Review of fishways in Victoria 1996–2009
Tim O’Brien, Tom Ryan, Ivor Stuart and Steve Saddlier
2010
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research
Technical Report Series No. 216
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 216
Review of fishways in Victoria 1996–2009
Tim O’Brien1, Tom Ryan2, Ivor Stuart3 and Steve Saddlier1
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research
123 Brown Street, Heidelberg, Victoria 3084
1
2
Environous
PO Box 86, Queenscliff, Victoria 3225
3
Kingfisher Research
20 Chapman Street, Diamond Creek, Victoria 3089
December 2010
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research
Department of Sustainability and Environment
Heidelberg, Victoria
Report produced by:
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research
Department of Sustainability and Environment
PO Box 137
Heidelberg, Victoria 3084
Phone (03) 9450 8600
Website: www.dse.vic.gov.au/ari
© State of Victoria, Department of Sustainability and Environment 2010
This publication is copyright. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of private study, research, criticism or review as
permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced, copied, transmitted in any form or by any means
(electronic, mechanical or graphic) without the prior written permission of the State of Victoria, Department of Sustainability
and Environment. All requests and enquires should be directed to the Customer Service Centre, 136 186 or email
customer.service@dse.vic.gov.au
Citation: O’Brien, T., Ryan, T., Stuart, I. and Saddlier, S. (2010) Review of fishways in Victoria 1996–2009. Arthur Rylah
Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 216. Department of Sustainability and Environment,
Heidelberg, Victoria
ISSN: 1835-3827 (print)
ISSN: 1835-3835 (online)
ISBN 978-1-74242-967-0 (print)
ISBN 978-1-74242-968-7 (online)
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 any error, loss or other consequence which may arise from you relying on any information in this publication.
Front cover photograph: Temporary fishway works (modified crest), Buckley Falls, Barwon River, Victoria.
Authorised by: Victorian Government, Melbourne
Printed by: NMIT Printroom, 77-91 St Georges Road, Preston 3072
ii
Contents
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................v
Summary ............................................................................................................................................1
i. Construction of new instream structures — legislation, strategies and implementation ......1
ii. Provision of fish passage at existing instream barriers in Victoria ......................................2
iii. Management and operation of existing fishways in Victoria .............................................3
iv. Recommendations for improved fishway management in Victoria....................................4
1 Background...................................................................................................................................5
Information from CMAs ...........................................................................................................5
Project objectives ......................................................................................................................5
2 Construction of new instream structures ...................................................................................6
Legislation and policy to protect fish passage ..........................................................................6
Legislation and policy effectiveness .........................................................................................7
3 Management of existing instream barriers in Victoria.............................................................9
Technical guidelines for prioritisation and provision of fish passage .......................................9
Effectiveness of current policy ...............................................................................................10
Effectiveness of Victoria’s fishway programs ........................................................................10
Current status of fishway installations in CMA regions .........................................................15
Fishway performance ..............................................................................................................18
Operation and maintenance.....................................................................................................19
4 Recommendations for improved fishway management in Victoria........................................21
Summary of key recommendations.........................................................................................22
References ........................................................................................................................................23
Appendix A: Fishway types in use in Australia ............................................................................25
Pool-type fishway (including vertical-slot fishway) ...............................................................25
Rock-ramp fishway .................................................................................................................25
Fish passage at road crossings — culverts, fords and causeways ...........................................26
Fish lock and fish lift ..............................................................................................................27
Denil fishway ..........................................................................................................................27
Natural bypass fishways .........................................................................................................28
Barrier removal .......................................................................................................................28
Appendix B. Guidelines from DSE to Water Authorities ............................................................29
Appendix C. Sample of CMA permit for Works on Waterways ................................................30
Appendix D. Current Victorian fishway database .......................................................................32
Appendix E. Queensland DPI consultative fishway design and approval process ....................35
iii
List of Tables and Figures
Table 1. Priority listing and current status of priority barriers to fish passage. ................................ 12
Table 2. Priority listing and current status of potentially redundant weirs. ...................................... 14
Table 3. Summary of fish passage works within each Catchment Management Authority. ............ 16
Table 4. Summary of fishway effectiveness within each Catchment Management Authority. ........ 18
Figure 1. Map of fishways in Victoria by type. ............................................................................. 17
Figure A1. Vertical-slot fishway, Broken Creek. ............................................................................. 25
Figure A2. Rock ramp fishway, Shepparton Weir, Goulburn River. ............................................... 25
Figure A3. Examples of fish friendly road crossings at four sites.................................................... 26
Figure A4. Fish lock, Murray River, Yarrawonga............................................................................ 27
Figure A5. Ascending fish lift hopper, Tallowa Dam (NSW) .......................................................... 27
Figure A6. Cunningham Arm, Gippsland Lakes: before fish passage works................................... 28
Figure A7. Cunningham Arm, Gippsland Lakes: after fish passage works. .................................... 28
iv
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Sustainable Water Environments Division (SWED) staff Ian
Rutherfurd, Tori Perrin, Paulo Lay and Paul Bennett for project funding, support and feedback.
Thanks to Clare Peterken (QDPI Queensland), Bill Shadcloth (DPIPWE Tasmania) and Cameron Lay
(DPI, New South Wales) for providing details on the latest fishway developments in their respective
states, and to David Sharley and Adrian Kitchingman (DSE, Arthur Rylah Institute) for producing the
regional map of fishway locations.
We also thank Rhys Coleman and Dan Borg (Melbourne Water), Veronica Lanigan, Peter Sacco and
Natalie Martin (North East CMA), Michelle Dickson (West Gippsland CMA), Jon Leevers (North
Central CMA), Bill O’Connor (Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, DSE), Sabine Schreiber, Craig
Mutton, Kishor Melvani and Siraj Perera (Office of Water, DSE), Julia Menzies (Fisheries Victoria)
and members of the Waterways Forum for providing updated fishway information and policy advice.
Finally, thanks to Di Crowther and Justin O’Connor from ARI for their comments on the draft report
and to David Meagher for editing the report.
v
vi
Review of fishways in Victoria 1996–2009
Summary
Fish passage is an essential biological requirement for most of the 50 described native freshwater and
diadromous fish species in Victoria.
The provision of fish passage past artificial structures in Victoria began in 1980, gained momentum in
the mid to late 1990s, and peaked during 1998–2001 when over 60 fishways were constructed as part
of the State Fishway Program. In 2000 the responsibility for prioritising stream barriers and
installation of new fishways was passed to Victoria’s Catchment Management Authorities (CMAs).
After 30 years of fishway construction and 10 years of CMA management it is timely that the status of
fishway performance and management be assessed in Victoria.
This project was commissioned by the Sustainable Water Environments Division of the Department of
Sustainability and Environment to support the Victorian Strategy for Healthy Rivers, Estuaries and
Wetlands currently being developed. The project objectives are to:
i. Review current Victorian approaches to providing fish passage at new instream structures.
ii. Review current Victorian approaches to providing fish passage at existing instream structures.
iii. Review the management, maintenance and operation of existing fishways in Victoria.
iv. Develop recommendations to improve fish passage management in Victoria.
i. Construction of new instream structures — legislation, strategies and implementation
The legislation most relevant to provision of fish passage in Victoria includes the Water Act 1989,
Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987 and Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988.
The Water Act stipulates that major works on waterways, such as the construction of dams and weirs,
must be licensed, and that all possible social, economic and environmental impacts, including fish
passage, must be considered.
The Conservation Forest and Lands Act requires all public authorities to submit plans of works to the
Secretary of the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) for comment where works
involve ‘construction of dams, weirs or other structures in or across watercourses which potentially
interfere with the movement of fish, or the quality of aquatic habitat’.
The Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act provides specific protection of fish passage by noting that the
‘prevention of passage of aquatic biota as a result of the presence of instream structures’ is a
‘potentially threatening process’ and that ‘there should be no further preventable decline in the
viability of any rare species’.
There are also a number of strategies supporting fish passage, such as the Victorian River Health
Strategy 2002, CMA Regional Catchment Strategies, Melbourne Water’s Community Environment
Public Health Assessment (CEPHA) checklist and the Murray-Darling Basin Native Fish Strategy
2003–2013, as well as guidelines from DSE such as Technical Guidelines for Waterway Management
and Guidelines for Assessment of Applications for Permits and Licences for Works on Waterways.
These strategies and guidelines have been developed as best management practices in Victoria’s
catchments. But while collectively they are extensive, there is a lack of consistency in how different
organisations obtain approval, assess works and implement fish passage requirements. Advice from
DSE policy staff indicates that, apart from some dam safety improvement works, few fish passage
referrals for exemption are made, indicating that new structures are either fully compliant with fish
passage requirements through the Works on Waterways Permit or that, as anecdotally reported, some
works such as new stream gauges, road crossings and flow regulators may have been constructed
without sufficient referral or consultation.
This report outlines recommendations to address these inconsistencies, including the development of a
clear Statement of Obligations for the owners and managers of instream structures and the
development of a centralised system to record all instream structures and fishways.
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 216
1
Review of fishways in Victoria 1996–2009
 There is sufficient Victorian legislation to protect fish passage when constructing
instream structures, however, a more consistently applied and concise assessment and
approval process is required.
 Development of a centralised system to document new instream structures and fishways
is recommended.
 A clear Statement of Obligations for Water Authorities and other owners of instream
structures is required to ensure best environmental practice for fish passage.
ii. Provision of fish passage at existing instream barriers in Victoria
The Victorian fishway database compiled for this project contains 167 fishways or fish-passagefriendly works, and a further 14 high-priority fishways are proposed in the near future. In total these
fish passage works represent an estimated Victorian investment of more than $5 million. Most fishway
construction (83%) has been concentrated in four CMA regions: Melbourne Water (44 fishways),
Goulburn–Broken CMA (39), Corangamite CMA (30) and Glenelg Hopkins CMA (26). The majority
(61%) of fishways are rock ramps at low level weirs (usually less than a metre high) in coastal
catchments to cater for smaller migratory fish species. This concentration of rock ramp fishways is
largely due to the high ecological significance of Victoria’s coastal migratory fish, the large number of
smaller structures on coastal streams and the relatively low cost of construction for these fishways.
Most vertical-slot fishways (10% of all fishways) have been constructed in the catchments of the
Goulburn and Broken Rivers to cater for large migratory fish species. This is largely because of the
high significance of these fish populations and the prevalence of instream barriers in the catchments.
Other fish passage activities, such as the removal of redundant weirs and the installation of fishfriendly road culverts or erosion control works have been prevalent in the Corangamite and Melbourne
Water catchments.
The Melbourne Water, Mallee, North Central and Corangamite CMA regions have commissioned
detailed reviews of instream barriers to fish passage to provide a standardised approach to identifying
priorities for works programs. All regions should be encouraged to prioritise barriers to fish passage.
Combining information from these reviews with the priority lists developed from 1996 to 1999 by the
Fishway Implementation Committee, a total of 72 high priority barriers have been listed for Victoria.
It is encouraging that 51 of these have been modified to restore fish passage, but a number of these
appear to have significant performance or maintenance issues and a more formal assessment of their
effectiveness is required. Only 7 (26%) of the 27 potentially redundant weirs identified in 2003 have
been decommissioned.
There is a large degree of inconsistency in the design and application of fishway technology between
management organisations. In many cases it appears that new fishways have been constructed without
consulting experienced engineers and fish biologists, and consequently some of these have seriously
flawed designs. This is unfortunate, particularly given that there are now several fishways in south
eastern Australia that have incorporated contemporary design improvements and are working
examples of world’s best practice fishways.
 The level of adoption and quality of design for fishways at existing instream barriers varies
considerably throughout Victoria.
 The involvement of specialist engineers and biologists should be advocated during
construction of all fishways. This is essential for all large structures (> 1 m high).
 Catchment-based prioritisation of instream barriers to fish passage is highly
recommended for all regions.
 There is a need for a contemporary and comprehensive suite of fish passage design
guidelines for small scale structures such as stream-gauging weirs.
2
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 216
Review of fishways in Victoria 1996–2009
iii. Management and operation of existing fishways in Victoria
Fishway performance
In assessing fishways it is vital to evaluate both their hydraulic functionality and the efficiency with
which fish migrate through the structure. Ensuring a high efficiency of fishways is considered to be a
legal obligation of the waterway managers in many countries, and both the New South Wales and
Queensland governments are currently considering similar regulations. Fishway assessment and
monitoring can also be used to improve functionality of fishways, advance current knowledge of
design criteria, and evaluate the benefits of a fishway for the aquatic ecosystem.
There appear to be no requirements to formally review fishway design or performance against design
criteria in Victoria. In this review, only 7% of Victorian fishways were considered to be highly
efficient and capable of providing fish passage to 90% of the fish community, and a further 22% were
considered to be relatively efficient and capable of providing passage for 70–90% of fish species.
Approximately 25% of fishways were thought to have fallen into disrepair or had poor or nonfunctional designs. The remaining 47% of fishways could not be assessed because of a lack of recent
performance information.
These results represent a major finding of the review and highlight the inconsistent approach of
agencies to the requirements for specialist input into fishway design and performance criteria, as well
as the absence of a formal fishway approval processes in Victoria. These problems have contributed to
the partial or total failure of many fishways to achieve their ecological goals. It was also found that
fishways designed in consultation with engineers, fish biologists and appropriate government agencies
have been among the highest performing and most successful fishway installations in the world.
Formal assessments by experts is recommended for all fishways.
 There are no standard fishway design criteria or requirements for performance
review in Victoria, as a result, fewer than 30% of fishways were considered to be
operating efficiently.
 Performance assessment of all Victorian fishways by experts is recommended.
Maintenance and operation
The review examined the operation and maintenance agreements for several Victorian fishways and
included inspections of fishways in the north and south of the state. It found several examples of
Victorian fishways that have not been operating within their optimal range, resulting in reduced fish
passage efficiency.
In many cases the agencies involved in managing instream structures were unfamiliar with their roles
and responsibilities, and the ownership of 39% of fishways was undetermined. It is essential that
fishway ownership be determined, and that owners and managers are aware of the legislation and
guidelines that document their responsibility for the performance and maintenance of fishways.
There appears to be little routine fishway maintenance in Victoria. While the Works on Waterways
permit requires that ‘works shall always be maintained in good order’, advice from the CMAs is that
this requirement is not formally monitored and enforced. Maintenance should be part of a structured
protocol that defines the timing, responsibilities and frequency of tasks. Draft criteria are provided in
this report to assist with the formulation of guidelines for fishway operation, inspections, maintenance
and compliance reporting.
 Although they are essential for ensuring sustained fishway efficiency, maintenance
and operation plans are largely non-existent in Victoria.
 Ownership and responsibility for key operational tasks need to be established for each
fishway in Victoria.
 State legislation and guidelines must clearly indicate that performance and
maintenance of fishways are the responsibility of the structure owner and manager.
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 216
3
Review of fishways in Victoria 1996–2009
iv. Recommendations for improved fishway management in Victoria
Over the past 15 years the impetus for establishing fishways has led to the evolution of a holistic goal
of restoring fish passage for whole fish communities and other aquatic biota, rather than just large
adults of a few commercially or recreationally important species. Research has also demonstrated
significant fish movement both upstream and downstream, highlighting the need for fish passage in
both directions.
While it appears that most fishways are managed for positive environmental outcomes, there is a need
for a more coordinated approach that will lead to more consistent outcomes using contemporary
designs and technology. A set of principles are required to outline the design obligations of each
fishway built across Victoria. To this end, draft design principles are provided in this report to assist
the formulation of more specific design objectives.
Because of the lack of coordination and clear design and review protocols, it appears that relevant
DSE staff and other technical experts are consulted ad hoc regarding fish passage issues. As a result
there is significant inconsistency in applying current best practice for fishway site prioritisation,
design, performance assessment, and development of maintenance and operating programs. A more
