Project Consortium - wcb.vic.gov.au Estuaries... · than 1 ppt salinity) to that of seawater (35...

C M A

WESTERN V ICTORIAN ESTUARIES

CLASSIFICATION PROJECT

J Mondon J Sherwood F Chandler

January 2003

Project Consortium:

Table of Contents Acknowledgements .................................................................................................... 4

1. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 6

2. Explanatory Notes for Estuary Data Sheets ...................................................... 12

3. Management Implications of this Study ............................................................. 20

Aire River Estuary ..................................................................................................... 25

Andersons (Grass) Creek Estuary ............................................................................ 27

Anglesea River Estuary ............................................................................................ 29

Barham River Estuary .............................................................................................. 31

Barwon River Estuary ............................................................................................... 33

Blanket Bay River Estuary ........................................................................................ 35

Brown River Estuary ................................................................................................. 37

Carisbrooke Creek Estuary....................................................................................... 39

Coalmine Creek Estuary ........................................................................................... 41

Cumberland River Estuary........................................................................................ 43

Curdies River Estuary ............................................................................................... 45

Elliot River Estuary ................................................................................................... 47

Erskine River Estuary ............................................................................................... 49

Eumeralla River – Yambuck Inlet Estuary ................................................................ 51

Fawthrop Lagoon (Wattle Hill Creek) estuary ........................................................... 53

Fitzroy River Estuary ................................................................................................ 55

Gellibrand River Estuary ........................................................................................... 57

Glenelg River Estuary ............................................................................................... 59

Grey River Estuary ................................................................................................... 61

Hopkins River Estuary .............................................................................................. 63

Jamieson River Estuary ............................................................................................ 65

Johanna River Estuary ............................................................................................. 67

Kennett River Estuary ............................................................................................... 69

Merri River Estuary – eastern mouth ........................................................................ 71

Merri River Estuary – Rutledges Cutting .................................................................. 73

Moggs Creek Estuary ............................................................................................... 75

Moyne River Estuary ................................................................................................ 77

Painkalac Creek Estuary .......................................................................................... 79

Parker River Estuary ................................................................................................ 81

3

Petticoat Creek Estuary ............................................................................................ 83

Port Campbell Creek Estuary ................................................................................... 85

Reedy Creek Estuary ............................................................................................... 87

Separation Creek Estuary......................................................................................... 89

She Oak River Estuary ............................................................................................. 91

Sherbrook River Estuary........................................................................................... 93

Skenes Creek Estuary .............................................................................................. 95

Smythe Creek Estuary .............................................................................................. 97

Spout Creek Estuary ................................................................................................ 99

Spring Creek Estuary ............................................................................................. 101

St George River Estuary ......................................................................................... 103

Stony Creek - Lorne Estuary .................................................................................. 105

Stony Creek - Otway Estuary ................................................................................. 107

Sugar Loaf Creek Estuary ...................................................................................... 109

Surrey River Estuary .............................................................................................. 111

Thompson Creek Estuary ....................................................................................... 113

Wild Dog Creek Estuary ......................................................................................... 115

Wye River Estuary .................................................................................................. 117

References ............................................................................................................. 119

Appendix 1 Deakin University Estuarine Research ................................................ 120

Appendix 2 Comparative Summaries for Western Victorian Estuaries ................... 125

Glossary ................................................................................................................. 135

Note: In order to display estuary data sheets and tables correctly on single pages the following page set up is necessary: Top and bottom margins – 2 cm Right and left margins – 2.5 cm Header and footer – 1.25 cm

4

Acknowledgements Numerous people and organizations have provided assistance over the course of this project throughout 2002. The authors wish to acknowledge the following:

Project funding – Coasts and Clean Seas Natural Heritage Trust.

Consortium membership and catchment management advice –

Ms Kate Maltby (Parks Victoria), Mr John Turner (Corangamite CMA), Ms Linda Grant and Ms Gillian Holmes (Glenelg Hopkins CMA), Dr Anthony Boxshall (EPA Victoria).

Field assistance –

Ms Cheree Fenton, Dr Ty Mattews, Mr Colin Clay, Mr Simon Foley and Mr Ben Foley (Deakin University), Dr Anthony Boxshall (EPA Victoria)

Biological and geomorphological laboratory assistance –

Ms Cheree Fenton, Mrs Cheryl Lammeretz, Mr Colin Clay, Miss Julie-anne Larner, Mr Peter Lind and Dr Ty Matthews (Deakin University)

Technical assistance – Mr David Mills, Mr Paul Carlin and Mr Colin Magilton (Deakin University)

Database construction advice – Mr Nathan Villier (Deakin University)

Data collation and entry assistance – Mrs Cheryl Lammeretz and Miss Julie-anne Larner (Deakin University)

Nutrient analysis –

Ms Kate Hill, Ms Christina Byron, Mr Peter Kew, Ms Michele Herpich and Dr Nick Turoczy (Water Quality Laboratory, Deakin University)

Expert identification of selected reference annelid and mollusc species –

Dr Robin Wilson and Dr Robert Burn (Museum Victoria), Dr John Moverley (AMOG Consulting)

GIS analysis –

Mr Daniel Ierodiaconou and Dr Marc LeBlanc (Deakin Univerisity). Additional GIS information was provided by the Corangamite Catchment Management Authority and the Glenelg Hopkins Catchment Management Authority.

5

Thirty-six volunteers monitored twenty-six estuaries over a period of up to ten months from February 2002 – October 2002 (see below). Without their enthusiastic support it is difficult to see how data on mouth state, estuary water level and other observations on estuaries could have been achieved. Volunteer groups who monitored selected western estuaries for the project: Estuary Team

Glenelg River Bruce Macereth, Dave Ryan, Don McCarthy

Surrey River Sam Bruton, Judy Roberts

Fitzroy River Mal Sutherland, Marilyn McCurdy

Eumeralla River - Lake Yambuck Wally & Rae Parsons

Moyne River - Belfast Lough Tom McRae

Merri River Cheree Fenton

Hopkins River Steve Hazelwood

Curdies River Steven Beaton

Port Campbell Creek Jeff Troutman

Sherbrooke River Jeff Troutman

Gellibrand River Matt Bowker

Aire River Gary Summers

Barham River Tim Godfrey, Peter Geekie

Wild Dog Creek Judy Forrester

Skenes Creek Peter Arundell, Ian McIntyre

Wye River Roy Moriarty

Cumberland River Jarrod & Wendy Chappell

St George River Michael & Christine Callanan

Erskine River Michael & Christine Callanan

Stony Creek - Lorne Michael & Christine Callanan

Coalmine Creek Don & Dawn Diamond

Moggs Creek Bill Connolly

Painkalac Creek Pauline Reilly

Anglesea River Elaine Holton, Jill Giles, Steve Carmichael

Barwon River Ron Begg, Duscha Bradley

6

1. Introduction Estuaries lie at the interface between marine, freshwater, terrestrial and atmospheric systems, and form an integral part of the coastal zone. They comprise some of the most dynamic ecosystems on earth (Edgar et al. 1999a). Consequently the flora, fauna and habitats of estuaries are of great scientific, aesthetic and commercial interest. The quality of coastal waters is inextricably linked to inputs from the land, and estuaries and their catchments are the main conduits for contaminants entering the coastal zone. Estuaries naturally protect the quality of coastal waters by diluting, filtering and settling out sediments and excess nutrients (Tagaza 1995). Estuarine sediments and waters are therefore the ultimate repository for much of the urban, industrial and agricultural contaminants entering the coastal waterways. Estuaries are: “Semi-enclosed coastal bodies of water where salt water from the open sea mixes with freshwater draining from the land” (NLWRA 2002). The Western Victorian Estuaries Classification Project identified 46 estuaries extending from the Glenelg River on the South Australian border to the Barwon River, west of Point Lonsdale (Figure 1, Table 1).

Figure 1. Western Victoria showing the location of the 46 estuaries identified between the

South Australian border and Point Lonsdale. The proximity of some estuaries does not allow

them to be resolved in the figure.

7

Table 1. Position of the mouths of Western Victorian estuaries identified between the

South Australian border and Point Lonsdale.

Estuary Longitude (E) Latitude (S)

Glenelg River 140 59’18” 38 03’36”

Fawthrop Lagoon 141 36’42” 38 21’06”

Surrey River 141 42’06” 38 15’39”

Fitzroy River 141 51’13” 38 15’50”

Eumeralla River – Lake Yambuck 142 02’35” 38 20’22”

Moyne River – Belfast Lough 142 14’57” 38 23’23”

Merri River - Rutledges Cutting 142 21’49” 38 21’05”

Merri River – East 142 28’10” 38 24’13”

Hopkins River 142 30’24” 38 24’14”

Curdies River – Curdies Inlet 142 52’46” 38 36’36”

Port Campbell Creek 142 59’26” 38 37’14”

Sherbrook River 143 03’19” 38 38’41”

Gellibrand River 143 09’19” 38 42’28”

Joanna River 143 23’16” 38 46’12”

Aire River 143 27’32” 38 48’30”

Parker River 143 33’36” 38 50’48”

Blanket Bay Creek 143 34’55” 38 49’40”

Stony Creek - Otways 143 35’45” 38 48’46”

Elliot River 143 37’07” 38 47’44”

Barham River 143 40’28” 38 45’52”

Wild Dog Creek 143 41’03” 38 44’13”

Skenes Creek 143 42’35” 38 43’37”

Petticoat Creek 143 43’40” 38 43’09”

Brown River 143 44’15” 38 43’00”

Sugar Loaf Creek 143 47’44” 38 41’56”

Smythe Creek 143 45’42” 38 42’23”

Carisbrooke Creek 143 48’31” 38 41’41”

Grey River 143 50’19” 38 41’03”

Kennett River 143 51’13” 38 40’05”

Wye River 143 53’24” 38 38’12”

Separation Creek 143 53’40” 38 37’55”

Jamieson River 143 55’07” 38 35’53”

Cumberland River 143 56’50” 38 34’42”

She Oak River 143 57’56” 38 34’06”

St George River 143 58’31” 38 33’24”

Erskine River 143 58’42” 38 32’02”

Stony Creek - Lorne 143 59’14” 38 31’22”

Reedy Creek 143 59’50” 38 30’47”

Anderson Creek (Grass Creek) 144 01’49” 38 29’08”

Spout Creek 144 02’07” 38 28’38”

Coalmine Creek 144 02’44” 38 28’25”

Moggs Creek 144 03’55” 38 28’13”

Painkalac Creek – Aireys Inlet 144 05’57” 38 28’14”

Anglesea River 144 11’28” 38 24’59”

Spring Creek 144 19’02” 38 20’42”

Thompsons Creek 144 22’32” 38 18’16”

Barwon River 144 29’42” 38 17’02”

8

Western Victoria exhibits a Mediterranean climate characterised by high rainfall during winter and spring, followed by relatively low rainfall during summer and autumn. This “winter-wet, summer-dry” pattern results in seasonal changes in river/estuary discharge. Peak discharges in August - September are typically up to twenty times higher than the autumn minima in March – April (Figure 2). The variation in freshwater input results in significant seasonal changes to salinity within the estuaries (Sherwood 1985).

Mean Monthly Discharge

(Gigalitres)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov

Month

Q(G

L/m

onth

)

Gellibrand

Glenelg

Hopkins

Barwon

Figure 2. Variation in discharge levels with season at the Gellibrand, Glenelg,

Hopkins and Barwon rivers. Salinity within estuaries varies along their length and over time from freshwater (less than 1 ppt salinity) to that of seawater (35 ppt) or greater. Many of the estuaries are highly stratified with a freshwater surface layer overlying saline bottom water. The boundary between the two layers may vary between a few centimeters to over 1 - 1.5 metres. Saline bottom water forms a wedge (salt wedge) that can move upstream for a considerable distance (Sherwood 1985). The length of the salt wedge upstream from the mouth is influenced by river discharge (Figure 3). During high flow (winter) discharge, saltwater is flushed downstream and out of the estuary. As the floods recede, fresh oxygenated saltwater from the ocean moves upstream. During summer this saltwater wedge may stagnate due to restricted input of fresh seawater and limited mixing between the oxygenated fresh water layer on top and the seawater beneath. Anoxic conditions once established within the salt wedge can persist for several weeks, particularly if the estuary mouth has closed. The next winter’s floods flush out the “aged” seawater completing the annual hydrodynamic cycle (Figure 3).

9

Figure 3. Generalised hydrodynamic cycle of west Victorian estuaries (Bantow, et al.

1995) Many of the estuaries in this region are intermittently opening systems with sand bars at the entrance. During the low flow summer and autumn months, longshore drift transports sand into river mouths, which become greatly restricted and frequently close (barred) for up to several weeks at a time. Increases in water level of barred estuaries result from river flows and may submerge farm pastures, jetties, roads and other structures. Migration of organisms (eg. fish larvae) between river / estuary and sea ceases, and wetland habitats, such as saltmarsh and tidal flats, are flooded. Mouth closure, and the associated inundation of nearby land and coastal reserves raises issues relating to the social, economic and environmental impact of artificially hastening the natural estuary mouth opening. Objectives Victoria is Australia’s most densely populated state with an estimated 80% of its citizens living on the coast (Bantow, et al. 1995). Estuaries in western Victoria are subjected to rapidly increasing pressures due to their attraction as places for settlement and recreation. Coastal zone development brings with it significant environmental risks. Management of estuaries within the coastal zone requires conceptualising the whole coastal zone as a unified single system rather than a series of separate independent units encompassing a river, beach, and upper and lower catchments. Further, it requires an understanding of how the entire estuary functions: the physico-chemical processes such as water exchange, patterns of inundation, nutrient cycling, sedimentation and their impacts on biological communities.

10

The objectives of the project are to:

create a database for Western Victorian estuaries including a range of physico-chemical, catchment and land use, and biological information

classify the estuaries into groups for management based on an assessment of the information in the database, and

develop specific management advice, compatible with the estuary CAP’s , for each class of estuary identified.

