UpperUpper NorthNorth EastEast WaterWater QualityQuality StrategyStrategy Upper North East Upper North Water Quality Strategy -An East Regional Catchment StrategyAction Plan within the North

AnAn ActionAction PlanPlan withinwithin thethe NorthNorth EastEast RegionalRegional CatchmentCatchment StrategyStrategy FebruaryFebruary 20012001

NATIONAL LANDCARE PROGRAM NATIONAL LANDCARE PROGRAM

© Department of Natural Resources & Environment, 1999

ISBN 0 7311 4326 4

Published by Department of Natural Resources & Environment, Wodonga (02) 6055 6166 Printed by Prominent Press, Shepparton

General Disclaimer: This publication may be of assistance to you but the State of Victoria and its employees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore disclaims all liability for an error, loss or other consequence which may arise from you relying on any information in this publication.

Specific reference to funding levels in this plan are for indicative purpose only. The level of Government investment in this plan is contingent on budgets and Government priorities. CHAPTER 1. THE STRATEGY AREA

Protecting and enhancing water quality in the Kiewa and One-third of the Basin, principally the steeper hills, remains Upper Murray Basins is critical for the following reasons. covered with native vegetation.

• They contribute 24% of the total discharge to the Extensive agricultural development has occurred on the Murray-Darling Basin System. Kiewa River floodplains - some of the most productive • The uses made of the water resources, both within land in Victoria. Grazing and dairying are the prominent and downstream of the catchment, include: activities, with intensive dairying in the main valley. Some - potable water supply tobacco is grown, predominantly on the floodplain around - agricultural water supply (stock, domestic, and Mt Beauty. irrigation) - environmental flows Tourism is another important industry, with Falls Creek ski - recreation (boating, fishing, skiing, swimming fields providing a major winter tourist attraction. and sight-seeing) - scientific research and education Wodonga is the Kiewa Basin’s largest town with a - waste disposal population of 30 730, followed by Yackandandah, Mount Beauty, Kiewa/Tangambalanga, and Falls Creek. The Upper North East Water Quality Strategy applies to two basins. Average annual rainfall of about 710 mm gradually increases • Kiewa River Basin is the third smallest Victorian Basin, from the north of the catchment to the south with covers 200 000 ha or 0.9% of Victoria. Its mean annual increasing elevation. Snow falls regularly in winter above discharge is 705 000 ML. 1000 m. Generally summer is the driest season, receiving • The Victorian portion of the Upper Murray Basin half of the winter rainfall. Almost one-quarter of the Basin (which includes the Mitta Mitta River) covers has an elevation greater than 900 m and this area produces 1 000 000 ha or 4.5% of Victoria. The mean annual as much as 52% of the Basin yield. discharge of the whole Victorian and New South Wales Basin is 3 920 000 ML. Rocky Valley Reservoir, located in the alpine area, is the only major storage in the Basin. It has a capacity of 28 400 ML, KIEWA RIVER BASIN and forms the basis of the Kiewa Hydroelectric Scheme The Basin is approximately 100 km long and is never more operated by Southern Hydro Partnership. There are three than 32 km wide, extending from the Bogong High Plains power stations, two on the east branch of the Kiewa River northward to the Murray River. It also includes a small and one on the west branch. Water from the power station catchment draining to the Murray River (below Lake Hume, is also stored at an off-river storage pond in Mt Beauty for to the north of Barnawartha). regulated release into the Kiewa River.

The Basin contains three Special Water Supply Catchment Areas (formally known as Proclaimed Water Supply Catchments). • The Upper Kiewa River catchment (409 square kilometres) was declared for the protection of the water supply for hydroelectric power generation. • The Upper Kiewa (East Kiewa U2) (17 sq. km) was declared for the protection of the water supply for hydroelectric power generation and town water. A special area plan (formerly known as a land use determination) specifies how particular land management issues are to be addressed in this area. • The Nine-Mile, Clear and Hurdle Creeks (63 sq. km) were declared for the protection of water supply for Beechworth and Yackandandah townships.

The Kiewa River floodplain is some of the most productive land in Victoria (photo courtesy of R. Clutterbuck NRE)

Upper North East Water Quality Strategy 1 UPPER MURRAY BASIN Lake Hume on the Murray has a capacity of 3 038 000 ML. Most of the Basin is mountainous, rising to over 1980 m. Although its catchment covers only 2% of the total Murray Rivers in the Basin are divided into two systems: the Mitta Basin, water released from it accounts for more than 25% Mitta River, drains more than half the Basin; the smaller of the average Murray flow. The operation of Lake Hume catchment to the north and east has short watercourses strongly influences flow and flooding patterns in the Murray draining directly to the Murray. Annual rainfall is high, River downstream. averaging more than 1 000 mm, while Mount Bogong averages 2 400 mm annually. Lake Dartmouth has a storage capacity of 4 000 000 ML, ten times the mean annual flow of the Mitta Mitta River it Snow falls over the whole of the area but only rarely in the impounds. It acts as carry over storage for drought security, low country in the north west. supplementing Lake Hume. The dam incorporates a hydroelectric power station, operated by Southern Hydro Most of the Basin (80%) carries native forest, including one Partnership, through which high-level offtake releases are of Victoria’s major hardwood production areas (North East passed. Regional Landcare Plan, 1993). The remaining 20% has been cleared and replaced with pasture. Cleared agricultural The upper Mitta Mitta River has Heritage River classification, areas include the lower river valleys of the Mitta Mitta River, which extends from Big River Bridge at Glen Valley, below Tallangatta, Cudgewa, Thowgla, and Corryong Creeks, the junction of the Big River and Glen Wills Creek, to Lake Bethanga, Granya, Walwa, Talgarno, Georges Creek and Dartmouth. This classification recognises a range of special around Omeo. Cattle graze the High Plains over summer. values including natural, cultural heritage, scenic landscape The principal forms of land use are water production, and recreation values. forestry (hardwood and softwood), sheep and cattle Table 1. Land use in the Kiewa and Upper Murray grazing, dairying and tourism. Catchments

The largest town is Corryong, with a population of around Land use Area 1200, followed by 950 at Tallangatta. (ha) (%) The Basin contains two special water supply catchment areas. State forest and parks 743 544 62 • The Victorian portion of Lake Hume (10 062 sq. km) Agriculture 370 962 31 was declared for the protection of irrigation. Rural residential/urban 11 882 1 • Lake Hume (Northern Section) (6902 sq. km) was Softwood 26 704 2 declared for the protection of town water supply and Dams 20 715 2 irrigation. Other 24 130 2 These proclamations highlight the importance of the Total 1 197 937 100 catchment as a major water supplier downstream.

Two of Victoria’s largest water storages, controlled by the Murray Darling Basin Commission, are located within the Basin.

Lake Hume on the Murray River is managed for irrigation supply.

2 Upper North East Water Quality Strategy Map 2. Land use in the Kiewa & Upper Murray Catchments

Upper North East Water Quality Strategy 3 CHAPTER 2. WHY WE NEED A WATER QUALITY STRATEGY

The Kiewa and Upper Murray Basins supply water for use Algal Management Strategy for the Murray Dar- downstream in Victoria, New South Wales and South ling Basin, 1994 Australia. The development and implementation of a Water • developed by the Murray Darling Basin Commission Quality Strategy is critical to ensure the quality of this supply • its goal is to reduce the frequency and intensity of algal is maintained and, where possible, enhanced. blooms and other water quality problems associated with nutrient pollution in the Basin We also need this Strategy for a number of other important The Kiewa and Upper Murray catchments were identified as reasons. catchments that require nutrient management plans to be developed and implemented. TO MEET THE OBLIGATIONS OF NATIONAL, STATE AND REGIONAL STRATEGIES, POLICIES National Water Quality Management Strategy, 1995 AND INITIATIVES • prepared by the Australian and New Zealand The Upper North East Water Quality Strategy is Environment and Conservation Council and the complementary to, and consistent with, a number of Agriculture and Resource Management Council of objectives specified in federal, State and local strategies and Australia and New Zealand policies. These have a common theme, which is to protect • aims at pursuing the sustainable use of the nation’s water and enhance water quality. resources by protecting and enhancing their quality while maintaining economic and social development State Environment Protection Policy -Waters of The Strategy recommended preparation of catchment- Victoria (SEPP WoV) 1988 based water quality management plans. • declared under the Environment Protection Act 1970 • policy goal is to attain and maintain levels of water Victorian Nutrient Management Strategy, 1995 quality that are sufficient to protect the beneficial uses of • developed by the Victorian State government the surface waters of the policy area • its aim is to provide a policy-planning framework to • policy applies to private individuals and government assist local communities and the State government to agencies conducting activities on public and private land manage nutrient levels in water bodies to minimise the • all State government departments, agencies and potential for development of algal blooms, particularly instrumentalities implement this policy as far as it relates blue-green algae to their powers, duties and responsibilities. This policy is This framework was used in the preparation of this currently being reviewed. Strategy.

Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 Victoria’s North East Regional Catchment Strategy, 1997 Biodiversity - Directions in Management 1997 The Upper North East Water Quality Strategy is a Policies are: component of the North East Regional Catchment Strategy • to maintain and where possible enhance or restore, (NERCS). species diversity, population structure and community • prepared by the former North East Regional Catchment assemblages of aquatic biota and associated wildlife and Land Protection Board (NERC&LPB), community, • to maintain and where possible improve aquatic habitat local and State governments and river management river structure and waters quality through the provision authorities of an adequate environmental flow regime • a key aim is to maintain the region as a major source of • to maintain and where possible restore indigenious high quality water in the Murray Darling Basin by riparian vegetation along banks and frontages of the ensuring optimal water quality and quantity river and tributaries. The North East Region of Victoria is the source of 38% of Murray Darling Basin Commission Water Quality the water in the Murray Darling Basin. Policy, 1990 • aims at improving existing water quality in rivers of the To achieve the key aim above a Water Quality and Waterway Murray Darling Basin for all beneficial uses - agricultural, Management Program was developed to address priority environmental, urban, industrial and recreational - where issues such as turbidity, stream erosion and eutrophication. nutrients are causing a problem The program included the recommendation that water

4 Upper North East Water Quality Strategy quality strategies for the Ovens, Kiewa and Upper Murray Nutrient concentrations deteriorate in the lower Basins be developed and implemented. catchments Average nitrogen concentrations in the Basins are low In 1995 the Department of Natural Resources and although deteriorate to moderate in the lower catchment. Environment (DNRE) successfully obtained National Landcare Program funding to develop the Upper North Average phosphorus concentrations in the upper Kiewa and East Water Quality Strategy, for the Kiewa and Upper Upper Murray Basins are low, but again deteriorate in the Murray Basins. lower catchment.

The North East Catchment Management Authority replaced Water quality trends highlight future problems the NERC&LPB and is now responsible for implementing Trend analysis of water quality data at monitoring stations the Regional Catchment, the Upper North East Water indicates the following. Quality and the Ovens Basin Water Quality Strategies. • A long-term trend of increasing stream acidity applies throughout the catchments. This may be related to the Draft North East Salinity Strategy, 1998 trend of increasing soil acidity in the catchment. • produced by the North East Salinity Working Group • Overall turbidity is increasing at all monitored sites. (NESWG), comprising local Landcare groups and • Total nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations are agency staff increasing over time in some areas. • sets the framework for future management and on- ground actions to address salinity and related issues in the TO ENSURE THE KIEWA AND UPPER MURRAY North East Region BASINS HAVE MINIMAL NEGATIVE IMPACT ON Soil Health Action Plan, (in preparation) THE MURRAY RIVER SYSTEM Currently a Soil Health Action Plan is being developed. The Surface water in the Kiewa and Upper Murray catchments is correct management of soil health issues will lead to an a critical resource. More than 95% of the water diverted improvement in water quality. The Soil Health Action Plan from the rivers of the Murray Darling system is used for will address issues like soil acidity, erosion management, soil irrigation. Irrigated agriculture is thought to be worth $5.21 structure decline and soil salinity issues thus complementing billion to the Australian economy (Crabb 1997). works proposed for water quality. Collectively both the water quality and soil health action plan address soil and Nutrient loads water on a catchment basis acknowledging the two issues The Kiewa Basin and the Victorian portion of the Upper are inherently linked. Murray Basin contribute 6% and 24% respectively of the average total flows of the entire Murray Darling Basin, from TO ENSURE WATER QUALITY IS MAINTAINED/ catchment areas of 0.19% and 2% of the total Basin (Crabb IMPROVED WITHIN THE KIEWA AND UPPER 1997). MURRAY BASINS Corresponding proportions of the total nutrient loads come Assessment of water quality in the Kiewa and Upper from the Upper North East. These loads may influence the Murray Basins has demonstrated that it is generally quite frequency of blue-green algal blooms in the Murray River. good compared with that in other State river basins. However, we should not become complacent about Sediment loads protecting water quality. This catchment community has Despite its small catchment area, the Kiewa contributes a a special opportunity to be proactive about protecting large volume of sediment and has a large impact on and enhancing water quality, not only for the region but turbidity in the Murray River. It is the third greatest also for downstream users. contributor of suspended sediment per hectare of catchment area among the six Victorian tributaries of the Several issues indicate that water quality would deteriorate Murray (Post et al. 1995). over time if a water quality strategy were not implemented. The Upper Murray has less impact on sediment in the Occurrence of blue-green algal blooms Murray downstream, as Lake Hume acts as a sediment sink. Blue-green algal blooms are a key indicator of poor water quality. Over the last few years increasing numbers of such Protection of Fish Species blooms have been reported throughout the Kiewa and The North East region is very important with respect to the Upper Murray catchments. Algal blooms in Lake Hume, Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 listed species various water service basins and other water bodies have Macquarie perch and Murray Cod. already caused social, environmental and economic problems, not only for the local communities, but for those also reliant on clean water downstream. Refer to Table 2 for locations of recorded blooms in the Upper North East.

Upper North East Water Quality Strategy 5 Map 3. Location of algal blooms & potable water supply offtakes in the Upper North East Region

6 Upper North East Water Quality Strategy Map 4. Comparison of nutrient concentration data from Victorian Water Quality Monitoring Network and Office of the Commissioner for the Environment, Victoria.

Upper North East Water Quality Strategy 7 CHAPTER 3. WATER QUALITY IN THE CATCHMENTS

Lanigan (1998) prepared a comprehensive review of water high numbers means alternative water supplies need to be quality monitoring data. It provided a summary of the made available. Treatment of algae or the provision of water quality status at each monitoring site, compared the alternative supplies can cause considerable cost to the data with various federal and State guidelines, highlighted community and the local water authority. significant trends and made estimates of the nutrient loads and sources. Below is a summary of some data from the Several types of toxins are produced by blue-green algae. above report. Microcystis and Anabaena species produce hepatotoxins, which can cause liver damage in humans and other animals. BLUE-GREEN ALGAE Anabaena can also generate neurotoxins, which have the What are algae? potential to cause muscular paralysis and respiratory distress Algae are single- or multi-celled aquatic organisms that in humans. possess chlorophyll (the green pigment in plants that enables photosynthesis to occur). They can be free-floating or The algae produce endotoxins, too. These are not toxic by attached to a substrate. Algal bloom is the term given when ingestion but can cause skin rashes and gastroenteritis, algal cell numbers have increased to such an extent that they following direct contact when, for example swimming or are a nuisance. washing.

Blue-green algae Blue-green algae have caused the deaths of agricultural Although many forms of algae exist, blue-green algae or livestock, wild animals, waterfowl and fish, and severe ‘Cyanobacteria’ cause particular concern. They are a natural illnesses in humans. component of most water environments and have adaptations that allow them to dominate a water body What causes blooms? under certain conditions. Many of their species are toxic. Blue-green algal cells are present in most water bodies; however, they need certain conditions to rapidly multiply Several toxic blue-green algal blooms have been recorded in causing nuisance blooms. Influencing factors include: the catchments. These records undoubtedly underestimate • availability of nutrients the total number of blooms, as many would have gone • low flow rates undetected and/or unrecorded. • oxygen reduction at depth leading to nutrient release from sediments Why are they a problem? • high light availability When present in water, blue-green algae restrict the beneficial • high water temperatures uses that can be made of that water. They can discolour it and cause foul odours and tastes, and a number of species Cost of algal blooms are toxic to animals, including humans. Their presence in The Water Quality Working Group (WQWG) identified the following water bodies with a high toxic blue-green algal bloom risk: • Lake Hume and the Murray River downstream • Lake Dartmouth and the Mitta Mitta River downstream • Kiewa headwater storages and the Kiewa River downstream • Cudgewa town water supply and • Lake Omeo (in years when it holds water)

For each of the above sites Read et al. (1998), estimated the frequency of blue-green algal blooms over the next 30 years without a nutrient management Strategy (refer to Table 22).

The impacts of toxic blue-green algal blooms were Microcystis bloom in a lagoon at Wodonga determined for the high-risk sites by multiplying the costs

8 Upper North East Water Quality Strategy associated with a bloom occurring at the site by the Murray catchments frequency of blooms expected over the next 30 years. • amenity for residents of foreshore properties at Lake Hume Impacts included restrictions on use for all those who enjoy values associated with the water bodies and waterways in the Upper North East Region, particularly: • those visiting water bodies and waterways for recreation • farmers relying on stock water • users of domestic water • industrial users of water • urban users of water • irrigators

The quantified economic impacts were dominated by the costs associated with: • tourism associated with Lake Hume Wodonga township could see restrictions on water use if a toxic blue-green • urban water supplies to Tallangatta and Mt Beauty algal bloom occurred in Wodonga Creek (photo courtesy of R. • domestic and stock supplies in the Kiewa and Upper Clutterbuck NRE)

Table 2. Locations of recorded algal blooms in the Upper North East Basin Location of bloom Organisms Date of bloom Upper Murray Mt Tabor Creek Reservoir, Dartmouth Anabaena inequalis Jan 1992, Feb Microcystis 1993, Jan 1995, 1996, 1997 Upper Murray Lake Hume Mitta Mitta arm near Anabaena Feb 96 Tallangata Upper Murray Lake Hume Sandy Inlet, weir wall, Microcystis Dec 1993, 1994, Ebden 1995, 1996 Upper Murray Lake Dartmouth Microcystis Nov-Dec 1993, Jan -Feb 1994 Upper Murray Bellbridge water offtake Microcystis 1996, 1997 Upper Murray Cudgewa town service basin Anabaena 1997 Upper Murray Murray River arm of Lake Hume no data supplied Kiewa West Kiewa River service basin no data supplied Kiewa Junction dam Planktothrix Jan 1998 Kiewa Kiewa Tangambalanga town service Closterium 1995 basin Kiewa Final lagoons at two Wodonga STPs Microcystis oscillatoria May 1992 & M. merismopedia Murray Murray River Albury Anabaena May 1981, Jan 1983, March 1990 Murray Murray River Heywood’s Bridge Anabaena 1980, 1982 Private farm dams Microcystis 1998

Both Microcystis and Anabaena blooms have been recorded in the Basins. Note that, with the exception of the blue-green algal blooms in the Murray River, all blooms have occurred within storages. These blooms usually occur during the summer to autumn period.

Note: The figures quoted here were derived from the Department of Natural Resources & Environment algal bloom data base, commissioned in 1990. Prior to 1990, various departments kept information in an ad hoc fashion. These figures undoubtedly underestimate the number of blooms, as the data base relies on blooms being reported to the Department. It is likely more blooms have occurred and have gone unreported.

Upper North East Water Quality Strategy 9 Impacts of toxic blue-green algal blooms within the Upper NUTRIENTS North East Region involve $1.4 to $2.4 million per year. Availability of nutrients within the catchments Impacts downstream in the Murray River attributed to the The supply of nutrients to a water body is known as the Upper North East nutrient contribution, are between $3.8 nutrient loading. It is the factor most closely linked to the to $7.4 million per year (Read et al. 1998). Therefore the development of algal blooms. Two nutrients - phosphorus cost of algal blooms over 30 years could be between $42 and nitrogen are considered to be of major importance. and $72 million (This figure assumes present conditions in an average season without nutrient management strategy. It is Phosphorus is thought to be the key nutrient in the discounted at 8% over 30 years.) development of blooms once these are in existence (MDBC 1993). The (discounted) cost of implementing the Strategy is $56 million over 30 years and the quantified resultant benefits are What is phosphorus? estimated to be between $47 and $88 million. (This figure is Phosphorus is a naturally occurring element essential to life. based on an 84% reduction in the number of blooms.) It is derived from weathering of bedrock and soils, and the parent rock influences its concentration in those soils. The Downstream economic impacts are even greater. It has element occurs in various forms, which are cycled through been estimated that nutrients exported from the Upper the environment. North East Region would give rise to about 31% of the impacts of toxic blue-green algal blooms along the Murray What is nitrogen? River between Lake Hume and South Australia (Read et al. Nitrogen is also a naturally occurring element essential to life. 1998). Different forms of it occur.

The share attributed to the Upper North East Region is Some blue-green algal species have the ability to fix particularly high, since a large portion of the impacts occurs atmospheric nitrogen, and can bloom when other forms are between Lake Hume and the Goulburn River. The costs unavailable. associated with those impacts attributable to nutrient loads from this Region would involve a quantified cost of How do nutrients get into the water? approximately $4 to $7 million per year (discounted at 8% Nutrients enter the water from a variety of land uses and over 30 years). (This is not to suggest that impacts of this activities. order would presently occur each and every year. A likely scenario, given the dynamics of algal blooms, is that impacts Both nitrogen and phosphorus would be generated within would be minimal in some years (for example, those where the catchment under natural conditions. prevailing temperature and rainfall are not conducive to algal blooms), but much greater than $5 to $10 million in Three types of sources are conventionally recognised: point, disastrous years.) diffuse and internal loading sources. Point sources are discrete discharges, usually from a specific location, into a Only about one-quarter of the impacts from nutrient run- watercourse. They include municipal sewage treatment off within the Upper North East Region would accrue to plants, urban stormwater drainage, dairy sheds and septic the Region, and the remainder would go to downstream tank systems. users of the Murray River. Nutrients from diffuse sources such as run-off from Total costs of blue-green algal blooms within the Upper agricultural and forested areas are harder to quantify, as they North East and downstream in the Murray River have been may be exported with sediment at different rates across a estimated to be between $5 and $10 million per year. catchment. Unlike point sources, diffuse sources do not enter watercourses at discrete points.

In wet years diffuse sources typically contribute 2 - 3 times more nutrients to surface water than point sources (Gutteridge, Haskins & Davey 1992).

Diffuse sources commonly contribute elevated nutrient loads during wet years, as phosphorus is bound to soil particles and its movement is associated with the movement of soil. In dry years when overland run-off is limited, point sources become the predominant source of nutrients.

Urban stormwater drainage is a point source of nutrients and sediment Diffuse sources contribute to the internal nutrient loading in the bottom sediments of rivers and lakes. Internal loading is

10 Upper North East Water Quality Strategy the stored nutrients attached to bottom sediments in water Although it is clear that the Strategy should focus on diffuse bodies. While these nutrients are not freely available all the sources, management is difficult because of the uncontrolled time, they become so under certain conditions – e.g., when nature of the run-off. However, the Strategy outlines long- an increase in pH and temperature combines with a decrease term management practices that will be implemented over a in dissolved oxygen (Government of Victoria 1996a). 30-year time frame.

Successfully managing algal blooms relies on strategically Figure 1. Estimated percentage total phosphorus loads addressing their causes. Blooms occur because of the exported from various point and diffuse sources within presence of sufficient nutrients and other factors the Upper North East Region conducive to algal growth. This Strategy will focus on major sources that contribute to nutrient enrichment of Urban Other waters. 2% Softwood 4% Sewage 1% Catchment nutrient sources Treatment The Catchment Management Support System (CMSS) is a Plants computer modelling program developed by the former 12% CSIRO Division of Water Resources, the Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation and Sydney Water. The model was used to assist the working groups quantify the current catchment nutrient sources and assess the likely impacts of changes on those land uses as a result of altered land management practices and land use changes. Forest/Parks Agriculture Detailed information on the CMSS process and all the 28% 53% assumptions made by the working groups can be found in the DLWC (1998) report. See page 3 for landuse areas (hectares)

The WQWG chose to use CMSS to aid the development of Figure 2. Estimated percentage total nitrogen loads this Strategy using it to: exported from various point and diffuse sources within • estimate nutrient loads exported from various diffuse the Upper North East Region and point sources • identify nutrient ‘hotspots’ Other • aid the assessment of the nutrient reduction and cost Urban 1% Softwood efficiency of various management options 3% Sewage 1% Treatment NECMA will also use it to assist with the implementation Plants phase of the Strategy in the future. 3%

The estimated total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) that each land use contributes to surface waters within the Kiewa and Upper Murray Basins are summarised in Figures 1 and 2.