consistent approach to the management of fishways is required to provide effective and efficient fish
passage at instream barriers across the state.
These recommendations have been formulated with the help of waterway managers (DSE, CMAs,
Melbourne Water, Southern Rural Water and Goulburn Murray Water) and colleagues involved in fish
passage to enhance the effectiveness of legislation and management around fish passage issues in
Victoria. There are four main areas that still require additional consideration: how proposals for
instream works and weir refurbishments are to be assessed; the development and implementation of
fishway design and construction processes; detailed fishway performance and maintenance criteria;
and re-establishing a fish passage technical panel.
Summary of key recommendations
4
1.
Develop a Statement of Obligations for Water Authorities and other owners of
instream structures to clearly define responsibilities for the provision,
performance and maintenance of fish passage.
2.
Develop consistent procedures, protocols and standards for the appropriate
design, approval and construction of fishways.
3.
Develop a suite of fish passage design guidelines for use at small-scale
structures such as stream-gauging weirs.
4.
Develop fishway performance, operation and maintenance guidelines for each
Victorian fishway to ensure they are appropriate for Victorian conditions and
fish species.
5.
Re-establish a fish passage technical review panel to support implementation
processes for prioritising, designing, constructing and managing fishways.
6.
Maintain a centralised database of all fishways and new instream structures.
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 216
Review of fishways in Victoria 1996–2009
1 Background
There are at least 50 described native freshwater or diadromous estuarine fish species in Victoria. All
of these species have a biological requirement to move within a river system to access suitable
feeding, spawning and refuge habitats. Some species are considered to be more mobile than others and
can migrate large distances within freshwater, and between salt and freshwater environments, in
search of food, suitable spawning conditions and habitat. Restricted fish passage caused by instream
structures can have significant ecological impacts, including:
 exclusion of migratory fish from critical habitats, resulting in loss of species/ecosystem function
 reduced recolonisation opportunities after displacement by drought, fish kills and angling pressure
 fragmentation that leads to the genetic isolation of fish populations
 density-dependent mortality because of higher levels of predation (by fish, birds and anglers),
disease, and starvation below instream structures
 injury or death of fish on spillways, sills or turbines, as they move downstream.
Fishways are structures designed to allow fish to move over, through or around artificial barriers such
as dams, weirs and road crossings. There are several types of fishways and fish-friendly works in
south-eastern Australia. Some examples of these are described in more detail in Appendix A.
The construction of fishways in Victoria commenced in the Lerderderg River in 1980. It gained
momentum in the mid to late 1990s with the introduction of the State Fishway Program (SFP). Over
60 fishways were constructed in the peak of the SFP from 1998 to 2001. This Program was overseen
by an expert panel called the Victorian Fishway Implementation Committee, which prioritised and
reviewed proposed works at a state-wide level. In 1999 an inventory of fishways and barriers to fish
movement and migration in Victoria (McGuckin & Bennett 1999) documented nearly 2500 structures
that potentially restricted fish movement in rivers and streams. This report was a useful tool in
developing a fishway prioritisation process across the state. In 2000 the Victorian Catchment
Management Authorities (CMAs) took over the responsibility for fish barrier prioritisation and
fishway installation in Victoria.
Information from CMAs
Each CMA was contacted to provide information on how instream works and fish passage issues are
being managed. This information was used to update the list of existing fishways in their regions and
to provide information regarding the ownership of structures, the use of maintenance or operational
agreements, and how current legislation is applied. In addition, the project team met with and
addressed CMA representatives in August 2009 at the Waterway Managers Forum.
These communications and feedback have been integral to compiling a Victorian fishway database
and to collecting background information on the management of fishways in each region.
Project objectives
This project was commissioned by the Sustainable Water Environments Division of the Department of
Sustainability and Environment to support the Victorian Strategy for Healthy Rivers, Estuaries and
Wetlands (VSHREW) currently being developed. The project objectives are to:
i. Review current Victorian approaches to providing fish passage at new instream structures.
ii. Review current Victorian approaches to providing fish passage at existing instream structures.
iii. Review the management, maintenance and operation of existing fishways in Victoria.
iv. Develop recommendations to improve fish passage management in Victoria.
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 216
5
Review of fishways in Victoria 1996–2009
2 Construction of new instream structures
Legislation and policy to protect fish passage
Victoria has significant legislation and guidelines to protect fish passage during the installation of
instream structures. Legislation includes the Water Act 1989, Conservation, Forests and Lands Act
1987 and Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988. Policy guidelines include the Victorian River Health
Strategy 2002, the various CMA Regional Catchment Strategies, the Melbourne Water Community
Environment Public Health Assessment (CEPHA) checklist (Melbourne Water Corporation 2008) and
the Murray–Darling Basin Native Fish Strategy 2003–2013 (MDBC 2004). Practical guidelines
include the Technical Guidelines for Waterway Management (DSE 2007) and the Guidelines for
Assessment of Applications for Permits and Licences for Works on Waterways (SKM 2001).
The Water Act 1989 stipulates that works on waterways such as the construction of dams, weirs and
erosion control structures should be licensed. The responsibility for the regulation of works in
waterways has been entrusted to the relevant CMA. The CMAs develop and implement river
protection and restoration programs in accordance with the priorities of Government, endorsed
Regional Catchment Strategies and River Health Strategies and in partnership with local communities.
The authorisation of works by CMAs is generally by the Authority’s Waterways Protection By-law.
The Water Act also stipulates that water authorities cannot abandon major works on waterways
without approval of the Minister. The social, economic and environmental impacts are required to be
considered in the submission, including the potential positive environmental benefits of increasing fish
passage. The Water Act states that Ministerial approval is required when ownership of a structure and
the water entitlement (Licence to Take and Use Water or Licence for In-stream Use of Water) is to be
transferred. Under these provisions the transfer can be rejected or additional conditions on the transfer
(such as the provision of fish passage) can be stipulated.
The Conservation Forest and Lands Act 1987 requires all public authorities to submit plans of works
to Secretary of the Department of Conservation and Environment (DSE) for comment where works
involve ‘construction of dams, weirs or other structures in or across watercourses which potentially
interfere with the movement of fish, or the quality of aquatic habitat’. Under the Conservation Forest
and Lands Act and Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978, DSE needs to consider whether the instream
structure is on a waterway that may be on either Crown or freehold land. If the works are on Crown
land, the application process requires exposure to a wide cross-section of community viewpoints. DSE
has limited controls on activities on freehold land.
The Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 provides specific protection of fish passage by noting that
the ‘prevention of passage of aquatic biota as a result of the presence of instream structures’ is a
potentially threatening process and that ‘there should be no further preventable decline in the viability
of any rare species’.
The Fisheries Act 1995 provides protection of aquatic habitat through two provisions relating to
maintaining fish habitat and protection of specific fish species. The Fisheries Act has regulatory
powers to prevent blockage of fish passage by a net or other material that causes an obstruction within
a bay, inlet, inter-tidal flat, river or creek.
The River Murray Act 2003 (Sth Aust.) (South Australian Government, 2009) protects catchments in
the part of the Murray–Darling Basin that is in South Australia. This Act contains river health
objectives, including avoiding and overcoming ‘barriers to the migration of native species within the
River Murray system’ and ensuring that the Murray River mouth is ‘kept open in order to maintain
navigation and the passage of fish in the area’.
The Environment Effects Act 1978 may also trigger relevant fish passage issues through local
planning applications. This Act provides the necessary legislation for the state ministers, local
government and statutory authorities to make informed decisions about whether a project with
potentially significant environmental effects should proceed. If the Minister for Planning decides that
potential environmental impact may occur, an Environment Effects Statement (EES) must be provided
6
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 216
Review of fishways in Victoria 1996–2009
to the public and relevant government departments and authorities for comment. Drainage, waterways
and surface water quality and flows are considered to be relevant environment assets requiring
consideration under the guidelines of this process administered by the Department of Planning and
Community Development. In those cases where an EES is not required, an assessment of
environmental impacts may still be required under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 or the
Environment Protection Act 1970.
The Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 may require
assessment and approval where a significant impact on a specified matter of national environmental
significance could occur. A Cultural Heritage Management Plan is also mandatory under the
provisions of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006.
The Victorian River Health Strategy (2002) states that CMAs, Melbourne Water and Southern Rural
Water will only give approval for works on waterways if they maintain or improve the environmental
value of the site and surrounds, and new structures include provision for fish passage.
Implementation guidelines for Water Authorities to assist in compliance with legislative
requirements were issued by the DSE Secretary in 2005 (Appendix B). These stipulate that ‘Water
Authorities shall, when constructing, renewing or refurbishing a dam or existing structure on a
waterway ensure that works are undertaken in accordance with current environmental practice,
including any requirements to better provide the Environmental Water Reserve (EWR) and fish
passage’. The guidelines outline the fish passage objectives that will be taken into account on a case
by case basis before any exemption from these guidelines is approved.
Works on Waterways permits are required for a number of instream activities, including river
crossings (bridges, culverts, fords), river deviations (realignments), sediment extractions, erosion
control and bank stabilisation, vegetation removal and other major works (including stormwater, drop
structures and service crossings) (NECMA 2009). CMAs are responsible for site inspections, ensuring
compliance with legislation and guidelines, and issuing permits. A sample CMA permit, including
standard conditions such as not impeding fish passage is provided in Appendix C. Critical fish passage
permit conditions include ‘any works in the bed of the waterway should be designed and constructed
so as not to impede fish passage’ and ‘works shall always be maintained in good order.’
Legislation and policy effectiveness
While there appears to be sufficient legislation and policy guidelines to mitigate the impacts on fish
passage during the construction of new instream structures, there is a lack of consistency in how
different organisations obtain approvals, assess works and implement fish passage requirements.
DSE policy staff report that, apart from some dam safety improvement works, few referrals for
exemption from providing fish passage are made (Siraj Perera pers. comm. 2010). While Victoria is
not in a large dam-building phase, there have been other works recently, such as new stream gauges,
road crossings and flow regulators. In some cases these appear to have been constructed without
referral and often without a consistent and current ‘best practice’ approach to fish passage.
Unfortunately, it is difficult to quantify the number of new structures constructed in Victoria each
year. Some CMAs were not able to provide details around the number and types of Works on
Waterways permits issued, and there is no central register of instream structures apart from the asset
records maintained for hazardous or large dams and the stream gauging network managed by DSE.
Advice from some CMAs is that the Works on Waterways process is not applied consistently for
works, including temporary stream gauges, repair works and road crossings. A centralised system for
documenting all new instream structures and any associated permits or exemptions from fish passage
obligations should therefore be established.
The lack of clarity and consistency regarding the application of existing legislation would be
significantly improved by the development of a comprehensive Statement of Obligations for Water
Authorities and other owners and managers of instream structures. These obligations should outline
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 216
7
Review of fishways in Victoria 1996–2009
responsibilities for all aspects of fish passage, including the design, construction, operation and
maintenance of fishways to current best practice standards.
 There is sufficient Victorian legislation to protect fish passage when constructing
instream structures, but there is clearly a need for a more consistently applied
and concise assessment and approval process.
 The development of a centralised system to document all new instream structures
and fishways is recommended.
 A clear Statement of Obligations for Water Authorities and other owners and
managers of instream structures is required to ensure best environmental
practice for provision of fish passage.
8
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 216
Review of fishways in Victoria 1996–2009
3 Management of existing instream barriers in Victoria
In 1999 an inventory of fishways and barriers to fish movement and migration in Victoria
documented nearly 2500 structures that potentially restricted fish movement in rivers and streams
(McGuckin & Bennett 1999). The inventory was a useful tool in developing a fishway prioritisation
process across the state. In 2000 the Victorian Catchment Management Authorities took over the
responsibility for fish barrier prioritisation and fishway installation in Victoria.
As outlined in Section 2, the protection of fish passage in Victorian streams is regulated by the
Catchment Management Authorities via legislation, including the key obligations of the Water Act
1989 that are outlined in the Works on Waterways permit process.
The CMAs and DSE can direct that fish passage be provided during construction and, if necessary,
that biological assessments be carried out to ensure fish passage is feasible. Only general guidelines
are provided on how this should be achieved. CMA Regional Catchment Strategies recognise fish
migration as a major catchment asset, and instream barriers as major threats to catchment health.
Targets developed to protect and enhance fish passage are therefore given a high priority.
Technical guidelines for prioritisation and provision of fish passage
To achieve the most effective river health outcomes for Victoria’s investment, river health programs
must utilise best management practice, recognising the underlying geomorphological and ecological
processes operating within our rivers. There are several technical guidelines for evaluating
environmental impacts of a range of works and ensuring that the works conform to best management
practices.
The Victorian River Health Strategy (DSE 2002) outlined criteria to be used to prioritise fish
passage restoration works. These include assessments of the:
 native fish species that are likely to benefit (high conservation status or migratory species will be
highest priority)
 length of river and area of habitat made accessible to fish
 quality of habitat made accessible to fish
 proximity to the sea or River Murray (the number and diversity of native fish is highest at the
lower end of catchments)
 potential benefits of complementary restoration programs being undertaken within the basin
 adverse effects of any works, e.g. potential spread of noxious or predator species
 feasibility, including an analysis that accounts for issues such as cost, co-funding opportunities,
enhancement of fisheries, drown-out frequency, and other management options such as
modification or removal of the structure.
The Guidelines for Assessment of Applications for Permits and Licences for Works on
Waterways (SKM 2001) were produced to assist those who are involved in the assessment of permit
and licence applications for works on rivers and streams in Victoria. These guidelines provide CMAs,
water authorities, government agencies, consultants and individuals with information about the
importance of proper design in maintaining river health, though it should be noted that some of the
design criteria in this document have been, or require significant updating to current best practice
designs. Some of the advances in environmental and technical practice for river health restoration and
protection in Victoria have also been incorporated into the Technical Guidelines for Waterway
Management (DSE 2007) produced as an update of the Guidelines for Stabilising Waterways (RWC
1991) referred to in some legislation.
Why do Fish Need to Cross the Road? Fish Passage Requirements for Waterway Crossings (Fairfull
and Witheridge 2003) provides an outline of fish passage issues relating specifically to design
requirements for road crossings such as culverts and causeways. It also provides an overview of the
detailed engineering guidelines provided in Fish Passage Requirements for Waterway Crossings —
Engineering guidelines (Witheridge 2002). Other design guidelines available for culverts and road
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 216
9
Review of fishways in Victoria 1996–2009
crossings include Fish Passage at Culverts — A review with possible solutions for New Zealand
indigenous fish (Boubee et al. 1999) and the VicRoads Biodiversity Guidelines (VicRoads 2005).
The above guidelines encompass a range of commonly constructed works undertaken on rivers and
streams throughout Victoria, but no guideline will cover every aspect or situation that will arise, so the
design and construction of specific works depends on the judgement and experience of waterway
management professionals. There are also some gaps in the technical guidelines available for fish
passage.
Victoria relies on accurate and reliable recording of streamflows and water quality from more than
1650 active sites (www.vicwaterdata.net). However, the issue of existing fishway designs for stream
gauging stations and the potential for these to conflict with accuracy and ease of flow measurements
continues to compromise fish passage at these sites. There is general support from hydrographers for
the development of stream gauge design guidelines that effectively meet requirements for both flow
measurement and fish passage. It is recommended that support be provided to facilitate the
development of guidelines for fish passage at Victorian stream gauge stations.
Effectiveness of current policy
It is unclear how effectively all of the above guidelines have been applied. In many cases it appears
that new fishways have been constructed without consulting expert fish biologists or specialist design
engineers, resulting in fishways that have seriously flawed design and performance results. It appears
that relevant experts are consulted ad hoc and that a formal fish passage assessment process is lacking
in Victoria. This is unfortunate given that expertise for contemporary design improvements and
construction techniques is available in Australia. This has been demonstrated in the recent construction
of several fishways in south-eastern Australia that are now working examples of world’s best practice
fishways. A coordinated approach to fishway management in Victoria would help to address this
problem.
As outlined for new structures (Section 2), the lack of clarity and consistency around the application of
existing legislation would be significantly improved by the development of a comprehensive
Statement of Obligations for Water Authorities and other owners and managers of instream structures.
Effectiveness of Victoria’s fishway programs
To provide an assessment of the extent of fishways works in Victoria, an updated list of sites where
fishways have been installed (Appendix D) has been compiled. This was then compared to known
information regarding the highest-priority sites for each CMA region (Table 1).
Several agencies have commissioned reviews and prioritisations of barriers to fish passage within their
region. These documents provide a more strategic and standardised approach to identifying priorities
for works programs in the following areas:









Lake Wellington and South Gippsland region (WGCMA 2002)
State Fishway Program Redundant Weir Review. (DSE 2003)
North East Catchment Management Authority Redundant Weir Review (NECMA 2003)
Murray–Darling Basin (six priority barriers identified in Victoria) (MDBC 2004)
Mallee Catchment Management Authority region (SKM 2005)
Broken, Boosey, Back and Major Creeks, Broken River system (Saddlier and O’Connor 2005)
Loddon and Campaspe catchments (O’Brien et. al. 2006)
Melbourne Water — Port Phillip and Westernport Catchments (GHD 2007)
Corangamite Catchment Management Authority — coastal catchments (Ryan et. al. 2010)
A total of 72 barriers have been listed as priority barriers for fish passage (Table 1), based on early
recommendations from the Fishway Implementation Committee (1996–1999) and the various CMA
and agency reports listed above. Where no formal assessment of priority barriers was known, the
10
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 216
Review of fishways in Victoria 1996–2009
original priorities from early State Fishway Program assessments were used if available. It is
important to note that these reports use differing criteria to assess a particular barrier’s significance to
fish passage, and the barriers have not been formally scored against comparable criteria, so this list is
somewhat subjective and is not a comprehensive state-wide priority list. For example, it was agreed at
the Fishway Implementation Committee meeting in 1998 that the Wimmera CMA barriers had a low
priority on a state-wide basis but the highest priority for that region. The number of barriers listed for
each CMA region is also not wholly reliable as it is based more on available data, and not all CMA
regions have completed formal reviews of instream barriers or in some cases have assessed only key
catchments within their region. A more consistent assessment of fish passage priorities and a detailed
assessment of fishway effectiveness throughout Victoria is needed.
Overall, the various fishways programs have targeted works at the priority barriers identified; 51
(71%) of the 72 priority sites listed have some fishway works completed. A formal assessment of
fishway performance was beyond the scope of this study, and the limited monitoring that has occurred
at most fishways would make it difficult to evaluate the effectiveness. Maintenance, operating and
performance issues, using some fishways as case studies, are discussed in Section 4 of this report.
In a separate study commissioned by DSE in 2001–02, each CMA was asked to identify and prioritise
barriers for potential redundancy and removal. A total of 232 potentially redundant structures were
identified (DSE 2003). Table 2 outlines the three priority weirs that were selected by each CMA based
on factors such as structure safety, lack of identified users, community support, the impact on fish
passage, and the likely costs or adverse affects of removal. Many of these structures still require more
detailed assessments by CMA staff to determine both the environmental benefits achieved by
removing each weir and the social costs to the local community. Only 7(26%) of the 27 priority
barriers identified appear to have been removed or modified for fish passage to date, though it should
be noted that funding for this program was limited.
North East CMA reported the removal of several ‘unauthorised structures’ to provide for fish passage
(Peter Sacco pers. comm. 2010), but because of privacy concerns the spatial information for these
structures was not provided and they could not be included in this report. It is likely that other
redundant structures have been removed prior to this review and that there are a number of other
structures that should be included on the redundant weirs list.
Potentially redundant weirs should be reassessed as part of a catchment-based prioritisation of
instream barriers and removed if possible.
 Victorian regions are highly variable in terms of the adoption of fishways and
standards of design at existing instream barriers.
 Specialist engineers and biologists should be consulted during the planning and
construction of fishways. This is essential for all larger structures (> 1 m high).
 Catchment-based prioritisation of instream barriers to fish passage is highly
recommended for all regions.
 A clear Statement of Obligations for Water Authorities and other owners and
managers of existing instream structures is required.
 There is a need for a contemporary suite of fish passage design guidelines for
small-scale structures such as stream-gauging weirs.
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 216
11
Review of fishways in Victoria 1996–2009
Table 1. Priority listing and current status of priority barriers to fish passage.
NB. Priorities were extracted from early Fishway Implementation Committee notes and various CMA reports.
These reports use differing criteria to assess importance and results are not in priority order, or comparable.
CMA/Priority
Waterway
Location
Fish Passage
provided?
Corangamite 1
Barwon River
Lower Breakwater
Partially
Corangamite 2
Barwon River
Buckley Falls & Baums Weir
Partially
Corangamite 3
Gellibrand River
Water supply offtake weir
Yes
Corangamite 4
Barwon River
Pollocksford Weir
Yes
Corangamite 5
Cumberland River
Caravan Park road crossing
Yes
Corangamite 6
East Barham River
Paradise Gauge
Yes
Corangamite 7
St Georges River
Pedestrian crossing
No
Corangamite 8
Kennedys Creek
McIntyres Bridge Gauge
Yes
Corangamite 9
Loves Creek
Gauge at Gellibrand
Yes
Corangamite 10
Thomson Creek
Tidal barrage
Yes
Corangamite 11
Curdies Creek
Gauging Weir and crossing
Yes
Corangamite 12
Anglesea River
Culvert and causeway
No
East Gippsland 1
Gippsland Lakes
Cunningham Arm Causeway
Yes
East Gippsland 2
Mitchell River
Bairnsdale barrage
Yes
East Gippsland 3
Betka River
Pump station weir
Yes
East Gippsland 4
Nicholson River
Nicholson Dam
No
Glenelg Hopkins 1
Merri River
Bromfield Street Weir
Yes
Glenelg Hopkins 2
Moyne River
Toolong Road Gauge
Yes
Glenelg Hopkins 3
Glenelg River
Dartmoor Gauge
Yes
Glenelg Hopkins 4
Surry River
Heathmere Gauge
Yes
Glenelg Hopkins 5
Eumerella River
Codrington Gauge
Yes
Goulburn Broken 1
Broken River
Caseys Weir
Yes
Goulburn Broken 2
Broken River
Gowangardie Weir
No
Goulburn Broken 3
Broken Creek
Rices Weir
Yes
Goulburn Broken 4
Broken Creek
Kennedys Weir
Yes
Goulburn Broken 5
Broken Creek
Scheirs Weir
Yes
Goulburn Broken 6
Broken Creek
Hardings Weir
Yes
Goulburn Broken 7
Broken Creek
Luckes Weir
Yes
Goulburn Broken 8
Broken Creek
Magnasson's (Ball's) Weir
Yes
Goulburn Broken 9
Broken Creek
Chinamans Weir
Yes
Goulburn Broken 10
Broken Creek
Nathalia Town Weir
Yes
Goulburn Broken 11
Broken Creek
Numurkah Station Street Weir
Yes
Goulburn Broken 12
Broken Creek
Numurkah Melville Street Weir
Yes
Goulburn Broken 13
Gulf Creek
Gulf regulator
No
Goulburn Broken 14
Broken River
Benalla Weir
Yes
Goulburn Broken 15
Hughes Creek
Avenel Gauge
Yes
Mallee 1
Lindsay River
Inlet control / old earthen crossing
No
Mallee 2
Narcooyia Creek
Concrete weir — also check inlet
(SKM 2005)
No
Mallee 3
Mullaroo Creek
Inlet control & bridge runner
No
continued on next page
12
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 216
Review of fishways in Victoria 1996–2009
Table 1 (continued)
CMA/Priority
Waterway
Location
Fish Passage
provided?
Mallee 4
Chalka Creek
Inlet control and crossing
No
Mallee 5
Potterwallkagee Creek
Crossing and culvert
No
Melbourne Water 1
Yarra River
Dights Falls
Partially
Melbourne Water 2
Bunyip River
11 Mile Road drop structure
Yes
Melbourne Water 3
Bunyip River
Evans Road drop structure
Yes
Melbourne Water 4
Bunyip River
Iona gauge
Yes
Melbourne Water 5
Bunyip River
Tonimbuk Gauge
Yes
Melbourne Water 6
Bunyip River
Vervale drop structure
Yes
Melbourne Water 7
Bunyip River
Water Tower drop structure
Yes
Melbourne Water 8
Maribyrnong River
Brimbank Park Weir
Yes
Melbourne Water 9
Maribyrnong River
Brimbank Ford
Yes
Melbourne Water 10
Maribyrnong River
Arundell Road Weir
Yes
Melbourne Water 11
Patterson River
Pillars Crossing
Yes
Melbourne Water 12
Lang Lang River
Heads Road drop structure
No
Melbourne Water 13
Mordialloc Creek
Pillar Crossing (Dandenong Creek)
Yes
Melbourne Water 14
Cardinia Creek
Thompsons Road drop structure
Yes
Melbourne Water 15
Darebin Creek
Darebin Parklands ford
Yes
North East 1
Ovens River
Tea Garden Creek diversion
No
North East 2
Ovens River
Sydney Beach Weir — upgrade
proposed 2010
Partially
North Central 1
Loddon River
Kerang Weir and bridge
Yes
North Central 2
Campaspe River
Echuca Gauging Station
No
North Central 3
Campaspe River
Campaspe Syphon & gauge
No
North Central 4
Little Murray River
Little Murray Weir
No
North Central 5
Little Murray River
Fish Point Weir
No
North Central 6
Gunbower Creek
Koondrook South Weirs
No
North Central 7
Loddon River
Appin South gauge
No
West Gippsland 1
Old Thomson River
Cowarr knife-edge weir
Yes
West Gippsland 2
Thomson River
Horseshoe Tunnel
No
West Gippsland 3
LaTrobe River
Lake Narracan & offtake weir
No
West Gippsland 4
Tarwin River
Weir at South Gippsland Highway
Yes
West Gippsland 5
Thomson River
Cowarr Weir
No
Wimmera 1
Yarriambiac Creek
Jung Weir
Yes
Wimmera 2
Wimmera River
Huddlestons Weir
Yes
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 216
13
Review of fishways in Victoria 1996–2009
Table 2. Priority listing and current status of potentially redundant weirs.
(Adapted from State Fishway Program Redundant Weir Review (DSE 2003).
CMA/Priority
Waterway
Location
Fish Passage
provided?
North East 1
Cudgewa Creek
Beetoomba Gauging Station
No
North East 2
King River
Moyhu Gauging Station
No
North East 3
Yackandandah
Creek
Osbournes Flat Gauge
No
North Central 1
Campaspe River
Elmore Gauging Station
No
North Central 2
Campaspe River
Redesdale Gauging Station
No
North Central 3
Serpentine Creek
Gauging Station
No
Goulburn Broken 1
Sevens Creek
Mitchell Gauging Station
No
Goulburn Broken 2
Sunday Creek
Australian Paper Mill Weir
No
Goulburn Broken 3
Nine Mile Creek
Ford
No
Wimmera/Mallee 1
Wimmera River
Drung Drung Weir Wooden
No
Wimmera/Mallee 2
Wimmera River
Dooen Weir Wooden
No
Wimmera/Mallee 3
Wimmera River
Antwerp Weir Wooden
No
Glenelg Hopkins 1
Moleside Creek
Kentbruck Gauging Station
Yes — fishway
Glenelg Hopkins 2
Moyne River
Willatook Gauging Station
Yes — fishway
Glenelg Hopkins 3
Mt Emu Creek
Garvoch Gauging Station
No
Corangamite 1
Barwon River
Inverleigh Ford
Yes — fishway/removal
Corangamite 2
Skenes Creek
Skenes Creek Weir
No
Corangamite 3
Latrobe Creek
Princetown Drop Structure 16
No
Melbourne Water 1
Boyd Creek
Darraweit concrete gauge
230219A
No
Melbourne Water 2
Barringo Creek
Barringo concrete gauge
230212A
No
Melbourne Water 3
Saltwater Creek
Saltwater Road gauge 230221A
unknown — possibly
natural
East Gippsland 1
Rocky River
Orbost Concrete weir n/a
No
East Gippsland 2
Youngs Creek
Orbost Concrete weir n/a
No
East Gippsland 3
Mitchell River
Hillside Weir
Yes — partially
demolished?
West Gippsland 1
Archies Creek
Concrete weir 54
Yes — fishway
West Gippsland 2
Franklin River
Toora Crossing 13
Yes — unknown type
West Gippsland 3
Franklin River
Toora Concrete weir 12
Yes — unknown type
14
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 216
Review of fishways in Victoria 1996–2009
Current status of fishway installations in CMA regions
In this part of the project, each Victorian CMA was contacted to provide information on how instream
works and fish passage issues are addressed and how current legislation is applied. This was used to
update the list of existing fishways in the CMA region and to provide information about the use of
maintenance or operational agreements. In addition, the project team met with and addressed CMA
representatives in August 2009 at the Waterway Managers Forum.
Each CMA was asked to address the following questions:
1. What fishways (such as rock-ramp or vertical slot) are present in your CMA?
2. What waterway are these on and what is their specific location?
3. When were these constructed?
4. Which organisation constructed the fishway?
5. Where were the funds for construction sourced from?
6. What type of barrier and what height was this fishway constructed for?
7. Did the planning process include any ecological consultation (and if so who was consulted)?
8. Has the fishway efficiency been assessed, and if so when and by which organisation?
9. Are there any operating rules or guidelines associated with this fishway?
10. Is there a regular maintenance schedule attached to this fishway?
11. Which organisations/authorities (if any) were approached for approval to construct this fishway?
12. What legislation or guidelines were used during the planning/construction phase?
13. What other improvements could be made to legislation and guidelines that would enhance
management of fish passage into the future?
This feedback is the basis of the Victorian fishway database. A detailed summary of the fishway
locations in each CMA region is provided in Appendix D. Information on the management of
fishways, such as the existence of assessment reports and maintenance programs for each site, has also
been recorded, but because the feedback for these criteria often lacked detail only a general discussion
has been include in the report. It is hoped that the Victorian fishway database can be routinely updated
by CMAs to accurately reflect the current status of fishway construction and operation in Victoria.
The Victorian fishway database contains 167 fishways or fish-passage-friendly works, and a further 14
high priority fishways that are proposed for the near future (Figure 1; summary by CMA in Table 3).
In total these fish passage works represent an estimated Victorian investment of more than $5 million.
A large majority of fishways (83%) are concentrated in four regions, including Melbourne Water (44
fishways), Goulburn–Broken CMA (39), Corangamite CMA (30) and Glenelg Hopkins CMA (26)
regions. The majority (61%) of all fishways constructed are rock ramps at low-level weirs (usually less
than one metre high) in coastal catchments, to cater for smaller migratory fish species.
The spatial distribution of fishways has been influenced by a number of factors, including
prioritisation based on catchment condition, fish species occurrence, water availability, construction
cost, and the potential for co-funding opportunities. The high percentage of rock ramp fishways is
largely a result of the ecological significance of the diverse coastal migratory fish and the relatively
low cost of construction.
Fifteen of the sixteen vertical-slot fishways were constructed in the catchments of the Goulburn and
Broken Rivers to cater for larger migratory fish species. Some regions have been more pro-active in
terms of fishway implementation, but it is apparent that in recent years all regions have recognised the
importance of fish passage and are now incorporating it into work schedules as a high priority.
Other fish passage activities, such as the removal of redundant weirs, fish-friendly road culverts, and
erosion control works, have been prevalent in the Corangamite and Melbourne Water regions. In some
cases, the CMA were aware of fish passage works being undertaken but the fishway type was not
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 216
15
Review of fishways in Victoria 1996–2009
known. In most cases these appear to be small structures that are likely to have been either removed or
have modified rock ramp type fishways installed.
Old design or temporary fishway
1
2
9
20
37
7
5
Barrier removed
5
1
1
5
1
1
2
4
Unknown type fishway reported
6
1
3
42
27
46
16
30
2
13
3
105
16
3
2
1
Not constructed high priority fishways
Total fishway works reported
Total
1
1
Fish friendly works e.g. erosion, modification
Fish friendly culvert/ford
Wimmera
19
West Gippsland
Rock ramp fishway
North Central
Melbourne Water
Glenelg-Hopkins
15
North East
Vertical-slot fishway
Goulburn-Broken
East Gippsland
Corangamite
Table 3. Summary of fish passage works within each Catchment Management Authority.
Unknown fishway types are those sites with works confirmed by the CMA, but not categorised.
2
1
9
11
10
6
1
1
14
4
8
3
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 216
19
14
3
181
Review of fishways in Victoria 1996–2009
Figure 1. Map of fishways in Victoria by type.
Note: Sites where type of fish passage work or spatial information was unknown are not included.
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 216
17
Review of fishways in Victoria 1996–2009
Fishway performance
At present there is no legislation, policy or guideline that requires optimal operation and performance
(or even performance assessment) of fishways in Victoria. In many other countries, including most of
the European Union, the requirement for a fishway to work efficiently is a legal obligation of the
waterway manager (Kroes et. al. 2006). To do this, it is necessary to define the effectiveness or
efficiency criteria required of a fishway and to develop suitable monitoring guidelines. In most
instances the efficiency is defined as time and the proportion of the migrating population that
successfully pass through the fishway (Kroes et. al. 2006).
Fishway assessment and monitoring can also be used to improve the functionality of the fishway,
advance current knowledge of design criteria, and evaluate the benefits of a fishway on an ecosystems
fish population.
There is also no requirement to review fishway design or performance against design criteria in
Victoria, and very few fishways have been assessed for performance through targeted fish surveys.
Although the estimates of fishway effectiveness (Table 4) are based on very superficial assessment
information, including appraisal of fishway photographs and local knowledge, they indicate that only
about 7% of Victorian fishways are highly efficient and capable of providing fish passage to 90% of
the fish community, and a further 22% are relatively efficient and capable of providing fish passage to
70–90% of the fish community. About 25% of fishways have fallen into disrepair or have poor or nonfunctional designs. The remaining 47% of fishways could not be assessed because of a lack of any
recent performance assessment information. Formal assessment, including at least a site visit by a
fishways expert, is recommended for all fishways.
Table 4. Summary of fishway effectiveness within each Catchment Management Authority.
CMA region
1 - not
functional
Corangamite CMA
East Gippland CMA
2 - requires
assessment
(unknown)
2
3 - poor for
4 - limited for
species or
species or flows
flows (<35%)
(35-70%)
2
9
1
Goulburn Broken CMA
22
5 - Good for
key species
(70-90%)
6 - Excellent full
fish community
(>90%)
Total
11
6
30
1
2
1
15
38
Glenelg Hopkins CMA
1
18
1
1
5
1
27
Melbourne Water
1
14
8
15
2
4
44
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
19
28
37
North Central CMA
North East CMA
1
Wimmera CMA
3
West Gippsland CMA
17
Total
3
77
3
11
11
167
These results suggest that there are no consistently applied fishway design and performance criteria,
and no clear process for fishway design approval. These gaps may have contributed to the partial or
total failure of many fishways to achieve their ecological goals. An important finding of the project
was that fishways designed in consultation with specialist fishway engineers and fish biologists have
been among the best performing and most successful installations in the world.
18

