for Victoria • Chapter 2 – Water resources and their allocation • Chapter 3 – Restoring our rivers and aquifers for future generations • Chapter 4 – Smarter use of irrigation water • Chapter 5 – Smarter water use in our cities and towns • Chapter 6 – Pricing for sustainability • Chapter 7 – An innovative and accountable water sector.

B.3.6 G-MW Statement of Obligations G-MW (Goulburn-Murray Water) has a Statement of Obligations which has been made under Part 1A of the Water Industries Act 1994. The Statement of Obligations may include provisions relating to quality and water standards and the obligations of the water authority with respect to other public authorities. The Water Industries Act requires G-MW to comply with the Statement of Obligations.

B.3.7 Irrigation Drainage MOU An independent review of the environmental aspects of surface water management within the Goulburn-Murray Irrigation District (GMID) in northern Victoria was undertaken in 2001. The overall finding of the review was that the current Surface Water Management Systems (SWMSs) are providing significant environmental benefits and are operating with a high level of environmental sensitivity. It was also concluded that SWMS design, construction and operational practices were considered to be ‘best practice’ compared to elsewhere in Australia and overseas. EPA Victoria 246 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

The review also identified that there appeared to be a lack of clarity regarding the respective roles and responsibilities of government agencies, which could impede the potential to maximise environmental benefits provided by the SWMSs implemented. The Victorian government responded to the findings of the review by supporting the development of a Irrigation Drainage Memorandum of Understanding (IDMoU) that clarifies the respective roles, responsibilities, and accountabilities of the government agencies with respect to the management of water quality and associated quantity in SWMSs that service irrigated land in the Irrigation Districts defined in Clause 3.0 of the IDMoU. The IDMoU was signed by DSE, the Goulburn Broken CMA, the North Central CMA, the EPA and G-MW on 22 June 2004. The IDMoU is intended to articulate the day-to-day portfolio responsibilities and intentions of signatory parties to work co-operatively and in partnership to deliver sustainable surface water management in the Irrigation Districts in northern Victoria. Since the 2001 independent review, a number of government initiatives have been undertaken, including the introduction of SEPP (WoV) 2003 and the publishing of the White Paper—Securing our Water Future Together. Signatory parties to the IDMoU are: • DSE • Goulburn Broken CMA • North Central CMA • EPA • G-MW.

The IDMoU specifies that its implementation program be divided into three distinct categories: • General issues • Short term initial rapid processes (interim decision support systems) • Long term final processes (final decision support systems).

Table four of the IDMoU (page 31) sets out the tasks required to be implemented within each of these categories. DSE has been assigned prime responsibility for management, review and ensuring delivery of actions required under the IDMoU. A Steering Committee, consisting of members of the signatory parties, has been set up and is overseeing all IDMoU implementation actions. The IDMoU Implementation Project Manager, a member of the DSE Sustainable Irrigation Program within the Water Sector Group, is responsible for the co-ordination and management of Steering Committee activities. The Steering Committee is responsible for providing high-level direction and agency sign-off to the process. The Steering Committee will remain active for the duration of the implementation process. The IDMoU includes a number of joint undertakings including the following: • Salinity management and water quality and water quality management activities must comply with Federal (including MDBC) and State legislation, policies and strategies, as well as regional community developed strategies and plans. • The signatory parties will work collectively with the shared aim of improving irrigation water management and water use efficiency and preventing irrigation-induced tailwater from entering drainage systems.

Environmental Audit 247 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

The IDMoU has a number of processes that will link to the existing catchment management framework aimed at driving improvements in water quality outcomes in irrigation drains and receiving waters. These include: 1. Land and Water Management Strategies/Plans (LWMS/P), which will provide the framework for land, water and biodiversity management in an irrigation region. 2. Resource Condition Key Performance Indicators (KPI) targets for the whole of catchment and for the end of primary drains. KPI targets must relate to water quality in the receiving waters of primary drains and will be set using a risk assessment and decision support system yet to be developed. 3. Surface Water Management Implementation Plans (SWMIP) are subordinate to LWMS/Ps and outline the what, where, when and how with respect to the implementation of surface water management works and measures in irrigation areas. For the Goulburn River system the Shepparton Irrigation Region Surface Water Management Implementation Plan is the relevant SWMIP. 4. Management Action Performance Indicator (PI) targets for works and measures on farm and on drains. PI targets must describe the actions required to achieve the desired KPI (water quality outcomes). PI targets are to be set in relationship to KPI targets through a decision support system yet to be developed. 5. Surface Water Management Operation Plans, which relate to the specific operation of drains, are subordinate to SWMIPs. These plans are an action of the IDMoU and are aimed at ensuring that drains are managed and maintained in such a way to achieve the objectives of other plans. 6. Audit and Review Processes that provide for the review of the achievement of Management Action PIs and Resource Condition KPIs on a 5-yearly basis. The performance review process will be independently audited. The performance review and audit are part of the renewal process for LWMS/Ps, SWMIPs, KPIs and PIs on a 5-yearly basis. The process for setting PIs and KPIs must be the subject of an audit to ensure that the agreed process is followed. 7. Monitoring and Reporting requirements of KPI and PI are to be established as part of the risk-based target-setting process. 8. New Regulatory Tools such as water use licences, and water quality by-laws (with service or financial penalties for non-compliance with surface water management requirements, will be jointly explored.

B.3.8 Yorta Yorta Co-operative Management Agreement For the first time in Victoria, an agreement has been reached outside the native title process for indigenous people to be formally involved in the management of their traditional lands and waters. The Yorta Yorta Co-operative Management Agreement is a land and water management agreement reached between the State and the Yorta Yorta Nation Aboriginal Corporation. Through the Yorta Yorta management agreement the Government recognises the contribution that indigenous people can make to land management. The Agreement creates a forum for including the Yorta Yorta Nation in the management of major public lands within their traditional country. Crown land affected by the Agreement is within the Goulburn Broken catchment and includes specific parcels of public lands and waters along the Goulburn River.

B.4 Regional strategies and plans The relevant regional strategies and plans are the:

EPA Victoria 248 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

• Goulburn Broken Regional Catchment Strategy • Draft Goulburn Broken RRHS (Regional River Health Strategy) • Goulburn Broken Water Quality Strategy 1996–2016 • Goulburn Eildon Fisheries Management Plan • Recreation Plan for the Goulburn River • Upper Goulburn Waterway Plan.

An overview of relevant aspects of each document is presented below.

B.4.1 Goulburn Broken Regional Catchment Strategy The Goulburn Broken Regional Catchment Strategy (the ‘RCS’), prepared by the Goulburn Broken Region Catchment Management Authority, is an overarching document that outlines the framework for integrated natural resource management activities within the Goulburn Broken catchment. Published in November 2003, the RCS outlines the Goulburn Broken CMA’s vision for the catchment on how its natural resources should be managed with a view to achieving environmental as well as economic and social benefits. It establishes the context for how the Goulburn Broken CMA intends to work with its stakeholders to achieve its vision. Identified stakeholders include Commonwealth and State agencies, rural and urban water authorities, landholders, the broader community and local government. The identified vision is: A catchment recognised locally, nationally and internationally for quality agricultural produce where community values contribute to the benefits of abundant and well- maintained environmental assets used for tourism and recreational activities. The environmental footprint of irrigation and dryland farming will be significantly reduced, with farmers occupying less land and using less water whilst managing their resources more sustainably. New opportunities will arise for increasing the ecosystem services provided by the land retired from agriculture and by improved environmental flows. The region’s economy will be robust, with much of the agricultural produce processed within the region, generating employment and wealth creation opportunities for a regional community actively engaging in natural resource management programs.’ The RCS is supported by a series of sub-strategies, action plans and technical papers that provide detail on resource use, asset threat and proposed actions for asset protection. These cover such areas as: Riverine health: Water quality; floodplain; waterways; riparian and in-stream native flora and fauna; flows; recreation; wetlands. Salinity: Dryland; irrigation. Biodiversity: Biodiversity integration strategy; native vegetation strategy; threatened species and non-threatened flora and fauna; non- vascular plants; invertebrates. Pest plants and animals: Rabbits; weeds. Other: Climate change; soil health. From a river management perspective the primary sub-strategy is the draft RRHS, published in March 2004 as a draft for public comment. In May 2005 a further revision of the draft was submitted by Goulburn Broken CMA to government agencies for final comment prior to submitting it to the CMA’s Board for approval.

Environmental Audit 249 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

In addition to the sub-strategies, regional investment plans have been developed that provide detail on proposed works and associated funding over annual and five-year timeframes. The overall planning framework of the Regional Catchment Strategy is illustrated in Figure B.1.

RCS Sets vision and directions. Identifies issues, assets and management options

Sub Strategies Regional Catchment Objectives, targets for Investment Plan asset protection Annual and five year and enhancement works program

Figure B.1: Regional Catchment Strategy—Planning Framework (Source: Goulburn Broken CMA 2003)

The RCS documents the identified natural, economic and social assets of the catchment, and threats to the catchment’s natural assets; and outlines a program of works targeted towards achieving its vision. A series of targets have been set in the areas of water, land, biodiversity and climate change. Targets are separated under an established hierarchy as illustrated in Figure B.2. Figure B.2: Regional Catchment Strategy—targets hierarchy (Source: Goulburn Broken CMA 2003)

RCS Vision and Triple Bottom Line Goals

Aspirational Targets n

s 20-50 years n tio s ta t tio l n p u e s m m e Re su l p As m

I Medium-term Resource Condition Targets 10-30 years

Management Action Targets Works Actions and Capacity-building actions 1-10 years

EPA Victoria 250 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Resource Condition Targets and Management Action Targets are also documented in the RCS. In presenting these targets, the RCS makes reference to the relevant sub-strategy—e.g. a ‘Riverine Health Strategy’.

B.4.2 Draft Goulburn Broken RRHS The following discussion of the RRHS is based upon the March 2004 draft that was released for public comment. The VRHS requires that the RRHS be integrated with the RCS. Aside from setting action plans, the RRHS must provide 5-year implementation and 10-year resource condition targets for major river reaches of the Goulburn River and its tributaries. The RRHS must also set integrated in-stream water quality and river health objectives and include a monitoring, reporting and review program. It must also take into account SEPP (WoV) requirements, targets and objectives. A key feature required of draft RRHSs is a register of all environmental, social and economic assets associated with the river. These river-related assets equate to the beneficial uses protected by the SEPP (WoV) and ‘values’ in the NWQMS. The draft RRHS, prepared by the River Health and Water Quality Committee of the Goulburn Broken CMA, attempts to combine all elements of river management in the Goulburn Broken catchment under one umbrella document and provide direction for the protection and enhancement of the region’s river systems. The timeframe for the strategy is the period 2004 to 2014. The strategy was released as a draft for public comment in March 2004.

