Supporting recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas: Year 1 results

Fiona Gavine, Nick Taylor, Taylor Hunt, Adrian Kos, John Douglas, Kylie Hall, Daniel Steel

February 2010

Fisheries Research Report Series No. 43 If you would like to receive this ISSN 1448‐7373 information/publication in an ISBN 978‐1‐74217‐816‐5 accessible format (such as large print or audio) please call the Authorised by the Victorian Government, Customer Service Centre on: 1 Spring Street, Melbourne 136 186, TTY: 1800 122 969, Published by the Department of Primary or email Industries. [email protected] Copies are available from the website: www.dpi.vic.gov.au/fishing © The State of Victoria, Department of Primary General disclaimer Industries, 2010. This publication may be of assistance to you but This publication is copyright. No part may be the State of Victoria and its employees do not reproduced by any process except in accordance guarantee that the publication is without flaw of with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. any kind or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore disclaims all Preferred way to cite this publication: liability for any error, loss or other consequence Gavine F, Taylor N, Hunt T, Kos A, Douglas J, which may arise from you relying on any Hall K, & Steel, D (2010). Supporting the information in this publication. recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas: Year 1 results. Fisheries Victoria Research Report Series No. 43.

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged are ii Foreword

Victoria has a fire‐prone landscape, with three major bushfires occurring in 2003, 2006–07 and

2009.

In 2003 and 2006–07, vast tracts of upland bushland in north‐east and alpine areas of Victoria were burnt (2.5 million hectares in total). These areas host Victoria’s most important recreational fisheries. This report presents the results for the first year of a project (up to June 2008) to investigate the impact of the 2006–07 bushfires on recreational fisheries and associated regional economic and social aspects, which was commissioned under the Victorian Government’s “Bushfire Recovery Initiative” in July 2007.

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas iii Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas iv Executive Summary

This project investigated the impact of bushfires An important consideration in determining the on recreational fisheries in the north‐east, alpine impact of bushfires on aquatic ecosystems is the and Gippsland area of Victoria. It was funded climatic conditions pre and post‐fire. In the case by the Victorian Government’s “Bushfire of the 2006–07 Victorian bushfire, extreme events Recovery Initiative”. The specific objectives of were recorded before (long‐term drought), this project in Year 1 included: during and after (floods) the fire event. • To monitor important recreational fisheries in Data analysis found that there appeared to be no the bushfire damaged areas to assess the systematic differences in either abundance or extent and magnitude of impacts on fish occurrence of important recreational as a populations (Phase I: Broadscale assessment) result of fire intensity. Significant effects were, • To conduct more detailed monitoring at however, found for the effects of floods that selected locations to assess the recovery of occurred in June 2007 on recreational species. impacted fish populations over time (Phase II: Detailed monitoring took place on five rivers in Detailed monitoring) the bushfire affected area and at one control site. • To determine factors that drive the behaviour Four of the six sites had historical data with of recreational fishers who have in the past, or which the 2008 data could be compared. The may in the future, fish in the bushfire area. other two rivers were included to provide Two major bushfires affected the north‐east and information on the status of fish populations in alpine areas of Victoria in 2003 and in 2006–07 these rivers, but detailed analysis of the data was with large areas of land burnt during both not possible. events. The most important recreational fishery As found in the broadscale assessment, rivers in in this region is salmonids (brown and rainbow catchments north of the GDR (King Parrot Creek, trout) which thrive in the cool upland waters and the Howqua, Thowgla and Buckland Rivers) although anglers also target other species (e.g. generally had greater numbers of fish and a crayfish, blackfish, eels and redfin). greater diversity of species than those south of The broadscale assessment undertaken for this the GDR (Crooked and Wellington Rivers). Very study provides a qualitative overview of the few fish of any kind were found in the status of fish populations in six catchments and within the Thomson catchment. at seventy‐five sites in the area affected by the It is thought that this could be due to the long‐ 2006–07 bushfire. The results show that the lasting impacts of the severe flood that hit that diversity and abundance of both recreational and catchment in 2007. other fish species varied between and within A key finding of the detailed monitoring surveys catchments. in 2008 was the disruption of brown trout Generally speaking, catchments south of the recruitment in bushfire affected river systems in (GDR) (Thomson, Mitchell the year immediately post‐fire. This was and Tambo) appeared to have been more affected particularly evident in the Howqua River (2008, than catchments north of the GDR (Ovens, Upper post 2007 fire) and the Thowgla River (2004 post Goulburn and Kiewa). No fish at all were found 2003 fire) . Brown trout recruitment failure at 7 out of 75 sites (9% of sites), 6 of which were appears to be more pronounced where rainbow south of the GDR. No recreational species were trout are also present in the system. found at 24 of the 75 sites surveyed (32%), 22 of For the purposes of this study “recovered” (or which were south of the GDR. In the Tambo un‐impacted) populations were defined at the catchment, trout were found none of the sites outset as: surveyed (100%); in the Thomson and Mitchell catchments, trout were found at only 33% and 64% of sites, respectively. This contrasts with catchments north of the GDR where trout were found at far more sites: Ovens (72%), Upper Goulburn (93%) and Kiewa (100%).

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas v • Fish population abundances recorded in 2008 • Howqua River. Recovery time 1‐2 yrs. surveys were comparable with those found in Brown trout populations can be re‐colonised previous surveys that were not influenced by from Lake Eildon or other refugia. bushfire or other major disturbances • . Recovery time 2‐5 years. • A number of length classes were present Recovery will depend on climatic conditions • Evidence of successful recruitment in 2007. becoming more favourable for trout (end of drought). There are fish in the upper Within this definition, rivers that could be catchment that could re‐colonise downstream classified as “un‐impacted” were the King Parrot reaches. Creek (Control) and the Thowgla River (burnt in • Buckland River. Recovery time 2‐5 years. 2003). Rivers that show signs of continuing Recovery will depend on climatic conditions impact in the 2008 survey were the Howqua and becoming more favourable for trout (end of Crooked Rivers, particularly with respect to drought) and the presence of fish to recolonise brown trout populations. Although there were in the and Upper Buckland. no historical data available, the Wellington and Buckland Rivers would also fall within this • Wellington River. Recovery time >10 years. “impacted” classification due to lack of fish, lack Catchment subject to severe flooding and of multiple length classes and/or lack of evidence erosion. of recruitment. A key concern now is how long recovery may take in these systems. Where bushfire alone was the major disturbance in a catchment (e.g. the Upper Goulburn) trout populations appeared to cope well with “good” and “average” populations recorded at most sites during the broadscale assessment. Although the detailed surveys picked up more subtle impacts on brown trout recruitment in the year after bushfires, it is expected that the recovery of fish populations in catchments only affected by the bushfire will be rapid (within 1‐2 years) as seen in the Thowgla River after the 2003 fire. Catchments that also had river systems affected by severe drought and some flooding (e.g Ovens, Tambo and Mitchell) had a high proportion of sites with no trout or “poor” populations. These catchments generally provide marginal habitat for trout and recovery will depend on climatic conditions becoming more favourable for trout (i.e. cooler and wetter). In the Thomson catchment where severe flooding caused massive erosion and landscape‐changing impacts, the timelines to recovery are likely to be far longer. An analysis of how the large scale mass‐transport of material has affected trout habitat in the river system will be required before estimates of recovery times can be made. In summary, the potential for recovery of impacted fish populations in this study was estimated as follows:

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas vi Table of Contents

Foreword...... iii

Executive Summary...... v

Introduction...... 1 Background...... 1 Victorian Alpine Bushfire events ...... 2 Project objectives ...... 2 This report...... 3

Project Design and Methods ...... 4 Literature review...... 4 Fish species list...... 4 Phase I fish studies...... 4 Phase I data analysis...... 6 Phase II fish studies ...... 7 Site selection...... 8 Quantitative assessment of fish populations ...... 8 Catchment, site and habitat information...... 10 Phase II data analysis ...... 11 Survey of angler behaviour...... 12

Results...... 13 Phase I fish surveys (broadscale assessment)...... 13 Trout populations ...... 13 Blackfish ...... 13 Crayfish...... 13 Analysis of trout populations by catchment...... 16 Data analysis...... 16 Phase II Quantitative Fish Surveys ...... 19 2008 Data...... 19 Comparison of 2008 data with previous studies ...... 23 Angler perceptions of fishing in the bushfire affected area...... 43

Discussion...... 46 Drought...... 46

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas vii Post‐fire floods ...... 47 Bushfire impacts on Victorian fish populations ...... 47 Broadscale assessment (Phase I)...... 47 Detailed monitoring (Phase II) ...... 48 Potential for recovery of fish populations...... 49

Conclusions ...... 52

Acknowledgements ...... 53

References ...... 54

Appendix 1 – Fish species caught in Phase II...... 56

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas viii List of Tables Table 1: Comparison of past major bushfire events in Victoria (Anon 2007)...... 2 Table 2: River systems burnt in the recent alpine bushfires...... 4 Table 3: Data collected at each site during broadscale assessment of 2006–07 burnt area...... 6 Table 4: Categories of burn severity...... 6 Table 5: Rivers selected for detailed assessment...... 8 Table 6: Paired t‐test for population estimates between 3‐ and 4‐pass electrofishing methods applied to historical data ((Hall 2005 unpublished)) by J. Douglas (FRB)...... 9 Table 7: Data to be collected as part of quantitative fish assessment...... 10 Table 8: Watershed variables often in fisheries assessment ((McMahon, Zale et al. 1996))...... 11 Table 9: Summary of trout caught during Phase I of this project by catchment area...... 16 Table 10: Results for Kruskal‐Wallis non‐parametric one‐way analysis of variance. Results significant at α < 0.05 are bold...... 17 Table 11: Results for two‐way contingency table analysis (Peason’s Chi Square statistic). Results significant at α < 0.05 are printed in bold. P‐values marked with * are unreliable...... 17 Table 12: Occurrence data for the species and species groups. Cells show the percentage of sites within the burn severity class for which the species or species group was present. Under the null hypothesis, these numbers should be approximately equal across the four burn severity classes. Statistically significant differences are shown in bold...... 17 Table 13: Results of the proportional odds model analysis of the effects of multiple environmental factors on fish abundance. Chi‐square and p values were calculated using the likelihood ratio tests described above. Results significant at α < 0.05 are printed in bold...... 18 Table 14: Slope coefficients from the proportional odds models. Cells printed in bold are those for which a statistically significant (α < 0.05) effect of the independent variable was found...... 18 Table 15: Summary of fish caught in 2008 surveys...... 19 Table 16: Length threshold for 0+ age fish in various river systems (after Hall, 2005)...... 20 Table 17: Summary statistics for salmonid fish caught during 2008 surveys...... 21 Table 18: Salmonid fish caught in King Parrot Creek in 2008 and in previous surveys...... 24 Table 19: Selected habitat parameters from Sites 1 and 3 King Parrot Creek, 2002‐2008...... 26 Table 20: Salmonid fish caught in the Howqua River in 2008 and in previous surveys...... 28 Table 21: Selected habitat parameters from Sites 1 and 2 Howqua River, 2002‐2008...... 30 Table 22: Salmonid fish caught in the Thowgla River in 2008 and in previous studies...... 32 Table 23: Selected habitat parameters from Sites 1 and 2 Thowgla River, 2002‐2008 ...... 34 Table 24: Salmonid fish caught in the Crooked River in 2008 and previous surveys...... 36 Table 25: Selected habitat parameters from Sites 1 and 2 Crooked River, 2002‐2008...... 38 Table 26: Salmonid fish caught in the Buckland River in 2008...... 41 Table 27: Comparison of 2008 with data collected 2002‐2005...... 49 Table 28: Expected recovery times for impacted rivers in this study...... 51

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas ix List of Figures Figure 1: Factors influencing fire and the effects of fire on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems (Gresswell 1999)...... 1 Figure 2: Alpine areas affected by bushfire in 2003 and 2006‐07 (courtesy of Department of Sustainability and Environment)...... 3 Figure 3: Extent of the 2006–07 bushfire area, showing impacted CMA areas...... 5 Figure 4: Sites surveyed in October‐November 2007 as part of the broadscale assessment...... 5 Figure 5: Map showing rivers selected for detailed assessment in Phase II...... 9 Figure 6: Presence (yellow dots)/ absence (brown dots) of brown trout found during the broadscale assessment...... 14 Figure 7: Presence (yellow dots)/ absence (brown dots) of rainbow trout found during the broadscale assessment...... 14 Figure 8: Presence (yellow dots)/ absence (brown dots) of recreational species found during the broadscale assessment...... 15 Figure 9: Presence (yellow dots)/ absence (brown dots) of all fish species found during the broadscale assessment...... 15 Figure 10: Proportion of brown and rainbow trout caught in 2008 surveys...... 20 Figure 11: Relative abundance of brown trout in rivers surveyed in 2008...... 20 Figure 12: Relative abundance of rainbow trout in rivers surveyed in 2008...... 20 Figure 13: Length‐frequency histograms for brown and rainbow trout caught in rivers surveyed in April‐ May 2008...... 22 Figure 14: King Parrot Creek showing 2008 survey sites ...... 23 Figure 15: Relative abundance of brown trout in King Parrot Creek during DPI surveys...... 23 Figure 16: Length, weight and condition of salmonid fish caught in King Parrot Creek during recent surveys...... 24 Figure 17: Length‐frequency histograms for salmonid fish caught in King Parrot Creek 2002‐2008...... 25 Figure 18: Howqua River, Upper Goulburn showing fish sampling sites...... 27 Figure 19: Relative abundance (fish/ha) of brown trout in the Howqua River...... 27 Figure 20: Relative abundance (fish/ha) of rainbow trout in the Howqua River...... 27 Figure 21: Length, weight and condition of salmonid fish caught in Howqua River during recent surveys...... 28 Figure 22: Length‐frequency histograms for salmonid fish caught in Howqua River 2002‐2008...... 29 Figure 23: Thowgla River, Upper Murray showing fish survey sites...... 31 Figure 24: Relative abundance (fish/ha) of brown trout in the Thowgla River...... 31 Figure 25: Relative abundance of rainbow trout (fish/ha) in the Thowgla river...... 31 Figure 26: Length, weight and condition of salmonid fish caught in the Thowgla River during recent surveys...... 32 Figure 27: Length‐frequency histograms for salmonid fish caught in Thowgla River 2002‐2008...... 33 Figure 28: Crooked River, Mitchell catchment showing fish sampling sites...... 35 Figure 29: Relative abundance (fish/ha) of brown trout in the Crooked River...... 35

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas x Figure 30: Length, weight and condition of brown trout caught in the Crooked River during recent surveys...... 36 Figure 31: Length‐frequency histograms for salmonid fish caught in the Crooked River 2002‐2008...... 37 Figure 32: Wellington River, Thomson Catchment showing 2008 fish survey sites...... 39 Figure 33: Bushfire affected forest in the Wellington catchment...... 39 Figure 34: Debris flows on the banks of the Wellington river give an indication of flood water levels..... 40 Figure 35: Erosion and mass transport of sediment were major problems in the Wellington and Macalister catchments...... 40 Figure 36: Buckland River, Ovens catchment showing 2008 survey sites...... 41 Figure 37: Length‐frequency histogram for salmonid fish caught in the Buckland River in 2008...... 42 Figure 38: Reasons given by anglers for not fishing in the area affected by the 2006–07 bushfire...... 43 Figure 39: Perceptions of anglers that do not fish in the area about the impact of bushfires...... 43 Figure 40: Species targeted by anglers who fish in the bushfire area...... 43 Figure 41: Frequency of using fishing techniques (Fly, lure and bait) in the bushfire area...... 44 Figure 42: Who anglers who fish in the bushfire area prefer to fish with...... 44 Figure 43: Angler motivation for returning to the bushfire area to fish...... 44 Figure 44: Reasons for anglers not returning to the bushfire area to fish...... 44 Figure 45: Perceptions of returned anglers about the impact of the bushfires on recreational fishing...... 45 Figure 46: Factors that would motivate angers to return to the bushfire affected area...... 45 Figure 47: Rainfall deficiencies in in the 11 months prior to November 2006...... 46 Figure 48: The at Swifts Creek in February 2007...... 47 Figure 49: Rainfall over Australia in June 2007 showing highest rainfall on record in some parts of Gippsland...... 47 Figure 50: A generalised temporal sequence of selected events in response of aquatic systems to bushfire ((Gresswell 1999))...... 50

