Gooseponds Creek Fish Passage Project

Abstract

The project rehabilitated fish passage at seven barriers along Gooseponds Creek, a significant freshwater nursery habitat in the Lower Pioneer River System. The project also provided an educational focus for freshwater fish habitat rehabilitation in the Mackay Whitsunday Region. The project was a success from both a fish passage and educational point of view, with thousands of fish successfully utilising the fishways and numerous community and local authority groups visiting the fishways to see the implementation of fish passage technology.

Full text

Gooseponds Creek
Fish Passage Project
March 2003
Tim Marsden, Garry Thorncraft and Dave McGill

QUEENSLAND FISHERIES SERVICE ! DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES ! 2003
Information Series QO 003010
Gooseponds Creek Fish Passage Project
NHT Project No. 2002108
Final Project Report
March 2003
Tim Marsden" Garry Thorncraft" Dave McGill
GOOSEPONDS CREEK FISH PASSAGE PROJECT i

QUEENSLAND FISHERIES SERVICE ! DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES ! 2003
QO 03010
ISSN 0727-6281
Agdex 470/75
Information contained in this publication is provided as general advice only. For
application to specific circumstances, professional advice should be sought.
The Queensland Department of Primary Industries has taken all reasonable steps to
ensure the information contained in this publication is accurate at the time of publication.
Readers should ensure that they make appropriate enquiries to determine whether new
information is available on the particular subject matter.
For further information contact:
Tim Marsden
Fisheries Biologist
Queensland Fisheries Service
Ph: (07) 49670 724
© The State of Queensland, Department of Primary Industries 2003
Copyright protects this publication. Except for purposes permitted by the Copyright Act,
reproduction by whatever means is prohibited without the prior written permission of the
Department of Primary Industries, Queensland.
Enquiries should be addressed to:
Deputy Director General
Queensland Fisheries Service
GPO Box 46
BRISBANE QLD 4001
Cover Photograph: Dave McGill holding a Barramundi caught during an electrofishing
survey of Gooseponds Creek.
GOOSEPONDS CREEK FISH PASSAGE PROJECT ii

QUEENSLAND FISHERIES SERVICE ! DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES ! 2003
Contents
Introduction....................................................................................................................... 1
Healthy Waterways Program.......................................................................................... 1
Fish Passage in Small Freshwater Streams..................................................................... 1
Fishway Technology....................................................................................................... 3
Demonstration Sites........................................................................................................ 3
Project Aims....................................................................................................................3
Fishway Construction....................................................................................................... 5
Barrier No. 1 - Fishway No. 1 Combination V-notch Log and Rock-Ramp Fishway.... 5
Barrier No. 2 - Drown-out ............................................................................................. 8
Barrier No. 3 - Fishway No. 2 Vertical-Slot Fishway ..................................................10
Barrier No. 4 - Fishway No. 3 V-notched Log-ramp Fishway..................................... 13
Barrier No. 5 - Drown-out ............................................................................................ 16
Barrier No. 6 - Fishway No. 4 Rock-Ramp Fishway.................................................... 16
Barrier No. 7 – Fishway No. 5 Bypass Channel Fishway ............................................ 19
Fishway Assessment........................................................................................................ 24
Introduction................................................................................................................... 24
Methods......................................................................................................................... 24
Results........................................................................................................................... 25
Discussion......................................................................................................................... 30
Approvals processes...................................................................................................... 30
Fishway Success ...........................................................................................................30
Ongoing Environmental Management Plan.................................................................. 30
Public Relations and Community Awareness............................................................... 31
Fish Habitat Rehabilitation Handbook.......................................................................... 32
Conclusions...................................................................................................................... 33
Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................... 33
Bibliography....................................................................................................................34
Appendix 1....................................................................................................................... 38
Appendix 2....................................................................................................................... 43
Appendix 3....................................................................................................................... 45
Appendix 4....................................................................................................................... 47
GOOSEPONDS CREEK FISH PASSAGE PROJECT iii

QUEENSLAND FISHERIES SERVICE ! DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES ! 2003
Introduction
The Gooseponds Creek Fishway Project was a joint project between the Mackay
Whitsunday Natural Resource Management Group (MWNRMG) and the Queensland
Fisheries Service (QFS). The project rehabilitated fish passage at seven barriers along
Gooseponds Creek, a significant freshwater nursery habitat in the Lower Pioneer River
System. The project also provided an educational focus for freshwater fish habitat
rehabilitation in the Mackay Whitsunday Region. The project was a success from both a
fish passage and educational point of view, with thousands of fish successfully utilising
the fishways and numerous community and local authority groups visiting the fishways to
see the implementation of fish passage technology. As such, the project has become a
major focus of the MWNRMG Healthy Waterways Program.
Healthy Waterways Program
The Gooseponds Creek Fishway Project is one of the components of the Mackay
Whitsunday Natural Resource Management Group (MWNRMG) Healthy Waterways
Program, presently funded by the Natural Heritage Trust (NHT1). The initiative seeks to
improve the management of aquatic resources within the region by improving water
quality and habitat within the aquatic systems of the region. As a member of the
MWRSG, the QFS Northern Fish Community and Fishway Monitoring Team are
focusing on regional freshwater fisheries issues.
This project is one of three concurrent projects addressing some of these issues, the
others being: the Rehabilitation of Freshwater Drains Project (Restoration of Freshwater
Drainage Channels to Provide Stream Habitat for Juvenile Barramundi, Project No.
2002107); and the Reconstruction of Culverts and Causeways to Assist Migrations of
Adult and Juvenile Fish Project (NHT1 No. 2012102). The long-term objective of these
three projects was to improve or increase the amount of habitat available to fish and
therefore increase the overall fish numbers by allowing species to complete their life
cycles.
These projects did not aim to fix all the problems associated with fisheries declines in the
region, as the problems are too large to address over a limited time period with limited
funding. A primary aim of each project was to increase public awareness of particular
issues, and then show how those problems could be addressed. Each project aimed to
construct specific demonstration sites (which in a secondary role also facilitate ongoing
research by DPI and other groups such as Central Queensland University) that illustrate
what technologies and techniques can be used to successfully rehabilitate fish habitat. In
this way, community groups interested in addressing local environmental problems can
see what the solutions might be, and then be inspired to undertake the works themselves,
or to lobby local authorities to take action on their behalf. One overriding objective of all
three projects was to ensure that the scope of works undertaken, or the technologies
employed, would be within the capacity for local community groups, or local councils, to
undertake themselves.
Fish Passage in Small Freshwater Streams
The Gooseponds Creek Fishways Project was particularly concerned with the numerous
barriers to fish passage (movement of fish within their environment) built on small
GOOSEPONDS CREEK FISH PASSAGE PROJECT 1

QUEENSLAND FISHERIES SERVICE ! DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES ! 2003
natural streams in both rural and urban areas. Mapping of these barriers is currently being
undertaken by DPI, but preliminary estimates are that there are thousands for barriers in
the Mackay-Whitsunday area. These barriers are built for a variety of purposes such as:
irrigation supply, flow gauging and re-regulation, on-farm stock and irrigation supply;
urban or industrial supply, flow management and flood control, road crossings or simply
for urban beautification and recreational facilities.
Although many of these barriers may drown-out during high flow events (allowing fish
passage), at all other times they block the movement of fish. This means previously
interconnected small systems within the region are now fragmented and fish passage is
severely disrupted. This has had major impacts on juvenile fish that have spawned lower
down in the system and are attempting to migrate upstream, or require wide dispersal to
ensure survival during the dry season. Because these fish are particularly vulnerable to
mortality through predation and disease, as well as having little capacity to wait for a
substantial rainfall event to occur, whole year’s recruitment can be lost in a very short
period of time if migration is delayed.
The habitats that have become isolated (Figure 1) are important not only for supporting
communities of relatively small native fish species such as gudgeons and rainbow fish,
but are also important in the life cycle of larger migratory species, which often have
important commercial and/or recreational importance such as mullet and barramundi.
Figure 1. Typical habitat available to migrating freshwater fish in small streams of the
Mackay Whitsunday Region.
Barramundi was used as the example in this project. Newly spawned barramundi move
into and through these relatively small freshwater habitats during the first year of their
GOOSEPONDS CREEK FISH PASSAGE PROJECT 2