Management Estuary management in western Victoria has a high priority in regional strategic planning. This has been identified in the Western Coastal Board’s Coastal and Marine Planning Programs for Central and South Western Victoria, by Catchment Management Authorities, and the Environment Conservation Council. To date estuaries have suffered a lack of integrated planning and management that has led to an ad hoc and individualistic approach to their management as a regional resource and asset. Similar planning processes are underway for both the Central Western and South Western Victorian coastal zones. Regional Coastal Action Plans (CAP’s) provide for long term, strategic planning, sustainable use and coordinated management of the coastal and marine zone. Estuary CAP’s, being prepared under the regional CAP’s will provide regional frameworks for development and implementation of individual estuary management plans. The role of this estuary classification project is to link the broader framework of the Estuary CAP’s and individual management plans for estuaries. The estuary classification study will efficiently generate an understanding of estuarine states and processes required for management plans and do this consistently on a regional basis. Use of the management advice with the framework provided by the Estuary CAP’s will enable management plans to be developed in a regional context. The Glenelg/Hopkins and Corangamite CMA’s Regional Catchment Strategies have recognized the importance of estuarine management and the need for management on a catchment basis. The inclusion of catchment and land use data in this project is consistent with an integrated catchment management approach. The focus of the report is on estuarine management advice designed for use by local communities, based on integrated new and existing information with consistency on a regional level. Existing physico-chemical, catchment and land use, and biological information, including that of past classifications, state-wide monitoring and individual studies have also been compiled and entered into a database. The database provides this multivariate information in a consistent and accessible design. It is envisaged that the database will be a major asset for all environmental management and monitoring in Western Victorian estuaries and one that can be easily updated. Information in the database will provide valuable baseline information for future monitoring.

11

Other studies The National Land and Water Resources Audit has compiled information on a number of the (generally larger) western Victorian estuaries as part of a national audit (NLWRA, 2002). While their estuarine classification includes Western Victoria, the smaller estuaries that dominate this part of Australia’s coastline are not included. These smaller estuaries together represent an important habitat for many species but because of their size are unlikely to be managed in a consistent or coordinated way. More detailed studies of estuarine hydrology or ecology have been completed for some West Victorian estuaries, complementing the present study (see for example, Appendix 1). The methodology for this study is broadly based on that used for an assessment of the conservation significance of Tasmanian estuaries (Edgar, et al. 1999b).

12

2. Explanatory Notes for Estuary Data Sheets Data for each estuary is summarised on double-sided Estuary Data Sheets, following this section of the Report. Comparative data for particular parameters are summarised in Table form in Appendix 2. Terms used in the Data Sheets and summary tables are discussed below. 2.1 Geomorphic Classification of Estuaries Multivariate analysis was used to produce clusters of estuaries based on the following geomorphic characteristics:

Catchment area (log transformed)

Length of river main stem (log transformed)

Length of estuary (log transformed)

Estuary entrance type (sandbar or rock)

Estuary channel type (channelised “riverine” or associated with substantial wetlands or lagoons)

Inclusion of rainfall (as a surrogate for discharge – only 16 rivers had flow data available) had no effect on the groupings. The characteristics of catchment area, entrance type and estuary channel type were the key parameters determining the estuary groups. Log transformation of the numerical data is designed to reduce the influence of very large or very small values on the multivariate analysis. The Geomorphic Classification Scheme is shown on Figure 4 (over).

13

Natural Mouth (1a)

Built Entrance (1b)

Permanently Open

Fringing wetlands or lagoons present (2a)

Fringing wetlands or lagoons absent (2b)

Large River Catchment Area

Fringing wetlands and lagoons absent (3a)

Fringing wetlands and lagoons absent (3b)

Estuaries 1 -3 km long

Estuaries less than 500m long ( 3c)

Sand barred

Rock barred (3d)

Small Rivers and Creeks

Intermittently Open

SW Victorian Estuaries

Figure 4. Geomorphic Classification Scheme for Southwest Victorian Estuaries

14

The estuaries in each classification group are given below: Group 1 Permanently Open Estuaries 1a Natural mouth

1. Barwon 1b Built entrance

1. Fawthrop Lagoon 2. Moyne River Group 2 Larger Rivers with Sand-barred Entrances 2a Rivers with moderate catchment areas (200 – 1200km2) and substantial

wetlands or lagoon areas along estuaries. 1. Aire 2. Curdies 3. Eumeralla (Yambuk Inlet) 4. Gellibrand 5. Merri river (Rutledges Cutting and east entrance) 6. Thompson

2b Rivers with moderate to large catchment areas (350 – 12,4000km2) and

channelised estuaries lacking extensive wetlands or lagoonal areas along the estuary. 1. Fitzroy 2. Glenelg 3. Hopkins 4. Surrey

Group 3 Small Rivers and Creeks with sand or rock barred estuaries (predominantly Otway streams). 3a Small Rivers (catchment areas 20 – 125km2) with sand-barred entrances and

channelised estuaries typically 1 – 3km long. 1. Anglesea 2. Barham 3. Cumberland 4. Erskine 5. Joanna 6. Kennett 7. Port Campbell 8. St George River 9. Sherbrook 10. Spring 11. Wye

15

3b Small Rivers and Creeks (catchment areas 5 – 60km2) with sand-barred entrances and wetland or lagoonal areas along estuaries. 1. Blanket Bay 2. Moggs 3. Painkalac 4. Parker 5. Wild Dog

3c Small Rivers and Creeks (catchment areas 4 –18km2) with sand-barred

entrances and channelised estuaries less than 500m long. 1. Coalmine 2. Jamieson 3. Petticoat 4. Reedy 5. Separation 6. Skenes 7. Spout 8. Stony Creek – Lorne 9. Sugar Loaf

3d Small rivers and creeks (catchment areas 4 – 27km2) with rock-barred

entrances and channelised estuaries. 1. Andersons 2. Brown 3. Carisbrooke 4. Elliot 5. Grey 6. She Oak 7. Smythe 8. Stony Creek – Otways

2.2 Sections 1 and 2 – Catchment Characteristics and Land Use All catchment properties with the exception of estuary length were obtained from published sources or GIS databases. There are substantial areas under plantation forestry that would not have been recorded in the National Land and Water Audit figures, particularly within the Glenelg Hopkins CMA region. The upstream limit of an estuary is determined by the point at which there is an absence of saltwater present. As the majority of Western Victorian estuaries are not tide dominated, measurement of tidal influence upstream is not applicable. Previous research on some of the larger estuaries has established the upstream limit of the estuary. For smaller estuaries, and those with little documented research available, topographical maps (1:25000) were used to determine where the first contour (5 m) intersects the riverbank. The presence of weirs and other obstructions to the movement of saltwater upstream, were also taken into account when determining the potential upstream limit of the estuary. Land use is grouped into the following classifications:

16

Nature conservation – all National Parks and State Flora and Fauna Reserves Forestry – timber harvesting Agriculture – dryland agriculture, irrigated agriculture and livestock grazing. Urban – cities and towns (the built environment) Other – includes minimal use areas, mining leases, other protected areas including indigenous uses, waterbodies not elsewhere classified and areas for which there was no data. 2.3 Section 3 – Mouth State Volunteers monitored the mouth at 25 estuaries for varying periods during 2002. Their observations on mouth condition ie. whether the estuary was open or closed, have been included in the Data Sheets. 2.4 Sections 4 and 5 – Estuary Sampling Sites Saltwater penetration upstream is affected by factors such as river discharge, tide, sea state and mouth state (i.e. open or closed). Because of their greater proximity to the sea estuarine conditions will persist for longer periods in the lower reaches of estuaries. Also, during low flow periods, bottom waters in some estuaries may become anoxic. These temporal variations in salinity or oxic state may alter the composition of the benthic macroinvertebrate community. In order to reduce the influence of such variations on comparisons of physico-chemical and biological characteristics of estuaries three sample sites were selected between the mouth and mid-way along the estimated maximum extent of the estuary: Site 1 Within 200-350 m of the estuary entrance Site 2 Approximately half-way between sites 1 and 3 Site 3 Approximately midway along the estuary At each site benthic organisms were sampled in water 0.5 – 1.5 m deep. This strategy was adopted to reduce the likelihood that organisms were exposed to overlying anoxic waters in some estuaries. Water samples for physico-chemical analysis were taken at the same sites but in mid-stream. If salinity stratification was present water samples were taken from above and below the Halocline. Short estuaries (less than 0.5 km) were sampled at a single site midway along their length. 2.5 Section 4 – Estuary Bottom Sediments Bottom sediments were collected at each benthic macroinvertebrate site on the two field trips. Samples were subsequently wet sieved. The percentage of sediment retained on sieves having mesh sizes of 2 mm, 1 mm, 0.5 mm, 0.25 mm, 0.125 mm and 0.0625 mm was determined. The total proportion of sediment retained on ALL sieves is recorded on the data sheets along with the dominant sediment fraction collected. Descriptors are standard terms associated with the Wentworth phi scale.

17

Section 4 in the estuary data sheets also shows the maximum water depth recorded midstream at each site over the two field trips.

Sediment size (Phi units)

Sediment size classification

0.5 Coarse sand

1 Medium/coarse sand

1.5 Medium sand

2 Fine/medium sand

2.5 Fine sand

3 Fine/very fine sand

3.5 Very fine sand

Table 2: Description of sediment size classes according to the Wentworth classification scheme. 2.6 Section 5 – Physico-chemical Properties Seawater has a salinity of 34 -37 ppt, whereas the salinity of freshwater is less than 1 ppt. Salinities between these extremes (ie. brackish water) are encountered along the seawater / freshwater mixing gradient of an estuary. At any point in an estuary, however, salinity is highly variable due to tidal and river discharge fluctuations and sea state. If an estuary is blocked during summer and autumn, evaporation, combined with low river discharge may also result in hypersaline conditions (i.e. a salinity greater than seawater). This was observed at Merri River (Rutledge’s Cutting) during this study. To quantify the extent of salinity stratification in an estuary the gradient of the halocline was calculated as:

d

SSIndextionStratificaGradient

deepsurface

)(

Where Ssurface = salinity at top of halocline Sdeep = salinity at base of halocline

d = depth interval over which the salinity change occurs

If the stratification index was 10 the water column was described as “mixed” and for values >10 as “stratified”. Stratification can isolate bottom waters leading to a range of chemical changes in them – including a gradual loss of dissolved oxygen (DO). The oxygen status of surface and bottom water has been characterised by the terms:

“oxic” - if DO exceeds 5 mg/L (below this value aerobic organisms become stressed)

“hypoxic” - if DO was between 1-5 mg/L “anoxic” - if DO was < 1mg/L (strictly speaking the

term means the total absence of oxygen).

18

It is used here to indicate highly stressful conditions for aerobic organisms.

2.7 Section 6 – Nutrient States Nutrient enrichment of waterways due to human activities can lead to increased populations of algae and aquatic plants (macrophytes). This can lead to harmful ecological impacts or to loss of amenity of estuarine waters. During this study concentrations of various operationally defined forms of the major nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) have been measured for surface and deep water samples at mid-stream sites along the estuary. Only “total” concentrations are given in the summary datasheets. The “total” concentration of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) includes particulate and dissolved forms of the elements present in organic detritus, dissolved organic

compounds or simple inorganic ions such as nitrate 3NO , ammonium 4NH or

phosphate 34PO . Ultimately these elements are taken up by macrophytes or algae

once the complex organic materials are remineralised by bacteria which converts the elements to the inorganic forms plants can readily absorb. ”Trigger” levels for total nutrient concentrations have been specified by the Australian and New Zealand Environment Conservation Council (ANZECC). If concentrations of a particular substance in a water body exceed trigger levels, management action to reduce them is recommended. The current ANZECC guidelines for estuaries recommend trigger levels of 0.08 mg/L for total N and 0.035 mg/L for total P. On each of the two field trips for each estuary a surface and a “deep” (below halocline) set of water samples was collected at stratified sites. If no halocline was present a single set of samples was collected from mid-depth in the water column. This meant that a maximum of six nutrient samples were analysed for each estuary on each trip although in small shallow estuaries only single samples may have been analysed. Inspection of the nutrient concentrations for each estuary did not reveal systematic trends with either distance upstream or depth. Accordingly concentrations for all samples on a field trip were averaged to give mean concentrations of total N and total P for each estuary on each field trip. The optimum ratio of nitrogen to phosphorus for uptake by marine algae is known as the Redfield Ratio. When concentrations are measured in mg/L it is equal to :

Redfield Ratio 7

P

N

If the ratio exceeds 7 1 then there is potentially “excess” N and the supply of P is likely to ultimately limit growth of the algal or plant community. If the ratio is less than

7 1 the water is described as nitrogen limited. Addition of more of the limiting nutrient (e.g. through wastes or fertilizer) may lead to a growth in plant or algal population. 2.8 Section 7 – Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Benthic macroinvertebrates have been used as “indicator organisms” in freshwater and marine investigations into the effects of ecosystem disturbance. As a general

19

rule diversity decreases in response to environmental stressors and so, at least in theory, the “healthiest” estuaries should have the greatest diversity. Two measures of diversity are reported here. The simplest is the number of species (or taxa) found (S). The second measure (species richness - d) also incorporates the total number of individuals found and is a measure of the number of species present for a given number of individuals:

NSdRichnessSpecies log/1

where S = total number of species found N = total number of individuals found Relatively low species richness (as indicated by estuary rank order) could indicate disturbance effects; however, when comparing species richness across estuaries two other factors need to be considered. Firstly, the number of species found generally increases towards an upper limit as more samples are taken. At each site 8 benthic core samples were collected to reduce the influence of this sampling artifact. In larger estuaries where three sites were sampled (i.e. 24 core samples), the measured richness may thus be higher than in small estuaries where only one site was sampled. Secondly smaller estuaries may actually have lower species richness because they offer less habitat variety or are more subject to rapid changes in stressors such as salinity or temperature. Further sampling in the small estuaries could determine which of the factors is most significant. 2.9 Rank Orders Catchment characteristics, land use, benthic macroinvertebrate and nutrient data for all estuaries has been ranked from lowest (Rank = 1) to highest values. This allows simple comparisons between estuaries and identifies estuaries with extreme values that may be priorities for management.

