translocation of river blackfish – tarwin river …...translocation of river blackfish– tarwin...
TRANSCRIPT
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Unpublished Client Report for West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority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Unpublished Client Report for West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority.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
River Blackfish translocation
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
River Blackfish translocation
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.
River Blackfish translocation
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).
River Blackfish translocation
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.
River Blackfish translocation
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.
River Blackfish translocation
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.
River Blackfish translocation
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.
River Blackfish translocation
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
River Blackfish translocation
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.
River Blackfish translocation
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.
River Blackfish translocation
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.
River Blackfish translocation
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
River Blackfish translocation
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.
River Blackfish translocation
14
Figure 5 Snag densities at the two source sites (top) and the two translocation sites (bottom)
River Blackfish translocation
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.
River Blackfish translocation
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
River Blackfish translocation
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.
River Blackfish translocation
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.
River Blackfish translocation
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.
River Blackfish translocation
22
6 Appendices
Appendix 1 – Fish movement graphs
Fish Number: 38688 Fish Number: 38686
Fish Number: 38687 Fish Number: 38689
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
River Blackfish translocation
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
Fish Number: 38690 Fish Number: 38691
Fish Number: 38692 Fish Number: 38693
Fish Number: 38694 Fish Number: 38696
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
River Blackfish translocation
24
Fish Number: 38697 Fish Number: 38698
Fish Number: 38699 Fish Number: 38700
Fish Number: 38710 Fish Number: 38713
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
River Blackfish translocation
25
Fish Number: 38714 Fish Number: 38715
Fish Number: 38716 Fish Number: 38717
Fish Number: 38718 Fish Number: 38719
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
River Blackfish translocation
26
Fish Number: 38721 Fish Number: 38722
Fish Number: 38723 Fish Number: 38724
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 40 43 44 43.5 73 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 120 66 72 90 70 74.5 420 Pool
Tarwin West Branch 160 55 63 78 89 71.3 330 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
River Blackfish translocation
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
Coalition Creek -non-
rehab
20 32 31 23 16 25.5 449 Pool, no flow
Coalition Creek -non-
rehab
40 25 19 17 20.3 236 Pool
Coalition Creek -non-
rehab
60 25 26 39 30.0 241 Pool, no flow
Coalition Creek -non-
rehab
80 23 14 18.5 115 Pool, no flow
Coalition Creek -non-
rehab
100 49 54 68 55 56.5 290 Pool, no flow
River Blackfish translocation
29
Coalition Creek -non-
rehab
120 7 6 6.5 120 Run, flowing
Coalition Creek -non-
rehab
140 74 73 66 71.0 306 Pool, no flow
Coalition Creek -non-
rehab
160 19 12 24 18.3 210 Run, flowing
Coalition Creek -non-
rehab
200 22 19 18 16 18.8 230 Pool, no flow
Coalition Creek -non-
rehab
240 63 45 74 49 57.8 395 Pool, no flow
Coalition Creek -non-
rehab
280 87 89 140 140 85 63 41 92.1 550 Pool, no flow
Coalition Creek -non-
rehab
320 5 7 6 8 4 6.0 90 Run, slight flow
Coalition Creek -non-
rehab
360 34 38 69 70 60 65 38 63 54.6 297 Pool, no flow
Coalition Creek -non-
rehab
400 37 21 32 30 28 29.6 170 Pool, no flow
Coalition Creek -non-
rehab
440 48 56 55 52 59 54.0 300 Pool, no flow
River Blackfish translocation
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 0 58 49 53.5 70 Run
Boyles Creek 40 43 44 43.5 73 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 120 66 72 90 70 74.5 420 Pool
Tarwin West Branch 160 55 63 78 89 71.3 330 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
River Blackfish translocation
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
Coalition Creek -non-
rehab
0 27 44 41 37.3 331 Pool, no flow
Coalition Creek -non-
rehab
20 32 31 23 16 25.5 449 Pool, no flow
Coalition Creek -non-
rehab
40 25 19 17 20.3 236 Pool
Coalition Creek -non-
rehab
60 25 26 39 30.0 241 Pool, no flow
Coalition Creek -non-
rehab
80 23 14 18.5 115 Pool, no flow
Coalition Creek -non-
rehab
100 49 54 68 55 56.5 290 Pool, no flow
Coalition Creek -non-
rehab
120 7 6 6.5 120 Run, flowing
Coalition Creek -non-
rehab
140 74 73 66 71.0 306 Pool, no flow
River Blackfish translocation
32
Coalition Creek -non-
rehab
160 19 12 24 18.3 210 Run, flowing
Coalition Creek -non-
rehab
200 22 19 18 16 18.8 230 Pool, no flow
Coalition Creek -non-
rehab
240 63 45 74 49 57.8 395 Pool, no flow
Coalition Creek -non-
rehab
280 87 89 140 140 85 63 41 92.1 550 Pool, no flow
Coalition Creek -non-
rehab
320 5 7 6 8 4 6.0 90 Run, slight flow
Coalition Creek -non-
rehab
360 34 38 69 70 60 65 38 63 54.6 297 Pool, no flow
Coalition Creek -non-
rehab
400 37 21 32 30 28 29.6 170 Pool, no flow
Coalition Creek -non-
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 160 0 0 1 5 80 1 0 None
Boyles Creek 200 60 1 5 None
Boyles Creek 240 0 0 0 30 100 0 60 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
River Blackfish translocation
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
90 20 70 semi continuous
Coalition
Creek -
rehabilitation
site
200 0 80 0 15 Arrowhead,
Azolla,
duckweed
95 10 60 semi continuous
River Blackfish translocation
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
95 60 70 semi continuous
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
River Blackfish translocation
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
River Blackfish translocation
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 40 None Yes RHB
Boyles Creek 80 None Yes no Lots of meanders
Boyles Creek 120 None Yes RHB
Boyles Creek 160 None Yes no
Boyles Creek 200 None Yes RHB Immediately downstream of
road
Boyles Creek 240 None Yes no
Boyles Creek 280 None Yes no
Boyles Creek 320 None Yes LHB Some erosion
Boyles Creek 360 None Yes no
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
River Blackfish translocation
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
River Blackfish translocation
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
River Blackfish translocation
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
River Blackfish translocation
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
Yes LHB and RHB No No
Yes LHB and RHB No No
RHB fenced Yes No
RHB fenced Yes No
RHB fenced Yes No
Yes LHB and RHB No 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