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas xi

Introduction

Fire is a natural phenomenon that has always been a feature of the Australian landscape. However, a combination of landscape and climatic factors make Victoria one of the most fire‐prone environments in the world (Anon 2003). The fire‐ risk to which Victorians are exposed has increased since European settlement due to changes in vegetation cover from land clearing (which has changed the pattern of fires) and increasing population (Anon 2003). In the future, climatic variability may continue to increase the frequency and intensity of bushfires, so appropriate tools to manage the consequences of these events must be developed to address this increased risk. This study focuses on the affect of bushfires on freshwater ecosystems and the recreational fisheries that they support. These recreational fisheries provide important social and economic benefits to rural communities in Victoria and impacts on the fisheries can have significant effects on local communities. The outcomes of this project will provide fisheries managers with knowledge to respond quickly and effectively to future natural disasters such as bushfires, thereby minimising potential economic and social effects on communities. Background Bushfires can have dramatic effects on both the landscape and aquatic habitat through the loss of riparian vegetation, mass erosion and debris flows Figure 1: Factors influencing fire and the effects after storm events (Howell 2006). The nature of of fire on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems fire‐induced environmental change on aquatic (Gresswell 1999). habitats and fauna may be direct or indirect and Increased temperatures can also alter stream have either immediate or extended periods of chemistry making the balance of ammonia ions impact (Rieman, Lee et al. 1997); (Gresswell 1999); shift to more toxic forms and oxygen less soluble. (Rieman and Clayton 1997) depending on a variety Other immediate effects of bushfires include of environmental conditions (Figure 1). increasing pH and phosphorus levels due to ash During severe bushfire events, direct impacts on deposition as well as increases in stream nitrogen aquatic habitats may result from increased water (Hitt 2003). Ash washed into streams by rainfall temperatures, which can directly affect fish and forms a toxic slurry that some studies have found cause mortalities if lethal thresholds are exceeded to be fatal to salmonids (Rinne 1996). (Hitt 2003). In Victoria, this could potentially be a Indirect effects of bushfire can include changes in problem in small heavily forested streams, the hydrologic regime (greater and more variable particularly at times when water levels are low, discharge), stream channel stability, erosion, debris and some of the galaxiid fish species with more flows (including sediments), woody debris loading limited distributions in these types of habitat could and riparian cover (which can lead to increased be at risk. solar radiation reaching streams increasing water temperatures) (Rieman, Lee et al. 1995; Dunham, Young et al. 2003). Both direct and indirect impacts

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas 1 can strongly influence the function of aquatic intensity of the burn and intensity and timing of ecosystems (Rieman 1997). rain events after fire. Mortalities of salmonids have been recorded as a direct result of bushfires, particularly where Victorian Alpine Bushfire events populations have been isolated in small headwater The Alpine areas of Victoria have had two streams (Dunham, Young et al. 2003). In larger significant bushfire events in the past five years. systems, mortalities of salmonids have also been The first, in January 2003, affected 1.12 million recorded in US studies (Rieman, Lee et al. 1997). hectares (ha) in north‐east Victoria and Gippsland Salmonid mortalities were also recorded in a study (hatched area in Figure 2) and a total area of 1.3 that found survivors of the immediate effects of million ha state‐wide. The second started in bushfires became physiologically stressed and December 2006 and burned 1.05 million ha in were then effectively extirpated by subsequent Alpine areas in the Great Divide North and South floods through downstream displacement or fire areas (Figure 2). The total area burnt (state‐ mortality (Rinne 1996). Another study found no wide) in the 2006/07 fire exceeded 1.2 million ha live salmonids in burned reaches shortly after the (Anon 2007). Table 1 compares these two fire fire, but found that fish remained in reaches that events with other major Victorian bushfires. burnt at low intensity or in reaches downstream (Howell 2006). Table 1: Comparison of past major bushfire events in Victoria (Anon 2007). Studies have concluded that a number of factors influence the effect of fire on fishes (Howell 2006): Losses 1939 1983 2003 2006– 07 • Severity and extent of the fire and the storms Fatalities 71 47 1 5 that often follow Houses 650 2,000+ 41 108 Stock losses Not 27,000 11,600 66,006 • Distribution and connectivity of adjacent known populations Area burnt (ha) 1.5 m 200,000 1.3 m >1.2 m • Effects of past land and water management. The area affected by bushfires in 2003 and 2006–07 Further, it has been argued that the vulnerability of supports many of Victoria’s significant recreational fish to fire effects is directly related to the habitat riverine trout fisheries as well as providing habitat specificity of the species and that the degradation, for a number of small native fish, some of which isolation and fragmentation of habitats is inversely may be threatened. related to habitat size (Dunham, Young et al. 2003). Broadly speaking, the effects of fire on aquatic Project objectives ecosystems can be considered short (<1 year), This project was funded by the Victorian medium (1‐10 years) and long term (10‐100 years) Government’s “Bushfire Recovery Initiative”. The effects (Minshall, Robinson et al. 1997). Medium specific objectives of the R&D component of this term effects are those that exert their maximal project include: impact in the first few years after a fire such as • To monitor important recreational fisheries in increased sediment levels and turbidity and erosion of stream channels. In severely burnt the bushfire damaged areas to assess the extent watersheds, solar radiation can result in increased and magnitude of impacts on fish populations algae production for 2‐6 years until the canopy re‐ • To conduct more detailed monitoring at develops. selected locations to assess the recovery of impacted fish populations over time Many species have adapted to periodic • To determine factors that drive the behaviour disturbance from bushfires and in many ways of recreational fishers who have in the past, or bushfires can be regarded as having a positive may in the future, fish in the bushfire area impact on aquatic ecosystems through the supply • To conduct an assessment of the social and of woody debris which increases habitat complexity (Rieman and Clayton 1997). The actual economic importance of recreational fisheries in impacts of bushfires are highly variable depending bushfire areas; the impact of the fires and the success of any recovery program. (This on the conditions in a particular catchment (including topography, soil conditions, climatic component of the project was implemented in history) prior to the event as well as the extent and 2008/09.)

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas 2 Figure 2: Alpine areas affected by bushfire in 2003 and 2006‐07 (courtesy of Department of Sustainability and Environment). This report This report documents the results of activities in the first year of the project which included the following;

• Literature review ‐ review of relevant international and local literature, data and work done by various agencies post 2003 bushfires • Phase I fish studies ‐ broadscale assessment of

fish populations including data analysis to identify environmental factors that may explain the occurrence of fish species

• Phase II fish studies – detailed assessment at selected sites to determine fish populations and their variation compared with previous data • Angler behaviour survey. Development and implementation of a strategy and questionnaire to determine drivers of behaviour of recreational fishers.

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas 3 Project Design and Methods

Literature review Phase I fish studies A review of literature related to bushfires and their Phase I of this project (the broadscale assessment) impact on aquatic ecosystems was undertaken focussed on the 2006–07 bushfire event. The first using a number of local and international data stage in implementing the broadscale assessment sources, including: was to identify river systems impacted by the 2006–07 alpine bushfire (Figure 3). Four catchment • Aquatic Science and Fisheries Journal articles management areas were affected: • Government research reports • North east CMA. Region covers approximately • Conference presentations 1.9 million ha of Victoria. Two of the three major river systems in this catchment, the • Other fire and aquatic ecology literature. Kiewa and Ovens rivers, were burnt in the From this literature, information on bushfire 2006–07 fire induced environmental changes in water yield, • Goulburn‐Broken CMA. Comprised of the quality, composition and temperature as well as catchments of the Goulburn and Broken Rivers fish habitat and assemblages was collated. The and part of the valley. The literature review is reported in the first milestone catchment covers 2.4 million ha. Only the report for this project (Gavine, Hunt et al. 2008). Upper Gouburn River upstream of Lake Eildon was affected by the 2006–07 bushfire Fish species list • CMA. Region covers an area of For the purposes of this study recreational fish 2.1 million ha. The Mitchell and Tambo River species were defined as follows: systems were burnt in the 2006–07 bushfire • CMA. Region covers an area • Salmonids: Brown trout (Salmo trutta) and of over 1.8 million ha. This catchment was rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) badly affected by the 2006–07 bushfire with 3 of • Blackfish: River blackfish (Gadopsis marmoratus) the 4 major river systems burnt ‐ the Thomson, and two‐spined blackfish (Gadopsis bispinosus) Macalister and Avon Rivers. • Crayfish: particularly Gippsland spiny crayfish The river systems affected (to a greater or lesser (Euastacus kershawi), but also other species extent) by the 2006‐07 alpine fires are summarised found such as Murray River Crayfish (Euastacus in Table 2. For comparison, river systems burnt in armatus) and Central Victorian Crayfish 2003 and in both events are also shown. (Euastacus woiwuru). Other species found during the surveys include: Table 2: River systems burnt in the recent alpine Common name Scientific name bushfires. 2003 2006‐07 Both 2003 & 2006‐07 Natives Short‐finned eel Anguilla australis Kiewa Goulburn Mitchell Long‐finned eel Anguilla reinhardtii Mitta Mitta Mitchell Ovens Australian smelt Retropinna semoni Ovens Ovens Kiewa Tupong Pseudaphritis urvilli Snowy Thomson Tambo Common Galaxias maculatus Tambo Kiewa Mountain galaxias Galaxias olidus Upper Murray Tambo Southern pygmy perch Nannoperca australis Mitchell

Exotic Carp Cyprinus carpio Important recreational fisheries in the areas Redfin Perca fluviatilis damaged by bushfires in 2006–07 were identified Roach Rutilis rutilus using the database compiled in another study Goldfish Carassius auratus (Hall 2006 unpublished).

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas 4 Figure 3: Extent of the 2006–07 bushfire area, showing impacted CMA areas.

Figure 4: Sites surveyed in October‐November 2007 as part of the broadscale assessment.

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas 5 This database ranked rivers according to a Phase I data analysis number of criteria. The ‘Social Sport” To facilitate data analysis a number of indices classification was used to determine high value were developed (including burn severity, drought fisheries for this project. Rivers classified as intensity, flood intensity) to examine the effect of “high” or “very high” by the criteria were short‐ the bushfire and other environmental factors on listed for potential inclusion in the broadscale the relative abundance of recreational fish species assessment. Final decisions on the sites to be as found during the broadscale assessment. The surveyed were made in the field, based on an analysis was conducted by Dr Angus Webb of assessment of accessibility, river conditions and Melbourne University using a variety of statistical other factors. techniques using SYSTAT 12 statistical software. The aim of Phase I of this study was to conduct a Data analysis for Phase I focussed on attempting broadscale “presence/absence” survey of fish in to answer the following questions: the bushfire area. Surveys were undertaken using a single pass with an electrofishing backpack unit. 1. What is the effect of the bushfires on The data collected at each site are summarised in recreational fish species abundance / Table 3. Where large numbers of small fish were occurrence? found, a representative sample (up to 30) was 2. Have other impacts associated with drought weighed and measured. In addition, and flooding affected the ways in which photographs of the habitat were taken at each site bushfires affect the fish populations? along with examples of the fish species caught. What is the effect of the bushfires on Table 3: Data collected at each site during recreational fish species abundance / occurrence? broadscale assessment of 2006–07 burnt area. A Kruskal‐Wallis non‐parametric one‐way Category Specific analysis of variance was used in this test as no Location/ site GPS co‐ordinates parametric transformation of the data to a normal River/ stream name distribution was possible due to the large number Stream order number and altitude. of zeros. The Kruskal‐Wallis test assessed Site number (if applicable) Severity of burn at the site whether fish densities varied among the four Catch Per Unit Date and time (start/finish) categories of burn severity identified (Table 4). Effort (CPUE) Sample length Average width No. passes Table 4: Categories of burn severity. Conductivity Rank Definition Water temperature Time on water (hrs, mins) 1 Not burnt Electrofishing machine seconds. 2 Light Fish Species (presence/absence) 3 Moderate Length and weight of representative 4 Severe sample. Condition factor Two‐way contingency tables were analysed to determine whether fish occurrences (as opposed The sites surveyed in the broadscale assessment to abundances) varied among the 4 categories of are shown in Figure 4. A total of 75 sites were burn severity. Two sets of analyses were surveyed over 6 catchments during October and performed; using the maximum and minimum November 2007. burn severity to characterize burn severity at the site level. Pearson’s Chi Square statistic was used to test the null hypothesis that the occurrence of the recreational species and species groups did not vary among the burn intensity categories. Probability values from contingency table analyses are considered unreliable if more than 20% of cells have a value of less than 5. For species found at few sites in this analysis, a large number of cells have values of less than five.

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas 6 Have other impacts associated with drought and ii) the spread of values obtained using this flooding influenced the ways in which bushfires transform appeared better to the eye. affect the fish populations? The results of this analysis are presented later in The data describing site to site differences in flow this report. and temperature were collected at the closest available gauging station to the sampling site. Phase II fish studies This means that environmental data (temperature, Phase II of this project ran from January to June maximum flow and minimum flow) can be 2008. The objective was to conduct detailed identical for more than one site. In contrast, data monitoring at selected locations to benchmark fish on fish numbers, burn severity and altitude are communities and assess the “recovery” of fish site‐specific. Applying the environmental data to populations that may have been impacted by the site level count data in an analysis could lead bushfires. For the purposes of this study to issues of pseudoreplication (Hurlbert 1984), in “recovery” was defined as: that the individual sites are not true replicates in the sense of the environmental data. However, in • Fish populations abundances recorded in 2008 this analysis, flow and temperature data are surveys were comparable with those found in treated as if they were collected at the site scale. previous surveys that were not influenced by Although this could be construed as bushfire or other major disturbances pseudoreplication, on balance it was considered • A number of age classes were present that extra unexplained variation would probably • Evidence of successful recruitment in 2007. more than account for any increased statistical power that occurs as a result of treating the Key assumptions/issues in this phase of the environmental data as if they were collected at the project included: site level. • “Recovery” of bushfire impacted fish The proportional odds model within the ‘Design’ populations can be effectively measured by package (Harrell 2007) for R 2.7.0 (R Development including areas burnt in the 2003 bushfire Core Team 2008) was used for this analysis. This • It may be too early to monitor recovery in is a generalization of the Kruskal‐Wallis approach areas affected by the 2006–07 bushfire, but fish and allows one to fit multifactor models with populations in these areas will be interactions. The proportional odds model also benchmarked to provide a reference point for allows continuous explanatory variables, as well an further evaluation in the future. as the categorical variables allowed in the Kruskal • The broadscale assessment highlighted the Wallis test. This provides an advantage, because: confounding affects of prolonged drought and i) the level of information inherent in the severe floods in 2007– impacts varied between continuous data is far greater than when the and within catchments data are broken into categories • The primary recreational fisheries under ii) the continuous treatment of the data retains consideration are wild, self‐sustaining ordering information that is lost in a factorial populations of brown and rainbow trout. analysis. Only one river in the study area is currently stocked with fish – the in the For the analyses used in this instance, the Thomson catchment. explanatory variables Maximum Burn Severity, The criteria for selecting the rivers for detailed Altitude, Maximum Temperature, Low Flow assessment in Phase II were as follows. Percentage and High Flow Percentage were treated as continuous variables. Data for Low • Site must have been burnt in the 2003 and/or Flow Percentage, High Flow Percentage and (to a 2006–2007 fire event lesser extent) Maximum Temperature were • Site must be an important fishery to positively skewed and required transformation in recreational anglers order to provide a reasonable spread of the • Site must be representative of similar river explanatory variables for the analysis. A fourth reaches in the alpine area root transform was used for these three variables • Site should have good historical data of because: recreational fish populations (in some i) there were a number of zero values in Low instances this was not possible). Flow Percentage (meaning a log‐transform An important source of historical data for this could not be used) project was the major study (Trout Recruitment

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas 7 Study; TRS) conducted by the Freshwater catchment was identified during the broadscale Fisheries Research Group of the Victorian DPI assessment as showing evidence of being which investigated factors influencing trout particularly impacted by events in 2006–07. recruitment in a number of alpine streams (Hall 2005 unpublished). This study monitored fish Site selection populations, habitat, water quality and The TRS monitored 4 sites on each river to assess invertebrates at a number of sites on six rivers recruitment and factors that could influence it. over a period of 4 years (2002‐2005). It focussed On each river, three upland sites were monitored on the juvenile stage of the trout’s lifecycle and (very close together geographically) and one attempted to link recruitment success to lower site to assess changes in overall fish environmental variables (Hall 2005 unpublished). populations over time and the capacity of fish to The data collected during this study provided an move between upstream and downstream excellent benchmark from which the impact of the habitats. Since the objective of the present study bushfire and other climatic events may be was to compare fish populations at specific sites assessed at some sites. A critical review of the after a bushfire event with those before, it was methods employed in this study was conducted decided that two of the three upland sites be prior to the development of the experimental selected on each river system (Figure 5). Where a design for Phase II to ensure that they are river was not monitored under the TRS, 2 sites appropriate to meet the aims of this project. were selected based either on previous Rivers selected for detailed assessment in Phase II monitoring data or on field assessment of are shown in Table 5. This table includes three appropriate locations. rivers that were monitored as part of the TRS and that were also burnt during the 2002–03 or 2006– Quantitative assessment of fish 07 bushfires. King Parrot Creek was included as a control as it was not burnt in either year. These populations rivers were initially chosen for the following In Phase II of this project fish populations were reasons: quantitatively assessed using multiple pass back‐ pack electrofishing. Sampling was carried out • Representative of wild trout streams in various during April and May so that the sampling time geographic and climatic regions of Victoria was consistent with historical data sets. The • Unregulated or minimally regulated section of stream to be sampled was isolated with stop nets (25 mm seine netting weighted to the • Distinct headwater and lowland sites were substrate with steel chain) and the number of fish monitored on each river to assess whether removed on each sampling pass was recorded. trout movement occurred from “juvenile” to The rate at which the catches fall off is directly “adult” habitat. related to the number of fish removed and from this the size of the population can be accurately Table 5: Rivers selected for detailed assessment. estimated depending on how many sampling Catchment River Burnt TRS passes are performed (Cowx 1983). Upper Howqua 2006–07 Yes Goulburn Upper Murray Thowgla 2003 Yes Mitchell Crooked Both Yes Goulburn King Parrot Control Yes Creek Ovens Buckland Both No Thomson Wellington 2006–07 No

Other rivers (with less or no historical data) were also selected for detailed assessment (Table 5). These were the Buckland River in the Ovens catchment, which was intensively studied by the Environmental Protection Authority and Arthur Rylah Institute after the 2003 fires and the Wellington River in the Thomson catchment. The Wellington River was selected even though there is little historical information as the Thomson

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas 8 Figure 5: Map showing rivers selected for detailed assessment in Phase II.