QUEENSLAND FISHERIES SERVICE ! DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES ! 2003
life. The loss of access to these habitats reduces the potential of these fish to survive and
eventually recruit back into the main channels of the larger river systems.
Whilst community concern over the decline in the numbers of commercial and/or
recreational species is already high, attention also need to be drawn to the lesser known
fish species important for maintaining an overall healthy fish community.
Fishway Technology
Fishway development in Queensland has until now primarily focused on providing fish
passage on large barriers, with a high priority placed on those barriers situated low down
in river systems. By default, this has involved construction and research into fishways on
relatively large barriers where fishways require considerable engineering input and
generally cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to build.
Whilst this work on building fishways on large barriers is important, the importance of
providing fish passage for the more numerous smaller barriers (less than two metres high)
has also been recognised. Providing passage at these small barriers can be just as critical
as at large barriers, especially in lowland wetland/creek systems. In these systems a
small barrier can completely block fish passage as the streams are generally very low
sloped, have only small rises in water levels and the fish are generally very small. Often,
the fishway technology and construction technique required for low barriers is relatively
simple, with limited engineering expertise required. This means that the costs of these
structures are well within the reach of community groups backed by NHT funding. It is
anticipated that by transferring the technology and techniques required for small fishway
construction to community groups, the number of fishways built can be increased rapidly
to a level that will have a meaningful effect on the restoration of fish communities.
Demonstration Sites
To enable the transfer of technology to the community, one of the primary aims of the
project was to develop demonstration fishway sites. These sites demonstrate fishway
technology that is within the reach of non-specialist groups with access to only relatively
small levels of funding. This required the development of fishway designs with simple,
straightforward construction techniques, and only minimal biological and engineering
supervision from state and local government authorities.
Gooseponds Creek (Figure 2) was chosen as the site for the demonstration fishways as it
contained a significant nursery habitat where access was restricted by several barriers
within the creek. The system also had the advantage of flowing through the northern
suburbs of Mackay where it was a significant recreation resource to the local community.
This meant that the fishways, which were built at walking path crossing of the creek,
would have hundreds of visitors each day just from people walking along the paths that
connect each of the fishways. These high profile sites were ideal for this project, enabling
fish to access vital habitat and the community to be educated about the values of fish
passage in small freshwater streams.
Project Aims
In general the Gooseponds Creek Fishway Project was designed to fulfill a number of
aims. These included:
GOOSEPONDS CREEK FISH PASSAGE PROJECT 3

QUEENSLAND FISHERIES SERVICE ! DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES ! 2003
1. Providing fish with unimpeded access to the full length of Gooseponds Creek.
2. Educating the community on the importance of fish passage in small streams.
3. Demonstrating that a variety of low cost/low technology fishways solutions are
available to community groups for habitat rehabilitation.
4. Transferring the knowledge required to build fishways to the community and
local authorities to undertake habitat rehabilitation works
Figure 2. Location of Gooseponds Creek and demonstration fishway sites.
GOOSEPONDS CREEK FISH PASSAGE PROJECT 4

QUEENSLAND FISHERIES SERVICE ! DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES ! 2003
Fishway Construction
Construction was undertaken in the dry season to maximise the time available on-site for
excavation machinery. Most construction work was done with a 25 tonne excavator and
access for this machinery was the highest priority when planning construction timing.
Each fishway was constructed differently as a project aim was to demonstrate a variety of
fishway technologies. Individual fishway designs were chosen depending on the physical
conditions encountered at the site and how the different technologies suited the site. It
would have been possible to use the rock-ramp fishway design at all sites, as this is the
most versatile design. However, building a variety of different fishways demonstrated to
the community the differences in construction techniques, costing and construction
difficulties for each fishway type.
Fishways were built in order from the lowermost fishway to the uppermost fishway, with
the exception of the Greenfields Rock Ramp Fishway (Fishway No. 4), which was
constructed before to the other fishways when the Pioneer River Improvement Trust was
reconstructing a flood-damaged weir. Fishways should generally be constructed from
downstream to upstream as the lower structures play a greater role in inhibiting fish
passage from estuaries into freshwater.
In total seven barriers had fish passage restored with five fishways built and two barriers
drowned out due to fishway construction downstream.
Barrier No. 1 - Fishway No. 1 Combination V-notch Log and Rock-Ramp Fishway
Fishway No.1 required a combination of two different fishway types due to the complex
nature of the site. This site had a small concrete weir at the head of a long thin incised
channel (Figure 3). The weir consisted of a 5.0m sloping concrete and rock apron and a
concrete crest 1.2m wide, while the downstream channel was around 1.0 – 1.5m wide and
0.8m deep. During flow events water velocities over the apron were too high to allow fish
passage, while water depths in the downstream channel were too shallow to provide
cover. Each of these aspects left fish open to predation as they accumulated in the
shallow water below the concrete weir. To add to these difficulties the water level below
the weir also fluctuated depending on tidal levels.
Due to these technical factors it was decided to build a rock ramp fishway on the small
weir and apron and to include a number of v-notched log structures in the channel below
the rock ramp fishway (Figure 4). These v-notched log falls would be used to regulate the
water level at the base of the rock ramp fishway, which does not cope well with
fluctuating tailwater levels. Another benefit of the v-notched logs was the reduction of
water velocity within the channel and the creation of resting pools.
The construction of the fishway took two days to complete utilising an excavator for one
day and a backhoe for a second day. Material used included 20m3 of rock and eight 4.0m
by 400mm Gympie messmate logs. The construction steps were as follows:
1. Site surveyed and acid sulphate soil analysis completed. Acid sulphate soils were
detected in the lower section of the channel and steps were taken for their
neutralisation
GOOSEPONDS CREEK FISH PASSAGE PROJECT 5

QUEENSLAND FISHERIES SERVICE ! DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES ! 2003
2. Site marked out prior to the first day of construction as per the site plans. The
location of excavated areas, logs and rock ridges were marked to guide operators
during excavation.
3. Old concrete/rock ramp removed, broken up and used as the foundation of the
new rock ramp fishway.
4. Rock ramp fishway built below the crest of the weir, with rock trucked in from
outside the site to provide materials for the rock ramp (Figure 5).
5. Holes excavated for each of the v-notched log falls and the logs inserted, aligned
and covered in.
6. The channel protected at various places with rock armouring. This was formed
from left over rock from the rock ramp construction. Particular attention was
taken to protect the bank in the vicinity of the v-notch log falls to prevent erosion
and movement of the logs.
7. Site cleaned up and revegetation undertaken to enhance the habitat values of the
downstream channel (Figure 6).
8. Educational signs erected to provide information to the public about the project
and the fishway.
Figure 3. Barrier No. 1 prior to construction of the combination V-notch log and Rock
Ramp Fishway, showing concrete weir at the head of an incised channel.
No difficulties were encountered during construction, although alignment of the logs to
form “Vees” was not easy and required some patience. Acid sulphate soils were also an
issue in the lower section of the fishway where holes for the logs were being excavated,
GOOSEPONDS CREEK FISH PASSAGE PROJECT 6

QUEENSLAND FISHERIES SERVICE ! DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES ! 2003
but these were neutralised by the application of lime and did not prove to be a problem.
The total cost of construction of this fishway was around $4,000
Figure 4. Construction diagrams for the log and rock-ramp fishway at Barrier No.1.
Figure 5. Rock being delivered for inclusion in the rock-ramp fishway at Barrier No.1.
The rock-ramp fishway is partially completed in front of the excavator.
GOOSEPONDS CREEK FISH PASSAGE PROJECT 7

QUEENSLAND FISHERIES SERVICE ! DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES ! 2003
Figure 6. Fishway No.1, combination V-notched log and Rock Ramp fishway after
completion of construction
Barrier No. 2 - Drown-out
Barrier No.2 did not require a fishway as the structure was drowned out by the
construction of the fishway at Barrier No.1 downstream. Barrier No.2 consisted of a
concrete weir that formed the upstream wall of the pool created by Barrier No.1 (Figure
7). The height of this structure was at the same level as the crest level of Barrier No.1 and
only created a fish passage problem during low flows when water flowing across the crest
was to shallow to allow passage. As Fishway No.1 elevated the level of the upstream
pool by 100mm to allow passage across the crest of that barrier, the level of water across
the crest of Barrier No.2 was also elevated by 100mm (Figure 8). This increased depth is
adequate to provide passage under all flow conditions except no flow conditions.
GOOSEPONDS CREEK FISH PASSAGE PROJECT 8

QUEENSLAND FISHERIES SERVICE ! DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES ! 2003
Figure 7. Barrier No. 2 exposed during the recent dry conditions
Figure 8. Barrier No. 2 drowned out by fishway construction downstream
GOOSEPONDS CREEK FISH PASSAGE PROJECT 9