Because there are no standard fishway design criteria or requirements for
performance review in Victoria, less than 30% of fishways are operating efficiently.

A performance assessment and review of all Victorian fishways is recommended.
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 216
Review of fishways in Victoria 1996–2009
Operation and maintenance
Operation and maintenance schedules are a key component of an efficient fishway, but need to be
developed for each fishway. To achieve this, the ownership of the fishway and key functional
responsibilities of the designated waterway and land manager need to be clearly defined.
The project team examined the operation and maintenance agreements for several Victorian fishways
and inspected installations in the north and south of the state. These investigations provided several
examples of Victorian fishways that have not been operated within their optimal range, resulting in
reduced fish passage efficiency.
An efficiently operating fishway should conform to specific hydraulic and biological requirements.
While monitoring the physical attributes of a fishway is important, monitoring movement of fish past
the structure is important, particularly for larger (over a metre high) or non-standard fishways. For
example, recent investigations at vertical-slot fishways in the Broken River highlighted a number of
procedural problems with the day-to-day operation, resulting in limited fish passage success
(O’Mahony and Saddlier 2007).
Large fishways usually have operational protocols prepared by the designer that stipulate operations
based on headwater and tailwater levels. In many jurisdictions these protocols are formalised in a
memorandum of understanding (MOU) and must be adhered to and regularly reported against. The
water authority might also have site-specific fishway operational protocols (e.g. for weed
management). During this review, an examination was made of several operating/maintenance MOUs
for fishways on the Loddon, Broken River and Broken Creek systems. These MOUs defined when a
fishway should operate (usually by water level) and suggested a small number of performance criteria
to assess during maintenance. Using these MOUs as a template, criteria are provided below for
fishway operators around four key areas: fishway operational criteria, fishway inspections, fishway
maintenance, and compliance reporting.
In many cases the various agencies involved were unfamiliar with their roles and responsibilities. For
39% of fishways (data extracted from fishways database), details of ownership and which agency is
responsible for the fishway was not known. This is a particular issue for structures with multiple uses,
such as flow recording and private stream crossing, or where the structure is of historical significance
and the original authority or group that installed the structure no longer exists. The maintenance and
operation of stream gauging stations are often funded by several agencies such as DSE, EPA, Water
Authorities and CMAs via partnership arrangements administered by DSE (Sabine Schreiber, DSE
pers. comm. 2010). The ownership of a large number of these structures is not clear, and the ratio of
funding from each agency to support particular sites can vary from year to year. It is essential that
fishway ownership and management responsibility be established and that the relevant legislation and
guidelines clearly indicate that performance and maintenance of fishways are the responsibility of the
operator or manager.
Each fishway will operate differently, and there are likely to be different water release regimes
required to maximise fishway effectiveness, particularly at times of limited water allocation. Based on
current working examples throughout the state, the following operation guidelines provide some of the
most likely operational requirements. More specific operational objectives and targets will obviously
need to be developed for each fishway. It is important that these operational guidelines be developed
with the assistance of experienced fishways consultants and engineers.
It is recommended the following criteria be adopted by fishway operators:



Fishways should be operated and maintained to design specifications at all times.
The fishway should be operated on a ‘first-on last-off’ basis. i.e. first available water releases
should operate the fishway and the fishway should be the last flow to cease. Partially opened
fishways generally pass no fish.
Attraction for fish to the fishway entrance is to be maximised through targeted water release
patterns (site-specific gate opening and release protocols should be developed).
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 216
19
Review of fishways in Victoria 1996–2009


Optimise performance of the fishway with regard to the hydrological design range as specified by
the site-specific guidelines. Noting, that even during low weir pool events, the fishway can still
facilitate some fish passage with low depth (i.e. 200 mm) so should remain open.
All use of the fishway de-watering gate should be clearly defined to ensure safety for fish and
associated infrastructure. This includes raising and lowering the gate in a slow or staged manner
and ensuring the gate is fully removed from the water during fishway operation.
To ensure that fishways function as designed, a clear maintenance plan should be prepared and
implemented. This plan should be part of the permit process and therefore legally require the fishway
to be maintained in an efficient state. Maintenance is best done as part of a structured inspection
programme or protocol that defines the period when the facility should operate. On the Murray River,
weir keepers undergo a semi-formal training on fishway operational procedures. Targeted training for
Victorian river operations staff is recommended.
As part of a formal operational and maintenance program, fishways need to be inspected for operating
defects on a regular basis. The frequency of site visits to inspect fishway should be based on peaks in
seasonal fish migrations, generally this will require most frequent inspections in spring and summer.
The following inspection and maintenance tasks are recommended:
Monthly on-site maintenance (September–March):
 Inspect trash racks and clear any obstructions.
 Inspect the fishway, particularly the entrance and exit, for sediment, large pieces of debris and
weeds, and clear as necessary.
 Inspect the head loss in each slot (including entrance and exit) or rock ridge to ensure it is
operating within the design criteria.
 Inspect the integrity of any automation or PIT tag infrastructure.
Biannually (early winter and summer):
 Perform a detailed visual inspection of the entire weir and abutments, and schedule maintenance or
repairs as required.
 De-water the fishway and inspect for damage, wear, debris and blockages.
 Inspect gate operating mechanisms or other automation; adjust, lubricate and repair as necessary.
 After major flooding de-water the fishway to check for damage, debris or blockages.
 Consult with CMA and DSE on the operation and condition of the fishway.
There is also a need for a formal reporting procedure. Information on a fishway operation, relevant
contacts, maintenance and compliance reporting could be made available via a collaborative website.
The website could be used to update inspection and maintenance reports and report on problems and
subsequent actions that should be undertaken.
A lack of consistent maintenance has been identified as one of the biggest issues associated with
reduced fishway performance in Victoria. While the Works on Waterways permit requires that ‘works
shall always be maintained in good order’, advice from the CMAs is that this requirement is not
formally monitored and enforced. Maintenance is best done as part of a structured inspection program
or protocol that defines the timing, responsibilities and frequency of tasks.
20

Although they are essential for sustained fishway efficiency, maintenance and
operation plans are largely non-existent in Victoria.

Ownership and responsibility for key operational tasks need to be established for
each fishway in Victoria.

State legislation and guidelines must clearly indicate that the performance and
maintenance of fishways are the responsibility of the owner and manager.
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 216
Review of fishways in Victoria 1996–2009
4 Recommendations for improved fishway management in
Victoria
Fishways in Victoria can improve riverine connectivity for a range of aquatic biota and are crucial for
effective restoration of many native fish populations. These objectives are best achieved through a
collaborative approach from CMAs, water authorities, engineers and fish biologists.
While it appears that most fishways are managed for positive environmental outcomes, there is a need
for a more consistent and contemporary approach that includes restoring fish passage for whole fish
communities in both directions.
Because of the rapid advances in local fishway design and expertise, there appears to be some
inconsistency in applying current best practice for fishway site prioritisation, design, and for the
implementation of fishway performance assessment, maintenance and operating protocols that occurs
in many other jurisdictions.
The first step towards a consistent fishway design and approval process is the development of a set of
design principles. These principles should include overarching criteria that focus on the objectives of
the fishway design.
The following set of design principles should be considered for all new fishways, to ensure that best
practice techniques are being used:








Fishways should cater for the entire native fish community (all size classes, biomass, life-stages).
They should provide year-round passage and be designed to operate from low summer flows to
high flooding flows. Fishway entrance conditions should be accessible under all flows and they
should provide hydraulic conditions that are suitable for all native fish in the system.
Where practical, they should be designed to accommodate both upstream and downstream fish
passage.
Each site should be assessed for the potential to remove noxious species.
Water releases should be directed through the fishway as a first preference to other outlets.
Spillways, aprons, plunge pool and dissipators should be designed to minimise fish injury and
entrapment.
Attraction water should be sourced from high-quality surface water, and any spillway flows should
be located adjacent to the fishway to facilitate access and fish attraction.
Appropriate lighting and resting habitat should be provided.
These general principles should then be used to develop a concept design by incorporating the unique
site-specific requirements of the fishway such as target species, hydraulic conditions and operational
requirements.
Complex fishway designs such as vertical-slot and large rock ramps need to be developed in a
consultative process between the river managers and operators, hydraulic engineers, fish biologists and
the construction contractors.
A process that has worked in other Australian states, and was applied in Victoria in the mid and late
1990s, is the formation of a fishway review or implementation body to coordinate fishway
management. Such a review body would have a broad role in supporting CMAs and river operators
with fish passage projects, while also providing specialist policy, biological, engineering, technical
design and evaluation advice. This process would provide continuity between fish passage projects
and improve the potential fish passage benefits, and could streamline the associated approval times.
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 216
21
Review of fishways in Victoria 1996–2009
The tasks of this fish passage review panel would include:
 providing a catchment based and state-wide approach to fishway prioritisation
 providing a forum to share expertise and information for fishway design and management
 reviewing design criteria and construction for all Victorian fishways
 reviewing monitoring and maintenance programs to ensure fishways operate as designed
 identifying who is responsible for fishway operation and maintenance
 regularly auditing fishways and their performance in Victoria
 maintaining a fishways database and spatial layer for use in fishway works planning, which would
also provide valuable information for fish distribution modelling and habitat management.
Queensland DPI has a consultative approach to fishway design and approval that provides some useful
information regarding actual tasks required during fishway design and approval (Appendix E).
Smaller fish passage projects such as those for low-level weirs and roads crossing do not usually
require the same level of consultation, particularly if standardised and up-to-date design criteria are
available. While some design guidelines are available, there is a need to identify or develop a set of
consistent design criteria for each fishway type (rock ramps, road crossings, rock chutes) that are
relevant to Victorian streams, conditions and fish species.
Because of the lack of coordination and clear design and review protocols, relevant technical experts
are consulted ad hoc on fish passage issues. As a result there is inconsistency in applying current best
practice for fishway site prioritisation, design, performance assessment, and development of
maintenance and operating protocols.
The following recommendations are required to improve management of fish passage issues in
Victoria. These recommendations have been formulated with the help of waterway managers (DSE,
CMA’s, MW, SRW and GMW) and colleagues involved in fish passage issues in Victoria and other
states. There are four main areas that require additional consideration: requirements for instream
works and weir refurbishments; the fishway design and construction process; the need for fishway
performance and maintenance criteria; and re-establishing a fish passage technical panel.
Summary of key recommendations
22
1.
Develop a Statement of Obligations for Water Authorities and other owners of
instream structures to clearly define responsibilities for the provision,
performance and maintenance of fish passage.
2.
Develop consistent procedures, protocols and standards for the appropriate
design, approval and construction of fishways.
3.
Develop a suite of fish passage design guidelines for use at small structures such
as stream gauging weirs.
4.
Develop fishway performance, operation and maintenance guidelines for each
Victorian fishway to ensure they are appropriate for Victorian conditions and fish
species.
5.
Re-establish a fish passage technical review panel to coordinate and support
implementation processes for prioritisation, design, construction and
management of fishways.
6.
Maintain a centralised database of all fishways and new instream structures.
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 216
Review of fishways in Victoria 1996–2009
References
Boubee, J., Jowett, I., Nichols, S.P. and Williams, E. (1999). Fish Passage at Culverts: A review, with
possible solutions for New Zealand indigenous species. Originated from Department of
Conservation Science Investigation no. 2103. National Institute of Water and Atmospheric
Research (NIWA).
DSE (2002). Healthy Rivers Healthy Communities & Regional Growth: Victorian River Health
Strategy. Department of Natural Resources and Environment, August 2002.
DSE (2003). State Fishway Program Redundant Weir Review. Unpublished internal report by Arthur
Rylah Institute for Environmental Research and Catchment and Water Division, Department
of Sustainability and Environment. September 2003.
DSE (2007). Technical Guidelines for Waterway Management. Developed for the Department of
Sustainability and Environment (DSE) by a steering committee comprising representatives of
the DSE, Waterway Managers Forum of Catchment Management Authorities (CMAs) and
Alluvium Consulting Pty Ltd.
Fairfull, S. and Witheridge, G. (2003). Why do Fish Need to Cross the Road? Fish Passage
Requirements for Waterway Crossings. NSW Department of Primary Industry, Cronulla.
GHD (2007). Port Philip and Westernport Region Priority Fish Barrier Investigation. Unpublished
report to Melbourne Water by GHD consultants.
Kroes M.J., Gough P., Schollema P. P. & Wanningen H. (eds) (2006). From sea to source: Practical
guidance for restoration of fish migration in European rivers. Groningen: Interreg IIIC project
‘‘Community Rivers’’, 119 pp. Available Online:
http://www.hunzeenaas.nl/content/nieuws/documenten/1182_Guidancefromseatosource.pdf
McGuckin, J. and Bennett, P. (1999). An inventory of fishways and potential barriers to fish
movement and migration in Victoria. Waterways Unit, Department of Natural Resources and
Environment. June 1999.
MDBC (2004). Native Fish Strategy 2003–2013. Publication 25/04, Murray–Darling Basin
Ministerial Council.
Melbourne Water Corporation (2007). Port Phillip and Westernport Regional River Health Strategy.
Melbourne Water Corporation (2008). Community Environment Public Health Assessment checklist
(CEPHA).
NECMA (2003). Redundant Weir Review, Stage 1. Inventory of weirs and priority listings for North
East Catchment Management Authority.
NECMA (2009). Works on Waterways Background information and permits. North East Catchment
Management Authority website
(www.necma.vic.gov.au/ourprograms/permitsworksonwaterways).
O’Brien, T.A., Mallen-Cooper, M. and Pitman, K.S. (2006). Instream barriers of the Loddon and
Campaspe catchments: Assessment and prioritisation for fish passage. Arthur Rylah Institute
Technical Report Series No. 161, Department of Sustainability and Environment, Heidelberg.
O’Mahony, J. and Saddlier, S. (2007). Guidelines for Broken Creek Fishways Operations: Final
(unpublished) report to the Living Murray Program, Murray–Darling Basin Commission,
Canberra. Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research, Department of Sustainability
and Environment, Heidelberg.
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 216
23
Review of fishways in Victoria 1996–2009
Ryan, T., Stuart, I., Saddlier, S. and O’Brien, T. (2010). The assessment and prioritisation of barriers
to fish passage in the coastal streams of the Corangamite Region. Unpublished report to the
Corangamite Catchment Management Authority.
Saddlier, S.R., and O’Connor, J.P. (2005). Instream barriers of the Broken, Boosey, Back and Major
Creeks and Broken River system: A prioritisation for fish migration. Freshwater Ecology,
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research client report for the Goulburn-Broken
Catchment Management Authority. November 2005.
RWC (1991). Guidelines for Stabilising Waterways. Prepared by the Working Group on Waterway
Management for the Standing Committee on Rivers and Catchments, Victoria. Published by
Southern Rural Water Commission of Victoria.
SKM (2001). Guidelines for Assessment of Applications for Permits and Licences for Works on
Waterways. Produced for the Victorian Waterway Managers Group.
SKM (2005). Assessment of barriers to fish passage in the Mallee. Client report to Mallee Catchment
Management Authority.
South Australian Government (2009). River Murray Act. Accessed on the South Australian legislation
website (www.legislation.sa.gov.au//RiverMurray ACT/current)
VicRoads (2005). Biodiversity Guidelines. VicRoads Environmental Services Department.
WGCMA (2002). Weir Review Status: Prioritisation of removal of fish barriers. Lake Wellington and
South Gippsland region. West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority, December 2002.
Witheridge, G. (2002). Fish Passage requirements for Waterway Crossings — Engineering Guidelines.
Catchment and Creeks Pty Ltd, Brisbane.
24
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 216
Review of fishways in Victoria 1996–2009
Appendix A: Fishway types in use in Australia
Pool-type fishway (including vertical-slot fishway)
Pool-type fishways were the first type to be developed. They consist of interconnected pools
bypassing a barrier to fish movement. Many different types of pool fishways have been installed in
Australia, but the vertical-slot design is the only one that has proved effective for native fish. It
provides consistent flow conditions over a wide range of river flow conditions and can be specifically
targeted for a broad size range of fish or subsets of the migratory fish community.
The vertical-slot design is commonly used throughout south-east Australia, including Broken Creek
(Figure A1), Broken River, Kerang Weir on the Loddon River, Gunbower Creek, and most of the
Murray River fishways.
Figure A2. Rock ramp fishway (constructed 2009),
Shepparton Weir, Goulburn River.
Figure A1. Vertical-slot fishway, Broken
Creek.
Rock-ramp fishway
Rock-ramp fishway technology has improved markedly in the last five years and there are many
successful rock-ramp fishways in Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland (Figure A2). These
fishways are rocky channels that simulate rocky stream riffles, enabling fish to bypass the structure by
swimming between pools separated by faster flowing rock ridges. In narrow streams, rock-ramp
fishways that span the entire stream width offer the advantages of operating over a wide range of river
levels and fish can easily find the fishway entrance.
Rock-ramp fishways are usually cheaper than technical fishways such as vertical-slot or locks, but
must be carefully designed and constructed to avoid loss of depth due to seepage of water under the
rocks. Regular maintenance, particularly post-flooding is also required.
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 216
25
Review of fishways in Victoria 1996–2009
Fish passage at road crossings — culverts, fords and causeways
Road crossings can act as barriers to fish passage by creating a physical blockage. A fall of only 10 cm
is enough to create a vertical barrier that will block passage for some small fish, they can create
hydrological barriers due to excessive water velocities, or form artificial conditions that act as
behavioural barriers to fish such as darkness.
Guidelines for culvert design to mitigate the impacts of culverts and road crossings are available.
These include SKM (2001), Fairfull and Witheridge (2003), Witheridge (2002), Boubee et al. (1999),
and VicRoads (2005).
As a general rule, bridges and arch structures promote more natural, unimpeded stream flow, and light
allowing the free movement of fish underneath the structure during a wider range of hydrological
conditions (Figure A3).
Figure A3. Examples of fish friendly road crossings at four sites. Modified causeway (top left), retrofitted culvert (top-right), new arch culvert with side baffles (bottom left), and culvert with retrofitted side baffles (bottom right).
26
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 216
Review of fishways in Victoria 1996–2009
Fish lock and fish lift
Most suited to high barriers such as dams, fish locks operate by attracting fish through an entrance
similar to that of a pool-type fishway, but instead of swimming up a channel the fish accumulate in a
holding area at the base of the lock. The holding area is then sealed and water fills the lock to the same
level as water upstream of the barrier. Fish are then able to swim out of the lock. To encourage fish to
move through the lock, a combination of attraction flows, cycling times and crowding screens can be
used. Yarrawonga Weir on the Murray River (Figure A4) is the only operational fish lock near to
Victorian waters, though several others exist within the Murray–Darling Basin and in Queensland.
Several new fish locks are currently being installed at weirs on the lower Murray River in South
Australia.
A fish lift operates like an elevator. Fish are attracted up an entrance channel, through a gate and into a
hopper. After a specified period of time the gate closes and the hopper is then lifted over the wall and
lowered into the water upstream of the dam. Fish are then released from the hopper and are able to
resume upstream migrations. Two large fish lifts operate in Australia, including the ascending hopper
fish lift on the Shoalhaven River near Nowra, New South Wales (Figure A5).
Figure A4. Fish lock, Murray River, Yarrawonga.
Figure A5. Ascending fish lift hopper,
Tallowa Dam (NSW). (Photo: Janet
Pritchard)
Denil fishway
The Denil fishway was developed in 1909 by Belgian scientist G. Denil. It uses a series of
symmetrical close-spaced baffles in a channel to redirect the flow of water, allowing fish to swim
around the barrier. The only Denil fishways close to Victorian waters are on the Murray River at
Euston Weir and Lock 10 at Wentworth.
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 216
27
Review of fishways in Victoria 1996–2009
Natural bypass fishways
This fishway design looks much like a natural stream and has the ability to move all species when
properly designed. A stream channel using natural materials is designed to bypass a barrier. It can
provide replacement stream habitat and can be used on any sized river but does require the most space
to properly site. Operation of bypass fishways can be limited by variable headwater and by their
inherently high discharge. Very few fish bypasses have been constructed in south-eastern Australia,
and these are not considered to be fully designed examples of the technology.
Barrier removal
Barrier removal involves either removing or modifying instream structures such as dams, weirs,
stream gauges and road crossings that are known to block fish passage. Barrier removal can involve
the full or partial removal of the structure. All fishway designs involve some compromise in
performance (such as for small species or at certain times of the year) and barrier removal, where
practical is generally the most effective method of providing for fish passage. Barrier removal can
involve the complete or partial removal of redundant structures or replacement of culverts with free
span crossings such as at the Cunningham Arm of Gippsland Lakes (Figures A6, A7).
Figure A6. Cunningham Arm, Gippsland Lakes:
before fish passage works.
28
Figure A7. Cunningham Arm, Gippsland Lakes:
after fish passage works.
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 216
Review of fishways in Victoria 1996–2009
Appendix B. Guidelines from DSE to Water Authorities
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 216
29
Review of fishways in Victoria 1996–2009
Appendix C. Sample of CMA permit for Works on Waterways
WORKS1.DOC
FORM: PERMIT -WORKS
January 2001
.........................Catchment Management Authority
Insert (Address of CMA)
(Telephone, Fax number, email of CMA)
WATER ACT - 1989
(Sections 160, 161 and 219)
PERMIT No:........
(Issued under By-law No:...........)
Subject to the conditions listed overleaf, the..............Catchment Management Authority authorises:
(Insert name and address of applicant).
to construct and operate the following works :
(Insert a description of works).
on the following waterway at a site in, or adjacent to, the land described below.
Waterway:
State Waterway No.:
Lot(s):
Plan of Subdivision No.:
Allotment(s):
Section :
Parish/Township:
NOTE
1.
The works identified above must be completed within 12 months of the date of issue of this permit. If
these works are not completed within that period, this permit shall expire 12 months from the date of issue
of this permit. Any renewed permit, if granted, may be subject to renewed conditions.
2.
The Authority accepts no responsibility for any claims, suits or actions, arising from injury, loss, damage
or death, to any person or property which may arise from the construction, maintenance, existence or use
of the works.
3.
The extent of the review by the Authority of the works identified above, has been confined to a limited
evaluation of the affect of the works on erosion in the waterway and flooding of adjacent lands and in
particular has not included an evaluation of the structural soundness of the works.
Authorising Officer:
30
Date of Issue:
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 216
Review of fishways in Victoria 1996–2009
Permit Conditions
1.
The works shall be constructed in accordance with the plans attached.
2.