2.10 Section 8 – Management Implications These are discussed in the next section of the Report.

20

3. Management Implications of this Study 3.1 Project Outcomes A. A Regional Estuarine Classification Scheme The region’s estuaries have been grouped according to geomorphic characteristics ( Figure 4). These groups should form the basis for regional estuarine management. B. Baseline Data The present project involved two seasonal surveys of west Victorian estuaries. For logistical reasons each survey took 4-6 weeks and so does not represent an instantaneous “snapshot” of the region’s estuary. The surveys however, captured each estuary in a summer/autumn, low-flow state and a winter/spring higher flow state. They constitute a comprehensive targeted sampling of all west Victorian estuaries and the data collected forms a valuable baseline data set. In addition to the data summarised on each Estuary Data Sheet in the following section of this report, other data is available from the study’s database:

Vertical profiles of temperature, salinity and dissolved oxygen at each sampling site.

Other water quality parameters – pH, suspended solids, total dissolved N and P, soluble reactive phosphorus and nitrate and nitrite ion (NOx

-).

Proportion of sediment retained on sieves (2, 1, 0.5, 0.25, 0.125, 0.0625 mm) and sediment percent moisture.

Benthic species found at each site and their abundances.

C. Risk Assessment Based on the data collected during the study the degree of risk posed by several key threatening processes has been assessed:

Land use in the river catchment

Nutrient enrichment

Artificial mouth opening The level of risk is summarised in each estuary’s data sheet. Risk of Impacts from Catchment Activities A qualitative risk assessment of potential impacts of different land uses has been made for each estuary based on the proportion of the river catchment dedicated to that use:

21

“low” risk - the land use is absent or a minor proportion (<20%) of the catchment.

“medium” risk - the land use constitutes 20 – 50% of the catchment area.

“high” risk - the land use occupies more than 50% of the catchment.

Urban areas were treated as constituting a “high” risk if present in a catchment. Even though they occupy only a small area (usually < 5% of a catchment) their large populations and urban runoff constitute a significant source of environmental impacts. The land uses categorised as “nature conservation” were not considered to pose a significant risk to estuaries. Nutrient Enrichment Four measures of nutrient enrichment are given on each estuary data sheet. Mean Total N and P concentrations are compared to the ANZECC trigger levels. ANZECC guidelines point out however, that these values should only be regarded as interim or “default” values and that it may be more appropriate to develop regionally based trigger values. At present such regionally based values have not been determined. In

the absence of local trigger values estuaries ranked in the highest 10% (i.e rank 40) of mean concentrations for either N or P on at least one of the field trips have been identified. These estuaries may have high priority for management to reduce nutrients. Artificial Mouth Opening Increases in water level following closure of estuary entrances by sand can flood agricultural land, buildings, roads and structures such as jetties and boat ramps. Historically local communities have opened estuary entrances whenever water levels threatened a desired activity or land use. Such practices may need to be modified as more is learnt of the adverse ecological effects of “artificial” mouth opening. Whilst there may be social issues to address when developing mouth entrance management plans, ecological risks may accompany artificial mouth opening and should be carefully considered. Fringing wetlands can provide important waterbird habitat – acting as drought refuges as inland wetlands dry up. They may also be a source of water low in dissolved oxygen which cause fish kills as it drains into the estuary channel following mouth opening. The presence of wetlands in an estuary increases the risk of adverse ecological effects of mouth opening. Stratification can also lead to low dissolved oxygen concentrations in deep waters. If mouth opening drains off oxygenated, surface water, fish kills may result if only the deep hypoxic or anoxic water remains. Detection of stratification or low DO concentrations indicates an elevated risk of harmful impacts of mouth opening.

22

D. Natural Values Index (NVI) In order to identify the “best” or “healthiest” estuary it is necessary to assess a variety of attributes that indicate the extent of disturbance. In some cases a poor “score” for an attribute may be a natural consequence of an estuary’s characteristics. For example, the estuary may dry up or become hypersaline (reducing species richness) or become nutrient enriched as seaweed brought into the estuary is re-mineralised. In other cases human activities are directly responsible and must be managed to minimise their effects. To compare the relative “naturalness” of western Victorian estuaries the following index has been calculated based on their rank orders for various attributes:

DN

RCIndexValuesNaturalNVI

)

where C = Nature conservation land use rank R = Mean of the species richness ranks N = Mean of the total nitrogen, total phosphorus ranks D = Catchment population density rank The formula has been developed as part of this study and is a simple and intuitively reasonable way of integrating information collected as part of the project. The terms in the numerator (C and R) are such that a higher rank (greater catchment area reserved for nature conservation or higher species richness) imply better ecological health. The terms in the denominator (N and D) are such that a higher rank (higher nutrient concentrations or higher human population density) implies poorer ecological health. A higher index score is assumed to indicate higher natural value for the estuary. Index scores have been used to rank estuaries on this basis. The results for all estuaries are summarised in Table 3 where estuaries are grouped according to their geomorphic classification. The highest ranked estuaries according to the NVI are: Coalmine Creek (Group 3c) Aire River (Group 2a) Surrey River (Group 2b) Glenelg River (Group 2b) Spout Creek (Group 3c) Parker River (Group 3b) The two Heritage Rivers (Glenelg and Aire) rank highly using the index. There are however no Group 3a or 3d estuaries in this selection. Indices for some estuaries particularly rock-barred coastal creeks (Group 3d) have not been calculated because of missing data. The highest ranking estuaries in Group 3a are the Kennett and Cumberland Rivers (ranks of 31 and 30 respectively). Estuaries having permanently open entrances (Group 1) are ranked quite low according to the NVI (Table 3). Edgar et al (1999b) have suggested that a high management priority be given to protecting and enhancing the environmental values of the least disturbed estuaries in

23

Table 3: Natural Value Index and Ranks for estuaries arranged according to their geomorphic group.

Estuary Group Estuary name NaturalValueIndex Rank(/41)

1a Barwon River 0.835 16

1b

Moyne River 0.662 12

Fawthrop Lagoon 0.380 4

2a Aire River 2.45 40

Gellibrand River 1.387 34

Eumeralla River 1.368 33

Merri River- east 0.986 23

Merri River -Rutledges Cutting 0.756 14

Thompsons Creek 0.526 7

Curdies River 0.512 6

2b Surrey River 2.444 39

Glenelg River 2.052 38

Fitzroy River 1.428 35

Hopkins River 0.882 17

3a Kennett River 1.221 31

Cumberland River 1.217 30

Wye River 1.119 28

Erskine River 0.956 21

St George River 1.04 25

Sherbrook River 0.942 20

Anglesea River 0.91 19

Spring Creek 0.727 13

Barham River 0.59 11

Joanna River 0.554 9

Port Campbell Creek 0.54 8

3b Parker River 1.512 36

Painkalac Creek 1.16 29

Blanket Bay Creek 0.895 18

Moggs Creek 0.759 15

Wild Dog Creek 0.470 5

3c Coalmine Creek 2.636 41

Spout Creek 1.728 37

Separation Creek 1.283 32

Jamieson River 1.117 27

Reedy Creek 0.990 24

Sugar Loaf Creek 0.348 3

Skenes Creek 0.267 2

Petticoat Creek 0.220 1

Stony Creek- Lorne nd

3d Anderson Creek 1.065 26

Elliot River 0.961 22

Stony Creek - Otways nd

Smythe Creek nd

She Oak River nd

Grey River nd

Carisbrooke Creek nd

Brown River nd

24

each group of their classification for Tasmanian estuaries. The NVI provides a decision tool for identifying such estuaries in western Victoria should this approach be adopted here. 3.2 Using the Study Findings When applying results of this study estuary, managers must be mindful of its limitations. It should not be assumed that the values reported on the estuary data sheets are constant over time, even within the one season. Estuaries are highly variable and their water column properties can vary over time scales of less than a day in response to tidal changes, river discharge fluctuations or changes in wind strength or direction (which affect turbulent mixing of the water column). To emphasise this the dates of each trip are shown for the physico-chemical and nutrient data of each estuary. Biological communities also change over time scales of days to months as mean values of parameters such as salinity, water temperature or dissolved oxygen levels affect particular species. Species richness may vary considerably during a year and between years as conditions fluctuate. Estuary geomorphology changes most slowly. Sediment characteristics may alter in response to land use changes in the catchment (which may deliver more clay or silt for example). Wetlands or large open water areas may reduce in area as sediments accumulate. Sea-level changes can cause major changes to the estuaries and the coast. In some cases additional studies may already be available to support estuary management plan development for a particular estuary. (see Appendix 1 for example). In other cases issues not addressed in this study may need to be considered e.g. environmental flows for estuaries. Increased water diversion for urban or rural supply may alter the hydrodynamics of estuaries – changing salinity patterns, increasing the frequency and duration of mouth closure and , consequently, the likelihood of anoxia. This project should be considered as a starting point for management - providing fundamental information to direct the additional investigations necessary for development of individual estuary management plans.

25

Western Victorian Estuaries Classification Project

Summary Data Sheet

Aire River Estuary

Geomorphic Classification: Group 2a - Rivers with moderate catchment areas (200 – 1200km2) and substantial wetlands or lagoon areas along estuaries. Position of Entrance: latitude (S): 38o48’30” longitude (E): 143o27’32” 1. Catchment Characteristics

2. Catchment Land Use 3. Mouth State

Land Use % of catchment

Rank /46

Nature conservation

17.8 24

Forestry 47.9 38 Agriculture 23.9 24 Urban 0 1 Other 9.7 36

4. Estuary Bottom Sediments

Site Mid-stream depth (m)

Dominant sediment fraction

%

1. Mouth 2.8 Medium sand 86 2. Lower estuary 2.8 Fine sand 69 3. Mid estuary 3.1 Fine sand 85

Property Value Rank* /46

Catchment area (km2) 280 35

Main stem length (km) 39.8 Rainfall (mm/a) 1,415 Annual discharge (ML) 113,000 Estuary length (km) 7.6 Population density(/km

2) 0.99 8

* from lowest to highest

Property Value

Mouth type Sandbar Period of observation 1/1/02 –

31/10/02 No. of days observed 304 % of days open 75.4 No. of times closed 6

26

5. Physico-chemical Properties

Site 14/3/02 (Autumn) 8/8/02 (Winter)

Surface salinity

(ppt)

Stratification Dissolved Oxygen Status*

Surface salinity

(ppt)


1. Mouth 16.5 stratified s: oxic 1.78 mixed s: oxic b: oxic b: oxic

2. Lower estuary

1.3 stratified s: oxic 1.20 mixed s: oxic

b: oxic b: oxic

3. Mid estuary

0.9 stratified s: oxic 0.44 stratified s: oxic

b: oxic b: oxic

* s = surface water; b=bottom water

6. Nutrient Status

Mean total N

Mean total P

14/3/02 Autumn 8/8/02 Winter 14/3/02 Autumn 8/8/02 Winter

Concentration (mg/L)

Rank Concentration (mg/L)



Rank

0.13* 6 0.5* 15 0.016 8 0.032 15

* Exceeds ANZECC trigger level

Date of Sampling Limiting Nutrient

14/3/02 (Autumn) P 8/8/02 (Winter) P

7. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Characteristic Autumn Winter

No. of sites 3 3 No. of taxa 13 17 Rank* 18 41 Species richness 1.039 1.407 Rank* 20 24

* 34 estuaries sampled in summer/autumn; 40 in winter/spring

8. Management Implications A. Risk of impacts from*:

Rural Activities Moderate

Urban Activities Low

Forestry Activities Moderate

Other Activities Low

* based on % catchment land use B. Nutrient status

Total N exceeds ANZECC Yes

Total P exceeds ANZECC No

In highest decile rank for N No

In highest decile rank for P No

C. Mouth opening*

Manual opening history Yes

Fringing wetlands present Yes

Stratification detected Yes

Hypoxic or anoxic water detected No

* ‘yes’ indicates increased risk of adverse effects on estuary health

D. Natural values index

Value 2.45

Rank 40*

* out of 41

27

Western Victorian Estuaries Classification Project Summary Data Sheet

Andersons (Grass) Creek Estuary

Geomorphic Classification: Group 3d. Small rivers and creeks (catchment areas 4 – 27km2) with rock-barred entrances and channelised estuaries. Position of Entrance: latitude (S): 38o29’08” longitude (E): 144o01’49” 1. Catchment Characteristics



Rank /46

Nature conservation

39.3 29

Forestry 59.1 42 Agriculture 1.3 14 Urban 0 1 Other 0 1




%

1. Mouth 0.8 Fine/medium sand 87

2. Lower estuary

3. Mid estuary


Catchment area (km2) 24.2 20

Main stem length (km) 13.0 Rainfall (mm/a) 914 Annual discharge (ML) N/A Estuary length (km) 1.5 Population density(/km

2) 1.98 23


Property Value

Mouth type Rock Period of observation N/A No. of days observed % of days open No. of times closed

28


Site 12/4/02 (Autumn)+ 9/9/02 (Spring)

Surface salinity

(ppt)


Surface salinity

(ppt)


1. Mouth s: 3.17 Mixed s: oxic b: b:

+ estuary not accessible * s = surface water; b=bottom water

6. Nutrient Status

Mean total N

Mean total P

12/4/02 Autumn+ 9/9/02 Spring 12/4/02 Autumn+ 9/9/02 Spring





Rank

0.39* 9 0.050 22

* Exceeds ANZECC trigger level + estuary not accessible


12/4/02 (Autumn) 9/9/02 (Spring) neither

7. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Characteristic Autumn+ Spring

No. of sites 1 No. of taxa 5 Rank* 12 Species richness 0.333 Rank* 12

* 34 estuaries sampled in summer/autumn; 40 in winter/spring +estuary not accessible


Rural Activities Low


Forestry Activities High

Other Activities low

* based on % catchment land use B. Nutrient status*


Total P exceeds ANZECC Yes



C. Mouth opening*

Manual opening history Unknown

Fringing wetlands present No

Stratification detected No



Score 1.065

Rank 26*

* out of 41

* based on single field trip

29


Anglesea River Estuary

Geomorphic Classification: Group 3a. Small rivers (catchment areas 20 – 125km2) with sand-barred entrances and channelised estuaries typically 1 – 3km long. Position of Entrance: latitude (S): 38o24’59” longitude (E): 144o11’28” 1. Catchment Characteristics



Rank /46

Nature conservation

22.8 25

Forestry 7.1 22 Agriculture 4.4 20 Urban 4.2 46 Other* 61.1 46

* mining lease (Alcoa)