QUEENSLAND FISHERIES SERVICE ! DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES ! 2003
Barrier No. 3 - Fishway No. 2 Vertical-Slot Fishway
A number of different fishway designs could be have been used at this site, but as it was
easier to construct here than at other sites, a vertical-slot fishway was installed. This site
was made up of two submerged concrete walls 20m apart, in between which rock rubble
has been placed to prevent erosion. Running from bank-to-bank across the space between
these walls was a 3.0m wide concrete walkway (Figure 9). During flow events water
velocities over the walkway were too high to allow fish passage and this created a barrier
to migration.
Figure 9. Site of fishway No.2, showing concrete walkway and rock rubble fill.
The construction of the fishway took two weeks to complete utilising an excavator for the
entire period. Materials used included 20m3 of rock, 10m3 of concrete, eight 1200mm by
900mm concrete culverts, 20m of 1.2m wide walkway mesh, 30m of various size steel
bar, 6 sheets of 2.4m by 1.2m ply, 6 sheets of 2.4m by 1.2m marine grade aluminum,
various timber formwork and numerous nuts and bolts. To conserve the structural
integrity of the two concrete walls, the fishway was built so as not to modify the walls in
any way. These walls formed the ends of the ponds upstream and downstream of the
structure and could not be modified without extensive engineering works. The fishway
was also required to pass through the concrete walkway, which was modified to
accommodate the fishway.
Construction occurred as follows:
1. Site surveyed and engineering plans drawn to PRIT specifications.
2. Site marked out as per plans with location of excavated areas, concrete and
culverts to guide operators during excavation.
GOOSEPONDS CREEK FISH PASSAGE PROJECT 10

QUEENSLAND FISHERIES SERVICE ! DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES ! 2003
3. Channel for fishway below walkway excavated
4. Walkway cut with concrete saw and removed. Channel excavated further to top of
fishway
5. Concrete foundation of fishway channel boxed up, poured and allowed to cure
(Figure 10).
Figure 10. Fishway No.2 under construction, concrete foundation of fishway is being
smoothed to the required gradient as per the fishway design.
6. Culverts placed on top of foundation, with 100mm gaps between culverts.
7. Steel rods were inserted into the foundations in gaps between culverts, boxed up
and concrete poured to seal up walls of fishway.
8. Baffles, which had been constructed off site, were inserted into channel and
bolted in place (Figure 11).
9. Steel railway line placed across channel at the intersection point of the walkway
to enable walkway mesh to support the weight of council vehicles.
10. Concrete ramps also built at walkway intersection to allow bike and truck access
across fishway
11. Walkway mesh was secured to the top of the fishway to prevent ingress of debris
and as protection against people accessing the fishway.
GOOSEPONDS CREEK FISH PASSAGE PROJECT 11

QUEENSLAND FISHERIES SERVICE ! DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES ! 2003
Figure 11. Fishway No.2 under construction, baffles are being placed in the fishway
channel in preparation for fixing in place.
12. Trash rack bolted to exit of fishway to prevent debris from clogging the fishway
13. Exit channel above fishway rock lined to prevent erosion and to create rock ramp
affect during very low flows
14. Educational signage erected to provide information to the public about the project
and the fishway.
As the vertical slot fishway design is a more technical fishway design, a number of
difficulties were encountered during construction. The fishway was constructed inside of
the wall that formed the downstream pool, which impacted on entrance conditions as the
water through this point became very shallow. This also led to an increase in deposition
in the lower section of the fishway as sediment was unable to be scoured away as
designed due to lower water velocities in the lower cells. Another issue in this area was
vandalism that occurred on a daily basis, measures to prevent damage from vandalism
increased the cost of the fishway greatly. Public safety was also an issue with this design,
at other locations it would not have been necessary to place mesh on top of the fishway,
but in a public place such as Gooseponds Creek it is advisable. The total cost of
construction of this fishway was around $10,000
GOOSEPONDS CREEK FISH PASSAGE PROJECT 12

QUEENSLAND FISHERIES SERVICE ! DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES ! 2003
Figure 12. The lower four cells of the completed fishway. prior to the installation of
walkway mesh
Barrier No. 4 - Fishway No. 3 V-notched Log-ramp Fishway
Barrier No.4 was also made up of two submerged concrete walls 20m apart, in between
which rock rubble has been placed to prevent erosion. Running from bank-to-bank across
the space between these walls was a 3.0m wide low-level bridge, under which was a
concrete apron. During flow events water velocities over the concrete apron were too
high to allow fish passage, this created a barrier to migration.
The layout of this site allowed a v-notched log-ramp fishway to be constructed. This
design utilises a series of v-notched logs laid across the flow path to break up the flow of
water and creating a series of small falls. These log weirs also provide a series of resting
pools for fish that are ascending the fishway. The top log in the series also backs up water
across the concrete apron under the footbridge. This was an essential aspect of the design
as this was the area where fish had the greatest difficulty ascending the barrier.
The construction of the fishway took one day to complete using an excavator. Materials
used in construction included five 600mm diameter Gympie Messmate logs, 10m3
400mm rock, ten 2.0m lengths of railway line and ten bags of concrete. The railway line
was used to pin-down the logs and ensure they did not move during high flows. The
concrete and rock were used to seal up sections of the fishway and provide roughness and
erosion protection within the fishway.
Construction occurred in the following sequence:
1. Logs were modified with a chainsaw to allow railway line pins to be inserted.
GOOSEPONDS CREEK FISH PASSAGE PROJECT 13

QUEENSLAND FISHERIES SERVICE ! DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES ! 2003
2. Site surveyed and engineering plans drawn to PRIT specifications (Figure 13).
3. The site was cleared of vegetation and marked out for the placement of logs.
4. Channels for logs were excavated.
5. Individual logs were laid in place (Figure 14).
6. Railway line was inserted through precut holes at each end of each log to pin the
log in place.
7. V-notches were cut in each log in an alternate fashion.
8. Rock was placed at the end of each of the logs and below each notch to prevent
erosion and destabilisation of the fishway.
9. Concrete was placed in each of the railway line pinholes and along the top edge of
the top log to seal the fishway.
10. Educational signage erected to provide information to the public about the project
and the fishway.
This fishway was relatively simple to construct and there were few problems
encountered. Important considerations included the appropriate selection of timber for a
wet/dry environment and sealing the top section of the fishway to prevent leakage of
water under the logs. Total construction costs for this fishway were around $2,000.
Figure 13. Construction diagrams for the V-notched log-ramp fishway downstream of
Willets Road on Gooseponds Creek.
GOOSEPONDS CREEK FISH PASSAGE PROJECT 14

QUEENSLAND FISHERIES SERVICE ! DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES ! 2003
Figure 14. A Log-ramp fishway under construction at barrier No.4 on the Gooseponds,
Mackay Queensland November 2001
Figure 15. The completed V-notched Log-ramp fishway at Barrier No.4 on Gooseponds
Creek.
GOOSEPONDS CREEK FISH PASSAGE PROJECT 15

QUEENSLAND FISHERIES SERVICE ! DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES ! 2003
Barrier No. 5 - Drown-out
Barrier No.5 did not require a fishway as the structure was drowned out by the
construction of the fishway at barrier No. 4 downstream. Barrier No.5 consisted of a
concrete weir that formed the upstream wall of the pool created by barrier No.4 (Figure
16). The height of this structure was at the same level as the crest level of barrier No.4
and only created a fish passage problem during low flows when water flowing across the
crest was too shallow to allow passage. As fishway No.3 elevated the level of the
upstream pool by 100mm to allow passage across the crest of that barrier, the level of
water across the crest of barrier No.5 was also elevated by 100mm. This increased depth
is adequate to provide passage under all flow conditions except no flow conditions.
Figure 16. Barrier No. 5 exposed during the recent dry conditions
Barrier No. 6 - Fishway No. 4 Rock-Ramp Fishway
Barrier No.6 consisted of a 0.5m high concrete and steel weir that was built to regulate
upstream water levels for control of flooding and maintenance of the artificial lake
system upstream (Figure 17). This weir was breached during flooding in February 2000
and was replaced later that year by PRIT. As a condition of the Waterway Barrier Works
Permit for the reconstruction of the weir, a fishway was required to be built on the new
structure. PRIT agreed to build the fishway as part of their reconstruction and this
resulted in the first fishway being installed on the Gooseponds Creek system. Although
this fishway was funded and built by PRIT it has been included in this project as it was
GOOSEPONDS CREEK FISH PASSAGE PROJECT 16