Strategy aim

The stated aim of the draft strategy is to integrate actions from a variety of Goulburn Broken CMA strategies and programs to achieve the major Riverine Resource Condition Targets outlined in the Regional Catchment Strategy (see Figure B.2). The draft RRHS has four key objectives: • protecting the rivers that are of highest community value from any decline in condition • maintaining the condition of ecologically healthy rivers • achieving an ‘overall improvement’ in the environmental condition of the remainder of rivers • preventing damage from future management activities.

Management units

For management and reporting purposes, the Goulburn River Basin is divided into 75 different reaches and 11 different management units. Management units of relevance to this audit are shown in Table B.4.

Environmental Audit 251 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Table B.4: Goulburn River Management Units of Relevance to Audit

Management unit Audit reach Length Catchment (km) reach numbers L1: Lower Goulburn 4 195 km 1–8 U1: Mid Goulburn 1 145 km 9–14

High priority waterways

The draft RRHS identified 34 high priority reaches in the Goulburn River catchment based on high community value and the designation of an Ecologically Healthy River (Goulburn Broken CMA 2004a). The bases for assigning high priority waterway status to a reach are: • heritage rivers • reaches associated with Internationally or nationally significant wetlands • teaches designated as Ecologically Healthy Rivers • representative rivers • reaches identified as environmental sites of significance • reaches with the only known record of water dependent nationally listed endangered flora and fauna species (under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, or Australian Rare Or Threatened (AROT) flora).

Heritage River corridors were identified by the Victorian Land Conservation Council (LCC 1991), and for the Goulburn River downstream of Lake Eildon are based on the following features (Goulburn Broken CMA 2004a): • areas with intact understorey in River red gum open forest/woodland, and yellow box and grey box woodland/open forest communities, particularly downstream of Murchison • areas of significant habitat for vulnerable or threatened wildlife including Squirrel gliders, Large-footed myotis (a bat), Barking marsh frogs, Barking owls and Brush-tailed phascogales (a small insectivorous marsupial) • native fish diversity and Murray cod habitat below Goulburn Weir • Macquarie perch habitat above Goulburn Weir • fishing opportunities—especially for trout from Eildon to Yea River, and native species below Goulburn Weir • canoeing opportunities from Eildon to Goulburn Weir • cultural heritage sites, including the timber Chinamans Bridge, the steel-girder rail bridge at Seymour, Days Flour Mill at Murchison, Goulburn Weir, and the town water supply pump at Murchison • scenic landscapes—from Molesworth to Seymour, and from below Seymour to Echuca.

EPA Victoria 252 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Sixteen of the 34 priority reaches were on the Goulburn River including all of the 14 reaches downstream of Lake Eildon which are the focus of this audit. Inclusion of these reaches was based on the Heritage Classification of the Goulburn River downstream of Lake Eildon and also for Reaches 1 to 8 on their association with wetlands of national significance3 (Lower Goulburn River Floodplain and Kanyapella Basin) and the presence of populations of the high value fish species Murray cod and Silver perch.

Ecological risk assessment

An ecological risk assessment (ERA) was carried out on all high priority waterways to identify the threat level and associated consequences of a threat causing a deleterious impact on the identified assets associated with each high priority waterway. The aim of the ERA was to provide an objective measure of the hazard to a particular asset or value (environmental, social or economic) by a particular threat. The ERA was based on the extent of threats to the identified environmental values, the consequence of the threat and the association between the threat and the value (i.e. not all threats affect all values, e.g. weirs affect fish passage but not riparian continuity). As part of the risk assessment, threats to water quality were considered, although specific information on which water quality parameters were included is not presented in the strategy. The assessment was based on the methodology outlined in Australian/New Zealand Standard Risk Management AS/NZ 4360:1999. Using this methodology a risk is expressed as a function of ‘likelihood’ and ‘consequence’. To apply the methodology to the Goulburn Broken catchment, ‘Likelihood’ was interpreted as a combination of the level of an identified threat and the degree of association between the threat and the value in question. ‘Consequence’ is a measure of the impact that a threat can have on a particular asset. Based on this system, risk ratings were assigned to each High Priority Waterway for the identified threats. The risk rating framework is summarised in Table B.5 and the ratings for individual reaches in set out in Table B.6. Table B.5: Risk ratings and risk management responses set out in the Draft Goulburn-Broken Regional River Health Strategy (Goulburn Broken CMA 2004a)

Risk rating Management response Very high (VH) Urgent need to reduce threat level. Top priority for threat reduction High (H) High priority for threat reduction Medium 1 (M1) Monitor asset level for decline Opportunistic threat reduction Medium 2 (M2) Monitor asset level for decline Do not allow an increase in threat level Low 1 (L1) Do not allow an increase in threat levels Low 2 (L2) Assess whether threat is the cause of low value and act accordingly

3 Wetlands of national significance are identified in the draft Goulburn Broken Regional River Health Strategy based on those waterways associated with RAMSAR and Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia (http://www.deh.gov.au/water/wetlands/database/index.html). Environmental Audit 253 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Table B.6a: Risk ratings for Audit River Reach 1

Threat L

) A e y d t N i

G tion v ti ren c on i (SI (t e t

n a y y ty tat on n e t a i ss ili io streamsid alit get s un ce l habi ooms ed e d con l stab fa eratur ac r qu nel modifica n ero c

an ic ve k p e n k e tl ot oc x Reach Ban Bed i Cha Loss of St Flow deviati We Wat WQ lev Water qual score) Tem Algal b E Exoti Barriers Degrad zon 1 H M2 VH VH VH VH 2 M2 H H VH VH H VH VH 3 H H M2 VH VH M2 4 M2 H M2 VH VH 5 H H VH H VH M2 6 H M2 VH VH 7 H VH VH VH 8 H VH VH H VH Reproduced from Appendix 7, draft Goulburn Broken RRHS

Table B.6b: Risk ratings for audit river reach 1

Threat L

) A e y d t N i

G tion v ti ren c on i (SI (t e t

n a y y ty tat n e t a i ss ili io streamsid alit get s un ce l habi ed e d con stab fa eratur ac r qu nel modifica n ero c

an ic ve k p e n k e tl ot oc x Reach Ban Bed i Cha Loss of St Flow deviation We Wat WQ lev Water qual score) Tem Algal blooms E Exoti Barriers Degrad zon 9 VH VH M2 VH VH VH VH VH VH M2 10 M2 VH VH VH 11 M2 M2 M2 M2 VH VH VH H VH 12 M2 VH VH VH M2 13 M2 VH VH VH M2 M2 14 M2 VH VH H VH VH VH H H Reproduced from Appendix 7, draft Goulburn Broken RRHS

On the basis of the risk assessment (for High Priority Waterways) and identification of improvement opportunities (for non-priority rivers and reaches) four programs have been developed within the draft strategy. The programs and associated timeframes for achieving actions are as follows:

EPA Victoria 254 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Program A: Protection and engagement of high priority waterways (10-year timeframe, i.e. by 2014) Program B: Protection of ecologically healthy rivers (5 years) Program C: Creating more ecologically healthy rivers (5 years) Program D: Improvement to other reaches (10 years).

Actions and targets

Included within Program A are actions and targets applicable to the Goulburn River between Eildon Reservoir and its confluence with the Murray River. Programs B, C and D cover other waterways and are hence not considered further. These actions and targets are separately documented in the draft RRHS for the two management units of relevance to this audit, namely: • Goulburn Weir to the confluence with the Murray River (Management Unit L1) • Eildon Reservoir to Goulburn Weir (Management Unit U1).

Goulburn Weir to Murray River Confluence (Management Unit L1) In this reach, actions and targets principally aimed to reduce the threat to identified high value assets are presented in Table B.74. The draft strategy indicates that an Ecological Risk Assessment will be undertaken to further investigate the seriousness of the threat posed by turbidity, and develop additional policy actions and Resource Condition Targets as appropriate. It is noted that the draft strategy indicates that it may not be realistic to expect that the water quality objectives outlined in SEPP (WoV) can be met in some reaches5, or that the timeframe to achieve the water quality objectives is within the life of the strategy.

Eildon Reservoir to Goulburn Weir (Management Unit U1) For this section of the river, no action plan is presented in the draft strategy for this management unit.6 The draft strategy indicates that for this reach of the river there are conflicting values (e.g. fishing opportunities for trout, and Macquarie perch habitat) hence protection of one value may be to the detriment of another value. The draft strategy also states that the Goulburn Broken CMA, in consultation with stakeholders, will work towards the resolution of prioritising the primary values to be protected or enhanced. Goulburn Broken CMA staff have indicated that the final strategy will include preliminary actions and targets for this reach of the river.

4 Reproduced from Table 9.2 of draft Goulburn Broken Regional River Health Strategy 5 Refer footnote to Table 9.2 of draft Goulburn Broken Regional River Health Strategy 6 Refer Section 9.1.8 of draft Goulburn Broken Regional River Health Strategy

Environmental Audit 255 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Table B.7: Actions and targets for Riverine Health in Management Unit L1—Lower Goulburn and floodplain (1)

Threat Risk of Actions Management action Resource condition Sub-programs threat to target target assets Flow deviation Very high Complete Goulburn environmental flow Goulburn environmental Improved environmental Flow project and implement flow project completed flow regimes for 8 high Management recommendations with negotiated and negotiated value river reaches Plan, Fisheries environmental flow regimes by 2010. environmental flow currently flow-stressed. Strategy, regime implemented. Aquatic and native riparian Flora and Fauna program Review bulk entitlement for Goulburn Reviewed Flow River. Management Plan Review the operating procedures of Reviewed Fisheries Goulburn Weir with a view to Strategy optimising water levels for the protection of the aquatic ecosystem. Wetland Very high Lower Goulburn floodplain Enhance floodplain to ISC wetland connectivity Wetlands connectivity management. river linkages over 30 rating improved by 2 Strategy km of stream. points. Stock access Very high Provide fencing and revegetation 390 km frontage fenced. Improve condition of Waterway incentives. ISC streamside zone Management sub-index by 1–2 points and over 98 km river. Implementation Maintain condition of Plan riparian vegetation over 97 km river.