It is estimated that point sources contribute 2% of the TN and 13% of the TP loads exported from the Kiewa and Forest/Parks

Upper Murray catchments. 29% Agriculture 63% Diffuse sources are estimated to contribute 98% of the TN and 87% of the TP loads exported from the Kiewa and The main TP sources include agriculture, State forest and Upper Murray catchments. parks and sewage treatment plants. The main TN sources include agriculture, State forest and parks. Stream bank Phosphorus from diffuse sources has differing erosion in agricultural land is known to be a major source bioavailability. Sewage phosphorus is thought to be 90% of nutrient and sediment loads, particularly during flood available, while phosphorus from other sources is less events. It was not possible to seperate out the in-stream available, as it binds to the sediments and drops out of the loads from each landuse. water column very quickly (MDBC 1993).

Upper North East Water Quality Strategy 11 Therefore, the nutrient load from stream bank erosion is Table 3. Comparison of modelled CMSS and mean included in the loads of parks, forest, agriculture and MBDC loads at Bandiana & Tallandoon softwood landuses in Figures 1 and 2. Stream erosion is Bandiana Tallandoon considered to be part of the contribution from landuses CMSS TP (t/yr) 41 48 through which the streams pass. The following explains several terms that will be used throughout the Strategy. MDBC TP (t/yr) 47 28 CMSS TN (t/yr) 364 438 Nutrient concentration MDBC TKN (t/yr) 317 235 This measure of the amount of nutrient in a given volume of water is usually expressed in mg/L, which means the It was not possible to compare most of the MDBC TN number of milligrams of a nutrient in one litre of water. and TP loads with CMSS loads because all the reported Murray River loads are influenced by New South Wales and Nutrient concentrations are important when determining the Snowy River contributions. CMSS was used only to likelihood of an algal bloom occurring at a particular place calculate the Victorian contribution at each monitoring site. and time. Concentrations are often highest during low flow At Bandiana the TP load comparison between the model (less dilution); however, loads are highest when flows are and actual MDBC data is quite similar. Note that the model highest, such as during flooding or storage releases. nitrogen figures are total nitrogen and the MDBC figure is total kjeldahl nitrogen only. Therefore if nitrogen salts were Nutrient load added in, the load would be slightly higher. Multiplying the nutrient concentration by the flow of water gives nutrient load. For example a catchment produces 100ML At Tallandoon, CMSS has overestimated both loads in of run-off in a year, with an average phosphorus concentration comparison with MDBC data. The difference here may be of 0.01mg/L. The total phosphorus load is 1kg/yr. due to the fact that the model has not accounted for assimilation processes. Put simply, this means it has not Nutrient export rate predicted what portion of mobilised nutrient loads left the Dividing the nutrient load by the area of land gives the system during transportation between one subcatchment and export rate. For example, a land use generates 2 kg of P/yr the next. from an area of 100 ha; the export rate for that land use is 0.02 kg/ha/yr. The model can predict the reduction of nutrient load as a function of time or of downstream travel distance; Catchment nutrient concentrations however, distance was not used due to the complexity of In general, the nutrient concentrations in the streams of the including Lakes Hume and Dartmouth. upper catchments are excellent to good, although they deteriorate downstream towards the Murray River. See Sub catchment nutrient contributions Map 4 for TN and TP concentrations assessed against Nutrient export rates have been estimated for each of the Office for the Commissioner for the Environment (OCE) 26 subcatchments within the two Basins. Figures 3 and 4 guidelines. show their total Phospherus and Nitrogen contributions. The ‘other’ category is the sum of the remaining 18 Catchment nutrient loads subcatchments’ nutrient contribution. See Map 5 for details. The CMSS model - used to estimate the TN and TP loads exported from the Basins to the Murray River - indicates Subcatchments Hume Environs, Corryong and Wodonga that the total nutrient loads exported into surface waters West generate the most TP and subcatchments Hume throughout the Region are approximately: Environs, Middle Kiewa, and Omeo generate the most TN • 235 tonnes TP per year within the two Basins. • 1 800 tonnes TN per year Management of nutrient sources in these subcatchments will However, Lakes Hume and Dartmouth do act as nutrient offer the most efficient means of reducing nutrient loads to ‘sinks’, so only about 75% of those nutrients would reach the Murray River. the Murray River below Lake Hume (Hillman pers. comm. 1998), namely: Subcatchment nutrient export rates • 176 tonnes TP per year The eight subcatchments with the highest TP export rate, as • 1 465 tonnes TN per year estimated by CMSS, are indicated in Figure 5.

Only the nutrient loads at Bandiana and Tallandoon (as only The eight subcatchments with the highest TN export rate, as land uses in Victoria influence the nutrient load at that site) estimated by CMSS, are indicated in Figure 6. could be compared with figures calculated by MDBC to validate the model. The results are summarised in Table 3.

12 Upper North East Water Quality Strategy Figure 3. Total phosphorus contributions (%) from Figure 5. Total phosphorus export rates from subcatchments within the Kiewa and Upper Murray subcatchments within the Kiewa and Upper Murray Basins Basins Upper Eskdale 3.5 Upper Kiewa 5% Dartmouth 4% 3.0 5%

Middle Other 2.5 Kiewa 28% 5% 2.0

Omeo 1.5 8%

1.0 Average TN generation rate (kg/ha) rate generation TN Average 0.5

Wodonga 0.0

West Hume

Kiewa

Kiewa

Lower Middle

13% Flat Hume

Environs West

Environs Creek

Corryong Wodonga

Corryong Osbornes

18% Kinchington 14% Omeo Lake Subcatchments

Figure 4. Total nitrogen contributions (%) from sub Figure 6. Total nitrogen export rates from catchments within the Kiewa and Upper Murray subcatchments within the Kiewa and Upper Murray Basins Basins Tom 0.35 Eskdale Upper Groggin 5% 0.30 Dartmouth 4% 5% 0.25 Middle Other 29% Kiewa 0.20 6%

Wodonga 0.15 West 6% 0.10 Average TP generation rate (kg/ha) rate TP generation Average 0.05 Omeo

0.00

9% Hume Kiewa Kiewa Lower Middle Flat Hume West Environs Creek Environs Corryong Wodonga Corryong Osbornes Kinchington 21% Omeo Lake 15% Subcatchments

Note in figure 5 and 6 that Lake Omeo subcatchment is a closed extent, in the Murray River downstream of Hume Dam. lake catchment. It does not feed into any other subcatchment. Water held in these storages becomes stratified (i.e., the Therefore nitrogen and phosphorus loads are contained colder deeper layers differ from the warmer surface layers) and within it. Lake Omeo does not hold water most years. water releases are sometimes made from the cold deep layers.

OTHER WATER QUALITY ISSUES IN THE Because major releases occur during summer periods to CATCHMENT cater for irrigation demands, they can cause unseasonably cold summer temperatures in the Mitta Mitta River and to a While the following issues are not specifically addressed in lesser extent in the Murray River. This has led to a this Strategy, the WQWG recognises them as issues that need corresponding decrease in warm-water native fish to be considered when resources become available. populations (Koehn et al. 1995).

Changed flow/temperature The regulation of flow from Lakes Hume and Dartmouth Temperatures have dramatically decreased in Mitta Mitta has meant an increase in summer flows, a decrease in winter River downstream of Dartmouth Dam and, to a lesser flows and a reduction in flooding frequency and duration.

Upper North East Water Quality Strategy 13 Currently a panel is conducting the Hume and Dartmouth not exist, but because no one has either looked for or Dam Operations Review. The panel is investigating ways in mapped them. Investigations are being undertaken at which the operations can be improved, and will address the present to determine the location of salinity discharge sites issues of temperature and flow. The Murray Darling Basin and salinity trends. Commission has convened the panel, and its findings were expected by March 1999. A scientific panel is also looking at Groundwater pollution reviewing environmental flows in the regulated sections of The presence of pollutants such as salts and excessive the Murray River. The recommendations from both these nutrient concentrations can be leached from the land surface groups will be given to the Interstate Working Group for into groundwater and thus can restrict or prevent its use in Murray River Flows so they can bring together all the issues some areas. in relation to operations of dams, bulk water entitlements, environmental flows process in NSW and the Snowy Conversely, groundwater can impact on surface water Inquiry. quality through upward or lateral movement. If polluted it can make the surface water unfit for consumption. Stream salinity At various locations around the Basins, recorded stream Biocide and chemical residues salinity was below 1500 uS/cm, below which it will not Pesticides, in particular herbicides and insecticides such as the affect aquatic ecosystems (ANZECC 1992). However, banned DDT and Dieldrin, have been an integral part of there may be some potential in some parts of the Upper agricultural industries within the Basins for some time now. North East for stream salinity to become an issue. Streams These pesticides can persist for long periods in the here are generally of low salinity (<500EC). environment and significant levels of chlorinated hydrocarbon pollution have previously entered the Murray Groundwater information for the Kiewa and Upper River via the Kiewa River. Murray Basins is scarce and in most cases groundwater processes are poorly understood. A report by Lumsdon The tobacco industry especially has been identified as a and Reid (1996) detailed groundwater trends and salinity source, since most tobacco is grown on river flats of the risks in the Region (including the Ovens Basin). This report Kiewa, adjacent to waterways. Even though the use of concluded that in the Kiewa Valley, near Kergunyah, chlorinated hydrocarbons has declined, a large reserve groundwater bores show a flat to slightly rising groundwater presumably remains bound in the soil and further input may trend. A significant salinity threat could exist there for several be expected in times when run-off occurs. Several reviews reasons, including the high groundwater pressures on the of biocide use have been carried out in the Ovens valley floor and already severe waterlogging. The report catchment (Water ECOscience 1996; Moore et al. 1996). recommended more exploratory bores in the Kiewa and Upper Murray Basins to gauge whether it does. Moore et al. found little evidence for the effects of biocide contamination on aquatic fauna in the Ovens catchment; The draft North East Salinity Strategy 1997 maps known however, legitimate concerns remain over residue levels of discharge areas within the Basins. The discharge map shows organochlorines (from past use) and present biocide use. very few sites in the Upper North East, not because they do These concerns relate to the pathways for contamination (i.e., flooding and soil movement into the Kiewa) and appropriate use of new biocides. As these industries are also located in the Upper North East Region, issues are likely to be similar.

Industries still use various chemicals. Current use and storage should not permit discharges to surface or ground water.

Microbiological agents Bacteria and other microscopic life forms can give rise to potential health hazards for humans, animals and plants. Disease-causing protozoa such as Giardia and Cryptosporidium, and bacteria such as Salmonella and Campylobacter can threaten potable water supplies.

The North East Regional Water Authority (NERWA) is responsible for delivering a potable water supply to some The use of agricultural chemicals adjacent to waterways can allow of the community within the Kiewa and Upper Murray contaminated sediment to enter the water Basins.

14 Upper North East Water Quality Strategy The primary indicator of bacterial activity is Escherichia coli, Stream condition which indicates faecal contamination in water bodies. Raw In 1986, the former Department of Water Resources water supplies in the Region generally exceed the carried out a survey on the environmental condition of recommended World Health Organisation (WHO) Drinking streams in Victoria. They rated each site by looking at ten Water Guidelines for E.coli more than 80% of the time. environmental factors considered likely to be important to aquatic organisms. Generally, the upper sections of most The principal sources of E.coli are sewage treatment plants, streams were rated good to excellent, but ratings deteriorate septic tanks, native and domestic animals and urban from poor to very poor in the lower catchment. stormwater run-off. Investigations into current stream condition are under way Impacts of mining with the Statewide ‘Index of Stream Condition’ project. Gold-mining has subjected some rivers and streams to gross disturbance, not only within the bed but also along the banks Other and floodplains. This is particularly evident around Activities such as the impact of installing public utilities, Yackandandah and Omeo. Stream vegetation has also been minor constructions, road works and rural subdivisions can removed and in some cases massive open cliffs have been all result in increased erosion and sedimentation and left exposed. therefore increased nutrient loads in watercourses.

Mobilisation of heavy metals such as mercury and arsenic has also been associated with past mining practices.

Carp Carp have been implicated in the degradation of the aquatic environment.

Research such as that by Roberts et al. (1995) has found that carp can: • increase turbidity in the streams • damage stream bed and banks • increase the concentration of algal blooms by consuming aquatic insects that prey on algae • affect populations of native fish

Studies on the relationship between carp and the aquatic environment in Australian waters have generally been inconclusive. The Carp Control Coordination Group, comprising members of the community, government and research is currently developing a national management strategy for carp control and a strategic research plan, which is now available.

Recreation Four-wheel-driving and motorbike- and horse-riding near streams may contribute nutrients directly or indirectly through erosion and weathering processes.

Water-based recreation, such as speed-boating and water- skiing may erode river and lake banks.

Activities such as fishing, camping, illegal dredging for gold and bush walking also impact on water quality. These activities damage vegetative cover and expose soil, leading to erosion in or near the stream, and may cause pollution due to faecal contamination and general litter.

Upper North East Water Quality Strategy 15 CHAPTER 4. THE STRATEGY

STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS management, ranging from co-ordination to specific The following steps were involved in developing the Water industries. Each also comprises a series of individual Quality Strategy. actions and is ranked in terms of its priority for 1. Form the Water Quality Working Group, Technical implementation. Officer Working Group and Taskgroups. Appendix 1 7. Agree on Strategy targets for the catchments. details the members of all groups and the organisations A range of Strategy targets was assessed. The they represent. implementation of better management practices will be used as Strategy targets (see Chapter 5). 8. Prioritise actions that improve water quality, based on costs & benefits. Once the total cost of the Strategy was determined, it was compared with the benefits within the catchments and to the Murray River downstream of the catchments (See Chapter 7). Quantitative analysis of the benefits was limited to evaluating the expected reduction in damages from toxic blue-green algal blooms that would be achieved by implementing the preferred Strategy. Other benefits that would be achieved by reducing nutrient loads to waterways-such as increased biodiversity, improved image for regional economy and reduced water treatment costs-were not quantified. The Upper North East Water Quality Working Group meeting, 1997 at 9. Implement timetable to meet the Strategy targets. Mt Beauty 10.Allocate a budget required to implement the Action 2. Collect, collate and interpret available water quality data Program and Cost Sharing Arrangements.Strategy costs- to provide an overview of algal bloom and nutrient in the form of annual costs and net present value (NPV) problems in the Basins. cost discounted at 8% over 30 years-were determined 3. Adopt the Catchment Management Support System for each action within every program, where possible. (CMSS) modelling process. Capital costs (C) were distinguished from operating and • Identify and map current land uses/activities that maintenance (O&M) costs. impact on water quality. Cost share principles were developed from ‘Cost Sharing • Quantify the impacts each point and diffuse nutrient Guidelines for Nutrient Management’ (DNRE 1997) and ‘Cost- source has on water quality. Sharing for On-Ground Works’( MDBC 1996). • Identify management practices that improve water Cost shares for each action were distributed between the quality. federal and State governments, the region and local 4. Evaluate management activities to manage nutrients private individuals and industry, where appropriate. (point, diffuse and internal loading sources). 11.Identify legislative & institutional frameworks to An incremental cost analysis of all nutrient and sediment implement the Strategy. reduction activities or better management practices was 12.Develop a monitoring program to assess and review the undertaken. The management actions were ranked in progress of the Strategy. order from most to least cost-effective. Appendix 2 describes this process in flow chart format. 5. Develop and assess Strategy scenarios. A Strategy scenario is made up of a collection of Strategy Implementation Process individual management actions. The Catchment Management Authority is responsible for The working groups assessed a range of Strategy ensuring this strategy is implemented over time. The role of scenarios. (See pp. 45-52.) Alternatives included a low- the Catchment Management Authority is to coordinate the cost (based on the three most cost-effective management various agencies to implement the various actions. activities), moderate-cost (based on eight cost-effective management activities), do-everything (based on 19 A working group will be formed to ensure continued management activities) and no-strategy scenarios. stakeholder involvement. Its specific task will include: 6. Develop a Strategy Action Program. performance monitoring against the Water Quality Strategy, The preferred Strategy will be implemented through the review water quality data (Victorian Water Quality delivery of 13 Strategy programs. Each program Monitoring Network and Waterwatch), identify and report addresses a different aspect of water quality on water quality trends, review key research, report annually

16 Upper North East Water Quality Strategy on catchment condition, strategy implemention and Proactive planning measurable outcomes. The group will meet quarterly and Catchment managers are to utilise existing processes such as report twice a year to the Catchment Management Authority planning schemes, codes of practice and guidelines for Strategy Board and its Implementation Committees. implementation to prevent degradation of waterways.

THE STRATEGY OBJECTIVES & PRINCIPLES Subcatchment approach Objectives Local communities will be encouraged to prepare and 1. To improve water quality in the Kiewa and Upper implement local plans for nutrient management. Murray (including Mitta Mitta) Catchments. 2. To reduce nutrient contributions from the Kiewa and Monitoring and accountability Upper Murray (including Mitta Mitta) Catchments to the The North East Catchment Management Authority will Murray River. monitor and evaluate implementation of specific actions and 3. To minimise the potential for development of blue- broad Strategy outcomes, to ensure the desired outcomes green algal blooms. of the Strategy are achieved. The North East Catchment 4. To improve the riverine environment in the Kiewa and Management Authority will evaluate whether the strategy is Upper Murray (including Mitta Mitta) Catchments. meeting its targets and associated nutrient load reduction.

Principles Adaptive approach The Water Quality Working Group (WQWG) established The strategy approach should remain flexible, to change the following principles as fundamental to the Strategy. over time as new information becomes available. The Group acknowledges that catchment management is a dynamic process requiring both flexibility and adaptability Minimise impacts of discharges and concentra- over time. Accordingly these principles, developed by the tions WQWG, may be adjusted and varied as new information Discharge loads and concentrations are to be emphasised in comes to hand and or more successful management the Strategy. Practices that contribute a combination of high practices evolve. concentrations at low flow periods will be addressed first.

Duty of care Nutrient load reductions All natural-resource users and managers have a duty of care The Strategy will aim for a substantial nutrient load to ensure that they do not damage the resource base. reduction.

Co-operative approach Nutrient loads - no net increase Initially, a co-operative approach to water quality The Strategy will ensure there is no net increase in nutrient management is preferable to a regulatory one. loads leaving the Kiewa and Upper Murray Basins. This does not preclude future development in the basin. It will Implementation of an integrated and co- ensure all new developments apply better management ordinated approach practices and best available technology to minimise nutrient The strengths of existing groups and individuals will be built inputs. It will ensure a balanced approach to management of upon to assist with Strategy implementation. This does not the catchment as a whole and encourage programs to exclude new groups where necessary. reduce loads from existing sources. Overall the Strategy aims to reduce nutrient loads, improve water quality and enhance The water quality management philosophy will be incorporated environmental conditions within the Kiewa and Upper into other catchment activities where appropriate. Murray Basins.

Cost effectiveness Phosphorus management - initially primary focus Management actions that are the most cost-effective from The Strategy will initially focus on phosphorus reduction social, environmental and economic points of view will (although where possible, nitrogen will be addressed receive priority. concurrently - with other water quality issues being considered as knowledge develops). Responsibility The Strategy will clearly define responsibility to carry out Sediment management specific actions. The Strategy will promote management practices that reduce erosion. Better management practice approach Catchment managers will be urged to seek out, develop and incorporate better management practices for water quality improvement in all activities within the catchment.

Upper North East Water Quality Strategy 17 Nutrient balance & sustainability The benefits of each nutrient management activity were then In implementing nutrient management activities, resource estimated by: managers will adopt nutrient balance and sustainability 1. taking the expected costs of blooms without a nutrient principles. management strategy 2. then multiplying by the expected percentage reduction in Equity the number of blooms due to that action All catchment managers will be expected to achieve appropriate nutrient management targets. Table 4 shows the estimated costs and benefits of three scenarios using both ratios. NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT SCENARIOS Example calculation of benefit for stream stabilisation CMSS indicated which land uses contributed the greatest TP reduction = 9.5% nutrient load to the catchments. In response, a variety of Benefit = 9.5% of present impacts of blooms for better management practices aimed at reducing those TP:bloom ratio 1:1, calculated as follows. nutrient loads were considered. CMSS was then used to assess the cost effectiveness of a range of possible Present impact of blooms within catchment = $1 428 management options across the subcatchments. 567 (Table 22 & Table 24) Incremental costs of nutrient reduction for Reduction in impact of blooms within catchment due to potential nutrient management actions stream stabilisation = $1 428 567 times 0.095 = $135 799 The WQWG and task groups recommended which nutrient management activities should be assessed for the Strategy. Reduction in impact of blooms in Murray River The Technical Officers Working Group (TOWG) then made (attributable to Upper NE region) for a 90% reduction an estimate of TP and TN reductions for each one, and the in TP = $3 828 771 (Table 27) relevant authority provided the costs of each activity. Therefore the incremental cost of each nutrient management Reduction in impact of blooms for Murray River due to activity was derived (see Figure 7 for a summary of the stream stabilisation = $3 828 771 times 0.095 divided by incremental costs). 0.9 = $404 403 Individual actions were then grouped to form four Strategy Total reduction in impact of blooms due to stream scenarios, which were assessed by the WQWG. Each one stabilisation = $135 799 plus $404 403 = $540 202 (excluding the no strategy scenario) was assessed in terms of: • expected reduction in nutrient loads Analysis of Strategy scenarios • % reduction in the number of toxic algal blooms (within Minimum nutrient reduction scenario the Upper North East and the Murray River) This scenario comprises: • expected annual costs • stabilising streams in priority subcatchments • expected annual benefits • urban stormwater community education in subcatchment • within-catchment benefits (low and high estimates) with no stormwater management • Murray River benefits (low and high estimates) • tertiary treatment and summer/autumn land disposal to • total benefits (low and high estimates) Wodonga STPs • benefit:cost ratio (low and high estimates) • ability to fulfil the Strategy objectives It has limited capacity to improve water quality, reduce nutrient contributions to surface waters, minimise the Further detail on each individual practice can be found in potential for development of blue-green algal blooms and Read et al. (1998). Each nutrient management activity reduces improve the riverine environment. the Region’s total phosphorus export by a given percentage. That percentage can be used to determine the Moderate nutrient reduction scenario corresponding algal bloom reduction, using a ratio. In addition to the actions above, this includes: • upgrading native forest roads within 200 m of streams Because of uncertainty about relationships between nutrient • gully control in priority catchments reduction and bloom frequency reduction, two different • farm nutrient management and extension in all ratios were assessed: subcatchments • 1:1 ratio (a 1.0% reduction in number of blooms for • total land disposal of treated sewage effluent at each 1% reduction in nutrient loads) Bellbridge, Corryong and Yackandandah STPs • 1:1.8 ratio (a 1.8% reduction in number of blooms for • tertiary treatment and summer/autumn land disposal for each 1.0% reduction in nutrient loads), to be consistent Mt Beauty STP with the Ovens and Goulburn Broken studies

18 Upper North East Water Quality Strategy This scenario will improve water quality, reduce nutrient poorer-quality land farmed less intensively. Intensive contributions to surface waters, minimise the potential for farming can have a detrimental impact on water quality development of blue-green algal blooms and improve the if appropriate management practices are not employed. riverine environment. • Horticultural production in general will increase. Seed production may increase by 50%, mint may increase by Do everything scenario 5%, and wine grape production could double in area. To all the above actions, this adds: Perennial fruit trees may increase by 30-40%. • 10-m grass filter strips around horticulture Tobacco (which is planted annually) will not change; • upgrades to dairy-shed effluent management systems however, some vegetable production will increase by 50- • buffers along streams for future plantation rotations (in 100%. Horticultural industries are expanding and have areas not currently covered by the Code of Forest the potential to affect water quality in the absence of Practice) practices to reduce sediment run-off. • improving roading in plantations (above current Code • Currently farmers in the Upper North East do not use requirements) their full water entitlements. Future trends could see • Bonegilla and Bandiana STPs to connect to Wodonga STP farmers: • urban wetland in areas with no stormwater management - use their maximum water allocation • septic tank desludging - make more efficient use of water • tertiary treatment at Tallangatta STP - increase the area of land being irrigated • sewering small towns - trade unused water • total land disposal of treated sewage effluent at - convert some irrigated land to agroforestry Dartmouth STP • total land disposal of silt from hydro dam desilting Many of these trends could reduce water quality unless operations appropriate management practices are put in place to ensure sediment and nutrients do not enter waterways. This scenario provides the greatest potential to improve water quality, reduce nutrient contributions to surface waters, The no-strategy scenario would not improve water quality, minimise the potential for development of blue-green algal reduce nutrient contributions to surface waters, minimise the blooms and improve the riverine environment. potential for development of blue-green algal blooms or improve the riverine environment. A comparison of Strategy scenarios can be found in Table 4. The table shows results from reducing the amount of TP Selection of the preferred strategy exported from the catchments by 50% and assuming a 90% After considering all scenarios, the WQWG selected the reduction in the number of blue-green algal blooms. moderate nutrient reduction one. The actions in this scenario were costed and included in the Strategy cost. The nutrient No strategy scenario reduction potential of each action was estimated and The WQWG tried to predict what trends were likely to included in the Strategy nutrient reduction figure of 75 affect water quality over the next 30 years in the absence of tonnes. A range of other complementary activities such as a water quality strategy. strategy coordination, research and investigation actions were costed and added to the strategy total, however no They identified the following major trends. nutrient reduction benefit could be estimated. • Urban areas are expected to increase, thus increasing impervious surfaces. This means that they will have This scenario was chosen because: greater impact on the quality of the water if it is not • it has an acceptable benefit::cost ratio treated. • management practices are spread across all • The availability of suitable water resources in the Upper subcatchments North East could see an expansion of the aquaculture • it involves all catchment managers industry, and subsequent nutrient discharge to streams. • it fulfils all the Strategy objectives • Due to the government’s water reform process there will • adequate benefits accrue both within the catchment and be no net increase in nutrients from municipal sewage downstream in the Murray River treatment plants. • nutrient load reduction is adequate and achievable • Soft/hardwood plantations may triple by the year 2020. During periods of thinning, harvesting and Even though the minimum nutrient reduction scenario has a establishment, plantations can lower water quality unless greater benefit:cost ratio, it does not achieve sufficient appropriate management practices are employed. nutrient load reduction, nor does it require all nutrient • Land currently used for dryland grazing may convert to contributors to undertake management activities evenly agroforestry and/or rural residential, and high-quality across the subcatchments. agricultural land will be farmed more intensively with

Upper North East Water Quality Strategy 19 The do-everything scenario gives the greatest nutrient load Secondly, each program has individual actions presented in a reduction, but the benefit:cost ratio is not acceptable. table. Each action in the table has a specified: Toxic algal blooms within the catchment already involve a • outcome quantified cost of approximately $1.4 to $2.4 million per • annual cost year. (The no strategy scenario allows practices to continue • 30-year Net Present Value cost (discounted at 8%) as they are and does not try to abate blooms, which is • time frame for implementation unacceptable). The impacts for the Murray River are greater • priority status at $3.8 to $7.4 million. • proposed cost share arrangements • implementation responsibility It is worth noting that the benefits quantified in the scenarios represent an under estimate of the economic impacts of In the annual cost column of each table, ‘current base nutrient management, since some impacts, such as funding’, ‘NC’ and ‘TBC’ may appear. environmental values or public health, have not been ‘Current base funding’ means the cost of implementing that quantified. action is not included in the total cost of the Strategy. It has been assumed the action would be carried out using existing STRATEGY ACTION PROGRAM funding. It has been estimated that this Strategy will decrease phosphorus loads to the Murray River by 75 tonnes/annum ‘NC’ means, ‘not costed’. Typically these actions are less at a cost of $56 million (NPV over 30 years at a discount cost-effective when reducing nutrient loads. Their cost has rate of 8%) - equivalent to an annual expenditure of not been included in the Strategy total. They are, however, approximately $5.3 million. endorsed due to the local benefits provided.

