Translocation of River Blackfish – Tarwin River …...Translocation of River Blackfish– Tarwin...

Translocation of River Blackfish – Tarwin

River pilot study

J. O’Connor, F. Amtstaetter, R. Ayres, W. Koster and

M. Bowler

August 2016

Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research

Unpublished Client Report for West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority

Translocation of River Blackfish– Tarwin River pilot study

J. O’Connor1, F. Amtstaetter

1, R. Ayres

1, W. Koster

1 and M. Bowler

2

1 Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research

123 Brown Street, Heidelberg, Victoria 3084

2 West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority,

Corner Young and Bair Streets, Leongatha, Victoria 3953 Australia

August 2016

Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research

Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning

Heidelberg, Victoria

Report produced by: Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research

Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning

PO Box 137

Heidelberg, Victoria 3084

Phone (03) 9450 8600

Website: www.delwp.vic.gov.au

Citation: O’Connor, J., Amtstaetter, F., Ayres, R. Koster, W. and Bowler, M. (2016). Translocation of River Blackfish – Tarwin River pilot study.

Unpublished Client Report for West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority. Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research. Department

of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, Heidelberg, Victoria.

Front cover photo: River Blackfish with acoustic tag implanted (Renae Ayres).

© The State of Victoria Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning 2016

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia licence. You are free to re-use the work under that licence, on the

condition that you credit the State of Victoria as author. The licence does not apply to any images, photographs or branding, including the Victorian

Coat of Arms, the Victorian Government logo, the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning logo and the Arthur Rylah Institute logo.

To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en

Accessibility

If you would like to receive this publication in an alternative format, please telephone the DELWP Customer Service Centre on 136 186, email

[email protected] or contact us via the National Relay Service on 133 677 or www.relayservice.com.au. This document is also

available on the internet at www.delwp.vic.gov.au

Disclaimer

This publication may be of assistance to you but the State of Victoria and its employees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any

kind or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore disclaims all liability for any error, loss or other consequence which may

arise from you relying on any information in this publication.

River Blackfish translocation

1

Contents

Acknowledgements 2

Summary 3

1 Introduction 4

2 Methods 6

2.1 Study site 6

2.2 Fish sampling 7

2.3 Fish tagging 8

2.4 Translocation 9

2.5 Movement 9

2.6 Habitat 9

2.7 Recruitment 10

2.8 Genetics 10

3 Results 11

3.1 Fish sampling 11

3.2 Translocation 11

3.3 Movement 11

3.5 Habitat 13

3.6 Recruitment 17

3.7 Genetics 17

4 Discussion 18

5 Recommendations 19

References 20

6 Appendices 22


2

Tables

Table 1 Potential source sites and their location .............................................................................................. 8

Table 2 Fish collected from potential source sites .......................................................................................... 11

Table 3 Summarised movement of acoustically tagged River Blackfish ......................................................... 12

Table 4 Water quality parameters and azolla condition at translocation sites during March 2016 ............... 12

Table 5 The abundance of and complexities at source and translocation sites .............................................. 15

Table 6 Summary of habitat assessment ......................................................................................................... 16

Figures

Figure 1 Map of study area ................................................................................................................................ 7

Figure 2 Acoustic tag ......................................................................................................................................... 8

Figure 3 Spawning tube arrangement ............................................................................................................. 10

Figure 4 Examples of movement (red line) associated with high rainfall (as a surrogate for stream discharge)

events (arrows) ................................................................................................................................... 13

Figure 5 Snag densities at the two source sites (top) and the two translocation sites (bottom) ................... 14


2

Acknowledgements

This project was funded by the Victorian Government using revenue raised from the sale of Victorian

Recreational Fishing Licences. The authors would like to thank Tanya Cowell, Eleisha Keogh and Kate

Williams (all WGCMA) who commissioned and managed the project. Tanya Cowell also provided regular

water parameter data for the study sites. Lauren Dodd and John Mahoney (both ARI) are thanked for their

assistance with fieldwork, as are Ross Drury and Ed Bickel and other members from Leongatha Angling Club

who contributed to site selection. Special thanks to various private landowners who allowed us access to

sites on their properties. Adrian Kitchingman analysed the snag density data and prepared maps. John

Koehn and Dan Stoessel provided useful comments on an earlier version of this document. This work was

conducted under Fisheries (and translocation) Permit No. RP827 and DELWP Animal Ethics Permit No.

15/19.


3

Summary

Populations of River Blackfish (Gadopsis marmoratus) have declined in range and abundance throughout

catchments in south-east Australia, including in the Tarwin River catchment in Victoria. The decline is

despite the West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority (WGCMA) undertaking rehabilitation of

many of the waterways over the past 25 years. Although such efforts are likely beneficial to various native

fish, including River Blackfish, the likelihood of River Blackfish recolonising rehabilitated areas is considered

low because the species typically does not move large distances. Translocating River Blackfish into

rehabilitated areas may therefore represent an important tool to assist recolonization and support

population recovery in the Tarwin River and other waterways throughout the species’ range.

In this study, we collected 27 adult River Blackfish from upland areas of the Tarwin River West branch and

translocated fish into rehabilitated and non-rehabilitated reaches of stream downstream, where they were

historically abundant. We conducted subsequent monitoring to determine whether the translocation was

successful, in particular, to determine: 1) whether the translocated River Blackfish survived; 2) whether

they established new home ranges in the translocated sites, and 3) whether they reproduced during the

2015 breeding season. Translocated River Blackfish were tagged with acoustic transmitters to determine

whether fish remained within translocation sites, whether fish in a non-rehabilitated area moved into a

rehabilitated area, and whether fish returned to their original capture location. Artificial spawning tubes

were also placed into the translocation sites to detect whether the translocated fish reproduced during the

October-December 2015 breeding season. Spawning tubes were checked for eggs near the end of the

breeding season. In autumn 2016 electrofishing was also undertaken in the translocation sites to detect

recruitment of River Blackfish, as indicated by the collection of young of year individuals. Our findings

suggest that the translocation was successful, with fish surviving and remaining within the translocated

areas. Recruitment of River Blackfish however has not been detected. This result might reflect a lack of

natural spawning habitat, the effect of the stress related to translocation close to the species spawning

period or that recruitment did occur and it wasn’t detected at this time using the methods applied.

We recommend ongoing monitoring of the translocated populations to determine the longer term survival,

reproduction, increased distribution and condition of the translocated population. Through this monitoring,

further information about River Blackfish habitat associations may be inferred and also whether additional

habitat improvements are necessary (e.g. more instream wood, improved flow management).


4

1 Introduction

River Blackfish (Gadopsis marmoratus) occur in rivers and streams of south-east Australia. The species has

declined in range and abundance since European settlement due to factors such as stream siltation, and

removal of woody debris (Drew 2008). There are two forms of River Blackfish; a southern form and a

northern form. The southern form grow much larger (<600 mm) than the northern form (<300 mm).

Taxonomic research suggests that River Blackfish may represent up to five candidate species (Miller et al.

2004; Hammer et al. 2014; Ryan et al. 2004). River Blackfish typically occupy clear, gently flowing streams

with abundant woody debris (Koehn and O’Connor 1990). The home range of adult River Blackfish is

typically 25–30 m, although fish have been recorded moving 100 m or more (Khan et al. 2004; Koster and

Crook 2008). River Blackfish are most often found in pools, but commonly use riffle and run habitats (Koster

and Crook 2008). Historically, River Blackfish were found throughout the freshwater reaches of the Tarwin

River Catchment in West Gippsland in Victoria, and were a popular angling species in the region. River

Blackfish are now only found in the upper catchments of the Tarwin River East and West branches

(O’Connor et al. 2009; 2011; 2013). In addition, the Leongatha Angling Club Inc. has reported that the

number of River Blackfish captured has declined over recent decades (Ross Drury pers. comm.).