QUEENSLAND FISHERIES SERVICE ! DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES ! 2003
the catalyst for efforts to retrofit fishways to all the other barriers in the system and
underwent the same design and construction process as the other fishways.
Figure 17. Barrier No. 6 prior to the construction of the full width rock-ramp fishway.
The weir was suited to the construction of a full width rock ramp fishway as it was fitted
with the extra protection works that PRIT were undertaking below the weir to protect it
from erosion. The design consisted of a 400mm high sheet pile and concrete weir,
downstream of which the rock ramp would extend. The rock ramp had 4 ridges that
extended from bank-to-bank and created small 100mm falls through the length of the
fishway. The ridges also created a series of pools within the fishway that allowed the fish
to rest during their ascent. The furthest upstream ridge butts up against the concrete weir
and when flow occurs backs up 100mm of water over the weir crest. The rock ramp
fishway also extends up the banks to provide a low flow zone adjacent to the bank during
high flow periods, when flow velocities are to high in the center of the stream.
The construction of the fishway took three days to complete, with an excavator used for
the entire period. Materials used included 80m3 of 400mm diameter rock and 10m3 of
600-800mm rock.
Construction occurred in the following sequence:
1. Site surveyed and engineering plans drawn to PRIT specifications.
2. Diversion channel excavated to allow flow of creek to bypass construction site.
3. Area below weir extensively filled with rock to bring up the bed level of the
stream to form the base of the fishway.
GOOSEPONDS CREEK FISH PASSAGE PROJECT 17

QUEENSLAND FISHERIES SERVICE ! DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES ! 2003
4. Excavator compressed fill to stabilise the base of the fishway.
5. The toe of the fishway below water level is stabilised with extra large rocks to a
1:3 slope.
6. Individual rocks of the lowest ridge were set in place at the head of the toe slope
7. Placement of individual rocks for each of the other ridges commenced, with
construction starting on the Northern bank to allow the excavator to work its way
back across the stream to the access point (Figure 18).
Figure 18. Fishway No.4 during the middle stages of construction. The bottom two
ridges have been put in place and rocks are being placed on the northern bank of the
fishway as the excavator works its way back out of the fishway.
8. The excavator worked on each of the top three ridges as it worked its way back to
the access point.
9. The fishway was sealed with black clay as each section was completed and the
excavator is forced to move back towards the access point.
10. The excavator finished construction on the high flow section of the fishway on the
southern bank.
11. The excavator filled in the diversion channel, allowing flow over the fishway.
12. Work crew watered in the black clay with fire hoses to ensure that the fishway
was sealed and that water does not flow under the fishway.
GOOSEPONDS CREEK FISH PASSAGE PROJECT 18

QUEENSLAND FISHERIES SERVICE ! DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES ! 2003
13. The placement of rocks in the top ridge was fine-tuned by hand to ensure that
sufficient depth of water flows over the weir crest.
14. Educational signs erected to provide information to the public about the project
and the fishway.
This fishway had very few difficulties associated with its construction. Costs were
increased by the large quantity of fill rock that was required below the weir to form the
fishway base. Erosion had scoured out a large hole below the weir that required around
60m3 of rock rubble to fill. This significantly increased the cost of the fishway to
approximately $28,000. This cost was covered by PRIT as part of the weir reconstruction
costs and it is likely that the cost could have been reduced if the fishway was constructed
as part of the regular fishway construction program.
Figure 19. The completed Fishway No. 4 immediately after construction during the first
flow through the fishway.
Barrier No. 7 – Fishway No. 5 Bypass Channel Fishway
Barrier No.7 consisted of a 2.0m high concrete causeway across Gooseponds Creek to
provide road access across the creek along Hicks Road. Passing through the causeway
were two 400mm diameter pipes that were elevated 1.0m above the downstream water
level. Although a 2.0m high structure, passage was only required to be provided over the
1.0m difference between upstream headwater and downstream tailwater levels. With
extensive rip-rap erosion protection works and the presence of a sewage line and optic
GOOSEPONDS CREEK FISH PASSAGE PROJECT 19

QUEENSLAND FISHERIES SERVICE ! DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES ! 2003
fibre cable, the area below the causeway was quite complicated. This required an
innovative approach to the design of any fishway installed at this site.
Given this complicated arrangement directly downstream of the causeway and the need to
ensure that the structural integrity of the erosion protection works were not affected, it
was decided not to bring the fishway through this section of the channel at all. Instead a
bypass channel type fishway was built through the vacant parkland adjacent to the road
crossing, avoiding all the difficulties associated with the area below the road crossing.
The bypass channel fishway design utilised a low slope channel with a series of rock
ridges and pools set at wide intervals. This provided a nature-like channel that goes
around the structure away from the original stream channel. As the upstream exit of the
fishway is set below the level of the pipes that go through the road crossing, water can
flow through the bypass channel before it begins to flow through the pipes. This ensures
that the majority of flow goes through the bypass channel, providing the best stimulus for
fish to find and use the fishway.
The construction of the fishway took 10 days to complete, with an excavator used for the
entire period and a truck required for 5 days. Materials used included 80m3 of 400-
600mm diameter rock, 10m3 of 600-800mm rock, four 1m3 concrete blocks, eight
1.2m*0.9m concrete culverts, 10m3 of stabilised sand and 10m3 concrete.
Construction occurred in the following sequence:
1. Site surveyed and engineering plans drawn to PRIT specifications (Figure 20).
2. Construction commenced with the excavation of a channel through the road for
the culverts (Figure 21).
3. Culverts put in place and backfilled with stabilised sand, new road constructed
over top of culverts.
4. Concrete headwall poured around upstream culvert to prevent movement.
5. Location of Telstra cable and sewerage line identified to ensure services were not
damaged.
6. Channel downstream of the road was excavated and sloped to design
specification.
7. Control structure buried 2.0m downstream of the culverts in channel. This
structure maintains a minimum water depth (300mm) through the culverts.
8. 10m3 concrete blocks placed on northern bank of channel between culverts and
high bank to prevent flows off the road eroding the channel.
9. Concrete headwall poured around downstream culvert to prevent movement of
this section of the fishway.
10. Rocks placed at specified intervals to form ridges within the channel.
11. Rock armoring placed on the bed and banks of the channel to prevent erosion of
the channel during high flow events (Figure 22).
12. Site cleaned up and all excess material removed.
GOOSEPONDS CREEK FISH PASSAGE PROJECT 20

QUEENSLAND FISHERIES SERVICE ! DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES ! 2003
13. Placement of rocks in the ridges was fine-tuned by hand during first flow to
ensure that steps between pools are even.
14. After first large flow event fishway repaired where rocks have moved from high
water velocities
15. Educational signs erected to provide information to the public about the project
and the fishway.
Figure 20. Plans for the bypass channel fishway at Barrier No.7.
GOOSEPONDS CREEK FISH PASSAGE PROJECT 21

QUEENSLAND FISHERIES SERVICE ! DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES ! 2003
Figure 21. Placement of culverts under road during construction of Fishway No.5.
Figure 22. Excavation of the fishway channel downstream of the road, showing concrete
blocks protecting the left bank, the rock ridges in the base of the channel and the rock
armoring on the right bank.
GOOSEPONDS CREEK FISH PASSAGE PROJECT 22

QUEENSLAND FISHERIES SERVICE ! DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES ! 2003
Figure 23. The completed Fishway No. 5 during the first flow through the fishway
looking upstream back towards the culverts under the road.
A number of difficulties were associated with the construction of this fishway. They
include:
• Construction had to be brought forward as contractors for a nearby estate were
about to seal the dirt road. This would have meant that culverts could not be
placed under the road as per the design.
• Working with an excavator near a Telstra cable is prohibited and therefore hand
excavation was required in this section of the channel.
• Ensuring the sewerage line was not disturbed required planning and liaising with
council.
• It was necessary to block the road for most of a day to insert the culverts under
the road, this required special permission from main roads and council.
• As a lot of material was removed to form the channel, it was necessary to find a
place to dispose of the fill.
Costs were increased by the complex nature of the site, the large number of culverts and
the large quantity of fill rock that was required. Total costs for the fishway were around
$10,000.
GOOSEPONDS CREEK FISH PASSAGE PROJECT 23