EPA Victoria 256 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Threat Risk of Actions Management action Resource condition Sub-programs threat to target target assets Encourage land managers to adopt 390 km frontage under Water Quality CRP for ‘Managing grazing in the CRP. strategy riparian zone’. Control grazing on public waterfronts. 390 km frontage Licensed controlled. Grazing (Public Land) Water quality Very high Provide fencing and revegetation 935 km frontage fenced, Improving nutrient Waterway decline (nutrients) incentives in Management Unit L1, and as: water quality attainment Management tributaries of Management Units L3 390 km frontage fenced towards SEPP Waters of and (Euroa Strathbogie) and L5 (Lower (L1); Victoria requirements. Implementation Broken River). 420 km frontage fenced Plan (L3); 125 km frontage fenced (L5). General water quality programs to Programs implemented Water Quality reduce nutrients. as determined. Strategy Urban Stormwater Management: urban waterway and stormwater project developed and implemented. Water quality Very high Provide fencing and revegetation (see above) (see above) Waterway decline (turbidity) incentives in Management Unit L1, and Management tributaries of Management Units L3 and (Euroa Strathbogie) and L5 (Lower Implementation Broken River). Plan

Environmental Audit 257 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Threat Risk of Actions Management action Resource condition Sub-programs threat to target target assets Conduct an Ecological Risk Assessment Ecological Risk As determined by Risk Water Quality in Management Unit L1 for turbidity, Assessment conducted. Assessment. Strategy using Guidelines for Environmental Management Risk-based Assessment of Ecosystem Protection to determine further work required. Water quality High Conduct an Ecological Risk Assessment Ecological Risk As determined by Risk trend (pH, EC) in Management Unit L1 for pH and EC, Assessment conducted. Assessment. using Guidelines for Environmental Management Risk-based Assessment of Ecosystem Protection to determine further work required. Loss of in-stream High Enhance aquatic Refugia to protect in- 142.5 km of river with Improvement in ISC Waterway habitat stream habitat (protection zones). habitat improvement Physical Form subindices Management works. by 1–2 points in and Channel High Reaches 1–6. Implementation modification Plan Bank erosion High Stabilisation of near stream erosion. Banks stabilised over 65 Waterway km of stream. Management and Implementation Plan Encourage land managers to adopt 65 km of stream under Water Quality CRP for ‘Stabilising bed and banks’. CRP. Strategy

EPA Victoria 258 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Threat Risk of Actions Management action Resource condition Sub-programs threat to target target assets Exotic flora Medium Control exotic vegetation on streams. 40 km of stream subject ISC riparian sub-index Waterway to riparian weed control. improved by 1–2 points Management in Reaches 3 and 5. and Implementation Plan. Monitor assets in Reach 3 and 5 at risk from exotic vegetation - Significant EVC (box woodland), Wetland condition, Murray cod and develop actions to reduce threat if assets decline. Introduced fauna Support actions within the Murray- Control and manage Contribute to an overall Murray-Darling Darling Basin Fish Management introduced species. enhancement of stream Basin Fish Strategy. health and water Management quality. Strategy. (1) Reproduced from Table 9.2, draft Goulburn Broken RRHS

Environmental Audit 259 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Investment required

The draft strategy indicates that the investment required for all the programs is $100M over the period 2004—2014. It is proposed that the investment be shared equitably amongst program beneficiaries using cost sharing principles for natural resource management as set out in the Victorian River Health Strategy that will be further developed.

Ministerial endorsement

The draft RRHS is currently with DSE prior to being submitted to the Minister for approval. As the draft RRHS has not been implemented it is difficult to judge how effective it will be in achieving the objectives sought. During the next five years, up until its five-year review, it is expected that a great deal more research and investigation will be undertaken to understand the dynamics of different systems and therefore what elements can be addressed/manipulated to improve the relationship between works and improvements in resource condition.

B.4.3 Goulburn Broken Water Quality Strategy 1996–2016 The Goulburn Broken Water Quality Strategy was initially developed in 1996 as a draft strategy. It was formally endorsed by the Goulburn Broken Catchment and Land Protection Board in 1997 however was not endorsed by the State government at that time. The strategy was reviewed in 2002 as part of the five-year review of strategies throughout the Goulburn Broken catchment. The revised strategy, which has now received State endorsement, is being implemented over the 20-year timeframe between 1996 and 2016. The identified water quality goal for the Goulburn Broken catchment is to: ‘improve and maintain water quality at optimum levels within and downstream of the catchment for native ecosystems, recreation, human and animal consumption, agriculture and industry’. An emphasis is placed in the strategy on nutrient reduction in response to blue-green algal blooms that occurred during the early 1990s within the catchment (and elsewhere). These provided the impetus for the strategy development. Salinity is also identified as an important water quality issue however the strategy does not discuss it in detail, referring instead to other plans addressing salinity, i.e. the Dryland Salinity Management Plan and the Shepparton Irrigation Region Land and Water Salinity Management Plan. Other water quality issues such as pathogens, gross pollutants and biocides are regarded in the strategy as potentially important in the future. The revised (2002) strategy identifies the following achievements within the catchment in the five-year period between 1996 and 2001: • achievement of water quality targets within the irrigation area as evidenced by the uptake of farm irrigation water reuse systems being ahead of schedule and a decline in total phosphorus and total nitrogen leaving the catchment • upgrading of the region’s wastewater management facilities resulting in a reduction in total phosphorus loads from 50 tonnes/yr (1997) to 10 tonnes/yr (2002).

EPA Victoria 260 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

The three overarching objectives for water quality in the catchment are: Nutrients: to reduce potential phosphorus loads by 65% by 2016. Salinity: to maintain contributions to salinity levels of the Murray River from the Goulburn Broken catchment at or below 10 ECs (electrical conductivity units) as measured at Morgan. ‘Other’: to maintain the impact of water quality issues other than nutrients and salinity at acceptable levels. The 1993/94 levels of nutrient generation and export within the Goulburn Broken catchment are provided in the strategy (Table B.8). Table B.8: Nutrient generation and export within the Goulburn Broken Catchment

Nutrient Total generated Total exported (tonne/yr) (tonne/yr) Nitrogen 2 854 1 952 Phosphorus 360 290

The contribution of various activities to 1993/94 generation and export of nitrogen and phosphorus in the Goulburn Broken catchment are shown in Figure B.3.

Environmental Audit 261 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Figure B.3: 1993/94 Total phosphorus and total nitrogen generation and export Goulburn Broken Catchment (Source Goulburn Broken CMA 2002)

Total Phosphorus Generation Total Nitrogen (t/yr) Gi(t/yr) Wastewater Wastewater Treatment Treatment Urban, 70 Facilities, 185 Facilities, 51 Irrigation, 619

Intensive Animal Urban, 12 Industries, 115 Intensive Animal Industries, 19 Irrigation, 169

Dryland, 110 Dryland, 1,866

Total Phosphorus Export Total Nitrogen (t/yr) E (t/yr)

Wastewater Wastewater Treatment Treatment Facilities, 158 Facilities, 43 Urban, 30 Urban, 5 Intensive Animal Irrigation, 619 Intensive Animal Industries, 45 Industries, 8

Irrigation, 169 Dryland, 65

Dryland, 1,100

EPA Victoria 262 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Annual rates of nitrogen and phosphorous exported from the catchment between 1990/91 and 2000/01 are also presented in the strategy as follows: Figure B.4: Nutrient loads exported from Goulburn Broken Catchment 1991–2001 (Source: Goulburn Broken CMA 2002)

700 700 Total Nitrogen 600 Total Phosphorus 600

500 500 us en or

400 400 ph trog i os 300 300 tal n l Ph o ta T o

200 200 T

100 100

0 0

1991/92 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01

To achieve nutrient reduction, Goulburn Broken CMA has adopted a Best Management Practice (BMP) approach. The identified BMPs consist of guidelines for land use management that aim to achieve good natural resources management, while maintaining or improving productivity. Within the strategy eight programs have been developed that outline a range of BMPs and associated actions. For each action the following are identified: • action description • output • cost share (% split between federal, state and regional) • cost (expressed as 15-year Net Present Value cost) • timeframe • priority (categorised either as ‘very high’, ‘high’ or ‘medium’) • benefits to other strategies (e.g. Riverine Health Strategy) • responsibility (primary and secondary).

Unlike the draft RRHS, the programs are not focussed on specific waterways; rather they are focussed mainly on activities within the catchment that impact on water quality (e.g. irrigation drainage, dryland agriculture, wastewater treatment plants). The eight programs together with the associated objectives/targets and estimated costs are shown in Table B.9.

Environmental Audit 263 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Table B.9: Identified programs in Goulburn Broken Water Quality Strategy (1996– 2016)

Program Objective/target NPV costs @ 8% over 30 years 1: Irrigation drainage To achieve 50% reduction in TP loads $27.8M outfalling from irrigation drains (1) 2: Diffuse sources To achieve a 20% reduction in TP $13.2M loads exported from the dryland (1) 3: Wastewater Phosphorous discharge to waterways $0(2) management facilities from wastewater management (WMF) facilities will be reduced by 80% 4: Urban stormwater Implement Best Management $10M Practices for urban drainage in all municipalities in the catchment 5: Intensive Best Management Practices will be $0.8M agriculture/aquaculture developed and adopted by intensive industries agricultural industry managers 6: Local water quality Investigate and implement BMP for $0.3M issues local water issues 7: Other water quality To monitor water quality issues in the $0.2M issues catchment and take appropriate action to develop action plans or strategies to overcome these issues 8: Program support To coordinate, monitor, evaluate and $9.9M review the implementation of the Goulburn Broken Water Quality Strategy Total $62.3M

(1) The benchmark period against which these targets are set is 1993/94 ( 2) No costs included as the strategy assumes that improvements to wastewater management facilities would take place irrespective of the Water Quality Strategy

The Water Quality Strategy also provides reference to key activities that contribute to poor water quality. A series of Regional Catchment Strategy sub-strategies and Land and Water Management Plans also address key activities that are thought to contribute to water quality decline.

B.4.4 Goulburn Eildon Fisheries Management Plan Regional Fisheries Management Plans are one of the main instruments for implementation of the Fisheries Act 1995 (the Act) at a regional level. For the mid-Goulburn River between Lake Eildon and Goulburn Weir the Goulburn Eildon Region Fisheries Management Plan (GERFMP) is the relevant plan. The GERFMP is consistent with the objectives of the Fisheries Act 1995 and with the principles of the Victorian Inland Fisheries Strategy, Ecologically Sustainable Development and Conservation of Biodiversity.