Although it is uncertain why the decline has occurred, the condition of habitat within the catchment, which

underpins the health of fish populations and recreational fishing opportunities, is thought to have played a

role. Riverine health is a direct response to the presence of suitable densities of native riparian and aquatic

vegetation, logs, substrates (e.g. sand, rocks, boulders, etc.) appropriate water parameters (e.g. dissolved

oxygen, pH, temperature, etc.), absence of barriers to fish movement and natural flow regimes. These

attributes of waterways provide fish with shelter, food, breeding areas and migration opportunities. There

have been major changes to catchments and waterways since European settlement as a result of

agriculture, forestry and urbanisation. The WGCMA, together with local landholders and community

members, have been rehabilitating waterways in the Tarwin River catchment for 25 years. This includes

weed removal, native revegetation, fencing and bank stabilisation works. Although such efforts are likely

beneficial to River Blackfish, the likelihood of the species recolonising rehabilitated areas is considered low

because it typically has a small home range, and therefore does not move large distances.

Reintroduction, defined as ‘the intentional movement and release of an organism inside its indigenous

range from which it has disappeared’, represents a type of translocation that may be applied as a

conservation management tool to re-establish a viable population of a target species within its former

range (IUCN/SSC 2013). Translocation has been used successfully to aid conservation and management of

native fish species, nationally and internationally (Minckley 1995; Shute et al. 2005; Ayres et al. 2012;

Lintermans et al. 2015). Pre- and post-monitoring of source and translocated populations is important to

assess the outcomes of translocations and inform the ongoing management of the translocated population,

as well as, more generally, contribute to the design of other translocations (IUCN/SSC 2013). Various

demographic, behavioural, ecological, genetic, health, socio-economic and financial aspects may be

monitored to determine the success of translocations (IUCN/SSC 2013). The survival, establishment,

breeding and range expansion of translocated populations are examples of demographic indicators.

Translocating River Blackfish into rehabilitated waterways within their former range is a management

option that may be applied to help rebuild their populations, however, it has not been implemented

previously.

The aim of this project was to trial translocating River Blackfish into rehabilitated and non-rehabilitated

reaches within their former range in the Tarwin River catchment and assess the success of the translocation

and whether River Blackfish prefer the rehabilitated sites over non-rehabilitated sites. We collected River

Blackfish from upland areas of the Tarwin River West branch and translocated fish into rehabilitated and

non-rehabilitated reaches of a tributary further downstream, where they were historically abundant.


5

Translocated River Blackfish were tagged with acoustic transmitters to determine whether fish would

remain within translocation sites, whether fish in a non-rehabilitated area would move into the

rehabilitated site, and whether fish would return to their original capture location. Artificial spawning tubes

were also placed into the rehabilitated areas to monitor breeding. It was anticipated that information

obtained in this trial could determine if translocation could be used as a tool to re-establish River Blackfish

populations within their former range, and thereby help mitigate the decline of this species not only in the

Tarwin River catchment, but in Victoria in general. If successful the approach could be used as a baseline

standard for future River Blackfish translocations, and to validate and highlight the work of WGCMA’s

waterway rehabilitation program.


6

2 Methods

The capture, transportation and release of fish was undertaken in accordance to the Translocation of fish

in Victorian inland public waters (DPI 2005). Approval was gained from the Victorian Department of

Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources’ Translocation Evaluation Panel to translocate River

Blackfish from source to translocation sites in the Tarwin River West branch catchment.

2.1 Study site

The Tarwin River is located in south central Victoria, flowing from the Strzelecki Ranges to Anderson Inlet

near the township of Inverloch (Figure 1). It is the largest waterway in the South Gippsland Basin with an

average annual flow of 275,000 ML (Water Victoria 1989). The freshwater reaches of the river support a

diverse fish community comprising of 15 natives (including River Blackfish) and four exotic species

(O’Connor et al. 2009; 2011; 2013).

As River Blackfish in the Tarwin River East branch may belong to a different lineage to those in the Tarwin

River West branch (Hammer et al. 2014), fish were only sourced from within the Tarwin River West branch

catchment. These fish were subsequently translocated to Coalition Creek (another tributary of Tarwin River

West branch catchment) (Figure 1). Although River Blackfish are known to have previously inhabited

Coalition Creek they are thought to no longer occur there (O’Connor et al. 2009; 2011; 2013). To verify this

backpack electrofishing surveys of the stream immediately prior to the release of fish was undertaken and

no River Blackfish were collected.

WGCMA has actively undertaken waterway rehabilitation activities in Coalition Creek, including weed

removal, fencing and native revegetation. The study design included two adjacent translocation sites on

Coalition Creek; one where West Gippsland CMA had undertaken waterway rehabilitation works, and the

other site where no waterway rehabilitation works had been completed. The translocated sites were

approximately one kilometre apart and were each 450 m in length. Both translocation sites were within the

historical range of this species.


7

Figure 1 Map of study area

2.2 Fish sampling

We attempted to collect River Blackfish from the upper Tarwin River West branch and five of its tributaries

using backpack electrofishing (Smith Root Model LR 20B) in October 2015 (Table 1). Fish were taken from

multiple sites to reduce depletion pressure on source populations. All River Blackfish collected were

measured for total length (mm) and weight. A sub-sample of fish considered to be reproductively mature

(>245 mm) were translocated from the source sites to the translocation site. Only adult fish (i.e. >245 mm)

were translocated to improve the likelihood of spawning success (i.e. at the translocation site). This

strategy also ensured that a portion of larger breeding adults remained within the source populations.

Individuals selected for translocation had a healthy appearance (e.g. without visible lesions or parasites),

and ranged from 246 to 434 mm in total length.


8

Table 1 Potential source sites and their location

Waterway Location

Tarwin River West Branch* Allambee Estate Road

Boyles Creek* Forresters Road

Elizabeth Creek Allambee South Road

Watkins Creek Allambee South Road

Brookes Creek Dawsons Road

Berrys Creek Berrys Creek Road

Of the six potential source sites surveyed, River Blackfish were only sourced from Tarwin River West branch

and Boyles Creek. At the other sites, River Blackfish were either not collected or were too small (<245 mm).

At the Tarwin River West branch River Blackfish were collected from multiple, discontinuous reaches of

stream (i.e. electrofishing was alternated every 100 m of stream), to minimise depletion at localised sites.

At Boyles Creek 200 m of stream was fished below Forrester’s Road and 350 m of stream was fished above

Forrester’s Road.

2.3 Fish tagging

A total of 27 River Blackfish were collected for translocation. Fish were anaesthetised and then tagged with

acoustic transmitters, following the procedures described in Koster and Crook (2008). All tags were entirely

internal (no external antennae; Figure 2). Two types of acoustic tags were used: VEMCO (Canada) V7-2L

(172 days; 20 mm long, 1.6 g in air, 0.75 g in water) and V7-4L (257 days; 22.5 mm long, 1.8 g in air, 1.0 g in

water). Both tags had a 7 mm diameter. The V7-2L were implanted in fish between 246–364 mm in length

and the V7-4L were implanted into fish between 280–434 mm in length. This ensured that the transmitter

weight to fish body weight ratio did not exceed 2% of fish mass. The surgery procedure lasted 3–5 minutes

per fish. Following surgery, fish were placed in an aerated live-well (460 mm x 640 mm) for recovery.

Figure 2 Acoustic tag


9

2.4 Translocation

Following surgery, River Blackfish were transported to the translocation sites in large (50 lt) plastic barrels,

the water in which was continuously aerated. River Blackfish were acclimatised prior to release at the

translocation site. The temperature of the water in which they were transported and the water at the

release site was equalised by gradually mixing water from the release site to the water they were

transported in. Once water temperature had acclimatised fish were released into the study area. Fish were

released into deep pools in the rehabilitated translocation site (fish no. = 14) and non-rehabilitated

translocation site (fish no. = 13). River Blackfish were released into the translocation sites where there was

the best available habitat and at densities reflecting those measured at the source locations.