In the TRS, 4‐pass electrofishing over a 200 m Table 6: Paired t‐test for population estimates section was used. However, this method was between 3‐ and 4‐pass electrofishing methods very time consuming and labour intensive and applied to historical data ((Hall 2005 may not be appropriate for any long‐term unpublished)) by J. Douglas (FRB). monitoring. Analysis of the field data collected by the TRS was undertaken to determine if 3‐pass 4 pass‐ comparable estimates of fish populations could be method method generated using fewer electrofishing passes (J. Mean 33.2 34.675 Douglas pers. comm.). The comparison of 3‐pass Variance 940.8456 979.6399 and 4‐pass electrofishing methods over 80 sites Observations 80 80 found that there was no significant difference in Pearson Correlation 0.92501 the trout population estimates generated at most Hypothesized Mean 0 locations (Table 6). For this reason, 3‐pass Difference electrofishing was used in the present study. It Df 79 should be noted that 2‐pass electrofishing is T Stat ‐1.09796 commonly used in long‐term monitoring P(T<=t) one‐tail 0.13778 programs overseas (e.g. the United States) as for T Critical one‐tail 1.664371 most species this is the most cost‐effective method P(T<=t) two‐tail 0.275559 of providing reliable estimates of population T Critical two‐tail 1.990452 structure (Meador, McIntyre et al. 2003). Table 7 shows the fish data collected at each site in the Phase II surveys.

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas 9 sensitivity of a watershed to a disturbance or Table 7: Data to be collected as part of predicting the success of stream habitat quantitative fish assessment. improvement structures. The collation of these Category Data Relevance data for the rivers to be monitored in this study Sampling Date and time Sample area will provide useful descriptors for comparisons data (start/finish) characteristics between study sites. Selected sites on each river Sample length Average width were representative of the stream habitat Conductivity characteristics of the river segment in which it Water temperature resided. Each sampling site was 200 m long and Machine Time on water (hrs, Catch per Unit data mins) Effort (CPUE) was marked out with pegs prior to the survey. Electrofishing machine In order to collect representative information on seconds. No. passes. the habitat and channel characteristics, each site Time between passes. was divided into 5 equally sized segments. For a Fish Species Summary table 200 m stretch of river, markers would be placed (presence/absence) species/no fish Number Length‐frequency every 40 m (6 marker points, 5 segments). Length and weight of histogram Information collected for each segment in relation representative sample. Condition factor to the river channel at a site is shown in Table 8. Otoliths from selected Evidence of fish recruitment Important habitat‐related indicators of bushfire Population recovery that are likely to be critical for trout estimates. reinvasion, recruitment and survival at these sites include temperature range (Ficke, Myrick et al. The specific method that was followed for the 2007) in‐stream and riparian shelter (Zika and collection of quantitative fish data in Phase II is as Peter 2002) and invertebrate food sources follows. (Lintermans 2007). Other habitat variables such as water depth, water velocity, streambed • The section of stream sampled was 200 m in substrate and cover are important in influencing length and isolated with stop nets (25 mm in situ habitat choice (Heggenes 1987) and seine netting weighted to the substrate with probably population density. The utility of steel chain) measuring key habitat factors at sites may reveal • Electrofishing was conducted using Smith‐ explanations for the density and/or condition of Root 12‐V backpack equipment using a pulsed trout found as well as the potential for bushfire DC waveform three successive times in one recovery at sites. Additionally, minimum day thresholds of habitat indicators required for • After the first pass, one hour was allowed to bushfire recovery and/or recreational fish elapse before the second pass was started population survival may be identified. • All captured fish and were held The aquatic invertebrate community in rivers is alive in an aerated bin for subsequent commonly used as an indicator to assess the processing and release health of an aquatic ecosystem and the effect of • At the end of each pass, the fish and pollution (EPA 2003). Aquatic invertebrates are crustaceans were identified to species level small (such as mayfly and dragonfly and measured for length to the nearest 1 mm nymphs, beetles, snails and worms) that may be (fork length (FL) for fork‐tailed species, total very abundant in aquatic habitats. They play a length (TL) for others and carapace length for critical role in the processing of energy in the crustaceans) and weighed to the nearest 1 g ecosystem as well as providing a food supply for • Otoliths from a minimal number of fish were other animals and birds. Aquatic invertebrate obtained to estimate the age of selected fish. communities are known to be sensitive to environmental change caused by pollution, habitat alteration and/or environmental factors. Catchment, site and habitat information The presence or absence of specific invertebrates Geomorphic features such as stream gradient, gives valuable information about the health of an basin size and drainage density as well as ecosystem. The number and type of invertebrates geologic type, influence the composition of stream found are analysed using a biotic index, in this habitat types within a watershed and, therefore, case SIGNAL (Stream Invertebrate Grade Number fish species composition and abundance ((Lanka, – Average Level). Hubert et al. 1987)). Geomorphic descriptions of a watershed (Table 8) are useful for predicting the

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas 10 Table 8: Watershed variables often in fisheries assessment ((McMahon, Zale et al. 1996)). Comments Watershed variables Area Influences water yield, sediment transport and number and size of streams. Drainage density Divide total stream length by watershed area. High DD characteristic of steep highly dissected watersheds. Gradient (slope) Elevation at source‐ elevation at mouth divided by stream length.

Longitudinal profile Plot of elevation versus distance from mouth (changes delineate boundaries of stream segments & sampling strata). Stream order Already defined for most Victorian streams.

Channel /site Width and depth Used to calculate surface are and volume for fish density. Width variables Width:depth ratio correlated with changes in aquatic community composition. Depth is Channel cross section important for fish cover and used for measuring changes in channel shape. Width: depth ratio is important as an index of channel shape and is sensitive to changes in bank conditions. Should be determined at several cross sections. Discharge and flow Fish assemblages can be significantly altered by changes in velocity, Velocity discharge or channel modifications. Channel type Classifies channels into broad groups according to gradient and channel shape.

Substrate and aquatic Substrate Determines the quality of spawning habitat and cover for fish and habitat variables influences macro invert composition and production. Erosion and Measured through changes in channel cross section (see table 4). sedimentation Habitat type & Description of number of types of riffles and pools in streams according complexity to differences in depth, gradient, current velocity, agent of formation and Pool: riffle ratio position in the channel. Differentiates between fast–slow water habitats. Cover Instream areas that provide protection from predators and adverse environmental conditions. Made up of a number of related measurements. Large woody debris Logs and rootwads are an important component of habitat. It stabilises channels, forms pools, traps spawning gravel and organic matter, serves as a habitat for macroinvertebrates and provides cover for fish. Aquatic vegetation Macro invertebrates Water quality

Bank and riparian Stream shading Streambank and riparian areas play an important role in defining area variables Canopy cover channel morphology, controlling stream temperatures and creating fish habitat. Bank angle, height, stability rating

Biological monitoring was undertaken in this Water quality measurements (temperature, study according to the Rapid Assessment dissolved oxygen, conductivity and pH) were also methodology developed by the Environmental taken at each site using a YSI multi‐parameter Protection Authority (EPA 2003) and included an probe. assessment of habitat condition at each site. Phase II data analysis Under the EPA Rapid Assessment method, The data collected on fish species, numbers, macro‐invertebrates were sampled using standard length, weight and age‐class was summarised and “kick” or “sweep” sampling techniques where the analysed using standard fisheries techniques. sampler moved upstream for 10m, disturbing Summary tables of the number of fish of each benthos and dislodging macroinvertebrates which species caught were compiled for each river. were then collected. The sample was then More detailed analysis was conducted on brown “picked” for 30 minutes to collect as many and rainbow trout caught as these two species are organisms as possible. A sub‐sample was taken the main focus of this project. away for further identification. The results were analysed using measures of species richness and biotic indices (SIGNAL).

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas 11 Population modelling to determine the impact Key steps in developing the survey were as of bushfires on recreational fisheries follows: Modelling of fish populations was conducted • A strategy for assessing the behaviour of with the assistance of Dr Mike Allen and Dan recreational fishers in relation to the bushfire‐ Gwinn of the University of Florida, United States affected areas of Victoria was developed. This of America. strategy included the development of an index Fish population estimates were generated using of angler types which was subsequently used maximum likelihood models. Models were then for market segmentation. built to assess the likelihood of a number of • A workshop on the design and scenarios occurring. The results of this modelling implementation of social surveys was exercise will be reported separately. delivered by Chris Linehan (DPI Social Science Group) on Friday 14 September 2007. The Survey of angler behaviour outcome of this workshop was a clear process A survey to investigate drivers of behaviour of for developing and implementing a social recreational fishers was designed and survey for this component of the project that implemented during the first year of this project. included the following: In consultation with Fisheries Victoria, the o A scoping study was conducted to questions answered by the survey were defined as determine questions and potential answers follows. for the survey (achieved through 22 informal interviews with anglers and other

1. What is the perception of recreational fishers stakeholders of various types). of fishing in the area burnt in 2006–07? o A questionnaire was developed to test the 2. Are people already returning to fish in these questions to be answered by the study areas? (completed in October 2007). 3. If so, what are their motivations and what o A sampling frame was implemented to type of angler are they? return enough completed questionnaires to allow data to be analysed effectively. 4. Did the fishing meet their expectations? 5. Why are other people not coming back? 6. Are they fishing in different areas, for different species or not fishing at all?

7. What would motivate them to return?

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas 12 Results

Both species of blackfish were recorded during Phase I fish surveys (broadscale the broadscale assessment. Blackfish were found assessment) at only 3 sites south of the GDR (7.5%), river In Phase I of this project 75 sites in the 2006–07 blackfish were found at two sites, and two‐spined burnt area were surveyed during October and blackfish were found at one site. North of the November 2007 to determine the presence or GDR two‐spined blackfish were found at 14 of 35 absence of fish populations. All species collected sites (40%). were recorded and measured. However, salmonid Crayfish species of interest to recreational fishers are the There are at least nine known species of focus of this report. A full list of all species found indigenous spiny freshwater crayfish found in at all sites and a full summary of fish distribution Victoria and three of them grow to a sufficiently and relative abundance was given in the large size to be sought by anglers (Barker 1991): milestone report (Gavine, Hunt et al. 2008)). • Murray spiny crayfish (Euastacus armatus) As previously described “recreational species” • were defined at the outset of this project as Glenelg spiny crayfish (E. bispinosis) – not rainbow and brown trout, blackfish and crayfish. found in the bushfire area • Gippsland spiny crayfish (E. kershawi) Trout populations Brown trout (Salmo trutta) and/or rainbow trout Crayfish were found at 13 sites during the (Oncorhynchus mykiss) were found at 43 of the 75 broadscale assessment. Species identification was sites (57%) surveyed in the area burnt by the undertaken using an appropriate key (Raadick 2006–07 bushfire (Figure 6). North of the Great 2001). South of the GDR, Gippsland spiny crayfish Dividing Range (GDR), 28 sites out of 34 had trout were found at 2 sites and north of the GDR, present (82%) whereas south of the GDR, only 15 Central Highlands crayfish (Euastacus woiwuru) – sites out of 41 sites surveyed had trout present which is not a recreational species ‐ was found at (36.5%). South of the GDR trout populations 11 sites. Murray spiny crayfish were also found at appeared to have contracted to the upper reaches two of those sites (sites 32 and 46 in the Ovens of catchments, which has been observed in catchment). At one site (site 59 a tributary of the previous years when the weather is hot and dry. in the Ovens catchment) a freshwater crayfish suspected to be Euastacus crassus was Brown trout were found at 38 of the 75 sites, found. represented by yellow dots in Figure 6 . Rainbow trout were found at 23 of the 75 sites (Figure 7) Sites where recreational species were not found and 18 sites had both rainbow and brown trout are shown in Figure 8, with brown dots present. representing the absence of recreational species. No recreational species were found at 24 of the 75 Blackfish sites surveyed; 22 of the 40 sites surveyed south of Two species of blackfish have been recorded in the GDR had no recreational species. Sites where Victorian waters: no fish at all were recorded are shown in Figure 9 • River blackfish (Gadopsis marmoratus No fish at all were recorded at a total of 7 sites. Richardson 1848) • Two‐spined blackfish (Gadopsis bispinosus

Sanger 1984).

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas 13 Figure 6: Presence (yellow dots)/ absence (brown dots) of brown trout found during the broadscale assessment.

Figure 7: Presence (yellow dots)/ absence (brown dots) of rainbow trout found during the broadscale assessment.

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas 14 Figure 8: Presence (yellow dots)/ absence (brown dots) of recreational species found during the broadscale assessment.

Figure 9: Presence (yellow dots)/ absence (brown dots) of all fish species found during the broadscale assessment.

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas 15 Analysis of trout populations by Table 9: Summary of trout caught during Phase catchment I of this project by catchment area. After the 2003 bushfire, (Pomorin 2004) proposed a classification system of trout abundance in Catchment Species Classification No sites bushfire‐affected streams as follows: Thomson Brown trout Good 1 • Good ‐ > 250 trout/ha Average 1 • Average ‐ 50‐250 trout/ha • Poor ‐ < 50 trout/ha Poor 4

Bearing in mind the limitations of the survey No trout 12 methods employed, this classification system has been used here to give a guide to the relative Total sites 18 “health” of the trout populations recorded during this survey. Mitchell Brown trout Good 1 Table 9 illustrates the variability of trout Average 3 populations across catchments in the study area. Poor 5 In the Tambo catchment, no trout were found at No trout 5 any of the sites surveyed (100%) and in the Thomson and Mitchell catchments sites trout Total sites 14 were found at 33% and 64% of sites, respectively. This contrasts with catchments north of the GDR Tambo Brown trout No trout 9 where trout were found at far more sites: Ovens (72%), Upper Goulburn (93%) and Kiewa (100%). Total sites 9 Kiewa Brown trout Good 1 Data analysis Rainbow Data analysis for Phase I of this project focussed trout on attempting to answer the following questions: Total sites 1

1. What is the effect of the bushfires on Ovens Brown and Average 2 recreational fish species abundance / rainbow trout Poor 11 occurrence? 2. Have other impacts associated with drought No trout 5

and flooding affected the ways in which Total sites 18 bushfires affect the fish populations? Upper Brown and Good 9 Goulburn rainbow trout What is the effect of the bushfires on Average 4 recreational fish species abundance / occurrence? Poor 1 The results of the analysis showed very little evidence for differences among burn intensity No trout 1 levels. The statistically significant results in Table Total sites 15 10 (rainbow trout, both analyses; two‐spined blackfish, Min. Burn) have not occurred as a result of systematic difference across levels of burn severity.