EPA Victoria 264 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

The GERFMP provides a means by which the fisheries of the upper Goulburn River can be managed in a manner that ensures that these fisheries and associated aquatic biological resources are utilised and developed in an effective, efficient and ecologically sustainable manner. The goals, objectives, and policies in the GERFMP encourage maximisation of the opportunities provided by the fish resources of the upper Goulburn River catchment. The goal of the GERFMP is: to achieve the best possible match between the fisheries management arrangements and Victorian recreational fishers’ aspirations for the fisheries in the upper Goulburn region.

In so doing, it must: • ensure that the use and management of the fishery resource is consistent with the principles of ecological sustainability • ensure that the management of the fishery is consistent with other conservation and natural resource management aims of the DSE, G-MW and the Goulburn Broken CMA • develop guidelines for the resolution of issues between user groups.

The objectives of the GERFMP are: • to manage the fisheries of the Goulburn/Eildon area to provide a wide variety of fishing experiences with year-round fishing opportunities for both native and introduced species • to manage with a view to developing the fisheries to their full sustainable potential • to promote improvements of aquatic and riparian habitat in relation to a wide range of threatening processes • to promote improvements to the opportunities for improved production or access to target fish species • to provide for the conservation and enhancement of recreational fishing target species and other freshwater fauna within the system.

B.4.5 Recreation plan for the Goulburn River The Upper Goulburn Implementation Committee is concerned about the impacts of recreation on waterways and surrounds. Its main objective is to improve waterway and riparian vegetation health. However the Committee recognises the importance of recreation and tourism, and the need to balance these needs with those of adjoining landowners and in particular those farming. The Upper Goulburn Implementation Committee is implementing a strategy that covers waterways above Nagambie but excludes Lake Eildon and Lake Nagambie. The strategy involves: • assessing the risks and impacts of the range of recreational activities undertaken throughout the catchment on the physical and ecological health of the waterways, particularly water quality, and the adjoining riparian zones • identifying appropriate facilities, regulation and level of services needed to maintain and support those recreational activities, who should deliver the services and who should pay for the various works needed.

Environmental Audit 265 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

An important part of the process is to ensure that all individuals, groups and organisations who have an interest in waterways and adjoining land have the opportunity to express their concerns and issues they wish considered in the strategy development. This group includes adjoining private landowners, farming and recreation groups, tourism operators, local government and public land managers.

B.4.6 Upper Goulburn Waterway Plan The Upper Goulburn Waterway Plan (Goulburn Broken CMA 1998), suggests that some of the 80 GL annual environmental water allocation, identified in G-MW’s Bulk Entitlement, should be provided to allow unspecified ‘moderate but elevated, stable base flows’ over the winter period (cited in Brown 2003).

B.5 Fish kill response plans The are several agency and intra-agency response plans that are in use, or under development, that are relevant to fish kills within the Goulburn River catchment. These are described below.

B.5.1 G-MW Corporate Environmental Emergency Management Manual (May 2000) G-MW’s Corporate Environmental Emergency Management Manual was initially issued in May 2000. It includes a Corporate Environmental Emergency Management Plan (CEEMP), contact and resource lists, forms, and related plans and procedures. The emergency response protocols of the CEEMP were last updated in May 2002. These response protocols were those that were used by G-MW in the January 2004 fish kill. The CEEMP establishes the Corporate Environmental Emergency Control Organisation. This is an alternative management structure which has the authority to take control of all relevant G- MW activities once an environmental emergency arises. Depending on circumstances, the normal management structure will apply to those parts of the business not affected by the emergency. All appointments to Corporate Environmental Emergency Control Organisation positions must have senior executive or Board approval, which is subject to nominees attending a one-day environmental emergency induction course.

B.5.2 Draft Designated Waterway Response Protocol The Waterway Incident Protocol for the North East and Goulburn Broken Catchments was a draft at the time of the January 2004 fish kill. The draft Waterway Incident Protocol refers to the draft Fish Deaths Emergency Management Plan. It transpired that as of January 2004 the draft protocol had not been formally approved, and therefore was not being used by EPA in the response to the January 2004 fish kill. The current status of the protocol is unclear. It is no longer used operationally by G-MW.

B.5.3 Draft Fish Deaths Emergency Management Plan (DPI—2002/03) The 2002/03 draft of DPI’s Fish Kills Emergency Management Plan was current as at November 2004. DPI has advised that the above documentation will be updated upon the finalisation of the EPA’s Interim Fish Kill Protocol. The Plan’s Action Summary provides fundamental advice to DPI officers on how to manage a fish kill.

EPA Victoria 266 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

The Plan includes a list of Fisheries Officer contact details, marine craft availability, and DPI personnel with Australian Interservice Incident Management System (AIIMS) training. Part 4 lists contacts and resources available in emergencies from Parks Victoria, Murrindindi Shire Council, Coliban Water, G-MW, the Goulburn Broken CMA, and the EPA. It does not include urban water authorities and other Councils within the Goulburn River catchment. The draft EPA ‘Guidelines for the Investigation of Fish Kills’ is also included in the draft Plan (and incidents involving other biota). This is a very early draft of the EPA’s 2004 Interim Fish Kill Protocol. The Plan identifies agency control and support roles under the Emergency Response Act. Under this Act the EPA is responsible for pollution of inland waterways and the DPI is responsible for food/drinking water contamination and human disease. The Plan states that for kills originating from land-based sources the EPA will nominate the responsible party, and for impoundments, dams, and irrigation infrastructure, DPI/EPA and the controlling Water Authority would provide a partnership response.

B.5.4 Interim Fish Kill Protocol (EPA November 2004) As of the January 2004 fish kill the EPA had a draft Interim Fish Kill Protocol. This has been updated with the most recent version being issued in November 2004. This version has been updated after receipt of comments by other agencies on the August 2004 draft. To ensure participation by agencies identified in the protocol, Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) are being drafted between EPA and the agencies. The Protocol advises that ‘Under the Emergency Management Manual of Victoria’, EPA is listed as the ‘control agency for pollution of inland waters’. Although the majority of fish kills would not be considered emergency incidents, for the moment EPA has accepted the response manager role for fish kills, where there are no other response plans or agreements to designate other agencies. The Protocol states that EPA’s current role in managing fish kills is to: • receive notification of fish kills from agencies or the public • notify other relevant agencies and stakeholders so that they may respond • as necessary, direct other agencies to clean up (remove dead fish from waterways) in order to protect the environment • investigate fish kill incidents and determine, if possible, the cause of the fish kill • as appropriate, undertake enforcement action and recover costs consistent with EPA’s enforcement policy • co-ordinate media releases • as necessary, run a debrief session.

The Protocol includes the following sections: 1. Background to fish kills 2. EPA role in fish kills 3. How to notify EPA of a fish kill 4. EPA to notify EPA units and relevant agencies 5. Regional response structure 6. Scientific investigations of fish kill incident 7. Legal action and cost of clean up

Environmental Audit 267 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

8. Media releases 9. Debrief session. The Interim Fish Kill document also includes attachments listing EPA contact details, other relevant agencies to be contacted, and the Interim Fish Kill sampling protocols. There is also a Fish Kill Report Form. The protocol forms part of the Environmental Incident Management Response Arrangements for Victorian Waterways.

B.5.5 Draft Environmental Incident Management Response Arrangements A draft working document of the Environmental Incident Management Response Arrangements providing examples of waterway incidents impacting on beneficial use, together with associated agreed response frameworks and lead Agencies, was provided to the Auditor by EPA. In the draft working document a range of agreed response frameworks related to specific incidents are being separately developed, e.g. the EPA’s Interim Fish Kill Protocol.

B.5.6 Interim Framework for a Multi Agency Response to Incidents in Waterways in the Goulburn Broken Catchment (DPI 2004) Since the January 2004 fish kill, an interim framework for agency response to waterway incidents has been prepared for the Goulburn Broken catchment. The framework, developed in conceptual form by risk advisors Marsh Pty Ltd (Marsh 2004) and subsequently expanded to its current draft form, is entitled ‘An Interim Framework for a Multi Agency Response to Incidents in Waterways in the Goulburn Broken Catchment’ (DPI et al. 2004). Identified signatories to the framework are representatives from the following agencies: • Department of Primary Industries • Department of Sustainability and Environment • Environment Protection Authority • Goulburn Broken Regional Catchment Management Authority • Goulburn Murray Water • Goulburn Valley Water • North East Region Water Authority • Department of Human Services.

The interim arrangements are intended to be utilised during incidents pending the development of a comprehensive, tested and finalise set of incident management arrangements for water-based pollution or public health events. The stated objectives of developing the framework are to: • minimise the impact of pollution incidents in receiving waters • provide a coordinated response to pollution incidents • clarify the roles and responsibilities for all agencies in dealing with pollution incidents • facilitate a coordinated and effective investigation and testing regime designed to identify cause and responsible body/person • apply the ‘polluter pays’ principle wherever possible.

EPA Victoria 268 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

The framework is divided into the following sections: Part 1: High level control framework Part 2: Interim roles for key regional agencies Part 3: On-ground management arrangements Part 4: Specific waterway incident management framework by incident type (this part was referenced in the Table of Contents but was not documented in the version of the framework provided to the Auditor). In the framework, the proposed on-ground management arrangements (Part 3) are consistent with those documented in the draft working document of the Environmental Incident Management Response Arrangements for Victorian Waterways provided to the Auditor by EPA and discussed above. In addition, the EPA’s Interim Fish Kill Protocol is listed as a reference document to the framework. The Goulburn Broken CMA indicated that, in the event of a fish kill incident in the interim it would follow this interim framework.

B.6 State Water Entitlements and Agreements

B.6.1 Bulk Entitlement (Eildon-Goulburn Weir) Conversion Order 1995 The Bulk Entitlement (Eildon-Goulburn Weir) Conversion Order 1995 was created under the Water Act 1989. The Order was made to convert Goulburn Murray Rural Water Authority’s entitlement to water from the waterway below Lake Eildon to a bulk entitlement. Clauses of the Order which are relevant to the environmental health of the Goulburn River are: • Clause 11—Passing flows • Clause 12.3—Releases • Clause 15—Environmental obligations.

Clause 4—Goulburn Resource Manager

The role of the Goulburn Resource Manager is defined under Clause 4 of the Bulk Entitlement Conversion Order. It states that the ‘Resource Manager’ means any person appointed by the Minister to do all or any of the following: a) prepare the Goulburn Basin Water accounts b) monitor whether entitlement holders in the Goulburn Basin comply with the conditions of their bulk entitlements c) direct the release of any water set aside for maintaining water quality in the Goulburn River d) investigate and mediate disputes between entitlement holders in the Goulburn Basin e) investigate and deal with significant unauthorised uses of water within the Goulburn Basin f) supervise the qualifications of any rights to water made by the Minister during periods of declared water shortage under section 13 of the Act.

