Translocation of River Blackfish – Tarwin River Pilot Study J

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

Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Unpublished Client Report for West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority

Translocation of River Blackfish– Tarwin River pilot study

J. O’Connor 1, F. Amtstaetter 1, R. Ayres 1, W. Koster 1 and M. Bowler 2

1 Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research 123 Brown Street, Heidelberg, Victoria 3084

2 West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority, Corner Young and Bair Streets, Leongatha, Victoria 3953 Australia

August 2016

Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning Heidelberg, Victoria

Report produced by: Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning PO Box 137 Heidelberg, Victoria 3084 Phone (03) 9450 8600 Website: www.delwp.vic.gov.au

Citation: O’Connor, J., Amtstaetter, F., Ayres, R. Koster, W. and Bowler, M. (2016). Translocation of River Blackfish – Tarwin River pilot study. Unpublished Client Report for West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority. Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research. Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, Heidelberg, Victoria.

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

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia licence. You are free to re-use the work under that licence, on the condition that you credit the State of Victoria as author. The licence does not apply to any images, photographs or branding, including the Victorian Coat of Arms, the Victorian Government logo, the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning logo and the Arthur Rylah Institute logo. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en

Accessibility If you would like to receive this publication in an alternative format, please telephone the DELWP Customer Service Centre on 136 186, email [email protected] or contact us via the National Relay Service on 133 677 or www.relayservice.com.au . This document is also available on the internet at www.delwp.vic.gov.au

Disclaimer This publication may be of assistance to you but the State of Victoria and its employees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore disclaims all liability for any error, loss or other consequence which may arise from you relying on any information in this publication.

River Blackfish translocation Contents

Acknowledgements 2

Summary 3

1 Introduction 4

2 Methods 6

2.1 Study site 6 2.2 Fish sampling 7 2.3 Fish tagging 8 2.4 Translocation 9 2.5 Movement 9 2.6 Habitat 9 2.7 Recruitment 10 2.8 Genetics 10

3 Results 11

3.1 Fish sampling 11 3.2 Translocation 11 3.3 Movement 11 3.5 Habitat 13 3.6 Recruitment 17 3.7 Genetics 17

4 Discussion 18

5 Recommendations 19

References 20

6 Appendices 22

1 River Blackfish translocation Tables

Table 1 Potential source sites and their location ...... 8 Table 2 Fish collected from potential source sites ...... 11 Table 3 Summarised movement of acoustically tagged River Blackfish ...... 12 Table 4 Water quality parameters and azolla condition at translocation sites during March 2016 ...... 12 Table 5 The abundance of and complexities at source and translocation sites ...... 15 Table 6 Summary of habitat assessment ...... 16

Figures

Figure 1 Map of study area ...... 7 Figure 2 Acoustic tag ...... 8 Figure 3 Spawning tube arrangement ...... 10 Figure 4 Examples of movement (red line) associated with high rainfall (as a surrogate for stream discharge) events (arrows) ...... 13 Figure 5 Snag densities at the two source sites (top) and the two translocation sites (bottom) ...... 14

2 River Blackfish translocation Acknowledgements

This project was funded by the Victorian Government using revenue raised from the sale of Victorian Recreational Fishing Licences. The authors would like to thank Tanya Cowell, Eleisha Keogh and Kate Williams (all WGCMA) who commissioned and managed the project. Tanya Cowell also provided regular water parameter data for the study sites. Lauren Dodd and John Mahoney (both ARI) are thanked for their assistance with fieldwork, as are Ross Drury and Ed Bickel and other members from Leongatha Angling Club who contributed to site selection. Special thanks to various private landowners who allowed us access to sites on their properties. Adrian Kitchingman analysed the snag density data and prepared maps. John Koehn and Dan Stoessel provided useful comments on an earlier version of this document. This work was conducted under Fisheries (and translocation) Permit No. RP827 and DELWP Animal Ethics Permit No. 15/19.

River Blackfish translocation Summary

Populations of River Blackfish (Gadopsis marmoratus ) have declined in range and abundance throughout catchments in south-east Australia, including in the Tarwin River catchment in Victoria. The decline is despite the West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority (WGCMA) undertaking rehabilitation of many of the waterways over the past 25 years. Although such efforts are likely beneficial to various native fish, including River Blackfish, the likelihood of River Blackfish recolonising rehabilitated areas is considered low because the species typically does not move large distances. Translocating River Blackfish into rehabilitated areas may therefore represent an important tool to assist recolonization and support population recovery in the Tarwin River and other waterways throughout the species’ range.

In this study, we collected 27 adult River Blackfish from upland areas of the Tarwin River West branch and translocated fish into rehabilitated and non-rehabilitated reaches of stream downstream, where they were historically abundant. We conducted subsequent monitoring to determine whether the translocation was successful, in particular, to determine: 1) whether the translocated River Blackfish survived; 2) whether they established new home ranges in the translocated sites, and 3) whether they reproduced during the 2015 breeding season. Translocated River Blackfish were tagged with acoustic transmitters to determine whether fish remained within translocation sites, whether fish in a non-rehabilitated area moved into a rehabilitated area, and whether fish returned to their original capture location. Artificial spawning tubes were also placed into the translocation sites to detect whether the translocated fish reproduced during the October-December 2015 breeding season. Spawning tubes were checked for eggs near the end of the breeding season. In autumn 2016 electrofishing was also undertaken in the translocation sites to detect recruitment of River Blackfish, as indicated by the collection of young of year individuals. Our findings suggest that the translocation was successful, with fish surviving and remaining within the translocated areas. Recruitment of River Blackfish however has not been detected. This result might reflect a lack of natural spawning habitat, the effect of the stress related to translocation close to the species spawning period or that recruitment did occur and it wasn’t detected at this time using the methods applied.

We recommend ongoing monitoring of the translocated populations to determine the longer term survival, reproduction, increased distribution and condition of the translocated population. Through this monitoring, further information about River Blackfish habitat associations may be inferred and also whether additional habitat improvements are necessary (e.g. more instream wood, improved flow management).

River Blackfish translocation

1 Introduction

River Blackfish (Gadopsis marmoratus ) occur in rivers and streams of south-east Australia. The species has declined in range and abundance since European settlement due to factors such as stream siltation, and removal of woody debris (Drew 2008). There are two forms of River Blackfish; a southern form and a northern form. The southern form grow much larger (<600 mm) than the northern form (<300 mm). Taxonomic research suggests that River Blackfish may represent up to five candidate species (Miller et al. 2004; Hammer et al. 2014; Ryan et al. 2004). River Blackfish typically occupy clear, gently flowing streams with abundant woody debris (Koehn and O’Connor 1990). The home range of adult River Blackfish is typically 25–30 m, although fish have been recorded moving 100 m or more (Khan et al. 2004; Koster and Crook 2008). River Blackfish are most often found in pools, but commonly use riffle and run habitats (Koster and Crook 2008). Historically, River Blackfish were found throughout the freshwater reaches of the Tarwin River Catchment in West Gippsland in Victoria, and were a popular angling species in the region. River Blackfish are now only found in the upper catchments of the Tarwin River East and West branches (O’Connor et al. 2009; 2011; 2013). In addition, the Leongatha Angling Club Inc. has reported that the number of River Blackfish captured has declined over recent decades (Ross Drury pers. comm.).