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas 16 Table 12: Occurrence data for the species and Table 10: Results for Kruskal‐Wallis non‐ species groups. Cells show the percentage of parametric one‐way analysis of variance. sites within the burn severity class for which the Results significant at α < 0.05 are bold. species or species group was present. Under the Max. Burn Min. Burn null hypothesis, these numbers should be Sev. Sev. approximately equal across the four burn Species or Group KW P KW P severity classes. Statistically significant (n=74), df = 3 stat value stat value Brown Trout 1.05 0.790 1.10 0.776 differences are shown in bold. Rainbow Trout 9.24 0.026 9.21 0.027 River Blackfish 4.79 0.187 4.50 0.213 Max. Burn Sev. Classes Max. Burn Sev. Classes Two‐Spined Blackfish 1.86 0.602 9.24 0.026 Species or 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Gippsland Spiny 1.77 0.621 1.05 0.789 Group Crayfish Brown 41 50 61 55 42 50 52 73 Murray River Crayfish 6.31 0.098 2.25 0.521 Trout Trout 2.91 0.406 3.21 0.360 Rainbow 32 67 17 23 31 57 9 45 Blackfish 1.55 0.670 5.99 0.112 Trout Recreational Crayfish 6.53 0.088 1.39 0.708 River 0 0 0 9 0 0 9 0 species Blackfish All Recreational species 3.07 0.380 2.78 0.428 Two‐Spined 23 33 17 18 19 43 4 36

Blackfish Gippsland 5 0 6 0 4 0 4 0 The results for the occurrence analysis mirror Spiny those for the abundance analysis. The majority of Crayfish chi‐square tests were unreliable because of the Murray 0 0 11 0 0 7 4 0 small number of expected occurrences for the River Crayfish rarer species and species groups. However, this Trout 50 75 61 55 50 71 52 73 does not appear to have obscured any patterns in Blackfish 23 33 17 27 19 43 13 36 the data. The percentage of sites for which species Rec. 5 0 17 0 4 7 9 0 and species groups were found were spread Crayfish relatively evenly across the four burn severity species classes (Table 11 and Table 12). For the three All 55 75 67 55 54 71 57 73 statistically significant results (rainbow trout, both Recreational species analyses; two‐spined blackfish, Min. Burn), the occurrence data do not show any systematic difference across levels of burn severity. For both Have other impacts associated with drought and the occurrence and abundance data, the flooding masked the effects of bushfires on fish statistically significant results can probably safely populations? be assumed to be type 1 errors (false positives), The explanatory variables that were used in this and indeed the rate of significant results (3 out of analysis and treated as continuous variables were: 20 or 15%) is not far removed from the nominated α level of 5%. • Maximum Burn Severity • Altitude Table 11: Results for two‐way contingency table analysis (Peason’s Chi Square statistic). Results • Maximum Temperature significant at α < 0.05 are printed in bold. P‐ • Low Flow Percentage values marked with * are unreliable. • High Flow Percentage. Max. Burn Sev. Min. Burn Sev. Species or Group χ square p χ square p Analyses assessed the independent effects of each Df = 3 value value of the five variables upon abundances of the six Brown Trout 1.75 0.627 2.88 0.411 recreational species and four species groups and Rainbow Trout 9.56 0.023 10.88 0.012 River Blackfish 4.86 0.182* 4.56 0.207* the results are summarised in Table 13 and Table Two‐Spined 1.40 0.705* 9.27 0.026* 14. Blackfish Gippsland Spiny 1.79 0.618* 1.06 0.787* In summary, the results showed that there was a Crayfish significant effect for brown trout and burn Murray River 6.40 0.094* 2.31 0.510* intensity once the effects of the other explanatory Crayfish Trout 2.18 0.535 3.02 0.388 variables were taken into account. Unexpectedly, Blackfish 1.24 0.744* 5.43 0.143* however, the coefficient shows an increase in Recreational 6.44 0.092* 1.32 0.724* brown trout abundance with burn intensity. There Crayfish species was a positive effect of altitude on rainbow trout All Recreational sp. 2.00 0.573 2.02 0.567

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas 17 abundance and a marginally non‐significant flows were reduced by the drought, there was a positive effect on brown trout abundance. significant effect of this variable across all recreational species. The positive coefficient All recreational species also showed a significant shows that sites with a higher Low Flow % value effect of altitude, but it must be remembered that (i.e. less reduction compared to mean flow) had this species group is dominated by the trout greater fish abundances, just not of any particular samples. This result is not unexpected, as altitude species. High Flow % had the greatest number of will vary inversely with average water significant effects (rainbow trout, two‐spined temperature, and salmonids prefer lower water blackfish and all recreational species), and all temperatures. species and groups (both significant and non This pattern was not seen though in the results for significant results) showed a reduction in Maximum Temperature, suggesting that the abundance with flood peak intensity (i.e. a fleeting nature of a maximum seasonal negative coefficient). The uniformity of this temperature may have little effect on salmonid response and the number of significant results abundance. A significant negative effect of higher suggests that the flooding that occurred during temperature was found on the blackfish species 2007 has had the greatest effects on recreational group suggesting an avoidance of the hottest fish abundance. This is perhaps to be expected, streams (or local extirpation) by these fish. For given the magnitude of the flood events Low Flow %, although none of the species experienced. showed significant effects of the extent to which Table 13: Results of the proportional odds model analysis of the effects of multiple environmental factors on fish abundance. Chi‐square and p values were calculated using the likelihood ratio tests described above. Results significant at α < 0.05 are printed in bold. MaxBurn Altitude MaxTemp Low Flow % High Flow % Species or Group χ2 P χ2 p χ2 p χ2 p χ2 P Brown Trout 4.13 0.042 3.82 0.050 0.51 0.474 0.03 0.857 1.04 0.307 Rainbow Trout 1.36 0.244 6.47 0.011 3.43 0.064 0.01 0.927 10.13 0.001 River Blackfish Two‐Spined Blackfish 0.98 0.321 0.12 0.731 0.64 0.426 0.03 0.870 12.92 <0.001 Gippsland Spiny Crayfish 0.24 0.625 0.51 0.476 0.51 0.473 0.02 0.880 0.06 0.810 Murray River Crayfish Trout 0.81 0.367 3.14 0.077 <0.01 0.994 1.40 0.237 1.10 0.295 Blackfish 1.90 0.168 1.55 0.212 4.45 0.035 0.09 0.764 3.41 0.064 Recreational Crayfish species 0.09 0.763 0.11 0.735 <0.01 0.944 0.46 0.498 2.36 0.124 All Recreational species 1.69 0.193 13.05 <0.001 3.62 0.057 7.62 0.006 4.00 0.045 Table 14: Slope coefficients from the proportional odds models. Cells printed in bold are those for which a statistically significant (α < 0.05) effect of the independent variable was found. MaxBurn Altitude MaxTemp Low Flow % High Flow % Brown Trout 0.404 0.003 1.609 ‐0.064 ‐0.096 Rainbow Trout ‐0.273 0.005 5.341 ‐0.051 ‐0.538 River Blackfish Two‐Spined Blackfish 0.298 0.001 ‐2.673 0.105 ‐0.838 Gippsland Spiny Crayfish ‐0.325 ‐0.005 ‐7.744 0.157 ‐0.085 Murray River Crayfish Trout 0.174 0.003 ‐0.016 0.389 ‐0.095 Blackfish 0.372 0.003 ‐6.308 0.153 ‐0.257 Recreational Crayfish species 0.138 ‐0.001 0.349 ‐0.642 ‐0.423 All Recreational species 0.269 0.006 4.624 0.956 ‐0.196

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas 18 Phase II Quantitative Fish Surveys Table 15: Summary of fish caught in 2008 surveys. 2008 Data The detailed surveys in Phase II of this project Burnt River/Catchment Species No. took place on the following dates. fish caught • King Parrot Creek — 31 Mar & 1 Apr 2008. Control King Parrot Creek, Brown Trout 69 Goulburn Two spined 173 • Howqua River — 7‐9 April 2008. blackfish • Thowgla River— 14‐16 April 2008. (Sites 1 & 2) Central 13 Victorian Spiny • Crooked River—22‐23 April 2008. Crayfish • Buckland River—30 Apr‐2 May 2008. Murray crayfish 51 Mountain 1 • Wellington River— 6 & 7 May 2008. galaxias TOTAL 307 Two sites were surveyed on each river and the range of species collected overall is shown in 2006– Howqua River Brown trout 10 07 Table 15. The number of each species caught and Upper Goulburn Rainbow trout 39 processed is also shown in Table 15. Fourteen (Sites 1 & 2) Two spined 91 species of fish and crayfish were caught during blackfish the 2008 surveys with species composition Murray crayfish 15 Common carp 3 varying between rivers and water catchments. Of Mountain 6 the fourteen species, nine were native and five galaxias were introduced. Of the introduced species, one Redfin 108 Roach 26 is a declared noxious species under the Fisheries TOTAL 298 Act 1995 (carp). 2003 Crooked River Brown trout 22 As found in the broadscale assessment, rivers in & 06/07 Mitchell Broadfin 2 catchments north of the GDR (King Parrot Creek, galaxias Howqua, Thowgla and Buckland) generally had (Sites 1 & 2) Australian smelt 3* Longfin eel 3 greater numbers of fish and diversity of species Shortfin eel 32 than those south of the GDR (Crooked and Tupong 3 Wellington Rivers). Very few fish of any kind TOTAL 65 were found in the Wellington River in the Additional 400 small Australian smelt (<1g) observed.

Thomson catchment. It is thought that this could 2003 Thowgla River Brown trout 83 be due to the long‐lasting impacts of the severe Upper Murray Rainbow trout 53 flood that hit that catchment in 2007 but this will (Sites 1 & 2) Two spined 15 be investigated further. A full list of the species blackfish Murray 22 caught at each site surveyed is given in Appendix crayfish I. TOTAL 173

In terms of salmonid species which are the main 2003 Buckland River Brown Trout 4 focus of this report, brown trout were found in 5 & 06/07 Ovens Rainbow trout 13 of the 6 rivers surveyed and rainbow trout were (Sites 1 & 2) Two spined 165 blackfish found in 3 rivers. Three rivers supported Central 2 populations of both brown and rainbow trout Victorian Spiny (Howqua, Thowgla and Buckland Rivers). The Crayfish Murray 1 relative proportion of brown and rainbow trout in crayfish 2008 surveys is shown in Figure 10. Figure 10 Mountain 16 shows that salmonids were most abundant in the galaxias Thowgla River in the 2008 surveys with no TOTAL 201 salmonids found in the Wellington River. 2006– Wellington River Australian 1 07 smelt Thomson Redfin 2 (Sites 1 & 2) Shortfin eel 4 TOTAL 7

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas 19 Figure 11 and Figure 12 show the relative abundance of brown and rainbow trout in each 2008 river in terms of fish/ha. The same classification

160 system as in the broadscale assessment was used Rainbow trout 140 Brown trout to determine the status of the salmonid 120 communities at these sites, vis: 100 • Good ‐ > 250 trout/ha 80 • Numbers 60 Average ‐ 50‐250 trout/ha

40 • Poor ‐ < 50 trout/ha 20 0 King Parrot Howqua Crooked Thowgla Buckland Wellington Under this classification system, the Thowgla Creek River River River River River River (burnt in the 2003 fire event) was the only river with “good” populations of both rainbow and brown trout at both sites. King Parrot Creek had a “good” population of brown trout at Site 1, Figure 10: Proportion of brown and rainbow but only an “average” population at Site 2. The trout caught in 2008 surveys. Crooked River had an “average” population of brown trout at Site 1 and a “poor” population at Site 2. Both the Howqua and Buckland Rivers 600 had “poor” populations of brown trout at both

500 sites. Rainbow trout populations were “average” at both sites on the Howqua, but only one of the 400 Buckland sites had an “average” population. No

300 trout were found at either site in the Wellington River. 200

Brown trout (fish/ha) trout Brown Table 16 shows the maximum length at which 100 salmonid fish are considered recruits to the fish

0 population. This is derived from previous survey King Parrot How qua Crooked Thow gla Buckland Wellington information and shows that the length threshold Creek Riv er Riv er Riv er Riv er Riv er varies between catchments. Site 1 Site 2 Table 16: Length threshold for 0+ age fish in Figure 11: Relative abundance of brown trout in various river systems (after Hall, 2005). rivers surveyed in 2008. Brown trout age Rainbow trout 0+ threshold age 0+ threshold fork length fork length (mm) (mm) 300 King parrot 140 ‐ 250 Howqua 190 180 Thowgla 190 190 200 Crooked 200 ‐

150 Table 17 summarises the characteristics of the 100 salmonid species found in the 2008 surveys in Rainbow trout (fish/ha) trout Rainbow 50 terms of length, weight and condition. 0 At the control site (King Parrot Creek) a total of 69 King Parrot How qua Crooked Thow gla Buckland Wellington Creek River Riv er River Riv er River brown trout were sampled representing at least two age classes (Figure 13a). No rainbow trout Site 1 Site 2 were found. The presence of fish <140 mm in length provides evidence of recruitment from 2007 spawnings (Table 16). Two sites were Figure 12: Relative abundance of rainbow trout sampled on this creek with 48 trout caught at site in rivers surveyed in 2008. 1, and 21 caught at site 2. Fish caught at site 2

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas 20 were slightly larger than those at site 1 (on indicating the presence of fish from the 2007 average) but fish condition was slightly lower. spawning. At site 1, 56 brown and 26 rainbow trout were caught and at site 2, 27 brown and 27 At the Howqua River in the Upper Goulburn rainbow trout were caught. catchment, 10 brown trout and 39 rainbow trout were caught (Table 17). Length‐frequency At the Crooked River in the Mitchell catchment a analysis (Figure 13b) suggested that one age class total of 22 brown trout were caught, 21 of which of rainbow trout was present with two or more were caught at site 1 (Table 17). There were at age classes of brown trout. The presence of least two age classes present (Figure 13d) and rainbow trout <180 mm in length provided evidence of recruitment in 2007 (fish <200mm in evidence of recruitment from 2007 spawnings. length). At site 1, 21 brown trout with an average There was no such evidence for brown trout. weight of 43g were caught. At site 2, one trout of Brown and rainbow trout were found at both of 185 g was caught. the sites sampled with 9 brown and 17 rainbow The Buckland River in the Ovens catchment trout found at site 1, and 1 brown and 22 rainbow yielded small numbers of brown and rainbow trout found at site 2. The rainbow trout found at trout at both sites (Table 17). Four brown trout site 1 were very similar in length, weight and and 13 rainbow trout were caught in this river condition to those found at site 2. The single with several age classes evident for both species brown trout at site 2 was within the size range of Figure 13. There was evidence of recruitment for those found at site 1. rainbow trout, but only one small brown trout The Thowgla River in the Upper Murray was encountered during the survey. catchment yielded 83 brown and 53 rainbow trout No trout were caught at the Wellington River in (Table 17) representing at least two age classes in the Thomson catchment. both species (Figure 13c). There was evidence of recruitment in both species with fish <190 mm

Table 17: Summary statistics for salmonid fish caught during 2008 surveys.