The waterway shall not be deviated in any manner for construction purposes except with the
specific approval of the Authority. If necessary, the flow shall be pumped around the
construction site or construction undertaken in stages with flow confined to one portion of the
waterway.
3.
Disturbance of the bed and banks of the waterway and the use of construction plant and
equipment is to be kept to a minimum during construction. Removal, destruction or lopping of
native vegetation is also to be kept to a minimum. Suitable conservation measures are to be
implemented to prevent vegetation, silt, chemicals and spillage from construction activities
either entering the waterway or moving downstream. No discharge/dumping of wastewater or
other materials to the waterway is permitted, unless specifically authorised by the Authority.
4.
All disturbed bank areas shall be graded to remove humps and hollows and top soiled and
planted with locally occurring native species of grasses and shrubs.
5.
Vegetation that has been cleared for construction purposes and any heaps of excavated soil
remaining after the completion of the works shall be removed from site. No material of any sort
shall be pushed into the waterway or left in a manner where it can slip or be moved by
floodwaters, into the waterway.
6.
Any works in the bed of the waterway should be designed and constructed so as not to impede
fish passage.
7.
Logs and boulders removed from the waterway as a result of construction activity should be
returned to the waterway and randomly distributed.
8.
The works shall always be maintained in good order.
9.
It is the responsibility of the person issued with this permit to obtain the necessary approval of
the works before their commencement:
(a)
(b)
from the relevant planning authority;
from the Department of Natural Resources and Environment in relation to the Land
Act 1958, Forests Act 1958 the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988, the
Conservation, Forests and Land Act 1987 and the Catchment and Land Protection Act
1994.
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 216
31
Review of fishways in Victoria 1996–2009
Appendix D. Current Victorian fishway database
Corangamite and Glenelg Hopkins CMA regions
Waterway
Barrier
AWRC id Zone Easting Northing
CMA
Region
Fishway Type
Construction Date
1998
Barwon River
Baum’s Weir
55
263470
5774310
CCMA
rock-ramp
Barwon River
Buckley Falls - modified capping
55
264000
5774030
CCMA
temp. rock-ramp
1998
Barwon River
Gauging weir @ Pollocksford
55
253529
5774488
CCMA
rock-ramp
1999 and 2010
Barwon River
Lower breakwater
55
273920
5766640
CCMA
rock-ramp
1995 / currently in design
Barwon River
Old bluestone weir near Inverleigh
55
243750
5777920
CCMA
rock-ramp
2001
Barwon River
Stream Gauge @ Inverleigh (McMillans)
233218A
54
762320
5773570
CCMA
rock-ramp
2008
Barwon River
Stream gauge @ Ricketts Marsh (Conns)
233224A
54
747660
5754284
CCMA
rock-ramp
2001 and 2008
Carisbrook Creek
Old road crossing
54
744300
5713800
CCMA
culvert removal
2000
Cumberland River
Gauging weir @ Lorne
54
756800
5726500
CCMA
rock-ramp
2007
Cumberland River
Road crossing at caravan park
54
756940
5726243
CCMA
modified culvert
2007
Curdies River
Gauging weir @ Curdie
54
670300
5744000
CCMA
rock-ramp
1999 and 2010
East Barham River
Barham River Road
54
727711
5707669
CCMA
barrier removed
2007
East Barham River
Gauging weir @ Apollo Bay
54
728100
5707114
CCMA
rock-ramp
2001 and 2010
Gellibrand River
Ford below Stevensons Falls
54
731394
5727805
CCMA
rock-ramp
2008
Gellibrand River
Gauging weir @ Burrupa
235224A
54
695641
5714161
CCMA
rock-ramp
unknown
Gellibrand River
Gauging weir @ Carlisle River
235225A
54
706495
5729385
CCMA
rock-ramp
2001 & 2006 & 2010
Gellibrand River
Gauging weir @ Upper Gellibrand
235202C
54
731434
5728345
CCMA
rock-ramp
2008
Grassy Creek
Farm culvert
55
240500
5736400
CCMA
modified culvert
1999
Grassy Creek
Farm culvert
55
240700
5736400
CCMA
modified culvert
1999
Grassy Creek
Small farm weir
55
240900
5736400
CCMA
rock-ramp
1999
Jamieson River
Old road crossing
54
754100
5723700
CCMA
removed
1998
Kennedy’s Creek
Gauging weir @ McIntyres Bridge
54
696649
5726554
CCMA
rock-ramp
1999
Lardners Creek
Gellibrand east Road - stream gauge
54
721785
5731881
CCMA
rock-ramp
2010
Loves Creek
Gauging weir @ Gellibrand
235234A
54
724316
5737455
CCMA
rock-ramp
1998
Scotts Creek
Digneys Bridge
235237A
54
673586
5742558
CCMA
rock-ramp
2010
Thompson Creek
Horseshoe Bend Road
55
268171
5760808
CCMA
box culvert and baffles
2004
Thompson Creek
Point Impossible Road wetlands culvert
55
270342
5757614
CCMA
box culvert
2004
Thompson Creek
Tidal barrage
55
271303
5759880
CCMA
rock-ramp
2000
West Barham River
Redundant weir
54
728642
5705960
CCMA
barrier removed
2008
Wild Dog Creek
‘Binnawee’ upstream of GOR
54
732862
5710146
CCMA
barrier removed
2009
Brucknell Creek
Gauging weir @ Cudgee
54
644488
5754663
GHCMA
rock ramp
2003
Bushy Creek
Bushy Creek via Chatsworth
54
639900
5818900
GHCMA
Baffles
Reported June 2004
Crawford River
Culvert
54
526800
5801600
GHCMA
Baffle box culvert
2006
Crawford River
Culvert
54
528700
5801300
GHCMA
Baffle box culvert
2006
Crawford River
Gauging weir @ Lower Crawford
238235A
54
539641
5799621
GHCMA
rock-ramp
2005
Darlot Creek
Gauging weir @ Homerton
237205A
54
568409
5780566
GHCMA
rock-ramp
2003
Darlot Creek
Gauging weir @ Condah
237203A
54
567437
5781801
GHCMA
rock ramp
To be constructed 2010
Eumeralla River
Stock water supply, Macarthur
54
596500
5783100
GHCMA
unknown
2003
Eumerella River
Gauging weir @ Codrington
237206A
54
582595
5765123
GHCMA
rock-ramp
2001
Fitzroy River
Gauging ford and culvert @ Heywood
237202B
54
554354
5780051
GHCMA
rock-ramp
2003
Glenelg River
Gauging weir @ Fulham Bridge
238224A
54
575471
5888363
GHCMA
rock-ramp
2005 and 2008
Glenelg River
Gauging weir @ Dartmoor
238206A
54
524715
5802413
GHCMA
rock-ramp
2001
Glenelg River
Temporary town weir at Casterton
54
536104
5840386
GHCMA
removed weir
2003
Glenelg River
Iluka pipeline culvert crossing
54
580950
5882000
GHCMA
Baffle box culvert
2009
Glenelg River
Les Mutches Ford Crossing
54
582080
5889230
GHCMA
Baffle box culvert
2009
Glenelg River
Gauging weir @ Dergholm
238211A
54
521506
5864417
GHCMA
rock ramp
2005
Glenelg River
Gauging weir @ Harrow (site 1)
238210A
54
552337
5886052
GHCMA
rock-ramp
Reported 2010
Glenelg River
Gauging weir @ Sandford
238202A
54
537829
5836283
GHCMA
rock ramp
To be constructed 2010
Hopkins River
Gauging weir @ Framlingham
236210A
54
648800
5766700
GHCMA
rock-ramp
Reported June 2004
Hopkins River
Gauging weir @ Wickliffe
236202A
54
652000
5826600
GHCMA
rock-ramp
Reported June 2004
Merri River
Broomfield St Weir
54
629687
5752990
GHCMA
rock-ramp
1998
Merri River
Gauging weir @ Woodford
236205B
54
629619
5758134
GHCMA
rock-ramp
Reported June 2004
Moleside Creek
Gauging weir @ Kentbruck
238233 I
54
526297
5786347
GHCMA
rock-ramp
2005
Moyne River
Gauging weir @ Willatook
237208 I
54
610377
5774439
GHCMA
rock-ramp
unknown
Moyne River
Gauging weir @ Toolong Rd North
237200A
54
607118
5757942
GHCMA
rock-ramp
2001
Stokes River
Gauging weir @ Teakettle
238230A
54
536063
5808546
GHCMA
rock-ramp
2006
Surry River
Gauging weir @ Heathmere
237207A
54
558026
5767015
GHCMA
rock-ramp
2001
233200B
235216A
235203B
235233A
235211A
236212A
continued on next page
32
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 216
Review of fishways in Victoria 1996–2009
Appendix D. (cont.): Current Victorian fishway database
Goulburn Broken, North Central, North East and Wimmera CMA regions
Waterway
Barrier
AWRC id Zone Easting Northing
CMA
Region
Fishway Type
Construction Date
Boosey Creek
Katamatite Weir
GBCMA
rock-ramp
2000
Boosey Creek
Mid Boosey
GBCMA
unknown
investigate 2002
Boosey Creek
Tungamah Weir
GBCMA
unknown
designed at 2002
Broken Creek
Chinamans Weir
GBCMA
vertical-slot
2000
Broken Creek
Gilmours Bridge gauge
GBCMA
rock-ramp
2000
Broken Creek
Harding’s Weir
GBCMA
vertical-slot
1999
Broken Creek
Irvine's Weir- Tungamah
GBCMA
rock-ramp
2010
Broken Creek
Katandra Weir (Broken Weir)
55
374664
6003186
GBCMA
vertical-slot
1999
Broken Creek
Kennedy’s Weir
55
320900
6011700
GBCMA
vertical-slot
1997
Broken Creek
Luckes Weir
55
331779
6009193
GBCMA
vertical-slot
2000
Broken Creek
Magnasson's (Ball's) Weir
55
334657
6010840
GBCMA
vertical-slot
2002
Broken Creek
Melville St Numerkah Weir
55
359736
6004469
GBCMA
vertical-slot
2001
Broken Creek
Nathalia Town Weir
55
338887
6007294
GBCMA
vertical-slot
1999
Broken Creek
O'Reilly's Weir- Tungamah
55
398850
5996975
GBCMA
rock-ramp designed
not constructed
Broken Creek
Rices Weir
55
316400
5917600
GBCMA
vertical-slot
1997
Broken Creek
Schiers Weir
55
323300
5917600
GBCMA
vertical-slot
1998
Broken Creek
Station St Numerkah Weir
55
359065
6003988
GBCMA
vertical-slot
2003
Broken River
Benalla Weir
55
408362
5954782
GBCMA
vertical-slot
2000
Broken River
Broken Creek Offtake
GBCMA
investigate
investigate
Broken River
Casey’s Weir
55
405069
5962808
GBCMA
vertical-slot
2005
Broken River
Gowangardie Weir
55
381990
5967067
GBCMA
remove/v-slot proposed
deferred 02/03
Broken River
Hollands Creek Offtake
GBCMA
unknown
investigate 2002
Castle Creek
East Goulburn Main Channel Syphon
GBCMA
rock-ramp
2002
Castle/Creightons/Pranjip Cks grade controls x 5 completed
GBCMA
erosion rock-ramp
2000
Goulburn River
Cooks Cut
GBCMA
erosion rock-ramp
1998
Goulburn River
Fidge's Cutting
GBCMA
erosion rock-ramp
2000
Goulburn River
Jordan's Bend
GBCMA
erosion rock-ramp
2000
Goulburn River
Nobbies Cut
GBCMA
erosion rock-ramp
2001
Goulburn River
Pells Cut
GBCMA
erosion rock-ramp
1999
Goulburn River
Shepparton Weir
GBCMA
rock-ramp
2009
Goulburn River
Thomsons Cuttting
GBCMA
rock-ramp
1998
Gulf Creek
Gulf regulators
GBCMA
vertical slot proposed
in design 2010
Hollands Creek
Mokoan Offtake Weir
GBCMA
unknown
investigate 2002
Honeysuckle Creek
Honeysuckle Reservoir removal
55
387850
5938715
GBCMA
removed-chute fishway
2005
Hughes Creek
Avenel gauge
55
346900
5908700
GBCMA
rock-ramp
2000
Nine Mile Creek
Katandra Weir (Nine Mile Weir)
55
374664
6003186
GBCMA
vertical-slot
Nine Mile Creek
Shep Drain 12 outfall weir
GBCMA
rock-ramp
2000
Nine Mile Creek
Wunghnu Weir
GBCMA
rock-ramp
2000
Pranjip Creek
East Goulburn Main Channel Syphon
55
348626
5945817
GBCMA
rock-ramp
2002
Seven Creeks
East Goulburn Main Channel Syphon
55
360132
5955771
GBCMA
unknown
investigate 2002
Seven Creeks
Euroa Park Weir
55
372726
5931634
GBCMA
Vertical slot
2000
Sugarloaf Creek
Fordroad crossing
55
330101
5899313
GBCMA
rock-ramp
2010
Campaspe River
Echuca gauging weir
55
296267
5997646
NCCMA
rock ramp/partial removal
proposed
Gunbower Creek
Cohuna Weir
55
248916
6033844
NCCMA
vertical-slot proposed
proposed
Gunbower Creek
Gunbower Weir
55
263413
6018000
NCCMA
vertical-slot proposed
not constructed
Gunbower Creek
Thomson's Weir
55
263406
6017940
NCCMA
rock-ramp proposed
proposed for 2010
Spur Creek
Hipwells Rd regulator
55
2611438
6028664
NCCMA
vertical slot proposed
proposed 2010/11
Yarran Creek
Yarran Ck regulator
55
249730
6038821
NCCMA
vertical slot proposed
proposed 2010/11
Loddon River
Kerang Weir
54
764144
6045014
NCCMA
vertical-slot
2008
Loddon River
sill at bridge upstream of Kerang Weir
54
764040
6044951
NCCMA
Rect. channel in sill
2008
Ovens River
Sydney Beach Weir (Wangaratta)
55
439000
5976800
NECMA
bypass 2000 upgrade due
upgrade proposed 2010
Ovens River
Tea Garden Creek diversion
55
457600
5965670
NECMA
fishway proposed
designed- funding issue
Snowy Creek
Snowy Creek Weir
55
533817
5956523
NECMA
rock-ramp
1998
Wimmera River
Huddleston's Weir
54
637000
5920060
WCMA
rock-ramp
2008
Yarriambiac Creek
Jung Weir
54
622300
5946600
WCMA
rock-ramp
2001
MacKenzie River
Dad and Dave Weir
54
622271
5897029
WCMA
rock ramp
2009
55
55
405271A
55
337822
327311
353740
6009296
6008830
5974626
continued on next page
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 216
33
Review of fishways in Victoria 1996–2009
Appendix D. (cont.): Current Victorian fishway database
East Gippsland, Melbourne Water and West Gippsland CMA regions
Waterway
Barrier
AWRC id Zone Easting Northing
CMA
Region
Fishway Type
Construction Date
Betka River
Water supply pump weir
55
737200
5836700
EGCMA
rock-ramp
2000
Gippsland Lakes
Eastern Beach Cunningham Arm causeway
55
589327
5807606
EGCMA
barrier removed
2003
Mitchell River
Bairnsdale barrage
55
552140
5813330
EGCMA
rock-ramp
2001-washed out 2009
Big Pats Creek
McLeans Road
55
389750
5820106
MW
debris blockage removed
2007/08
Bunyip River
11 Mile Road (concrete drop structure)
55
380000
5777600
MW
rock-ramp
1999
Bunyip River
Evans Road (steel sheet drop structure)
55
387300
5780400
MW
rock-ramp
2000
Bunyip River
Iona gauge (steel sheet)
228213A
55
384800
5779000
MW
rock-ramp
2000
Bunyip River
Tonimbuk Gauge (steel sheet)
228212A
55
390800
5789200
MW
rock-ramp
2000
Bunyip River
Vervale (steel sheet drop structure)
55
383800
5778800
MW
rock-ramp
1999
Bunyip River
Water Tower (concrete drop structure)
55
367200
5771600
MW
rock-ramp
1998
Cardinia Creek
Chadwick Road
55
357907
5794744
MW
rock-ramp
2007/08
Cardinia Creek
Barriers downstream of Thompsons Road
55
359048
5782238
MW
rock-ramp
2005/2006
Dandenong Creek
Ferntree Gully Road
55
342220
5802820
MW
rock-ramp
2010
Darebin Creek
Bell St crossing stabilisation
55
326736
5820210
MW
rock-ramp
2000
Darebin Creek
Darebin Parklands ford
55
329922
5817656
MW
rock-ramp
1999
Darebin Creek
LaTrobe golf course weir
55
327334
5825527
MW
rock-ramp
1999
Deep Creek
Concrete weir at Bolinda
55
306700
5855300
MW
unknown
2004
Deep Creek
Disused gauge at Darraweit Guim
55
312700
5858500
MW
unknown
2004
Deep Creek
Ford at Darraweit Guim
55
312700
5858500
MW
rock-ramp
2004
Deep Creek
Weir at Bulla
55
305913
5832795
MW
rock-ramp
2004
Dunns Creek
Dunns Creek Road
55
329219
5754039
MW
rock-ramp
2009/10
Emu Creek
Clarkefield
230211A
55
299700
5850900
MW
rock-ramp
2004
Eumemmerring Creek
Abbotts Road
228203A
55
343934
5789042
MW
rock-ramp
2007/08
Grace Burn Creek
Wallace Parade
55
371076
5831678
MW
rock-ramp
2007/08
Hoddles Creek
Glenview Road
55
375441
5815704
MW
rock-ramp
2007/08
Jacksons Creek
Gauging weir @ Sunbury
230202A
55
300565
5838012
MW
unknown
unknown
Lang Lang River
Heads Road drop structure
228209A
55
380864
5767438
MW
Vertical slot
Designed 2010
Lerderderg River
Diversion weir in gorge
55
270925
5837765
MW
pool and weir
1980
Little Yarra River
Gauging station @ Yarra Junction
229222 I
55
379073
5817451
MW
Partial Rock Ramp
2005/2006
Maribyrnong River
Arundell Rd Weir
230207 I
55
308800
5824700
MW
Partial Rock Ramp
1999 & 2009
Maribyrnong River
Brimbank Park Ford
003030A
55
308600
5822000
MW
Culvert and rock ramp
2001 & 2009
Maribyrnong River
Garden Avenue Weir/Ford - Brimbank Park
006080A
55
309310
5822250
MW
Partial Rock Ramp
2001 & 2009
Maribyrnong River
McNabs Weir
55
308100
5824900
MW
partial rock-ramp
2002 (in re-design)
Maribyrnong River
Old weir near Keilor Park Drive/Brimbank Park
55
310340
5822025
MW
unknown
unknown
Merri Creek
Coburg Lake
55
321300
5821500
MW
rock-ramp
2001
Merri Creek
Craigieburn East gauge - dilution monitoring
55
MW
rock-ramp
Merricks Creek
Culverts - Balnaring Road
55
334439
5749848
MW
rock-ramp
2005
Merricks Creek
Culverts - Bittern-Dromanan
55
334549
5753244
MW
rock-ramp
2005
Merricks Creek
Disused gauge at Hanns Creek Reserve
55
334221
5751749
MW
weir removed
2005
Mordialloc Creek
Waterways Estate wetland
55
335198
5790611
MW
partial rock-ramp
2006/2007
Mordialloc/Dandenong Creek
Pillars Crossing
228356A
55
336126
5789627
MW
rock-ramp
2006/2007
Patterson River
National Watersports Centre
005681A
55
337537
5786154
MW
partial rock-ramp
2006/2007
Patterson River
Pillars Crossing
005652A
55
340500
5788900
MW
rock-ramp
2007/2008
Stoney Creek
Research-Warrandyte Road
55
342356
5823070
MW
rock-ramp
2007/2008
Tarago River
Gauging station at Fishers Road, Robin Hood
55
397546
5783864
MW
rock-ramp
2009
Trib Coolart Creek
Culverts - Stanleys Road
55
332141
5750920
MW
Box culvert
2005
Watsons Creek
Eltham-Yarra Glen Road
229218A
55
346276
5829353
MW
rock-ramp
2007/08
Woori Yallock Creek
Gauging weir @ Woori Yallock, Seville East
229215A
55
368990
5818644
MW
rock-ramp
2006/2007
Yarra River
Dight's Falls
55
324000
5814828
MW
rock-ramp
1994 (in re-design)
Watsons Creek
Eltham-Yarra Glen Road
229218A
55
346276
5829353
MW
rock-ramp
2007/08
Woori Yallock Creek
Gauging weir @ Woori Yallock, Seville East
229215A
55
368990
5818644
MW
rock-ramp
2006/2007
Yarra River
Dight's Falls
Albert River
River crossing at Hiawatha Falls
Alsop Creek
Gauging Station at Lock
Archies Creek
Water diversion
Billys Creek
Gauging Weir at Jerralang
Flynn Creek
Franklin River
Franklin River
River crossing at Toora
Macks Creek
Gauging Station at Macks Creek
227223A
Middle Creek
Gauging Station at Tarra Valley
?
Ness Gully
Gauging Station at Korumburra
?
55
397227
Spring Creek
Gauging Station at Won Wron
227222I
55
475145
Tarra River
Water diversion
227206A
55
Tarwin River
Weir at South Gippsland Highway
227202A
Tarwin River East
Gauging Station at Turtons Creek
Thomson River
Cowarr knife-edge weir
Thomson River
Easton Weir
Thomson River
Horseshoe tunnel
Thomson River
Rainbow Creek confluence
Tidal River
Storage pump weir
34
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 216
228220A
230208 I
230205A
228201A
55
324000
5814828
MW
rock-ramp
1994 (in re-design)
227216I
55
453839
5735217
WGCMA
unknown
Reported August 2004
?
55
387451
5752350
WGCMA
rock ramp
55
374733
5732099
WGCMA
rock ramp
226022I
55
448178
5755411
WGCMA
rock ramp
Gauging Weir
226411 I
55
473758
5777511
WGCMA
rock ramp
Reported August 2004
Concrete wall (“Old Hydro”) at Toora
227237A
55
439770
5724093
WGCMA
unknown
Reported August 2004
55
440550
5724945
WGCMA
unknown
Reported August 2004
55
437710
5742005
WGCMA
rock ramp
Reported August 2004
WGCMA
rock ramp
5747251
WGCMA
rock ramp
Reported August 2004
5742416
WGCMA
rock ramp
Reported August 2004
471684
5734392
WGCMA
unknown
Reported August 2004
55
412172
5729155
WGCMA
rock ramp
2010
?
55
481238
5733552
WGCMA
rock ramp
Reported August 2004
225228A
55
469820
5794492
WGCMA
rock-ramp
1998 - upgrade due 2010
55
435600
5826300
WGCMA
rock-ramp
1995
55
448800
5797500
WGCMA
bypass proposed
proposed 2010/11
55
481835
5793887
WGCMA
rock-ramp
1998 - upgrade due 2009
55
442400
5680300
WGCMA
rock-ramp
2000
225243A
Reported August 2004
Review of fishways in Victoria 1996–2009
Appendix E. Queensland DPI consultative fishway design and
approval process
In Queensland, a consultative fishway design process has evolved over the last 15 years and is probably the most
comprehensive in Australia. There is continuous biological input into the design process which includes:
1. Fishway prioritisation process