Although it is uncertain why the decline has occurred, the condition of habitat within the catchment, which underpins the health of fish populations and recreational fishing opportunities, is thought to have played a role. Riverine health is a direct response to the presence of suitable densities of native riparian and aquatic vegetation, logs, substrates (e.g. sand, rocks, boulders, etc.) appropriate water parameters (e.g. dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature, etc.), absence of barriers to fish movement and natural flow regimes. These attributes of waterways provide fish with shelter, food, breeding areas and migration opportunities. There have been major changes to catchments and waterways since European settlement as a result of agriculture, forestry and urbanisation. The WGCMA, together with local landholders and community members, have been rehabilitating waterways in the Tarwin River catchment for 25 years. This includes weed removal, native revegetation, fencing and bank stabilisation works. Although such efforts are likely beneficial to River Blackfish, the likelihood of the species recolonising rehabilitated areas is considered low because it typically has a small home range, and therefore does not move large distances.

Reintroduction, defined as ‘the intentional movement and release of an organism inside its indigenous range from which it has disappeared’, represents a type of translocation that may be applied as a conservation management tool to re-establish a viable population of a target species within its former range (IUCN/SSC 2013). Translocation has been used successfully to aid conservation and management of native fish species, nationally and internationally (Minckley 1995; Shute et al. 2005; Ayres et al. 2012; Lintermans et al. 2015). Pre- and post-monitoring of source and translocated populations is important to assess the outcomes of translocations and inform the ongoing management of the translocated population, as well as, more generally, contribute to the design of other translocations (IUCN/SSC 2013). Various demographic, behavioural, ecological, genetic, health, socio-economic and financial aspects may be monitored to determine the success of translocations (IUCN/SSC 2013). The survival, establishment, breeding and range expansion of translocated populations are examples of demographic indicators. Translocating River Blackfish into rehabilitated waterways within their former range is a management option that may be applied to help rebuild their populations, however, it has not been implemented previously.

The aim of this project was to trial translocating River Blackfish into rehabilitated and non-rehabilitated reaches within their former range in the Tarwin River catchment and assess the success of the translocation and whether River Blackfish prefer the rehabilitated sites over non-rehabilitated sites. We collected River Blackfish from upland areas of the Tarwin River West branch and translocated fish into rehabilitated and non-rehabilitated reaches of a tributary further downstream, where they were historically abundant.

River Blackfish translocation

Translocated River Blackfish were tagged with acoustic transmitters to determine whether fish would remain within translocation sites, whether fish in a non-rehabilitated area would move into the rehabilitated site, and whether fish would return to their original capture location. Artificial spawning tubes were also placed into the rehabilitated areas to monitor breeding. It was anticipated that information obtained in this trial could determine if translocation could be used as a tool to re-establish River Blackfish populations within their former range, and thereby help mitigate the decline of this species not only in the Tarwin River catchment, but in Victoria in general. If successful the approach could be used as a baseline standard for future River Blackfish translocations, and to validate and highlight the work of WGCMA’s waterway rehabilitation program.

River Blackfish translocation 2 Methods

The capture, transportation and release of fish was undertaken in accordance to the Translocation of fish in Victorian inland public waters (DPI 2005). Approval was gained from the Victorian Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources’ Translocation Evaluation Panel to translocate River Blackfish from source to translocation sites in the Tarwin River West branch catchment.

2.1 Study site The Tarwin River is located in south central Victoria, flowing from the Strzelecki Ranges to Anderson Inlet near the township of Inverloch (Figure 1). It is the largest waterway in the South Gippsland Basin with an average annual flow of 275,000 ML (Water Victoria 1989). The freshwater reaches of the river support a diverse fish community comprising of 15 natives (including River Blackfish) and four exotic species (O’Connor et al. 2009; 2011; 2013).

As River Blackfish in the Tarwin River East branch may belong to a different lineage to those in the Tarwin River West branch (Hammer et al. 2014), fish were only sourced from within the Tarwin River West branch catchment. These fish were subsequently translocated to Coalition Creek (another tributary of Tarwin River West branch catchment) (Figure 1). Although River Blackfish are known to have previously inhabited Coalition Creek they are thought to no longer occur there (O’Connor et al. 2009; 2011; 2013). To verify this backpack electrofishing surveys of the stream immediately prior to the release of fish was undertaken and no River Blackfish were collected.

WGCMA has actively undertaken waterway rehabilitation activities in Coalition Creek, including weed removal, fencing and native revegetation. The study design included two adjacent translocation sites on Coalition Creek; one where West Gippsland CMA had undertaken waterway rehabilitation works, and the other site where no waterway rehabilitation works had been completed. The translocated sites were approximately one kilometre apart and were each 450 m in length. Both translocation sites were within the historical range of this species.

River Blackfish translocation

Figure 1 Map of study area

2.2 Fish sampling We attempted to collect River Blackfish from the upper Tarwin River West branch and five of its tributaries using backpack electrofishing (Smith Root Model LR 20B) in October 2015 (Table 1). Fish were taken from multiple sites to reduce depletion pressure on source populations. All River Blackfish collected were measured for total length (mm) and weight. A sub-sample of fish considered to be reproductively mature (>245 mm) were translocated from the source sites to the translocation site. Only adult fish (i.e. >245 mm) were translocated to improve the likelihood of spawning success (i.e. at the translocation site). This strategy also ensured that a portion of larger breeding adults remained within the source populations. Individuals selected for translocation had a healthy appearance (e.g. without visible lesions or parasites), and ranged from 246 to 434 mm in total length.

River Blackfish translocation

Table 1 Potential source sites and their location

Waterway Location Tarwin River West Branch * Allambee Estate Road Boyle s Creek * Forresters Road Elizabeth Creek Allambee South Road Watkins Creek Allambee South Road Brookes Creek Dawsons Road Berrys Creek Berrys Creek Road

Of the six potential source sites surveyed, River Blackfish were only sourced from Tarwin River West branch and Boyles Creek. At the other sites, River Blackfish were either not collected or were too small (<245 mm). At the Tarwin River West branch River Blackfish were collected from multiple, discontinuous reaches of stream (i.e. electrofishing was alternated every 100 m of stream), to minimise depletion at localised sites. At Boyles Creek 200 m of stream was fished below Forrester’s Road and 350 m of stream was fished above Forrester’s Road.