River Site Species No. Length Length Weight Weight Condition Condition Caught Mean Range Mean Range Factor factor (mm) (mm) (g) (g) Mean King Parrot Creek 1 Brown Trout 48 142.3 70‐260 62.2 4‐242 1.3 0.98‐1.95 3 Brown trout 21 168.29 87‐323 106.95 7‐430 1.2 0.94‐1.44

Howqua 1 Brown trout 9 312.67 250‐405 363.55 176‐768 1.15 0.62‐1.25 Rainbow trout 17 146.76 122‐185 42.71 22‐83 1.32 0.93‐2.32

2 Brown trout 1 265 ‐ 200 ‐ 1.07 Rainbow trout 22 144.81 110‐180 41.14 16‐76 1.30 1.08—1.5

Thowgla 1 Brown trout 56 171.38 90‐265 78.95 9‐225 1.19 0.94‐1.38 Rainbow trout 26 119.08 82‐217 28.81 7‐124 1.28 1.03‐1.79

2 Brown trout 27 156.56 80‐258 62.78 8‐195 1.25 1.03‐1.78 Rainbow trout 27 132.19 85‐250 42.41 9‐198 1.28 0.78‐1.63

Crooked 1 Brown trout 21 148.1 119‐249 42.81 21‐174 1.19 1.08‐1.31 2 Brown trout 1 255 ‐ 185 ‐ 1.12 ‐

Buckland 1 Brown trout 1 278 ‐ 286 ‐ 1.33 ‐ Rainbow trout 6 255.5 117‐277 181.83 20‐303 1.33 1.2‐1.43 2 Brown trout 3 291.3 154‐462 488 47‐1172 1.30 1.19‐1.43 Rainbow trout 7 143 131‐150 38.57 26‐47 1.30 1.16‐1.45

Wellington 1 Brown trout 0 2 Rainbow trout 0

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas 21 King Parrot Creek 2008 Crooked River 2008 25 25 Brown Trout n=22 20 Brown trout n=69 20 a

15 d 15

10

Frequency 10 Frequency

5 5

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 90 1 5 9 3 5 7 1 5 1 5 7 6 5 8 7 6 9 1 130 1 170 1 210 2 2 2 290 3 330 3 37 390 4 430 4 10 130 1 19 220 2 2 31 340 3 40 430 4 4 Length (mm) Length (mm)

Howqua River 2008 Buckland River 2008 25 25 Rainbow trout n= 39 Rainbow trout n=13 Brown trout n=10 20 Brown trout n=4 20 e b 15 15

10 Freqency 10 Frequency

5 5

0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 6 5 7 6 70 6 7 6 100 130 1 19 220 2 28 310 340 3 40 430 4 49 10 130 1 19 22 250 28 31 340 3 40 430 4 49 Length (mm) Length (mm)

Thowgla River 2008 Wellington River, 2008 25 25 Brown trout n=0 Rainbow trout n=53 20 20 Brown trout n=82

c 15 f 15

10 10 Frequency Frequency

5 5

0 0 0 70 70 100 130 160 190 220 250 280 31 340 3 400 430 460 490 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 3 8 3 9 10 1 16 190 22 25 2 31 340 37 400 4 46 4 Length (mm) Length (mm)

Figure 13: Length‐frequency histograms for brown and rainbow trout caught in rivers surveyed in April‐ May 2008.

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas 22 Comparison of 2008 data with previous In 2008, sites 1 and 21 were surveyed on the King studies Parrot Creek and the results are summarised in Data collected during the 2008 surveys can be Table 18. For comparison, the data collected compared with data from previous surveys in between 2002 and 2005 at these sites is also shown in Table 18. order to assess if fish populations are showing signs of recovery or are within the range of what The number of brown trout caught has varied would normally be expected on the river. Rivers between years and sites, as might be expected in a that were part of the TRS (King Parrot Creek, self‐sustaining population of brown trout. In Howqua, Thowgla and Crooked Rivers) will be general, site 1 maintains a “good” population of analysed in more detail than the Buckland and trout and site 3 supports an “average” population. Wellington Rivers due to greater data availability. The results of the 2008 survey in terms of relative King Parrot Creek (control site) abundance were within the range of what was King Parrot Creek is in the Goulburn catchment caught in previous surveys (Figure 15). and flows into the between Yea and Seymour (Figure 14). King Parrot Creek

700 Site 1 Site 2 600

500

400

300

200

10 0

0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2008

Figure 15: Relative abundance of brown trout in King Parrot Creek during DPI surveys.

Comparisons of fish length, weight and condition are shown in Figure 16. This shows that fish caught in 2008 were slightly smaller on average than those caught in previous years. Length‐ frequency histograms shown in Figure 17 suggest Figure 14: King Parrot Creek showing 2008 that this is due to the strong 2007 recruitment survey sites evident in the 2008 surveys. These data suggest that recruitment in this river was poor in 2003 and King Parrot Creek flows from the Kinglake 2004. National Park with forest upstream then scattered farmland and hobby farms in the mid and lower sections. The river is known to contain excellent habitat for small‐sized fish upstream and larger fish downstream (Tunbridge and Rogan 2002) and is a major spawning area for brown trout from the Goulburn River. Previous surveys have indicated that the river contains mostly brown trout to 900 g (av. 200 g), abundant blackfish to 120 g, mosquitofish, Australian smelt and some Macquarie perch to 1.5 kg (av. 320 g), downstream of Strath Creek.

1 Site 2 in this study = site 3 in TRS

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas 23 Table 18: Salmonid fish caught in King Parrot Creek in 2008 and in previous surveys. Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2008 Site 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 Brown Trout No Caught 38 28 38 19 20 10 14 7 48 21 Relative density 271 175 633 190 333 100 233 50 600 150 (fish/ha)

Mean length 144.4 220.4 134.7 227.95 178.4 221.3 189.36 253.1 142.3 168.3 Range 80‐318 81‐326 55‐251 72‐346 87‐265 98‐306 80‐285 133‐310 70‐260 87‐323 ` Mean Weight 61.1 152.1 50.0 175.7 92.45 166.8 106.4 226.1 62.2 107.0 Range 7‐453 6‐440 4.5‐453 5‐440 10‐215 13‐299 7‐282 3‐353 4‐242 7‐430

Rainbows No Caught 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mean length 139 ‐ 162 Mean Weight 19 ‐

Length(mm) Weight(g) 500 BROWN TROUT 500 BROWN TROUT 450 400 400 350

300 300 250 200 200 150 100 100

50 0 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 YEAR YEAR

K 2.0 BROWN TROUT

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 YEAR

Figure 16: Length, weight and condition of salmonid fish caught in King Parrot Creek during recent surveys.

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas 24

25 25 2002 Brow n Trout (n=66) 2005 Brown Trout (n=21)

20 20

15 15

10 Frequency 10 Frequency

5 5

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 80 4 3 6 5 8 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 1 170 200 2 2 290 32 3 3 410 44 4 5 5 8 1 4 7 0 3 6 9 2 5 8 1 4 7 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 Fork Length (mm) Fork Length (mm)

25 25 2008 Brown Trout (n=69) 2003 Brow n Trout (n=57) 20 20

15 15

10 10 Frequency Frequency

5 5

0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 80 4 9 4 7 50 80 110 1 170 200 230 260 2 320 350 380 410 4 4 500 110 14 170 200 230 260 290 320 35 38 410 44 47 500 Fork Length (mm) Fork Length (mm)

25

2004 Brown Trout (n=30) 20 15

10 Frequency

5

0

0 0 5 80 10 40 70 30 20 50 80 10 40 00 1 1 1 20 2 260 290 3 3 3 4 4 470 5 Fork Length (mm)

Figure 17: Length‐frequency histograms for salmonid fish caught in King Parrot Creek 2002‐2008.

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas 25 Table 19: Selected habitat parameters from Sites 1 and 3 King Parrot Creek, 2002‐2008. Width: Mean Macrophyte Log Canopy SIGNAL No Depth particle cover (%) Cover cover score Families ratio size (%) (%) Site 1 2002 47.87 22 7 35 28 7.00 8.00

2003 28.33 87 8 7 30 7.67 8.00

2004 30.43 100 18 11 43 7.59 19.00

2005 24.7 84 5 25 26 7.43 12.00

2008 23.50 177 5 7 45 6.90 21.00

Site 3 2002 55.8 41 1 9 24 8.00 5.00

2003 28.33 129 11 2.4 15 7.26 19.00

2004 53.7 112 8 7 65 6.40 22.00

2005 49.2 113 3 11 37

2008 30.68 121 4 3 66 6.96 22.50

Table 19 summarises some of the habitat data collected from sites 1 and 2 on King Parrot Creek in 2008 and compares it with data collected from 2002–2005. Bearing in mind that this was the control site and was not burnt at all, the data were analysed to test if the 2008 data were significantly different to data collected in previous years. This river was affected by the drought, but there were no significant flood events in 2007. Analysis was conducted using Tukey’s Multiple Range Test to test significant differences between 2008 data and historical data. The results show that width: depth ratio, mean particle size, canopy cover, macrophyte cover and log cover were not significantly different in 2008 compared with data that has been collected previously at the site. Similarly, there was no significant difference in SIGNAL or macro‐invertebrate scores in 2008 data compared with historical data, suggesting there had been no significant alteration of the macroinvertebrate community over this period.

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas 26 Howqua River (Burnt in 2006–07) low flows and high temperatures in the river, or a The Howqua River rises in steep forest in the deterioration in water quality due to sediment Upper Goulburn catchment and then flows and ash flows. All of these factors could have led through a wider cleared valley into Lake Eildon to stress in the fish, a reduction in feeding and (Figure 18). loss of condition, which could have left them in sub‐optimal condition for spawning. Alternatively, larger fish may have found the river conditions sub‐optimal and left the system. This will be discussed further later in this report.

Howqua River

700

600

500

400

300

200 Brown trout (fish/ha) trout Brown 100

0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2008

Site 1 Site 2

Figure 19: Relative abundance (fish/ha) of brown trout in the Howqua River. Figure 18: Howqua River, Upper Goulburn showing fish sampling sites. Howqua River

The Howqua River is known to contain good 700 numbers of brown trout and rainbow trout to 600 1.8 kg, with most fish less than 350 g, also blackfish, roach, mountain galaxias, flat‐headed 500 gudgeon and small redfin in the lower reaches 400 (Tunbridge and Rogan 2002). 300 200 In 2008, sites 1 and 2 were surveyed on the 100 Rainbow(fish/ha) trout Howqua River and the results for salmonid fish 0 caught are shown in Table 20. For comparison, the 2002 2003 2004 2005 2008 salmonid data collected between 2002 and 2005 at Site 1 Site 2 these sites are also shown in Table 20. Brown trout populations in the Howqua River Figure 20: Relative abundance (fish/ha) of would normally fall within the “average” rainbow trout in the Howqua River. classification of between 50 and 250 fish/ha. Conversely, the population of rainbow trout in However, in the 2008 survey brown trout the Howqua River would normally be classified abundances had fallen markedly and would be as poor, but has improved to “average” over the classified as “poor” (<50 fish/ha) (Figure 19). past two surveys in 2005 and 2008 (Figure 20). This decline in the brown trout population could This could be due to increased spawning stock be due to the apparent absence of recruitment in available through stocking of rainbow trout in 2007 following the bushfire, which led to the Lake Eildon or it could be that rainbow trout are population of brown trout being larger in terms of more adaptable to altered habitat and living length and weight than has previously been conditions than brown trout. It should be noted found (Figure 21 & Figure 22) – indicating an that with the exception of 2005, rainbow trout absence of small fish. recruitment in the Howqua River is normally very Post‐fire recruitment of brown trout in the low. Howqua River could have been influenced by many factors. The fish may have been affected by

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas 27 Table 20: Salmonid fish caught in the Howqua River in 2008 and in previous surveys. Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2008 Site 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 3 1 2 Brown Trout No Caught 29 19 26 34 24 22 26 37 9 1 Mean length 204.5 208.5 117.2 117.9 195.5 184.3 204.5 208.5 312.7 265 Range 104‐350 107‐360 92‐142 92‐242 110‐330 108‐243 104‐350 107‐360 250‐405 ‐ Mean Weight 100.6 233 20.2 22.6 111.25 88.5 147.2 143.9 363.5 200 Range 8‐308 5‐1843 9‐38 9‐142 16‐427 14‐169 10‐503 15‐540 176‐768 ‐

Rainbows No Caught 15 3 4 3 2 0 7 22 17 22 Mean length 168.2 115.3 178.5 100 111 ‐ 125.7 141.5 146.8 144.8 Range 108‐281 96‐147 125‐200 80‐110 100‐122 ‐ 107‐169 105‐235 122‐185 110‐180 Mean Weight 70 20.7 82.5 9.7 19.5 ‐ 27.4 43.6 42.7 41.1 Range 17‐221 10‐40 25‐113 5‐14 12‐27 ‐ 15‐65 16‐153 22‐83 16‐76

Length(mm) Weight(g) 500 BROWN TROUT RAINBOW TROUT 500 BROWN TROUT RAINBOW TROUT 450 400 400

350 300 300 250 200 200 150 100 100 50

0 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 YEAR YEAR

K 2.0 BROWN TROUT RAINBOW TROUT

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 YEAR

Figure 21: Length, weight and condition of salmonid fish caught in Howqua River during recent surveys.

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas 28

25 25 2002 Brow n Trout (n=48) 2002 Rainbow Trout (n=18) 2005 Brow n Trout (n=73) 2005 Rainbow Trout (n=29) 20 20

15 15

10 Frequency 10 Frequency 5 5

0 0 0 0 50 80 70 90 20 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 14 1 200 230 260 2 3 350 380 410 4 470 500 530 560 590 50 8 30 90 40 00 60 11 14 170 20 2 26 2 320 35 380 410 4 47 5 530 5 590 Fork Le ngth (m m ) Fork Length (mm)

25 25

2003 Brow n Trout (n=60) 2003 Rainbow Trout (n=7) 2008 Brown Trout (n=10) 2008 Rainbow Trout (n=39) 20 20 15 15

10 Frequency Frequency 10

5 5

0 0 0 0 50 80 10 4 70 00 30 60 90 2 50 10 40 70 00 30 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 380 4 4 4 5 5 560 5 50 80 11 14 170 200 23 26 29 32 350 38 41 440 47 500 53 56 590 Fork Length (mm) Fork Length (mm)

25 2004 Brown Trout (n=46) 2004 Rainbow Trout (n=2)

20

15

Frequency 10

5

0 0 50 80 9 110 140 170 200 230 260 290 320 350 380 410 440 470 500 530 560 5

Fork Length (mm)

Figure 22: Length‐frequency histograms for salmonid fish caught in Howqua River 2002‐2008.

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas 29 Table 21: Selected habitat parameters from Sites 1 and 2 Howqua River, 2002‐2008. Width: Mean Macrophyte Log Canopy SIGNAL No Depth particle cover (%) Cover cover score Families ratio size (%) (%) Site 1 2002 67.66 202 6 4 11 7.06 8.00

2003 41.98 185 43 0 12 6.42 18.00

2004 61.61 155 0 1 17 7.04 12.00

2005 29.90 194 40 3 8 6.97 16.00

2008 39.62 240 8 1 29 6.87 21.00

Site 3 2002 35.13 206 0 5 8 7.42 9.00

2003 53.79 104 53 1 17 6.38 16.00

2004 49.34 214 0 1 6 6.48 13.00

2005 54.72 128 16 5 12 6.56 21.00

2008 34.67 194 7 1 66 6.67 22.00

Table 21 summarises some of the habitat data collected from sites 1 and 2 on the Howqua River in 2008 and compares it with data collected from 2002–2008. The Howqua River was burnt in the 2006–07 so the data were analysed to test if the 2008 data (post burn) were significantly different to data collected in previous years. This river was affected by the drought, but there were no significant flood events in 2007. Analysis was conducted using Tukey’s Multiple Range Test to test significant differences between 2008 data and historical data. The results show that only canopy cover was significantly different in 2008 compared with previous years. Width: depth ratio, mean particle size, macrophyte cover and log cover were not significantly different in 2008 compared with data that has been collected previously at the site. Similarly, there was no significant difference in SIGNAL scores or macro‐ invertebrate family numbers in 2008 data compared with historical data, suggesting there had been no significant alteration of the macroinvertebrate community over this period.

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas 30 Thowgla River (burnt in 2003) similar response to that seen in the Howqua River The Thowgla River is in the Upper Murray in 2008. The 2004 data also showed an increase in catchment area and is a tributary of the Murray average length and weight (Figure 26) and an River upstream of Lake Hume. The Thowgla absence of brown trout recruitment (Figure 27). River rises in forest, then flows through farmland Brown trout abundances bounced back in 2005 to its confluence with the Murray River. It is and appear to have been maintained since. known to contain mostly brown trout to 850 g (av. 300 g), rainbow trout to 220 g, blackfish to 130 g, small redfin, Australian smelt and mountain Thowgla River galaxias (Tunbridge and Rogan 2002). The fish survey sites on the Thowgla River are shown in 700 Figure 23. 600 500

400

300

200 Brown trout (fish/ha) trout Brown 100

0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2008

Site 1 Site 2

Figure 24: Relative abundance (fish/ha) of brown trout in the Thowgla River.