QUEENSLAND FISHERIES SERVICE ! DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES ! 2003
Fishway Assessment
Introduction
Sampling of each of the fishways, except Fishway No.3, was undertaken after
construction to demonstrate the effectiveness of each of the designs at passing the
juvenile fish utilising Gooseponds Creek as grow-out habitat.
Sampling was conducted during the 2001/2002 and 2002/2003 wet seasons but was
severely restricted by a lack of flows due to well below average rainfall. As a
consequence, Gooseponds Creek had little or no flow for all but a few weeks in each
season. As the majority of migratory fish species are stimulated to move during wet
season flow events, the lack of flows did not give an opportunity to juveniles of many
species to migrate during the sampling period. The reduced number of flow events meant
that only 41 days of sampling could be conducted on four of the fishways in the system.
This is well below the level of sampling usually required for a full fishway assessment
and as such, the data presented does not fully show the success of the fishways at passing
all species recorded in the system. Further sampling will be undertaken during future
flow events to establish the movement of species not encountered in the sampling to date.
Methods
Trapping surveys were conducted on four of the five fishways from June to December
2000 for fishway No. 4 and from January to February 2002 for fishway 1, 2 and 5.
Fishway No. 3 was not trapped during the sampling period as there was insufficient flow
to set traps at this site. Sampling was conducted to ascertain the effectiveness of the
fishways to pass fish. Two traps, a block-net design and a cone trap design, were used
during sampling, each on different fishway types. The block-net design was used on
fishways with rock ramps, while the cone trap design was used on fishways constructed
with culverts. The block-net trap (Figure 24) consisted of a fine mesh (2mm) netting wall,
weighted along the bottom to prevent fish escaping under the net and set across the full
width of the stream channel. Sewn into this netting wall were a number of bait traps
(2mm mesh size) that were sealed on their upstream end. Fish were directed by the
netting wall into the bait traps where they remained trapped until sampling ceased.
The cone trap (Figure 24) consisted of a steel-framed box that was covered in fine mesh
(2mm) netting with a single top to bottom entrance that reduced to a small opening via a
cone. Fish entered through the cone and remained trapped in the trap until sampling
ceased. Both nets were set in a uni-directional manner to capture fish migrating upstream.
Sampling the entrance and exit of the fishway with these traps was carried out for 6-hour
periods during daylight hours on consecutive days, with traps cleared at the end of
sampling in the afternoon. Traps could not be left overnight due to problems with
vandalism.
All netted fish were identified and recorded on site. Lengths to the nearest millimetre
were recorded (fork length was recorded for forked tail species and total length for all
other species). Sub-samples of 50 fish were measured and the remainder counted when
more than 50 individuals of a single species were encountered. All fish were immediately
released upstream of the fishway after individual samples had been processed.
GOOSEPONDS CREEK FISH PASSAGE PROJECT 24

QUEENSLAND FISHERIES SERVICE ! DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES ! 2003
Kolmogorov-Smirnov signed rank tests were performed on the size-distribution of
individual species between entrance and exit samples. The tests were used to detect any
significant difference in size classes of a particular species between entrance and exit
samples. For the purposes of this report, species chosen for analysis were those which
provided substantial numbers of fish in both entrance and exit samples.
Fig. 24. Traps used during sampling of fishways in Gooseponds Creek, 2000-2002.
Sampling of fishways 1, 2, 4 and 5 required two types of trap, either a multi-trap fence
net across the whole channel (left photograph) for fishways 1 and 4 or a single cone trap
(right photograph) for fishways 2 and 5.
Results
A total of 5281 individuals of 15 species (Table 1) were captured from all fishways over
the sampling period. Fishway No. 1 had a total of 1185 individuals of 13 species (Table
1) captured from 3 paired days of sampling. Ambassis agrammus (Sailfin glassfish),
Craterocephalus stercusmuscarum (fly-specked hardyhead), Hypseleotris compressa
(empire gudgeon) and Nematalosa erebi (bony bream) dominated catches. Fishway No. 2
had a total of 2436 individuals of 8 species captured from 4 paired days of sampling with
H. compressa dominating catches. No fish were captured at Fishway No. 3 as there was
insufficient flow to set traps. Fishway No.4 had a total of 1128 individuals of 7 species
over 12 paired days of sampling with H. compressa again dominating catches. This
fishway was generally sampled during the dry season and had lower catches than those
encountered from the other fishways. Fishway No. 5 had a total of 532 individuals of 5
species from only 2 paired days of sampling with H. compressa dominating catches.
Migratory species that have been recorded in the system by electrofishing sampling but
not captured during the fishway sampling include, Lates Calcarifer (barramundi),
Lutjanus argentimaculatus (mangrove jack), Mugil cephalus (striped mullet) and
Acanthopagrus australis (yellowfin bream).
H. compressa was the most numerous species captured and accounted for just over 4000
of the total individuals captured. This species was well represented at all fishways with
individuals captured on all but two days of the 42 days sampled. Of interest with this
species is the high catch associated with a rising flow on the 13/2/02. A large number of
this species (1454), or 72% of the bottom trap catch for fishway No. 2, were captured in
the bottom trap during 3-hours of trapping through the initial rise of water at the
beginning of the season’s only flow event. Further sampling during this flow event could
not be attempted as water levels prevented the deployment of traps. However, thousands
GOOSEPONDS CREEK FISH PASSAGE PROJECT 25

QUEENSLAND FISHERIES SERVICE ! DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES ! 2003
of fish were observed accumulating below the fishway and hundreds of fish were
observed crossing the causeway along the opposite bank from the fishway as the structure
approached drownout.
Table 1. Pooled totals for all species captured from top and bottom sampling of four
fishways along Gooseponds Creek, 2000-2001.
Species Fishway No.1
Rock-ramp
v-log
3 paired days
Fishway No.2
Vertical slot
4 paired days
Fishway No.4
Rock-ramp
12 paired
days
Fishway No.5
Bypass
channel
2 paired days
Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom Top
Ambassis agrammus 223 4 11 1 2 4
Anguilla reinhardtii 1 1
Arius graeffei 23 1
Craterocephalus 11 198 14 12 0 6
Gambusia holbrooki 9 80 27 46 0 1 5 4
Gerres filamentosus 1 0
Glossamia aprion 1 1 2 0
Hypseleotris 18 283 2024 207 723 346 262 148
Hypseleotris species 0 3 1 0 35 5
Leiopotherapon
l
0 1
Melanotaenia
ldd
7 59 39 19 0 6 50 29
Mogurnda adspersa 0 4
Nematalosa erebi 159 99 27 6 3 25
Scatophagus argus 2 0
Selenotoca
multifasciata 2 0
Total 455 730 2145 291 762 366 320 212
Length frequency data (Figure 25) was analysed for all species from all fishways to
compare the size range of fish that were attempting to move through the fishway (bottom)
and those that had successfully ascended the fishway (top). The smallest fish to attempt
migration was A. agrammus, which was recorded attempting to migrate through Fishway
GOOSEPONDS CREEK FISH PASSAGE PROJECT 26

QUEENSLAND FISHERIES SERVICE ! DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES ! 2003
No.1 at sizes as small as 7mm. The smallest fish to successfully ascend any of the
fishways was a 15mm C. stercusmuscarum that was captured at the top of Fishway No.1.
The largest fish recorded migrating during the sampling period was a 350mm Anguilla
reinhardtii (long-finned eel). The majority of fish recorded moving through the
Goosponds Creek fishways were between 7mm and 70mm long. As sampling was
restricted by the lack of flow, there was limited opportunity for larger fish to move within
the system and this data reflects limited sampling at times when large fish may have been
moving.
All species from all fishways
Size Class (mm)
n=757
n=937
Fig. 25. Length frequency of all species from all fishways sampled on Gooseponds
Creek, 2000-2001. Size distribution of all species from the bottom (grey bars) and top
(black bars) of fishway numbers 1, 2, 4 and 5 on Gooseponds Creek.
Comparative percentage-frequency of length histograms were prepared for individual
species where they exhibited significant numbers of fish in both bottom and top samples.
Remaining species could not be tested due to small sample sizes. Species analysed
include H. compressa, C. stercusmuscarum and N. erebi. C. stercusmuscarum and N.
erebi were only analysed for fishway No.1, as they did not occur in sufficient numbers
for analysis at the other fishways H. compressa occurred in significant numbers at all
fishways and analysis was carried out for each individual fishway for this species.
Difference in size distribution was also analysed for C. stercusmuscarum and N. erebi
(Figure 26) between bottom and top samples of fishway No.1 using a Kolmogorov-
Smirnov signed rank test (a=0.05). In each case a significant difference was found
between the bottom and top samples, C. stercusmuscarum (D11,90 =0.478, P=0.0228) and
N. erebi (D94,63 =0.495, P<0.0001).
GOOSEPONDS CREEK FISH PASSAGE PROJECT 27