2.3 Fish tagging A total of 27 River Blackfish were collected for translocation. Fish were anaesthetised and then tagged with acoustic transmitters, following the procedures described in Koster and Crook (2008). All tags were entirely internal (no external antennae; Figure 2). Two types of acoustic tags were used: VEMCO (Canada) V7-2L (172 days; 20 mm long, 1.6 g in air, 0.75 g in water) and V7-4L (257 days; 22.5 mm long, 1.8 g in air, 1.0 g in water). Both tags had a 7 mm diameter. The V7-2L were implanted in fish between 246–364 mm in length and the V7-4L were implanted into fish between 280–434 mm in length. This ensured that the transmitter weight to fish body weight ratio did not exceed 2% of fish mass. The surgery procedure lasted 3–5 minutes per fish. Following surgery, fish were placed in an aerated live-well (460 mm x 640 mm) for recovery.

Figure 2 Acoustic tag

River Blackfish translocation

2.4 Translocation Following surgery, River Blackfish were transported to the translocation sites in large (50 lt) plastic barrels, the water in which was continuously aerated. River Blackfish were acclimatised prior to release at the translocation site. The temperature of the water in which they were transported and the water at the release site was equalised by gradually mixing water from the release site to the water they were transported in. Once water temperature had acclimatised fish were released into the study area. Fish were released into deep pools in the rehabilitated translocation site (fish no. = 14) and non-rehabilitated translocation site (fish no. = 13). River Blackfish were released into the translocation sites where there was the best available habitat and at densities reflecting those measured at the source locations. Transportation time was kept to a minimum with the maximum time between collection of fish, tagging, transportation and release being approximately three hours. To prevent transfer of microscopic biological material, source water was disposed of well away from drainage lines and streams after the release.

2.5 Movement Acoustic receivers were deployed at ~90 m intervals within the 450 m reach of each translocation site. At the upstream and downstream end of the site receivers were set up in pairs to determine if fish left the study reach. At the junction of Coalition Creek and the Tarwin River West branch a series of receivers were placed 50 m upstream and downstream in the Tarwin River West branch and 50 m upstream in Coalition Creek, to ascertain if fish moved out of Coalition Creek and upstream or downstream in the Tarwin River West branch. Another logger was placed in the Tarwin River West branch downstream of the junction with Boyles Creek to detect the movement of any fish approaching their source location.

2.6 Habitat Habitat was characterised at source and translocation sites to look for patterns in River Blackfish distribution and behaviours that might be associated with these habitat variables. Habitat variables including the location and size of instream woody debris (snags) were recorded continuously along the length of sites using a Trimble global navigation satellite system with laser rangefinder. Snag masses were defined by a measure of the complexity and size of the snag or snag pile. Snag mass complexity was measured by categorising the number of branches on a snag or structures within a snag pile (i.e. one trunk, two trunks, three trunks or complex (>3 trunks)). The complexity category combined with the size category of a snag mass gave the relative area of structural coverage (i.e. <5 m2, <10 m2, <20 m2 or >20 m2).

Other habitat variables were measured throughout source and translocated sites at 40 m intervals from the most downstream location of each site, working upstream. Stream width, depth and substrate type were recorded at each 40 m intervals. The percentage cover of riparian vegetation, the percentage cover of aquatic vegetation and general observations on undercut banks, fencing and stock access were also assessed for the area approximately 10 m upstream and downstream of each 40 m interval.

There is no stream flow gauging station in Coalition Creek. Rainfall from the nearby gauge at Korumburra (www.bom.gov.au ) was therefore used a surrogate for river discharge. To measure water temperature data loggers (Hobo Pendant temperature Part UA-002-6) were placed into the rehabilitated and non- rehabilitated sites to monitor water temperature over the study period.

River Blackfish translocation 2.7 Recruitment In November 2016, 12 artificial spawning tubes were placed into the study area. River Blackfish have been known to use these artificial structures for spawning habitat (Pittman and Saddlier 2006; Jackson 1978). Artificial spawning tubes consisted of 65 mm (n=1), 80 mm (n=2)and 100 mm (n=1) diameter PVC plastic tubes cut into 400 mm lengths, tied together, and attached to star pickets which were driven into the creek bed (Figure 3). Six spawning tubes were placed in each of the rehabilitated and non-rehabilitated sites at depths ranging from 56 to 132 cm. Spawning tubes were placed horizontally directly onto the substrate. In December 2015, spawning tubes were checked for any indications that River Blackfish were using them as a spawning substrate. In May 2016, backpack electrofishing was undertaken in both the rehabilitation site and non-rehabilitation site to locate juvenile River Blackfish to confirm spawning/recruitment. Electrofishing was undertaken throughout the entire non-rehabilitated and the rehabilitated sites by starting at the most downstream point of the site and working upstream.

Figure 3 Spawning tube arrangement

2.8 Genetics To establish the genetic lineage of the Tarwin River West branch River Blackfish population, genetic samples (caudal fin-clip (approximately 5 mm 2)) were taken from all fish collected. Furthermore, genetic samples (fin clips) were also collected from five individuals from the Tarwin River East branch to confirm the genetic lineage that Hammer et al (2014) described for that location.

River Blackfish translocation 3 Results

3.1 Fish sampling A total of five species of fish were captured from the six potential source locations, including three native and two introduced species (Table 2). River Blackfish were collected from three of these streams.

Table 2 Fish collected from potential source sites

Stream Species present Short finned eel River Blackfish Tupong Carp Brown trout Berry’s Creek V V V Brooks Creek V V V Boyles Creek V V V V Elizabeth Creek V V V Watkins Creek V V V Tarwin River West branch V V V V

Prior to translocation, the translocation sites were surveyed and no River Blackfish were collected. Other fish species recorded included Tupong Pseudaphritis urvillii , Short-finned eels Anguilla australis , Common galaxias Galaxias maculatus and Southern pygmy perch Nannoperca australis.

3.2 Translocation Of the 27 River Blackfish translocated, 14 were released in the rehabilitated site and 13 into the non- rehabilitated site. One fish was never recorded on a receiver and three fish (Fish Numbers 38689, 38691 and 38718) were not detected moving ten days after being tagged (Appendix 1). This may be due to transmitter expulsion, failure, or fish death. Hence data from these fish were removed from analysis of movement. In the final analysis we therefore used the data from 12 fish released into the non- rehabilitated site and 11 fish released in the rehabilitated site.

3.3 Movement Three of the tagged fish moved downstream (Fish Numbers 38687, 38697 and 38724) (Appendix 1; Table 3). These fish remained in Coalition Creek between the translocation sites and the junction with Tarwin River West branch as they were not detected by the receiver array at the junction of the two streams. An additional four fish moved into the 1 km reach between the two translocation sites, three of which remained close to the rehabilitation site, being periodically recorded near the most downstream logging station, while the remaining fish moved from the non-rehabilitated site into the rehabilitated site. No fish moved from the rehabilitated site to the non-rehabilitated site. At the end of the study period (June 2016) eight fish were located in the non-rehabilitated site and eight fish were located in the rehabilitated site. Overall, 23 River Blackfish survived translocation and of these 20 River Blackfish established home ranges in rehabilitated and non-rehabilitated areas in Coalition Creek where they remained for at least eight months.