Thowgla River

700 600

500

400 300

200

Rainbow (fish/ha) trout 100

0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2008 Site 1 Site 2

Figure 23: Thowgla River, Upper Murray showing fish survey sites. Figure 25: Relative abundance of rainbow trout (fish/ha) in the Thowgla river. In 2008, sites 1 and 2 were surveyed on the Thowgla River and the results for salmonid fish caught are shown in Table 22. For comparison, the Rainbow trout abundance, conversely, was salmonid data collected between 2002 and 2005 at depressed in the year of the bushfire (2003) these sites are also shown in Table 22. improved markedly in the years following the Brown trout populations in the Thowgla River fires and has returned to arguably “normal” levels normally fall within the “good” classification of in the 2008 survey (Figure 25). above 250 fish/ha. This is particularly true at site

1 which tends to maintain a higher abundance than site 2 (Figure 24). The 2008 survey showed that brown trout abundances remained “good” at site 1, but would be classified as “average” at site 2. Interestingly, brown trout abundances in the Thowgla fell in the year after the 2003 bushfire – a

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas 31 Table 22: Salmonid fish caught in the Thowgla River in 2008 and in previous studies. Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2008 Site 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 Brown Trout No Caught 27 21 62 36 24 14 45 39 56 27 Mean length 198.6 183 142.0 138.2 230.3 215.4 169.5 155.8 171.4 156.6 Range 111‐383 100‐280 91‐246 95‐244 205‐279 195‐253 104‐285 104‐470 90‐265 80‐258 Mean Weight 148.6 95.3 34.6 40.6 155.5 116.7 82.3 81.0 78.9 62.8 Range 16‐680 12‐237 8‐152 9‐149 103‐252 81‐188 12‐259 16‐1012 9‐225 8‐195

Rainbows No Caught 33 47 11 9 61 71 52 50 26 27 Mean length 136.8 125.6 168.4 149.2 120.8 119.5 152.75 144.8 119.1 132.2 Range 89‐283 82‐256 100‐220 100‐214 85‐215 82‐249 92‐216 87‐240 82‐217 85‐250 Mean Weight 48.0 36.2 61.5 55.3 26.4 27.4 54.6 49.6 28.8 42.41 Range 10‐314 8‐204 10‐114 15‐129 8‐137 8‐178 1‐140 2‐163 7‐124 9‐198

Length(mm) Weight(g) 400 BROWN TROUT RAINBOW TROUT 500 BROWN TROUT RAINBOW TROUT 350 400 300 250 300 200 200 150 100 100 50 0 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 YEAR YEAR

K 2.0 BROWN TROUT RAINBOW TROUT

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 YEAR

Figure 26: Length, weight and condition of salmonid fish caught in the Thowgla River during recent surveys.

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas 32 25 25

2002 Brown Trout (n=48) 2002 Rainbow Trout (n=80) 2005 Brown Trout (n=84) 2005 Rainbow Trout (n=102)

20 20

15 15

Frequency Frequency 10 10

5 5

0 0 50 70 90 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 230 250 270 290 310 330 350 370 390 410 430 450 470 490 110 130 150 170 190 210 230 250 270 290 310 330 350 370 390 410 430 450 470 490 Fork Length (mm) Fork Length (mm)

25 25 2008 Brown Trout (n=83) 2008 Rainbow Trout (n=53) 2003 Brown Trout (n=98) 2003 Rainbow Trout (n=20) 20 20

15 15

Frequency 10 Frequency 10

5 5

0 0 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 230 250 270 290 310 330 350 370 390 410 430 450 470 490 50 70 90

110 130 150 170 190 210 230 250 270 290 310 330 350 370 390 410 430 450 470 490 Fork Length (mm) Fork Length (mm)

30 2004 Brown Trout (n=38) 2004 Rainbow Trout (n=132) 25

20

15

Frequency 10

5

0 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 230 250 270 290 310 330 350 370 390 410 430 450 470 490 Fork length (mm)

Figure 27: Length‐frequency histograms for salmonid fish caught in Thowgla River 2002‐2008.

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas 33 Table 23: Selected habitat parameters from Sites 1 and 2 Thowgla River, 2002‐2008

Width: Mean Macrophyte Log Canopy SIGNAL No Depth particle cover (%) Cover cover score Families ratio size (%) (%) Site 1 2002 67.66 141 4 10 19 7.70 12.00

2003 41.98 257 0 5 6 7.46 16.00

2004 61.61 131 2 7 11 7.14 12.00

2005 29.90 213 6 10 17 7.34 15.00

2008 39.62 131 11 9 49 7.48 29.00

Site 3 2002 35.13 147 7 8 17 6.97 18.00

2003 53.79 148 0 5 17 8.06 8.00

2004 49.34 227 10 6 16 6.59 15.00

2005 54.72 189 10 11 22 6.97 15.00

2008 34.67 101 9 5 48 7.11 23.00

Table 23 summarises some of the habitat data collected from sites 1 and 2 on the Thowgla River in 2008 and compares it with data collected from 2002‐2008. The Thowgla River was burnt in the 2003 bushfire so the data was analysed to test if the 2003‐08 data (post burn) was significantly different to data collected in previous years (2002). This river was affected by the drought, but there were no significant flood events in 2007. Analysis was conducted using Tukey’s Multiple Range Test to test significant differences between 2008 data and historical data. The results show no significant difference post 2003 bushfire in any of the parameters analysed (width: depth ratio, canopy cover, mean particle size, macrophyte cover and log cover). Similarly, there was no significant difference in SIGNAL scores or macro‐ invertebrate family numbers in post 2003 data compared with 2002, suggesting there had been no significant alteration of the macroinvertebrate community as a result of the bushfire.

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas 34 Crooked River (burnt 2003 and 2006–07) Crooked River The Crooked River is a tributary of the

Wongungarra River in the Mitchell catchment in 700.0 Gippsland (Figure 28). It is a relatively wide river that flows though forested mountains near to 600.0 Dargo. 500.0

400.0

300.0

Brown trout (fish/ha) trout Brown 200.0

100.0

0.0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Site 1 Site 2

Figure 29: Relative abundance (fish/ha) of brown trout in the Crooked River.

It should be noted that Sites 2 and 3 of the Crooked River were also surveyed in 2004 after the 2003 bushfires (Pomorin 2004). No trout were found at either site during this study and the river was subsequently stocked with 2100 brown trout stocked to accelerate recovery. The sites were re‐ surveyed in 2005 and 164 and 110 trout/ha were caught at sites 1 and 2, respectively (Douglas 2005). Although these results provide useful background to this study, they will not be analysed further since a different methodology Figure 28: Crooked River, Mitchell catchment was used. showing fish sampling sites. The average length and weight of the fish captured in 2008 was slightly lower than found in previous years (Figure 30), but were still within The Crooked River is known to contain numerous the expected range. Figure 31 shows that small brown trout less than 450 g, some river recruitment was lower than usual in 2008 and also blackfish, short‐finned eel, Australian grayling in 2004 (after the 2003 fire). and Australian smelt (Tunbridge and Rogan 2002). In 2008, sites 1 and 2 were surveyed on the Crooked River and the results for salmonid fish caught are shown in Table 24. For comparison, the salmonid data collected between 2002 and 2005 at these sites as part of the TRS are also shown in Table 24. Brown trout populations in the Crooked River would normally fall within the “average” classification at site 1 (50 and 250 fish/ha) and “average” to “poor at site 2 (Figure 29). There is anecdotal evidence that fishing is only good in high rainfall years (Tunbridge and Rogan 2002). The data collected in 2008 fall within this pattern, although abundance of trout at site 2 is the lowest recorded since 2002.

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas 35 Table 24: Salmonid fish caught in the Crooked River in 2008 and previous surveys. Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2008 Site 1 2 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 Brown Trout No Caught 41 32 42 11 26 4 23 18 21 1 Mean length 175.6 185.6 120.0 152.4 173.1 215.75 164 163.5 148.1 255 Range 105‐373 103‐360 80‐210 111‐300 77‐292 135‐265 103‐322 120‐300 119‐249 ‐ Mean Weight 98.7 122.8 23.0 68.5 92.9 137.8 69.6 68 42.8 185 Range 13‐569 14‐546 7.5‐119 18‐297 4‐309 32‐229 16‐405 21‐312 21‐174 ‐

Length(mm) Weight(g) 300 CROOKED RIVER 500 BROWN TROUT

250 400

200 300 150 200 100

100 50

0 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 YEAR YEAR K 2.0 BROWN TROUT

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 YEAR

Figure 30: Length, weight and condition of brown trout caught in the Crooked River during recent surveys.

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas 36 25 25 2002 Brow n Trout (n=73) 2005 Brown Trout (n=41)

20 20

15 15

10 Frequency 10 Frequency 5 5

0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 70 90

50 8 7 0 3 2 5 8 1 4 110 130 150 170 190 210 230 250 270 290 310 330 350 370 390 410 430 450 470 490 110 140 1 2 2 260 290 3 3 3 4 4 470 500 Fork Length (mm) For k Le ngth (m m )

25 25 2008 Brown Trout (n=22) 2003 Brown Trout (n=53) 20 20

15 15

Frequency 10 Frequency 10

5 5

0 0 50 70 90 50 70 90

110 130 150 170 190 210 230 250 270 290 310 330 350 370 390 410 430 450 470 490 110 130 150 170 190 210 230 250 270 290 310 330 350 370 390 410 430 450 470 490

Fork Length (mm) Fork Length (mm)

25 2004 Brown Trout (n=30)

20

15

Frequency 10

5

0

50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 230 250 270 290 310 330 350 370 390 410 430 450 470 490 Fork Length (mm)

Figure 31: Length‐frequency histograms for salmonid fish caught in the Crooked River 2002‐2008.

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas 37

Table 25: Selected habitat parameters from Sites 1 and 2 Crooked River, 2002‐2008. Width: Mean Macrophyte Log Canopy SIGNAL No Depth particle cover (%) Cover cover score Families ratio size (%) (%) Site 1 2002 67.66 185 3 1 1 7.25 22

2003 41.98 379 12 1 5 7.46 14.00

2004 61.61 218 10 0 14 6.29 10.00

2005 29.90 112 8 2 9 7.56 15

2008 39.62 134 13 3 25 6.51 26.00

Site 3 2002 35.13 120 17 4 16 7.05 25.00

2003 53.79 346 2 2 7 7.19 21.00

2004 49.34 152 8 0 8 6.91 20.00

2005 54.72 36 7 2 15 6.76 15.00

2008 34.67 107 5 5 9 7.17 23.00

Table 25 summarises some of the habitat data collected from sites 1 and 2 on the Crooked River in 2008 and compares it with data collected from 2002‐2008. The Crooked River catchment was burnt in the 2003 and the 2006–07 bushfires so data was analysed to test if the 2003–08 data (post first burn) was significantly different to data collected in previous years (2002). This river was affected by the drought and there was a flood event in 2007, but not the same magnitude as in the Thomson catchment. Analysis was conducted using Tukey’s Multiple Range Test to test significant differences between 2008 data and historical data. The results show no significant difference post 2003 bushfire in any of the parameters analysed (width: depth ratio, canopy cover, mean particle size, macrophyte cover and log cover). Similarly, there was no significant difference in SIGNAL scores or macro‐ invertebrate family numbers in post 2003 data, suggesting there had been no significant alteration of the macroinvertebrate community as a result of the bushfire.

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas 38 Wellington River (burnt 2006–07) The results of this survey are consistent with the The Wellington River flows into the Macalister findings of the broadscale assessment in October‐ River in the Thomson catchment. It is a fast November 2007 where brown trout were found at flowing, shallow stream that runs through only 6 of the 17 sites surveyed in this catchment. forested mountains and has a rock and gravel Abundances were classified as “poor” at 4 of the 6 bottom (Tunbridge and Rogan 2002). Water levels sites and only one site, Stringers Creek at and flows in the Wellington River can fluctuate Walhalla, returned a “good” population of trout, dramatically. whilst a tributary of the had an “average” population. In general, trout were only present in the upper catchments of rivers with none recorded in the lower reaches (Gavine, Hunt et al. 2008). In this study, only short‐finned eels were recorded at the two sites in the Wellington River. Unfortunately, the lack of trout in the 2008 survey and lack of historical data precludes further analysis of these data.

Figure 32: Wellington River, Thomson Catchment showing 2008 fish survey sites.

Figure 33: Bushfire affected forest in the The lower reaches of the Wellington River are Wellington catchment. readily accessible and popular for trout fishing. The river is known to contain predominantly small brown trout, maximum 325 g, small rainbow trout, both species of eels, abundant river blackfish, Australian smelt and small Gippsland spiny crayfish (Tunbridge and Rogan 2002).

In 2008, very few fish of any kind were found in the surveys on the Wellington River. No trout were recorded at either site and few of the other species that would normally be expected were present. At site 1 three short‐finned eels were found (450‐600 mm), one Australian smelt and one redfin were found. At site 2, one redfin and one short‐finned eel were caught. Figures 33‐35 illustrate the extent of damage in the Wellington River due to bushfire and flood events in 2007.

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas 39

Figure 34: Debris flows on the banks of the Wellington river give an indication of flood water levels.

Figure 35: Erosion and mass transport of sediment were major problems in the Wellington and Macalister catchments.

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas 40 Buckland River surveyed in 2005 and 24 trout were sampled The Buckland River flows into the Ovens River representing at least 2 age classes, respectively near to Porepunkah in north‐east Victoria (Figure (Douglas 2005). Although these results provide 36). The Buckland River originates forested upper useful background to this study, they will not be reaches and flows through farmland downstream. analysed further since a different methodology was used. In 2008, two sites in the upper reaches of the Buckland River at Beveridge Station (site 1) and New Hope Flat (site 2) were surveyed. Table 26 summarises data from the trout caught at each site. River blackfish were the dominant species recorded at each site with 75 caught at site 1 and 90 caught at site 2. Far smaller numbers of

mountain galaxias, Central Victorian spiny crayfish and murray crayfish were also recorded.

Table 26: Salmonid fish caught in the Buckland River in 2008. Year 2008 Site 1 2 Site 2 Brown Trout No Caught 1 3 Mean length 278 291 Range ‐ 154‐462 Mean Weight 286 488 Site 1 Range ‐ 47‐1,172 Relative abundance 10 15 (fish/ha)

Rainbows 6 7 No Caught Mean length 226 143 Figure 36: Buckland River, Ovens catchment Range 117‐277 131‐150 showing 2008 survey sites. Mean Weight 182 38.6 Range 20‐303 26‐47 Relative abundance 60 35 (fish/ha) The lower reaches of the river were dredged for gold and more recently gravel was extracted. Flows are excellent in the Buckland River during May‐November but can be low in February‐ Brown trout populations in the Buckland River in March below Buckland Junction due to irrigation 2008 would be classified as “poor” where as water diversions (Tunbridge and Rogan 2002). rainbow trout abundance was “poor” to The Buckland River is known to contain brown “average”. Although the number of fish caught trout with an average weight of 230 g (brown was low compared with other rivers north of the trout of up to 2 kg have been recorded in deeper GDR, at least two length classes were represented pools), some rainbow trout to 300 g, blackfish to for both brown and rainbow trout (Figure 37:). 160 g and small redfin in the lower reaches (Tunbridge and Rogan 2002). Also Australian smelt, mountain galaxias, Murray spiny crayfish and southern pygmy perch. It should be noted that the Buckland River was also surveyed in 2004 after the 2003 bushfires (Pomorin 2004), but the sites used were further downstream at Buckland Junction (West Branch) and Old Gold Panning site. No trout were found at either site during this study and the river was subsequently stocked with 1500 brown trout in 2004 to accelerate recovery. The sites were re‐

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas 41 Buckland River 2008

25 2008 Rainbow trout (n=13) 20 2008 Brown trout (n=4)

15

Freqency 10

5

0

0 0 0 70 10 130 160 190 220 250 28 310 340 370 400 430 46 490 Length (mm)

Figure 37: Length‐frequency histogram for salmonid fish caught in the Buckland River in 2008.

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas 42 Reasons for never fishing in the bushfire area Angler perceptions of fishing in 100 90 the bushfire affected area 80 A total of 201 angler surveys were conducted as 70 part of this project. Of the 201 people surveyed, 60

38% (76) had never fished in the area burnt by the % 50 bushfire and had no intention of doing so in the 40 future. Popular reasons given for not fishing 30 20 there included (Figure 38): 10 • Too remote/far away 0 Prefer No Only fish Too Prefer other Not enough Other (no saltwater knowledge locally remote/far freshwater time access, • Prefer saltwater fishing fishing of the area away areas drought, seasonality) • Only fish locally • No knowledge of the area Figure 38: Reasons given by anglers for not fishing in the area affected by the 2006–07 • Prefer other freshwater areas. bushfire. Anglers who had not fished in the area were asked for their opinion or perception on how the How has the bushfire affected fishing in the area? bushfires may have affected recreational fishing in the area. Figure 39 shows that the majority of 100 respondents thought that the bushfire would have 90 a negative impact (54%) on recreational fishing. 80 However, 32% had no opinion and 13% thought 70 the impacts could be positive. These anglers did 60 54 not participate further in the survey. % 50 40 32 The remaining 125 respondents had fished in the 30 designated bushfire area in the past 10 years. 20 These individuals form our “community of 13 10 interest” for this study. The most popular fish 0 targeted in this area was trout with 70% of Negatively Positively No opinion respondents exclusively targeting trout in this area (Figure 40) and over 97% targeting trout or Figure 39: Perceptions of anglers that do not fish other species. Other respondents targeted trout in the area about the impact of bushfires. and redfin (9%) or trout and native species (7%).