Catchment modelling has predicted that implementation of ‘TBC’ means ‘to be costed’. The cost of implementing the the Strategy will reduce annual TP loads from the Kiewa action was not known at the time of printing. The action River by 38t and from Lake Hume by 37t. will be costed in the future and added to the total Strategy cost. The preferred management Strategy has a number of major programs, each containing a set of actions to be Net Present Value of an investment is today’s value of a implemented. The major programs include: series of future payments discounted at 8% every year over • Strategy coordination 30 years. • community education • sewage treatment plant & industry The Strategy will be implemented over a 30-year time frame, • agricultural industries commencing July 1999, and will be reviewed every 5 years • forest industries • stream management The WQWG recognises that many landholders are • gully stabilisation managing their lands in an ecological sustainable and socially • stream flow management responsible manner, and that current managers may not be • stormwater management responsible for the full extent of degradation within the • planning non structural Basins. • local water quality • monitoring, reporting and evaluation Implementation responsibility • research and investigation. Those listed in the primary responsibility column of tables 6-18 are those stakeholders directly responsible for Each program is presented in two formats. Firstly, a written implementing the action. Those listed in the secondary summary: responsibility column generally are responsible for ensuring • stipulates the intent of each program the primary stakeholder carries out the action. In the annual • highlights general responsibilities for implementation cost column of each table, ‘current base funding’, ‘NC’ and • explains cost and cost share arrangements ‘TBC’ may appear. • identifies benefits ‘Current base funding’ means the cost of implementing that Cost sharing is a negotiated position between all action was not included in the total cost of the Strategy. stakeholders, both within and outside the catchments on These actions are occurring for reasons outside this Strategy. what is fair and reasonable in relation to the costs of They are either already occurring or should be occurring to comply with existing legislation, therefore it has been management works required by this strategy. assumed the action would be carried out using existing funding. The actions are mentioned in the Strategy because

20 Upper North East Water Quality Strategy the WQWG believe the implementation of that action will improve or has the potential to improve water quality. The nutrient reduction benefits of these actions have not been included in the stated Strategy nutrient reduction benefit. The High est. WQWG believes the current level of base funding and cost share arrangements should at least be maintained over the next 30 years. Low est.

‘NC’ means, ‘Not Costed’. With the exception of Action

3.3 these actions are not currently occurring. Typically these High est. actions are less cost-effective when reducing nutrient loads. Their cost has not been included in the Strategy total. They are, however, endorsed due to the local benefits that would Low est.

be provided. The nutrient reduction benefit of these actions scenarios have not been included in the stated Strategy nutrient reduction benefit. High est. ‘TBC’ means ‘to be costed’. The cost of implementing the action was not known at the time of printing. The action will be costed in the future and added to the total Strategy cost. The nutrient reduction benefits have not been Low est. estimated. r of blooms for 1% reduction in nutrient loads

Actions assigned a cost are typically either; High est. • activities that are not currently occurring and to implement them would benefit water quality Expected annual benefits ($M) Benefit: cost ratio

• activities that are occurring however the current level of 0.6 1.0 1.7 3.11.3 2.2 4.1 2.5 1.1 3.9 2 7.3 5.2 9.7 0.7 1.3 within catchment Murray River within River catchment Murray benefit Total funding needs to be supplemented to provide a greater Low est. nutrient reduction benefit • as in the case of the sewage treatment plant upgrades, the 2.0 7.5 costs

cost of implementing the actions was included because ($M) annual

of the nutrient reduction benefits. Expected

Net Present Value of an investment is today’s value of a series of future payments discounted at 8% every year over 30 years. River) reduction

The Strategy will be implemented over a 30-year time (within Region and in Murray frame, commencing July 1999, and will be reviewed every 5 years. The WQWG recognises that many landholders are managing their lands in an ecologically sustainable and 4375 43 7796 5.1 98 1.1 2.0 3.1 5.8 4.2 7.8 0.8 1.5 socially responsible manner, and that current managers may Expected % (tonnes TP)(tonnes reduction in in number not be responsible for the full extent of degradation within loadsnutrient of blooms the Basins.

Only actions assigned an ‘annual cost’ figure in Tables 6-18 have been included in the strategy cost total (namely Actions 1.1, 2.3, 2.5, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 4.2, 5.3, 5.5, 6.1, 7.1, 10.5, 10.7, 12.1). The nutrient load reduction was estimated by summing the individual nutrient load reductions of actions 2.5, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 4.2, 5.5, 6.1, 7.1. education, Wodonga STP Wodonga education, stabilisation, urban stormwater Strategy options Assuming 1.8% reduction in the numbe Minimum nutrient reduction community As for above, plus forest roads, control of gully erosion, farm nutrient measures, Bellbridge/Corryong/ Mt Beauty STPs Yackandandah/ Do-everything Moderate nutrient reduction Stream Table 4. Estimated benefits and costs for minimum nutrient reduction, reasonable nutrient reduction and do-everything strategy reasonable nutrient reduction and do-everything minimum nutrient reduction, 4. Estimated benefits and costs for Table

Upper North East Water Quality Strategy 21 Figure 7. Summary of incremental costs total phosphorus reduction in the Upper North East Region

22 Upper North East Water Quality Strategy Better management practices Best management practice is commonly used to describe an application of the best available method to deal with an issue. However, in this Strategy the WQWG uses the term better management practice to describe activities to be implemented. To better a practice means to amend or improve the current practice and/or to enhance value from improvements made.

Better management practices outlined in the Strategy are designed to protect water quality. The WQWG gave priority to sustainable practices that are likely to produce the best results for effort put in, in terms of protecting and enhancing water quality in the catchments.

Management practices focus on controlling sediment sources. Significant contributors of sediment to surface waters include: stream-bank erosion and in-stream processes; sheet erosion from landscape/hillslopes; gully erosion; and roads.

The following list of some recommended practices is by no means exhaustive. In most cases it is up to the individual who seeks to reduce nutrient and sediment contributions to ascertain which practice is the most applicable and feasible alternative.

Better management practices selected in this Strategy are expected to provide broader improved sustainability outcomes for land, water and vegetation resources.

Those for grazing could include one, or a combination, of the following.

• Improve grazing and fertiliser management, particularly for highly erodible areas of farmland. • Restrict stock access to water bodies and waterways. • Restrict grazing/cultivation of hilltops that are ‘highly connected’ to streams. • Reduce stocking on erodible soils. • Place grassed ‘filter strips’ strategically to intercept nutrient-laden run-off. • Establish (native and/or introduced) perennial pastures on some highly erodible areas. • Plan on a whole farm basis. • Land class fencing. • Apply minimum tillage during pasture establishment. • Undertake stream stabilisation works (bank stabilisation, rock chutes, channel shaping, fencing and revegetation, alternative water supplies). • Carry out gully control works (rock chutes, fencing and revegetation, maintenance of fenced off areas). • Manage organic matter in the soil.

Practices on other land could include upgrading public native forest roads (those designated as non-hardwood production roads) through native forest, within 200 metres of streams, so they comply with the Code of Forest Practices or establishing filter strips around horticultural enterprises.

Codes of practices, containing specific industry best management practices, already exist. The WQWG considers these codes to be the minimum standards industries should achieve. Examples of existing codes are the Code of Forest Practices for Timber Production, Code of Practices for Fire Management on Public Land, Septic Tanks Code of Practice and Code of Practice for Feedlots and Piggeries.

Many publications, such as ‘Blue-green Algae and Nutrients in Victoria’ (Government of Victoria 1996a), outlines Best Management Practice Guidelines, Codes of Practice and National Water Quality Management Strategy - Guidelines for Diffuse and Point Sources.

Upper North East Water Quality Strategy 23 Table 5. Prioritised summary of strategy actions Program Action Priority no. 1.1 Support a co-ordinator to oversee the implementation of the Strategy (includes Actions A to L) VH 2.5 Support a community education program to encourage adoption of BMPs for urban stormwater management-e.g., Phoswatch campaign VH 3.1 Undertake priority works at Wodonga STP VH 4.1 Implement an agricultural industries extension program to encourage adoption of nutrient BMP by landholders VH 4.2 Achieve 100% adoption of BMPs on 50% of dryland grazing land VH 4.3 Achieve an increase of 10% in the number of landholders adopting and implementing WFPs VH 4.5 All land managers to provide information on their adoptions and implementation of BMPs VH 4.7 Fish farms within the catchments to comply with existing licences VH 5.3 Encourage expansion of stream crossing & road sedimentation survey VH 5.5 100 % adoption of BMPs for native forest roads (roads within 100-200m of streams) VH 6.1 Implement bank stabilisation, fencing and revegetation actions in priority areas as set out in the Lake Hume catchment sedimentation and erosion action plan & stream zone restoration plan VH 6.2 Develop a stream stabilisation and restoration program for streams upstream of Lake Dartmouth VH 6.3 Implement bank stabilisation, fencing and revegetation actions in priority areas above Lake Dartmouth VH 7.1 Implement gully control BMPs on dryland grazing land, particularly in priority subcatchments VH 10.8 Encourage implementation of actions listed in catchment plans developed in 10.7 VH 11.3 Investigate ongoing disposal of sediment from Southern Hydro partnership dams VH 12.6 Undertake periodic surveys of management practices occurring in the catchment to monitor adoption of BMP implementation VH 13.1 Develop and implement a co-ordinated research and investigation program (see program 13 for details of specific R & I projects) VH 13.2 Develop research partnership with CRC for catchment hydrology & freshwater ecology VH 2.1 Develop & implement a communication plan for the Strategy H 2.2 Ensure community education programs include algal bloom and nutrient management issues H 2.3 Utilise the NE waterwatch program as the Strategy’s community education tool H 3.2 Undertake priority works at Bellbridge, Yackandandah, Mt Beauty & Corryong STPs H 3.4 Endorse priority works at Falls Creek & Bogong Village STPs (once known) H 3.5 Ensure industry implements cleaner production & waste-minimisation principles H 3.6 Industry to develop waste-management plans as per Government requirements H 3.7 Undertake necessary regulation/enforcement and provide advice to major industries H 4.4 Ensure all dairy farms employ BMPs to waste-management systems & ensure they are managed so that no discharge to waterways occurs H 4.6 Ensure all fish farms adopt the code of practice once the code has been developed H 5.1 All plantation managers continue to apply the Code of Forest Practices for Timber Production to their operations H 5.2 All native forest managers continue to apply the Code of Forest Practices for Timber Production & Code of Practice for Fire Management to their operations H 5.4 Ensure priority works as identified in the stream crossing & road sedimentation survey are implemented H 5.6 All land managers to provide information on their adoptions and implementation of BMPs H 5.7 Monitor and control recreational activities that adversely impact on stream-bank stability & on public land H 5.8 Encourage adoption of buffers & road improvements along streams in softwood plantations (above Code requirements), where local impacts have been identified H 8.1 Provide input into the stream-flow management planning process for priority semi/unregulated streams including Kiewa River, Nariel Creek H

24 Upper North East Water Quality Strategy 9.1 All new subdivisions to incorporate nutrient and sediment better management practices during development, in accordance with the Stormwater Committee’s Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines for Urban Stormwater H 9.3 Prepare stormwater management plans for towns listed in 9.2 H 9.4 Implement works as recommended in stormwater management plans for towns listed in 9.3 H 9.5 Local government councils will have regard to EPA pub. # 275 - Construction Techniques For Sediment Pollution Control & EPA Pub # 480 - Environmental Guidelines for Major Construction Sites and any other relevant guideline, policy or code of practice mentioned in the State Planning Policy, when carrying out their works programs H 10.1 Local government to incorporate the Water Quality Strategy principles into their planning schemes and municipal strategies H 10.2 Review municipal planning schemes and planning procedures to provide a consistent process for assessing developments that will impact on water quality, and amend as required H 10.3 Development proponents will assess & minimise the impact of their proposal on nutrient loads and concentrations H 10.4 Provide technical advice to the responsible authority concerning development issues that influence water quality H 10.5 Review & develop land capability mapping for the Kiewa and Upper Murray Basins H 10.6 Landholders to integrate Water Quality Strategy implementation into their property management plans or WFP at the local level H 10.7 Develop/amend catchment plans to address water quality issues in priority subcatchments: Upper Cudgewa,Corryong, Wodonga West, Lower, Middle & Upper Kiewa, Lake Omeo, Kinchington Creek, Osbornes Flat H 10.9 Investigate the use & effectiveness of special area plans under C&LP Act H 10.10 Investigate the use of rating, or rating concessions, to achieve nutrient management H 11.1 Investigate & identify local water quality impacts of septic tanks in the catchment H 11.2 Achieve 100% adoption of BMPs with all new septic tanks H 11.4 Implement recommendations from desilting working group with respect to disposal of sediment from Southern Hydro partnership dams H 12.1 Ensure continued water quality & biological monitoring in the catchments through MDBC, VWQMN, EPA, Major Storage Operational Monitoring Program fulfils NECMA needs H 12.2 Review all water quality monitoring sites (with respect to position of site, parameters & applicability) in the Upper NE, as part of the Victorian Water Quality monitoring review process H 12.3 Ensure continued Waterwatch monitoring H 12.4 Ensure continued point source monitoring H 12.5 Investigate how landholders will provide information on BMP adoption to the NECMA H 12.7 Monitor the cost-effectiveness of taking up BMPs H 12.8 Use VWQNM, G-MW, MDBC, and NERWA water quality information as baseline data and regularly assess changes in stream health and river improvement as a result of implementing the preferred Strategy H 12.9 Use index of stream condition as baseline data and regularly assess changes in stream health and river improvement as a result of implementing the preferred Strategy H 12.10 Use the 1990 EPA invertebrate data (unpublished) as baseline data and regularly assess changes in invertebrate population in response to improved water quality, as a result of implementing the preferred Strategy H 12.11 Investigate the use of biomonitoring to assess stream health and impacts of nutrient discharges H 2.4 Prepare regular newsletter and media releases on the Strategy implementation progress (utilise existing newsletters) M 3.3 Endorse required works at Tallangatta, Dartmouth, Bandiana and Bonegilla STPs M 3.8 Support the development of reticulated sewage, septic tank treatment systems or alternative effluent treatment systems for priority towns, where net benefits can be demonstrated M 4.8 Ensure new intensive animal industries adopt current industry Code of Practice M 4.9 Ensure existing intensive animal industries adopt current industry Code of Practice M 7.2 Implement gully control BMPs on dryland grazing land, particularly in medium-priority subcatchments M

Upper North East Water Quality Strategy 25 Program 1. Strategy Co-ordination Program The proposed cost-sharing arrangements are 33% each for If this Strategy is to be successfully implemented, the co- federal and State governments and the region (through ordination of all programs and actions is crucial. The NECMA). If federal funds are not forthcoming, state program will employ a co-ordinator to ensure continued government will cover the costs of the co-ordination stakeholder involvement and commitment to meeting program. Strategy targets to improve water quality in the region (See Table 6). Also through the NECMA, local community implementation committees will be responsible for Responsibilities overseeing the action programs. The North East Catchment Management Authority (NECMA) is responsible for overseeing the implemention Program cost share of the Strategy. A range of other stakeholders-including Federal 33% State 33% DNRE, GMW, NERWA and EPA, as outlined in the table- Region 33% Local - are also responsible for implementing individual actions *Total does not add to 100% due to rounding error within other programs. Benefits In brief, the co-ordinator will be largely responsible for The benefits of the Strategy co-ordination program itself Actions 1.1 A-J: have not been quantified in terms of nutrient reduction; • overseeing the implementation of the Strategy however, a co-ordinated approach to implementing all the • ensuring implementation of the Strategy is coupled with programs will ensure the benefits of the Strategy are other strategies/programs in Victoria, NSW and the maximised. Murray-Darling Basin • reviewing and revising the Strategy over time Program 2. Community Education Program • ensuring Strategy program actions are delivered by those This program outlined in Table 7 will deliver the community deemed responsible education component of the Strategy. It aims to increase • supporting the NECMA implementation committees awareness of water quality and catchment management • ensuring Strategy targets are met and reported on issues, and highlights the need for action in both the urban • providing technical advice on water quality issues and and rural sectors of the catchment. management An increased awareness of issues will ultimately lead to Costs & cost sharing attitudinal and behavioural changes over the long term and Costs for Action 1 are for a full-time co-ordinator over the facilitate the implementation of actions within the Strategy. 30-year life of the Strategy. Existing educational programs or networks, such as Target 10 and Farm$mart, which target the agricultural community, and Waterwatch, which targets schools and Landcare groups, present opportunities for algal bloom and nutrient management issues to be incorporated into their charter.

The Strategy co-ordinator will develop a communication framework to disseminate key messages to target audiences and ultimately ensure that water quality management is integrated into all existing and future educational programs (Action 2.1). Regular newsletters and media releases will provide information to the community on the Strategy implementation progress (Action 2.4).

Waterwatch, although relatively new in the Upper North East, is a program that has been successful around the State and will be used as one of the Strategy’s community education tool (Action 2.3).

A campaign to promote the adoption of better management practices for stormwater management will be supported. Waterwatch will be used as one of the Strategy’s community education tools

26 Upper North East Water Quality Strategy managers DNRE other water DNRE Land holders PrimaryNECMA Secondary Implementation responsibility materials, etc) federal & 33% State 33% gov. Region share Proposed Priority ongoing VH 33% frame cost discount ($’000) 86 968 costed in 1.1 costed in 1.1 NECMA costed in 1.1 costed in 1.1 NECMA costed in 1.1 costed in 1.1costed in 1.1costed in 1.1 costed in 1.1 costed in 1.1costed in 1.1 costed in 1.1costed in 1.1 costed in 1.1costed in 1.1 NECMA costed in 1.1costed in 1.1 NECMA NECMA costed in 1.1costed in 1.1 NECMA costed in 1.1costed in 1.1 NECMA costed in 1.1costed in 1.1 DNRE, costed in 1.1 NECMA NECMA NECMA NECMA NECMA 86/yr (30yrs) 968 cost ($’000) cost 8% Ave. AnnualAve. NPV 30-year Time Outcome Co-ordinated nutrient management activities Provide a focus on nutrient management activities Most up-to-date knowledge in the Strategy Achievable targets All stakeholders have access to the latest information All stakeholders have access to the latest information All stakeholders have access to the latest information Record of algal blooms in the catchment & use records to measure success of Strategy implementation Integrated catchment management activities Integrated catchment management activities All stakeholders have access to the latest information Nutrient management activities adequately funded Better reporting Action Support a co-ordinator to oversee the implementation of The role of the Strategy. the co-ordinator will be to: Support the Upper Murray & Mitta, Kiewa Indigo Implementation Committees within the North East Catchment Management Authority; assist with the development of water quality works programs Review the Strategy every 5 years Review Strategy targets every 5 years Disseminate relevant research to stakeholders Participate in, and disseminate, information on State nutrient management initiatives Review catchment management model every 5 or lesser interval ifyears, there is a significant technological or landuse change Participate in reporting of blue-green algal blooms Ensure implementation is co-ordinated with similar strategies in NSW and the MDB Ensure implementation is co-ordinated with other catchment & Regional Programs Provide technical advice on water quality issues to agencies, NECMA and landholders regional Programs Coordinate & prepare funding bids Prepare an annual implementation progress report G. 1.1 A. D. B. C. E. F. H. I. J. K. L. TOTAL COST OF PROGRAM Costing based on $48 000 salary for co-ordinator plus 20% oncost (work cover, payroll tax, super) plus 50% operating (vehicle & tax, super) plus 50% operating (vehicle payroll cover, for co-ordinator plus 20% oncost (work Costing based on $48 000 salary Table 6. ProgramTable 1. Strategy Co-ordination Program

Upper North East Water Quality Strategy 27 Nutrient run-off results from many types of activities within $30 000 in the first year and $15 000 per year for 29 years. any urban catchment and improvements to stormwater The proposed cost-sharing arrangements are 25% NERWA quality can be achieved through changes in the day-to-day and 25% local government and 25% each for federal and activities of individual households, municipalities and State governments. businesses. A community education program (Action 2.5) would facilitate such changes by encouraging the adoption The federal and State governments and the Region have of measures such as: been asked to share the cost of implementing this program, • appropriate siting of developments and roads (to be as it promotes community involvement, education and incorporated into plans and planning schemes) awareness-raising in nutrient management issues. • the use of low-phosphorus detergents in domestic and commercial activities Program cost share • minimisation of detergent run-off from machinery and Federal 38% State 12% car-washing activities Region 50% Local - • improved street-cleaning methods • minimisation of nutrient export during fertiliser Benefits application to lawns The benefits of some of the actions in this program have • appropriate management of dog faeces not been quantified in terms of nutrient reduction. The exception is Action 2.5. This would be expected to reduce The Albury, Wodonga, Corowa Phoswatch campaign has nutrient exports from urban stormwater by approximately decreased phosphorus levels in stormwater by 10-20% and 600 kg/yr, by expanding the current Phoswatch campaign. from Albury Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) by 20-25%. A decrease in TP and TN loading to STPs would also result.

A Catchment awareness program run by Fisheries Victoria Program 3. Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) and titled ‘Quality Catchments equals quality fish’ is aimed at Industry Program showing anglers, angling clubs and community qroups that Table 8 outlines the Program. STPs currently contribute their behaviour within a catchment influences the quality of about 28 t/yr of TP and 60 t/yr of TN to the catchments, fish habitat. This program provides an opportunity to link in and comprise the single largest point source. water quality issues. A range of possible nutrient management options was Responsibilities assessed for most of the STPs, including tertiary treatment, The North East Catchment Management Authority tertiary treatment with summer/autumn land disposal and (NECMA), in partnership with Department of Natural total land disposal. Resources and Environment (DNRE), is responsible for the community education program. In addition to this water quality strategy being developed by the Water Quality Working Group, a Memorandum of DNRE is already responsible for programs such as Target Understanding between the Victoria Government and 10 and Farm$mart and these existing programs will North East Region Water Authority was signed in 1998. incorporate nutrient management. Amongst other things, this Memorandum of Understanding states that all sewage treatment plants will discharge effluent Local councils and North East Region Water Authority (NERWA) will be responsible for the community education officer who will implement the Phoswatch campaign.