%

1. Mouth 1.9 Fine sand 83 2. Lower estuary 2.2 Fine/medium sand 60 3. Mid estuary 2.2 Fin/very fine sand 53



Main stem length (km) 20.4 Rainfall (mm/a) 756 Annual discharge (ML) 6000 Estuary length (km) 3.5 Population density(/km

2) 19.4 42


Property Value

Mouth type Sandbar Period of observation 26/2/02-

29/10/02 No. of days observed 245 % of days open 78 No. of times closed 5

30



Surface salinity

(ppt)


Surface salinity

(ppt)


1. Mouth 10.6 stratified s: oxic 18.6 stratified s: oxic b: oxic b: hypoxic

2. Lower estuary


b: hypoxic b: hypoxic

3. Mid estuary




6. Nutrient Status

Mean total N

Mean total P






Rank

0.72* 25 0.34* 6 0.043* 19 0.050* 22



16/4/02 (Autumn) P 23/8/02 (Winter) Neither






Urban Activities High

Forestry Activities Low

Other Activities High (mining lease)






C. Mouth opening*




Hypoxic or anoxic water detected Yes



Score 0.91

Rank 19*

* out of 41

31


Summary Data Sheet

Barham River Estuary




Rank /46

Nature conservation

3.6 14





%

1. Mouth 0.5 Medium sand 92 2. Lower estuary 2.3 Fine/very fine sand 76 3. Mid estuary 2.5 Fine/very fine sand 71



Main stem length (km) 18.7 Rainfall (mm/a) 1377 Annual discharge (ML) 32,910 Estuary length (km) 2.25 Population density (/km

2) 5.11 34


Property Value



32



Surface salinity

(ppt)


Surface salinity

(ppt)


1. Mouth 2.37 mixed s: oxic 3.84 mixed s: hypoxic b: b:

2. Lower estuary


b: hypoxic b: oxic

3. Mid estuary


b: hypoxic b: oxic


6. Nutrient Status

Mean total N

Mean total P






Rank

0.72* 25 0.74* 25 0.061* 26 0.060* 28



8/4/02 (Autumn) P 26/8/02 Winter) P



* 34 estuaries sampled in summer/ autumn; 40 in winter/spring



Urban Activities Low +


Other Activities Low #

* based on % catchment land use + rapidly increasing population # extremely high summer tourism activity

B. Nutrient status





C. Mouth opening*





* ‘yes’ indicates increased risk of adverse effects on estuary health D. Natural values index

Score 0.659

Rank 11*

* out of 41

33


Summary Data Sheet

Barwon River Estuary

Geomorphic Classification: Group 1a. Natural mouth Position of Entrance: latitude (S): 38o17’02” longitude (E): 143o29’42” 1. Catchment Characteristics



Rank /46

Nature conservation

5.5 16

Forestry 5.7 20 Agriculture 80.9 36 Urban 3.6 45 Other 4.2 26




%

1. Mouth 2.2 Medium sand 94 2. Lower estuary 3.1 Fine/medium sand 79 3. Mid estuary 2.8 Fine sand 75


Catchment area (km2) 8,590 44

Main stem length (km) 154 Rainfall (mm/a) 708 Annual discharge (ML) 236,000 Estuary length (km) 19 Population density(/km

2) 11.2 39


Property Value

Mouth type Permanently Open

Period of observation 10/4/02- 10/7/02

No. of days observed 91 % of days open 100 No. of times closed 0

34



Surface salinity

(ppt)


Surface salinity

(ppt)


1. Mouth 32.3 mixed s: oxic 32.5 mixed s: oxic b: hypoxic b: oxic

2. Lower estuary

29.2 mixed s: oxic 15.7 stratified s: oxic

b: hypoxic b: oxic

3. Mid estuary


b: hypoxic b: oxic


6. Nutrient Status

Mean total N

Mean total P






Rank

0.53* 16 0.51* 16 0.038* 15 0.042* 20



22/3/02 (Autumn) P 19/8/02 (Winter) P



* 34 estuaries sampled in autumn; 40 in winter/spring


Rural Activities High


Forestry Activities Low +


* based on % catchment land use + increasing plantation harvesting

B. Nutrient status

TN exceeds ANZECC Yes




C. Mouth opening*

Manual opening history No





Score 0.825

Rank 16*

* out of 41

35


Summary Data Sheet

Blanket Bay River Estuary

Geomorphic Classification: Group 3b. Small rivers and creeks (catchment areas 5 – 560km2) with sand-barred entrances and wetland or lagoonal areas along estuaries. Position of Entrance: latitude (S): 38o49’40” longitude (E): 143o34’55” 1. Catchment Characteristics



Rank /46

Nature conservation

100 45

Forestry 0 1 Agriculture 0 1 Urban 0 1 Other 0 1




%

1. Mouth 0.4 Fine/medium sand 93




2) 2.29 25


Property Value

Mouth type Sandbar Period of observation N/A No. of days observed % of days open No. of times closed

36


Site 26/4/02 (Autumn) 10/9/02 (Spring)+

Surface salinity

(ppt)

Stratification Dissolved Oxygen Status

Surface salinity

(ppt)


1. Mouth 2.22 Mixed s: oxic s: b: b:

2. Lower estuary

s: s:

b: b:

3. Mid estuary

s: s:

b: b:

+ estuary not accessible


6. Nutrient Status

Mean total N

Mean total P

26/4/02 Autumn 10/9/02 Spring+ 26/4/02 Autumn 10/9/02 Spring+





Rank

0.77* 28 0.10* 36

* Exceeds ANZECC trigger level + estuary not accessible


26/4/02 (Autumn) Neither 10/9/02 (Spring) N/A

7. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Characteristic Autumn Spring+


* 34 estuaries sampled in summer/ autumn; 40 in winter/spring + estuary not accessible











C. Mouth opening*






Score 0.895

Rank 18*

* out of 41

* based on a single field trip

37


Brown River Estuary




Rank /46

Nature conservation

0 1





%

1. Mouth 0.5 2. Lower estuary 3. Mid estuary




2) 1.20 15


Property Value


38



Surface salinity

(ppt)


Surface salinity

(ppt)


1. Mouth 0.13 Mixed s: oxic 0.13 mixed s: oxic b: b:

2. Lower estuary

s: s:

b: b:

3. Mid estuary

s: s:

b: b:


6. Nutrient Status

Mean total N

Mean total P






Rank

0.35* 8 1.30* 37 0.070* 28 0.030 12



9/4/02 (Autumn) N 28/8/02 (Winter) N

7. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Characteristic Autumn+ Winter+

No. of sites No. of taxa Rank* Species richness Rank*

* 34 estuaries sampled in summer/autumn; 40 in winter/spring + rocky substrate prevented sampling











C. Mouth opening*






Score N/A

Rank N/A

39


Carisbrooke Creek Estuary




Rank /46

Nature conservation

11.2 21





%




Main stem length (km) 9.6 Rainfall (mm/a) 1,101 Annual discharge (ML) N/A Estuary length (km) 0.3 Population density(/km

2) 7.5 37


Property Value


40



Surface salinity

(ppt)


Surface salinity

(ppt)


1. Mouth 0.10 mixed s: oxic 0.08 mixed s: oxic b: b:

2. Lower estuary

s: s:

b: b:

3. Mid estuary

s: s:

b: b:


6. Nutrient Status

Mean total N

Mean total P






Rank

0.005 1 0.70* 24 0.005 2 0.090* 35



9/4/02 (Autumn) N 28/8/02 (Winter) Neither














C. Mouth opening*






Score N/A

Rank N/A

41


Summary Data Sheet

Coalmine Creek Estuary

Geomorphic Classification: Group 3c. Creeks (catchment areas 4 –418km2) with sand-barred entrances and channelised estuaries less than 500m long. Position of Entrance: latitude (S): 38o28’25” longitude (E): 144o02’44” 1. Catchment Characteristics



Rank /46

Nature conservation

100 45


*estuary dry until 21/5/02




%

1. Mouth 0.3 Fine/medium sand 75 2. Lower estuary 3. Mid estuary




2) 1.29 18


Property Value

Mouth type Sandbar

Period of observation 19/5/02- 9/7/02

No. of days observed 52

% of days open 44.5

No. of times closed 1*

42



Surface salinity

(ppt)


Surface salinity

(ppt)


1. Mouth s: 1.45 mixed s: oxic b: b:

2. Lower estuary

s: s:

b: b:

3. Mid estuary

s: s:

b: b: + estuary was dry


6. Nutrient Status

Mean total N

Mean total P

15/4/02 Autumn+ 9/9/02 Spring 15/4/02 Autumn+ 9/9/02 Spring





Rank

0.36* 7 0.005 1

* exceeds ANZECC trigger level + estuary was dry


15/4/02 (Autumn) N/A 9/9/02 (Spring ) P



* 34 estuaries sampled in summer/autumn; 40 in winter/spring + estuary was dry











C. Mouth opening*






Score 2.636

Rank 41*

* out of 41


43


Summary Data Sheet

Cumberland River Estuary




Rank /46

Nature conservation

78.2 34

Forestry 21.8 31 Agriculture 0 1 Urban 0 1 Other 0 1




%

1. Mouth 1.2 Medium sand 88 2. Lower estuary 3. Mid estuary



Main stem length (km) 17.8 Rainfall (mm/a) 1,137 Annual discharge (ML) 21,300 Estuary length (km) 0.4 Population density(/km

2) 1.25 16


Property Value



44


Site 12/4/02 (Autumn) 19/9/02 (Spring)

Surface salinity

(ppt)

Stratification Dissolved Oxygen Status+

Surface salinity

(ppt)

Stratification Dissolved Oxygen Status+

1. Mouth 0.18 stratified s: oxic 1.08 stratified s: oxic b: anoxic b: oxic

2. Lower estuary

s: s:

b: b:

3. Mid estuary

s: s:

b: b:


6. Nutrient Status

Mean total N

Mean total P

12/4/02 Autumn 19/9/02 Spring 12/4/02 Autumn 19/9/02 Spring





Rank

0.050 5 0.37* 8 0.035 12 0.055* 26



12/4/02 (Autumn) N 19/9/02 (Spring) Neither

7. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Characteristic Autumn Spring

No. of sites 1 1 No. of taxa 2 1 Rank* 1 1 Species richness 0.089 0 Rank* 1 1












C. Mouth opening*






Score 1.217

Rank 30*

* out of 41

45


Curdies River Estuary

Geomorphic Classification: Group 2a. Rivers with moderate catchment areas (200 – 1200km2) and substantial wetlands or lagoon areas along estuaries. Position of Entrance: latitude (S): 38o36’36” longitude (E): 142o52’46” 1. Catchment Characteristics



Rank /46

Nature conservation

3.3 12





%

1. Mouth 2.0 Medium sand 79 2. Lower estuary 4.2 Medium sand 58 3. Mid estuary 7.1 Fine sand 54



Main stem length (km) 66.3 Rainfall (mm/a) 854 Annual discharge (ML) 119,000 Estuary length (km) 15.6 Population density(/km

2) 4.39 33


Property Value


27/10/02 No. of days observed 223 % of days open 50 No. of times closed

46



Surface salinity

(ppt)


Surface salinity

(ppt)


1. Mouth 19.4 mixed s: oxic 2.87 mixed s: oxic b: oxic b: oxic

2. Lower estuary


b: oxic b: hypoxic

3. Mid estuary


b: anoxic b: hypoxic


6. Nutrient Status

Mean total N

Mean total P



Rank+ Concentration (mg/L)



Rank+

1.46* 39 2.15* 44 0.072* 30 0.26* 44

* Exceeds ANZECC trigger level + N = 41 in summer; N = 44 in winter








Urban Activities Moderate






In highest decile rank for N Yes

In highest decile rank for P Yes

C. Mouth opening*





* ‘yes’ indicates increased risk of adverse effects on estuary D. Natural values index

Score 0.512

Rank 6*

* out of 41

47


Summary Data Sheet

Elliot River Estuary




Rank /46

Nature conservation

96.7 43

Forestry 0 1 Agriculture 1.8 15 Urban 0 1 Other 1.4 17




%

1. Mouth 0. 2 Coarse sand 88 2. Lower estuary 3. Mid estuary




2) 2.52 26


Property Value


48



Surface salinity

(ppt)


Surface salinity

(ppt)


1. Mouth 0.20 Mixed s: oxic 0.22 mixed s: oxic b: b:

2. Lower estuary

s: s:

b: b:

3. Mid estuary

s: s:

b: b:


6. Nutrient Status

Mean total N

Mean total P






Rank

1.20* 36 1.20* 36 0.070* 28 0.006 2



25/4/02 (Autumn) P 9/9/02 (Spring) P














C. Mouth opening*






Score 0.961

Rank 22*

* out of 41

49


Summary Data Sheet

Erskine River Estuary




Rank /46

Nature conservation

81.8 37


*closed 2-3 times late Feb. early March




%

1. Mouth 2.2 Fine/medium sand 73 2. Lower estuary 2.3 Fine/medium sand 62 3. Mid estuary 2.0 Fine sand 65




2) 12.5 40


Property Value


27/10/02 No. of days observed 138 % of days open 100 No. of times closed 0*

50



Surface salinity

(ppt)


Surface salinity

(ppt)


1. Mouth 9.85 stratified s: oxic 14.1 stratified s: oxic b: hypoxic b: oxic

2. Lower estuary


b: oxic b: oxic

3. Mid estuary


b: oxic b: oxic


6. Nutrient Status

Mean total N

Mean total P






Rank

0.81* 29 0.25* 2 0.052* 22 0.037* 19



12/4/02 (Autumn) P 5/9/02 (Spring) P








Other Activities Low+

* based on % catchment land use + extremely high summer tourism activity

B. Nutrient status





C. Mouth opening*






Score 0.956

Rank 21*

* out of 41

51


Summary Data Sheet

Eumeralla River – Yambuck Inlet Estuary




Rank /46

Nature conservation

2.3 11





%

1. Mouth 1.7 Medium sand 85 2. Lower estuary 2.0 Fine/very fine sand 61 3. Mid estuary 1.9 Fine/very fine sand 74




2) 0.27 3


Property Value



52



Surface salinity

(ppt)


Surface salinity

(ppt)