Environmental Audit 269 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Clause 11—Passing flows

Clause 11 is as follows: Clause 11 describes the Authority’s responsibility to provide minimum flows downstream of the Eildon Pondage, Goulburn Weir, and McCoy Bridge. Clause 11 is as follows: • A minimum flow of 120 ML/d from the Eildon Pondage Weir, or such greater flow as is required by Schedule 6; and • A minimum average weekly flow of 250 ML/d from the Goulburn Weir over any seven day period at a daily rate of no less than 200 ML/d; and • Any additional flow necessary to maintain a minimum average monthly flow at the McCoy Bridge gauging station of:

- 350 ML/d for the months of November to June inclusive at a daily rate of no less than 300 ML/d; and

- 400 ML/d for the months of July to October inclusive at a daily rate of no less than 350 ML/d’. • a minimum flow of 120 ML/d from the Eildon Pondage Weir, or such greater flow as is required by Schedule 6; • a minimum average weekly flow of 250 ML/d from the Goulburn Weir over any seven day period at a daily rate of no less than 200 ML/d; • any additional flow necessary to maintain a minimum average monthly flow at the McCoy Bridge gauging station of:

- 350 ML/d for the months of November to June inclusive at a daily rate of no less than 300 ML/d; and

- 400 ML/d for the months of July to October inclusive at a daily rate of no less than 350 ML/d.’

Clause 12.3—Releases

Clause 12.3 states that ‘the Authority must not direct the Operator to release more water from Goulburn Weir than is required to meet the Authority’s commitment to supply primary entitlements unless: • releases are necessary;

- to maintain the normal operating level of the Weir; or

- to repair or maintain the Weir; or

EPA Victoria 270 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Clause 15—Environmental obligations

Clause 15.1 ‘Environmental Obligations’ states that ‘the Authority must propose to the Minister, within 12 months of the date of this Order, a program to manage the environmental effects of: • The authority’s works to take water under this bulk entitlement including:

- The effects on the bed and banks of the waterway in the vicinity of the Authority’s works - Operational practices to remove silt from the works - Operational practices to manage water quality in works on the waterway - Operational rules to control releases from works to the waterway - Operational rules to manage flood flows through works on the waterway. • Any increase in diversions by other Authorities under bulk entitlements supplied directly from the waterway’.

G-MW must implement the program once approved by the Minister and keep a record of works undertaken. The bulk entitlement provides, amongst other provisions, for a minimum flow of 120 ML/d from Eildon pondage weir between May and September. The minimum passing flow can be increased to 250 ML/d in any month when the volume of inflow to Lake Eildon during the previous 24 months exceeds specified trigger flows. The trigger flows reflect the required inflows to allow a seasonal allocation of 200% of water right. Inflows to Lake Eildon have not exceeded the trigger flow values since at least year 2000. An additional passing flow of up to 80 GL must be released in November to replenish wetlands along the Goulburn River. However this release is subject to a number of flow conditions that have yet been met. The bulk entitlement also provides for the release of 30 GL to address downstream water quality issues, for example to ameliorate the impact of algal blooms. This provision has not yet been called on. The bulk entitlement permits all inflows to the Goulburn Weir up to a limit of 9 890 ML/d to be diverted to the three canals. This includes maximum flows of 3 600 ML/d for the Stuart Murray Canal, 3 690 ML/d for the Cattanach Canal and 2 600 ML/d for the East Goulburn Main Channel. G-MW is obliged to maintain a minimum average weekly flow of 250 ML/d in the Goulburn River immediately downstream of Goulburn Weir (a daily rate of at least 200 ML/d). Minimum passing flows are also required at McCoys Bridge downstream on the Goulburn River. These are a minimum monthly average of 350 ML/d (a daily rate of at least 300 ML/d) from November to June, and 400 ML/d (a daily rate of at least 350 ML/d) from July to October.

B.6.2 GVRWA Bulk Entitlement (Shepparton) Conversion Order 1995 Goulburn Valley Region Water Authority (GVRWA) supplies water to the City of Greater Shepparton under the Bulk Entitlement (Shepparton) Conversion Order 1995. Information on compliance with Goulburn River passing flows obligations was requested for the July 2000 to June 2004 period. The Bulk Entitlement places an annual diversion limit of 16 300 ML and a maximum diversion rate of 100 ML/day. Transfers from Mooroopna have since increased the Bulk Entitlement limit to 18 320 ML.

Environmental Audit 271 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

B.6.3 Southern Hydro Agreement Southern Hydro operates a larger power station at the Eildon Dam outlet and has rights to water through an agreement with G-MW titled ‘Eildon Agreement’ 1997. Copies of the schedules that relate to water flows were provided. Arrangements relating to the release of water into the Goulburn River are covered in Schedule B and Schedule D of the agreement.

B.6.4 Pacific Hydro Agreement Pacific Hydro advised that it has no controls on water releases. The small 4.5 kW station is permitted to pass water that is released by G-MW.

EPA Victoria 272 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Appendix C Goulburn River Water Quality Data (2002–2004)

Environmental Audit 273 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Table C.1: Goulburn River water quality parameters analysed from 1/7/02 to 30/6/04

Sites Guidelines Parameter (mg/L unless

& l )

otherwise stated) a s t n ) / n d as

o s o

( s ’

y pparto chi ern plains & c t 405200 (Mur 405203 Eildon) 405204 (She 405232 (McCo Bridge) WoV: Cleared hills plain WoV: Murray wes ANZECC

Alkalinity 3 3 - - - Arsenic 2 3 - - 0.001 (As III) 0.0008 (AsV) Cadmium 2 3 - - 0.00006 (H) Calcium 3 3 - - - Chloride 3 3 - - - Chromium 2 3 - - 0.00001 (CrVI) (H) Colour 3 3 3 3 - - - Copper 2 3 - - 0.001 (H) Dissolved oxygen 3 3 3 3 ≥ 85% (25th ≥ 85% (25th * perc.) perc.) 110 maximum 110 maximum EC(µS/cm) 3 3 3 3 ≤ 500 ≤ 500 * Lead 2 3 - - 0.001 (H) Magnesium 2 3 - - - Nickel 2 3 - - 0.008 (H) Nitrates & nitrites 3 3 3 3 - - 0.04 pH 3 3 3 3 ≥ 6.4 (25th perc) ≥ 6.4 (25th perc) * ≤ 7.7 (75th perc) ≤ 7.7 (75th perc) Potassium 3 3 - - - Filterable reactive 3 3 3 3 - - 0.02 phosphorus Sodium 3 3 - - - Sulphate 3 3 - - - Suspended solids 3 3 3 3 - - - Temperature (0C) 3 3 3 3 - - - Total kjeldhal nitrogen 3 3 3 3 - - - Total nitrogen (TN) ≤ 0.6 ≤ 0.9 Total phosphorus 3 3 3 3 ≤ 0.025 ≤ 0.045 * Turbidity (NTU) 3 3 3 3 ≤ 10 ≤ 30 * Zinc 2 3 - - 0.0024 (H) Notes 3 = Parameters measured more than two times at the each site. 2 = Parameters measured two or less times at the site in the 2-year period and therefore were not included in a further analysis of the data. The SEPP (WoV)or ANZECC 2000 guideline for each parameter is also presented. The SEPP (WoV)guideline is the 75th percentile of the water quality data unless otherwise stated. A dash indicates that there are no guidelines for that parameter. Such parameters were not summarised in the present report. * = Where there is a water quality objective in both SEPP (WoV)and the ANZECC guidelines, only the former guideline is given as this takes precedence over the ANZECC objectives.

(H) Affected by hardness of water. The values given have been calculated using a hardness of 30 mg/L CaCo3. These need to be adjusted to site-specific hardness. See ANZECC 2000 for further interpretative information. (TN) Total nitrogen is not directly measured, but is calculated by summing total kjeldhal nitrogen and nitrates & nitrites.

EPA Victoria 274 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Table C.2: Goulburn River at Murchison (VWQMN Site 405200)

DO (% EC FRP TP NOx TKN(1) TN pH Turbidity

saturation) (uS/cm) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (pH units) (NTU)

2002/2003

Average 85.2 102.83 0.003 0.03 0.11 0.30 0.42 6.78 8.98

Maximum 94.0 200.00 0.005 0.04 0.57 0.54 1.11 7.20 23.00

25th 80.8 na na na na na na 6.68 Na percentile

75th Na 110.00 na 0.04 na na 0.46 6.90 9.13 percentile

80th Na na 0.003 na 0.15 na na na Na percentile

2003/2004

Average 82.6 120.06 0.004 0.03 0.22 0.39 0.61 6.87 16.85

Maximum 96.7 183.44 0.005 0.05 0.61 0.78 1.36 7.10 48.00

25th 82.0 na na na na na na 6.75 Na percentile

75th Na 153.08 na 0.04 na na 0.64 7.00 18.00 percentile

80th Na na 0.005 na 0.35 na na na Na percentile Notes (1) Included although no guideline, as TKN is used for TN calculations

DO = dissolved oxygen, EC = electrical conductivity, FRP = filterable reactive phosphate, NOx = oxides of nitrogen, TKN = total kjeldhal nitrogen, TN = total nitrogen, TP = total phosphorus. na= not applicable for comparison with the guidelines. The site is within the Murray and western plains segment of WoV. The ANZECC (2000) guidelines are those for lowland rivers in slightly disturbed ecosystems in south-east Australia and are relevant for those parameters not specified in WoV. See for relevant objectives (maximum, 25th 75th or 80th percentiles). Parameters that exceeded the guidelines are in bold italics.

Table C.3: Goulburn River at Eildon (VWQMN Site 405203)

(1) DO (% EC FRP TP NOx TKN TN pH Turbidity saturation) (uS/cm) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (pH units) (NTU)

2002/2003

Average 93.5 54.45 0.003 0.01 0.06 0.18 0.24 7.00 1.88

Maximum 104.3 62.00 0.003 0.02 0.10 0.27 0.33 7.50 3.50

25th 92.5 na na na na na na 6.85 Na percentile

75th na 57.50 na 0.02 na na 0.25 7.10 2.25 percentile

80th na na 0.003 na 0.08 na na na Na percentile

2003/2004

Average 88.4 52.42 0.004 0.01 0.18 0.23 0.41 7.00 7.68

Maximum 101.0 58.00 0.008 0.03 0.31 0.45 0.71 7.40 29.00

25th 78.6 na na na na na na 6.78 Na percentile

Environmental Audit 275 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

(1) DO (% EC FRP TP NOx TKN TN pH Turbidity saturation) (uS/cm) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (pH units) (NTU)

75th na 55.25 na 0.02 na na 0.43 7.23 9.10 percentile

80th na na 0.006 na 0.26 na na na Na percentile Notes (1) Included although no guideline, as TKN is used for TN calculations Abbreviations and details in the table are as presented in Table C.2. The site is within the Cleared Hills and Coastal Plains segment of SEPP (WoV). Parameters that exceeded the guidelines are in bold italics.