Transportation time was kept to a minimum with the maximum time between collection of fish, tagging,

transportation and release being approximately three hours. To prevent transfer of microscopic biological

material, source water was disposed of well away from drainage lines and streams after the release.

2.5 Movement

Acoustic receivers were deployed at ~90 m intervals within the 450 m reach of each translocation site. At

the upstream and downstream end of the site receivers were set up in pairs to determine if fish left the

study reach. At the junction of Coalition Creek and the Tarwin River West branch a series of receivers were

placed 50 m upstream and downstream in the Tarwin River West branch and 50 m upstream in Coalition

Creek, to ascertain if fish moved out of Coalition Creek and upstream or downstream in the Tarwin River

West branch. Another logger was placed in the Tarwin River West branch downstream of the junction with

Boyles Creek to detect the movement of any fish approaching their source location.

2.6 Habitat

Habitat was characterised at source and translocation sites to look for patterns in River Blackfish

distribution and behaviours that might be associated with these habitat variables. Habitat variables

including the location and size of instream woody debris (snags) were recorded continuously along the

length of sites using a Trimble global navigation satellite system with laser rangefinder. Snag masses were

defined by a measure of the complexity and size of the snag or snag pile. Snag mass complexity was

measured by categorising the number of branches on a snag or structures within a snag pile (i.e. one trunk,

two trunks, three trunks or complex (>3 trunks)). The complexity category combined with the size category

of a snag mass gave the relative area of structural coverage (i.e. <5 m2, <10 m

2, <20 m

2 or >20 m

2).

Other habitat variables were measured throughout source and translocated sites at 40 m intervals from the

most downstream location of each site, working upstream. Stream width, depth and substrate type were

recorded at each 40 m intervals. The percentage cover of riparian vegetation, the percentage cover of

aquatic vegetation and general observations on undercut banks, fencing and stock access were also

assessed for the area approximately 10 m upstream and downstream of each 40 m interval.

There is no stream flow gauging station in Coalition Creek. Rainfall from the nearby gauge at Korumburra

(www.bom.gov.au) was therefore used a surrogate for river discharge. To measure water temperature data

loggers (Hobo Pendant temperature Part UA-002-6) were placed into the rehabilitated and non-

rehabilitated sites to monitor water temperature over the study period.


10

2.7 Recruitment

In November 2016, 12 artificial spawning tubes were placed into the study area. River Blackfish have been

known to use these artificial structures for spawning habitat (Pittman and Saddlier 2006; Jackson 1978).

Artificial spawning tubes consisted of 65 mm (n=1), 80 mm (n=2)and 100 mm (n=1) diameter PVC plastic

tubes cut into 400 mm lengths, tied together, and attached to star pickets which were driven into the creek

bed (Figure 3). Six spawning tubes were placed in each of the rehabilitated and non-rehabilitated sites at

depths ranging from 56 to 132 cm. Spawning tubes were placed horizontally directly onto the substrate. In

December 2015, spawning tubes were checked for any indications that River Blackfish were using them as a

spawning substrate. In May 2016, backpack electrofishing was undertaken in both the rehabilitation site

and non-rehabilitation site to locate juvenile River Blackfish to confirm spawning/recruitment.

Electrofishing was undertaken throughout the entire non-rehabilitated and the rehabilitated sites by

starting at the most downstream point of the site and working upstream.

Figure 3 Spawning tube arrangement

2.8 Genetics

To establish the genetic lineage of the Tarwin River West branch River Blackfish population, genetic

samples (caudal fin-clip (approximately 5 mm2)) were taken from all fish collected. Furthermore, genetic

samples (fin clips) were also collected from five individuals from the Tarwin River East branch to confirm

the genetic lineage that Hammer et al (2014) described for that location.


11

3 Results

3.1 Fish sampling

A total of five species of fish were captured from the six potential source locations, including three native

and two introduced species (Table 2). River Blackfish were collected from three of these streams.

Table 2 Fish collected from potential source sites

Stream Species present

Short finned eel River Blackfish Tupong Carp Brown trout

Berry’s Creek � � �

Brooks Creek � � �

Boyles Creek � � � �

Elizabeth Creek � � �

Watkins Creek � � �

Tarwin River West branch � � � �

Prior to translocation, the translocation sites were surveyed and no River Blackfish were collected. Other

fish species recorded included Tupong Pseudaphritis urvillii, Short-finned eels Anguilla australis, Common

galaxias Galaxias maculatus and Southern pygmy perch Nannoperca australis.

3.2 Translocation

Of the 27 River Blackfish translocated, 14 were released in the rehabilitated site and 13 into the non-

rehabilitated site. One fish was never recorded on a receiver and three fish (Fish Numbers 38689, 38691

and 38718) were not detected moving ten days after being tagged (Appendix 1). This may be due to

transmitter expulsion, failure, or fish death. Hence data from these fish were removed from analysis of

movement. In the final analysis we therefore used the data from 12 fish released into the non-

rehabilitated site and 11 fish released in the rehabilitated site.

3.3 Movement

Three of the tagged fish moved downstream (Fish Numbers 38687, 38697 and 38724) (Appendix 1; Table

3). These fish remained in Coalition Creek between the translocation sites and the junction with Tarwin

River West branch as they were not detected by the receiver array at the junction of the two streams. An

additional four fish moved into the 1 km reach between the two translocation sites, three of which

remained close to the rehabilitation site, being periodically recorded near the most downstream logging

station, while the remaining fish moved from the non-rehabilitated site into the rehabilitated site. No fish

moved from the rehabilitated site to the non-rehabilitated site. At the end of the study period (June 2016)

eight fish were located in the non-rehabilitated site and eight fish were located in the rehabilitated site.

Overall, 23 River Blackfish survived translocation and of these 20 River Blackfish established home ranges in

rehabilitated and non-rehabilitated areas in Coalition Creek where they remained for at least eight months.


12

Table 3 Summarised movement of acoustically tagged River Blackfish

River Blackfish movement Number of fish

Fish death or transmitter expulsion/failure 4

Moved out of the non –rehabilitation site 2

Moved out of study area from rehabilitation site 1

Remained in rehabilitated site 7

Remained in non- rehabilitated site 8

Moved from rehabilitated site into 1 km reach between two translocation sites 3

Moved from non-rehabilitated site into 1 km reach between two translocation sites 1

Moved from non-rehabilitated site into rehabilitated area 1

Moved from rehabilitated site into non rehabilitated site 0

Most fish undertook only small movements during the study (i.e. generally less than 100 m), but occasional

longer distance movements were recorded. The largest recorded movement was >1600 m, representing a

fish moving downstream from the rehabilitated site and out of the study area. Other large movements

included one fish that travelled ~1300 m upstream from the non-rehabilitated site into the rehabilitated

site. Fish movement increased with increasing river discharge. During rain events (and subsequent assumed

high flow events) fish moved larger distances, both upstream and downstream (Figure 4).

During March 2016 a lack of rainfall resulted in low flows and subsequent low and levels of dissolved

oxygen (DO) at the Coalition Creek translocation site in March 2016 (Table 4) and a bloom of dense Azolla

cover, which was of particular concern due to the potential for dieback and rotting, leading to

deoxygenation of the water column. For the period of the study water temperature ranged from 7.6

(16/6/16) to 23.8 (19/12/15) for the non-rehabilitated site and 7.5 (16/6/16) to 18.7 (3/12/15) for the

rehabilitated site.