1. Mouth 11.58 mixed s: oxic 5.72 mixed s: oxic b: oxic b: hypoxic

2. Lower estuary

11.53 mixed s: oxic 5.54 mixed s: oxic

b: oxic b: hypoxic

3. Mid estuary


b: oxic b: hypoxic


6. Nutrient Status

Mean total N

Mean total P






Rank

1.24* 37 0.74* 25 0.030 10 0.077* 33



18/4/02 (Autumn) P 9/8/02 (Winter) P














C. Mouth opening*






Score 1.368

Rank 33*

* out of 41

53


Summary Data Sheet

Fawthrop Lagoon (Wattle Hill Creek) estuary

Geomorphic Classification: Group 1b. Built Entrance Position of Entrance: latitude (S): 38o21’06” longitude (E): 143o36’42” 1. Catchment Characteristics



Rank /46

Nature conservation

7.9 19





%

1. Mouth 3.0 Medium sand 81 2. Lower estuary 0.8 Fine/very fine sand 74 3. Mid estuary 0.5 Very fine sand 56



Main stem length (km) 20.9 Rainfall (mm/a) 824 Annual discharge (ML) N/A Estuary length (km) 9 Population density(/km

2) 71.4 46


Property Value

Mouth type Permanently open

Period of observation N/A No. of days observed % of days open No. of times closed

54


Site (Autumn)+ 2/8/02 (Winter)

Surface salinity

(ppt)


Surface salinity

(ppt)


1. Mouth s: 36.8 mixed s: oxic b: b: hypoxic

2. Lower estuary

s: 32.8 mixed s: oxic

b: b: oxic

3. Mid estuary

s: 17.2 stratified s: oxic

b: b: oxic

+ not sampled * s = surface water; b=bottom water

6. Nutrient Status

Mean total N

Mean total P

Autumn+ 2/8/02 Winter Autumn+ 2/8/02 Winter





Rank

0.29* 4 0.053* 25



(Autumn) N/A 2/8/02 (Winter) Neither

7. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Characteristic Autumn+ Winter


* 34 estuaries sampled in summer/autumn; 40 in winter/spring + not sampled












C. Mouth opening*






Score 0.380

Rank 4*

* out of 41

55


Summary Data Sheet

Fitzroy River Estuary

Geomorphic Classification: Group 2b. Rivers with moderate to large catchment areas (350 – 12,4000km2) and channelised estuaries lacking extensive wetlands or lagoonal areas along the estuary. Position of Entrance: latitude (S): 38o15’50” longitude (E): 141o51’13” 1. Catchment Characteristics



Rank /46

Nature conservation

7.4 18





%

1. Mouth 1.2 Medium sand 90 2. Lower estuary 2.0 Medium/fine sand 72 3. Mid estuary 3.8 Fine sand 65



Main stem length (km) 58.4 Rainfall (mm/a) 807 Annual discharge (ML) 41,600 Estuary length (km) 13 Population density(/km

2) 1.19 13


Property Value



56



Surface salinity

(ppt)


Surface salinity

(ppt)


1. Mouth 3.64 mixed s: oxic 9.65 stratified s: oxic b: b: oxic

2. Lower estuary


b: b: hypoxic

3. Mid estuary


b: b: oxic


6. Nutrient Status

Mean total N

Mean total P






Rank

0.44* 11 0.65* 19 0.035 12 0.034 18



8/3/02 (Autumn) P 12/8/02 (Winter) P














C. Mouth opening*






Score 1.428

Rank 34*

* out of 41

57


Gellibrand River Estuary




Rank /46

Nature conservation

12.7 22





%

1. Mouth 2.0 Medium/coarse sand 68 2. Lower estuary 3.0 Medium sand 71 3. Mid estuary 4.6 Medium/fine sand 62



Main stem length (km) 94 Rainfall (mm/a) 1223 Annual discharge (ML) 294,000 Estuary length (km) 7.8 Population density(/km

2) 1.07 7


Property Value



58



Surface salinity

(ppt)


Surface salinity

(ppt)


1. Mouth 1.94 mixed s: oxic 0.18 mixed s: oxic b: hypoxic b: oxic

2. Lower estuary


b: anoxic b: oxic

3. Mid estuary


b: anoxic b: oxic


6. Nutrient Status

Mean total N

Mean total P






Rank

0.59* 19 1.4* 39 0.032 11 0.11* 40



12/3/02 (Autumn) P 16/9/02 (Spring) P






Urban Activities Moderate#

Forestry Activities Moderate+


* based on % catchment land use + significant increase in plantation forestry # potential high urban development B. Nutrient status





C. Mouth opening*






Score 1.387

Rank 34*

* out of 41

59


Summary Data Sheet

Glenelg River Estuary




Rank /46

Nature conservation

13.5 23





%

1. Mouth 2.8 Medium sand 84 2. Lower estuary 7.5 Fine/very fine sand 59 3. Mid estuary 7.1 Very fine sand 57



Main stem length (km) 323 Rainfall (mm/a) 693 Annual discharge (ML) 630,000 Estuary length (km) 70 Population density(/km

2) 1.11 9


Property Value



60


Site 2/2/02 (Summer) 2/8/02 (Winter)

Surface salinity

(ppt)


Surface salinity

(ppt)


1. Mouth 28.0 mixed s: oxic 7.48 stratified s: b: oxic b:

2. Lower estuary



3. Mid estuary




6. Nutrient Status

Mean total N

Mean total P

2/2/02 Summer 2/8/02 Winter 2/2/02 Summer 2/8/02 Winter





Rank

0.60* 20 0.81* 29 0.005 2 0.060* 28



2/2/02 (Summer) P 2/8/02 (Winter) P

7. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Characteristic Summer Winter













C. Mouth opening*





* ‘yes’ indicates increased risk of adverse effects D. Natural values index

Score 2.052

Rank 38*

* out of 41

61


Grey River Estuary




Rank /46

Nature conservation

48.1 30

Forestry 44.9 37 Agriculture 0 1 Urban 0 1 Other 7.1 30




%

1. Mouth 0.4 Medium/coarse sand 66 2. Lower estuary 3. Mid estuary




2) 2.59 28


Property Value


62



Surface salinity

(ppt)


Surface salinity

(ppt)


1. Mouth 0.17 mixed s: oxic 0.23 mixed s:oxic b: b:

2. Lower estuary

s: s:

b: b:

3. Mid estuary

s: s:

b: b:


6. Nutrient Status

Mean total N

Mean total P






Rank

0.005 1 0.30* 5 0.005 2 0.010 3



9/4/02 (Autumn) N 6/9/02 (Spring) P

7. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Characteristic Autumn+ Spring+













C. Mouth opening*






Score N/A

Rank N/A

63


Hopkins River Estuary




Rank /46

Nature conservation

1.5 9





%

1. Mouth 1.7 Fine/medium sand 71 2. Lower estuary 2.2 Fine sand 61 3. Mid estuary 3.5 Fine sand 72



Main stem length (km) 270 Rainfall (mm/a) 662 Annual discharge (ML) 677,000 Estuary length (km) 9.5 Population density(/km

2) 1.10 8


Property Value

Mouth type sandbar Period of observation 5/2/02-


64



Surface salinity

(ppt)


Surface salinity

(ppt)


1. Mouth 17.5 stratified s: oxic 4.65 stratified s: oxic b:hypoxic b:hypoxic

2. Lower estuary


b:hypoxic b: oxic

3. Mid estuary


b:anoxic b: oxic

6. Nutrient Status

Mean total N

Mean total P






Rank

0.89* 32 1.07* 33 0.17* 41 0.064* 32



19/3/02 (Autumn) P 29/8/02 (Winter) P














C. Mouth opening*






Score 0.882

Rank 17*

* out of 41

65


Jamieson River Estuary

Geomorphic Classification: Group 3c. Creeks (catchment areas 4 –418km2) with sand-barred entrances and channelised estuaries less than 500m long. Position of Entrance: latitude (S): 38o35’53” longitude (E): 143o55’07” 1. Catchment Characteristics



Rank /46

Nature conservation

92.8 41

Forestry 7.2 24 Agriculture 0 1 Urban 0 1 Other 0 1




%





2) 2.63 29


Property Value


66



Surface salinity

(ppt)


Surface salinity

(ppt)



2. Lower estuary

s: s:

b: b:

3. Mid estuary

s: s:

b: b:


6. Nutrient Status

Mean total N

Mean total P






Rank

0.005 1 2.00* 43 0.010 7 0.030 12



11/4/02 (Autumn) N 9/9/02 (Spring) P














C. Mouth opening*

Manual opening history Unknowm





Score 1.117

Rank 27*

* out of 41

67


Johanna River Estuary




Rank /46

Nature conservation

4.6 15





%





2) 1.14 12


Property Value


68


Site 25/4202 (Autumn) 10/9/02 (Spring)

Surface salinity

(ppt)


Surface salinity

(ppt)



2. Lower estuary

s: s:

b: b:

3. Mid estuary

s: s:

b: b:


6. Nutrient Status

Mean total N

Mean total P

25/4202 Autumn 10/9/02 Spring 25/4202 Autumn 10/9/02 Spring





Rank

1.30* 38 1.50* 41 0.15* 40 0.060* 28



25/4202 (Autumn) P 10/9/02 (Spring) P







Forestry Activities Moderate+


* based on % catchment land use + increasing plantation activity B. Nutrient status





C. Mouth opening*






Score 0.554

Rank 9*

* out of 41

69


Kennett River Estuary




Rank /46

Nature conservation

25.9 27





%

1. Mouth 2.0 Medium sand 78 2. Lower estuary 2.4 Fine/medium sand 71 3. Mid estuary 1.4 Medium sand 76




2) 1.31 19


Property Value


70



Surface salinity

(ppt)


Surface salinity

(ppt)


1. Mouth 20.8 stratified s: oxic 4.30 stratified s: oxic b: oxic b: oxic

2. Lower estuary


b: oxic b: oxic

3. Mid estuary


b: oxic b: oxic


6. Nutrient Status

Mean total N

Mean total P






Rank

0.57* 17 0.24* 2 0.11* 37 0.032 15



9/4/02 (Autumn) N 6/9/02 (Spring) P














C. Mouth opening*






Score 1.211

Rank 31*

* out of 41

71


Merri River Estuary – eastern mouth




Rank /46

Nature conservation

0.5 7

Forestry 0 1 Agriculture 97.9 45 Urban 1.1 40 Other 0.4 12




%

1. Mouth 0.8 Fine/medium sand 92 2. Lower estuary 2.6 Fine sand 67 3. Mid estuary 1.5 Medium sand 85




2) 0.72 4


Property Value



72



Surface salinity

(ppt)


Surface salinity

(ppt)


1. Mouth 17.0 stratified s: oxic 4.51 mixed s: oxic b: oxic b: oxic

2. Lower estuary


b: oxic b: hypoxic

3. Mid estuary

stratified s: oxic 2.10 stratified s: oxic



6. Nutrient Status

Mean total N

Mean total P






Rank

0.88* 31 0.96* 32 0.065* 27 0.10* 38



25/3/02 (Autumn) P 13/8/02 (Winter) P














C. Mouth opening*






Score 0.986

Rank 23*

* out of 41

73


Merri River Estuary – Rutledges Cutting




Rank /46

Nature conservation

0.5 7





%

1. Mouth 1.3 Medium sand 75 2. Lower estuary 1.9 Medium sand 77 3. Mid estuary 1.3 Medium sand 64




2) 0.72 4


Property Value


74



Surface salinity

(ppt)


Surface salinity

(ppt)


1. Mouth 45.5+ mixed s: oxic 32.2 mixed s: oxic b: oxic b: oxic

2. Lower estuary

46.0+ mixed s: oxic 32.0 mixed s: oxic

b: oxic b: oxic

3. Mid estuary

46.4+ mixed s: oxic 32.0 mixed s: oxic

b: oxic b: oxic

+ hypersaline * s = surface water; b=bottom water

6. Nutrient Status

Mean total N

Mean total P






Rank

1.60* 40 0.85* 31 0.023 9 0.023 10



19/3/02 (Autumn) P 2/9/02 (Spring) P














C. Mouth opening*






Score 0.756

Rank 14

* out of 41

75


Moggs Creek Estuary

Geomorphic Classification: Group 3b. Small rivers and creeks (catchment areas 5 –560km2) with sand-barred entrances and wetland or lagoonal areas along estuaries. Position of Entrance: latitude (S): 38o28’13” longitude (E): 144o03’55” 1. Catchment Characteristics



Rank /46

Nature conservation

82.1 38





%

1. Mouth 1.7 Fine/medium sand 88 2. Lower estuary 1.5 Fine/medium sand 74 3. Mid estuary




2) 16.4 41


Property Value



76



Surface salinity

(ppt)


Surface salinity

(ppt)


1. Mouth 24.2 mixed s: oxic 11.6 stratified s: oxic b: oxic b: oxic

2. Lower estuary


b: oxic b: hypoxic

3. Mid estuary

s: s:

b: b:


6. Nutrient Status

Mean total N

Mean total P






Rank

0.50* 15 1.55* 42 0.055* 24 0.19* 42



15/4/02 (Autumn) P 9/9/02 (Spring) P









* based on % catchment land use + increasing urbanisation

B. Nutrient status





C. Mouth opening*






Score 0.759

Rank 15*

* out of 41

77


Moyne River Estuary

Geomorphic Classification: Group 1b. Built entrance. Position of Entrance: latitude (S): 38o23’23” longitude (E): 142o14’57” 1. Catchment Characteristics



Rank /46

Nature conservation

0.6 8

Forestry 0 1 Agriculture 99.2 46 Urban 0.3 35 Other 0 1




%

1. Mouth 3.3 Medium sand 95 2. Lower estuary 1.4 Fine sand 71 3. Mid estuary 0.7 Fine sand 70




2) 3.29 32


Property Value

Mouth type Permanently Open

Period of observation No. of days observed % of days open 100 No. of times closed 0

78



Surface salinity

(ppt)


Surface salinity

(ppt)



2. Lower estuary


b: oxic b: oxic

3. Mid estuary


b: oxic b: oxic


6. Nutrient Status

Mean total N

Mean total P






Rank

0.92* 35 0.83* 30 0.087* 32 0.090* 35



18/4/02 (Autumn) P 13/9/02 (Spring) N














C. Mouth opening*






Score 0.662

Rank 12*

* out of 41

79


Painkalac Creek Estuary




Rank /46

Nature conservation

52.3 31





%

1. Mouth 1.3 Fine/medium sand 74 2. Lower estuary 1.6 Fine sand 65 3. Mid estuary 1.0 Fine/very fine sand 61




2) 9.5 38


Property Value


29/10.02 No. of days observed 163 % of days open 28 No. of times closed 4

80



Surface salinity

(ppt)