Table C.4: Goulburn River at Shepparton (VWQMN Site 405204)

(1) DO (% EC FRP TP NOx TKN TN pH Turbidity saturation) (uS/cm) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (pH units)

2002/2003

Average 84.5 160.00 0.006 0.05 0.04 0.41 0.45 7.00 20.21

Maximum 105.7 200.00 0.034 0.07 0.15 0.60 0.64 7.40 24.00

25th 80.3 na na na na na na 6.80 Na percentile

75th na 172.50 na 0.06 na na 0.55 7.13 22.25 percentile

80th na na 0.005 na 0.09 na na na Na percentile

2003/2004

Average 84.6 181.67 0.013 0.09 0.19 0.75 0.94 6.97 40.73

Maximum 115.9 220.00 0.060 0.25 0.69 1.70 2.08 7.50 74.00

25th 74.8 na na na na na na 6.78 Na percentile

75th na 210.00 na 0.10 na na 1.33 7.13 60.55 percentile

80th na na 0.01 na 0.34 na na na Na percentile Notes (1) Included although no guideline, as TKN is used for TN calculations Abbreviations and details in the table are as presented in Table C.2. The site is within the Murray and western plains segment of SEPP (WoV). Parameters that exceeded the guidelines are in bold italics.

EPA Victoria 276 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Table C.5: Goulburn River at McCoy Bridge (VWQMN Site 405232)

(1) DO (% EC FRP TP NOx TKN TN pH Turbidity saturation) (uS/cm) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L (pH units) (NTU)

2002/2003

Average 101.0 180.00 0.006 0.08 0.11 0.57 0.66 6.93 31.96

Maximum 110.56 290.00 0.011 0.11 0.42 0.78 1.03 7.10 48.25

25th 99.8 na na na na na na 6.84 Na percentile

75th na 175.00 na 0.08 na na 0.74 7.00 34.49 percentile

80th na na 0.008 na 0.20 na na na Na percentile

2003/2004

Average 99.4 201.67 0.016 0.10 0.16 0.86 1.07 6.83 39.41

Maximum 106.13 280 0.075 0.21 0.63 1.68 2.30 7.00 57.25

25th 94.6 na na na na na na 6.74 Na percentile

75th na 222.5 na 0.13 na na 1.14 6.95 50.16 percentile

80th na na 0.024 na 0.35 na na na Na percentile Notes (1) Included although no guideline, as TKN is used for TN calculations Abbreviations and details in the table are as presented in Table C.2. The site is within the Murray and western plains segment of SEPP (WoV). Parameters that exceeded the guidelines are in bold italics

Environmental Audit 277 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Table C.6: Toxicants—Goulburn River at McCoy Bridge (VWQMN Site 405232)

Arsenic Cadmium Chromiu Copper Lead Nickel Zinc m

2002/2003

Average 0.001 nd 0.003 0.004 0.001 nd 0.023

Maximum 0.002 nd 0.010 0.005 0.010 nd 0.150

2003/2004

Average 0.002 nd 0.003 0.005 nd 0.002 0.010

Maximum 0.002 nd 0.010 0.008 nd 0.010 0.010 Notes All parameters are presented as mg/L. nd = not detected. Parameters that exceeded the guidelines are in bold italics

Table C.7: Overview of water quality indicator compliance (excluding toxicants)

Site Turbidit DO EC FRP TP NO TN pH x y

Year 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2

405200 ✖ ✖ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✖ ✖ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

405203 ✔ ✖ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✖ ✖ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

405204 ✖ ✖ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✔ ✖ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✖

405232 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✔ ✖ ✔ ✔ ✖ ✖

EPA Victoria 278 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Appendix D Qualitative Risk Assessment for Prioritisation of Recommendations In order to determine the level of importance to attach to the recommendations for each of the audit criteria, the recommendations were prioritised against the potential risk of harm to the environment if they were not to be implemented. A qualitative risk-scoring framework based on the Australian Standard for Risk Management (AS/NZS 4360-1999 Risk management) was developed. Potential risks to the environment are scored on a 1 to 5 scale on their likelihood and on a 1 to 5 scale for the severity of their potential impact on the environment. The risk of harm to the environment is the product of the severity and likelihood scores (Table D.1). The numeric risk score was then classified into 1 of 5 descriptive bands (Table D.2). The results of the risk scoring are shown in Table D.3. Table D.1: Risk scoring table

Severity Likelihood Very High High Medium Low Very Low 5 4 3 2 1 Very High 5 25 20 15 10 5 High 4 20 16 12 8 4 Medium 3 15 12 9 6 3 Low 2 10 8 6 4 2 Very Low 1 5 4 3 2 1

Table D.2: Descriptions of risk score categories. Legend, Extreme >=20, Very High >=15, High >=10, Moderate >=5, Low < 5

Severity Likelihood Very High High Medium Low Very Low 5 4 3 2 1 Very High 5 E E VH H M High 4 E VH H M L Medium 3 VH H M M L Low 2 H M M L L Very Low 1 M L L L L

Environmental Audit 279 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Table D.3: Risk of harm prioritisation and recommendations

Criteria Justification Recommendations Conformance Likelihood of Harm Severity of Harm Risk of Harm Rating 1 SEPP (WoV) environmental Limited VH L H Nutrient and dissolved oxygen Investigate the cause of the low dissolved water quality objectives and objectives were exceeded at a 5 2 10 oxygen in audit reach 1 between July 2002 indicators are being met for number of sites in each of the and June 2003. all beneficial uses to be last two financial years, Establish permanent water quality protected. indicating a “Very High” monitoring stations within audit reaches 2 likelihood of such exceedances and 3. occurring in any year. Address the potential environmental threats The measured exceedances were to the health of Lake Nagambie and the

not great hence the severity is Goulburn weir pool (audit reaches 2 and 3) marked as “Low”. The resultant which were identified in the expert panel’s risk of harm rating is scored as 2002 ecological review.

“High”. This is appropriate as Assess whether summer and late spring there is uncertainty about the releases from the Goulburn Weir’s vertical severity of potential ecological lift gates will increase downstream dissolved impacts if exceedances were oxygen levels and are technically feasible greater. for short-term periods. (Technical issues

Currently all beneficial uses include management of occupational health

EPA Victoria 280 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Criteria Justification Recommendations Conformance Likelihood of Harm Severity of Harm Risk of Harm Rating 1 under the SEPP (WoV) are and safety risks and accurate flow included. The risk of harm score monitoring.) If so, consider releases from

may be reduced if some the vertical lift gates when the dissolved beneficial uses are excluded in oxygen falls below agreed trigger levels to the future based on the reduce the risk of fish kills. Ecological Risk Assessment Clarify, through the RRHS, whether and proposed by the Goulburn- when the SEPP (WoV) water quality

Broken CMA. objectives will be met.

Establish stream management unit RCTs, through the RRHS, for all SEPP (WoV) water quality and biological environmental quality

objectives. If these are to be subject to an additional ecological risk assessment

process, establish and apply short-term targets until the ecological risk assessment

is completed.

Establish an integrated routine water quality monitoring evaluation and reporting program which can be used to determine

Environmental Audit 281 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Criteria Justification Recommendations Conformance Likelihood of Harm Severity of Harm Risk of Harm Rating 1 whether the endorsed RRHS and SEPP (WoV) Attainment Program targets are

being met. The program should:

build upon existing monitoring programs and include ambient water quality monitoring

allow for the determination of whether releases from Lake Eildon and Goulburn Weir pose environmental risks to beneficial uses

include monitoring for turbidity, nutrients, temperature, dissolved oxygen and any other pollutants considered necessary.

EPA Victoria 282 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Criteria Justification Recommendations Conformance Likelihood of Harm Severity of Harm Risk of Harm Rating 2 A framework is in place to develop Partially L L-M M Exclusion of some attainment Establish a SEPP (WoV) Attainment Program an Attainment Program for the 2 2.5 5 program requirements from the draft for the Goulburn River between Lake Eildon Goulburn River and that it has RRHS could lead to inappropriate and the Murray River including the Goulburn been used and appropriately compliance targets being set for some weir pool and Lake Nagambie. applied. activities and/or insufficient Identify and endorse the appropriate monitoring. There is a “Low” vehicle(s) for the Goulburn River SEPP likelihood that environmental harm (WoV) Attainment Program. This could be may ensue from such a situation. the RRHS or a separate attainment program The severity of possible harm is “Low” that is effectively linked to the RRHS. to “Moderate”, hence the risk of harm Recognise complementary regulatory rating is “Moderate” instruments, strategies and plans that are

required to meet relevant objectives of the

endorsed Attainment Program vehicle(s).

Avoid duplication of river health target setting processes, by ensuring there are transparent linkages between relevant natural resource strategies and plans and the SEPP (WoV) Attainment Program.