River Blackfish translocation

Table 3 Summarised movement of acoustically tagged River Blackfish

River Blackfish movement Number of fish Fish d eath or transmitter expulsion/failure 4 Moved out of the non –rehabilitation site 2 Moved out of study area from rehabilitation site 1 Remained in rehabilitated site 7 Remained in non - rehabilitated site 8 Moved from rehabilitated site into 1 km reach between two translocation sites 3 Moved from non -rehabilitated site into 1 km reach between two translocation sites 1 Moved from non -rehabilitated site into rehabilitated area 1 Moved from rehabilitated site into non rehabilitated site 0

Most fish undertook only small movements during the study (i.e. generally less than 100 m), but occasional longer distance movements were recorded. The largest recorded movement was >1600 m, representing a fish moving downstream from the rehabilitated site and out of the study area. Other large movements included one fish that travelled ~1300 m upstream from the non-rehabilitated site into the rehabilitated site. Fish movement increased with increasing river discharge. During rain events (and subsequent assumed high flow events) fish moved larger distances, both upstream and downstream (Figure 4).

During March 2016 a lack of rainfall resulted in low flows and subsequent low and levels of dissolved oxygen (DO) at the Coalition Creek translocation site in March 2016 (Table 4) and a bloom of dense Azolla cover, which was of particular concern due to the potential for dieback and rotting, leading to deoxygenation of the water column. For the period of the study water temperature ranged from 7.6 (16/6/16) to 23.8 (19/12/15) for the non-rehabilitated site and 7.5 (16/6/16) to 18.7 (3/12/15) for the rehabilitated site.

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

Date DO (mg/L) Flow (none, low, Azolla (none, low, medium, high) medium, high) 3 March 2016 2.5 low medium 9 March 2016 1.6 - 3.5 low high 16 March 2016 1.5 - 4.9 low high 23 March 2016 2.7 – 5.7 low -medium medium 30 March 2016 3.8 – 4.6 medium medium 8 April 2016 5.8 – 8.2 medium low

River Blackfish translocation

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

3.5 Habitat The rehabilitation site on Coalition Creek contained the most amount of snag habitat including the second highest amount of complex habitat (Table 5). This was the only site that contained large volumes (>20 m 2) of complex instream habitat. Snag density throughout the rehabilitation site varied, with sections of low to relatively high snag densities (Figure 5). Boyles Creek contained the second highest number of snags, however, the sizes of the snags were all small (< 5m 2). The density of snags in Boyles Creek was uniform throughout the site and ranged from relatively low to medium. The Tarwin River West branch source site had the second most amount of complex (>3 trunks) habitat (mainly consisting of fallen willow trees) but was relatively poor for other snag habitat (1–3 trunks). Relative snags densities in the Tarwin River West branch ranged from low to medium. The non-rehabilitated site on Coalition Creek contained the least amount of snag habitat, which was mostly made up of simple (1 trunk) habitat. Snag density was consistently low throughout the site, and this site had the lowest snag densities recorded in comparison to the other sites.

River Blackfish translocation

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

River Blackfish translocation

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

Snag Size Number of snags per site complexity Tarwin River Boyles Creek Rehabilitated Non -rehabilitated West branch translocation site translocation site 1 trunk < 5 m 2 3 9 6 14 <10 m 2 2 0 6 0 < 20 m 2 1 0 1 0 >20 m2 0 0 0 0 2 trunk < 5 m 2 3 1 2 2 <10 m 2 0 0 5 0 < 20 m 2 0 0 1 0 >20 m 2 0 0 0 0 3 trunk < 5 m 2 0 0 0 0 <10 m 2 1 1 1 0 < 20 m 2 0 0 1 0 >20 m 2 0 0 0 0 Complex (>3 < 5 m 2 4 19 5 1 trunks, root <10 m 2 9 0 5 0 mass) < 20 m 2 2 0 4 0 >20 m 2 0 0 2 0 Snag total 25 30 39 17

Mean depth was greatest at the non-rehabilitated translocation site (Table 6) (due to the presence of two deep pools (>2 m). On average, the second deepest site was the Tarwin River West branch, followed by Boyles Creek and the rehabilitated translocation site which both had a mean depth of 28 cm. Interestingly, the mean depth to width ratio indicated that Boyles Creek was particularly deep relative to its width compared to the other sites, while the non-rehabilitated translocation site had the lowest depth/width ratio.

Boyles Creek, Tarwin River West branch and the non-rehabilitated translocation site had relatively uniform substrate types and were all dominated by a silt/clay substrate. The rehabilitated translocation site had diverse substrates and was dominated by hard surface substrates such as bedrock, gravel, cobble and boulder. Aquatic vegetation, particularly algae and floating vegetation, dominated the translocation sites (rehabilitated and non-rehabilitated) while there was no aquatic vegetation in the Tarwin River West branch site. Boyles Creek contained emergent and submerged vegetation.

Over-story dominated the riparian vegetation at the Tarwin River West branch and the rehabilitated translocation site while under-storey dominated the riparian vegetation at Boyles Creek and the non- rehabilitated translocation site. Willows formed the over-story of Tarwin River West branch, whilst native trees formed the over-story at the rehabilitated site. The understory at Boyles Creek and the non- rehabilitated site largely consisted of pasture grasses. The continuity of over-story and mid-story riparian vegetation was relatively higher in the rehabilitated site and the Tarwin River West branch. The extent of undercut banks was high in the rehabilitated translocation site and Boyles Creek and low at the other two sites.

Table 6 Summary of habitat assessment

Site Mean Mean Depth/ Substrate (% cover) Aquatic Veg.(% cover) Riparian Fencing Stock access Continuous Undercut water wetted Width Vegetation(% (yes, no, (yes, no, riparian bank depth width ratio cover) partial) partial) (low, (low, (cm) (cm) medium, medium, high) high) Silt/clay Sand Gravel Pebble Cobble Boulder Bedrock Algae Floating Submerged Emergent Under-storey Mid-storey Over-storey Boyles Creek 28 124 0.23 83 8 5 2 3 0 0 0 0 10 21 90 2.0 22 No yes low medium

Tarwin River 31 243 0.13 81 3 5 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 78 19 79 No yes medium low West branch Non- 37 270 0.14 97 3 5 2 3 0 0 19 56 15 61 87 18 23 partial partial low low rehabilitated translocation site Rehabilitated 28 343 0.08 12 2 24 13 16 10 25 7 61 8 7 92 21 43 partial partial medium high translocation site

3.6 Recruitment No adult River Blackfish or eggs were found in the spawning tubes. A number of spawning tubes had silted up since being placed into the translocation sites indicating they had not been used. Furthermore, no young of year were collected during the electrofishing survey at translocated sites in May 2016.