Table 4 Water quality parameters and azolla condition at translocation sites during March 2016

Date DO (mg/L) Flow (none, low,

medium, high)

Azolla (none, low,

medium, high)

3 March 2016 2.5 low medium

9 March 2016 1.6 - 3.5 low high

16 March 2016 1.5 - 4.9 low high

23 March 2016 2.7 – 5.7 low-medium medium

30 March 2016 3.8 – 4.6 medium medium

8 April 2016 5.8 – 8.2 medium low


13

Figure 4 Examples of movement (red line) associated with high rainfall (as a surrogate for stream

discharge) events (arrows)

3.5 Habitat

The rehabilitation site on Coalition Creek contained the most amount of snag habitat including the second

highest amount of complex habitat (Table 5). This was the only site that contained large volumes (>20 m2)

of complex instream habitat. Snag density throughout the rehabilitation site varied, with sections of low to

relatively high snag densities (Figure 5). Boyles Creek contained the second highest number of snags,

however, the sizes of the snags were all small (< 5m2). The density of snags in Boyles Creek was uniform

throughout the site and ranged from relatively low to medium. The Tarwin River West branch source site

had the second most amount of complex (>3 trunks) habitat (mainly consisting of fallen willow trees) but

was relatively poor for other snag habitat (1–3 trunks). Relative snags densities in the Tarwin River West

branch ranged from low to medium. The non-rehabilitated site on Coalition Creek contained the least

amount of snag habitat, which was mostly made up of simple (1 trunk) habitat. Snag density was

consistently low throughout the site, and this site had the lowest snag densities recorded in comparison to

the other sites.


14

Figure 5 Snag densities at the two source sites (top) and the two translocation sites (bottom)


15

Table 5 The abundance of and complexities at source and translocation sites

Snag

complexity

Size Number of snags per site

Tarwin River

West branch

Boyles Creek Rehabilitated

translocation site

Non-rehabilitated

translocation site

1 trunk < 5 m2 3 9 6 14

<10 m2 2 0 6 0

< 20 m2 1 0 1 0

>20m2 0 0 0 0

2 trunk < 5 m2 3 1 2 2

<10 m2 0 0 5 0

< 20 m2 0 0 1 0

>20 m2 0 0 0 0

3 trunk < 5 m2 0 0 0 0

<10 m2 1 1 1 0

< 20 m2 0 0 1 0

>20 m2 0 0 0 0

Complex (>3

trunks, root

mass)

< 5 m2 4 19 5 1

<10 m2 9 0 5 0

< 20 m2 2 0 4 0

>20 m2 0 0 2 0

Snag total 25 30 39 17

Mean depth was greatest at the non-rehabilitated translocation site (Table 6) (due to the presence of two

deep pools (>2 m). On average, the second deepest site was the Tarwin River West branch, followed by

Boyles Creek and the rehabilitated translocation site which both had a mean depth of 28 cm. Interestingly,

the mean depth to width ratio indicated that Boyles Creek was particularly deep relative to its width

compared to the other sites, while the non-rehabilitated translocation site had the lowest depth/width

ratio.

Boyles Creek, Tarwin River West branch and the non-rehabilitated translocation site had relatively uniform

substrate types and were all dominated by a silt/clay substrate. The rehabilitated translocation site had

diverse substrates and was dominated by hard surface substrates such as bedrock, gravel, cobble and

boulder. Aquatic vegetation, particularly algae and floating vegetation, dominated the translocation sites

(rehabilitated and non-rehabilitated) while there was no aquatic vegetation in the Tarwin River West

branch site. Boyles Creek contained emergent and submerged vegetation.

Over-story dominated the riparian vegetation at the Tarwin River West branch and the rehabilitated

translocation site while under-storey dominated the riparian vegetation at Boyles Creek and the non-

rehabilitated translocation site. Willows formed the over-story of Tarwin River West branch, whilst native

trees formed the over-story at the rehabilitated site. The understory at Boyles Creek and the non-

rehabilitated site largely consisted of pasture grasses. The continuity of over-story and mid-story riparian

vegetation was relatively higher in the rehabilitated site and the Tarwin River West branch. The extent of

undercut banks was high in the rehabilitated translocation site and Boyles Creek and low at the other two

sites.

Table 6 Summary of habitat assessment

Site Mean

water

depth

(cm)

Mean

wetted

width

(cm)

Depth/

Width

ratio

Substrate (% cover) Aquatic Veg.(% cover) Riparian

Vegetation(%

cover)

Fencing

(yes, no,

partial)

Stock access

(yes, no,

partial)

Continuous

riparian

(low,

medium,

high)

Undercut

bank

(low,

medium,

high)

Sil

t/cl

ay

Sa

nd

Gra

ve

l

Pe

bb

le

Co

bb

le

Bo

uld

er

Be

dro

ck

Alg

ae

Flo

ati

ng

Su

bm

erg

ed

Em

erg

en

t

Un

de

r-st

ore

y

Mid

-sto

rey

Ov

er-

sto

rey

Boyles Creek 28 124 0.23 83 8 5 2 3 0 0 0 0 10 21 90 2.0 22 No yes low medium

Tarwin River

West branch

31 243 0.13 81 3 5 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 78 19 79 No yes medium low

Non-

rehabilitated

translocation

site

37 270 0.14 97 3 5 2 3 0 0 19 56 15 61 87 18 23 partial partial low low

Rehabilitated

translocation

site

28 343 0.08 12 2 24 13 16 10 25 7 61 8 7 92 21 43 partial partial medium high

3.6 Recruitment

No adult River Blackfish or eggs were found in the spawning tubes. A number of spawning tubes had silted

up since being placed into the translocation sites indicating they had not been used. Furthermore, no young

of year were collected during the electrofishing survey at translocated sites in May 2016.

3.7 Genetics

All genetic samples collected from River Blackfish in the Tarwin River East and West branches represent the

SBA lineage described in Hammer et al. (2014), which spans from Victorian and Tasmanian basins draining

to Bass Strait.


18

4 Discussion

Our preliminary findings suggest that translocation of River Blackfish was successful, with fish surviving and

typically remaining within the translocated areas. This result suggests that translocation may be a valuable

tool to assist recolonization and support population recovery of River Blackfish in the Tarwin River, and

other waterways throughout the species’ range.

Only one River Blackfish moved from the non-rehabilitated area into the rehabilitated area. At the non-

rehabilitated site the River Blackfish were, however, translocated into the deepest pools which contained

habitat including instream debris and riparian vegetation and therefore fish may not have had the

motivation to move. Furthermore, there may also have been limited opportunities for fish to move from

the non-rehabilitated site into the rehabilitated site due to the presence of potential barriers (i.e. rock bars

and dense vegetation). Previous studies on more mobile species such as Golden Perch Macquaria ambigua

and Carp Cyprinus carpio in northern Victoria indicate that they re-establish new home range areas after 1

to 2 months (Crook 2004). Furthermore, while most fish remained in the non-rehabilitated areas it remains

to be seen if recruitment also occurs in this site.

No eggs or young of year fish were collected from the artificial spawning tubes or during the electrofishing

surveys, respectively, suggesting a lack of breeding and recruitment. Possible reasons for the absence of

eggs and juveniles in surveys include sampling error (i.e. electrofishing efficiency can be particularly low for

small fish), or due to insufficient numbers of spawning tubes being employed in the study (i.e. only 12

artificial spawning structures were employed). The timing of capture, surgery, implementation of tags and

translocation may also have affected spawning behaviour due to it occurring early in the spawning season,

which occurs from October to December (Koehn and O’Connor 1990). There would be a degree of stress

associated with the translocation process and establishment of a new home range, which may have

delayed or impacted spawning in the 2015 season. It is anticipated that fish would become settled over

time and therefore more likely to spawn in subsequent years. Other potential reasons for a lack of

recruitment may be the sex ratios of the fish that were translocated, which although unknown, may have

been skewed. River Blackfish are known to breed in farm dams when suitable habitat is available

(http://agriculture.vic.gov.au/fisheries/education/fish-species/River-Blackfish) so we expect them to spawn

in a natural stream channel such as Coalition Creek. We recommend that more intensive sampling to detect

recruitment of River Blackfish be undertaken in autumn 2017 and include bait trapping, electrofishing and

fyke netting.