QUEENSLAND FISHERIES SERVICE ! DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES ! 2003
Size Class (mm)
n=63
n=94
n=90
n=11
Fig. 26. Length frequency of C. stercusmuscarum and N. erebi from fishway No.1. Size
distribution of C. stercusmuscarum and N. erebi from the bottom (grey bars) and top
(black bars) of fishway number 1 on Gooseponds Creek 2000-2001.
These results were affected by the schooling nature of these species and the limited
replication of samples due to low flows. In the case of C. stercusmuscarum, small size
classes in the bottom trap samples were exacerbated by a single large catch in the top trap
that have led to significant differences occurring. For N. erebi a large catch of very small
fish on the last day that sampling could be undertaken has also unbalanced the data
leading to significant differences between top and bottom samples.
Difference in size distribution of H. compressa (Figure 27) between bottom and top
samples for each fishway was determined using a Kolmogorov-Smirnov signed rank test
(a=0.05). No significant differences were found between the bottom and top samples of
fishways No.2 (D200,149 =0.068, P=0.8977) and No. 5 (D104,90 =0.076, P>0.9999).
However, significant differences were found between the bottom and top samples of
fishways No.1 (D18,84 =0.365, P=0.0385) and No. 4 (D329,208 =0.126, P=0.0350).
The significant difference between the bottom and top samples of H. compressa in
fishway No.1 is the result of a single large catch in the top trap that accounted for 85% of
the total catch which has unbalanced the data leading to a significant difference
occurring. The significant difference in bottom and top catches for fishway No.4 occurs
for unidentified reasons.
GOOSEPONDS CREEK FISH PASSAGE PROJECT 28

QUEENSLAND FISHERIES SERVICE ! DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES ! 2003
n=149
n=200
n=208
n=329
n=90
n=104
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
Fig. 27. Length frequency of empire gudgeon from four fishways on Gooseponds Creek,
2000-2001. Size distribution of empire gudgeon (Hypseleotris compressa) from the
bottom (grey bars) and top (black bars) of fishway numbers 1, 2, 4 and 5 on Gooseponds
Creek.
GOOSEPONDS CREEK FISH PASSAGE PROJECT 29

QUEENSLAND FISHERIES SERVICE ! DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES ! 2003
Discussion
Approvals processes
Negotiations for the approval of construction of the fishways were a complex process
involving numerous local and state authorities. The primary organisations involved
included, Mackay City Council, Pioneer River Improvement Trust, Department of
Natural Resources and Mines, Department of Primary Industries and the Environmental
Protection Agency. Each of these organisations played a significant role in the approval
process and could potentially refuse to approve the construction. Therefore, it was
essential that all organisations were kept fully informed of the intentions of the project
and any issues that arose that may have affected the decisions being made by that
organisation. The organisation of this approvals process was more complex than
originally anticipated, with rehabilitation works of this nature not usually handled by
most of the organisations concerned. In future a Habitat Rehabilitation Approvals Process
(HRAP) such as is currently being drawn up by QFS will guide project coordinators
through the process of applying to the appropriate authorities for approval to construct a
fishway. This will simplify the approvals process and ensure that the early months of a
project are not wasted trying to figure out all the organisations involved in the approvals
process. The HRAP will be fully outlined in the upcoming Mackay Whitsunday Fish
Habitat Rehabilitation Strategy.
Fishway Success
Although the assessment of each of the fishways has been limited by the lack of flows
that have occurred throughout 2001-2003, data collected demonstrates that the fishways
have passed significant numbers of fish. With the successful passage of fish as small as
15mm through the fishway, it is likely that larger fish will be able to successfully use the
fishways as they have a stronger swimming ability. Of concern is the passage of fish
smaller than 15mm, such as the 7mm long perchlets encountered at Fishway No.1. It is
unlikely that any fishway could be built to successfully pass these small fish without
increasing construction costs well above those that could be sustained by community
groups. However, as the fishways have successfully allowed thousand of other fish to
freely pass upstream, it is unlikely that the hindering of this small section of the fish
community will affect overall productivity. In general the fishways will have a positive
affect on the fish communities of Gooseponds Creek, with free movement from top to
bottom of the system now possible.
Ongoing Environmental Management Plan
Ongoing maintenance of the fishways is essential to ensure that they keep functioning
according to their design. A number of aspects of the design may be compromised after a
period of no maintenance. High flow may cause movement of rocks within the fishway
that create steps greater than design criteria, they can also create erosion in or below the
fishway that weakens the fishway and can lead to damage in subsequent high flows.
Vigorous plant growth in tropical areas may also become a problem as the fishway can
become overgrown with weeds such as paragrass. These weeds choke the fishway
preventing them functioning as per their design and have been a particular problem in
GOOSEPONDS CREEK FISH PASSAGE PROJECT 30

QUEENSLAND FISHERIES SERVICE ! DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES ! 2003
Gooseponds Creek where all the fishways have been compromised by the excessive
growth of weeds. As part of the project, plantings of suitable shade trees has been
undertaken, but since these plantings take a number of years to mature and begin to shade
weeds it is essential that ongoing maintenance keeps the weeds in check.
To ensure the fishways function as they were designed, it is essential that the fishways
receive ongoing maintenance. This maintenance should take the form of regular
inspections of the fishways to identify damage and excessive weed growth and programs
to mitigate these problems Environmental management plans for each of the fishways
identifying possible problems and actions to be taken to ensure continued operation have
been prepared. It is envisioned that after the initial two-year maintenance period
conducted by QFS that the fishway maintenance could be taken over by local authorities
such as Mackay City Council. Negotiations for this ongoing maintenance have not been
finalised, but it is considered essential that the local authorities take ownership of these
structures to give a sense of community commitment to the ongoing rehabilitation of fish
communities.
Public Relations and Community Awareness
The public relations and community awareness benefits of the Gooseponds Creek
Fishway Project have been tremendous. The project has generated numerous positive
articles in local newspapers (Appendix 1) and on local radio and has also generated
publicity through statewide publications such as the Courier Mail and Sunday Mail.
Media articles published in relation to the Gooseponds Creek Fishway Project on both
radio and in newspapers include:
a. ABC Mackay Regional Radio - Radio Segment “Fishy Bits” (since Feb 02 DPI
has had a monthly spot providing updates on current DPI projects including the
Drains Rehabilitation Project).
b. ABC Mackay Regional Radio (June 2000) “Mackay Boasts State’s First Rock-
ramp Fishway”
c. 4MK Mackay Radio (June 2000) “Mackay Boasts State’s First Rock-ramp
Fishway”
d. The Courier-Mail (June 2000) “Hooked”
e. The Sunday Mail (July 2000) “Green Solution on Fish Movement”
f. Prime News, Newsletter for DPI Staff (July/August 2000) “Mackay Boasts
State’s First Rock-ramp Fishway”
g. The Daily Mercury, Mackay (November 2001) “Fishways Progress”
h. State Government Community Cabinet Meeting (November 2001) “Fishways
Progress”
i. The Pioneer News (Feb 2002) “Fish Flood In”
In addition to publicity received through media articles it has been important to give in-
depth information to the community about the progress and successes of the project. To
this end, the project leader presented information about the project to the community
through a number of forums, these included:
GOOSEPONDS CREEK FISH PASSAGE PROJECT 31

QUEENSLAND FISHERIES SERVICE ! DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES ! 2003
1. 2000/2001/2002/2003 Northern Fish Stocking Groups workshops
2. 2001 State Regional Group Collective meeting
3. 2001 Sustaining Our Aquatic Environments – implementing solutions. National
Conference
4. 2002 Southern Fish Stocking Groups workshop
5. 2002 Mackay Whitsunday Regional Strategy Groups - Healthy Waterways
Workshop
6. 2002 Riversymposium, the scarcity of water, the future of rivers, the future of
water. International Conference.
7. 2003 Mackay Whitsunday Natural Resource Management Group – Healthy
Waterways Workshop (to be held in May)
The project has a high profile within the community as a result of the publicity and these
presentations. This has led to numerous requests from school, local community and
council groups for “Fishway Tours” which have been run on a regular basis since the
start of the project. The responses from the community in relation to these tours has been
excellent with groups such as the Sarina Integrated Catchment Management Association
and Mackay Area Fish Stocking Association seeking funding to construct fishways in
other areas within the Mackay Whitsunday Region. In general the Mackay community
has become very aware of the need for rehabilitation of freshwater habitats and access to
those habitats.
Fish Habitat Rehabilitation Handbook
To build on the successes of the Gooseponds Creek Fish Passage Project the Mackay
Whitsunday Natural Resource Management Group and Pioneer Integrated Catchment
Management Association in conjunction with the QFS initiated a project to identify,
prioritise and co-ordinate freshwater fish habitat rehabilitation works in the Mackay
Whitsunday Region. The Mackay Whitsunday Freshwater Fish Habitat Rehabilitation
Strategy will bring together information and experiences from the Gooseponds Creek
Fish Passage Project, the Rehabilitation of Freshwater Drains Project and the
Reconstruction of Culverts and Causeways Project, as well as information from other
fisheries projects throughout the state. This information will be combined to produce a
handbook that will outline:
• The past and present condition of fish communities of the region.
• Identify the key threatening processes to these fish communities.
• Prioritise areas in need of rehabilitation.
• Outline the habitat rehabilitation approvals process.
• Provide techniques for successful rehabilitation.
This handbook will be the first to provide in-depth information on the condition and
rehabilitation strategies for freshwater fish habitats in the Mackay Whitsunday Region. It
will also provide a blueprint for community groups, local authorities and other Regional
GOOSEPONDS CREEK FISH PASSAGE PROJECT 32