Surface salinity

(ppt)


1. Mouth 19.6 mixed s: oxic 23.8 stratified s: oxic b: oxic b: oxic

2. Lower estuary


b: oxic b: oxic

3. Mid estuary


b: oxic b: oxic

6. Nutrient Status

Mean total N

Mean total P






Rank

0.37* 10 0.45* 13 0.043* 19 0.012 6



16/4/02 (Autumn) P 23/8/02 (Winter) P














C. Mouth opening*






Score 1.16

Rank 29*

* out of 41

81


Parker River Estuary




Rank /46

Nature conservation

84.7 39

Forestry 0 1 Agriculture 3.3 18 Urban 0 1 Other 12 39




%





2) 0.80 5


Property Value


82



Surface salinity

(ppt)


Surface salinity

(ppt)



2. Lower estuary

s: s:

b: b:

3. Mid estuary

s: s:

b: b:


6. Nutrient Status

Mean total N

Mean total P






Rank

0.49* 14 1.10* 34 0.080* 31 0.060* 28



26/4/02 (Autumn) Neither 10/9/02 (Spring) P














C. Mouth opening*






Score 1.512

Rank 35*

* out of 41

83


Petticoat Creek Estuary

Geomorphic Classification: Group 3c. Small Rivers and Creeks (catchment areas 4 –418km2) with sand-barred entrances and channelised estuaries less than 500m long. Position of Entrance: latitude (S): 38o43’09” longitude (E): 143o43’40” 1. Catchment Characteristics



Rank /46

Nature conservation

0 1





%

1. Mouth 0.5 Coarse sand 94 2. Lower estuary 3. Mid estuary




2) 0 1


Property Value


84



Surface salinity

(ppt)


Surface salinity

(ppt)



2. Lower estuary

s: s:

b: b:

3. Mid estuary

s: s:

b: b:


6. Nutrient Status

Mean total N

Mean total P






Rank

0.47* 13 0.64* 18 0.090* 34 0.050* 22



9/4/02 (Autumn) N 28/8/02 (Winter) P














C. Mouth opening*






Score 0.220

Rank 1*

* out of 41

85


Port Campbell Creek Estuary




Rank /46

Nature conservation

3.4 13





%

1. Mouth 0.7 Medium/coarse sand 86 2. Lower estuary 2.4 Fine/very fine sand 52 3. Mid estuary 1.8 Medium/fine sand 53




2) 5.77 35


Property Value



86



Surface salinity

(ppt)


Surface salinity

(ppt)



2. Lower estuary


b: b: oxic

3. Mid estuary


b: oxic b: oxic


6. Nutrient Status

Mean total N

Mean total P






Rank

1.11* 35 1.33* 37 0.090* 34 0.11* 39



25/3/02 (Autumn) P 22/8/02 (Winter) N

7. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Characteristic Autumn Winter/Spring













C. Mouth opening*






Score 0.540

Rank 8*

* out of 41

87


Reedy Creek Estuary

Geomorphic Classification: Group 3c. Small River and Creeks (catchment areas 4 – 418km2) with sand-barred entrances and channelised estuaries less than 500m long. Position of Entrance: latitude (S): 38o30’47” longitude (E): 143o59’50” 1. Catchment Characteristics



Rank /46

Nature conservation

81.7 36





%





2) 2.53 27


Property Value


88



Surface salinity

(ppt)


Surface salinity

(ppt)


1. Mouth 21.5 mixed s: anoxic 23.3 mixed s: oxic b: b:

2. Lower estuary

s: s:

b: b:

3. Mid estuary

s: s:

b: b:


6. Nutrient Status

Mean total N

Mean total P






Rank

4.70* 41 0.67* 20 0.005 2 0.090* 35



15/4/02 (Autumn) 9/9/02 (Spring)

7. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Characteristic Autumn+ Winter/Spring













C. Mouth opening*






Score 0.990

Rank 24*

* out of 41

89


Summary Data Sheet

Separation Creek Estuary

Geomorphic Classification: Group 3c. Small Rivers and Creeks (catchment areas 4 – 418km2) with sand-barred entrances and channelised estuaries less than 500m long. Position of Entrance: latitude (S): 38o37’55” longitude (E): 143o53’50” 1. Catchment Characteristics



Rank /46

Nature conservation

53.4 32





%





2) 1.13 11


Property Value


90



Surface salinity

(ppt)


Surface salinity

(ppt)


1. Mouth 2.66 stratified s: oxic 0.13 mixed s: oxic b: anoxic b:

2. Lower estuary

s: s:

b: b:

3. Mid estuary

s: s:

b: b:


6. Nutrient Status

Mean total N

Mean total P






Rank

0.69* 23 1.10* 34 0.040* 16 0.010 3



11/4/02 (Autumn) P 6/9/02 (Spring) P














C. Mouth opening*






Score 1.283

Rank 32*

* out of 41

91


She Oak River Estuary




Rank /46

Nature conservation

91.1 40





%

1. Mouth 2. Lower estuary 3. Mid estuary




2) 1.36 20


Property Value

Mouth type rock Period of observation N/A No. of days observed % of days open No. of times closed

92



Surface salinity

(ppt)


Surface salinity

(ppt)



2. Lower estuary

s: s:

b: b:

3. Mid estuary

s: s:

b: b:


6. Nutrient Status

Mean total N

Mean total P






Rank

0.36* 9 0.53* 17 0.040* 16 0.030 12



11/4/02 (Autumn) P 9/9/02 (Spring) P



* 34 estuaries sampled insummer/ autumn; 40 in winter/spring + rocky substance prevented sampling











C. Mouth opening*






Score N/A

Rank N/A

93


Sherbrook River Estuary




Rank /46

Nature conservation

26.5 28

Forestry 0 1 Agriculture 72.8 33 Urban 0 1 Other 0 1




%

1. Mouth 1.2 Medium sand 95 2. Lower estuary 0.9 Medium sand 67 3. Mid estuary 1.0 Fine sand 60




2) 1.64 21


Property Value



94



Surface salinity

(ppt)


Surface salinity

(ppt)



2. Lower estuary


b: oxic b: oxic

3. Mid estuary


b: oxic b: oxic

6. Nutrient Status

Mean total N

Mean total P






Rank

0.76* 27 1.43* 40 0.053* 23 0.085* 34



23/4/02 (Autumn) Neither 22/8/02 (Winter) P














C. Mouth opening*






Score 0.942

Rank 20*

* out of 41

95


Skenes Creek Estuary

Geomorphic Classification: Group 3c. Small rivers and creeks (catchment areas 4 –418km2) with sand-barred entrances and channelised estuaries less than 500m long. Position of Entrance: latitude (S): 38o43’37” longitude (E): 143o42’35” 1. Catchment Characteristics



Rank /46

Nature conservation

0 1





%

1. Mouth 0.8 Medium sand 92 2. Lower estuary 1.4 Fine/medium sand 90 3. Mid estuary 0.8 Fine sand 58




2) 2.97 31


Property Value


28/10.02 No. of days observed 226 % of days open 100 No. of times closed 0

96



Surface salinity

(ppt)


Surface salinity

(ppt)



2. Lower estuary


b: oxic b:

3. Mid estuary


b: b:


6. Nutrient Status

Mean total N

Mean total P






Rank

0.45* 12 0.67* 20 0.11* 37 0.033 17



9/4/02 (Autumn) N 27/8/02 (Winter) P






Urban Activities Moderate +

Forestry Activities Low #


* based on % catchment land use + increasing urban development # increasing plantation development B. Nutrient status





C. Mouth opening*






Score 0.2 67

Rank 2*

* out of 41

97


Summary Data Sheet

Smythe Creek Estuary




Rank /46

Nature conservation

0.2 5





%





2) 2.84 30


Property Value


98



Surface salinity

(ppt)


Surface salinity

(ppt)



2. Lower estuary

s: s:

b: b:

3. Mid estuary

s: s:

b: b:


6. Nutrient Status

Mean total N

Mean total P






Rank

0.020 4 0.39* 9 0.035 14 0.010 3



9/4/02 (Autumn) N 28/8/02 (Winter) P



* 34 estuaries sampled in summer/ autumn; 40 in winter/spring + rocky substrate prevented sampling











C. Mouth opening*






Score N/A

Rank N/A

99


Summary Data Sheet

Spout Creek Estuary

Geomorphic Classification: Group 3c. Small rivers and creeks (catchment areas 4 – 418km2) with sand-barred entrances and channelised estuaries less than 500m long. Position of Entrance: latitude (S): 38o28’38” longitude (E): 144o02’07” 1. Catchment Characteristics



Rank /46

Nature conservation

96.5 42





%

1. Mouth 0.5 Fine/medium sand 92 2. Lower estuary 3. Mid estuary




2) 1.17 13


Property Value


100



Surface salinity

(ppt)


Surface salinity

(ppt)



2. Lower estuary

s: s:

b: b:

3. Mid estuary

s: s:

b: b:

6. Nutrient Status

Mean total N

Mean total P






Rank

0.95* 34 0.39* 9 0.005 1 0.020 7



15/4/02 (Autumn) P 9/9/02 (Spring) P


No. of sites 1 1 No. of taxa 3 1 Rank* 3 1 Species richness 0.190 0 Rank* 4 1












C. Mouth opening*






Score 1.728

Rank 36*

* out of 41

101


Spring Creek Estuary




Rank /46

Nature conservation

8.9 20





%

1. Mouth 1.5 Fine sand 77 2. Lower estuary 1.1 Fine sand 64 3. Mid estuary 1.2 Very fine sand 72




2) 25.9 44


Property Value


102



Surface salinity

(ppt)


Surface salinity

(ppt)


1. Mouth 26.7 mixed s: oxic 12.5 stratified s: oxic b: b: hypoxic

2. Lower estuary


b: b: oxic

3. Mid estuary


b: hypoxic b:


6. Nutrient Status

Mean total N

Mean total P






Rank

0.71* 24 0.76* 27 0.047* 21 0.11* 41

















C. Mouth opening*







Score 0.727

Rank 13*

* out of 41

103


Summary Data Sheet

St George River Estuary




Rank /46

Nature conservation

56.0 33





%

1. Mouth 2.2 Medium sand 84 2. Lower estuary 2.4 Fine/medium sand 71 3. Mid estuary 2.8 Medium sand 67




2) 7.19 36


Property Value



104



Surface salinity

(ppt)


Surface salinity

(ppt)



2. Lower estuary


b: hypoxic b:

3. Mid estuary


b: hypoxic b:


6. Nutrient Status

Mean total N

Mean total P






Rank

0.68* 22 0.24* 1 0.087* 32 0.055* 26



12/4/02 (Autumn) Neither 5/9/02 (Spring) N














C. Mouth opening*






Score 1.04

Rank 25*

* out of 41

105


Stony Creek - Lorne Estuary

Geomorphic Classification: Group 3c. Small river and creeks (catchment areas 4 – 418km2) with sand-barred entrances and channelised estuaries less than 500m long. Position of Entrance: latitude (S): 38o31’22” longitude (E): 143o59’14” 1. Catchment Characteristics



Rank /46

Nature conservation

81.3 35





%





2) 41.9 45


Property Value



106



Surface salinity

(ppt)


Surface salinity

(ppt)



2. Lower estuary

s: s:

b: b:

3. Mid estuary

s: s:

b: b:

+ estuary dry * s = surface water; b=bottom water

6. Nutrient Status

Mean total N

Mean total P

15/4/02 Autumn+ 9/9/02 Spring 15/4/02 Autumn+ 9/9/ Spring





Rank

0.64* 18 0.1 38 * Exceeds ANZECC trigger level + estuary dry


15/4/02 Autumn) N/A 9/9/02 (Spring) Neither


No. of sites 1 No. of taxa 3 Rank* 4 Species richness 0.220 Rank* 5 * 34 estuaries sampled in summer/autumn; 40 in winter/spring

+ estuary dry






* based on % catchment land use + increasing urban development

B. Nutrient status*





C. Mouth opening*






Score 0.563

Rank 10*

* out of 41


107


Stony Creek - Otway Estuary




Rank /46

Nature conservation

99.9 44





%

1. Mouth 2. Lower estuary 3. Mid estuary




2) 1.69 22


Property Value


108


Site 25/4/02 (Autumn)+ 9/9/02 (Spring)+

Surface salinity

(ppt)


Surface salinity

(ppt)


1. Mouth s: s: b: b:

2. Lower estuary

s: s:

b: b:

3. Mid estuary

s: s:

b: b:

+ inaccessible – not sampled * s = surface water; b=bottom water

6. Nutrient Status

Mean total N

Mean total P

25/4/02 Autumn+ 9/9/02 Spring+ 25/4/02 Autumn+ 9/9/02 Spring+





Rank

* Exceeds ANZECC trigger level + inaccessible – not sampled


25/4/02 (Autumn) N/A 9/9/02 (Spring) N/A


No. of sites N/A N/A No. of taxa Rank* Species richness Rank*

* 34 estuaries sampled in summer/autumn; 40 in winter/spring + inaccessible – not sampled







Total N exceeds ANZECC

Total P exceeds ANZECC

In highest decile rank for N

In highest decile rank for P

C. Mouth opening*



Stratification detected Unknown

Hypoxic or anoxic water detected Unknown


Score N/A

Rank N/A

* no data

109


Sugar Loaf Creek Estuary

Geomorphic Classification: Group 3c. Creeks (catchment areas 4 – 418km2) with sand-barred entrances and channelised estuaries less than 500m long. Position of Entrance: latitude (S): 38o41’56” longitude (E): 143o47’44” 1. Catchment Characteristics



Rank /46

Nature conservation

0 1





%





2) 0 1


Property Value


110


Site 9/4/02 (Autumn)+ 28/8/02 (Winter)

Surface salinity

(ppt)


Surface salinity

(ppt)



2. Lower estuary

s: s:

b: b:

3. Mid estuary

s: s:

b: b:

+ estuary dry * s = surface water; b=bottom water

6. Nutrient Status

Mean total N

Mean total P

9/4/02 Autumn+ 28/8/02 Winter 9/4/02 Autumn+ 28/8/02 Winter





Rank

0.49* 14 0.02 7

* Exceeds ANZECC trigger level + estuary dry


9/4/02 (Autumn) N/A 28/8/02 (Winter) P

7. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Characteristic Autumn+ Winter

No. of sites N/A 1 No. of taxa 3 Rank* 4 Species richness 0.190 Rank* 3

* 34 estuaries sampled in summer/autumn; 40 in winter/spring + estuary dry












C. Mouth opening*






Score 0.348

Rank 3*

* out of 41

111


Surrey River Estuary




Rank /46

Nature conservation

6.0 17





%

1. Mouth 2.8 Fine/medium sand 81 2. Lower estuary 1.5 Fine sand 76 3. Mid estuary 2.7 Fine/very fine sand 60



Main stem length (km) 46.4 Rainfall (mm/a) 842 Annual discharge (ML) 38,900 Estuary length (km) 10 Population density(/km

2) 1.12 10


Property Value



112



Surface salinity

(ppt)


Surface salinity

(ppt)


1. Mouth 10.2 stratified s: oxic 1.58 stratified s: oxic b: hypoxic b: oxic

2. Lower estuary


b: oxic b: hypoxic

3. Mid estuary


b: hypoxic b: oxic


6. Nutrient Status

Mean total N

Mean total P






Rank

0.58* 18 0.42* 12 0.005 2 0.022 9



8/3/02 (Autumn) P 6/8/02 (Winter) P














C. Mouth opening*






Score 2.444

Rank 39*

* out of 41

113


Summary Data Sheet

Thompson Creek Estuary




Rank /46

Nature conservation

0.4 6





%

1. Mouth 0.7 Fine/medium sand 82 2. Lower estuary 0.8 Fine sand 76 3. Mid estuary 1.0 Fine/medium sand 76



Main stem length (km) 42 Rainfall (mm/a) 647 Annual discharge (ML) N/A Estuary length (km) 6.0 Population density(/km

2) 24.6 43


Property Value


114



Surface salinity

(ppt)


Surface salinity

(ppt)


1. Mouth 35.8 mixed s: oxic 37.4 mixed s: oxic b: b: oxic

2. Lower estuary


b: b: oxic

3. Mid estuary


b: b: oxic


6. Nutrient Status

Mean total N

Mean total P






Rank

0.81* 29 0.67* 20 0.060* 25 0.24* 43






* 34 estuaries sampled in autumn; 41 in winter/spring



Urban Activities High +



* based on % catchment land use + rapid increase in small acreage allotments B. Nutrient status





C. Mouth opening*






Score 0.526

Rank 7*

* out of 41

115


Summary Data Sheet

Wild Dog Creek Estuary




Rank /46

Nature conservation

1.9 10





%

1. Mouth 0.6 Medium sand 93 2. Lower estuary 1.0 Medium sand 91 3. Mid estuary 0.2 Fine/medium sand 91




2) 2.16 24


Property Value



116



Surface salinity

(ppt)


Surface salinity

(ppt)


1. Mouth 1.50 stratified s: oxic 0.11 mixed s: oxic: b: hypoxic b:

2. Lower estuary


b: b: oxic

3. Mid estuary

s: s:

b: b:


6. Nutrient Status

Mean total N

Mean total P






Rank

0.26* 7 0.67* 20 0.14* 39 0.045* 21



9/4/02 (Autumn) N 27/8/02 (Winter) P





Rural Activities Moderate +




* based on % catchment land use + high dairy activity

B. Nutrient status





C. Mouth opening*






Score 0.470

Rank 5*

* out of 41

117


Summary Data Sheet

Wye River Estuary

Geomorphic Classification: Group 3a. Small rivers (catchment areas 20 – 125km2) with sand-barred entrances and channelised estuaries typically 1 – 3km long Position of Entrance: latitude (S): 38o38’12” longitude (E): 143o53’24” 1. Catchment Characteristics



Rank /46

Nature conservation

23.7 26





%

1. Mouth 1.6 Medium sand 88 2. Lower estuary 2.0 3. Mid estuary 1.4




2) 1.26 17


Property Value



118



Surface salinity

(ppt)


Surface salinity

(ppt)



2. Lower estuary

3.00 stratified s: oxic s:

b: hypoxic b:

3. Mid estuary

2.35 stratified s: oxic s:

b: oxic b:


6. Nutrient Status

Mean total N

Mean total P






Rank

0.62* 21 0.76* 27 0.040* 16 0.028 11



11/4/02 (Autumn) P 6/9/02 (Spring) P








Other Activities Low +

* based on % catchment land use + high summer tourism activity

B. Nutrient status





C. Mouth opening*






Score 1.119

Rank 28*

* out of 41

119

References

Arnold, P. W. and R. A. Birtles (1987). Soft-sediment marine Invertebrates of Southeast Asia and Australia. Townsville, Australian Institute of Marine Science. Bantow, J., M. Rashleigh, et al. (1995). Tuuram: the Hopkins Estuary and Coastal Environs. Warrnambool, Australia Felix Press. Clarke, K. R. (1993). "Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure." Australian Journal of Ecology 18: 117-143. Clarke, K. R. and R. H. Green (1988). "Statistical design and analysis for a "biological effects" study." Marine Ecology Progress Series 46: 213-226. Clarke, K. R. and R. M. Warwick (2001). Change in Marine Communities: An Approach to Statistical Analysis and Interpretation, 2nd edition. Plymouth, Primer_E Ltd. Clesceri, L. S., A. E. Greenberg, et al. (1995). Standard Methods for water and waste water. 19th Edition. Edgar, G. J. (1997). Australian Marine Life: the plants and animals of temperate waters. Melbourne, Reed Books. Edgar, G. J., N. S. Barrett, et al. (1999a). "The conservation significance of estuaries: a classification of Tasmanian estuaries using ecological , physical, and demographic attributes as a case study." Biological Conservation. Edgar, G. J., N. S. Barrett, et al. (1999b). A classification of Tasmanian estuaries and assessment of their conservation significance using ecological and physical attributes, population and land use. Hobart, Marine Research Laboratories - Tasmanian Aquculture and Fisheries Institute, University of Tasmania. NLWRA (2002). Australian catchment,river and estuary assessment 2002: National Land and Water Resources Audit. ACT, Land and Water Australia - Commonwealth of Australia: 386. Sheperd, S. A. and I. M. Thomas (1982). Marine Invertebrates of Southern Australia. South Australia, Government printer. Sherwood, J. E. (1985). Hydrodynamics of South-West Victorian Estuaries. Warrnambool, Warrnambool Institute of Advanced Education: 9. Tagaza, E. (1995). "Understanding the coastal zone." Ecos 83: 10-11. Walton, D. W. (1998). Mollusca: The Southern Synthesis, CSIRO Publishing.

120

Appendix 1 Deakin University Estuarine Research Honours Theses Arundel, A. (1995) Movement of Amphipods within a shallow lagoon at Port Fairy, Victoria. Barnett, E. (2001). Critical tests of zonation pattern on local sandy beaches, saltmarshes and rocky shores. Baumgartner, L. (1998) Utilisation of temperate mangrove habitat by small and juvenile fish. Beckman, D. (1999). Effects of salinity on hatchability, and early development of Estuary Perch, Macquaria colonorum. Booth, M. (1995) The importance of seagrass Amphibolis antarctica to the survival of Sabellid polychaetes at Killarney Beach. Cawthray,G. (1991) Anoxic Conditions in the Deep Holes of the Hopkins Estuary. Dyson, KM. (1998) Photosynthetic bacteria of the oxic/anoxic interface. Farrington, L. (1996) Allozyme and morphological variation in the black bream Acanthopagrus butcheri, (Munro) (Perciformes:Sparidae) in Southeastern Australia. Hamilton, S. (1997) Aluminium Speciation in the Hopkins and Glenelg Estuaries. Harney, T. (1996) Nutrient composition and metabolism of Zostera muelleri (Irmisch ex Ascher) in the Hopkins Estuary Howells, T. (1999). Diet and growth of Estuary Perch (Macqaria colonorum) in the Hopkins River. Ierodiaconou, D. (2000). Development of a spatial database using GIS and GPS technologies for the analysis of seagrasss in the Hopkins River Estuary. Kelly, L. (2000). The management of ecological impacts of nutrients, vegetation and river mouth opening processes in the Gellibrand River Estuary and Wetlands. Kenny, S. (1998) Estimating Spatial Variation in Estuarine benthic Communities: Effects of decisions made before, during and after sample processing Lazzarotto, E. (1999) The Effect of Propeller Scars on Seagrass & its associated Macro-infauna in Shallow Inlet Marine & Coastal Park, Australia Lonza, D. (1999). Monitoring change in macroinvertebrate community structure over time in the Curdies River estuary. Maher, P. (2001). Nutrients and phytoplankton of the Curdies River, Southwest Victoria.

121

Matthews, R. (1999) Community Structure of Macroscopic Flora & Fauna in the Saltmarshes of south-west Victoria Matthews, T. (1995). The effect of flooding on estuarine bivalve populations near the mouth of the Hopkins River. McGregor, J. (1995) An Environmental Audit of the Merri River. McKay, S.(1999) The ecology and management of the Gellibrand River estuary and wetlands Meyer, L. (1997). Aspects of the growth and recrutiment of Ficopomatus enigmaticus (Polychaete: Serpulidae), near the mouth of the Hopkins River estuary, Victoria, Australia. Mills, K. (1999) Bait/food Harvesting of Katelysia spp. & Anapella cycladea in Shallow Inlet Marine & Coastal Park Perryman, S. (1995) Sulphur Speciation in an Anoxic Basin of the Hopkins Estuary. Rouse, A. (1992). An aid to the chemist – marine plants as sentinel accumulators for estuarine copper. Rowlings, J. (1996). A study of the population structure of the Yelloweye Mullet, Aldrichetta forsteri (Cov. and Val.), in Victoria, using allozyme electrophoresis. Saywell, C. (1992) Redox Chemistry in Deep Holes of the Hopkins Estuary. Tyndall, J. (2001). Species composition and diet of fish found in vegetated and unvegetated littoral habitats of Yambuk estuary, in South-west Victoria. Unthank, S. (1998). Determination of the fine layering of anaerobic ciliates in a deep saline hole of the Hopkins River Estuary, South-west Victoria. Masters and PhD research Newton, G. M.. (1994) Estuarine zooplankton ecology in relation to the hydrological cycles of a salt-wedge estuary (Parts I and II).(PhD). Matthews, T.(2001) Population Dynamics of the Estuarine Bivalve Solatellina alba (PhD) McBurnie, J. (1998) The Development and Evaluation of an Information Base for Environmental Management of Airey’s Inlet. (MSc) Parreira, P. (2000) Spatial and Temporal Variation of Infauna in an Australian Estuary (MSc) Rouse, A. 1998. Annual phytoplankton and nutrient fluctuations in the Hopkins Estuary. (PhD)

122

Walsh, C. J.. (1994) Ecology of epifaunal caridean shrimps in the Hopkins River estuary, and the role of estuaries in the life history of the atyid Paratya autraliensis (Kemp, 1917) in south-eastern Australia. (PhD). Work currently in progress H. Arundel Larval Dynamics in Intermittent Estuaries (PhD) J. Barton Indicators of estuarine health (PhD) (transferred to Flinders University) K. Bishop Fish use of the inundated margins of Lake Yambuk (PhD) B. Maddington. Dynamics of estuary mouth opening (PhD). J. Gwyther Meiofauna of Phytal Habitats in the Barwon Estuary (PhD) M. Truong Genetics of SE populations of estuary perch (PhD) A. Pope Physico-chemical factors influencing seagrass dynamics in intermittently open estuaries (PhD) Publications C. J. Walsh. (1993) Larval development of Paratya australiensis Kemp, 1917 (Decapoda: Caridea: Atyidae), reared in the laboratory, with comparisons of fecundity and egg and larval size between estuarine and riverine environments. Journal of Crustacean Biology 13: 456 – 480. C.J. Walsh and B.D. Mitchell.(1995) The freshwater shrimp Paratya australiensis (Kemp. 1917)(Decapoda: Atyidae) in estuaries of south-western Victoria, Australia. Marine and Freshwater Research 46: 959 - 969. C. Walsh and B.D. Mitchell (1998) Factors associated with variations in abundance of epifaunal caridean shrimps between and within estuarine seagrass meadows. Marine and Freshwater Science 49: 769 – 777. S. Willis, L. Laurenson, B.D. Mitchell and D. Harrington (1999) Diet of larval and juvenile black bream, Acanthopagrus butcheri, in the Hopkins River estuary, Victoria, Australia. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria 111: 283 – 295. Gwyther, J (2000) Meiofauna in phytal and sedimentary habitats of a temperate mangrove ecosystem - a preliminary report. Proc. Roy. Soc. Victoria., in press. AJ Constable & PG Fairweather (1997) Conservation of Victorian Estuaries: Integrating ecology into management. Victorian Coastal Conference: Caring for the Coast, Geelong, November 20-21 1997, Proceedings,pp.79-81. Murray-Wallace C.V., Beu A.G., Kendrick G.W., Brown L.J., Belperio A.P. and Sherwood J,E. (2000) "Palaeoclimatic Implications of the occurrence of the arcoid bivalve Anadara trapezia (Deshayes,1840) in the Quaternary of Australia" Quaternary Science Reviews, 19(6), 559-590.