Only two River Blackfish moved greater than one kilometre, and most movements were less than 100 m. A

number of fish were not detected, despite the receivers being only 90 m apart, for several months at a time

demonstrating that fish are likely to have small home ranges. This is consistent with previous studies on

River Blackfish movement (Koster and Crook 2008; Khan et al. 2004). However, there was increased fish

movement associated with increases in stream discharge. Observations of increased movement associated

with increased stream discharge are also consistent with a previous study on River Blackfish movement

(Koster and Crook 2008).

Our genetic analysis confirmed that River Blackfish in the east and west branches of the Tarwin River

belong to the SBA lineage. This finding is significant because originally we were going to source River

Blackfish from both the east and west branches of the Tarwin River for translocation. However, based on a

previous study (Hammer et al. 2014), genetic analyses indicated that fish in the upper reaches of the Tarwin

River East branch conformed to the SEV lineage of River Blackfish (from coastal eastern Victoria and New

South Wales (including the Latrobe River). This was seen as an anomaly as geographically the Tarwin River

sits amongst rivers with the SBA lineage of River Blackfish (from Victorian and Tasmanian basins draining to

Bass Strait). However, it was thought that the sample that Hammer et al. (2014) took from the system may

not represent the only lineage in the system (e.g. SBA may also be present). Consequently we did not know

which lineage the fish located in the Tarwin River West branch conformed (SEV or SBA). So to be


19

conservative, we only considered translocating Tarwin River West branch fish as these may potentially

belong to a separate lineage to those in the Tarwin River East branch. In the future, we may be able to

translocate fish from the Tarwin River East branch to supplement sites in the Tarwin River West branch.

While fish remained in the non-rehabilitated site these fish were largely found in deep pools with good

surrounding riparian vegetation, while in the rehabilitated site fish were found distributed throughout the

site. Instream woody debris originates from the surrounding riparian vegetation (Koehn and O’Connor

1990) and has been identified as a key requirement for River Blackfish as it provides refugia and spawning

habitat in the form of hollow logs (Cable and Saddlier 2010; Khan et al 2004). The riparian vegetation

surrounding the rehabilitated site also increased shading and instream habitat compared with the non-

rehabilitated site and indicates that the WGCMA works program may have benefits for River Blackfish.

While our initial findings suggest that the translocation was successful in regard to fish surviving

translocation, and fish remaining at translocation sites, it is yet to be determined if fish will reproduce and

the population expanding in distribution. Further work is therefore required to confirm this.

5 Recommendations

To fully understand the outcomes of the translocation and inform future translocation approaches for River

Blackfish, thorough ongoing monitoring and evaluation is needed. In particular, we recommend:

• Monitoring of the translocated populations to determine long term survival, reproduction,

expanded distribution and condition of the translocated population. Surveys in autumn 2017 are

particularly important to determine whether the translocated population has successfully bred and

recruited and/or expanded in range. Outcomes of these surveys may suggest the need to further

augment the size of the River Blackfish population at the translocation site or additional habitat

improvements.

• Genetic monitoring of the translocated populations to determine changes in the genetic structure

of these populations over time. This information would inform decisions as to whether genetic

supplementation is needed (i.e. via the translocation of more individuals).

• Trial the translocation of River Blackfish at other rehabilitated sites within their former range,

around Victoria.

• Continue the rehabilitation of waterways in the Tarwin River catchment and elsewhere throughout

Victoria.

• Continue engaging and educating stakeholders of the significance of River Blackfish in the Tarwin

River catchment and across the WGCMA region, including their decline and key threats and

opportunities for people to assist rehabilitating River Blackfish habitat and assist population

recovery.


20

References

Ayres, R.M., Nicol, M.D. and Raadik, T.A. (2012). Establishing new populations for fire-affected Barred

Galaxias (Galaxias fuscus): site selection, trial translocation and population genetics. Black Saturday

Victoria 2009 – Natural values fire recovery program. Department of Sustainability and

Environment, Heidelberg, Victoria.

Cable, A. and Saddlier, S. (2010). The impacts of drought on River Blackfish (Gadopsis marmoratus) in

Tullaroop and McCallum creeks. Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research. Confidential

Client Report. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Heidelberg, Victoria.

Crook, D. (2004). Movements associated with home-range establishment by two species of lowland river

fish. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 61: 2183–2193.

DPI (2005). Protocols for the translocation of fish in Victorian inland public waters. Fisheries Victoria

Management Report Series No. 24. Department of Primary Industries, Victoria.

Drew, M.M. (2008). A guide to the management of native fish: Victorian coastal rivers, estuaries and

wetlands. Department of Sustainability and Environment and Corangamite Catchment Authority,

Victoria.

Hammer, M.P., Unmack, P.J., Adams, M., Raadik, T.A. and Johnson, J.B. (2014). A multigene molecular

assessment of cryptic biodiversity in the iconic freshwater Blackfishes (Teleostei: Percichthyidae:

Gadopsis) of south-eastern Australia. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 111(3): 521–540.

IUCN/SSC (2013). Guidelines for Reintroductions and Other Conservation Translocations. Version 1.0. Gland,

Switzerland: IUCN Species Survival Commission, viiii + 57 pp.

Jackson, P.D. (1978) Spawning and early development of the River Blackfish, Gadopsis marmoratus

Richardson (Gadopsiforines : Gadopsidae), in the McKenzie River, Victoria. Australian Journal of

Marine and Freshwater Research 29: 293-298.

Jackson, P.D. (1979) Spawning tube for river blackfish. Freshwater Fisheries Newsletter 11: 18.

Khan, M.T., Khan, T.A. and Wilson, M.E. (2004). Habitat use and movement of River Blackfish (Gadopsis

marmoratus R.) in a highly modified Victorian stream, Australia. Ecology of Freshwater Fish. 13(4):

285–293.

Koehn, J.D. and O’Connor, W.G. (1990). Biological information for management of freshwater fish in

Victoria. Victorian Government Printer, Melbourne. 165 pp.

Koster, W. and Crook, D. (2008). Diurnal and nocturnal movements of River Blackfish (Gadopsis

marmoratus) in a south-eastern Australian upland stream. Ecology of Freshwater Fish. 17(1): 146–

154.

Lintermans, M., Lyon, J.P., Hammer, M.P., Ellis, I. and Ebner, B.C (2015). Underwater, out of sight: lessons

from threatened freshwater fish translocations in Australia. In, Advances in Reintroduction Biology

of Australian and New Zealand Fauna.

Miller, A.D., Waggy, G., Ryan, S.G. and Austin, C.M. (2004). Mitochondrial 12S rRNA sequences support the

existence of a third species of freshwater blackfish (Percichthyidae: Gadopsis) from south-eastern

Australia. Memoirs of Museum Victoria 61: 121–127.

Minckley, W.L. (1995). Translocation as a tool for preserving imperilled fishes: Experiences in Western

United States. Biological Conservation 72: 297–309.

O’Connor, J., Amtstaetter, F. and Dodd, L. (2009). Freshwater Bioassessment (Fish Surveys) of the Tarwin,

Tarra, Powlett and Agnes rivers - Progress Report. Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental

Research. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Heidelberg, Victoria.


21

O’Connor, J., Amtstaetter, F. and Dodd, L. (2011). Freshwater Bioassessment (Fish Surveys) of the Tarwin,

Tarra, Powlett and Agnes rivers - Progress Report. Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental

Research. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Heidelberg, Victoria.