Other agencies have a role in community education whereby, through their daily activities, they interact with land managers and have the ability to increase awareness of water quality issues.

Costs & cost sharing Costs in Action 2.3 have been based on supporting the Waterwatch program for 5 years at $47 000 per year. The proposed cost-sharing arrangements are 50% federal, 50% Region through NECMA.

Costs in Action 2.5 have been based on the community Upgrades at sewage treatment plants in the Region will ensure nutrients are education program for urban stormwater management at removed from waterways (photo courtesy of NERWA)

28 Upper North East Water Quality Strategy consistent with State Environment Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria) by 2001 and that all towns within the North East Region Water Authority’s Region with a population over 500 people and reticulated water supplies, unless exempted by Environment Protection Authority, will be sewered by 2001. This Memorandium requires actions 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.8 to be undertaken. Primary Secondary NECMA Implementation responsibility The works that government requires for individual STPs NECMA will be reflected in EPA licences. Where STPs are to continue to discharge waste to the stream, further ongoing improvements may be required to reduce the local impacts Program 1 Program 1 Region 50% federal NECMA on stream health. In addition, new opportunities are Proposed share 75% State NECMA DNRE EPA, emerging for water authorities to expand the practicable re-use of treated effluent. Further improvements to water quality are likely to be achieved beyond the actions identified in the Water Quality Strategy. Priority

The Strategy endorses as very high priority actions to ongoing M in as Time 2004 H frame cost ongoing H upgrade works at Wodonga, Bellbridge, Yackandandah, Mt 1999 H as in Beauty and Corryong STPs (Action 3.1). These are recognised as being highly cost-effective actions in reducing nutrient loads. The Strategy also endorses proposed treatment upgrades at Tallangatta, Dartmouth, Bandiana, 370 discount ($’000) and Bonegilla STPs (Action 3.2) even though these are less cost-effective in terms of nutrient reduction. Consequently the cost of implementing this action was not added into the total cost of the strategy. Upgrades at some of the mentioned sewage treatment plants have already 30/yr(1yr) 15/yr 183 30 years VH 25% federal Local gov. EPA, & 25% State NERWA NECMA commenced and the state Government has contributed to cost ($’000) cost 8% these upgrades. Managers of sewage treatment plants at Falls Creek and Bogong villages have not yet negotiated their plant upgrades with EPA. Defence Estate Organisation is also negotiating for NERWA to manage the Bandiana and Bonegilla plants. Any improvement works planned in the future will be endorsed by the Strategy (Actions 3.3 & 3.4).

Industries discharging to STPs will be encouraged to adopt management issues quality waste-minimisation and cleaner production practices, and Co-ordinated catchment costed in 1.1 of 600kg from STPs develop management plans to minimise waste at the beginning of their processes (Actions 3.5 & 3.6). This will reduce the load delivered to the sewage treatment plant.

From a Basin-wide perspective, the sewering of small towns represents an extremely expensive way to achieve nutrient reduction. Kiewa/Tangambalanga is currently being sewered, but NERWA has not forecast works in any other towns within the catchments. Although it is expensive to sewer small towns for nutrient reduction alone, sewerage may collectively address other water quality improvements. A few towns located on Lake Hume, such as Bethanga, require investigation into their impacts on on the Strategy implementation progress Strategy’s Strategy’s community education tool quality and catchmentencourage adoption of better managementpractices for urban stormwater & STP quality issues among campaignurban Phoswatch management - e.g., residents • reduce TP contributions (29yrs) 50% Region Region 50% gov. Actionfor the Strategy issues into their programs Outcome(utilise existing newsletters) TOTAL COST OF PROGRAM Annual Ave. NPV 30-year Lake Hume water quality. The development of reticulated include algal bloom and nutrient management management25% gov. sewage, septic tank systems or alternative effluent treatment 2.4 Prepare regular newsletter and media releases Increase awareness of water costed in 1.1 2.2 Ensure community education programs 2.3 program as theWaterwatch Utilise the NE Increase awareness of water 47/yr (5yrs) 188 2.5toprogram education community a Support • promote awareness of water 2.1 Develop & implement a communication plancommunication Targeted costed in 1.1

systems (Action 3.8) is supported by the WQWG. 7. ProgramTable Education 2. Program Community

Upper North East Water Quality Strategy 29 Primary Secondary Implementation responsibility NERWA 100% 25% State industry O&M Region industry 50% Region NERWA EPA 100% priv. Industry EPA Proposed share 100% Region DEO, EPA 100% priv. Industry100% EPA Region EPA NERWA 50% Region NERWA& 25% State 100% gov. EPA private BTC Priority 2001 H ongoing H Time ongoing H ongoing H frame cost 2001 VH 590 C 14 526 1 921C 123 O&Mfederal 25% discount ($’000) current base 97C 34 O&M209C 54 O&M 1 893 O&MO&M859C 1 593 25% federal & O&M Region 756C 212 gov. current base Ave. AnnualAve. NPV 30-year O&M NCfunding 2003fundingcurrent base funding M NC 2028 M industry gov. State 100% NERWA EPA, cost ($’000) cost 8% 10 000C 8 TBC 2001 H 100% FCRM, EPA 200 O&M 2 Outcome Reduction of nutrients to waterways 21.6t TP reduction 3t TP reduction, reduction of pathogens, chemicals & salt loads Reduction of nutrients, pathogens, chemicals & salt loads Reduction of nutrients, pathogens, chemicals & salt loads Reduction of nutrients at source Reduction of nutrients at source Reduction of nutrients at source 0.1t reduction of nutrient to waterways Undertake priority works at Wodonga STP; Wodonga at Undertake priority works costs based on tertiary treatment & some summer-autumn land disposal Undertake works (in priority order) at: Bellbridge total land disposal, total land disposal, Yackandandah Mt Beauty tertiary treatment & some summer autumn land disposal, Corryong total land disposal Undertake at requiredTallangatta, works Dartmouth, Bandiana, Bonegilla STPs Undertake priority works at Falls Creek & Bogong village STPs (once known) Industry to implement cleaner production & waste-minimisation principles Industry to develop waste-management plans as per government requirements Undertake necessary regulation/enforcement and provide advice to major industries Develop reticulated sewage, septic tank treatments or alternative effluent treatment systems for priority towns, where net benefits can be demonstrated: priorities are Eskdale, Bethanga, Dederang, Tawonga, Cudgewa Mitta Mitta, Walwa, Action 3.2 3.5 3.6 3.3 3.7 3.8 3.1 3.4 TOTAL COST OF PROGRAM Table 8. Program 3. Sewage Treatment Plants & Industry Program Treatment 8. Program 3. Sewage Table

30 Upper North East Water Quality Strategy Responsibilities There is considerable potential to reduce the export of NERWA, Defence Estate Organisation, Falls Creek resort nutrients from grazing and horticultural land by modifying Management and Bogong Trading Company are largely and adopting better management practices. Each farm is responsible for implementing this program. The assessment unique and the appropriate mix of practices will vary and development of reticulated sewage or other waste between farms. Practices that improve soil health, soil water management options should be done in consultation organic matter and aeration will reduce runoff and with local government and the community. Industries maximise the use of nutrients on the farm. discharging to the sewer system will also be required to manage and minimise their discharges. The EPA has a Accelerating implementation of better management with policy-making and regulatory role to ensure statutory respect to water quality in the dryland grazing, horticultural environmental requirements are met by 2001. and dairy industries will require an extension program (Action 4.1). The extension program, in the first instance, will Costs & cost sharing target priority subcatchments as listed in Map 5. Program 4 Capital costs in Actions 3.1 and 3.2 of upgrading Wodonga, will aim to incorporate water quality issues into existing Bellbridge, Yackandandah, Mt Beauty and Corryong STPs industry programs and increase the adoption and will be shared on the basis of 25% each for federal and implementation of farm improvement plans. State governments and 50% the Region, through the North East Region Water Authority. These will be spread over 3 Primary producers and agricultural industries have years to meet the 2001 deadline for upgrades. voluntarily introduced the hazard analysis critical control points quality assurance programs, such as Cattle Care and The federal contribution reflects the downstream benefits Flock Care. These provide the opportunity to assess and gained through the implementation of this program. The eliminate chemical usage, storage and handling hazards on- North East Region Water Authority will be responsible for farm and therefore will assist in the protection of ground funding 100% of the operating and maintenance costs of and surface waters. the plants. As a result of the extension program, it is expected that The costs involved with Action 3.4 need to be included in landholders will adopt better management practices, such as; the total cost of the Strategy, but are yet to be determined. • improved grazing and fertiliser management particularly In Action 3.8, development of reticulated sewage, septic for highly erodable areas of farmland tank systems or alternative effluent treatment systems could • restricted access of livestock to waterbodies and cost in the order of $6.7M spent in one year, and $136 000 waterways per year for operating and maintenance. These costs have been • restricted grazing of hilltops that are highly connected to identified but not included in the total cost of the Strategy. streams • reduced stocking Program cost share • management/establishment of native pastures Federal 18% State 18% • strategic placement of grassed/treed filter strips that Region 64% Local - would intercept nutrient laden runoff • establishment of perennial pastures or trees on highly Benefits erodable areas across 50% of the farmland in the Upper Sewage treatment plant upgrades will mean a reduction of North East predominantly in the priority subcatchments, 25 t/yr of TP exported to surface waters. (Action 4.2). This is based on the assumption that 50% of the farmland is prone to erosion and therefore has Where STPs are located in the headwaters of a catchment, the ability to contribute nutrients and sediment to as at Falls Creek, the upgrades will ensure that in-catchment streams. users of Kiewa River water receive a higher-quality supply.

Program 4. Agricultural Industries Program This program shown in Table 9 focuses on the adoption of sediment and nutrient better management practices across all major agricultural industries.

Dryland grazing (including crop pasture) is the largest agricultural industry in the catchments and contributes 49% of the total phosphorus load and 64% of the total nitrogen load. Stream bank erosion, particulary during major floods Unrestricted stock access to streams contributes nutrients (photo courtesy is known to be a major source of sediment and nutrient loads. of R. Clutterbuck NRE)

Upper North East Water Quality Strategy 31 DNRE, Programs NECMA other agencies industry assoc, other agencies other agencies R&D institutes industry assoc, DNRE Industry, EPA, Industry, & Education Primary Secondary Fish DNRE, EPA, farmers Implementation responsibility landholder industry assoc, 100% Landholders 100%Landcare Landholders DNRE, 100% fishfarmers Fish farmers100% G-MW EPA, DNRE, Landholders DNRE, local Up to 50%state gov.,industryDairy Murray industry Inc, associations, landholder NECMA state gov. groups. 100% fish farmers Proposed share landholder100% Landholders EPA, councils gov. landholder Up to 50% 100%landholder Landholders DNRE, TAFE Priority years VH 100% Landholders DNRE, grams such as Target 10. Negotiationsgrams with industries who do as Target such ongoing VH ongoing VH ongoing M ongoing H Time ongoing M frame cost ongoing H 15 318 discount ($’000) current base current base funding 100/yr (30yrs) 1 126years 30 VH 50% federal DNRE EPA, costed in 4.2 costed in 4.2 30 current base funding Ave. AnnualAve. NPV 30-year funding current base cost ($’000) cost 8% funding + O&M (30yrs) 751C/yr 14 192years 30 VHcurrant base funding Up to Increased adoption of better management practices Increased adoption of better management practices 16t reduction in TP loads Increased adoption of better management practices Improved water quality Accountability Increased adoption of best management practices Minimal impact on water quality Increased adoption of better management practices Increased adoption of better management practices Implement an extension program to encourage adoption of nutrient better management practices by landholders, with drylandemphasis on: dairy grazing industry, priority horticultural industry,within industry, subcatchments Achieve 100% adoption of better management practices on 50% of dryland grazing land, within priority subcatchments Achieve an increase of 10% in the number landholders adopting and implementing WFPs within priority subcatchments All dairy farms to employ better management practices to waste-management systems & ensure they are managed so that no discharge to waterways occur All land managers to provide information on their adoptions and implementation of better management practices All fish farms to adopt the code of practice and best management practices guidelines once developed Fish farms within the catchments to comply with existing extraction and discharge licences All new intensive animal industries to adopt current industry code of practice All existing intensive animal industries to adopt current industry code of practice Action Outcome 4.5 4.7 4.8 4.1 4.3 4.6 4.9 4.2 4.4 TOTAL COST OF PROGRAM * Action 4.1 - Existing cost shares should be maintained, i.e. industry to contribute existing extension should be maintained, i.e. should continue pro * Action 4.1 - Existing cost shares not currently contribute to the cost of extension programs will be initiated. Table 9. ProgramTable 4. Agricultural Industries Program

32 Upper North East Water Quality Strategy Action 4.3 is a subset of Action 4.2. Currently in the North Cost & cost sharing East approximately 10% of farmers have and use whole In Action 4.1 the costs have been based on an expenditure farm plans. The aim is to double this figure over 30 years. of $100 000 per year for 30 years for an extension program This figure is low because Whole Farm Planning courses are to encourage adoption of better management practices (see not widely available nor sought after in the region. It is the box on p.22) with respect to nutrient management. The worth noting that the benefits quantified in the scenarios proposed cost share arrangements are 50% federal and up represent an under estimate of the economic impacts of to 50% State government and industry. nutrient management, since some impacts, such as environmental values or public health, have not been In Action 4.2 the costs have been based on expenditure by quantified. farmers equivalent to an average of $150 to $300 per hectare across 50% of all farmland. Recurrent expenditure Currently a small percentage of dairy farms discharge dairy for maintenance of works is $10 to $50 per hectare per effluent indirectly into streams. All dairyfarmers will employ year. The proposed cost share arrangement is up to 100% better management practices to ensure that no dairy waste is landholders, and up to 50% state government, dependant on discharged to waterways (Action 4.4). Land managers will the type of Better Management Practice proposed. The state need to provide information on their adoption and government may be prepared to fund some incentives for implementation of better practices, (Action 4.5). NECMA the uptake of innovative Better Management Practices will need to determine how land managers will do this where public benefits are demonstrated. (Action 12.3). An agricultural survey will be carried out every 5 years to monitor changes in adoption of Better Fish farm operators are expected to contribute 100% of the Management Practices. costs of adopting fish farm better management practices, as this is required to meet current government policy. The aquaculture industry is currently developing a code of practice and EPA and the Department of Natural Resources New and existing intensive animal industries are expected to and Environment are developing guidelines. The code and contribute 100% of the cost of adopting Better best management practice guidelines will be implemented on Management Practices. farms within the Upper North East and it is expected that all farms comply with the code as well as their respective Program cost share extraction and discharge licences (Actions 4.6 & 4.7). There Federal 4% State 31% is scope for expansion of the aquacultural industry, however Region - Local 65% this needs to occur in parallel with improvements in fish farm management practices and effluent discharges so there Benefits is no net increase in nutrient loads. The benefits of this program will be a 16 t/yr reduction in export of total phosphorus to surface waters from grazing All new intensive animal industries are expected to adopt land . nutrient and sediment better management practices (Action 4.8). Existing intensive animal industries are also required to Program 5. Forest Management (Public Land) minimise their environmental impact (Action 4.9). Table 10 summarises the Program, which focuses on both public land (national parks, State parks, State forest and Responsibilities other reserves) and the hardwood and softwood timber DNRE will be responsible for implementing most actions in industries. this program. Specific industries, such as dairy and aquaculture, will carry out certain actions where appropriate.

EPA has an enforcement and policy development role. It will continue to work with various individual industries to ensure adoption of best management practices. Local government will continue to work with industry through the strategic planning and planning permit processes.

Private landholders and industries (such as dairy and aquaculture) will generally be responsible for the costs incurred in complying with the law.

Many other agencies, industry associations, educational and research institutions have a responsibility to ensure actions in Good grazing management will reduce sediment and nutrient runoff from this program are implemented. pastures (photo courtesy of R. Clutterbuck NRE)

Upper North East Water Quality Strategy 33 Approximately 67% of the catchments are forested and The Code of forest practice for timber production only these areas contribute approximately 31% of the TP and applies to commercial forestry activity, and does not regulate 30% of the TN loads. Although nutrient and sediment the management of water quality impacts from a large contributions are lower from forested land than from percentage of the forested area. Unregulated areas, cleared land, the vast area of forested land makes it an particularly the poorly constructed and maintained roading important contributor to these loads. network, have the potential to contribute large quantities of sediment and nutrients. Logging operations and fires through native forests probably give rise to the most intensive nutrient loads from A recent Department of Natural Resources & Environment forests, but on average only a very small proportion of the stream crossing and roading sedimentation survey carried forested area is subject to logging or fires each year. out in a small section of the Upper North East catchments identified priority areas requiring works. The survey should The management of softwood and hardwood forests be expanded to incorporate the entire Department of involves periodic major disturbance of vegetation and soils, Natural Resources & Environment managed forested areas with potential mobilisation of nutrients. The Code of Forest (Action 5.3) and the priority works identified need to be Practices for Timber Production places restriction on implemented as part of this program (Action 5.5). activities, that have the potential to impact on water quality. A program that encourages the adoption of better The Code is divided into sections to deal with public land management practices for native forest road management native forests and private land native forests and all (i.e., for all roads within 100 to 200 metres of a stream) will plantations. It addresses areas of forestry operation with decrease contributions of sediment and nutrients to streams the potential to impact on water quality, which are: in the long term (Action 5.5). • establishing and tending timber stands • timber harvesting and issues such as water yield Parks Victoria develop management plans that consider protection, slope limitaions, log landings and dumps, catchment protection and maintenance of water quality and snig tracks and forwarding tracks, wet weather review road and track networks. The criteria for defining a restrictions and fertiliser application suitable intensity of roads is based on fire protection, • roading for timber production and issues such as recreational use, resource utilisation and park mangement planning, design, location, construction, drainage, stream purposes. The roads and tracks are maintained to a standard and drainage line crossings and maintenance appropriate to the road purpose, environmental values, park settings and level of usage. Parks Victoria will continue to All plantation and native forest managers must comply with review the road and track network through the Park the Code (Action 5.1 & 5.2). Management Planning Process (Action 5.4).

The Code of Practice for Fire Management on Public Land DNRE and Parks Victoria will continue to review water lists environmental care principles, which ensure DNRE and quality impacts, and their management through the park Parks Victoria fire management activities are planned, management planning process (Action 5.6). The conducted and monitored in an environmentally sensitive recommendation of these reviews will also be implemented manner (Action 5.2). (Action 5.7). Planning processes such as these ensure positive environmental outcomes. One such outcome is the use of composting toilets in most parks now.

Management of forest roads will decrease sediment and nutrient runoff to streams (photo courtesy of R. Clutterbuck NRE)

34 Upper North East Water Quality Strategy local gov. Plantationgrowers Local gov. EPA Primary Secondary gov. ParksVic Implementation responsibility ParksVic, DNRE DNRE DNRE local gov. ParksVic ParksVic, industry 100% 25% federal & 75%gov. PlantationPrivate growers growers local gov. 100% State gov. Proposed share 100% State 100% DNRE 25% federal& 75% State DNRE 25% federal DNRE, 100% State growers growers, local Priority ongoing H ongoing H ongoing H ongoing H ongoing H Time 80 2000 VH 4775 30 years VH 4 855 ($’000) ) funding priv. current base NC ongoing H funding gov. current base cost($’000) cost discount 8% frame cost fundingcurrent basefunding annual H ongoing gov. 100% gov. State Parks Victoria, NECMA, Ave. AnnualAve. NPV 30-year O&Mcurrent base funding gov. gov. funding317.7/yr (30yrs) gov. State & 75% State current base 86/yr (1yr 1295C/yr (1 yr) current base current basefunding annual H ongoing 100% State DNRE, priv. & gov plantation NECMA, Nutrient/sediment inputs to streams reduced Nutrient/sediment inputs to streams reduced Decreased nutrient/sediment run-off from roads. 85% in the roads surveyed.increase Nutrient/sediment inputs to streams reduced Decreased nutrient /sediment run-off from roads Nutrient/sediment inputs to streams reduced Nutrient/sediment inputs to streams reduced Decreased nutrient /sediment run-off Accountability. Assists evaluate success of current approaches Decreased nutrient /sediment run-off from roads 0.4t reduction in TP load All plantation managers continue to apply the Code of Forest Practices For Timber Production to their operations All native forest managers continue to apply the Code of Forest Practices for Timber Production & Code of Practice for Fire Management to their operations Expand the DNRE stream crossing & road sedimentation survey to assess all parts of the catchments Parks Vic to continue reviewing road and track network through park management planning process Ensure priority works as identified in the Vic reviewsurvey of and Parks roading and track network are implemented DNRE and Parks Vic will continue to undertake reviews of water quality impacts and their management Implementation recommended from review in Action 5.6 Monitor, control and review recreational activities that adversely impact on stream- bank stability & on public land All land managers to provide information on their adoptions and implementation of better management practices Adopt buffers & road improvements along streams in softwood plantations (above Code requirements), where local impacts have been identified Action Outcome 5.1 5.10 5.4 5.8 5.6 5.2 5.3 5.5 5.7 5.9 TOTAL COST OF PROGRAM Table 10. Program 5. Forest Management Program Management Program 10. Forest Table 5.

Upper North East Water Quality Strategy 35 Recreation in the catchment also has the potential to Where local impacts can be traced to plantation activities, contribute to nutrient loads. 4WD, motorbike riding and growers will be encouraged to improve buffer and road horse riding near or adjacent to streams may contribute improvements above the Code’s requirements (Action 5.10). nutrients directly or indirectly through erosion and weathering processes. Activities such as fishing, camping and Responsibilities bushwalking also impact on water quality. These activities DNRE and Parks Victoria are responsible for ensuring they can cause erosion in or near streams, and pollution due to comply with the Code of Forest Practices for Timber faecal contamination and general litter. Production and the Code of Practice for Fire Management on Public land. They also have a responsibility to ensure DNRE and Parks Victoria will continue to monitor, control roads that are not used for timber harvesting do not and review recreational activities that adversely impact on adversely impact on water quality. stream-bank stability and on public land (Action 5.8). Plantation growers are responsible for implementing the All land managers will be expected to provide information Code of Forest Practices for Timber Production on their to the NECMA on their adoption/implementation of land. Local government will ensure that growers comply better management practices (Action 5.9). This could be with that code. highlighted in company’s annual reports. Cost & cost sharing Softwood plantations represent 23 400 ha or 2% of the In Action 5.3, costs have been based on a one off catchment area. Investment in plantation-based processing expenditure of $86 000 to expand the stream crossing and has increased in the 1990s. The Commonwealth roading sedimentation survey to identify priority areas for government aims to triple plantation areas, developing 10% works. The proposed cost-sharing arrangements are: 25% of all irrigated land and 13% of all dryland grazing land federal government and 75% State government. within the North East Region by the year 2020. A State private forestry initiative, promoted by Plantations North In Action 5.5 the cost of upgrading and maintaining non- East Inc. (a regional plantations committee) was established timber-harvesting roads was based on a capital cost of $1M in December 1996 to actively promote the expansion of the to replace culverts and $300 000 to upgrade roads, with a softwood and hardwood industries. It is important to recurrent expenditure of $300 000 necessary to maintain prevent water quality issues arising from these expanding roads in accordance with prescriptions in the Code of industries. Forest Practices. Proposed cost-sharing arrangements are: 25% federal and 75% State governments. The State Under the present Code of Forest Practices for Timber government will contribute 100% of the operating and Production, plantation growers are required to leave a maintenance costs. buffer of native vegetation along all streams, However, that requirement does not apply to old plantations nor, under Program cost share present arrangements, will buffers be required when some Federal - State 87% older plantations are re-established for future rotations. Region 12% Local - *Total does not add to 100% due to rounding error

Benefits The benefits of this program will be a 7 t/yr reduction in export of total phosphorus to surface waters.

Program 6. Stream Management Program Erosion of stream bed and bank processes is thought to contribute a large proportion of the nutrient and sediment load from grazed catchments. Therefore stream stabilisation works (Table 11) will include bank stabilisation, rock chutes, channel shaping and fencing and revegetation, in high- priority areas (Action 6.1). Works are already underway on a number of priority streams.