In this instance, Murray cod and golden perch What fish are targetted? were the most common native species targeted although some respondents cited eels, Australian 100 bass and blackfish. A small number of 90 respondents targeted anything they could get or 80 multiple species. 70 The survey showed that anglers who fish in the 60 bushfire area use a variety of fishing methods % 50 (Figure 41). The most popular method overall 40 was fishing with lures with 73% of respondents 30 reporting fishing with this method at some time. 20 Bait fishing was used by 65 % of respondents, but 10 anglers who utilise these methods did not 0 “always” use their preferred method and “often” Trout exclusively Trout and redfin Trout and natives Any/ multiple species or “occasionally” used alternative fishing techniques. Figure 40: Species targeted by anglers who fish in the bushfire area.

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas 43 Of the original 125 anglers in our “community of Type of fishing method used interest”, 62% (77) had returned to the area since 100 the 2006–07 bushfire. Popular reasons given for 90 returning to the area included: 80 70 • Prospect of good fishing 60 • Curiosity % 50 • 40 Improved access (many tracks were closed 30 until November/ December 2007). 20 10 0 Motivation for returning to fish in the bushfire area Always Often Occasionally Rarely Never 100 Fly fishing Lure fishing Bait fishing 90

80 Figure 41: Frequency of using fishing 70 techniques (Fly, lure and bait) in the bushfire 60 area. % 50 40 In this regard fly fishers were different from the 30 other two categories with 49% of the respondents 20 who reported using this technique saying that 10 0 they “always” used it. When fishing in the area Prospect of Curiosity Always Improved No-one else Visiting Challenge most anglers preferred to fish with family or good fishing fished there/ river access there local friends (51%), but a number fished alone or with an angling club (41%) (Figure 42). Figure 43: Angler motivation for returning to the bushfire area to fish. Who do you fish with? 100 Anglers who had not returned to the area (38% or 90 48 of our community of interest), predominantly 80 had found other areas to fish, but also cited lack of 70

60 time, drought effects and access as reasons for not returning. Very few respondents (6%) cited % 50

40 bushfire damage as a reason for not retuning 30 (Figure 44). 20

10

0 Reasons for not retuning Alone only Alone or with Friends and With family or With anyone club/friends angling club friends 100 90 Figure 42: Who anglers who fish in the bushfire 80 area prefer to fish with. 70 60

% 50 40 Ninety four (87%) of anglers who had fished in 30 the bushfire area have fished there in the last 5 20 years. The predominant reason for going to that 10 area was for the fishing (85%) but most people 0 Too remote/ Time Drought Access Fished in Allowing fish Bushfire undertook many other activities when there far away different recovery damage (camping, 4WD, motorbike riding etc). Other area reasons given for visiting the area (where fishing was a secondary activity) included camping (3%), hunting (3%), visiting family (4%) working (2%) Figure 44: Reasons for anglers not returning to and bushwalking (3%). the bushfire area to fish.

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas 44

When anglers who had been fishing in the area after the bushfire were asked their opinion about the impacts of the fire on fishing, 49% thought the impacts had been negative, whilst 27% thought they had been positive (Figure 45). The remaining respondents did no know.

Perceptions of anglers about the impact of the bushfire (returned to area) 100 90 80 70 60

% 50 40 30 20 10 0 Don't know Negatively Positively

Figure 45: Perceptions of returned anglers about the impact of the bushfires on recreational fishing. Things that would motivate anglers to return to the area to fish predominantly centred around “good news” stories about the quality of the fishing from other anglers or in the angling press (Figure 46). Some anglers (22%) thought that stocking more fish would make them fish more in the area.

What can be done to motivate anglers to return to the bushfire area 100 90 80 70 60

% 50 40 30 20 10 0 Better Good news/ Improved More time More fish All of the facilities Fishing access stocked above reports

Figure 46: Factors that would motivate angers to return to the bushfire affected area.

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas 45 Discussion

This project has investigated the impact of bushfires on recreational fisheries in the north‐east, alpine and Gippsland areas of Victoria. Two major bushfires have affected the area in recent years in 2003 and in 2006–07 with large areas of land burnt during both events. The most important recreational fishery in this region is salmonids (brown and rainbow trout) which thrive in the cool upland waters although anglers also target other species (e.g. crayfish, blackfish, eels and redfin). Periodic disturbances of one sort or another are a fundamental component of aquatic ecosystems and many species have adapted life histories to cope with such events (Dunham, Young et al. 2003). In relation to bushfires, there may be instances where fire or fire‐related disturbances exerts a different type of disturbance with can pose short term risk to some populations. accumulating impacts. However, the extent to which a given fish population is vulnerable to bushfire is site and species specific. The level of risk to fish Figure 47: Rainfall deficiencies in Australia in populations largely depends on the quality of the 11 months prior to November 2006 affected habitats, habitat fragmentation and the habitat requirements of the species in question (Lake 2003) described the disruption as a “ramp” (Dunham, Young et al. 2003). of increasing impacts but other authors have argued that impacts on aquatic biota from these An important consideration in determining the types of droughts have more of a “step” impact as impact of bushfires on aquatic ecosystems is the various geomorphological and hydrological climatic conditions pre and post‐fire. In the case thresholds are crossed (Boulton 2003). Where of the 2006–07 Victorian bushfire, particularly “step” impacts occur abrupt changes in biological extreme events were recorded before, during and community structure and ecosystem processes after the fire event. may result (Humphries and Baldwin 2003) with dis‐proportional impacts on aquatic biota. Drought In the context of the summer of 2006–07, the Figure 47 shows that the 11 months prior to the extended drought conditions would have bushfire starting, Victoria was in the grip of a impacted on fish populations to varying degrees severe drought with rainfall deficiencies the lowest initially through a reduction in the amount of on record or “severe” over much of the area habitat available as reduced water levels reduce affected by the 2006–07 bushfire. the total area and type of habitat available to the In practical terms this meant that prior to the fish (Lake 2003). In this case the reduced area of bushfire many river systems (particularly in habitat may be accompanied by deterioration in Gippsland) were already at very low flows and water quality caused by increased temperature, some had dried out to pools. There is a difference changes in nutrient levels and decreased oxygen. between the type of drought experienced in A step change in the impact of drought occurs Victoria in the summer of 2006/07 and “normal” or when flows cease in rivers and fragments the “seasonal” drought that occur in some aquatic watercourse into pools (Boulton 2003). The lack of systems every year (Lake 2003). (Lake 2003) current traps aquatic biota and results in a rapid argued that droughts can be periodic, seasonal or deterioration in water quality. It also prevents the supra‐seasonal events. The former two exert a escape of fish to refugia which may have “press” disturbance on aquatic ecoystems whilst exacerbated the effects of the fire in some areas. the latter, due to the longer timescale involved,

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas 46 catchments denuded by bushfires (particularly for streams that depend on leaf litter to supply energy for the food web).

Figure 48: The Tambo River at Swifts Creek in February 2007. In Victoria in 2007, drought conditions were so severe in some catchments that many rivers dried Figure 49: Rainfall over Australia in June 2007 up in some parts. Figure 49 shows the Tambo showing highest rainfall on record in some parts River at Swifts Creek in February 2007 and of Gippsland. suggests that fish in Victorian rivers would have experienced extreme conditions that year even without the bushfire. It should be noted that no Bushfire impacts on Victorian fish trout were found in the Tambo catchment during populations the broadscale assessment, indeed the only species recorded in this catchment were migratory species Broadscale assessment (Phase I) that may have re‐colonised the river later in the The broadscale assessment provided a qualitative year. overview of the status of fish populations in six catchments and at 75 sites in the area affected by Post‐fire floods the 2006–07 bushfire. The results showed that the diversity and abundance of both recreational and In June 2007 a severe flooding event hit the other fish species varied between and within Gippsland area of Victoria (Figure 49). The event catchments. began on the 26th June and although most of Gippsland was affected, it was at its most severe Generally speaking catchments south of the GDR north of Licola in the Thomson catchment. Rivers (Thomson, Mitchell and Tambo) appeared to have in that catchment experienced the worst flooding been more affected than catchments north of the for many years, for example: GDR (Ovens, Upper Goulburn and Kiewa). No fish at all were found at 7 out of 75 sites (9% of • Macalister River 1:100 yr flood sites), 6 of which were south of the GDR. No • Avon River 1:45 yr flood recreational species were found at 24 of the 75 sites • 1:25 yr flood. surveyed (32%), 22 of which were south of the The floods caused landscape‐changing movements GDR. In the Tambo catchment trout were found at of sediment, trees and other vegetation from the none of the sites surveyed and in the Thomson and upper catchments to the lower reaches. (Lake Mitchell catchments trout were found at 33% and 2003) summarised the effects of floods on aquatic 64% of sites, respectively. biota as being on the other extreme of the This contrasts with catchments north of the GDR hydrological spectrum to drought with where trout were found at far more sites: Ovens hydrological connectivity amplified and habitat (72%), Upper Goulburn (93%) and Kiewa (100%). size increased. Floods can affect fish populations Evidence of 2007 recruitment was found only in through large‐scale habitat alteration,washing the Upper Goulburn catchment. away of aquatic biota and scouring of sediments and biological communities. They also result in a Although the results for north of the GDR are net flow of nutrients and energy downstream, the different from those south of the GDR, this is not long‐term effects of which will be exacerbated in necessarily due to the impact of the 2006–07

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas 47 bushfire. Detailed statistical analysis found that Detailed monitoring (Phase II) there appeared to be no differences in either Detailed monitoring took place on five rivers in the abundance or occurrence of important recreational bushfire affected area and at one control site. Four species among the four fire burn intensity classes of the six sites had historical data with which the tested. 2008 data could be compared. The other two (Pomorin 2004)) conducted a similar broadscale rivers were included to provide information on the assessment after the 2003 bushfire event in alpine status of fish populations in these rivers, but Victoria. In this study, 65% of the 29 bushfire detailed analysis of the data was not possible. affected sites surveyed were found to have trout As found in the broadscale assessment, rivers in present. Abundance was lower at 15 of the 19 sites catchments north of the GDR (King Parrot Creek, compared with historical data, but the remaining Howqua, Thowgla and Buckland Rivers) generally sites indicated an increase in abundance ((Pomorin had greater numbers of fish and a greater diversity 2004)). There was evidence of successful of species than those south of the GDR (Crooked recruitment at 89% of the sites that had trout and Wellington Rivers). Very few fish of any kind present. were found in the Wellington River in the The difference between the present study and that Thomson catchment. It is thought that this could carried out after the 2003 bushfires is the be due to the long‐lasting impacts of the severe confounding affects of prolonged and severe flood that hit that catchment in 2007. The timing drought (which affected all catchments) and severe of this flood event in June 2007 could have been flooding in 2007 (which primarily impacted important particularly for salmonids that catchments south of the GDR). Data analysis around this time. High pre‐recruitment stream attempted to dis‐entangle the confounding effects discharges are known to reduce year class strength of these events by comparing species abundance by disrupting spawning and by damaging or against indices such as maximum temperature, flushing away eggs (Strange, Moyle et al. 1992). A low flow and high flow. Maximum temperature storm event of this magnitude may have removed was found not to significantly affect the the year class altogether. distribution of salmonids, suggesting that the The 2008 data for brown trout in four rivers were fleeting nature of a maximal seasonal temperature compared with the historical data (2002‐2005) to may have little effect on their abundance. A ascertain if the data collected this year was significant negative effect of higher temperature significantly different from that collected in 2002‐ was however found for the blackfish suggesting an 2005 (brown trout was selected as it was the only avoidance of the hottest streams (or local salmonid common to all rivers). In this analysis, extirpation) by these fish. the relative abundance of brown trout (fish/ha) None of the species showed significant effects of was re‐sampled using a randomisation protocol low flows. However, when the extent to which and Monte Carlo analysis to estimate means, flows were reduced by the drought was variance and confidence limits (Table 27). The considered (i.e. step change), there was a results show that 2008 data was not significantly significant effect of this variable across all different from historical data at King Parrot Creek recreational species. Sites with less reduction of and Thowgla River. Since King Parrot Creek is the flow compared to mean flow had greater fish control site and not impacted by bushfire, this abundances, just not of any particular species. result suggests that the ongoing drought has not High flow had the greatest number of significant had a significant impact on brown trout effects (rainbow trout, two‐spined blackfish and all abundances in the creek. The Thowgla River was recreational species), and all species and groups burnt in 2003 and brown trout populations were (both significant and non significant results) depressed in 2004, but brown trout populations showed a reduction in abundance with flood peak measured in 2008 have subsequently recovered. intensity (i.e. a negative coefficient). The uniformity of this response and the number of significant results suggests that the flooding that occurred during 2007 has had the greatest effects on recreational fish abundance. This is perhaps to be expected, given the magnitude of the flood events experienced.

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas 48 Table 27: Comparison of 2008 with data collected 2002‐2005. Burnt Mean Variance Lower CL Upper CL Significance King Parrot Creek 2002‐ Control 245.439625 3644.249 147.25 378 Not significant 2005 2008 379.05 25422.77 150 600

Howqua River 2002‐ 2006–07 122.3918 139.1319 99.25 145.75 Significant 2005 2008 21.29 155.0735 4 39

Thowgla River 2002‐ 2003 334.9351 4642.071 202 472.875 Not significant 2005 2008 378.848 8159.176 245 509

Crooked River 2002‐ 2003 & 146.5964 581.6746 96.25 190.5 Marginal 2005 2006–07 2008 63.7755 1484.067 6 117

Brown trout abundance in the Howqua River was with spawning and movement to over‐wintering significantly different in 2008 from historical data habitat (Clapp, Clark et al. 1990). Recolonisation and in the Crooked River the difference was is expected as part of a spring migration marginally significant. Both of these rivers were (Armstrong, Shackley et al. 1994). burnt in 2006–07. Although no specific habitat‐related disruptions A key finding of the detailed monitoring surveys were found during this study, some authors have in 2008 was the disruption of brown trout found that habitat characteristics are altered, recruitment in bushfire affected river systems in created or maintained by bushfires (Burton 2005). the year immediately post‐fire. This was particularly evident in the Howqua River (2008 Potential for recovery of fish post 2007 fire) and the Thowgla River (2004 post 2003 fire) and brown trout recruitment failure populations appears to be more pronounced where rainbow For the purposes of this study “recovered” (or un‐ trout are also present in the system. In years impacted) populations were defined at the outset where brown trout recruitment is disrupted, as: recruitment of rainbow trout is strong, but it is • Similar population size between 2008 surveys unclear if this is related to environmental factors and previous surveys that were not influenced or opportunism by rainbow trout taking by bushfire or other major disturbances advantage of the vacant habitat as rainbow trout are noted for being habitat generalists (Howell • A number of length classes were present 2006). Recruitment of brown trout was depressed • Evidence of successful recruitment in 2007. in the Crooked River in 2004 and 2008, but was still evident. Within this definition, rivers which could be classified as “un‐impacted” were the King Parrot Other studies of bushfire impacts on fish have Creek (Control) and the Thowgla River (burnt in also shown that brown trout may be particularly 2003). Rivers that show signs of continuing susceptible to fire impacts. (Novak and White impact in the 2008 survey were the Howqua and 1989)) found that brown trout did not show rapid Crooked Rivers, particularly with respect to post‐fire recovery and it was postulated that this brown trout populations. Although there was no was due to low flows limiting access of brown historical data available, the Wellington River and trout to spawning grounds. (Armstrong, Shackley Buckland Rivers would also fall within this et al. 1994) found that although older brown trout “impacted” classification due to lack of fish, tend to occupy localised home ranges in pools multiple length classes and/or evidence of and may utilise a localised area of stream, they are recruitment. A key concern now is how long more mobile than other salmonids such as recovery may take in these systems. Atlantic salmon. It is therefore possible that brown trout have simply moved out of the affected area. Other studies have shown trout can move extensively during autumn in association