O’Connor, J., Amtstaetter, F. and Dodd, L. (2013). Assessment of the Freshwater Fish in the Tarwin, Tarra,

Powlett and Agnes rivers: Final Report. Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research.

Department of Sustainability and Environment, Heidelberg, Victoria.

Pitman, K. and Saddlier, S. (2006). Survey for River Blackfish post rehabilitation works in Birches Creek,

Central Victoria. A report for The North Central Catchment Management Authority. Freshwater

Ecology, Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research. Department of Sustainability and

Environment, Heidelberg, Victoria.

Ryan, S.G., Miller, A.D. and Austin, C.M. (2004). Allozyme variation and taxonomy of the River Blackfish,

Gadopsis marmoratus Richardson, in Western Victoria. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria

116(2): 191–199.

Shute, J.R., Rakes, P.L. and Shute, P.W. (2005). Reintroduction of four imperiled fishes in Abrams Creek,

Tennessee. Southeastern Naturalist. 4(1): 93–110.

Water Victoria (1989). A Resource Handbook. Department of Water Resources.


22

6 Appendices

Appendix 1 – Fish movement graphs

Fish Number: 38688 Fish Number: 38686


Oct

15

Nov

15

Dec

15

Jan

15

Feb

15

Mar

15

Apr

15

May

15

Jun

15

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Oct

15

Nov

15

Dec

15

Jan

15

Feb

15

Mar

15

Apr

15

May

15

Jun

15

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Oct

15

Nov

15

Dec

15

Jan

15

Feb

15

Mar

15

Apr

15

May

15

Jun

15

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Oct

15

Nov

15

Dec

15

Jan

15

Feb

15

Mar

15

Apr

15

May

15

Jun

15

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40


23

Oct

15

Nov

15

Dec

15

Jan

15

Feb

15

Mar

15

Apr

15

May

15

Jun

15

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40




Oct

15

Nov

15

Dec

15

Jan

15

Feb

15

Mar

15

Apr

15

May

15

Jun

15

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Oct

15

Nov

15

Dec

15

Jan

15

Feb

15

Mar

15

Apr

15

May

15

Jun

15

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40O

ct 1

5

Nov

15

Dec

15

Jan

15

Feb

15

Mar

15

Apr

15

May

15

Jun

15

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Oct

15

Nov

15

Dec

15

Jan

15

Feb

15

Mar

15

Apr

15

May

15

Jun

15

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Oct

15

Nov

15

Dec

15

Jan

15

Feb

15

Mar

15

Apr

15

May

15

Jun

15

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40


24




Oct

15

Nov

15

Dec

15

Jan

15

Feb

15

Mar

15

Apr

15

May

15

Jun

15

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Oct

15

Nov

15

Dec

15

Jan

15

Feb

15

Mar

15

Apr

15

May

15

Jun

15

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Oct

15

Nov

15

Dec

15

Jan

15

Feb

15

Mar

15

Apr

15

May

15

Jun

15

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Oct

15

Nov

15

Dec

15

Jan

15

Feb

15

Mar

15

Apr

15

May

15

Jun

15

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Oct

15

Nov

15

Dec

15

Jan

15

Feb

15

Mar

15

Apr

15

May

15

Jun

15

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Oct

15

Nov

15

Dec

15

Jan

15

Feb

15

Mar

15

Apr

15

May

15

Jun

15

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40


25




Oct

15

Nov

15

Dec

15

Jan

15

Feb

15

Mar

15

Apr

15

May

15

Jun

15

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Oct

15

Nov

15

Dec

15

Jan

15

Feb

15

Mar

15

Apr

15

May

15

Jun

15

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40O

ct 1

5

Nov

15

Dec

15

Jan

15

Feb

15

Mar

15

Apr

15

May

15

Jun

15

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Oct

15

Nov

15

Dec

15

Jan

15

Feb

15

Mar

15

Apr

15

May

15

Jun

15

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Oct

15

Nov

15

Dec

15

Jan

15

Feb

15

Mar

15

Apr

15

May

15

Jun

15

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Oct

15

Nov

15

Dec

15

Jan

15

Feb

15

Mar

15

Apr

15

May

15

Jun

15

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40


26



Oct

15

Nov

15

Dec

15

Jan

15

Feb

15

Mar

15

Apr

15

May

15

Jun

15

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Oct

15

Nov

15

Dec

15

Jan

15

Feb

15

Mar

15

Apr

15

May

15

Jun

15

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Oct

15

Nov

15

Dec

15

Jan

15

Feb

15

Mar

15

Apr

15

May

15

Jun

15

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40O

ct 1

5

Nov

15

Dec

15

Jan

15

Feb

15

Mar

15

Apr

15

May

15

Jun

15

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Appendix 2 – Habitat (Flow)

Waterway Distance

from

start

(m)

Water depth

(cm)

Flow

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Average depth

(cm)

Wetted width (cm)

Boyles Creek 0 58 49 53.5 70 Run


Boyles Creek 80 21 30 30 27.0 110 Run

Boyles Creek 120 23 17 22 20.7 130 Run

Boyles Creek 160 31 20 20 23.7 240 Run

Boyles Creek 200 16 6 13 11.7 130 Riffle

Boyles Creek 240 38 32 41 25 34.0 150 Glide

Boyles Creek 280 17 13 24 18.0 100 Run

Boyles Creek 320 42 23 26 30.3 100 Run

Boyles Creek 360 18 21 14 17.7 140 Run

Tarwin West Branch 0 100 27 31 35 48.3 410 Pool, no flow

Tarwin West Branch 40 57 78 49 44 57.0 300 Pool

Tarwin West Branch 80 5 5 5.0 30 Pool



Tarwin West Branch 200 0 0.0 0 Dry

Tarwin West Branch 240 7 4 6 5 6 5.6 195 Pool

Tarwin West Branch 280 21 14 21 18.7 190 Pool

Tarwin West Branch 320 2 1 0.5 1.2 70 Pool

Coalition Creek - 0 47 38 25 20 36 33.2 179 Pool, slight flow


28

rehab

Coalition Creek -

rehab

40 23 10 35 17 25 30 23.3 152 Top of pool, bottom of run, small

amount flow

Coalition Creek -

rehab

80 4 8 6 5 5.8 100 Riffle

Coalition Creek -

rehab

120 32 34 27 22 27 19 26.8 452 Pool, slight flow

Coalition Creek -

rehab

160 29 53 40 27 37 24 35.0 392 Pool, slight flow

Coalition Creek -

rehab

200 12 10 7 22 21 20 15.3 286 No flow, would normally be a riffle

Coalition Creek -

rehab

240 13 17 18 20 25 18.6 585 Pool, no flow

Coalition Creek -

rehab

280 25 33 46 33 57 44 39.7 570 Pool, little or no flow

Coalition Creek -

rehab

320 78 24 68 76 61.5 305 Pool, no flow

Coalition Creek -

rehab

360 22 22.0 383 Pool, no flow

Coalition Creek -

rehab

400 19 40 36 27 22 28.8 372 Pool, slight flow

Coalition Creek -non-

rehab

0 27 44 41 37.3 331 Pool, no flow


rehab

20 32 31 23 16 25.5 449 Pool, no flow


rehab

40 25 19 17 20.3 236 Pool


rehab

60 25 26 39 30.0 241 Pool, no flow


rehab

80 23 14 18.5 115 Pool, no flow


rehab

100 49 54 68 55 56.5 290 Pool, no flow


29


rehab

120 7 6 6.5 120 Run, flowing


rehab

140 74 73 66 71.0 306 Pool, no flow


rehab

160 19 12 24 18.3 210 Run, flowing


rehab

200 22 19 18 16 18.8 230 Pool, no flow


rehab

240 63 45 74 49 57.8 395 Pool, no flow


rehab

280 87 89 140 140 85 63 41 92.1 550 Pool, no flow


rehab

320 5 7 6 8 4 6.0 90 Run, slight flow


rehab

360 34 38 69 70 60 65 38 63 54.6 297 Pool, no flow


rehab

400 37 21 32 30 28 29.6 170 Pool, no flow


rehab

440 48 56 55 52 59 54.0 300 Pool, no flow


30

Waterway Distance

from

start

(m)