123

Denney S., Sherwood J. and Leyden J. (1999) "In-situ measurements of labile Cu,Cd and Mn in river waters using DGT" Science of the Total Environment, 239, 71 - 80. Sherwood J., Barbetti, M., Ditchburn, R., Kimber,R., McCabe, W., Murray-Wallace, C., Prescott, J. and Whitehead, N. (1994). A comparative study of Quaternary dating techniques applied to sedimentary deposits in southwest Victoria, Australia. Quaternary Geochronology, 13, 95-110. Gill E.D., Sherwood J.E., Cann J.H., Coutts, P.J. and Magilton C.J. (1991) "Pleistocene shell beds of the Hopkins River, Warrnambool, Victoria : estuarine sediments or Aboriginal middens?" In M.A.J. Williams, P. DeDeckker and A. Kershaw (eds) The Cainozoic in Australia : a Reappraisal of the Evidence, Geological Society of Australia, Special Publication No. 18, 321-338. Sherwood J.E. (1988) "The likely impact of climate change on southwest Victorian estuaries" In G.I. Pearman (ed) Greenhouse : Planning for Climate Change C.S.I.R.O. Melbourne, 456-472. Consultant Reports and Other Publications Sherwood J., Magilton C.. and Rouse A. (1998) The Glenelg River: Nutrients and Estuarine Hydrodynamics, Prepared for the Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Victoria (65pp). Sherwood J. and Rouse A. (1997) "Estuarine chemistry - primordial soup Down Under!" Chemistry in Australia. August 1997 ,19-22. Bantow J., Rashleigh M and Sherwood J (1995) 'Tuuram': the Hopkins Estuary and Coastal Environs, Australia Felix Press, Warrnambool (96pp). Sherwood J.E. (1992) "Otways' Water : whose resource?" In M. Westbrooke, B. Wilson and S. Laidlaw (eds) The Otways : Flora, Fauna, Conservation, Management. Proceedings of a conference held at Deakin University, Geelong, 4-5 July 1990, 2-11. Sherwood J.E., Mitchell B.D., Magilton C.J., Walsh C.J. and Newton G.M. (1988) "Victoria's Barwon Estuary - a test of adaptability" In D. Wilkinson (ed) Silver Jubilee Conference Commemorative Volume, Australian Marine Sciences Association, Sydney University, Sydney, 125-130. Prescott J.R. and Sherwood J.E. (1988) "Thermoluminescence ages for an unusual shell deposit at Point Ritchie, Warrnambool, Australia" In J.R. Prescott (ed) Archaeometry : Australasian Studies 1988, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, 61-69. Sherwood, J.E., Mitchell, B.D., Magilton, C.J., Walsh,C.J., and Newton, G.M. (1987). A Study of the Barwon Estuary Complex. Report 87-2, Centre for Aquatic Science, WIAE. Prepared for the South-West Regional Water Resources Task Force (147pp). Sherwood J.E., (1985). Hydrodynamics of South West Victorian Estuaries. Faculty of Applied Science and Technology, WIAE, Research Report 85-1 (27pp).

124

Sherwood, J.E. (1984) Hydrodynamics of the Gellibrand River Estuary (Part 2). Faculty of Applied Science and Technology, WIAE. Research Report 84-1, April, 1984. Prepared for the Rural Water Commission, Victoria (84pp). Sherwood, J.E. (1983). Hydrodynamics of the Gellibrand River Estuary. Faculty of Applied Science and Technology, WIAE. Research Report 83-1. Prepared for the Rural Water Commission, Victoria (102pp). Sherwood J.E. (1982) An Angler’s Map of the Hopkins River Estuary, WIAE Press, Warrnambool. Sherwood J.E. and Backhouse, G. (1982). Hydrodynamics of Salt Wedge Estuaries - Implication for Successful Spawning in Black Bream (Acanthopagrus butcheri). Faculty of Applied Science and Technology, WIAE, Research Report 82-3, September, 1982 (16pp)

125

Appendix 2 Comparative Summaries for Western Victorian Estuaries

Tables A1 to A9 contain comparative data for all estuaries studied for the project. In each Table estuaries are also ranked from smallest to largest to allow an overview of the region’s estuaries. The Tables are: Table A1: Rivers ranked according to their catchment areas. Table A2: Relative proportion of each catchment classified as nature conservation

land use Table A3: Summary of stratification and bottom water oxygen status for all sites

sampled on both survey trips across all estuaries.

Table A4: Mean summer/autumn total Nitrogen concentrations and ranks Table A5: Mean winter/spring total Nitrogen concentrations and ranks Table A6: Mean summer/autumn total Phosphorus concentrations and ranks Table A7: Mean winter/spring total Phosphorus concentrations and ranks. Table A8: Mean summer/autumn species richness and rank. Table A9: Mean winter/spring species richness and rank.

126

Table A1: Rivers ranked according to their catchment areas

Estuary name River catchment

area (km2) Rank (/46)

Stony Creek - Otway 3.5 1

Coalmine Creek 3.9 2


Brown River 4.2 4


Reedy Creek 5.5 6

Elliot River 6.0 7

Spout Creek 6.9 8




Stony Creek - Lorne 10.2 12

Grey River 10.4 13

Carisbrooke Creek 12.1 14

Moggs Creek 12.1 14

She Oak River 13.2 16



Kennett River 20.6 19

Anderson Creek 24.2 20

Wye River 24.6 21

Smythe Creek 26.7 22



Parker River 35.2 25










Aire River 279.9 35


Surrey River 354.6 37



Merri River 1013.0 40




Barwon River 8590.0 44



127

Table A2: Relative proportion of each catchment classified as nature conservation land use.

Estuary name Nature conservation

area (%) Rank (/46)



Skenes Creek 0.00 1

Brown River 0.00 1

Smythe Creek 0.20 5


Merri River 0.50 7

Moyne River 0.60 9
















Aire River 17.80 25


Wye River 23.70 27




Grey River 48.10 31





Stony Creek- Lorne 81.30 36







Spout Creek 96.50 43


Stony Creek - Otways 99.90 45



128

Table A3: Summary of stratification and bottom water oxygen status for all sites sampled on both survey trips across all estuaries.

Note that as sites deepen the proportion which are stratified increases significantly and the proportion of these sites which have oxic bottom waters decreases. This reflects the greater likelihood of shallow sites being effectively mixed by wind or water currents.

Site Depth (m)

Nd * Stratification Ns* Oxygen in bottom water

No* % oxic bottom water

1 42 Stratified (11.9%)+

5 Oxic 4 80

Hypoxic 1

Anoxic 0

Mixed 37 Oxic 37 100

Hypoxic 0

Anoxic 0

1 – 2 63 Stratified (65.1%)+

41 Oxic 18 44

Hypoxic 19

Anoxic 4

Mixed 22 Oxic 22 100

Hypoxic 0

Anoxic 0

> 2 75 Stratified (80%)+

60 Oxic 15 25

Hypoxic 36

Anoxic 9

Mixed 15 Oxic 12 75

Hypoxic 3

Anoxic 0

* Nd = number of sites based on Site Depth Ns = number of sites based on Stratification No = number of sites based on Oxygen on bottom water + Percentage of sites based on Nd.

129

Table A4: Mean summer/autumn total Nitrogen concentrations and ranks. * ANZECC trigger level = 0.085 mg/L

Estuary name Mean Total N*

(mg/L) Rank

Reedy Creek 4.70 41

Merri River - Rutledges Cutting 1.60 40






Spout Creek 0.95 34

Moyne River 0.92 33


Merri River - east 0.88 31










Wye River 0.62 21






Moggs Creek 0.50 15







Brown River 0.35 8


Aire River 0.13 6


Smythe Creek 0.02 4



Grey River 0.005 1

130

Table A5: Mean winter/spring total Nitrogen concentrations and ranks. * ANZECC trigger level = 0.085 mg/L

Estuary name MeanTotal N*

(mg/L) Rank



Moggs Creek 1.55 43





Brown River 1.30 38






Merri River -'Rutledges Cutting 0.85 32

Moyne River 0.83 31



Wye River 0.76 28





Reedy Creek 0.67 21




Stony Creek _ Lorne 0.64 18




Aire River 0.50 15





Smythe Creek 0.39 9

Spout Creek 0.39 9




Grey River 0.30 5





131

Table A6: Mean summer/autumn total Phosphorus concentrations and rank. * ANZECC trigger level = 0.035 mg/L

Estuary name

Mean Total P* (mg/L_

Rank (/41)














Brown River 0.070 28










Wye River 0.040 16










Aire River 0.016 8


Reedy Creek 0.005 1




Grey River 0.005 1

Spout Creek 0.005 1

132

Table A7: Mean winter/spring total Phosphorus concentrations and rank. * ANZECC trigger level = 0.035 mg/L

Estuary name

Mean Total P* (mg/L)

Rank








Stony Creek - Lorne 0.100 38























Aire River 0.032 15

Brown River 0.030 12



Wye River 0.027 11



Spout Creek 0.020 7



Grey River 0.010 3





Table A8: Mean summer/autumn species richness and rank.

133

Estuary

Summer/Autumn (low flow)

No. of sites Richness index Rank

Cumberland 1 0.0890 1

Petticoat 1 0.1146 2

Separation 1 0.1794 3

Spout 1 0.1901 4

Elliot 1 0.2315 5

Blanket Bay 1 0.5153 6

Parker 1 0.5776 7

Merri -Rutledges Cutting 3 0.6422 8

Skenes 3 0.7324 9

Joanna 1 0.7773 10

Port Campbell 2 0.7952 11

Wye 1 0.8101 12

Moggs 2 0.8372 13

Kennett 3 0.8888 14

Erskine 3 0.9182 15

Wild Dog 3 0.9434 16

Fitzroy 3 0.9624 17

Sherbrooke 3 0.9791 18

Painkalac 3 1.024 19

Aire 3 1.039 20

St George 3 1.192 21

Curdies 3 1.214 22

Merri -east 2 1.222 23

Barham 3 1.341 24

Hopkins 3 1.344 25

Gellibrand 3 1.377 26

Barwon 3 1.415 27

Spring 3 1.468 28

Surrey 3 1.555 29

Anglesea 3 1.712 30

Moyne 3 1.75 31

Eumeralla 3 1.815 32

Tompsons 3 1.841 33

Glenelg 3 2.067 34

Jamieson * *

Brown * *

Grey * *

She Oak * *

Reedy * *

Anderson ** **

Stony - Otways ** **

Fawthrop ** **

Coalmine *** ***

Carisbrooke *** ***

Stony - Lorne *** ***

Sugar Loaf *** ***

* rocky benthos unsuitable for sampling ** inaccessible / unable to collect samples *** estuary dry

Table A9: Mean winter/spring species richness and rank.

134

Estuary

Winter/Spring (high flow)

No. of sites Richness index Rank

Spout 1 0 1

Cumberland 1 0 1

Sugar Loaf 1 0.1898 3

Fawthrop 3 0.2076 4

Stony – Lorne 1 0.2204 5

Petticoat 1 0.2329 6

Wild Dog 2 0.2603 7

Elliot 1 0.2818 8

Jamieson 1 0.3180 9

Separation 1 0.3218 10

Parker 1 0.3311 11

Anderson 1 0.3331 12

Coalmine 1 0.3493 13

Joanna 1 0.5143 14

Reedy 1 0.5941 15

Wye 2 0.6799 16

Skenes 3 0.8599 17

Merri – Rutledges Cutting 3 0.9833 18

Barham 3 0.9918 19

Moggs 2 1.079 20

Kennet 3 1.324 21

Erkskine 3 1.402 22

Aire 3 1.407 23

Sherbrooke 3 1.428 24

Gellibrand 3 1.561 25

Eumeralla 3 1.571 26

Fitzroy 3 1.590 27

Curdies 3 1.752 28

Anglesea 3 1.759 29

St George 3 1.772 30

Thompson 3 1.785 31

Hopkins 3 1.870 32

Merri –east 3 1.931 33

Barwon 3 1.931 33

Painkalac 3 2.147 35

Surrey 3 2.294 36

Spring 3 2.442 37

Glenelg 3 2.562 38

Moyne 3 2.681 39

Port Campbell 3 2.764 40

Carisbrooke * *

Grey * *

She Oak * *

Brown * *

Blanket Bay ** **

Stony – Otway ** **

* rocky benthos unsuitable for sampling ** inaccessible / unable to collect samples

135

Glossary

Anoxic Strictly, the absence of oxygen but in this report also applied to waters having dissolved oxygen concentrations less than 1mg/L

Benthic organism Animals and plants that live on or in the sediment

Benthos Bottom of the river, estuary, sea

Biota Living organisms

Brackish Applies to water that is saline but less so than seawater

CAPs Coastal Action Plans

Catchment The area from which a surface watercourse derives its freshwater

Channel A river bed

Community A general term applied to any grouping of populations of different organisms found living together in a particular environment

Creek A small stream or branch of a river

Discharge A measure of the water flow, expressed as volume per unit time, at a particular point (eg. a river gauging station)

Estuary Semi-enclosed coastal bodies of water where salt water from the open sea mixes with freshwater draining from the land

Eutrophic Waters enriched in nutrients (chiefly nitrogen and phosphorus compounds)

Fresh water Water with a salinity of less than 1 part per thousand (ppt)

Habitat The living place of an organism or community, characterised by its physical or biotic properties

Halocline A zone in which there are rapid changes in salinity

Hydrology The study of water movement through terrestrial and atmospheric environments

Hypersaline Water with a salinity that exceeds that of seawater

Hypoxic A condition of oxygen deficiency (in this report defined as an oxygen concentration between 1 and 5mg/L)

Lagoon A broad, shallow, brackish water body that may or may not have an opening to the sea

mg/L A concentration unit – milligrams per litre. A milligram is one thousandth of a gram

Macroinvertebrate Term designating any organism that is not a vertebrate (eg.clams, snails, worms) and is larger than 0.5mm in size

Mediterranean climate

Region with a relatively wet winter and dry summer rainfall pattern

136

N Symbol for nitrogen

Nutrients Elements essential for life – in natural waters usually one or more of nitrogen, phosphorus and silica are present in low, limiting concentrations

Organic Derived from living organisms

Oxic Presence of dissolved oxygen in concentrations greater than 5 mg/L

P Symbol for phosphorus

Particulate Insoluble and filterable matter

Richness The diversity of species in a community measured as the number of species compared with the number of individuals in the community

Riverine Having the characteristics of a river

Salinity A measure of the total quantity of dissolved salts in water, measured in parts per thousand (ppt) by weight

Salt wedge An intrusion of sea water along the bed of the estuary which becomes thinner with distance upstream

Sea water Water with a salinity of 34 -37 ppt

Sediment Particulate solid material accumulated on the river/ estuary bottom

Stratified Describes a water body where a fresh water layer sits above a salt water layer. The two layers being separated by a mixing zone

Subtidal Environments below the low-tide mark

Project Consortium - wcb.vic.gov.au Estuaries... · than 1 ppt salinity) to that of seawater (35...

Documents

Transcript of Project Consortium - wcb.vic.gov.au Estuaries... · than 1 ppt salinity) to that of seawater (35...