3.7 Genetics All genetic samples collected from River Blackfish in the Tarwin River East and West branches represent the SBA lineage described in Hammer et al. (2014), which spans from Victorian and Tasmanian basins draining to Bass Strait.

River Blackfish translocation 4 Discussion

Our preliminary findings suggest that translocation of River Blackfish was successful, with fish surviving and typically remaining within the translocated areas. This result suggests that translocation may be a valuable tool to assist recolonization and support population recovery of River Blackfish in the Tarwin River, and other waterways throughout the species’ range.

Only one River Blackfish moved from the non-rehabilitated area into the rehabilitated area. At the non- rehabilitated site the River Blackfish were, however, translocated into the deepest pools which contained habitat including instream debris and riparian vegetation and therefore fish may not have had the motivation to move. Furthermore, there may also have been limited opportunities for fish to move from the non-rehabilitated site into the rehabilitated site due to the presence of potential barriers (i.e. rock bars and dense vegetation). Previous studies on more mobile species such as Golden Perch Macquaria ambigua and Carp Cyprinus carpio in northern Victoria indicate that they re-establish new home range areas after 1 to 2 months (Crook 2004). Furthermore, while most fish remained in the non-rehabilitated areas it remains to be seen if recruitment also occurs in this site.

No eggs or young of year fish were collected from the artificial spawning tubes or during the electrofishing surveys, respectively, suggesting a lack of breeding and recruitment. Possible reasons for the absence of eggs and juveniles in surveys include sampling error (i.e. electrofishing efficiency can be particularly low for small fish), or due to insufficient numbers of spawning tubes being employed in the study (i.e. only 12 artificial spawning structures were employed). The timing of capture, surgery, implementation of tags and translocation may also have affected spawning behaviour due to it occurring early in the spawning season, which occurs from October to December (Koehn and O’Connor 1990). There would be a degree of stress associated with the translocation process and establishment of a new home range, which may have delayed or impacted spawning in the 2015 season. It is anticipated that fish would become settled over time and therefore more likely to spawn in subsequent years. Other potential reasons for a lack of recruitment may be the sex ratios of the fish that were translocated, which although unknown, may have been skewed. River Blackfish are known to breed in farm dams when suitable habitat is available (http://agriculture.vic.gov.au/fisheries/education/fish-species/River-Blackfish ) so we expect them to spawn in a natural stream channel such as Coalition Creek. We recommend that more intensive sampling to detect recruitment of River Blackfish be undertaken in autumn 2017 and include bait trapping, electrofishing and fyke netting.

Only two River Blackfish moved greater than one kilometre, and most movements were less than 100 m. A number of fish were not detected, despite the receivers being only 90 m apart, for several months at a time demonstrating that fish are likely to have small home ranges. This is consistent with previous studies on River Blackfish movement (Koster and Crook 2008; Khan et al. 2004). However, there was increased fish movement associated with increases in stream discharge. Observations of increased movement associated with increased stream discharge are also consistent with a previous study on River Blackfish movement (Koster and Crook 2008).

Our genetic analysis confirmed that River Blackfish in the east and west branches of the Tarwin River belong to the SBA lineage. This finding is significant because originally we were going to source River Blackfish from both the east and west branches of the Tarwin River for translocation. However, based on a previous study (Hammer et al. 2014), genetic analyses indicated that fish in the upper reaches of the Tarwin River East branch conformed to the SEV lineage of River Blackfish (from coastal eastern Victoria and New South Wales (including the Latrobe River). This was seen as an anomaly as geographically the Tarwin River sits amongst rivers with the SBA lineage of River Blackfish (from Victorian and Tasmanian basins draining to Bass Strait). However, it was thought that the sample that Hammer et al. (2014) took from the system may not represent the only lineage in the system (e.g. SBA may also be present). Consequently we did not know which lineage the fish located in the Tarwin River West branch conformed (SEV or SBA). So to be 18

River Blackfish translocation conservative, we only considered translocating Tarwin River West branch fish as these may potentially belong to a separate lineage to those in the Tarwin River East branch. In the future, we may be able to translocate fish from the Tarwin River East branch to supplement sites in the Tarwin River West branch.

While fish remained in the non-rehabilitated site these fish were largely found in deep pools with good surrounding riparian vegetation, while in the rehabilitated site fish were found distributed throughout the site. Instream woody debris originates from the surrounding riparian vegetation (Koehn and O’Connor 1990) and has been identified as a key requirement for River Blackfish as it provides refugia and spawning habitat in the form of hollow logs (Cable and Saddlier 2010; Khan et al 2004). The riparian vegetation surrounding the rehabilitated site also increased shading and instream habitat compared with the non- rehabilitated site and indicates that the WGCMA works program may have benefits for River Blackfish.

While our initial findings suggest that the translocation was successful in regard to fish surviving translocation, and fish remaining at translocation sites, it is yet to be determined if fish will reproduce and the population expanding in distribution. Further work is therefore required to confirm this.

5 Recommendations

To fully understand the outcomes of the translocation and inform future translocation approaches for River Blackfish, thorough ongoing monitoring and evaluation is needed. In particular, we recommend:

• Monitoring of the translocated populations to determine long term survival, reproduction, expanded distribution and condition of the translocated population. Surveys in autumn 2017 are particularly important to determine whether the translocated population has successfully bred and recruited and/or expanded in range. Outcomes of these surveys may suggest the need to further augment the size of the River Blackfish population at the translocation site or additional habitat improvements. • Genetic monitoring of the translocated populations to determine changes in the genetic structure of these populations over time. This information would inform decisions as to whether genetic supplementation is needed (i.e. via the translocation of more individuals). • Trial the translocation of River Blackfish at other rehabilitated sites within their former range, around Victoria. • Continue the rehabilitation of waterways in the Tarwin River catchment and elsewhere throughout Victoria. • Continue engaging and educating stakeholders of the significance of River Blackfish in the Tarwin River catchment and across the WGCMA region, including their decline and key threats and opportunities for people to assist rehabilitating River Blackfish habitat and assist population recovery.