Past and present practices that contribute to these causes of erosion are the modification of vegetative cover in both Eroding stream banks deliver sediment to streams. As the bank recedes riparian zones and the catchment generally, regulation of grazing land is lost river flows, mining, dredging, allowing stock access to

36 Upper North East Water Quality Strategy streams and allowing weed infestation of stream banks. Gullying occurs when overland water flow is concentrated into unstable drainage lines. The water causes soil particle Priorities for stream works have been identified in the Lake movement and sediment is delivered to streams through Hume Catchment Sedimentation and Erosion Action Plan gully deepening, scour, headward erosion and gully-side (IDA 1997). erosion.

Information on priority streams upstream of Lake The Land Protection Incentive Scheme (LPIS), administered Dartmouth is lacking. However, stream bed and bank by DNRE for the NECMA, currently provides financial erosion is prevalent in the Omeo and Benambra areas, stimulus and opportunity for land-owners to undertake on- mostly due to previous gold-mining, extensive clearing and ground works. It is envisaged that this Program will expand agricultural practices. Works required above Lake the current LPIS. Dartmouth have not been costed, but have been included in this program to acknowledge they are needed. Investigative Gully stabilisation will be implemented on farmland, with works will be necessary to identify priority areas and costing the gullies located in priority subcatchments, identified in (Actions 6.2 & 6.3). Action 7.1, being tackled first. It is recognised that significant individual gullies located in the moderate-priority Responsibilities subcatchments are in need of urgent attention also (Action The actions in this program complement the NECMA’s 7.2). river management works program, and NECMA will be responsible for implementing them. Landholders also share Responsibilities the responsibility for maintaining management works. Private landholders, NECMA and DNRE have the responsibility to ensure this program is implemented. Both Cost & cost sharing parties have a collective responsibility to ensure gully works In Action 6.1 the costs have been based on $1.2M for are integrated with stream management works. capital works using a combination of bank stabilisation, rock chutes, channel shaping and fencing and revegetation Cost & cost sharing over 5 years. Recurrent annual expenses of $224 000 are In Action 7.1 the erosion control works have been costed based on additional stock water facilities, and fence based on the installation of rock chutes for all gullies located maintenance and loss of grazing over 30 years. in very high priority subcatchments (at a cost of $5 000 per chute), fencing and re-vegetating (at a capital cost of $12.50 The proposed cost share arrangements for the capital costs per metre of gully) and maintenance and management of are 40% federal government, 30% State government, 15% fenced areas at $50 per hectare per year. the Region through the NECMA and 15% private landholders. For operating and maintenance, landholders and The proposed cost share for capital works in Action 7.1 is the Region (through the NECMA) will contribute 50% each. 25% federal government and 25% State government, and 50% private landholders, who will be responsible for 100% Costs involved in Actions 6.2 & 6.3 need to be included in of the operating and maintenance costs. the cost of the Strategy, but are yet to be determined.

Program cost share Federal 25% State 19% Region 28% Local 28% *Total does not add to 100% due to rounding error

Benefits This Strategy emphasises the link between land management and stream management issues to provide an integrated program of sedimentation and erosion management within the catchments. The benefits of this program will be a 23 t/ yr reduction in export of TP to surface waters.

Program 7. Gully Stabilisation Program This program (see Table 12) recognises that gully erosion contributes significant nutrient and sediment loads to waterways. Treatment of the region’s active gullies on Omeo area contains some very large active gullies which deliver large quantities farmland is seen as an effective nutrient management activity. of sediment to streams

Upper North East Water Quality Strategy 37 Primary Secondary NECMA Landholders Implementation responsibility 40% federal NECMA 15% priv. gov. landholders 15% Region Landholders 50% landholder O&M Region. Proposed share 25% federal& 50% State NECMA 25% gov. Landholders Priority 2005 VH after 2005 Time 7 542 ($’000) (for 5yrs)244/yr (30yrs) O&M & 30% State 50% Region 1 200C 7 542 TBC Ongoing VH same as 6.1 Ave. AnnualAve. NPV 30-year cost($’000) cost discount 8% frame cost TBC 2005 VH Outcome water improved Stream stability, quality & riparian zone 23t reduction in TP loads 135km bank stabilised, fenced and revegetated Priority stream-bank works identified Bank protection & stabilisation, improved water quality & riparian zone Action Implement bank stabilisation, fencing and revegetation actions in priority areas as set out in the Lake Hume Catchment Sedimentation and Erosion Action Plan & Stream Zone Restoration Plan. The highest priority streams (not in order) are: Johnstone & Forest Creeks; & Bethanga & Spring Creeks; Cotton Tree Granya Creeks; Burrowye & Guy Forest Cudgewa Creek Lower; Nariel Creek; Eastern Mitta River; Tributaries; Mitta River Creek, Middle Kinchington Tallangatta Kiewa Lower Creek, Yackandandah Creek, River; Running Creek, Glen Creek Develop a stream stabilisation and restoration program for streams upstream of Lake Dartmouth Implement bank stabilisation, fencing and revegetation actions in priority areas above Lake Dartmouth 6.1 6.3 6.2 TOTAL COST OF PROGRAM Table 11. ProgramTable Program 6. Stream Management

38 Upper North East Water Quality Strategy PrimaryDNRE, Secondary EPA Implementation responsibility Primary Secondary Implementation responsibility 60% StateRegion NECMA, NERWA, G-MW Proposed share 25% federal Landholders 50% gov. landholder DNRE O&M 100% landholder Proposed share Priority Priority Time 2003 VH com-pletion of 7.1 negotiated* NECMA igh priorities. 12 885 ($’000) ($’000) Water reformWater package NC 2000 H gov. 40% cost($’000) cost discount 8% frame cost Ave. AnnualAve. NPV 30-year 2 900/yr (5yrs)C116/yr 1 1579 (30yrs) O&M 1 306 & 25% State NECMA NC After M to be Landholders DNRE cost($’000) cost discount 8% frame cost Ave. AnnualAve. NPV 30-year Time Outcome Equitable share of the water resource among all users; maintenance of adequate environmental flows Outcome 2654 gullies remediated Decreased nutrient/sediment run-off; increased adoption of better management practices; 40t reduction in TP loads; gully works integrated with stream management works Decreased nutrient/sediment run-off; increased adoption of better management practices; reduction in TP loads; gully works integrated with stream management works Action Provide input into the preparation of stream- flow management planning process for priority semi- or unnregulated streams, including Kiewa River, Nariel Creek Action Implement gully control better management practices on dryland grazing land, particularly in the following priority subcatchments: Hume Corryong, Eskdale, Environs, Omeo, Benambra, Upper & Middle Kiewa, Creek Creek, Kinchington Yackandandah Implement gully control better management practices on dryland grazing land, particularly in the following medium priority subcatchments: Creek, Upper Cudgewa, Lower Tallangatta Wodonga West Kiewa, 8.1 TOTAL COST OF PROGRAM NC 7.1 7.2 * Likely to include federal and state government cost share. In reality after all the very high priority activities have been completed then moderate priorities will become h TOTAL COST OF PROGRAM Table 13. Program 8. Water Allocation and Management Program Allocation and Management 13. ProgramTable 8. Water Table 12. ProgramTable 7. Gully Stabilisation Program

Upper North East Water Quality Strategy 39 The cost share for Action 7.2 will be negotiated once Action over summer, with some releases in spring to increase water 7.1 has been completed. levels in Lake Hume. Releases of cold water from Lake Dartmouth have already caused a reduction in biodiversity Program cost share downstream of the dam and the extinction of population Federal 22% State 22% of both Macquarie perch and Murray cod from the lower Region - Local 55% reaches of the Mitta Mitta River (Tunbridge 1977). Both *Total does not add to 100% due to rounding error these species are listed under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 and have a Conservation Status of ‘Endangered’ Benefits and ‘Vulnerable’ respectively. Between 1993 and 1996 Integration of stream and gully stabilisation works is Fisheries Victoria have stocked fingerling Trout Cod into the beneficial because in many cases gully erosion is exacerbated Mitta Mitta above Lake Dartmouth as part of the National by stream-bed deepening, which leads to deepening of the Trout Cod Recovery Plan. Trout Cod is a critically beds of tributary drainage lines or gullies. Endangered species which is also listed under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988. The benefits of this program will be a 40 t/yr reduction in export of total phosphorus to surface waters. The River Murray upstream of the confluence with Swampy Plains River is unregulated. However, the Snowy Mountains Hydroelectric Scheme diverts water from the east flowing Snowy River catchment west to the Murray system. The River Murray downstream of Swampy Plains River to Lake Hume carries half of the water diverted from the Snowy catchment in addition to its natural flow. The additional flow reduces seasonal variation by causing the Murray to run at near - full capacity for much of the year.

The River Murray downstream of Lake Hume is highly regulated.

The Murray-Darling Basin Commission, in conjunction with other stakeholders, reviewed water resource alloctions and Local Landcare groups are revegetating, fencing and stabilisation gullies flow management issues for the River Murray. (photo courtesy of R. Clutterbuck NRE) The major recommendations are: Program 8. Water Allocation and Management • As demand and competition for water increases there is Program a real need to manage this demand whilst also ensuring Table 13 summarises this program. the environment is given adequate consideration. This increased competition has brought with it the need for Regulated Streams reform from loosely defined water entitlements to more Control or management of the natural flow of rivers to certain property rights. achieve beneficial uses, such as irrigation should be managed • The Victorian Government, through the water reform to protect stream ecology. agenda has initiated a bulk entitlement conversion process. Water rights are explicitly defined to ensure long Sedimentation, changed flow/temperature regimes, the term sustainability and optimisation of use. construction of on stream storage, reduced environmental • The conversion of rights to water and the provision of flows, barriers to fish movement and migration and habitat water for the environment has been proceeding for degradation are considered to be the major threats, to the some time on regulated streams. The determination of aquatic environment and its fish resources. Whilst this water the majority of urban entitlements on all streams in the quality Strategy does not specifically address the fisheries Upper North East has been completed. The process to major threats the Water Quality Working Group determine rural entitlements has not commenced. acknowledge that these are issues. Unregulated Streams Several streams in the Upper North East are regulated. The The Upper North East has many unregulated streams. For Mitta Mitta River is highly regulated downstream of Lake unregulated streams the conversion process comes under a Darmouth. Stream Flow Management Plan that provides the management rules for water sharing amoung stakeholders Releases from Dartmouth Dam flow through a regulating under a range of stream flow conditions, particularly during pondage, and this assists in warming small-volume low flows. These plans will provide a balanced and discharges. The larger-volume releases are generally made sustainable sharing of available resource between all

40 Upper North East Water Quality Strategy stakeholders. The stakeholders include consumptive users, Program 9. Stormwater Management Program the environment, public use for water based recreation and Urban stormwater run-off can be a significant source of aesthetic enjoyment. nutrients to surface waters. It is estimated to contribute 1 t/ yr TP and 8 t/yr TN to surface waters. Table 14 summarises The Kiewa River is a semi-regulated stream with several the management program. Other contaminants also present small impoundments managed for hydroelectric generation in stormwater are: in the upper reaches. A Stream Flow Management Plan is • nutrients - sewage overflows, industrial discharges, animal currently being developed for the Kiewa River. wastes and fertilisers • oxygen-demanding materials - decomposing food and Nariel Creek has also been identified as a priority for plan garden wastes, microorganisms development. There are many other unregulated streams that • toxic trace metals - from vehicles and oils and surfactants feed into the Murray River. Wheather or not SMPs are - petroleum products from road surfaces developed on these streams will depend upon the extent of • litter (CEPA 1993) existing or proposed water developments and the environmental values of the stream. A number of publications- e.g., Stormwater Committee (1999), EPA (1991) and EPA (1995)- outline management Responsibilities practices that minimise nutrient and sediment inputs to Goulburn Murray Water is responsible for the development streams. All new subdivisions will be required to of stream flow management plans. Department of Natural incorporate such practices during development, in Resources & Environment is responsible for the bulk accordance with these publications (Action 9.1). entitlements conversion process. Many other stakeholders will be responsible for providing input into the stream flow Parts of the Wodonga township have stormwater management plans. management, incorporating works such as drain screens and wetlands. No other towns in the catchments have any form Cost & Cost Sharing of it. No costs have been allocated to this program, as the primary purpose of producing the plans is to assist with Stormwater treatment should be investigated in major allocation of resources. Goulburn Murray Water has been towns such as parts of Wodonga, Tallangatta, Kiewa, allocated $400,000, a proportion of this funding is being Tangambalanga, Corryong, Mt Beauty and Falls Creek, in used to support the development of SMPs in the region as order to address the impacts of contaminated stormwater part of the Rural Water Reform Package. In addition to the on streams (Action 9.2). Typically, unsewered towns contain development cost there will be plan implementation costs. higher nutrient levels than sewered towns. Part of the The current cost share for preparing Stream Flow investigation should include unsewered towns. Management Plans is 60% State Government and 40% Region, through Goulburn Murray Water. Bulk entitlements Each local council should prepare stormwater management clarify existing rights to water on regulated rivers. plans and implement those works where benefits to the catchments can be demonstrated (Actions 9.2 & 9.3). Benefits Stream Flow Management Plans develop a model for future Local councils should also have regard to the above sustainable stream-flow management. They will provide for guidelines, and any other relevant guideline, policy or code the long-term sustainable development and utilisation of of practice mentioned in the State Planning Policy, when stream flows in un- or semi regulated streams, such as the carrying out their works programs (Action 9.4). They should Kiewa River and Nariel Creek. Bulk entitlements clarify also be involved in developing and implementing new Better rights to water on regulated streams. Management Practices for urban stormwater.

Responsibilities Local government and development proponents will be responsible for implementing this program.

Costs and cost sharing The costs involved with investigation, preparation and implementation of stormwater management plans has not been included in the cost of the Strategy (Actions 9.2 & 9.3) because an associated nutrient reduction benefit could not be determined.

Rocky Valley dam at the head of the Kiewa River (photo courtesy of Proposed cost-sharing arrangements in Actions 9.2 will be R. Clutterbuck NRE) shared on the basis of the federal and State governments

Upper North East Water Quality Strategy 41 PrimaryDevelopment Local EPA, Secondary Local gov. EPA Implementation responsibility 100% developer Region State gov. up to 50% - 100% region 100% regiongov. Local Proposed share 25% federal& 25% State Local gov. 50% gov. EPA Priority have been identified as part of action 9.2. ongoing H ongoing H Time ($’000) built into the cost ofdevelopment landholder/ proponent gov. TBCcurrent base funding 2006 H up to 50% Ave. AnnualAve. costNPV 30-year ($’000) cost discount 8% frame cost TBC 2005 VH Outcome Increased adoption of better management practices Stormwater management plans developed Increased adoption of better management practices Increased adoption of better management practices Action All new subdivisions to incorporate nutrient and sediment better management practices during development, in accordance with the Best Practice Stormwater Committee’s Environmental Management Guidelines for Urban Stormwater Prepare stormwater management plans for parts Tallangatta, of Mt Beauty, Wodonga, Creek and Falls Corryong, Yackandandah Implement works as recommended in stormwater management plans Local government councils will have regard to 1995) 1991 and EPA publications (EPA EPA and any other relevant guideline, policy or code of practice mentioned in the State Planning when carrying out their works Policy, programs 9.1 9.3 9.4 9.2 TOTAL COST OF PROGRAM* Cost shares for the implementation of works as per stormwater management plan (Action 9.3) will be negotiated after TBC Table 14. ProgramTable 9. Stormwater Program Management

42 Upper North East Water Quality Strategy contributing 25% each and local government 50%, Action councils and others make informed decisions on the 9.3 25% Federal and up to 50% State Government, up to suitability of land for a given land use. 50% region through local government. Action 9.4 will be 100% local government responsibility. Individual landholders will integrate water-quality management into their property management or whole- Benefits farm plans to ensure that their practices do not adversely The reduction in export of nutrients to surface waters impact on water quality (Action 10.6). Farm$mart and depends on the type of stormwater treatment installed. If Target 10 can help update plans. all towns in the Upper North East installed wetlands to treat stormwater, the TP load reduction would be in the order Landcare groups will be encouraged to incorporate water- of 0.2 t/yr. This is an example only, as each local quality management into their local catchment plans (Action government council needs to investigate what stormwater 10.7). Priority catchments for plan development include treatment is appropriate for each individual town. those with a high rate of nutrient export and those with a high risk of blue-green algae occurring. Program 10. Planning, Non-structural, Program Table 15 gives a summary. Local and State governments, The NECMA will investigate the use of special area plans through their respective planning policy roles, identify and under the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 where develop long-term directions for land use and development deemed necessary (Action 10.9). within the State. Local government will investigate the use of rate rebate The local planning policy framework sets out general scheme to promote nutrient management and, if feasible, principles for land use and development planning. The adopt it (Action 10.10). municipal strategic statement provides a vision for future development and expresses the strategic directions to ensure DNRE and G-MW have produced draft guidelines for integrated decision-making and planning. irrigation development. These guidelines outline the procedure and checklist for new irrigation developments. Local government will integrate the Water Quality Strategy principles into their local planning policies (Action 10.1). Responsibilities This will ensure that all municipal planning schemes The four local government councils-Wodonga City, Alpine, uniformly assess developments for their impact on water Indigo and Towong-will be responsible for implementing quality. this program.

Local government is required to review their municipal Referral authorities, such as G-MW, EPA, NECMA, planning schemes every 5 years. This review should identify DNRE; developers, landholders and Landcare groups with a consistent internal process for assessing developments that an interest in water quality also have a role in implementing will affect water quality (Action 10.2). this program.

It is also necessary to have a consistent process across all Costs and cost sharing local government areas, so developers are treated equally In Action 10.5 the costs have been based on a one-off cost across the Region. of $50 000 to contribute to the review and development of land capability mapping for the Region. The proposed cost- Local government should also participate in the share arrangements are 50% State government and 50% development and implementation of any stormwater or Region. road sediment management guidelines. For example: Wodonga Council supports the implementation of the ‘Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines for building sites’ and ‘Soil and Water Management Guidelines for sub divisions’.

Developers will be required to assess and minimise the impact of their proposal on nutrient loads and concentrations, and provide this information to local councils (Action 10.3).

Land capability mapping will be reviewed and further refined for incorporation into municipal planning schemes (Action 10.5). Some mapping has already taken place, for Future housing subdivisions will be required to minimise impacts of example in Towong Shire. This information will assist development on water quality

Upper North East Water Quality Strategy 43 icers, NERWA, G-MW NERWA, NECMA DOI, G-MW DNRE, regional referral auth., Local gov. Local gov. NECMA, other agencies Referral Primary Secondary DNRE NECMA Implementation responsibility Local gov. NECMA, Proponent Landcare DNRE, 50% State gov. 50% Region authorities 100% Regiongov. Local DOI, 100% Landholders VFF, 50% Region 33% Region 100% Regiongov. Local Proposed share 25% State gov. 75% Region100% DNRE, EPA, 50% State gov. NECMA, 33% federal & 33% State gov. groups 33% Region negotiated33% federal & NECMA NECMA Priority ongoing H ongoing H ongoing H ongoing H ongoing H 2004 H ongoing H 2001 H 234 ($’000) funding current base funding current base Action 4.2 landholder Farm$mart costed in TBC 2004 H Ave. AnnualAve. costNPV 30-year ($’000) Time cost discount 8% frame cost current base built into the 50/yr (1yr)30/yr 9 plans 46 187 TBCcosted in Action 1.1 ongoing VH be to 33% State gov. funding cost ofdevelopment landholderoff dev. agribus forum, Outcome quality considerations Water addressed in all developments quality considerations Water addressed in all developments quality considerations Water addressed in all developments Consistent advice on water quality issues Development proposals assessed with respect to land capability Adoption of better management practices if water quality addressed in WFPs Implementation of nutrient management works in priority areas Implementation of nutrient management works in priority areas Plans could create an avenue for nutrient management Increased adoption of nutrient management activities CaLP Act Investigate the use of rating, or rating concessions, to achieve nutrient management Action Local governments to incorporate the Water Quality Strategy principles into their planning schemes and municipal strategies Review municipal planning schemes and planning procedures to provide a consistent process for assessing developments that will and amend as required affect water quality, Developers will assess & minimise the impact of their proposals on nutrient loads and concentrations Provide technical advice to the responsible authority concerning development issues that influence water quality Review & develop land capability mapping for the Kiewa and Upper Murray Basins Quality Landholders to integrate Water Strategy implementation into their property management plans or WFP at the local level Develop/amend catchment plans to address water quality issues in priority subcatchments: West, Upper Cudgewa, Corryong,Wodonga Omeo, Lake Middle & Upper Kiewa, Lower, Kinchington Creek, Osbornes Flat Encourage implementation of actions listed in catchment plans developed 10.7 Investigate the use & effectiveness of special area plans under 10.4 10.1 10.6 10.10 10.2 10.3 10.5 10.7 10.8 10.9 Table 15. Program Non-structural,Table 10. Planning, Program TOTAL COST OF PROGRAM

44 Upper North East Water Quality Strategy In Action 10.7 a cost of $30 000 for each priority Southern Hydro Partnership has a responsibility to ensure its subcatchment has been allocated for development of a desilting practices do not adversely affect the Kiewa River. catchment plan that addresses water quality issues. It has been estimated that nine plans will be developed over the 30 Costs and cost sharing years. The proposed cost-share arrangements are 33% each The costs in Action 11.1, involving investigating poorly for federal and State governments and the Region. functioning septic tanks, need to be included in the total cost of the Strategy. The proposed cost share arrangements are Costs involved with Action 10.8 need to be included in the 50% State government and 50% the Region. total cost of the Strategy, but are yet to be determined. Cost shares will be negotiated for plan implementation. In Action 11.4 the De-silting Working Group has yet to Action 10.10 Cost shares are 50% North East Region Water recommend a final option, so no costs could be applied. Authority and 50% local government. The proposed cost share arrangements are 100% by private industry. Program cost share Federal 27% State 37% Benefits Region 37% Local - The benefits derived from identifying and rectifying local *Total does not add to 100% due to rounding error water quality problems attributable to septic tanks will be a decrease in nutrient loads to waterways and decrease in the Benefits potential spread of infections by pathogens. The benefits of the actions in this program have not been quantified in terms of nutrient reduction. However, proactive It is unclear how much phosphorus is associated with the silt strategic planning will ensure water quality issues are resolved currently being flushed down the Kiewa River from the prior to the commencement of a new development. hydroelectric scheme. Nutrient benefits derived from excluding it are currently being quantified by the Partnership. Program 11. Local Water Quality Issues Program This may be a cost-effective means of reducing nutrient See Table 16 for a summary. Accurate information on the loads to the Kiewa River. impact of septic tanks on surface and groundwater in the region is scarce. Septic tanks do not rank highly as Program 12. Monitoring, Evaluation & Reporting significant nutrient contributors, on a catchment scale, but Program can do so on a local scale. Their impact depends on See Table 17 for the summary. proximity to stream, soil type and maintenance routine. Catchment monitoring A program to investigate and identify local effects that result Water quality is recognised as a major indicator of from failing septic tanks should be implemented (Action 11.1). catchment health, so monitoring it is crucial. The data collected by the Victorian Water Quality Monitoring Once problem tanks have been identified, local government Network (VWQMN) were used during the development of councils should develop a contingency plan to rectify the the Strategy. This information allowed the WQWG to water quality problems. Councils should also ensure all new assess the Region’s water against various State and federal septic tanks adopt better management practices to minimise guidelines. their nutrient export to surface waters (Action 11.2). Victorian Environmental Water Quality Monitoring and Southern Hydro Partnership uses dams on the upper Kiewa reporting arrangements are currently being reviewed. The River to store and divert water, and must remove silt NECMA and other water managers will take this trapped in these storages to minimise damage to its turbines and maintain control of the dams. The Partnership presently sluices most of the silt from the dams, and dredges silt trapped within the smaller check dams. The amount of silt varies from year to year: it averages about 15 000 m3, but may reach 30 000 m3. Southern Hydro Partnership, in conjunction with a de-silting working group comprising government agencies, is investigating ways to dispose of this within its storages (Action 11.3).

Responsibilities Landholders have a responsibility to ensure their septic tanks do not impact on waterways. Local government, EPA and G-MW have a planning and enforcement responsibility to ensure septic tanks do not impact on water quality. Straw bales filter sediment runoff to streams during highway development

Upper North East Water Quality Strategy 45 opportunity firstly to ensure the program is continued assess changes in invertebrate populations and fish (Action 12.1) and secondly to refine the monitoring network assemblages in response to improved water quality, as a so it meets Regional and State demands with regard to result of implementing the preferred strategy. monitoring and strategic planning (Action 12.2). An indicative cost of reviewing the network is in the order of The Index of Stream Condition and Goulburn Murray $30K. The recommendations of the regional water quality Water’s water quality and blue-green algae monitoring data monitoring network need to be implemented (Action 12.3). for Lakes Hume and Dartmouth, and the EPA invertebrate program, also contain baseline data. These could be used to The local Waterwatch program will continue to bring the regularly assess changes in stream health and river local community together to monitor water quality and will improvement as a result of implementing the preferred also fill in the gaps of the larger monitoring network. The strategy (12.10 & 12.11). NECMA should ensure this successful program continues in the Region (Action 12.4). Responsibilities The NECMA has the primary responsibility for overseeing In addition to the VWQMN, several industries and most of the actions in this program; however, all water authorities monitor point source discharges. These managers, such as G-MW, EPA, DNRE and NERWA, will discharges should continue to be monitored (Action 12.5). participate in the water quality monitoring review and resultant monitoring network. Strategy implementation monitoring Strategy implementation over the 30 years will be monitored Costs and cost sharing and evaluated by the NECMA. The Strategy will be In Action 12.1 the current cost of the monitoring associated evaluated in terms of: with the VWQMN is $60 000 per annum. This is expected • actions within each program successfully implemented to continue. The current cost-sharing arrangements are: 10% • successful adoption of targeted better management federal government (for the MDBC monitoring) and 90% practices State government (through DNRE and GMW).