Water depth (cm) Flow

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Average depth

(cm)

Wetted

width

(cm)



Boyles Creek 80 21 30 30 27.0 110 Run

Boyles Creek 120 23 17 22 20.7 130 Run

Boyles Creek 160 31 20 20 23.7 240 Run

Boyles Creek 200 16 6 13 11.7 130 Riffle

Boyles Creek 240 38 32 41 25 34.0 150 Glide

Boyles Creek 280 17 13 24 18.0 100 Run

Boyles Creek 320 42 23 26 30.3 100 Run

Boyles Creek 360 18 21 14 17.7 140 Run

Tarwin West Branch 0 100 27 31 35 48.3 410 Pool, no flow


Tarwin West Branch 80 5 5 5.0 30 Pool



Tarwin West Branch 200 0 0.0 0 Dry

Tarwin West Branch 240 7 4 6 5 6 5.6 195 Pool

Tarwin West Branch 280 21 14 21 18.7 190 Pool

Tarwin West Branch 320 2 1 0.5 1.2 70 Pool

Coalition Creek -

rehab

0 47 38 25 20 36 33.2 179 Pool, slight flow

Coalition Creek -

rehab

40 23 10 35 17 25 30 23.3 152 Top of pool, bottom of run, small

amount flow


31

Coalition Creek -

rehab

80 4 8 6 5 5.8 100 Riffle

Coalition Creek -

rehab

120 32 34 27 22 27 19 26.8 452 Pool, slight flow

Coalition Creek -

rehab

160 29 53 40 27 37 24 35.0 392 Pool, slight flow

Coalition Creek -

rehab

200 12 10 7 22 21 20 15.3 286 No flow, would normally be a riffle

Coalition Creek -

rehab

240 13 17 18 20 25 18.6 585 Pool, no flow

Coalition Creek -

rehab

280 25 33 46 33 57 44 39.7 570 Pool, little or no flow

Coalition Creek -

rehab

320 78 24 68 76 61.5 305 Pool, no flow

Coalition Creek -

rehab

360 22 22.0 383 Pool, no flow

Coalition Creek -

rehab

400 19 40 36 27 22 28.8 372 Pool, slight flow


rehab

0 27 44 41 37.3 331 Pool, no flow


rehab

20 32 31 23 16 25.5 449 Pool, no flow


rehab

40 25 19 17 20.3 236 Pool


rehab

60 25 26 39 30.0 241 Pool, no flow


rehab

80 23 14 18.5 115 Pool, no flow


rehab

100 49 54 68 55 56.5 290 Pool, no flow


rehab

120 7 6 6.5 120 Run, flowing


rehab

140 74 73 66 71.0 306 Pool, no flow


32


rehab

160 19 12 24 18.3 210 Run, flowing


rehab

200 22 19 18 16 18.8 230 Pool, no flow


rehab

240 63 45 74 49 57.8 395 Pool, no flow


rehab

280 87 89 140 140 85 63 41 92.1 550 Pool, no flow


rehab

320 5 7 6 8 4 6.0 90 Run, slight flow


rehab

360 34 38 69 70 60 65 38 63 54.6 297 Pool, no flow


rehab

400 37 21 32 30 28 29.6 170 Pool, no flow


rehab

440 48 56 55 52 59 54.0 300 Pool, no flow

Appendix 3 – Habitat (Substrate) Waterway Substrate description (%)

Silt/clay Sand Gravel Pebble Cobble Boulder Bedrock

Boyles Creek 100 0 0 0 0 0 0

100 0 0 0 0 0 0

100 0 0 0 0 0 0

40 30 30 0 0 0 0

100 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 40 20 10 30 0 0

100 0 0 0 0 0 0

100 0 0 0 0 0 0

100 0 0 0 0 0 0

90 5 0 5 0 0 0

Tarwin West

branch

100 0 0 0 0 0 0

100 0 0 0 0 0 0

100 0 0 0 0 0 0

100 0 0 0 0 0 0

100 0 0 0 0 0 0

20 10 30 40 0 0 0

100 0 0 0 0 0 0

90 0 0 10 0 0 0

20 20 15 40 5 0 0

Coalition Creek -

rehab

0 10 20 0 0 0 70

5 10 50 10 10 0 15

0 0 20 40 30 10 0

10 0 30 40 20 0 0

10 0 10 20 40 15 5

0 0 10 20 50 20 0

0 0 10 0 0 0 90

80 0 20 0 0 0 0

0 0 20 0 0 0 80

10 0 40 10 20 10 10

20 0 30 0 0 50 0

Coalition Creek -

non-rehab

100 0 0 0 0 0 0

100 0 0 0 0 0 0

100 0 0 0 0 0 0

100 0 0 0 0 0 0

100 0 0 0 0 0 0

100 0 0 0 0 0 0

100 0 0 0 0 0 0

100 0 0 0 0 0 0

100 0 0 0 0 0 0

100 0 0 0 0 0 0

100 0 0 0 0 0 0

100 0 0 0 0 0 0

100 0 0 0 0 0 0

80 20 0 0 0 0 0

90 10 0 0 0 0 0

80 20 0 0 0 0 0

Appendix 4 – Habitat (Vegetation)

Waterway Distance

from

start

(m)

Aquatic vegetation (%

cover of each type)

Riparian vegetation (% cover at

each level)

Riparian vegetation

(longitudinal extent

of over-story and

mid-story)

A

lga

e

Flo

ati

ng

Su

bm

erg

ed

Em

erg

en

t

Type Understorey

(ground -

1.5m)

Midstorey (1.5

- 5 m)

Overstorey

(>5m)