River Blackfish translocation References

Ayres, R.M., Nicol, M.D. and Raadik, T.A. (2012). Establishing new populations for fire-affected Barred Galaxias ( Galaxias fuscus ): site selection, trial translocation and population genetics. Black Saturday Victoria 2009 – Natural values fire recovery program. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Heidelberg, Victoria. Cable, A. and Saddlier, S. (2010). The impacts of drought on River Blackfish ( Gadopsis marmoratus ) in Tullaroop and McCallum creeks. Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research. Confidential Client Report. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Heidelberg, Victoria. Crook, D. (2004). Movements associated with home-range establishment by two species of lowland river fish. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 61: 2183–2193. DPI (2005). Protocols for the translocation of fish in Victorian inland public waters. Fisheries Victoria Management Report Series No. 24. Department of Primary Industries, Victoria. Drew, M.M. (2008). A guide to the management of native fish: Victorian coastal rivers, estuaries and wetlands. Department of Sustainability and Environment and Corangamite Catchment Authority, Victoria. Hammer, M.P., Unmack, P.J., Adams, M., Raadik, T.A. and Johnson, J.B. (2014). A multigene molecular assessment of cryptic biodiversity in the iconic freshwater Blackfishes (Teleostei: Percichthyidae: Gadopsis ) of south-eastern Australia. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 111(3): 521–540. IUCN/SSC (2013). Guidelines for Reintroductions and Other Conservation Translocations . Version 1.0. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN Species Survival Commission, viiii + 57 pp. Jackson, P.D. (1978) Spawning and early development of the River Blackfish, Gadopsis marmoratus Richardson (Gadopsiforines : Gadopsidae), in the McKenzie River, Victoria. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 29: 293-298. Jackson, P.D. (1979) Spawning tube for river blackfish. Freshwater Fisheries Newsletter 11: 18. Khan, M.T., Khan, T.A. and Wilson, M.E. (2004). Habitat use and movement of River Blackfish (Gadopsis marmoratus R.) in a highly modified Victorian stream, Australia. Ecology of Freshwater Fish. 13(4): 285–293. Koehn, J.D. and O’Connor, W.G. (1990). Biological information for management of freshwater fish in Victoria. Victorian Government Printer, Melbourne. 165 pp. Koster, W. and Crook, D. (2008). Diurnal and nocturnal movements of River Blackfish (Gadopsis marmoratus ) in a south-eastern Australian upland stream. Ecology of Freshwater Fish . 17(1): 146– 154. Lintermans, M., Lyon, J.P., Hammer, M.P., Ellis, I. and Ebner, B.C (2015). Underwater, out of sight: lessons from threatened freshwater fish translocations in Australia. In, Advances in Reintroduction Biology of Australian and New Zealand Fauna . Miller, A.D., Waggy, G., Ryan, S.G. and Austin, C.M. (2004). Mitochondrial 12S rRNA sequences support the existence of a third species of freshwater blackfish (Percichthyidae: Gadopsis) from south-eastern Australia. Memoirs of Museum Victoria 61: 121–127. Minckley, W.L. (1995). Translocation as a tool for preserving imperilled fishes: Experiences in Western United States. Biological Conservation 72: 297–309. O’Connor, J., Amtstaetter, F. and Dodd, L. (2009). Freshwater Bioassessment (Fish Surveys) of the Tarwin, Tarra, Powlett and Agnes rivers - Progress Report. Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Heidelberg, Victoria.

River Blackfish translocation

O’Connor, J., Amtstaetter, F. and Dodd, L. (2011). Freshwater Bioassessment (Fish Surveys) of the Tarwin, Tarra, Powlett and Agnes rivers - Progress Report. Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Heidelberg, Victoria. O’Connor, J., Amtstaetter, F. and Dodd, L. (2013). Assessment of the Freshwater Fish in the Tarwin, Tarra, Powlett and Agnes rivers: Final Report. Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Heidelberg, Victoria. Pitman, K. and Saddlier, S. (2006). Survey for River Blackfish post rehabilitation works in Birches Creek, Central Victoria. A report for The North Central Catchment Management Authority. Freshwater Ecology, Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Heidelberg, Victoria. Ryan, S.G., Miller, A.D. and Austin, C.M. (2004). Allozyme variation and taxonomy of the River Blackfish, Gadopsis marmoratus Richardson, in Western Victoria. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria 116(2): 191–199. Shute, J.R., Rakes, P.L. and Shute, P.W. (2005). Reintroduction of four imperiled fishes in Abrams Creek, Tennessee. Southeastern Naturalist. 4(1): 93–110. Water Victoria (1989). A Resource Handbook. Department of Water Resources.

River Blackfish translocation 6 Appendices

Appendix 1 – Fish movement graphs

Fish Number: 38688 Fish Number: 38686

2000 40 2000 40 1800 35 1800 35 1600 1600 30 30 1400 1400 25 25 1200 1200 20 20 1000 1000 800 15 800 15 600 10 600 10

400 5 400 5 200 200 0 0 0 0

Apr15 Oct15 Oct15 Apr15 Jun 15 Jun Jan 15 Jan Jan 15 Jan Jun 15 Jun Feb 15 Feb 15 Mar Feb 15 Feb 15 Mar Nov 15 Nov 15 Dec Nov 15 Nov 15 Dec May 15 May May15

Fish Number: 38687 Fish Number: 38689

2000 40 2000 40 1800 1800 35 35 1600 1600 30 30 1400 1400 25 25 1200 1200 20 20 1000 1000 800 15 800 15 600 10 600 10 400 5 400 5 200 200 0 0 0 0

Oct15 Apr15 Jun 15 Jun Jan 15 Jan Feb 15 Feb 15 Mar Oct15 Apr15 Jun 15 Jun Nov 15 Nov 15 Dec Jan 15 Jan May 15 May Feb 15 Feb 15 Mar Nov 15 Nov 15 Dec 15 May

River Blackfish translocation

Fish Number: 38690 Fish Number: 38691

2000 40 2000 40 1800 35 1800 35 1600 1600 30 30 1400 1400 25 25 1200 1200 20 20 1000 1000 800 15 800 15 600 10 600 10 400 5 400 5 200 200 0 0 0 0

Oct15 Apr15 Oct15 Apr15 Jun 15 Jun Jan 15 Jan Jun 15 Jun Jan 15 Jan Feb 15 Feb 15 Mar Feb 15 Feb 15 Mar Nov 15 Nov 15 Dec Nov 15 Nov 15 Dec May 15 May 15 May

Fish Number: 38692 Fish Number: 38693

2000 40 2000 40 1800 35 1800 35 1600 1600 30 30 1400 1400 25 25 1200 1200 20 20 1000 1000 15 800 800 15 600 10 600 10 400 5 400 5 200 200 0 0 0 0

Oct15 Apr15 Jun 15 Jun Jan 15 Jan Feb 15 Feb 15 Mar Nov 15 Nov 15 Dec May 15 May Oct15 Apr15 Jun 15 Jun Jan 15 Jan Feb 15 Feb 15 Mar Nov 15 Nov 15 Dec 15 May

Fish Number: 38694 Fish Number: 38696 2000 40 2000 40 1800 35 1800 35 1600 1600 30 30 1400 1400 25 25 1200 1200 20 20 1000 1000 800 15 800 15

600 10 600 10 400 5 400 5 200 200 0 0 0 0 Oct15 Oct15 Apr15 Apr15 Jun 15 Jun Jun 15 Jun Jan 15 Jan Jan 15 Jan Feb 15 Feb 15 Mar Feb 15 Feb 15 Mar Nov 15 Nov 15 Dec Nov 15 Nov 15 Dec May 15 May May 15 May