The NECMA is responsible for reporting on the condition In Action 12.7 the costs have been based on $10 000 every 5 of the catchments. As such, it will be required to collect and years for 30 years. The proposed cost-sharing arrangements collate a large amount of information on an annual basis. In are 50% State government and 50% Region. order to do this in the most efficient and effective way the Costs involved in Actions 12.6 & 12.8 need to be included Authority will need to investigate the best process to use in the total for the Strategy. These will be determined in the (Action 12.6). Once a system is in place all land managers future and added then. will be required to provide information to the NECMA on their better management practice adoption and Program cost share implementation rates (Action 12.7). Federal 9% State 87% Region 3% Local - The NECMA will monitor Strategy implementation, which *Total does not add to 100% due to rounding error includes surveying better management practice adoption. The NECMA is also responsible for monitoring the cost- Benefits effectiveness of taking up better practices (Action 12.8). The benefits of the Strategy Monitoring, Evaluation & Reporting Program have not been quantified in terms of Those responsible for implementing actions will be held nutrient reduction. accountable, and implementation results will be published in the NECMA Annual Reports. This program is vital because it will provide detailed information on Strategy outcomes and target compliance. Evaluation & reporting The performance of primary and secondary implementors The objectives of the Strategy will be assessed in terms of is evaluated and the NECMA reports valuable information whether or not it has: back to the community. This feedback loop will encourage • improved in water quality greater change if positive improvements result from • reduced nutrient loads entering the Murray River Strategy implementation. • decreased blue-green algal blooms The program will also identify emerging areas and/or issues • improved the riverine environment for priority action in the future.

One way the NECMA can determine whether the Strategy Program 13. Research & Investigation Program has been successful will be by comparing VWQNM, A research and investigation program is necessary to fill in G-MW, and MDBC historical water quality and gaps in current knowledge and understanding of catchment macroinvertebrate data with data collected after the Strategy processes (See Table 18). launch (Action 12.9). These data could be used to regularly

46 Upper North East Water Quality Strategy The Water Quality Working Group (WQWG) used the best available information to develop this Strategy.

Catchment Management Support System (CMSS) was used to describe nutrient exports in the region and model the impacts of nutrient management activities. That model - developed initially by CSIRO and the Working Group - has stressed that the CMSS figures are estimates and should not be construed as accurate. The CMSS model contains many dholder Local gov. PrimaryLocal gov. Secondary EPA Partnership Partnership Implementation responsibility underlying assumptions and data (such as nutrient export Hydro rates, land use information and management action costs and nutrient reduction capacity), which were the most accurate data at the time of development. industry 50% Region 100% Lan 25% State gov. 100% priv.industry Southern DNRE, EPA Hydro Proposed share In order to validate current assumptions made during the 75% priv. Southern Strategy development process, the Group will need information on: • local land use nutrient export rates Priority • interaction between surface water and groundwater • effects of carp on water quality ongoing H • impacts of acid soils on water quality Time • sediment tracing • impacts on major storage releases

Responsibilities

The NECMA will have the primary responsibility for ($’000) implementing this program. Tertiary institutions, research institutes and other agencies could carry out any of the actions it lists. All catchment stakeholders will benefit from information derived from it. TBC 2003 H 50% State gov. built into the NC 2003 H cost of new tanks landholder cost($’000) cost discount 8% frame cost Ave AnnualAve NPV 30-year funding current base 2003 VH Costs and cost sharing An indicative budget for this program would be in the order of 10% of the total Strategy implemetation cost.

Cost share arrangements for Actions 13.2 - 13.17 will be negotiated over time.

Costs and appropriate cost sharing arrangements for individual actions will be determined on a case by case basis.

Benefits Outcome Increased knowledge leading to on-ground actions Increased adoption of nutrient management activities Environmentally sustainable method of silt disposal Environmentally sustainable method of silt disposal The benefits of the Strategy Research & Investigation Program have not been quantified in terms of nutrient reduction.

However, any further information gained will increase understanding of the catchments and their processes and assist with future management decisions and directions. This greater understanding will also improve the way we may go about implementing the Strategy and therefore improve its cost effectiveness. Action Investigate & identify local water quality impacts of septic tanks in the catchment Achieve 100% adoption of better management practices with all new septic tanks Investigate ongoing disposal of sediment from Southern Hydro Partnership dams Implement recommendations from Desilting about disposal in 11.3 Group Working 11.1 11.2 11.4 Table 16. Program 11. Local Water Quality Issues Program 16. Program 11. Local Water Table 11.3 TOTAL COST OF PROGRAM TBC

Upper North East Water Quality Strategy 47 dustry PrimaryNECMA, Secondary MDBC DNRE, MDBC G-MW, Implementation responsibility DNRE, EPA, G-MW, licencees EPA DNRE 10% federal & DNRE, gov. MDBC G-MW, negoiated50% federal & NECMA, 50% region NECMA 50%region100% Region in NECMA gov. 50% State Same asProgram 1 NECMA Proposed cost share negoiated NECMA, 50% Region NECMA, Same asProgram 1 NECMA 50% Region NECMA Priority ongoing H ongoing H 1999 H ongoing H Time ongoing H 50% priv. every 5years VH 50% State gov. ongoing H ost 8% frame discount ($’000) current base fundingTBCcosted in 2.3 State 90% # 2002 H be to costed in A1.1 costed in 1.1 Ave. AnnualAve. costNPV 30-year ($’000) c funding industry NERWA, TBC 2001current base H be to 10 (for 5yrs)TBC 46 costed in 1.1 2001 H Outcome Indication of water quality changes in response to Strategy implementation Monitoring network that reflects the needs of Region and State. Indication of water quality changes. Monitoring network that reflects Regional and State needs Community involvement in water- quality monitoring, increased awareness of water quality issues Long-term monitoring of performance reporting quick User-friendly, system Ability to measure success of Strategy implementation and adoption Long-term monitoring of performance Long-term monitoring of performance Long-term monitoring of performance Action Continue water-quality & biological monitoring in the catchments through Major Storage Operational VWQMN, MDBC, Monitoring Program fulfils NECMA needs Review all water-quality monitoring sites (with respect to position of site, parameters & applicability) in the Upper NE, as part of Victorian water quality monitoring review process Implement the recommendations of Action 12.2 monitoring Waterwatch Ensure continued Ensure continued point source monitoring Investigate how landholders will provide information on better management practices adoption to the NECMA Undertake periodic surveys of management practices occurring in the catchment to monitor adoption of better management practice Monitor the cost-effectiveness of taking up better management practices and NERWA MDBC, Use VWQNM, G-MW, water-quality information as baseline data and regularly assess changes in stream health and river improvement as a result of implementing the Strategy Use Index of Stream Condition as baseline data and regularly assess changes in stream health and river improvement as a result of implementing the Strategy 12.1 12.3 12.4 12.6 12.9 Table 17. Program and Reporting Program Evaluation Table 12. Monitoring, 12.2 12.5 12.7 12.8 12.10

48 Upper North East Water Quality Strategy Primary Secondary NECMA NECMA DNRE, NECMA NECMA DNRE, NECMA, AgVic Implementation responsibility Same asProgram 1 NECMA Same asProgram 1 NECMA 33% federal & NECMA DNRE, Regionnegoiated G-MW negoiatednegoiated negoiatednegoiated G-MW EPA, negoiated EPA G-MW EPA, negoiated share Proposed negoiated Priority ongoing H 2000 H 2001 VH 2001 VH to be 30 years 30 years 5 years 30 years 30 years 30 years Time 30 years 46 discount ($’000) costed in 1.1 costed in 1.1 costed in Action 1.1 33% State gov. EPA, to be costed to be costed within H to be to be costedto be costedto be costedto be costed within H within H to be within H to be within H to be to be NERWA Ave. AnnualAve. costNPV 30-year ($’000) cost 8% frame cost to be costedto be costed within H to be within H EPA to be NERWA, Long-term monitoring of performance Long-term monitoring of performance Outcome; Increased knowledge leading to on-ground actions Increased knowledge leading to on-ground actions Increased knowledge leading to on-ground actions Determine sediment sources and sinks & their relationship to loads Increased knowledge leading to on-ground actions Increased knowledge leading to on-ground actions Increased knowledge leading to on-ground actions Increased knowledge leading to on-ground actions Increased knowledge leading to on-ground actions E.coli levels in Nariel Creek, Use the 1990 EPA invertebrate data invertebrate Use the 1990 EPA (unpublished) as baseline data and regularly assess changes in invertebrate population as a result quality, water response to improved of implementing the Strategy Investigate the use of biomonitoring to assess stream health and impacts of nutrient discharges Murray River at Walwa, West Kiewa River Kiewa West Walwa, at Murray River Investigate increasing turbidity trends in Nariel West Creek,Creek, Cudgewa Mitta River, Creek Wodonga River, Kiewa River, Kiewa Investigate decreasing pH trends in Nariel at Walwa, Creek, MurrayCreek, Cudgewa River Kiewa River, Kiewa West Mitta River, River Investigate the effects of agricultural chemicals on water quality in the catchments Action Develop and implement a co-ordinated research and investigation program, ensuring information is shared Develop research partnership with CRC for Catchment Hydrology & Freshwater Ecology Monitor research and determine its applicability to the Upper NE catchments Investigate the use of sediment tracing within the catchments Investigate impacts of local water quality issues on groundwater Investigate high State Government through NRE and GMW. State Government Table 17. continued Table 12.11 12.12 TOTAL COST OF PROGRAM # * Note Action 12.3: 50% region contributions is from tariff replacement funds 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 13.5 13.6 13.7 Table 18. Program 13. Research and Investigation Program 18. ProgramTable and Investigation 13. Research 13.8 13.9

Upper North East Water Quality Strategy 49 Primary Secondary AgVic AgVic NECMA, NECMA, NECMA, local G-MW DNRE DNRE CMA Implementation responsibility all catchment negoiated negoiatednegoiated EPA negoiated EPA gov., negoiated negoiated negoiated negoiated100% State gov. stakeholders share Proposed Priority 30 years 30 years 30 years 30 years 30 years 5 years 30 years 30 years Time discount ($’000) to be costed within Hto be costed to be NERWA within H to be to be costedto be costedto be costed within Hto be costed within H to be to be costed within H to be to be withincurrent base Hfunding within H to be to be 2001 H cost ($’000) cost 8% frame cost Ave AnnualAve NPV 30-year to be costed within H to be Outcome; Increased knowledge leading to on-ground actions Increased knowledge leading to on-ground actions Increased knowledge leading to on-ground actions Increased knowledge leading to on-ground actions Increased knowledge leading to on-ground actions Increased knowledge leading to on-ground actions Increased knowledge leading to on-ground actions Improved water quality Joint fisheries water quality project Action Investigate the causal factors behind blue- Reservoir green algalTabor blooms at Mt Investigate increasing suspended solids trends in Mitta River, Kiewa River Investigate increasing total phosphorus trends in Kiewa River Investigate the impact of land use change on water quality & quantity Investigate impacts of acid soils on water quality in the catchments Investigate releases from large storages with respect to water quality Ensure that the water quality impacts of carp in Kiewa, Upper Murray catchments are adequately investigated and monitored, promote appropriate control measures Implement actions as recommended a result of the investigations recreational the use ofInvestigate Waters” “All fishing licence funds to assist with the funding of water quality actions that will also improve fish habitat and benefit recreational anglers 13.10 13.14 13.11 13.12 13.13 13.15 13.16 13.18 Table 18. Program ProgramTable and Investigation 13. Research cont. 13.17 TOTAL COST OF PROGRAM

50 Upper North East Water Quality Strategy Map 5. Priority works

Upper North East Water Quality Strategy 51 CHAPTER 5. TARGET SETTING

Several approaches can be used to set nutrient reduction Better Management Practice Implementation As targets as a means of reducing blue-green algal blooms. The Target WQWG considered the three target types below. A Strategy target could be set to reflect a desired better management practices adoption rate within the Upper Nutrient Concentrations as Targets North East. This target can easily be measured. Water quality targets could be set in terms of desired nutrient concentrations in waterways within the Upper The WQWG assumed all actions within each Strategy North East. Their achievement could be measured by Program would reduce nutrients and affect the frequency of assessing them against water quality monitoring data. blooms without a need to specify set nutrient concentrations However, such targets present problems. or loads. • The definitive relationship between those concentrations and the formation of a blue-green algal bloom would This method provides a mechanism for addressing all need to be clearly justified. sources of nutrients in an equitable manner. • Many other factors contribute to the formation of algal blooms, not just nutrient concentrations. Nutrient-reduction activities have other benefits, which • The broad objective of reducing the incidence of means they will be more easily understood by the blooms may not be met because of other causal factors community, as opposed to concentration and load targets. such as temperature, flow and turbidity. • Concentration targets are more easily applied to point Based on the above discussion the WQWG chose better source discharges than diffuse source run-off. Given that management practice implementation as a focus for diffuse sources are the major nutrient contributors in the evaluation. See Table 19 for major implementation targets. Upper North East and that concentration targets are Nutrient loads will be reduced by 75 tonnes/annum over 30 meaningless during floods, their use as nutrient reduction years if these targets are met. A 77% reduction in the targets is inappropriate. number of blooms within the region and the Murray River The Environment Protection Authority nutrient guidelines to the South Australian border is also expected. should be used as nutrient concentration targets. The annual nutrient load and concentration data will still be Nutrient Load as Targets monitored and reported on to ensure that better Water quality targets could be set to reflect an acceptable management practices are having the desired nutrient- catchment nutrient load exported to the Murray River. reduction effect. Success could be measured by assessing the target against water quality monitoring and flow data.

Using this target has the following problems. • The load must reflect the desired nutrient export from the catchments where blue-green algae and downstream impacts are minimised. Unfortunately there is no absolute level of nutrients that will or will not cause a bloom. Different levels of nutrients will increase or decrease the risk of a bloom, but the interplay of factors is important. • Data used to derive the original Strategy loads were based on best knowledge at the time and may not be entirely accurate.

52 Upper North East Water Quality Strategy Table 19a. Major Strategy implementation targets Action Target Completion date • Strategy co-ordination All actions in Program 1 over 30 years successfully completed • Community education Phoswatch campaign established over 30 years in towns in the Upper North East • Water quality improvements to native forest roads All roads within 100-200 m of over 30 years waterways improved • Extension programs for agricultural industries over 30 years • Adoption of better management practices on dryland 50% of dryland farmers grazing land implementing Better over 30 years Management Practices • Increase the number of landholders adopting and 10% increase over 30 years implementing WFPs • Provision of information on catchment adoptions and System developed over 30 years implementation of better management practices • Implementation of catchment plans Nine plans developed and over 30 years implementd • Periodic surveys of management practices occurring in the Surveys completed Every 5 years catchment to monitor implementation • Expansion of stream crossing & road sedimentation survey 85% increase 2000 • Wodonga STP upgrade Tertiary treatment & summer, 2001 autumn land disposal • Develop a program of stream management works for Program developed 2001 streams above Lake Dartmouth • Investigate stormwater treatment at all towns Investigation completed 2001 • Develop and implement a co-ordinated research and Research & investigation program 2001 investigation program, ensuring information is shared developed • Develop research partnership with CRC for Catchment Partnership developed 2001 Hydrology & Freshwater Ecology • Gully control works 2654 gullies remediated 2003 • Bank stabilisation, fencing and revegetation 135 km 2003 • Investigate ongoing disposal of sediment from Southern Investigation completed 2003 Hydro Partnership dams • Bank stabilisation, fencing and revegetation actions above Target to be set 2005 Lake Dartmouth

Table 19b. Major Strategy Milestones Action Milestone • Improvements to native forest roads to improve water Roads surveyed by 2001 quality Priority works program by 2001 • Extention program for Agricultural Industries Extension programs for wine grape and tobacco industries developed 2000 • Adoption of BMP’s on dryland grazing land Extention program delivered 2000. 8% of farmers in erosion prone areas implementing management practices that will improve water quality by 2000. • Increase the number of land holders adopting and Make available WFP course 2001. 10 farmers per year to implementing WFP’s undertake the course

Upper North East Water Quality Strategy 53 CHAPTER 6. COST & COST-SHARING ARRANGEMENTS

The major benefits associated with reducing nutrients as Nutrient contributor pays principle identified by Read Sturgess (1998) are: In the first instance, the WQWG will adopt this principle • within-catchment recreation 7% when the individual, industry or authority that is responsible • within-catchment water users 11% for the related nutrient contribution is clearly identifiable. • within-catchment foreshore residents 7% • Murray River recreation 15% Beneficiary pays principle • Murray River water users 56% The WQWG accepts the ‘beneficiary pays’ principle when it • Murray River foreshore residents 4% is not possible to clearly identify nutrient contributors, or those responsible could not reasonably be expected to pay, As these figures highlight, 75% of benefits (associated with and where public benefits can be defined. Government has reducing nutrients) accrue to Murray River users been requested to cost-share where public or downstream downstream of the Upper North East Region and benefits are demonstrable. In this manner government therefore the WQWG believes the Region should not be represents downstream users and others that benefit from expected to fund all the works required by the Strategy. nutrient management activities carried out in the Upper This chapter discusses cost-sharing principles and proposed North East Region. Industries, landholders or other cost-sharing arrangements. beneficiaries are expected to contribute where private benefits are apparent. What is cost sharing? Cost sharing is a negotiated position between all Cost sharing arrangements including Governments role in stakeholders, both within and outside the catchments, on cost sharing, may need to be reviewed when undertaking what is fair and reasonable in relation to the costs of changed land and water management practices brought management works required by this Strategy. about by changes to Government Policy.

Cost shares represent a true split of benefits between Any new developments or extensions of existing landholders and the general public. They are not public developments from March 1995 onwards must fully meet incentives and/or subsidies. the costs of appropriate nutrient management. Specific cost shares for each action have been identified and Why have cost sharing? agreed to by the WQWG. It is needed to ensure equity in relation to resourcing on- ground management works. Sharing of the costs should The full cost share arrangements for the Strategy are: reflect the share of nutrient contribution as well as benefits received. 15% federal government 29% State government Who should cost share? 22% Regional contribution (NECMA, NERWA, G-MW, Those that contribute nutrients to the catchments and those local government); that benefit from nutrient management activities should 34% private landholder & private industry contribution share in the cost of implementing this Strategy. *Total does not add to 100% due to rounding error COST-SHARING PRINCIPLES The following Principles have been adapted from DNRE A large proportion of the private landholder and industry (1997a) and MDBC (1996). They have been agreed to, and contributions is in the form of ongoing maintenance adopted by, the WQWG. (O+M) costs. This applies particularly to the agricultural industries, stream management and gully stabilisation All natural resource users and managers have a duty of care programs. to ensure that they do not damage the natural resource base. The users should be responsible for making good any damage incurred as a result of their actions.

54 Upper North East Water Quality Strategy NECMA cost share. ter Allocation For various waterway health actions in the strategy the CMA has been apportioned cost shares. In these cases the CMA contribution to the cost may come from tariff replacement funding.

(See Table 20 Summary of Strategy costs and cost share arrangements). Stream GullyWa $56 745 100 Grand total Research $14 526 100 $15 318 100 $4 855 100 $7 542 100 $12 885 100 $- $234 100 $46 100 $- $- - $968 100 $370 100 ($’000) % ($’000) % ($’000) % ($’000) % ($’000) % ($’000) % ($’000) % ($’000) % ($’000) % ($’000) % ($’000) % ($’000) % ($’000) % ($’000) % FederalStateLocalPrivate 323 33 323 323 33 0 140 33 38 0 46 185 2 628 12 50 0 18 2 628 271 9 0 18 64 563 4 788 4 0 0 31 20 0 4 236 0 9 966 87 0 600 65 1 437 1 917 12 25 19 094 2 - 2 895 2 895 28 - 22 22 2 094 - - - 28 - 7 095 55 - - Contributor STPs Awareness Co-ordination Agricultural Forest Total Program StormwaterNS Planning MonitoringTotal Local WQ * Note: Rounding errors have occured to some totals. ** Stormwater, local water quality programs to be costed in the future to the total cost of are and added the strategy. *** Streamflow management program has no associated costs. **** The Research program indicative cost is 10% of the stategy $- FederalStateLocalPrivate - - - - 62 27 86 86 37 - 37 - - 23 23 - 50 50 ------8 546 - 16 461 581 12 15 29 - 22 19 156 34 Table 20. Summary of 20. Summary Table Strategy costs and cost-share arrangements 30 years @ 8% discount rate ($’000) over costs - net present value Total

Upper North East Water Quality Strategy 55 Landholders CMA, operating maintenance. The private operating maintenance. ments, the Region through NECMA, through the Region ments, Landholders CMA, Councils Councils NERWA, Industry NERWA, Industry Federal govFederal gov State Region Private gov Federal gov State Region Private ($’000) 56 745 8 336 11 065 7 191 12 733 - 3 577 5 391 8 422 30 years NPV 8% 641 939 155 301 $ 56 744 781 FederalState $ 8 366 483 RegionLocal $ 14 $ 12 581 058 21 $ 12 Strategy Co-ordination3 Community Education4Industry& Plant Treatment Sewage 5Industries Agricultural 6Industries Forest 14 5267 Stream Management8Stabilisation Gully 9 2 628 Stream Flow Management10 968 Stormwater Management11 371Non-structural Planning, 12 2 628Quality Water Local 15 31813Evaluationand Reporting Monitoring, 323 5 255Investigationand Research 140 7 5428554 56346 323 12 885 -46 1 917 - 234 - 4 788 32320 2 895 185 1 437 - - - - - 2 89562 - 659 - 719 -23 - 4 225 600 -86 - - - - 719 -23 - 5 78986 4 016 ------5773 - - - - 1 375 - - - - -741 5 1 375 ------1 306 ------No. Program cost Total Capital cost ($’000) O&M costs ($’000) * Note: Rounding errors have occured to some totals. This table summarises the total cost ofThis table Strategy each program and details the costs to be borne the federal and State govern by NERWA and local government rating systems, local private landholders and industry. The costs have been split into capital and The costs have landholders and industry. local private and local government rating systems, NERWA the formlandholder contribution can take of on-ground cash or in-kind labour towards works. Table 21. Summary ofTable each Capital, Operating Strategy and Maintenance Cost Shares for Program

56 Upper North East Water Quality Strategy CHAPTER 7. STRATEGY BENEFIT: COST ANALYSIS

Read et al. (1998) carried out the benefit:cost analysis of the Water treatment costs Strategy. They only considered the benefits of reducing the Improvement in water quality, particularly colour and frequency of blue-green algal blooms, both in the Upper turbidity, is a common benefit from any river management North East Region, and downstream along the Murray activities that reduce sediment loads in surface waters that River. are used for urban water supplies. The two major components would be savings in chemical use at water BENEFITS IN NUTRIENT REDUCTION treatment plants and energy reduction. The quantitative analysis of the benefits of nutrient management in the Upper North East Region is limited to Social benefits that result from improving water quality evaluating the reduction in expected value of damages/ include: impacts of toxic blue green algae blooms that would be • public health benefit achieved by implementing the Strategy. • enhanced public amenity, aesthetics and recreational values As such they would represent an under-estimate of the total economic impacts of nutrient management. Water quality The above benefits have not been quantified. The only ones would often be degraded such that people reduced their level actually quantified were those associated with reducing algal of water consumption or recreation at a particular waterbody blooms, both within and downstream of the catchments. even though blooms were not occurring. Our analysis qualified only the impacts of poor water quality at the Therefore, it is important to note that this quantitative disastrous stage when toxic blooms occur (Read et al 1998). analysis represents an underestimate of the total economic benefits of nutrient management. Other water quality benefits, which would be achieved by reducing nutrient loads in water bodies and waterways, are: BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH REDUCTION IN • increased biodiversity ALGAL BLOOMS WITHIN THE CATCHMENT • improved image for regional economy The benefits of nutrient management have been measured • reduced water treatment costs as the reduction in expected costs of toxic blooms. For • reduced frequency of algal blooms algal cell counts below 15 000 cells per mL, the cost is confined to additional monitoring by the managing Biodiversity authorities. However, for cell counts above 15 000 cells/ An important objective of the Strategy is to minimise mL, response plans require restrictions to the consumptive impacts on flora and fauna in streams and wetlands. There use of water resources. Impacts include restrictions on use is no doubt that toxic algal blooms would lead to reduced for all those who enjoy values associated with the water biodiversity in water bodies and waterways, for both aquatic bodies and waterways, such as: species and water fowl, but no information to quantify • those visiting water bodies and waterways for recreation those impacts is available. • farmers relying on stock water • users of domestic water Improved image for regional economy • industrial users of water Any incidence of algal blooms at popular tourism sites • urban users of water could have a disastrous effect on the image of the region as • irrigators a tourism destination. Blooms also affect environmental and amenity values. Algal blooms in the Region could compromise any food- processing company’s chances of being a processor of Potential bloom sites ‘clean foods’. The WQWG listed potential bloom sites within the catchment and estimated the expected incidence of high Industries will stay in an area if they have access to algal cell counts (>15 000cells/mL) over a 30-year guaranteed high-quality water supplies, and new industries timeframe without the Strategy. The Group’s estimates are will be attracted. This will create a flow-on of employment presented in Table 22. and regional development.