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas 49 Although the effects of bushfires on watershed and ecological processes may be evident for decades, they are not necessarily catastrophic (Rieman and Clayton 1997). The timescales through which fish populations would be expected to recover after bushfires will depend on many factors (recovery of food supply, habitat, river ecology). Macro invertebrates are the primary food source of salmonids and studies have found populations to be drastically reduced by post fire water quality and quantity (Rinne 1996). In Victoria, studies found that the 2003 bushfires had a negative impact on many streams in northeast Victoria (EPA 2006). However, about half of the streams assessed did not decline in condition after the fire and all but one of the impacted sites had recovered by the third year after the fires. Figure 50 gives a schematic representation of various parameters that may be influenced by bushfire and a generalised response for each parameter. Although fish communities may decline immediately after the fire, abundances tend to “bounce back” in subsequent years before settling back to “normal” pre‐fire levels. This was confirmed by (Howell 2006) who found that repopulation of rainbow trout in reaches defaunated by bushfires began the year after the fire and were recolonised within 2 years. Moderate to high densities of trout were maintained thereafter. Some authors have suggested that the response of fish to disturbance depends on the nature of the • Species with small size at reproduction disturbance, particularly whether the event is a (<20 cm), without specialized habitat “pulse2” or “press”. (Detenbeck, De Vore et al. requirements and with good mobility. 1992)) suggested that population recovery time was substantially longer for “press” disturbances Figure 50: A generalised temporal sequence of (5‐52 years) when compared to “pulse” selected events in response of aquatic systems to disturbances (30 days to 6 years). Factors bushfire ((Gresswell 1999)). promoting recovery from pulse type disturbances (Detenbeck, De Vore et al. 1992) found that included: salmonid fish were the slowest to recover from • Proximity of sources of recolonisation pulse disturbances compared with other groups including local or internal refugia of fish such as percids, cyprinids and centrachids. • Absence of barriers to movement Three possible trajectiories of recovery have been identified (Minshall, Brock et al. 1989): • Streams that have smaller fire affected catchments, greater water retention in the 2 Press disturbances are chronic with a duration watershed, or by sheer chance avoid high longer than the lifespan of the longest lived intensity scouring discharges, will begin the species in the community. Pulse disturbance are recovery process quickly relatively discrete events with a duration shorter • Streams where the watershed becomes heavily that the lifespan of the longest lived species. eroded and the bed severely scoured will have a delayed recovery and may ultimately follow a different trajectory altogether

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas 50 • In severe cases where there are repeated Fisheries Victoria’s role in responding to bushfires disturbance of the stream channel over a long and other natural disasters. In particular, this time, new, lower levels for abundance and study has demonstrated the importance of richness may be established. historical, time‐series data in interpreting the data With all of this in mind, the potential for recovery collected in 2008. The data collected by the Trout of impacted fish populations in this study are Recruitment Survey (TRS) between 2002–2005 summarised in Table 28. provided a valuable reference point for comparing and interpreting the data collected Table 28: Expected recovery times for impacted during this study. rivers in this study. As broader observation it is worth noting that the River Expected Comments current study used only a fraction of the data recovery collected by the TRS over seven river systems time with four sites on each river. The historical data collected by programs such as the TRS provides a Howqua 1‐2yrs Brown trout populations can be valuable resource from which to build a program re‐colonised from Lake Eildon or to effectively monitor trout populations in various other refugia. Recovery timescale catchments in Victoria in a cost‐effective manner. likely to be similar to Thowgla In designing such programs, spreading the River. monitoring effort across a number of watersheds Crooked 2‐5years Recovery will depend on climatic would enable the results to be generalized to a conditions becoming more larger group of watersheds (Liermann and Roni favourable for trout (end of 2008). The experimental design should aim to drought). There are fish in the detect changes in temporal variance rather than upper catchment that could re‐ simple effects on the average numbers so that colonise downstream reaches. effects of press and pulse disturbances (such as those described in this study) may be investigated Buckland 2‐5years Recovery will depend on climatic (Underwood 1991). This would involve conditions becoming more sampling at different time scales to form nested favourable for trout (end of (or hierarchical) series of data with “Before versus drought) and the presence of fish After” a major source of variation. To accomplish to recolonise in the Ovens River this it is not necessary to monitor every site on and Upper Buckland. every river each year, but rather have a rolling Wellington >10 years Catchment subject to severe program (perhaps randomised) that builds on the flooding and erosion established datasets.

(Dunham, Young et al. 2003) argued that there are four main management approaches to promoting the persistence of fish in fire‐prone landscapes:

• Pre‐fire management – addresses habitat degradation, fragmentation and non‐target species that could make fish more vulnerable to fire • Managing fire itself – includes restoring natural process to mimic natural fire regimes and a rapid response to reduce the impacts of the disturbance • Post‐fire management – includes rehabilitation work to speed recovery • Monitoring and adaptive management. Of these four approaches, a monitoring and adaptive management approach that is well targeted is the one perhaps most applicable to

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas 51 Conclusions

The results of this study suggest that the impacts of bushfire events on recreational fisheries in Victoria (specifically trout fisheries) vary between and within catchments. Where bushfire alone was the major disturbance in a catchment (e.g. the Upper Goulburn), the broadscale assessment measured “good” and “average” populations of trout. The detailed surveys in this catchment picked up more subtle impacts on brown trout recruitment in the year after the 2006–07 bushfire. A similar result was also observed in the Thowgla River after the 2003 bushfire. It is expected that the recovery of fish populations in catchments only affected by the bushfire will be rapid (within 1‐2 years). In addition to bushfire impacts, catchments that also had river systems affected by severe drought and some flooding (e.g. Ovens, Tambo and Mitchell Rivers) had a high proportion of sites with no trout or “poor” populations. These catchments may provide marginal habitat for trout at the best of times. Recovery will depend on more favourable habitat or climatic conditions (i.e. cooler and wetter). In the Thomson catchment where severe flooding caused extensive erosion and landscape‐changing impacts, the timelines to recovery are likely to be far longer. An analysis of how the large scale mass‐transport of material has affected trout habitat in the river system will be required before reliable estimates of recovery times can be made.

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas 52 Acknowledgements

This implementation of this project was made • Dr Angus Webb of Melbourne University was possible by a number or organisations and commissioned to do the data analysis for the individuals: broadscale assessment. • Streamline Consulting were commissioned to • Dr Mike Allen and Dan Gwinn from University undertake the broadscale assessment of Florida assisted with experimental design component of this project. and data analysis for Phase II. • The Freshwater Fisheries Research team at • The assistance of regional staff: Errol Snobs Creek (Wayne Fulton, Paul Brown, Kylie Parmigiani, Joy Sloan, Dick Brumley, Rebecca Hall & John Douglas) were extremely helpful Jol and Eric Wiseman, was also much with their advice and guidance. appreciated. • The technical tema that undertook the detailed assessments were Adrian Kos, Taylor Hunt, Nick Taylor and Daniel Steel.

• Russell Strongman from Field Services also assisted with the supervision and training of staff.

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas 53 References

Anon (2003). Report of the inquiry into the 2002‐ on persistence of native fishes and nonnative fish 2003 Victorian Bushfires State Government of invasions ʺ Forest ecology and management 178: Victoria. 183‐196.

Anon (2007). 2007 report from the Ministerial EPA (2006). The health of streams in north‐eastern Task Force on bushfire recovert. I. a. R. D. Victorina in the three years following the 2003 Innovation, State Government of Victoria. bushfires. E. P. Authority, EPA Victoria.

Armstrong, J. D., P. E. Shackley, et al. (1994). Ficke, A. D., C. A. Myrick, et al. (2007). ʺPotential ʺRedistribution of juvenile salmonid fishes after impacts of global climate change on freshwater localised catastrophic depletion.ʺ Journal of Fish fisheries.ʺ Rev. Fish. Biol. Fisheries 17: 581‐613. Biology 45: 1027‐1039. Gavine, F. M., T. Hunt, et al. (2008). Supporting Barker, J. (1991). Spiny freshwater crayfish recovery of the recreational fishing industry in management strategy in Victoria. Fisheries bushfire damaged areas. MAFS Internal Report, Management Report, Department of Conservation Marine and Freshwater Fisheries Research and Environment, Victoria. Instiute.

Boulton, A. J. (2003). ʺParallels and contrasts in Gresswell, R. E. (1999). ʺFire and aquatic the effects of drought on stream ecosystems in forested biomes of North America.ʺ macroinvertebrate assemblages.ʺ Freshwater Transactions of the American Fisheries Society Biology 48: 1173‐1185. 128: 193‐221.

Burton, T. A. (2005). ʺFish and stream habitat risks Hall, K. (2005 unpublished). Recruitment Indices from uncharacteristic wildfire: Observations from for Victorian Trout Streams 2002‐2004. Fisheries 17 years of fire‐related disturbances on the Boise Victoria Research Report. National Forest, Idaho.ʺ Forest Ecology and Management 211: 140‐149. Hall, K. (2006 unpublished). Audit of key environmental factors affecting priotiy inland Clapp, D. F., R. D. Clark, et al. (1990). ʺRange, fisheries in Victoria. Fisheries Victoria Research activity and habitat of large, free ranging brown Report, Marine and Freshwater Fisheries Research trout in a Michigan stream.ʺ Transactions of the Institute. American Fisheries Society 119: 1022‐1032. Harrell, F. E. (2007). Design Package. R package Cowx, I. G. (1983). ʺReview of methods for version 2.1‐1., estimating fish population size from survey http://biostat.mc.vanderbilt.edu/s/Design. removal data.ʺ Fisheries Management 14(2): 67‐82. Heggenes, J. (1987). ʺPhysical habitat selection by Detenbeck, N., P. W. De Vore, et al. (1992). brown trout (Salmo trutta) in riverine systems.ʺ ʺRecovery of temperate‐stream fish communities Nordic Journal of Freshwater Research 64: 74‐90. from disturbance: a review of case studies and synthesis of theory.ʺ Environmental Management Hitt, N. P. (2003). ʺImmediate effects of wildfire 16(1): 33‐53. on stream temperature.ʺ Journal of Freshwater Ecology 18: 171‐173. Douglas, J. (2005). Effects of summer 2003 bushfires on trout in north‐east Victoria. Fisheries Howell, P. (2006). ʺEffects of wildfire and Victoria Research Report. subsequent hydrologic events on fish disturbance and abundance in tributaries of north fork John Dunham, J. B., M. K. Young, et al. (2003). ʺEffects Day river.ʺ North American Journal of Fisheries of fire on fish populations: landscape perspectives Management 26: 983‐994.

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas 54 Unlimited F. Richardson and R. H. Hamre. IV: Humphries, P. and D. S. Baldwin (2003). ʺDrought 120‐127. and aquatic ecoysytems: an introduction.ʺ Freshwater Biology 48: 1141‐1146. Pomorin, K. (2004). Effects of summer 2003 bushfires on trout in North‐east Victoria. Fisheries Hurlbert, S. H. (1984). ʺPseudoreplication and the Victoria Research Report Series No. 9, Department design of ecological field experiments.ʺ Ecological of Primary Industries. Monographs 54: 187‐211. Raadick, T. (2001). Rapid spiny cray key for Lake, P. S. (2003). ʺEcological effects of Victoria. D. o. S. a. Environment, State perturbation by drought in flowing waters.ʺ Government of Victoria. Freshwater Biology 48: 1161‐1172. Rieman, B. E. and J. Clayton (1997). ʺWildfire and Lanka, R. P., W. A. Hubert, et al. (1987). ʺRelations native fish: issues of forest health and of geomorphology to stream habitat and trout conservation of sensitive species.ʺ Fisheries 22(11): standing stock in small Rocky Mountain streams.ʺ 6‐15. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 116: 21‐28. Rieman, B. E., D. Lee, et al. (1995). Does wildfire threaten extinction for salmonids? Responses of Liermann, M. and P. Roni (2008). ʺMore sites or redband trout and bull trout following recent more years? Optimal study design for monitoring large fires on the Boise National Forest. fish response to watershed restoration`.ʺ North Proceedings ‐ Fire Effects on Rare and American Journal of Fisheries Management 28: Endangered Species and Habitats, Coeur dʹAlene, 935‐943. Idaho, IAWF.

Lintermans, M. (2007). Fishes of the Murray‐ Rieman, B. E., D. Lee, et al. (1997). Does wildfire Darling Basin: An introductory guide. Canberra, threaten extinction for salmonids? Reponses of Murray‐Darling Basin Commission. redband trout and bull trout following recent large fires on the Boise National Forest. Fire McMahon, T. E., A. V. Zale, et al. (1996). Aquatic effects on rare and endangered species and habitat measurements. Fisheries Techniques. B. R. habitats conference. November 13‐16, 1995. Murphy and D. W. Willis. Rinne, J. N. (1996). ʺShort‐term effects of wildfire Meador, M. R., J. P. McIntyre, et al. (2003). on fishes and aquatic macroinvertebrates in the ʺAssessing the efficiency of single‐pass backpack southwestern United States. Management Briefs.ʺ electrofishin to characterise fish community North American Journal of Fisheries Management structure.ʺ Transactions of the American Fisheries 16: 653‐658. Society 132: 39‐46. Strange, E. M., P. B. Moyle, et al. (1992). Minshall, W. G., J. T. Brock, et al. (1989). ʺInteractions between stochastic and deterministic ʺWildfires and Yellowstoneʹs Stream Ecosystems: processes in stream fish community assembly.ʺ A temporal perspective shows that aquatic Environmental Biology of Fishes 36: 1‐15. recovery parallels forest succession.ʺ Bioscience 39: 707‐715. Underwood, A. J. (1991). ʺBeyond BACI: Experimental designs for detecting human Minshall, W. G., C. T. Robinson, et al. (1997). environmental impact on temporal variations in ʺPostfire responses of lotic ecosystems in natural populations.ʺ Aust. J. Mar. Freshw. Res. Yellowstone National Park, U.S.A.ʺ Canadian 42: 569‐87. Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54: 2509‐ 2525. Zika, U. and A. Peter (2002). ʺThe introduction of woody debris into a channelised stream: Effects Novak, M. A. and R. G. White (1989). Impact of on trout populations and habitat.ʺ River Research fire and flood on the trout population of Beaver and Applications 18(4): 355‐366. Creek, Upper Missouri basin, Montana. Trout

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas 55

Appendix 1 – Fish species caught in Phase II

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas 56 Central Murray River Gippsland Highlands Brown Short Long Finned Spiny Spiny Southern Australian Rainbow Trout Blackfish Redfin Spiny Tupong Galaxiid Site Trout Finned Eel Eel Freshwater Freshwater Pygmy Perch Smelt River Oncorhynchus Gadopsis Perca Freshwater Pseudaphritis Galaxias No. Salmo Anguilla Anguilla Crayfish Crayfish Nannoperca Retropinna mykiss bispinosus fluviatilis Crayfish urvillii sp. Trutta australis reinhardtii Euastacus Euastacus australis semoni Euastacus armatus kershawi woiwuru

King Parrot Creek 1 600 0 1,863 0 0 0 0 0 163 0 0 0 0

King Parrot Creek 3 150 0 171 0 0 0 364 0 0 0 0 7 0

Howqua River 1 45 85 310 0 0 255 45 0 0 0 0 30 0

Howqua River 2 5 105 145 0 0 285 30 0 0 0 0 0 0

Thowgla River 1 467 217 50 0 0 0 92 0 0 0 0 0 0

Thowgla River 2 225 225 75 0 0 0 92 0 0 0 0 0 0

Crooked River 1 105 0 0 75 10 0 0 0 0 15 0 10 10

Crooked River 2 6 0 0 106 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6

Crooked River 3 7 0 0 80 3 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 3

Buckland River 1 5 30 375 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 20 0

Buckland River 2 30 70 900 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 120 0

Wellington River 1 0 0 0 20 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 5

Wellington River 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas 57

Short Headed Lamprey Roach Rutilis Carp Cyprinus Goldfish Carassius River Site No. Mordacia mordax rutilis carpio auratus

King Parrot Creek 1 0 0 0 0

King Parrot Creek 3 0 0 0 0

Howqua River 1 0 10 5 0

Howqua River 2 0 120 10 0

Thowgla River 1 0 0 0 0

Thowgla River 2 0 0 0 0

Crooked River 1 0 0 0 0

Crooked River 2 0 0 0 0

Crooked River 3 3 0 0 0

Buckland River 1 0 0 0 0

Buckland River 2 0 0 0 0

Wellington River 1 0 0 0 0

Wellington River 2 0 0 0 0

Supporting the recovery of the recreational fishing industry in bushfire damaged areas 58