River Blackfish translocation

Fish Number: 38697 Fish Number: 38698 2000 40 2000 40 1800 35 1800 35 1600 1600 30 30 1400 1400 25 25 1200 1200 20 20 1000 1000 800 15 800 15 600 10 600 10 400 5 400 5 200 200 0 0 0 0

Oct15 Apr15 Jun 15 Jun Jan 15 Jan Oct15 Apr15 Jun 15 Jun Jan 15 Jan Feb 15 Feb 15 Mar Nov 15 Nov 15 Dec Feb 15 Feb 15 Mar Nov 15 Nov 15 Dec May 15 May

15 May

Fish Number: 38699 Fish Number: 38700 2000 40 2000 40 1800 1800 35 35 1600 1600 30 30 1400 1400 25 25 1200 1200 20 20 1000 1000 15 800 15 800

600 10 600 10 400 400 5 5 200 200 0 0 0 0 Oct15 Apr15 Jun 15 Jun Jan 15 Jan Feb 15 Feb 15 Mar Nov 15 Nov 15 Dec Oct15 Apr15 Jun 15 Jun Jan 15 Jan 15 May Feb 15 Feb 15 Mar Nov 15 Nov 15 Dec May 15 May

Fish Number: 38710 Fish Number: 38713 2000 40 2000 40

1800 35 1800 35 1600 1600 30 30 1400 1400 25 25 1200 1200 20 20 1000 1000 800 15 800 15 600 10 600 10 400 5 400 5 200 200 0 0 0 0

Oct15 Oct15 Apr15 Apr15 Jun 15 Jun 15 Jun Jan 15 Jan 15 Jan Feb 15 Feb 15 Mar 15 Feb 15 Mar Nov 15 Nov 15 Dec 15 Nov 15 Dec May 15 May 15 May

River Blackfish translocation

Fish Number: 38714 Fish Number: 38715 2000 40 2000 40 1800 35 1800 35 1600 1600 30 30 1400 1400 25 25 1200 1200 20 20 1000 1000 800 15 800 15

600 10 600 10 400 400 5 5 200 200 0 0 0 0 Oct15 Oct15 Apr15 Apr15 Jun 15 Jun 15 Jun Jan 15 Jan 15 Jan Feb 15 Feb 15 Mar 15 Feb 15 Mar

15 Nov 15 Dec 15 Nov 15 Dec May 15 May 15 May

Fish Number: 38716 Fish Number: 38717 2000 40 2000 40 1800 35 1800 35 1600 1600 30 30 1400 1400 25 25 1200 1200 20 20 1000 1000 800 15 800 15

600 10 600 10 400 5 400 5 200 200 0 0 0 0 Oct15 Oct15 Apr15 Apr15 Jan 15 Jan 15 Jan 15 Jun 15 Jun Feb 15 Feb 15 Mar 15 Feb 15 Mar Nov 15 Nov 15 Dec 15 Nov 15 Dec May 15 May 15 May

Fish Number: 38718 Fish Number: 38719 2000 40 2000 40 1800 1800 35 35 1600 1600 30 30 1400 1400 25 25 1200 1200 20 20 1000 1000 15 800 15 800 600 10 600 10 400 400 5 5 200 200 0 0 0 0

Oct15 Apr15 Jan 15 Jan Jun 15 Jun Feb 15 Feb 15 Mar Nov 15 Nov 15 Dec Oct15 Apr15 Jan 15 Jan Jun 15 Jun May 15 May Feb 15 Feb 15 Mar Nov 15 Nov 15 Dec May 15 May

River Blackfish translocation

Fish Number: 38721 Fish Number: 38722

2000 40 2000 40 1800 35 1800 35 1600 1600 30 30 1400 1400 25 25 1200 1200 20 20 1000 1000 800 15 800 15 600 10 600 10

400 5 400 5 200 200 0 0 0 0

Oct15 Apr15 Jan 15 Jan Jun 15 Jun Oct15 Apr15 Jan 15 Jan Jun 15 Jun Feb 15 Feb 15 Mar Nov 15 Nov 15 Dec Feb 15 Feb 15 Mar Nov 15 Nov 15 Dec May 15 May May 15 May

Fish Number: 38723 Fish Number: 38724

2000 40 2000 40 1800 35 1800 35 1600 1600 30 30 1400 1400 25 25 1200 1200 20 20 1000 1000

800 15 800 15 600 10 600 10

400 5 400 5 200 200 0 0 0 0

Oct15 Apr15 Jan 15 Jan Jun 15 Jun Oct15 Apr15 Jan 15 Jan Jun 15 Jun Feb 15 Feb 15 Mar Nov 15 Nov 15 Dec Feb 15 Feb 15 Mar Nov 15 Nov 15 Dec May 15 May 15 May

Appendix 2 – Habitat (Flow)

Waterway Distance Water depth Flow from (cm) start (m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Average depth Wetted width (cm) (cm) Boyles Creek 0 58 49 53.5 70 Run Boyles Creek 40 43 44 43.5 73 Run Boyles Creek 80 21 30 30 27.0 110 Run Boyles Creek 120 23 17 22 20.7 130 Run Boyles Creek 160 31 20 20 23.7 240 Run Boyles Creek 200 16 6 13 11.7 130 Riffle Boyles Creek 240 38 32 41 25 34.0 150 Glide Boyles Creek 280 17 13 24 18.0 100 Run Boyles Creek 320 42 23 26 30.3 100 Run Boyles Creek 360 18 21 14 17.7 140 Run

Tarwin West Branch 0 100 27 31 35 48.3 410 Pool, no flow Tarwin West Branch 40 57 78 49 44 57.0 300 Pool Tarwin West Branch 80 5 5 5.0 30 Pool Tarwin West Branch 120 66 72 90 70 74.5 420 Pool Tarwin West Branch 160 55 63 78 89 71.3 330 Pool Tarwin West Branch 200 0 0.0 0 Dry Tarwin West Branch 240 7 4 6 5 6 5.6 195 Pool Tarwin West Branch 280 21 14 21 18.7 190 Pool Tarwin West Branch 320 2 1 0.5 1.2 70 Pool

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

River Blackfish translocation rehab Coalition Creek - 40 23 10 35 17 25 30 23.3 152 Top of pool, bottom of run, small rehab amount flow Coalition Creek - 80 4 8 6 5 5.8 100 Riffle rehab Coalition Creek - 120 32 34 27 22 27 19 26.8 452 Pool, slight flow rehab Coalition Creek - 160 29 53 40 27 37 24 35.0 392 Pool, slight flow rehab Coalition Creek - 200 12 10 7 22 21 20 15.3 286 No flow, would normally be a riffle rehab Coalition Creek - 240 13 17 18 20 25 18.6 585 Pool, no flow rehab Coalition Creek - 280 25 33 46 33 57 44 39.7 570 Pool, little or no flow rehab Coalition Creek - 320 78 24 68 76 61.5 305 Pool, no flow rehab Coalition Creek - 360 22 22.0 383 Pool, no flow rehab Coalition Creek - 400 19 40 36 27 22 28.8 372 Pool, slight flow rehab