Upper North East Water Quality Strategy 57 Next, the Group determined the impacts of blooms on Third, multiply the expected percentage reduction in the each value associated with the potential sites- recreation and number of blooms that would be achieved by tourism, urban water supply, stock and domestic water implementing nutrient management strategies in each supply, irrigation, management agencies and amenity for catchment. foreshore residents. Both high and low estimates have been included, to provide a range within which the cost falls. Nutrients exported from the Upper North East Region could contribute about 31% of the total impacts of toxic Expected annual costs of toxic blooms, which have been blue-green algal blooms along the Murray River upstream quantified for each site, are summarised in Table 24 and of South Australia (see Table 27). The share attributed to Table 25. It is expected that the impacts within the the Region is particularly high because a large proportion of catchment would involve a quantified cost of approximately the impact occurs between Lake Hume and the Goulburn $1.4 to $2.4 million per year. These quantified economic River. effects are dominated by the costs associated with: • tourism around Lake Hume COMPARING QUANTIFIED BENEFITS AND COSTS • urban water supplies to Tallangatta • domestic and stock supplies in the Kiewa and Upper OF STRATEGY SCENARIOS Murray catchments The total cost of the Strategy is $56 million. It should be • amenity for residents of foreshore properties at Lake noted that several additional Actions need to be costed in Hume the future and the results added to this total. The impacts for the Murray River are bigger at $3.8 - $7.5 million. Estimates put the total quantified benefits of the Strategy between $47 million and $88 million. BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH REDUCTION IN This gives the Strategy a benefit: cost ratio range of 0.8:1 to ALGAL BLOOMS DOWNSTREAM IN THE MURRAY 1.5:1. It should be noted that benefits of nutrient RIVER management were limited to evaluating the reduction in Read et al. (1998) estimated the costs associated with toxic expected value of damages of toxic blue green algae blue-green algal blooms in the Murray River upstream of blooms that would be achieved by implementing the South Australia. The technique used for the Upper North Strategy. However, as there are a number of unmeasured East Region is one used for similar strategies in the Ovens benefits, the actual ratio is likely to be higher. and Goulburn Broken. Other water quality benefits which would be achieved by MDBC provided estimates of the total phosphorus load reducing nutrient loads in water bodies and waterways entering the Murray River from each major tributary (see would be: Table 26). Apportioning Murray River benefits between • increased biodiversity individual catchments was based on each one’s relative • improved image for the regional economy phosphorus contribution, but it is acknowledged that • reduced water treatment costs. phosphorus loads are not the sole determinant of bloom frequencies. IMPLICATIONS FOR THIS STRATEGY The benefits (quantified and unquantified) from managing G-MW and DNRE provided estimates of the present nutrients in the Upper North East Region outweigh the cost frequency of toxic algal blooms in the Murray River and the of doing so. The benefits along the Murray River are expected frequency of blooms if effective nutrient greater than the within-catchment benefits. Therefore the management strategies were implemented for all catchments contribution of beneficiaries are reflected in the proposed draining to the Murray. cost-share arrangements. Only impacts associated with toxic algal blooms have been Estimates of the benefits of nutrient management strategies included; so the benefits of implementing the Strategy will involve three steps: be greater than those quantified.

First calculate the expected impacts without those strategies. Second, multiply the estimated impacts of one bloom by the expected frequency of blooms in each reach (see Table 22).

58 Upper North East Water Quality Strategy Table 22. Expected number of weeks of high cell counts of toxic blue-green algae

5 000 to 15 000 per mL“over Greater than 15 000 per next 30 years without Strat- mL“over next 30 years egy” without Strategy” Rivers and their tributaries Lower Kiewa & tributaries 96 24 Middle Kiewa & tributaries 48 12 Upper Kiewa & tributaries 6 6 Pretty Valley & Rocky Valley storages 60 30 Clover Dam, Lake Guy & Mt Beauty pondage 60 30 Lake Hume 222 9 6 Murray R Jingellic to dam 12 54 Murray R to Jingellic 12 54 Cudgewa Creek to Berringama 12 0 Nariel Creek to Upper Nariel 12 0 Lower Mitta Mitta R & tributaries 48 0 Lake Dartmouth 234 9 9 Upper Mitta Mitta R & tributaries 12 0 Lake Omeo 24 0

Urban water storages Kiewa/Tangambalanga 1 8 1 8 Mt Beauty/Tawonga 0 30 Tallangatta 6 0 240 Cudgewa 300 60 Mt Tabor 30 90

Farm dams not estimated 10 560

Table 23. Expected frequency of blooms in each reach along the Murray River Number of blooms without Strategy Number of blooms with Strategy (per year) (per year) Minor Medium Major Minor Medium Major Reach L Hume to L Mulwala 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 L Mulwala to Goulburn 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 Goulburn to Campaspe 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 Campaspe to Torrumbarry 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 Torrumbarry to Nyah 0.5 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.0 Nyah to Wakool (Edwards) 0.5 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.0 Edwards to Murrumbidgee 0.5 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.0 Murrumbidgee to Euston Weir 0.5 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.0 Euston Weir to Mildura Weir 0.5 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.0 Mildura Weir to Wentworth Weir (lock 10) 0.5 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.0 Wentworth Weir to SA border 0.5 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.0

Upper North East Water Quality Strategy 59 328 328 328 656 1 312 4 515 7 067 58 258 10 931 23 509 63 861 25 662 24 396 57 307 32 346 10 908 12 843 TOTAL 711 566 120 001 164 272 WITHIN 1 428 567 CATCHMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 4 800 29 700 13 500 31 500 92 250 residents 204 000 375 765 foreshore Amenity for n.a. 555 328 328 328 656 984 820 4 186 2 093 8 655 8 655 3 843 3 843 1 312 8 200 9 840 3 280 28 916 30 025 agencies 116 846 Management 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 294 8 296 2 059 4 977 7 435 10 297 34 359 supplies Irrigation water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 440 5 893 22 213 74 347 13 260 12 240 supplies 164 267 297 660 Stock water Domestic & 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 354 6 305 3 531 3 000 3 783 10 088 40 352 31 525 supplies 100 879 201 816 Urban water 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 73 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 3 029 6 919 2 241 1 270 1 371 28 232 tourism 358 974 402 121 Recreation & EXPECTED ANNUAL COSTS OF BLOOMS ($’000) WITHOUT STRATEGY - LOW ESTIMATE - LOW WITHOUT STRATEGY ($’000) COSTS OF BLOOMS EXPECTED ANNUAL Lower Kiewa & tributaries Middle Kiewa & tributaries Upper Kiewa & tributaries storages Valley & Rocky Pretty Valley Clover Dam, Lake Guy & Mt Beauty pondage Lake Hume to dam Murray R Jingellic Murray R to Jingellic Cudgewa Creek to Berringama Nariel Creek to Upper Lower Mitta R & tributaries Lake Dartmouth Upper Mitta R & tributaries Lake Omeo Kiewa/Tangambalanga Mt Beauty/Tawonga Tallangatta Cudgewa Mt Tabor Rivers and their tributaries storages Urban water Farm dams TOTAL WITHIN CATCHMENT Table 24. Summary ofTable each blooms estimate potential bloom site in the Region at expected annual costs due to toxic – Low

60 Upper North East Water Quality Strategy 328 328 328 656 1 312 5 276 7 883 98 144 12 195 33 742 31 842 59 268 91 829 39 145 12 843 TOTAL 110 345 260 735 130 839 328 538 WITHIN 1 159 269 2 384 845 CATCHMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 9 600 66 600 45 000 63 000 residents 408 000 229 500 821 715 foreshore Amenity for n.a. 555 328 328 328 656 984 820 4 186 2 093 8 655 8 655 3 843 3 843 1 312 8 200 9 840 3 280 28 916 30 025 agencies 116 846 Management 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 539 3 656 8 730 7 679 13 058 10 784 46 446 supplies Irrigation water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 440 5 893 22 213 74 347 13 260 12 240 supplies 328 533 461 927 Stock water Domestic & 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 862 7 665 4 292 3 000 4 599 12 264 49 055 38 324 supplies 122 637 244 698 Urban water 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 235 9 657 5 613 4 048 4 369 10 923 68 118 tourism 590 221 693 214 Recreation & EXPECTED ANNUAL COSTS OF BLOOMS ($’000) WITHOUT STRATEGY - HIGH ESTIMATE COSTS OF BLOOMSWITHOUT STRATEGY ($’000) EXPECTED ANNUAL Lower Kiewa & tributaries Middle Kiewa & tributaries Upper Kiewa & tributaries storages Valley & Rocky Pretty Valley Clover Dam, Lake Guy & Mt Beauty pondage Lake Hume to dam Murray R Jingellic Murray R to Jingellic Cudgewa Creek to Berringama Nariel Creek to Upper Lower Mitta R & tributaries Lake Dartmouth Upper Mitta R & tributaries Lake Omeo Kiewa/Tangambalanga Mt Beauty/Tawonga Tallangatta Cudgewa Mt Tabor Rivers and their tributaries storages Urban water Farm dams TOTAL WITHIN CATCHMENT Table 25. Summary ofTable at each costs due to toxic blooms potential bloom site in the Regionexpected annual – High estimate

Upper North East Water Quality Strategy 61

Total

Darling

Murrumbidgee

Edwards

Loddon-Avoca

Campaspe

Goulburn-Broken 000000100

Ovens 0000000100

% contribution of each catchment to loads NE Upper

Upper NSW Upper Darling

1.35 3 11 11 22 1 3 12 8 30 100 Murrumbidgee

0.34 4 15 16 31 2 4 17 11 0 100 Edwards

0.53 5 17 18 35 2 5 19 0 0 100 Loddon-Avoca

0.13 6 21 22 43 2 6 0 0 0 100 Campaspe

0.05 6 23 23 46 2 0 0 0 0 100 Goulburn-Broken

0.98 6 23 24 47 0 0 0 0 0 100 Ovens

0.49 12 44 45 TP loads (average, tonnes per day)

Upper NE Upper Upper NSW Upper 0.13 0.48 21 79 Wentworth Weir to SA border Weir Wentworth 3 11 11 22 1 3 12 8 30 100 L Mulwala to Goulburn L Mulwala Goulburn to Campaspe Campaspe to Torrumbarry Torrumbarry to Nyah (Edwards) to Wakool Nyah Edwards to Murrumbidgee Murrumbidgee to Euston Weir Weir to Mildura Euston Weir (lock 10) Weir to Wentworth Mildura Weir 4 15 4 16 15 31 16 31 2 2 4 17 4 11 17 11 0 100 0 100 L Hume to Mulwala Interpret as inclusive of upstream named to immediately upstream of downstream end of reach Murray River reach Murray River Table 26. Relative contribution of 26. Relative Table each 1978 to 1996 catchment to total phosphorus loads in the Murray River

62 Upper North East Water Quality Strategy benefits for river upstream of S.A. This tributary’s share of This tributary’s 39558.53 23635.17 64955.32 527598.41 158516.94 UPPER NE SHARE ($) Low High 600.00 200 1 900 183 1 195 311 2 390 621 27% 302 837218 040238 303 731 20 840 10 170 551 662 68 764 7 705 33 779 19 737 25 162 812166 64 132 728 128 331 167 7 335 14 104 244110 746818 11 980 5 961 11 River upstream of S.A. ($) Low High 625 867 8 096 278 754 278353 532 2 226 257 562138 475 2 707 064 2 515 123 29% 2 276 950 489 331 549 648 258 125 978 662 1 099 296 516 250 36% 203 567567 886406 274401 055 506 329638632 1 1 345 435757 556 1 299 702 160 455 248 209334 678805430 2 94 233181 339 85 709 399 097 713 585 669 357 117 104 312 068 362 677 277 759 263 799 375 756 258 79 576 802141 906822 137375 945604153 1 283 812274644 1 751 890 123 268 127 087936 21 246 536 602 40 254 173 872 43 204 81 151 971446 981 303 942 893 962478 32 095 69 138 189 Expected annual value of benefits along Murray L Mulwala to Goulburn Goulburn to Campaspe Campaspe to TorrumbarryTorrumbarry to Nyah (Edwards) Wakool to Nyah Murrumbidgeeto Edwards MurrumbidgeeWeir to Euston to Mildura Weir Euston Weir (lock 10) Weir to Wentworth Mildura Weir to SA Border Weir Wentworth L Mulwala to Goulburn Goulburn to Campaspe 91 435 71 888 30 242 25 832 70 131 23 407 52 074 70 115 77 578 85 275 5239 3993 2 528 9021 10 838 8 378 L Hume to Mulwala L Hume to Mulwala L Hume to Mulwala 81 406 L Mulwala to GoulburnGoulburn to CampaspeCampaspe to TorrumbarryTorrumbarry to Nyah (Edwards) Wakool to Nyah Edwards to MurrumbidgeeMurrumbidgeeWeir to Euston to Mildura Weir Euston Weir (lock 10) Weir to Wentworth Mildura Weir to SA Border Weir Wentworth 1 1 14 911 37 065 3 883 66 364 29 822 74 130 7 766 3 459 6421 6 917 12 842 Campaspe to TorrumbarryTorrumbarry to Nyah (Edwards) Wakool to Nyah Edwards to MurrumbidgeeWeirEuston to Murrumbidgee to Mildura Weir Euston Weir (lock 10) Weir to Wentworth Mildura Weir to SA Border Weir Wentworth 52 122 55 373 2 417 43 375 0 1 909 4 86 835 750 0 3 817 6705 419 206 0 13 410 838 412 0 Recreation SubtotalUrban supplies SubtotalDomestic and stock supplies 2 Subtotal 1 4 50 092 8 Type ofType reach benefit by of River Table 27. Summary ofTable of a 90% reduction in frequency quantified benefits for algal blooms in the Murray River toxic

Upper North East Water Quality Strategy 63 benefits for river upstream of S.A. This tributary’s share of This tributary’s UPPER NE SHARE ($) 9237275561219976 18474 4514 5510 2534 12243 19951 9029 5069 883204558133852 159614 91163 17571 67703 35141 Low High 217927 418828 32% 129 067 6313 1 351 025 River upstream of S.A. ($) Low High 697 809 1 982 326 742 069 866 425 977 966 3 541 298 1 091 312 1 288 867 37% 104 288158 400 208 575 113 667 316 800 227 333 161 826614 637108 809 184 063190 523 768 361 184 754 127 554 190 982 139 356254 23 145 081 451 29 174 209 484 39 367 200522 29 112 050 367 200 202 500 613 80 613 80 22% Expected annual value of benefits along Murray L Mulwala to Goulburn Goulburn to CampaspeTorrumbarryto Campaspe Torrumbarry to Nyah (Edwards) to Wakool Nyah Edwards to MurrumbidgeeMurrumbidgeeWeir to Euston to Mildura Weir Euston Weir (lock 10) Weir to Wentworth Mildura Weir to SA Border Weir Wentworth 12 150 39 825 41 800 64 39 533 600 0 23 467 24 300 79 650 83 600 79 200 0 46 933 0 0 L Mulwala to GoulburnGoulburn to CampaspeCampaspe to Torrumbarry Torrumbarry to Nyah (Edwards) Wakool to Nyah Murrumbidgeeto Edwards MurrumbidgeeWeir to Euston to Mildura Weir Euston Weir (lock 10) Weir to Wentworth Mildura Weir to SA Border Weir Wentworth 1 2 125 72 029 65 877 58 6 224 107 17 940 2 72 562 88 687 677 59 638 7 247 18 168 11 412 7 779 493 9 000 944 1 938 15 362 7 850 594 9 219 1 120 1 962 L Hume to Mulwala L Hume to MulwalaL Mulwala to GoulburnGoulburn to CampaspeTorrumbarryto Campaspe Nyahto Torrumbarry (Edwards) Wakool to Nyah Edwards to MurrumbidgeeMurrumbidgeeWeir to Euston to Mildura WeirEuston Weir (lock 10) Weir to Wentworth Mildura Weir to SA Border Weir Wentworth L Hume to Mulwala 21 000 21 000 21 000 21 000 47 200 47 200 47 200 47 47 200 200 47 200 21 000 21 000 47 200 21 000 21 000 47 47 200 200 47 200 47 47 200 200 47 200 16 553 9 179 47 200 4761 4 871 5 8177 098 10 088 7 7 296 296 7 16 296 553 9 179 5 4761 098 4 871 8177 5 098 10 087 7 7 296 296 7 296 5 098 Irrigation supplies SubtotalManagement of blooms Subtotal Amenity 2 Subtotal 68 Type ofType reach benefit by of River Table 27. Summary ofTable of a 90% reduction in frequency quantified benefits for (continued) algal blooms in the Murray River toxic

64 Upper North East Water Quality Strategy benefits for river upstream of S.A. This tributary’s share of This tributary’s UPPER NE SHARE ($) Low High River upstream of S.A. ($) Low High 829 883929 819444 237 6 722 339378 064 3 497 692 3 306 002 1 673 945 5 434 557 437 545 308 647 2 938 164 367 603 793 027 706 524 840 078 914 527569 410182 801 1 746 060122 623425 370021649 1 664 236180 287 266 916 720 846 211 528 824 507 132 072 1 304 426 1 376 274 326 424667 31 955 18 382 483 754 65 71 737471 19 238 46 698 32 127 453 140 877 254 35 Expected annual value of benefits along Murray L Mulwala to GoulburnGoulburn to Campaspe Campaspe to TorrumbarryTorrumbarry to Nyah (Edwards) to Wakool Nyah Edwards to Murrumbidgee MurrumbidgeeWeir to Euston to Mildura WeirEuston Weir (lock 10) Weir to Wentworth Mildura Weir to SA Border Weir Wentworth 3 1 1 2 L Hume to Mulwala Total BENEFITS TOTAL 12 460 969 24 963 049771828 3 817383 7 31% Type ofType reach benefit of by River Table 27. Summary ofTable of a 90% reduction in frequency quantified benefits for (continued) algal blooms in the Murray River toxic

Upper North East Water Quality Strategy 65 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, H. (1996). ‘Nutrient Assessment & Direction Statement for Corangamite Landcare Region.’ (Department of Natural Resources & Environment: Melbourne) Amenta, V. (1994). The draft Loddon River Catchment Management Strategy. Water ECOscience, Australian Bureau of Statistics (1994/1995). Agstats Data. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (1992). Australian Water Quality Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Waters. (ANZECC: Canberra.) Australian Water Resources Council (1992). ‘Water Quality Management in the Rural Environment: a Reference Document.’ (AWRC: Melbourne.) CMPS & F Environmental (1995a). Investigation of nutrient loads from sewage treatment plants in the Goulburn/Broken Catchment. Goulburn/Broken Water Quality Working Group. Issues Paper No. 4. CMPS & F Environmental (1995b). Investigation of nutrients from urban stormwater and local water quality issues in the Goulburn Broken Catchment. Goulburn/Broken Water Quality Working Group. Issues Paper No. 1. Commonwealth Environment Protection Agency (1993). ‘Urban Stormwater; a Resource Too Valuable to Waste’. (CEPA: Canberra.) Commonwealth and Victorian Regional Forest Agreement Steering Committee (1998). ‘North East Victoria Comprehensive Regional Assessment.’ (RFA: Canberra.) Cottingham, P., Amenta, V., and Lidston, J. (1994). The occurrence of algal blooms and a review of nutrients in surface waters in the Goulburn and Broken Catchments, State Water Laboratory of Victoria Report No. 114. Crabb, P. (1997). ‘Murray-Darling Basin Resources.’ (MDBC: Canberra.) CSIRO (1995). Tackling the carp. Division of Water Resources Report No. 25. Cullen, P. (1983). ‘Research into Nutrient Exports from Landsurfaces. Workshop on Non-point Sources of Pollution in Australia.’ (AWRC Council: Canberra.) Cullen, P. (1986). Managing nutrients in aquatic systems: the eutrophication problem. In: ‘Limnology in Australia.’ ed.P. De Deckker and W.D. Williams. (CSIRO, Australia/ Dr W. Junk: The Netherlands.) Cullen, P.W. (1995). Managing non-point sources of phosphorus from rural areas. Water, 22 (2), 12-14. Department of Agriculture Victoria. Agnote No. 2145/83. Department of Land & Water Conservation (1998). ‘The Kiewa and Upper Murray Catchment Management Support System (CMSS):Part A, Model Development.’ (DLWC:Deniliquin.) Department of Natural Resources & Environment (1997a). ‘Cost Sharing Guidelines For Nutrient Management.’ (DNRE: Melbourne.) Department of Natural Resources & Environment (1997b). ‘Estimation of Impacts on the River Murray of Changes in Salt Export from North East Region: Sinclair Knight Merz Final Revision 1.’ (DNRE: Melbourne.) Department of Water Resources (1989a). ‘Water Victoria: a Resource Handbook.’ (DWRV: Melbourne.) Department of Water Resources (1989b). Water Victoria: an Environmental Handbook.’ (DWRV: Melbourne.) Environment Protection Authority (1991). ‘Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution Control.’ (EPA: Melbourne.) Environment Protection Authority (1995). ‘Environmental Guidelines for Major Construction Sites.’ (EPA: Melbourne.) Environment Protection Authority and Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (1994). ‘Reforming Victoria’s Water Industry: Working Group Report on Effluent Standards and Compliance for Waterways.’ (EPA & DNRE: Melbourne.) Erskine, W., and Saynor, M. (1995). ‘The Influence of Waterway Management on Water Quality with Particular Reference to Suspended Solids, Phosphorus and Nitrogen.’ (Broken River Management Board & DCNR: Victoria.) Government of Victoria (1995a). ‘Algal Bloom and Nutrient Status of Victorian Inland Waters.’ (Government Printer: Melbourne.) Government of Victoria (1995b). ‘Nutrient Management Strategy for Victorian Inland Waters.’ (Government Printer: Melbourne.) Government of Victoria (1996a). ‘Blue-green Algae and Nutrients in Victoria, a Resource Handbook.’ (Government Printer: Melbourne.) Government of Victoria (1996b). ‘Testing the Waters; the 1996 Review of Victorian Water Quality Monitoring, Technical Discussion Paper, Draft Dec, Catchment and Land Protection Council.’ (DNRE & EPA: Melbourne.) Greenhill, N. (1982). Nutrient runoff losses from pasture in the Westernport Catchment of Victoria. Master of Ag. Sci. Thesis, Melbourne University.