QUEENSLAND FISHERIES SERVICE ! DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES ! 2003
Strategy Groups to implement freshwater fish habitat rehabilitation strategies in the
Mackay Whitsunday Region and other areas throughout the state.
Conclusions
The Gooseponds Creek Fish Passage Project has been a spectacular success in the
Mackay Whitsunday Region. The project has become a major cornerstone of the Mackay
Whitsunday Natural Resource Management Group’s Healthy Waterways Initiative,
giving vision and hope to groups trying to rehabilitate aquatic ecosystems in the region.
The project has successfully passed thousands of fish through the seven barriers in
Gooseponds Creek that previously blocked passage to the whole system. This has
allowed the juveniles of numerous species of fish to access this vital nursery habitat in
the lower Pioneer River System. This will eventually lead to an increase in the
productivity of the whole system, resulting in a more healthy fish community in the
Pioneer River System.
The project has also ensured that the community is aware of the consequences of
inadequate fish passage in local streams. Limiting fish passage, even with small barriers,
reduces fisheries productivity as populations are unable to expand to their maximum
potential. Having recognised this problem the community of the Mackay Whitsunday
Region have become active in ensuring further fishways are built to rehabilitate fish
habitats in local streams.
In the past, the construction cost of fishways has been a major issue as they were
considered to be very expensive. However, with each of the fishways in the Gooseponds
Creek Project, costs were kept very low compared to fishways constructed in other areas.
The project has successfully demonstrated that low cost/low technology fishways can be
funded and built by community groups to provide effective solutions to fish passage.
The demonstrations sites of the Gooseponds Creek Project have effectively helped to
transfer technology to community groups and local authorities. Many of groups in the
Mackay Whitsunday area are actively planning new fishways to be constructed by the
local community in their local areas.
Acknowledgments
The National Hertitage Trust through the Mackay Whitsunday Natural Resource
Management Group funded this study. Wayne Hagedoorn and Michael Kerslake
provided extensive technical assistance and fieldwork. Rachel Mackenzie, Peter Jackson
and Kristen Woods of the Queensland Fisheries Service reviewed and provided
constructive and useful comment on the draft manuscript.
Special thanks go to Bill Disher (Pioneer River Improvement Trust) and John Clarke
(Mackay City Council) who provided engineering advice during the design and
construction of the fishways; Helen Paulsen (Mackay City Council) and Will Higham
(Pioneer Integrated Catchment Management Association) who provided help with
vegetation management; Woodco Services for providing reduced cost excavation services
at all of the fishways; and Rocla Mackay for providing reduced cost culverts for Fishway
No. 2.
GOOSEPONDS CREEK FISH PASSAGE PROJECT 33

QUEENSLAND FISHERIES SERVICE ! DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES ! 2003
The authors are particularly grateful to Julia Carpenter of the Mackay Whitsunday
Natural Resource Management Group for initiating the project and supporting the team to
implement fish habitat rehabilitation in the Mackay Region.
Bibliography
Askey-Doran, M., Bunn, S., Hairshine, P., Price, P., Prosser, I. & Rutherfurd, I. (1996)
Riparian Management 4: River Ecosystems, Land and Water Resources Research
and Development Corporation, Canberra.
Bennett, J., Sanders, N., Moulton, D., Phillips, N., Lukacs, G., Walker, K. & Redfern, F.
(2002) Guidelines for Protecting Australian Waterways, Land and Water Australia,
Canberra.
Berghuis, A.P., Broadfoot, C.D. and Heidenreich, M.J, (2000). Assessment of the Walla
Weir Fishlock, Burnett River In Press. Queensland Fisheries Service, Report to
SunWater.
Brisbane City Council (2000) Natural Channel Design Guidelines, Brisbane City
Council, Brisbane.
Brizga, S.O., Arthington, A.H., Choy, S., Craigie, N.M., Mackay, S., Poplawski, W.,
Pusey, B. and Werren, G. (2001) Pioneer Valley WRP: current environmental
conditions and impacts of existing water resource development. Department of
Natural Resources and Mines, Brisbane.
Brock, M.A. & Casanova, T. (2000) Are there plants in your wetland? Revegetating
wetlands, LWRRDC, Canberra.
Clarke, A. & Tyson, L. (1997) Cairns Waterway and Wetland Rehabilitation Guide,
Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Northern Fisheries Centre, Cairns.
Clay, C. H. (1995). Design of Fishways and Other Fish Facilities. Lewis Publishers.
Coastal Cooperative Research Centre (2002) Flowing Estuaries Needed for Healthy
Fisheries, Exploring Coastal Science, Cooperative Research Centre for Coastal
Zone, Estuary and Waterway Management, Indooroopilly.
Cotterell, E. (1998) Fish Passage in Streams: Fisheries Guideline for design of stream
crossings, Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Brisbane.
Davis, T.L., and Kirkwood, G.P. (1984). Age and growth studies on barramundi Lates
calcarifer (Bloch), in Northern Australia. Aust. J. Mar. Freshwat. Res. 36: 673-689.
Department of Primary Industries, Fisheries (undated) Wetland Rehabilitation for
Fisheries Purposes Objectives, Techniques and Contacts, Queensland Department
of Primary Industries, Queensland.
Gaboury, M. & Wong, R. (1999) A Framework for Conducting Effectiveness Evaluations
of Watershed Restoration Projects, Watershed Restoration Technical Circular No.
12, British Columbia.
GOOSEPONDS CREEK FISH PASSAGE PROJECT 34

QUEENSLAND FISHERIES SERVICE ! DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES ! 2003
Griffin, R.K. (1987). Life history, distribution, and seasonal migration of barramundi in
the Daly River, Northern Territory, Australia. American Fisheries Society
Symposium. 1: 358-363.
Grodecki, A., Gooch, M. & Weld, M. (1999) DNR Vegetation Facts: Native vegetation –
Monitoring, Mapping and Conservation Status, Department of Natural Resources,
RSK & RM, Queensland
Harris, J.H. (1984). Impoundment of coastal drainage's of south-eastern Australia, and a
review of it's relevance to fish migration. Aust. Zool. 21(3), 235-250.
Harris, J.R., Thorncraft, G.A. and Wem, P. (1996). Evaluation of a rock-ramp fishway in
Australia. In: Fish Migration and Fish Bypasses. (Eds. M. Jungwirth, S. Schmutz
and S. Weiss) pp. 331-347. (Blackwell Science: Oxford).
Harris, J.H. (1997). Bypass channels: a new low-cost, low-tech, high-efficiency fishway
design for Australia? In: Proceedings of the Second National Fishway Technical
Workshop. (Eds. A. Berghuis, P. Long and I. Stuart) pp. 19-25.
Hogan, D.L., Bird, S.A. & Wilford, D.J. (1996) Channel Conditions and Prescriptions
Assessment (Interim Methods), Watershed Restoration Technical Circular No. 7,
British Columbia.
Hopkins, E., White, M. & Clarke, A. (1998) Restoration of Fish Habitats: Fisheries
Guideline for Marine Areas, Queensland Department of Primary Industries,
Brisbane.
ICM. (1995). Pioneer River Catchment Management Strategy. ICM and Landcare Unit,
Department of Primary Industries, Mineral House, Brisbane. 79 pp.
Kowarsky, J. and Ross, A.H. (1981). Fish movement upstream through a central
Queensland (Fitzroy River) coastal fishway. Aust. J. Marine. Freshwat. Res. 32: 93-
109.
Long, P.E., and Meager, M.J. (2000). The assessment of Eden Bann Weir Fishlock,
Fitzroy River, Queensland. The State of Queensland, Department of Primary
Industries.
Mackay City Council (2001) IPA Planning Scheme: Statement of Proposals, Mackay
City Council, Mackay.
Mallen-Cooper, M. (2001) Fish Passage in Off-Channel Habitats of the Lower River
Murray, Fishway Consulting Services, St Ives Chase.
Marsden, T.J., Gehrke, P.C., and Harris, J.J. (1997). Tallowa dam high fishway project.
Stage 2 Comprehensive Report. NSW Fisheries Report. 98 pp.
Marsden, T.J. and Thorncraft, G.A. (2000). Moura Weir fish passage study, Pre-
construction report. Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Fisheries. 14
pp.
Marsden, T.J. and Thorncraft, G.A. (2000). Neville Hewitt Weir fish passage study, Pre-
construction report. Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Fisheries. 16
pp.
GOOSEPONDS CREEK FISH PASSAGE PROJECT 35