Collate site data (fish assemblages), and hydrological data (flow duration curves, exceedance data, flow
event curves, e-flow arrangements)

Assess fish habitat at the site and up and downstream of the site
2. First meeting





Establish an expert design team (experienced engineers, scientists and local water officer)
Collate existing information (flow curves, water extraction, tidal range, proposed operating strategy,
water levels)
Identify data gaps
Set date for additional data collection and dissemination
Set date for site inspection
3. First site meeting




Inspect site and catchment for other barriers
Develop fishway concepts on-site (not before): entrance location, fishway type, operational range, weir
operations
Determine access arrangements for maintenance and monitoring
Set date for workshop
4. Initial design workshop



Collate submissions
Identify issues (upstream and downstream passage, passage at temporary structures or gauges)
Agree on concept design and disseminate to design team
5. 2nd design workshop




Discuss concept design (review entrance, pools, gradient, hydraulics, hydraulic operational range,
attraction flows, trash racks, weir operation, fish traps)
Identify appropriate pre and post fish sampling regimes, budgets, outcomes
Establish fishway management plan (maintenance, operations, improvement)
Discuss fishway modelling (physical and/or computer generated)
6. Ongoing input (period for review)

Changes made to design are submitted for approval
7. Final design workshop




Agree on final design, operation, maintenance, rectification and monitoring program
Agreement in principle
DPI ‘signs-off’ on final fishway design
Permit issued (under Act)
8. Construct and commission fishway
9. Monitor fishway (establish fishway is performing to design specifications or identify any rectification or
modification measures required)
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 216
35
 There is
sufficient
Victorian
legislatio
n to
protect
fish
passage
when
construct
ing
instream
structure
s, but
there is
clearly a
need for
a more
consisten
tly
applied
and
concise
assessme
and
approval
process.
 The
develop
ment of a
centralis
ed
system
to
documen
t all new
instream
structure
s and
fishways
is
recomme
nded.
 A clear
Stateme
nt of
Obligatio
ns for
Water
Authoriti
es and
other
owners
and
manager
s of
instream
structure
s is
required
to ensure
ISSN: 1835-3827 (print)
ISSN: 1835-3835 (online)
ISBN 978-1-74242-967-0 (print)
ISBN 978-1-74242-968-7 (online)