66 Upper North East Water Quality Strategy Gutteridge, Haskins, and Davey Pty Ltd (1981) ‘Characteristics of Pollution in Urban Stormwater Runoff.’ (AGPS: Canberra.) Gutteridge, Haskins and Davey (1992). ‘An Investigation of Nutrient Pollution in the Murray-Darling River System. Report Prepared for the Murray-Darling Basin Commission.’ (MDBC: Canberra.) Gutteridge, Haskins and Davey (1995). Nutrient Loads from Intensive Animal Industries in the Goulburn Broken Catchment. Goulburn/ Broken Water Quality Working Group. Issues Paper No. 3. Hedger, M., and O’Shanassy, K. (1995). Nutrients and water quality in the Ovens Catchment, Goulburn Murray Water. Water ECOscience, Report No. 30/95. Hunter, K., and Hedger, M. (1995). Victorian Water Quality Monitoring Network - Annual Report 1994. State Water Laboratory of Victoria Report No. 29/95. Hunter, K., and Zampatti, B. (1994). Victorian Water Quality Monitoring Network - Annual Report 1993. State Water Laboratory of Victoria Report No. 112. Hydrotechnology & Water ECOscience (1995). Nutrients in Irrigation Drainage Water from the Goulburn and Broken Catchments. Goulburn Broken Water Quality Working Group Issues Paper No 5. Ian Drummond & Associates Pty Ltd (1995) ‘Stream Zone Restoration Plan, Background and Assessment.’ (IDA: Wangaratta.) Ian Drummond & Associates Pty Ltd (1997). ‘Lake Hume Catchment Sediment & Erosion Action Plan (Draft).’ (IDA: Wangaratta.) Koehn, J.D., Doeg, T. J., Harrington, D, J., and Milledge, G.A. (1993). ‘The Effects of Dartmouth Dam on the Aquatic Fauna of the Mitta Mitta River.’ Unpublished report to the Murray-Darling Basin Commission. (DNRE: Melbourne.) Lanigan, V. (1998). ‘Upper North East Water Quality Status Report.’ (DNRE: Melbourne.) Loone, J., Harrison, J., Richards, H., and Smith, B. (1994). VWQMN reservoirs report to March 1994. Water ECOscience Report No. 16/95. Lumsdon, D., and Reid, M. (1996) Groundwater trends and salinity risk in the North East Region. Centre For Land Protection Technical Paper No. 33. Marston, F., Young, W., and Davis, R. (1993). ‘Nutrient Generation Rates Data Book - Draft Version.’ (CSIRO Division of Water Resources, LWRRDC & SWB: Canberra.) Metzeling, L., Tiller, D., and Hunter, M. (1993). Inland water quality monitoring network 1991 yearly report. Environment Protection Authority Publication No. 360. Moore, S., Lewin, K., Takman, S., and O’Connor, N. (1996). Effects of past and present biocide use on aquatic fauna in the Ovens Catchment. Water ECOscience, Report No. 115/96. Murray-Darling Basin Commission (1993). ‘Algal Management Strategy, Technical Advisory Group Report.’ (MDBC: Canberra.) Murray-Darling Basin Commission (1994). ‘Algal Management Strategy for the Murray Darling Basin.’ (Murray Darling Basin Ministerial Council: Canberra.) Murray-Darling Basin Commission (1996). ‘Cost-Sharing For On-Ground Works.’ (MDBC: Canberra.) Office of the Commissioner for the Environment (1988). ‘Victoria’s Inland Waters; 1988 State of the Environment Report.’ (Government Printer: Melbourne.) Office of the Commissioner for the Environment (1991). ‘Agriculture and Victoria’s Environment; 1991 State of the Environment Report.’ (Government Printer: Melbourne.) Pak-Poy and Kneebone Pty Ltd (1990). ‘Economic Study of Changed Operating Strategies For Hume and Dartmouth Reservoirs, Final Report.’ (Murray-Darling Basin Commission: Canberra.) Post, D. A., Jakeman, A. J., and Dietrich, C. R. (1995). ‘Sources of Turbidity in the Murray Catchment and the Development of a Sediment Transport Model for the Region.’ - Preliminary Report for NSW EPA. Read, Sturgess and Associates (1998). ‘Benefits and Costs from Reducing Frequency of Algal Blooms in Upper North East Region: Volume 1, Main Report; Volume 2, Summary Report. (DNRE: Melbourne.) Roberts, J., Chick, A., Oswald, L., and Thompson, P. (1995). Effect of carp, Cyprinus carpio l,. an exotic benthivorous fish, on aquatic plants and water quality in experimental ponds. Marine and Freshwater Research 46, 1171-80. State Rivers and Water Supply Commission for the River Murray Commission (1978). Dartmouth Dam Project Report on Environmental Studies. BR Tunbridge (1977) A survey of the fish populations in the Mitta Mitta River and tributaries before the construction of Dartmouth Dam. Stormwater Committee (1999). Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines For Urban Stormwater. (Stormwater Committee: Melbourne.) Thompson, C. (1997). ‘Development of the Loddon Catchment Water Quality Strategy- a Description Process.’ (Rendell McGuckian: Melbourne.) Water ECOscience (1996). A review of biocide use in the Ovens Catchment. Goulburn Murray Water, Report No. 98/96.

Upper North East Water Quality Strategy 67 APPENDIX 1. WATER QUALITY WORKING GROUP, TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP & TASKGROUP MEMBERS

Development of this strategy was made possible by the Members of the Water Quality Working Group for participation of a wide range of stakeholders. part of the project Bob Moodie, Andrew Crocos - DNRE ROLE OF THE WATER QUALITY WORKING Rob Fenton - Bethanga Landcare Group GROUP Russell Mann, Grant Lockwood, Les Ryan - North East Regional Water Authority The WQWG played a vital role in the development and Simon Lawlor - Omeo Landcare Group implementation of the water quality Strategy. It comprised Sue Pretty - Land & Water Conservation NSW individuals and members of relevant groups and organisations that contributed to development and whose involvement in implementation will be critical to the ROLE OF THE TECHNICAL OFFICERS WORKING Strategy’s success. GROUP This subgroup of the larger Water Quality Working Group The WQWG was a formal subcommittee of the North (WQWG) was responsible for discussing issues of a East Catchment Management Authority. technical nature referred to it by the WQWG, and for providing technical data to support the catchment Water Quality Working Group Members management model. Linton Vogel - Chairman Colin Teek - Mitta Valley Landcare Group Technical Officers Working Group Members Vicki McMurrich - Kiewa Landcare Group Rick Felton - Chairman Tom Croft - Landcare Co-ordinator Blake Lorck, Chris Phillips - Victorian Plantations Tony Jarvis - Cudgewa Landcare Group Corporation Di Pendergast - Benambra Landcare Group Bob Moodie - DNRE Geoff McKernan - Kiewa Catchment Landcare Group John O’Donnell, Andrew Christy -NSW EPA Lyn Coulston - Upper Murray Catchment Farm Tree Pat Feehan - Goulburn Murray Water Group Rhonda Sinclair - Murray Darling Freshwater Research Lawrence Enever - VFF, Water Services Committee Centre Neil Paulet - Tallangatta Landcare Group Rod Clutterbuck - DNRE Doug Connors - Southern Hydro Partnership Roger Croome - LaTrobe University John Alker-Jones – Albury/Wodonga Development Russell Mann, Les Ryan - North East Regional Water Corporation Authority Helen Brindley - Defence Estate Organisation Simon Robertson - ID&A P/L Mike Hansen - Albury/Wodonga Regional Parks Manager Steve Cheal, Jamie McCaffrey - Environment Protection Lindsay Jarvis, Jeff Taylor, John Riddiford - North East Authority Catchment Management Authority Veronica Lanigan - DNRE Don Jackson - North East Regional Water Authority Blake Lorck, Chris Phillips -Victorian Plantations ROLE OF THE TASK GROUPS Corporation The Forestry, Dryland Grazing, Dairy, Local Government, Narelle Martin - Environment Protection Authority Water Authority and Industry Taskgroups were convened to Pat Feehan - Goulburn Murray Water discuss: sources of nutrients from their respective industries; Rod Clutterbuck, Rick Felton - DNRE practices contributing to nutrient generation; practices to Peter O’Dwyer - Indigo Shire Council reduce nutrient generation; obstacles that block people from Veronica Lanigan - (Project Officer) implementing management practices; and catalysts that would encourage people to implement management practices. This information was used when developing the Strategy.

68 Upper North East Water Quality Strategy Local Government & Industry Taskgroup Forestry Taskgroup Members Members Chris Phillips – VPC (Convenor) Peter O’Dwyer - Indigo Shire (Convenor) Veronica Lanigan, David Buntine, Bob Moodie, Veronica Lanigan, Bob Moodie, Rod Clutterbuck - DNRE Rick Felton, Rod Clutterbuck - DNRE Peter Box - Facilitator Peter Box - Facilitator Narelle Martin - EPA Lyn Coulston Linton Vogel (Chairman WQWG) Roger & Ashley Brown Victoria Mallinder - Towong Shire Blake Lorck - VPC Stephen Brereton - Laurel Hill Trout Farm Robert Richmond Geoff McKernan - Landcare Pat Feehan - G-MW Helen Brindley - Defence Estate Organisation Graham Carter - Murray CMC Russell Mann - NERWA Ron Lutton - Dept Infrastructure Ken Judd - Howmans Gap Ray Henderson - Wodonga City.

Dairy Taskgroup Members Mac Paton (Convenor) Veronica Lanigan, Geoff Drysdale - DNRE Graham Miller Peter Box - Facilitator Lindsay Jarvis Robert & Thelma Reid Neville Watkins Steven Crosthwaite Rob Wood Roger Peters Graham Cameron Noelene Wallace Phillip & Shirley Peters Margaret Kirk Malcolm Burdett

Dryland Grazing Taskgroup Members Neil Paulet (Convenor) Veronica Lanigan, Bob Moodie, Rod Clutterbuck, Rick Felton - DNRE Peter Box - Facilitator Colin Teek Mike Hansen Geoff McKernan Linton Vogel Tony Jarvis Maurie Smith Rhonda Serpell Di & Vince Pendergast Wal Wood Tom Croft Doug Paton

Upper North East Water Quality Strategy 69 Appendix 2. Strategy Development Process Flow Chart

70 Upper North East Water Quality Strategy Upper North East Water Quality Strategy 71 APPENDIX 3. CMSS MODELLING RESULTS

The loads reported from CMSS are estimations, not actual figures. The CMSS model has many underlying assumptions, although data entered into the model (i.e., nutrient export rates, land use information) were the most accurate available at the time of development.

Table 28. Total phosphorus load per subcatchment (base run, routed) Subcatchment name Code Base load Uncertainty Percent ( kg/yr) (± kg/yr) Hume Environs 101 147 814 33 758 41 Upper Cudgewa 102 5 448 1 475 2 Tom Groggin 103 8 659 2 616 2 Tallangatta Creek 104 8 266 2 220 2 Eskdale 1 0 5 48 165 11 873 1 3 Snowy Creek 106 4 300 1 860 1 Upper Dartmouth 107 44 715 10 571 12 Upper Nariel 108 2 560 1 172 1 Gibbo 109 3 446 1 201 1 Big River 110 3 069 971 1 Omeo 111 23 524 6 602 7 Benambra 112 6 670 1 500 2 Victoria River 113 2 584 748 1 Lake Omeo 114 1 317 495 0 Corryong 115 48 454 10 089 13

Wodonga West 201 72 569 12 990 44 Lower Kiewa 202 41 051 8 004 25 Osbornes Flat 203 6 598 1 502 4 Kirbys Flat 204 1 263 233 1 Kinchington Creek 205 3 109 1 043 2 Middle Kiewa 206 26 374 4 865 16 Running Creek 207 1 861 488 1 Upper Kiewa 208 11 839 2 119 7 Mountain Creek 209 595 170 0 Simmonds Creek 210 96 42 0 Kiewa West Branch 211 881 290 1 * Note: Rounding errors have occured to some totals.

72 Upper North East Water Quality Strategy Table 29. Total nitrogen load per subcatchment (base run, routed) Subcatchment name Code Base load Uncertainty Percent ( kg/yr) (± kg/yr) Hume Environs 101 1 394 576 301 997 41 Upper Cudgewa 102 52 288 14 326 2 Tom Groggin 103 78 968 23 517 2 Tallangatta Creek 104 77 954 17 352 2 Eskdale 1 0 5 438 738 106 082 13 Snowy Creek 106 35 596 14 930 1 Upper Dartmouth 107 422 164 98 793 13 Upper Nariel 108 21 020 9 386 1 Gibbo 109 30 237 10 208 1 Big River 110 29 840 9 625 1 Omeo 111 225 719 64 777 7 Benambra 112 62 561 10 345 2 Victoria River 113 24 058 6 986 1 Lake Omeo 114 13 061 4 889 0 Corryong 115 458 720 77 895 14

Wodonga West 201 489 775 82 292 38 Lower Kiewa 202 364 440 60 038 28 Osbornes Flat 203 61 158 14 380 5 Kirbys Flat 204 9 246 1 631 1 Kinchington Creek 205 30 213 10 121 2 Middle Kiewa 206 224 974 33 243 17 Running Creek 207 16 608 3 481 1 Upper Kiewa 208 88 625 12 549 7 Mountain Creek 209 5 326 1 449 0 Simmonds Creek 210 767 333 0 Kiewa West Branch 211 8 060 2 652 1 * Note: Rounding errors have occured to some totals. Table 30. Total phosphorus loads per subcatchment (do-everything scenario) Subcatchment name Code Load change Relative change Percentage of (kg/yr) (%) total % Hume Environs 101 -40 828 -28 45 Upper Cudgewa 102 -1 381 -25 2 Tom Groggin 103 -1 008 -12 1 Tallangatta Creek 104 -2 625 -32 3 Eskdale 1 0 5 -10 750 -22 12 Snowy Creek 106 -542 -13 1 Upper Dartmouth 107 -10 510 -24 12 Upper Nariel 108 -270 -11 0 Gibbo 109 -347 -10 0 Big River 110 -345 -11 0 Omeo 111 -6 673 -28 7 Benambra 112 -1 865 -28 2 Victoria River 113 -703 -27 1 Lake Omeo 114 -567 -43 1 Corryong 115 -12 410 -26 14

Wodonga West 201 -37 076 -51 57 Lower Kiewa 202 -12 576 -31 19 Osbornes Flat 203 -1 994 -30 3 Kirbys Flat 204 -370 -29 1 Kinchington Creek 205 -1 182 -38 2 Middle Kiewa 206 -7 647 -29 12 Running Creek 207 -391 -21 1 Upper Kiewa 208 -3 471 -29 5 Mountain Creek 209 -88 -15 0 Simmonds Creek 210 -10 -10 0 Kiewa West Branch 211 -86 -10 0 * Note: Rounding errors have occured to some totals.

Upper North East Water Quality Strategy 73 Table 31. Total nitrogen loads per subcatchment (do-everything scenario) Subcatchment name Code Load change Relative change Percentage of (kg/yr) (%) total % Hume Environs 101 -396 250 -28 45 Upper Cudgewa 102 -13 538 -26 2 Tom Groggin 103 -9 284 -12 1 Tallangatta Creek 104 -25 747 -33 3 Eskdale 1 0 5 -102 381 -23 12 Snowy Creek 106 -4 654 -13 1 Upper Dartmouth 107 -102 370 -24 12 Upper Nariel 108 -2 197 -10 0 Gibbo 109 -3 026 -10 0 Big River 110 -3 333 -11 0 Omeo 111 -65 522 -29 7 Benambra 112 -18 182 -29 2 Victoria River 113 -6 828 -28 1 Lake Omeo 114 -5 620 -43 1 Corryong 115 -119 733 -26 14

Wodonga West 201 -150 511 -31 42 Lower Kiewa 202 -102 618 -28 29 Osbornes Flat 203 -16 958 -28 5 Kirbys Flat 204 -841 -9 0 Kinchington Creek 205 -11 695 -39 3 Middle Kiewa 206 -56 610 -25 16 Running Creek 207 -3 729 -22 1 Upper Kiewa 208 -15 395 -17 4 Mountain Creek 209 -799 -15 0 Simmonds Creek 210 -69 -9 0 Kiewa West Branch 211 -775 -10 0 * Note: Rounding errors have occured to some totals.

74 Upper North East Water Quality Strategy Table 32. Total nitrogen load per land use Land use Code Area Sources Base load Uncertainty Percent (ha) (kg/yr) (± kg/yr) Falls Creek STP 1 0 1 4 088 2 044 0 Baranduda STP 2 0 1 0 0 0 Yackandandah STP 3 0 1 327 164 0 Wodonga STP 4 0 1 21 597 10 799 1 Mt Beauty STP 5 0 1 7 765 3 883 0 West Wodonga STP 6 0 1 20 581 10 291 1 Tallangatta STP 7 0 1 280 140 0 Corryong STP 8 0 1 567 284 0 Bellbridge STP 9 0 1 272 136 0 Dartmouth STP 10 0 1 24 12 0 +Fish farm (Eskdale) (farm not operating) 11 0 1 - - 0 +Fish farm (Eskdale 1) 12 0 1 1 095 548 0 +Fish farm (Upper Nariel) 13 0 1 920 460 0 Dairy factory (Kiewa) 15 0 1 0 0 0 Army STP Bandiana 16 0 1 500 250 0 Army STP Bonegilla 17 0 1 500 250 0 Poultry shed 19 0 1 172 86 0 Saleyards-Wodonga 20 0 1 0 0 0 Horticulture (annual) 23 85 0 1 700 850 0 Horticulture (mint, grass seed, berries) 24 1 004 0 10 040 5 020 0 Horticulture (perennial) 25 389 0 1 945 972 0 Urban, run-off management 26 928 0 4 454 1 856 0 Crop/pasture, very high erosion 27 1 562 0 9 372 4 686 0 Crop/pasture, high erosion 28 176 645 0 706 580 353 290 35 Crop/pasture, moderate erosion 29 111 725 0 335 175 16 759 17 Crop/pasture, low erosion 62 12 664 0 6 332 3 166 0 Softwood g phase 31 24 274 0 19 419 9 710 1 Softwood t phase 32 1 620 0 1 782 891 0 Softwood s harvest 33 49 0 69 34 0 Softwood g harvest 34 761 0 1 294 647 0 State forest harvest 35 952 0 1 904 952 0 State forest fuel redn 36 1 891 0 2 080 1 040 0 State forest gphase 37 419 045 0 335 236 167 618 17 Forest-con high use & slope 39 1 185 0 1 422 711 0 Forest-con high use & low slope 40 690 0 552 276 0 Forest-con low use & high slope 41 271 106 0 216 885 108 442 11 Forest-con low use & slope 42 43 429 0 26 057 13 029 1 Remnant native vegetation 43 62 031 0 62 031 31 016 3 Freehold- unclassified 44 1 163 0 1 163 582 0 Public land 45 4 527 0 4 527 2 264 0 Public land water frontage reserve 46 14 889 0 89 334 44 667 4 Dams 4 7 24 130 0 0 0 0 Hydroelectricity production 49 3 006 0 2 405 1 202 0 Alpine resort 50 2 240 0 13 440 6 720 1 Mining 51 9 0 90 45 0 Rural residential 52 10 339 0 41 356 20 678 2 Hardwood 53 127 0 102 51 0 Pasture - irrigated 54 4 857 0 43 713 19 428 2 Piggery 5 5 0 1 7 4 0 Saleyards - Corryong 56 0 1 0 0 0 Bogong village STP 57 0 1 153 76 0 Dairy sheds 58 0 32 784 9 376 4 688 0 Septic tanks 59 0 3 710 8 162 3 710 0 Urban, no run-off management 60 615 0 3 382 1 230 0 Total 1 197 937 36 516 2 024 058 411 554 100 * Note: Rounding errors have occured to some totals. +The bench mark (or number cap) is based on current production levels. This differs from the limit allowed under the existing EPA licence with the current nutrient levels less than the EPA licence requirement.

Upper North East Water Quality Strategy 75 Table 33. Total phosphorus load per land use Land use Code Area Sources Base load Uncertainty Percent (ha) (kg/yr) (± kg/yr) Falls Creek STP 1 0 1 1 341 670 1 Baranduda STP 2 0 1 0 0 0 Yackandandah STP 3 0 1 315 158 0 Wodonga STP 4 0 1 14 043 7 022 6 Mt Beauty STP 5 0 1 2 172 1 086 1 West Wodonga STP 6 0 1 8 715 4 358 4 Tallangatta STP 7 0 1 28 14 0 Corryong STP 8 0 1 242 121 0 Bellbridge STP 9 0 1 171 86 0 Dartmouth STP 10 0 1 3 1 0 +Fish farm (Eskdale) (farm not operating) 11 0 1 - - 0 +Fish farm (Eskdale 1) 12 0 1 220 110 0 +Fish farm (Upper Nariel) 13 0 1 160 80 0 Dairy factory (Kiewa) 15 0 1 0 0 0 Army STP Bandiana 16 0 1 250 125 0 Army STP Bonegilla 17 0 1 250 125 0 Poultry shed 19 0 1 141 70 0 Saleyards - Wodonga 20 0 1 0 0 0 Horticulture (annual) 23 85 0 170 85 0 Horticulture (mint, grass seed, berries) 24 1 004 0 1 004 502 0 Horticulture (perennial) 25 389 0 194 97 0 Urban, run-off management 26 928 0 557 186 0 Crop/pasture, very high erosion 27 1 562 0 937 469 0 Crop/pasture, high erosion 28 176 645 0 70 658 35 329 30 Crop/pasture, moderate erosion 29 111 725 0 33 518 16 759 14 Crop/pasture, low erosion 62 12 664 0 633 253 0 Softwood g phase 31 24 274 0 1 942 971 1 Softwood t phase 32 1 620 0 178 89 0 Softwood s harvest 33 49 0 7 3 0 Softwood g harvest 34 761 0 129 65 0 State forest harvest 35 952 0 190 95 0 State forest fuel redn 36 1 891 0 208 104 0 State forest g phase 37 419 045 0 41 904 20 952 18 Forest-con high use & slope 39 1 185 0 142 71 0 Forest-con high use & low slope 40 690 0 55 28 0 Forest-con low use & high slope 41 271 106 0 21 688 10 844 9 Forest-con low use & slope 42 43 429 0 2 606 1 303 1 Remnant native vegetation 43 62 031 0 6 203 3 102 3 Freehold - unclassified 44 1 163 0 116 35 0 Public land 45 4 527 0 453 136 0 Public land water frontage reserve 46 14 889 0 8 933 4 467 4 Dams 4 7 24 130 0 0 0 0 Hydroelectricity production 49 3 006 0 240 120 0 Alpine resort 50 2 240 0 1 344 672 1 Mining 51 9 0 9 4 0 Rural residential 52 10 339 0 4 136 2 068 2 Hardwood 53 127 0 10 5 0 Pasture - irrigated 54 4 857 0 5 828 4 857 2 Piggery 5 5 0 1 1 1 0 Saleyards - Corryong 56 0 1 0 0 0 Bogong village STP 57 0 1 38 19 0 Dairy sheds 58 0 32 784 1 279 656 1 Septic tanks 59 0 3 710 371 186 0 Urban, no run-off management 60 615 0 615 184 0 Total 1 197 937 36 516 235 114 47 089 100 * Note: Rounding errors have occured to some totals. +The bench mark (or number cap) is based on current production levels. This differs from the limit allowed under the existing EPA licence with the current nutrient levels less than the EPA licence requirement.

76 Upper North East Water Quality Strategy Table 34. Total nitrogen load per subcatchment (base run, unrouted) Subcatchment Code Area Avg Base load Uncertainty Percent (ha) gen rate ( kg/yr) (± kg/yr) name (kg/Ha/yr) Hume Environs 101 189 616 2.21 419 165 120 141 27 Upper Cudgewa 102 35 726 1.46 52 288 14 326 3 Tom Groggin 103 97 539 0.81 78 968 23 517 5 Tallangatta Creek 104 45 035 1.73 77 954 17 352 5 Eskdale 1 0 5 68 182 1.58 107 628 30 129 7 Snowy Creek 106 41 084 0.87 35 596 14 930 2 Upper Dartmouth 107 118 522 0.87 103 649 30 933 7 Upper Nariel 108 25 484 0.82 21 020 9 386 1 Gibbo 109 38 351 0.79 30 237 10 208 2 Big River 110 36 934 0.81 29 840 9 625 2 Omeo 111 94 099 1.83 171 819 54 937 11 Benambra 112 43 624 1.43 62 561 10 345 4 Victoria River 113 15 655 1.54 24 058 6 986 2 Lake Omeo 114 5 639 2.32 13 061 4 889 1 Corryong 115 151 089 2.03 306 444 45 478 20 Total of Upper Murray Catchment 1 1 006 579 1.52 1 534 288 334 421 100 Wodonga West 201 25 362 4.94 12 5335 27 008 26 Lower Kiewa 202 27 314 2.87 78 308 15 222 16 Osbornes Flat 203 8 113 2.67 21 701 5 027 4 Kirbys Flat 204 6 460 1.43 9 246 1 631 2 Kinchington Creek 205 11 342 2.66 30 213 10 121 6 Middle Creek 206 45 512 2.63 119 742 24 757 24 Running Creek 207 12 094 1.37 16 608 3 481 3 Upper Kiewa 208 39 304 1.89 74 470 9 227 15 Mountain Creek 209 5 372 0.99 5 326 1 449 1 Simmonds Creek 210 842 0.91 767 333 0 Kiewa West Branch 211 9 643 0.84 8 060 2 652 2 Total of Kiewa Catchment 2 191 358 2.56 489 776 82 292 100 Grand total 1 197 937 1.69 2 024 064 411 554 * Note: Rounding errors have occured to some totals.

Upper North East Water Quality Strategy 77 78 Upper North East Water Quality Strategy Upper North East Water Quality Strategy 79 80 Upper North East Water Quality Strategy