QUEENSLAND FISHERIES SERVICE ! DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES ! 2003
Marsden, T. (2001) Implementation of Strategic Fish Habitat Restoration Strategy for the
Mackay Whitsunday Region, National Conference: Sustaining our Aquatic
Environments – Implementing Solutions, 63 pp., The State of Queensland,
Department of Primary Industries, Indooroopilly.
McDowall, R. (1996) Freshwater Fishes of South-Eastern Australia, South China
Printing, Hong Kong.
McGill, D.A. and Marsden, T.J. (2000). Dumbleton Weir Fishlock Assessment.
Queensland Department of Primary Industries Internal Report. 31 pp.
Moffatt, D. & Voller, J. (2002) Fish and Fish Habitat of the Queensland Murray-Darling
Basin, The State of Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Brisbane.
Newbury, Dr. R., Gaboury, M. & Watson, Dr. C. (undated) Field Manual of Urban
Stream Restoration, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Springfield.
Northcote, T.G. (1984). Migratory strategies and production in freshwater fish. In:
Ecology of freshwater fish production. (Ed. S.D. Gerking.) pp. 326-359. (Blackwell
Scientific Publications: Oxford).
Russell, D.J. (1991). Fish movements through a fishway on a tidal barrage in sub-
tropical Queensland. Prceedings of the Royal Society of Queensland, 101: 109-118.
Sale, M.J., Cada, G.F., Chang, L.H., Christensen, S.W., Railsback, S.F., Francfort, J.E.,
Rinehart, B.N. & Sommers, G.L. (1991) Environmental Mitigation at Hydroelectric
Projects: Volume 1. Current Practices for Instream Flow needs, Dissolved Oxygen,
and Fish Passage, U.S. Department of Energy, Idaho.
Staunton-Smith, J., Halliday, I., Sellin, M. & Robins, J. (2002) Using Current Age-
structure of Commercial Catches to Help us Understand the Importance of
Freshwater Flow for Barramundi Recruitment, Queensland Department of Primary
Industries, Deception Bay.
Stuart, I.G. (1997). Assessment of a modified vertical-slot fishway, Fitzroy River,
Queensland. Queensland Department of Primary Industries Internal Report. 82 pp.
Stuart, I.G. and Berghuis, A.P. (1999). Passage of native fish in a modified vertical-slot
fishway on the Burnett River barrage, South-eastern Queensland. Queensland
Department of Primary Industries Internal Report. 53 pp.
Stuart, I.G. (1999) Assessment of a vertical-slot fishway for non-salmonid fish at a tidal
barrier on the subtropical Fitzroy River, Queensland. Msc. Thesis. Central
Queensland University. 208 pp.
Thomson, J.M. (1955). The movements and migrations of mullet (Mugil cephalus). Aust.
J. Mar. Freshwat. Res. 6: 328-347.
Thorncraft, G.A., and Harris, J.H. (1996). Assessment of rock-ramp fishways. NSW
Fisheries Research Institute Internal Report. 39 pp.
Thorncraft, G.A., and Harris, J.H. (1998). Status report on fish passage and fishways in
New South Wales. NSW Fisheries. 37 pp.
GOOSEPONDS CREEK FISH PASSAGE PROJECT 36

QUEENSLAND FISHERIES SERVICE ! DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES ! 2003
Thorncraft, G. & Harris, J.H. (2000) Fish Passage and Fishways in New South Wales: A
Status Report, Office of Conservation, NSW Fisheries, Sydney.
Treecare Extension Officers (1996) DNR Tree Facts: Plants Suitable for Salty Soils,
Department of Natural Resources, Community Education and Extension Support,
Queensland.
Treecare Extension Officers (1996) DNR Tree Facts: Weed Control for Tree Planting,
Department of Natural Resources, Community Education and Extension Support,
Queensland.
Victoria Department of Natural Resources and Environment (2002) Healthy Rivers
Healthy Communities & Regional Growth: an Overview of the Victorian River
Health Strategy, McLaren Press, Victoria.
Victoria Department of Natural Resources and Environment (2002) Healthy Rivers
Healthy Communities & Regional Growth: Victorian River Health Strategy,
McLaren Press, Victoria.
Vivash, R. (1999) Manual of River Restoration Techniques, Arca Press Ltd, Bedford.
GOOSEPONDS CREEK FISH PASSAGE PROJECT 37

QUEENSLAND FISHERIES SERVICE ! DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES ! 2003
Appendix 1
Examples of media articles published in relation to the Gooseponds Creek Fish Passage
Project.
GOOSEPONDS CREEK FISH PASSAGE PROJECT 38

QUEENSLAND FISHERIES SERVICE ! DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES ! 2003
GOOSEPONDS CREEK FISH PASSAGE PROJECT 39

QUEENSLAND FISHERIES SERVICE ! DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES ! 2003
GOOSEPONDS CREEK FISH PASSAGE PROJECT 40

QUEENSLAND FISHERIES SERVICE ! DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES ! 2003
GOOSEPONDS CREEK FISH PASSAGE PROJECT 41

QUEENSLAND FISHERIES SERVICE ! DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES ! 2003
GOOSEPONDS CREEK FISH PASSAGE PROJECT 42

QUEENSLAND FISHERIES SERVICE ! DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES ! 2003
Appendix 2
An example of one of the educational signs erected at each of the fishways.
GOOSEPONDS CREEK FISH PASSAGE PROJECT 43

QUEENSLAND FISHERIES SERVICE ! DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES ! 2003
GOOSEPONDS CREEK FISH PASSAGE PROJECT 44

QUEENSLAND FISHERIES SERVICE ! DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES ! 2003
Appendix 3
Poster presented at the Sustaining our Aquatic Environments – Implementing Solutions
National Conference and other conferences and workshops.
GOOSEPONDS CREEK FISH PASSAGE PROJECT 45

QUEENSLAND FISHERIES SERVICE ! DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES ! 2003
GOOSEPONDS CREEK FISH PASSAGE PROJECT 46

QUEENSLAND FISHERIES SERVICE ! DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES ! 2003
Appendix 4
Example of an abstract of scientific publication and powerpoint presentation for
International Conferences.
Implementation of a strategic fish Passage restoration strategy for the Mackay
Whitsunday Region.
Tim Marsden
Queensland Fisheries Service
And
Mackay Whitsunday Regional Strategy Group
P.O. Box 668 Mackay Qld 4740
Telephone: (07) 49670724
Abstract
Within the Mackay Whitsunday region fish populations have been affected by widespread
urban and agricultural development, leading to significant declines in habitat
availability. Small freshwater streams are highly valued nursery habitats for juvenile
fish, but are greatly affected by development. Species such as barramundi, mangrove jack
and sea mullet utilise these small freshwater streams as food rich nurseries in which to
grow, before returning to mainstream habitats.
The Mackay Whitsunday Regional Strategy Group has produced a fish passage
restoration strategy that identifies streams in need of fish passage restoration, either
through rehabilitation of linking habitats or by provision of passage at barriers. The
Gooseponds Creek Fishways project is one project implementing this strategy
“onground” through the construction of a number of fishways on weirs within the
Gooseponds Creek system. These fishways enable juvenile fish to reach habitat alienated
by barriers within the system, with results of sampling showing up to 500 fish per hour
moving upstream through the fishways, highlighting the need for habitat linkage within
these small streams. This project is also providing an education focus for community
groups, local councils and private landholders, to enable further implementation of the
regional fish passage restoration strategy.
The fishways built within the Gooseponds Creek recreation area demonstrate the ability
of community groups to successfully fund and construct fishways that can pass thousands
of fish per year, providing a highly visible display of the community commitment to the
improvement of the fisheries productivity of the streams of the Mackay Whitsunday
region.
GOOSEPONDS CREEK FISH PASSAGE PROJECT 47

QUEENSLAND FISHERIES SERVICE ! DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES ! 2003
GOOSEPONDS CREEK FISH PASSAGE PROJECT 48

QUEENSLAND FISHERIES SERVICE ! DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES ! 2003
GOOSEPONDS CREEK FISH PASSAGE PROJECT 49

QUEENSLAND FISHERIES SERVICE ! DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES ! 2003
GOOSEPONDS CREEK FISH PASSAGE PROJECT 50

QUEENSLAND FISHERIES SERVICE ! DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES ! 2003
GOOSEPONDS CREEK FISH PASSAGE PROJECT 51