Comment

Boyles Creek 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 Pasture None

Boyles Creek 40 0 0 0 30 100 0 0 Pasture None

Boyles Creek 80 0 0 0 10 100 0 40 Grasses None

Boyles Creek 120 0 0 0 10 100 10 20 None


Boyles Creek 200 60 1 5 None


Boyles Creek 280 70 20 100 0 10 None

Boyles Creek 320 80 70 5 20 continuous

Boyles Creek 360 5 85 0 60 continuous

Tarwin West

branch

0 0 0 0 0 70 30 90 continuous

Tarwin West

branch

40 0 0 0 0 70 30 90 continuous

Tarwin West

branch

80 0 0 0 0 80 5 60 continuous

Tarwin West

branch

120 0 0 0 0 60 0 100 continuous


35

Tarwin West

branch

160 0 0 0 0 80 0 70 continuous

Tarwin West

branch

200 0 0 0 0 80 0 90 continuous

Tarwin West

branch

240 0 0 0 0 80 5 80 continuous

Tarwin West

branch

280 0 0 0 0 90 40 80 continuous

Tarwin West

branch

320 0 0 0 0 95 60 50 continuous

Coalition

Creek -

rehabilitation

site

0 0 1 0 5 Azolla 90 40 30 None

Coalition

Creek -

rehabilitation

site

40 0 10 0 5 Arrowhead,

Azolla

95 10 80 Regularly spaced

Coalition

Creek -

rehabilitation

site

80 0 0 0 1 Azolla 100 20 30 semi continuous

Coalition

Creek -

rehabilitation

site

120 0 100 0 5 Arrowhead,

Azolla,

duckweed

100 5 20 semi continuous

Coalition

Creek -

rehabilitation

site

160 0 20 10 5 Arrowhead,

Azolla,

duckweed


Coalition

Creek -

rehabilitation

site

200 0 80 0 15 Arrowhead,

Azolla,

duckweed



36

Coalition

Creek -

rehabilitation

site

240 80 70 0 10 100 10 10 semi continuous

Coalition

Creek -

rehabilitation

site

280 0 100 0 10 100 10 10 semi continuous

Coalition

Creek -

rehabilitation

site

320 0 100 0 0 100 30 80 semi continuous

Coalition

Creek -

rehabilitation

site

360 0 100 0 5 Arrowhead,

azolla,

duckweed


Coalition

Creek -

rehabilitation

site

400 0 90 80 20 50 20 10 semi continuous

Coalition

Creek - non-

rehabilitation

site

0 0 100 0 40 Azolla,

Cumbungi

100 0 10 Willows Isolated

Coalition

Creek - non-

rehabilitation

site

20 40 100 0 70 Azolla,

filamentous

algae

100 1 0 None

Coalition

Creek - non-

rehabilitation

site

40 0 100 0 100 Azolla,

Cumbungi

80 5 0 None

Coalition

Creek - non-

60 0 100 0 80 90 0 0 None


37

rehabilitation

site

Coalition

Creek - non-

rehabilitation

site

80 0 100 0 100 85 10 0 None

Coalition

Creek - non-

rehabilitation

site

100 50 20 100 10 90 10 10 Isolated

Coalition

Creek - non-

rehabilitation

site

120 0 0 0 100 Cumbungi 100 20 0 None

Coalition

Creek - non-

rehabilitation

site

140 0 10 0 100 80 15 5 Isolated

Coalition

Creek - non-

rehabilitation

site

160 100 10 0 30 Azolla,

filamentous

algae

80 20 5 Isolated

Coalition

Creek - non-

rehabilitation

site

200 5 5 0 100 80 15 1 Isolated

Coalition

Creek - non-

rehabilitation

site

240 0 60 100 20 90 30 40 Regularly spaced

Coalition

Creek - non-

rehabilitation

site

280 1 5 5 15 Azolla,

Cumbungi

100 30 30 Isolated

Coalition 320 0 0 0 100 Cumbungi 95 40 40 Semi-continuous


38

Creek - non-

rehabilitation

site

Coalition

Creek - non-

rehabilitation

site

360 0 100 0 5 85 20 90 Continuous

Coalition

Creek - non-

rehabilitation

site

400 70 100 0 60 95 30 80 Continuous

Coalition

Creek - non-

rehabilitation

site

440 30 90 40 40 40 40 60 Semi-continuous

Appendix 5 – Habitat (Miscellaneous)

Waterway Distance from

start (m)

Fencing Stock access Undercut bank LHB height

(m)

RHB height

(m)

Comments

Boyles Creek 0 None Yes RHB


Boyles Creek 80 None Yes no Lots of meanders


Boyles Creek 160 None Yes no

Boyles Creek 200 None Yes RHB Immediately downstream of

road



Boyles Creek 320 None Yes LHB Some erosion


Tarwin West

branch

0 None Yes no Deep pool upstream of bridge

Tarwin West

branch

40 None Yes no

Tarwin West

branch

80 None Yes no

Tarwin West

branch

120 None Yes no

Tarwin West

branch

160 None Yes no

Tarwin West

branch

200 None Yes no


40

Tarwin West

branch

240 None Yes no

Tarwin West

branch

280 None Yes Yes

Tarwin West

branch

320 None Yes no

Coalition Creek

rehabilitation site

0 None Yes RHB, LHB Road on RHB

Coalition Creek

rehabilitation site

40 None Yes No 5 2

Coalition Creek

rehabilitation site

80 None Yes no 2 1

Coalition Creek

rehabilitation site

120 None Yes Yes when water

level higher

2 2 Barrier upstream of site

Coalition Creek

rehabilitation site

160 None Yes RHB and LHB when water level higher

Coalition Creek

rehabilitation site

200 Yes No RHB when water

level higher

3 to 6 2

Coalition Creek

rehabilitation site

240 Yes No No 10 3

Coalition Creek

rehabilitation site

280 Yes No LHB when water level higher, RHB undercut 30cm now

Coalition Creek

rehabilitation site

320 Yes No No 0 2 RHB bedrock, LHB soil

Coalition Creek

rehabilitation site

360 Yes No RHB and LHB

when water level

higher

4 2

Coalition Creek

rehabilitation site

400 Yes No RHB and LHB

when water level

higher

3 3 Site is located just upstream

of bridge. Boulders because

of bridge construction.

Coalition Creek

non-rehabilitation

site

0 Yes LHB and RHB No No End of site adjacent to

willows

Coalition Creek

non-rehabilitation

20 Yes LHB and RHB No No


41

site

Coalition Creek

non-rehabilitation

site

40 Yes LHB and RHB No No Some erosion on LHB

Coalition Creek

non-rehabilitation

site

60 RHB fenced Yes No

Coalition Creek

non-rehabilitation

site

80 RHB fenced Yes No

Coalition Creek

non-rehabilitation

site

100 RHB fenced Yes No First decent pool, 8m x 5m,

max depth >1.0m

Coalition Creek

non-rehabilitation

site

120 Yes LHB and RHB No No

Coalition Creek

non-rehabilitation

site

140 Yes LHB and RHB Yes (from

d/s)

No Some erosion on LHB due to

cattle

Coalition Creek

non-rehabilitation

site

160 Yes LHB and RHB Yes No Some erosion on LHB due to

cattle

Coalition Creek

non-rehabilitation

site

200 Yes LHB and RHB Yes No Some erosion on LHB due to

cattle

Coalition Creek

non-rehabilitation

site

240 No, RHB too steep, LHB is roadside

near bridge

No 0.5 1

Coalition Creek

non-rehabilitation

site

280 Yes No No 1 1.5 Just below bridge, top of

pool, LHB and RHB eroded,

pool is unwadeable in centre

>1.4m

Coalition Creek

non-rehabilitation

site

320 Yes LHB, no RHB (road) No


42

Coalition Creek

non-rehabilitation

site

360 No RHB some erosion and road,

LHB there is a drainage point

from milk factory

Coalition Creek

non-rehabilitation

site

400 No 0.7 0.8 At top of pool and bottom of

run

Coalition Creek

non-rehabilitation

site

440 yes rhb only 1 1 Road is adjacent to site, LHB

and RHB show signs of

erosion

Fencing Stock access Undercut bank LHB height

(m)

None Yes RHB

None Yes RHB

None Yes no

None Yes RHB

None Yes no

None Yes RHB

None Yes no

None Yes no

None Yes LHB

None Yes no

None Yes no

None Yes no

None Yes no

None Yes no

None Yes no

None Yes no

None Yes no

None Yes Yes

None Yes no

None Yes RHB, LHB

None Yes No 5

None Yes no 2

None Yes Yes when water level higher 2


45

None Yes RHB and LHB when water level higher

Yes No RHB when water level higher 3 to 6

Yes No No 10

Yes No LHB when water level higher, RHB undercut 30cm

now

Yes No No 0

Yes No RHB and LHB when water level higher 4

Yes No RHB and LHB when water level higher 3

Yes LHB and RHB No No



RHB fenced Yes No

RHB fenced Yes No

RHB fenced Yes No


Yes LHB and RHB Yes (from

d/s)

No

Yes LHB and RHB Yes No

Yes LHB and RHB Yes No

No, RHB too steep, LHB is roadside near

bridge

No 0.5

Yes No No 1

Yes LHB, no RHB (road) No

No

No 0.7

yes rhb only 1

45

www.delwp.vic.gov.au

Translocation of River Blackfish – Tarwin River …...Translocation of River Blackfish– Tarwin...

Documents

Transcript of Translocation of River Blackfish – Tarwin River …...Translocation of River Blackfish– Tarwin...