Environmental Audit 283 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Criteria Justification Recommendations Conformance Likelihood of Harm Severity of Harm Risk of Harm Rating 3 The Goulburn Broken CMA Partially L H M It is feasible that the exclusion of Document the linkages between the has worked with stakeholders social and economic values from 2 4 8 beneficial uses and the assets within the to develop a Government appropriate consideration from RRHS. approved RCS and plans, the RCS or the draft RRHS could Finalise the RRHS and develop a linked which identify the regional lead to lack of agreement on SEPP (WoV) Attainment Program after environmental, social and environmental targets. This could taking full account of the social and economic values of surface delay the implementation of economic needs as well as environmental waters and, after careful improvements to river health. risk aspects for all audit reaches. This consideration of The likelihood of potential harm should be achieved through extensive environmental, social and to the health of the Goulburn stakeholder engagement and by using economic needs, set river from this possibility is assessment tools such as Multi Criteria appropriate goals, priorities difficult to determine but given Assessment (utilising the outcomes of any and environmental targets for that environmental values are additional water quality-related ecological the catchment. identified in the draft RRHS, it is risk assessment). probably “Low”. The severity of delaying improvements to river health could be “High” since this could lead to a continuation of current management regimes

EPA Victoria 284 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Criteria Justification Recommendations Conformance Likelihood of Harm Severity of Harm Risk of Harm Rating under which significant fish kill events have occurred. The risk of harm rating is therefore “Moderate”

4 Consistency of the RCS and Partially M H H Should the audit recommendations Update the short-term RCTs and MATs for supporting plans with Regional for Criteria 4 not be implemented, audit reaches 1, 2 and 3 once clear Target Setting obligations under current management and operational management objectives are established and Clause 24 of the SEPP (WoV) arrangements for the river would review existing targets for audit reach 4. largely continue. Given the recent These targets should: past history of environmental harm to reflect the SEPP (WoV) Clause 24 the Goulburn River, the likelihood is requirements for regional target setting rated as “Medium” and the severity consider the ‘Secondary Contact “High” Recreational’, ‘Aquaculture’, and ‘Fish, Crustacea and Molluscs for Human Consumption’ beneficial uses as they relate to both native and exotic fish

be based upon a full evaluation of the environment, social and economic impacts

Environmental Audit 285 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Criteria Justification Recommendations Conformance Likelihood of Harm Severity of Harm Risk of Harm Rating 4 consider key threats to the assets (i.e. significant point source discharges)

include thermal water quality targets and fish recruitment and survival..

Revise the Goulburn Broken RCS to ensure that it adopts all RRHS and sub-strategies RCTs and MATs and that other river health targets are removed.

EPA Victoria 286 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Criteria Justification Recommendations Conformance Likelihood of Harm Severity of Harm Risk of Harm Rating 5 Compliance with obligations Partially M H H If the effectiveness of Complete the identification of EWR under Clause 41 of the SEPP environmental releases is not requirements for the Goulburn River. These (WoV) – Water Allocations established, then such releases requirements should be consistent with the and Environmental Flows – could be inadequate to meet RRHS aspirational targets, RCTs and MATs either by being met or being environmental goals. As there is along all stream management units in the process of being met. an appropriate release goal, the including the yet to be established likelihood of harm to the river management objectives for audit reaches 1, health is “Moderate”. The 2 and 3. severity of inadequate Finalise the development of tool(s) to environmental releases to river assess the effectiveness of environmental health is potentially “High” releases to Victorian streams. In developing the tool(s) consideration should be given to utilising the ISC, the RiVERS measures, and SEPP (WoV) water quality objectives as possible measures of the effectiveness. The national review of approaches to ecological responses to environmental flows monitoring being undertaken by the CRC for Freshwater Ecology should be considered in the development of the tool.

Environmental Audit 287 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Criteria Justification Recommendations Conformance Likelihood of Harm Severity of Harm Risk of Harm Rating 6 Compliance with obligations N/A VH H E There is no doubt that cold-water Determine G-MW obligations under its EMS for controlling water releases from Lake Eildon have to reduce the risk of temperature temperature, if any exist, in greatly impacted native fish fluctuations below Lake Eildon on flora, the Goulburn River below communities in the Goulburn fauna, loss of habitat and loss of amenity. Lake Eildon and above Lake River between Eildon and Consider closer integration of the Goulburn Nagambie. Goulburn Weir. If support of Eildon Fishery Management Plan with the native fish communities is to be RRHS to ensure that the RCT targets of considered a beneficial use in both strategies are consistent and are this section of river, then developed through the same stakeholder thermal water quality objectives consultation process. are required. In the development of long-term RRHS RCTs and MATs for audit reach 1 consider the social and economic, as well as the environmental, impacts of providing for warmer water releases from Lake Eildon and the inability to provide an optimal temperature regime for both native and exotic fish.

EPA Victoria 288 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Criteria Justification Recommendations Conformance Likelihood of Harm Severity of Harm Risk of Harm Rating 6 native fish communities is to be considered a beneficial use in this section of river. If not, then there is no significant risk.

Environmental Audit 289 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Criteria Justification Recommendations Conformance Likelihood of Harm Severity of Harm Risk of Harm Rating 7 Consistency of RCS and the Generally M VH VH The health of native fish Ensure that the RRHS process to monitor draft RHHS with overarching met populations is a key component 3 4 15 and audit native fish populations includes all river health strategies and of overall river health. Without a threatened fish species. The monitoring

plans; particularly objectives program to monitor the status of program should obtain sufficient data to and targets fish populations or appropriate assess whether the RRHS fish related management targets there is no aspirational targets, RCTs and MATs are

way of determining if being met. The program should be

management arrangements are implemented as soon as practicable. effective or not. The likelihood of Ensure that the RRHS aspirational targets, harm to fish populations if the RCTs and MATs for native and exotic fish recommendation is not are considered in the development of the implemented is probably the Goulburn River’s environmental water likelihood is rated as “Medium” reserve. The severity is potentially “Very Consider the viability of constructing a fish High” since slow population ladder at the Goulburn weir having regard declines could occur over a to the outcomes of the feasibility study. The number of years without being viability should be considered in detected. consultation with relevant stakeholders The risk of harm rating is including local angling committees. therefore “Very High”

EPA Victoria 290 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Criteria Justification Recommendations Conformance Likelihood of Harm Severity of Harm Risk of Harm Rating 7 therefore “Very High” Review the current management

arrangements for altering the level of the Goulburn weir pool and Lake Nagambie.

Obtain an improved understanding of ecological processes within the Nagambie Lakes system (audit reaches 3 and 4). This should be achieved by addressing the knowledge gaps identified in the 2002 assessment by the scientific expert panel.

8 Compliance with Generally M M M The likelihood of environmental Consider declaring a perimeter buffer Environmental Management met harm to the Goulburn weir pool if 3 3 9 around the Goulburn weir pool as ‘an Obligations Under the Water this recommendation is not environmental and recreational area’ under

Act. implemented is “Medium”. The s. 107 of the Water Act. This would provide potential severity is “Medium” a powerful mechanism to provide for since factors other than effective multiple use management

management of perimeter lands including the preservation of native flora

also exert a strong influence on and fauna and minimising the risk of the environmental condition of contaminated water entering Lake the Goulburn weir pool (e.g. Nagambie and the Goulburn weir pool.

Environmental Audit 291 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Criteria Justification Recommendations Conformance Likelihood of Harm Severity of Harm Risk of Harm Rating 8 weed management within the Nagambie and the Goulburn weir pool.

weir pool). Consider whether to place performance and

The risk of harm rating is reporting conditions on new drain therefore “Moderate” connections.

9 Compliance with Environment Generally H M H The recommendations all relate Respond to G-MW’s proposed program to Related Obligations under met to lack of clarity in reporting and 4 3 12 manage the environmental effects of G-MW Bulk Water Entitlements and administrative arrangements. works as required under Clause 15.1 of the

Water Supply Agreements The main risk of harm to the Bulk Entitlement (Eildon-Goulburn Weir) health of the Goulburn River Conversion Order or suggest an alternative seems likely to arise through a approach to meet these obligations. In

continuation of occasional doing so provide guidance to G-MW to

breaches of minimum passing assist the authority refine the Annual flow requirements or a possible Goulburn Basin Water accounts reports to increase in such breaches. The reflect all environmental reporting

likelihood of breaches occurring requirements under Cl. 15.1. in the event the Revise the Bulk Entitlement (Eildon- recommendations are not Goulburn Weir) Conversion Order to ensure implemented is “High” since such that the environmental obligations for breaches have occurred a few

EPA Victoria 292 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Criteria Justification Recommendations Conformance Likelihood of Harm Severity of Harm Risk of Harm Rating 9 breaches have occurred a few managing the environmental water reserve times over the last few years. are clear, transparent and auditable.

The severity of breaches could Clarify what constitutes a ‘significant’ be classed as “Low” since the breach of the Bulk Entitlement (Eildon- recent examples were only Goulburn Weir) Conversion Order. slightly below the compliance Continue to amend G-MW’s BE Order as the level. However, the scientific Environmental Water Reserve is established literature indicates that very low through the water savings program. The flow events in rivers have Environmental Water Reserve should be frequently been associated with consistent with the negotiated flow regime fish kills. If such events were to arising out of the completion of the RRHS’s occur the severity would be environmental flow program. “Very High”. Given these uncertainties, the severity has been rated as “Medium”. Therefore risk of harm rating is “High”

Environmental Audit 293 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Criteria Justification Recommendations Conformance Likelihood of Harm Severity of Harm Risk of Harm Rating 10 G-MW compliance with N/A No risk is necessary for this obligations under a State criterion

Government Operational Licence, if it exists, as it relates to the environmental health of the Goulburn River.

11 Identify whether key Generally NA NA NA NA Review processes for declaring noxious obligations relevant to the met riparian weeds and ensure adequate protection of endangered resources are available to respond to

species, river water quality emerging environmental and agricultural and the control of riparian weeds. land along the Goulburn River Complete FFG Action Statements for all under Acts of Parliament are threatened species and threatening

being met. processes that are relevant to the Goulburn River below Lake Eildon.

As Action Statements are completed review

and update the RRHS to ensure that it is consistent.

EPA Victoria 294 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Criteria Justification Recommendations Conformance Likelihood of Harm Severity of Harm Risk of Harm Rating 11 Ensure that all completed Action

Statements for threatened species and potentially threatening processes are readily available to the public.

Ensure that the RRHS RCTs are linked with and reflect threatened species and threatening processes Action Plans relevant to the Goulburn River.

12 Consistency of between NA NA NA NA NA Seek clarification as to the best way legislation, policies, and strategies

in regard to the health of the forward to resolve the likely inconsistency Goulburn River between the SEPP (WoV) Clause 41 ‘Water Allocations and Environmental Flows’ and Bulk Entitlement (Eildon-Goulburn Weir) Conversion Order 1995 as it relates to G- MW’s ability to implement measures to provide environmental flows.

Reform the Water Act as soon as practical

to allow for the effective implementation of

the Victorian Government’sWhitePaper

Environmental Audit 295 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Criteria Justification Recommendations Conformance Likelihood of Harm Severity of Harm Risk of Harm Rating 12 the Victorian Government’s White Paper ‘Our Water Our Future’, particularly the development of Environmental Water Reserves. In doing so consideration should be given to Phillip Fox’s (2005) ‘Recommendations for legislative implementation of the White Paper’s proposed reform’.

13 Consistency between Substan L L L Confusion over fish kill response Clarify the roles of and responsibilities of organisational roles and -tially arrangements could lead to a 2 2 L government agencies for protecting the responsibilities relevant to the situation where mitigating health of native and exotic fish populations. management of the health of measures are delayed and the Consider separating the Bulk Entitlement the Goulburn River. magnitude of the fish kill event is (Eildon-Goulburn Weir) Conservation Order exacerbated. If lessons from fish resource manager responsibilities from kill events are not taken up due operational responsibilities. to confusion over responsibilities,

then future fish kill events are more likely.

The recommendations for this

EPA Victoria 296 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Criteria Justification Recommendations Conformance Likelihood of Harm Severity of Harm Risk of Harm Rating 13 audit criterion (13) cover roles and responsibilities. These issues are taken up more extensively in audit criteria 14 where their non- implementation could pose a greater risk of harm.

The likelihood of harm from not implementing the recommendations is “Low” and the severity is “Low”. Therefore the risk of harm is “Low”

14 The occurrence of fish kills in Unknown M M M Confusion over fish kill response Develop a robust State-based fish kill the Goulburn River is arrangements could lead to a 3 3 9 response protocol that has the support of all increasing (14a) situation where mitigating agencies and builds upon the EPA’s Interim

measures are delayed and the The current response Fish Kill Protocol. Aspects of the Interim Partially magnitude of the fish kill event is arrangements for managing Fish Kill Protocol which would need further exacerbated. If lessons from fish development to create a robust State-based Goulburn River fish kill events kill events are not taken up due are adequate (14b) protocol are: to confusion over responsibilities,

Environmental Audit 297 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Criteria Justification Recommendations Conformance Likelihood of Harm Severity of Harm Risk of Harm Rating 14 to confusion over responsibilities, clearly identify agencies’ responsibilities then future fish kill events are specify the training requirements for more likely. relevant officers across all agencies

Although similar in subject specify mechanisms to review river

matter to the audit criterion 13, health information following a fish kill the recommendations here are specify a process to upgrade the fish kill more extensive therefore they knowledge base are accorded higher levels of

importance. specify sample location advice, and nutrient, metals, and biocide sampling The likelihood of harm from not and analysis needs implementing the specify a process for review, follow up recommendations is “Medium” of actions, and refinement of and the severity is “Medium”. management in order to reduce or Therefore the risk of harm is eliminate the likelihood of the incidence “Moderate”

and severity of future fish kills

specify that the EPA, as chair of debrief

sessions, should follow up after the debrief to facilitate and assist in the

EPA Victoria 298 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Criteria Justification Recommendations Conformance Likelihood of Harm Severity of Harm Risk of Harm Rating 14 implementation of recommendations arising out of the debrief

provide guidance on what possible

causal factors (i.e. beyond the water body and the immediate tributaries)

should be investigated in the reporting of the event. This should include

dominant surrounding land uses; particularly industries and farming practices with high chemical inputs and

use patterns, their proximity to

waterways and potential for spray drift and run-off water to be carried into those waterways. The consideration

should also include the cumulative impacts of multiple chemical uses in a

general area

specify central reporting requirements for fish deaths and greater notification

Environmental Audit 299 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Criteria Justification Recommendations Conformance Likelihood of Harm Severity of Harm Risk of Harm Rating 14 arrangements between relevant agencies where agricultural chemicals

are suspected

specify independent sampling and laboratory analysis, where practicable,

of water and biota with interagency consultation on the analytes to be

tested where agricultural chemicals are suspected

incorporate relevant elements of the DPI Fish Kill Emergency Management

Plan.

Refine the draft Interim Framework for a Multi Agency Response to Incidents in Waterways in the Goulburn Broken

Catchment to ensure that it reflects the

state based protocols. (This could be a regionally based model for other CMA regions within the State )

EPA Victoria 300 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Criteria Justification Recommendations Conformance Likelihood of Harm Severity of Harm Risk of Harm Rating 14 regions within the State.)

Refine the current agency-based protocols to ensure they reflect the state-based

protocols and:

incorporate advice on where to take samples in and below storages

extend the water quality analysis to nutrients, metals and biocides when these are considered to be indicators of the likely cause of the fish kill event

include directions on appropriate collection of samples and specimens for subsequent pathology testing

clarify who pays for the fish kill response (where possible this should be based upon the polluter pays principle).

Environmental Audit 301 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Criteria Justification Recommendations Conformance Likelihood of Harm Severity of Harm Risk of Harm Rating 15 Conformance with the Substan L M- M Lack of appropriate storage and Revise G-MW’s Herbicide Operating biocides management -tially H transport guidelines and 2 7 Instructions Manual to include procedures obligations under Clause 37 of procedures could increase the 3.5 for the transport of biocides. the SEPP (WoV) risk of a biocide spill. The Review internal arrangements for providing likelihood that environmental advice to stakeholders on the use of harm could arise from non- herbicides near water bodies. implementation of the recommendations for this audit Distribute and promote the Victorian management guidelines for the use of criterion is considered “Low”. The herbicides on riparian land to all relevant potential severity of stakeholders as soon as they become environmental harm is “Medium available. to High” depending on the volume spilt and the amount of Promote information exchange between

dilution possible in receiving agencies on agricultural chemicals and the

waters. The risk of harm is potential environmental impacts. This could therefore “Moderate” then lead to reducing the risk to the environment and a greater understanding of the type of analysis required in the event of any fish deaths where agricultural chemicals are suspected.

EPA Victoria 302 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Criteria Justification Recommendations Conformance Likelihood of Harm Severity of Harm Risk of Harm Rating 16 Conformance with the Generally L-M L-M M The recommendations for this Ensure the training program for G-MW’s Agricultural and Veterinary met criterion relate to tightening G- 2.5 2.5 6.2 Aquatic Plant Service licensed officers Chemicals (Control of Use) MWs management and use of 5 explicitly and clearly documents APVMA off-

Act as it relates to herbicide biocides to avoid types of use label reporting requirements. application rates in G-MW that could cause environmental Conduct independent audits of G-MW’s use channels and drains. harm. The likelihood that harm of herbicides in channels, drains and other to the environment could as waters, in particular acrolein (Magnacide H) result of the non-implementation and chemicals used under APVMA off-label of these guidelines is considered permits. to be “Low to Medium”. The Obtain independent advice to determine severity of possible harm is also whether approval is required for the considered to “Low to Medium” existing channel and drain spraying under since the recommendations

the EPBC Act. Approval is required for an relate to relatively small action that has, will have, or is likely to improvements in existing have a significant impact upon matters of management rather than large national significance. changes. The risk of harm is

therefore classed as “Moderate” Continue the current practice of spraying irrigation channel and drain beds only and idbi ith ibl

Environmental Audit 303 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Criteria Justification Recommendations Conformance Likelihood of Harm Severity of Harm Risk of Harm Rating 16 on an as-required basis with possible changes to the dosage rates to suppress

rather than kill weeds

Recalculate residual herbicide concentration estimates in channels and drains to account for peak concentrations and biodegradation processes and to include 2,4-D amine as well as amitrole and glyphosate. This should also include the determination of proportion of the herbicide that ends up at the drain outlet as run-off. These calculations should be verified with in situ measurements. If ANZECC (2000) criteria are exceeded or likely to be exceeded, a contingency plan should be implemented. (If not already in place the contingency plan should be developed as a matter of urgency.)

EPA Victoria 304 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Criteria Justification Recommendations Conformance Likelihood of Harm Severity of Harm Risk of Harm Rating 17 Conformance with Clause 51 Partially H H VH These recommendations cover Determine whether improved drain (2) of the SEPP (WoV) - the issue of contamination of 4 4 16 management practices have been applied to Irrigation Channels and surface waters. Their non- the Rodney Main Drain and Shepparton

Drains implementation could increase Drain 3. These include spraying and the risk of contamination of desilting on the drain bed only. surface waters going undetected. Conduct annual reporting of drain outfall The likelihood of environmental nutrient loads as total loads and loads/km

harm arising in such a (and/or load/ha) of drain. This will assist in circumstance is “High” and the determining whether the WQS total

severity is “High” because the phosphorus reduction target can be issue involves a large area. The achieved while the drain network is

risk of harm to the environment expanding.

is therefore rated as “Very High” Develop a co-ordinated and prioritised

monitoring program for pathogens, biocides, metals, and biological indicators in

drainage water and sediments. This should build upon the outcomes and

recommendations of risk assessments, including the first tier assessment of

Environmental Audit 305 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Criteria Justification Recommendations Conformance Likelihood of Harm Severity of Harm Risk of Harm Rating 17 biocides, and previous reports of non- routine drain monitoring conducted over the

past five years. Consideration should be given to the sampling and analysis of the herbicides used by G-MW to control weeds in channels and drains as well as

insecticides and fungicides. This task is generally consistent with the IDMoU

Implementation Action Item 6b—‘Setting of Monitoring Requirements using Initial Rapid

Decision Support System’.

Assess the implications and risks to river heath of non-compliance of drain pathogen concentrations against the EPA (1996)

Guidelines for Wastewater Reuse (Publication No. 464) and the ANZECC

(2000) Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water

Quality.

EPA Victoria 306 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Criteria Justification Recommendations Conformance Likelihood of Harm Severity of Harm Risk of Harm Rating 17 Improve the IDMoU audit system by

clarifying the trigger for undertaking a Special Catchment Analysis.

Extend the first tier assessment of the risks associated with pesticides used in Goulburn- Murray irrigation areas to include an assessment of the risk to beneficial uses associated with herbicide spraying of drains and channel outfalls.

18 Conformance with the Partially VL H L Non-implementation of this Revise the Implementation Work Program Irrigation Drainage recommendation could delay to complete the general issues and short- 1 4 4 term initial rapid response processes by Memorandum of effective management of October 2005.

Understanding irrigation drainage lead to Encourage DPI to become a signatory to the Implementation Work increased risk of harm to the IDMoU as it has responsibilities under Program. environment. As the Clause 51(1) of the SEPP (WoV) to work

recommendation relates only to with agencies to minimise pollutants a speeding up of the process the entering irrigation drains and, as a service

likelihood of harm is rated as provider, it has farm extension and “Very Low”. The severity of research commitments in drained irrigation

Environmental Audit 307 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE GOULBURN RIVER – LAKE EILDON TO THE MURRAY RIVER

Criteria Justification Recommendations Conformance Likelihood of Harm Severity of Harm Risk of Harm Rating 18 potential environmental harm is catchments and is responsible for the “High” since irrigation drainage implementation of privately owned regional

waters are generally of poor surface water management systems quality and their impact affects identified under regional Lands and Water extensive reaches of the Management Plans. Goulburn River. Therefore the risk of harm is “Low”

Criterion 18 – Irrigation Drainage Memorandum of Understanding.

EPA Victoria 308