Coalition Creek -non - 0 27 44 41 37.3 331 Pool, no flow rehab Coalition Creek -non - 20 32 31 23 16 25.5 449 Pool, no flow rehab Coalition Creek -non - 40 25 19 17 20.3 236 Pool rehab Coalition Creek -non - 60 25 26 39 30.0 241 Pool, no flow rehab Coalition Creek -non - 80 23 14 18.5 115 Pool, no flow rehab Coalition Creek -non - 100 49 54 68 55 56.5 290 Pool, no flow rehab

River Blackfish translocation

Coalition Creek -non - 120 7 6 6.5 120 Run, flowing rehab Coalition Creek -non - 140 74 73 66 71.0 306 Pool, no flow rehab Coalition Creek -non - 160 19 12 24 18.3 210 Run, flowing rehab Coalition Creek -non - 200 22 19 18 16 18.8 230 Pool, no flow rehab Coalition Creek -non - 240 63 45 74 49 57.8 395 Pool, no flow rehab Coalition Creek -non - 280 87 89 140 140 85 63 41 92.1 550 Pool, no flow rehab Coalition Creek -non - 320 5 7 6 8 4 6.0 90 Run, slight flow rehab Coalition Creek -non - 360 34 38 69 70 60 65 38 63 54.6 297 Pool, no flow rehab Coalition Creek -non - 400 37 21 32 30 28 29.6 170 Pool, no flow rehab Coalition Creek -non - 440 48 56 55 52 59 54.0 300 Pool, no flow rehab

River Blackfish translocation

Waterway Distance Water depth (cm) Flow from start (m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Average depth Wetted (cm) width (cm) Boyles Creek 0 58 49 53.5 70 Run Boyles Creek 40 43 44 43.5 73 Run Boyles Creek 80 21 30 30 27.0 110 Run Boyles Creek 120 23 17 22 20.7 130 Run Boyles Creek 160 31 20 20 23.7 240 Run Boyles Creek 200 16 6 13 11.7 130 Riffle Boyles Creek 240 38 32 41 25 34.0 150 Glide Boyles Creek 280 17 13 24 18.0 100 Run Boyles Creek 320 42 23 26 30.3 100 Run Boyles Creek 360 18 21 14 17.7 140 Run

Coalition Creek - 0 47 38 25 20 36 33.2 179 Pool, slight flow rehab Coalition Creek - 40 23 10 35 17 25 30 23.3 152 Top of pool, bottom of run, small rehab amount flow

River Blackfish translocation

Coalition Creek - 80 4 8 6 5 5.8 100 Riffle rehab Coalition Creek - 120 32 34 27 22 27 19 26.8 452 Pool, slight flow rehab Coalition Creek - 160 29 53 40 27 37 24 35.0 392 Pool, slight flow rehab Coalition Creek - 200 12 10 7 22 21 20 15.3 286 No flow, would normally be a riffle rehab Coalition Creek - 240 13 17 18 20 25 18.6 585 Pool, no flow rehab Coalition Creek - 280 25 33 46 33 57 44 39.7 570 Pool, little or no flow rehab Coalition Creek - 320 78 24 68 76 61.5 305 Pool, no flow rehab Coalition Creek - 360 22 22.0 383 Pool, no flow rehab Coalition Creek - 400 19 40 36 27 22 28.8 372 Pool, slight flow rehab

River Blackfish translocation

Coalition Creek -non - 160 19 12 24 18.3 210 Run, flowing rehab Coalition Creek -non - 200 22 19 18 16 18.8 230 Pool, no flow rehab Coalition Creek -non - 240 63 45 74 49 57.8 395 Pool, no flow rehab Coalition Creek -non - 280 87 89 140 140 85 63 41 92.1 550 Pool, no flow rehab Coalition Creek -non - 320 5 7 6 8 4 6.0 90 Run, slight flow rehab Coalition Creek -non - 360 34 38 69 70 60 65 38 63 54.6 297 Pool, no flow rehab Coalition Creek -non - 400 37 21 32 30 28 29.6 170 Pool, no flow rehab Coalition Creek -non - 440 48 56 55 52 59 54.0 300 Pool, no flow rehab

Appendix 3 – Habitat (Substrate) Waterway Substrate description (%) Silt/clay Sand Gravel Pebble Cobble Boulder Bedrock Boyles Creek 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 30 30 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 20 10 30 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 5 0 5 0 0 0

Tarwin West 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 branch 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 10 30 40 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 0 0 10 0 0 0 20 20 15 40 5 0 0

Coalition Creek - 0 10 20 0 0 0 70 rehab 5 10 50 10 10 0 15 0 0 20 40 30 10 0 10 0 30 40 20 0 0 10 0 10 20 40 15 5 0 0 10 20 50 20 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 90 80 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 80 10 0 40 10 20 10 10 20 0 30 0 0 50 0

Coalition Creek - 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 non-rehab 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 20 0 0 0 0 0 90 10 0 0 0 0 0 80 20 0 0 0 0 0

Appendix 4 – Habitat (Vegetation)

Waterway Distance Aquatic vegetation (% Riparian vegetation (% cover at Riparian vegetation from cover of each type) each level) (longitudinal extent start of over-story and (m) mid-story) Type Understorey Midstorey (1.5 Overstorey Comment (ground - - 5 m) (>5m) 1.5m) Algae Algae Floating Submerged Emergent Boyles Creek 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 Pasture None Boyles Creek 40 0 0 0 30 100 0 0 Pasture None Boyles Creek 80 0 0 0 10 100 0 40 Grasses None Boyles Creek 120 0 0 0 10 100 10 20 None Boyles Creek 160 0 0 1 5 80 1 0 None Boyles Creek 200 60 1 5 None Boyles Creek 240 0 0 0 30 100 0 60 None Boyles Creek 280 70 20 100 0 10 None Boyles Creek 320 80 70 5 20 continuous Boyles Creek 360 5 85 0 60 continu ous

Tarwin West 0 0 0 0 0 70 30 90 continuous branch Tarwin West 40 0 0 0 0 70 30 90 continuous branch Tarwin West 80 0 0 0 0 80 5 60 continuous branch Tarwin West 120 0 0 0 0 60 0 100 continuous branch

River Blackfish translocation

Tarwin West 160 0 0 0 0 80 0 70 continuous branch Tarwin West 200 0 0 0 0 80 0 90 continuous branch Tarwin West 240 0 0 0 0 80 5 80 continuous branch Tarwin West 280 0 0 0 0 90 40 80 continuous branch Tarwin West 320 0 0 0 0 95 60 50 continuous branch

Coalition 0 0 1 0 5 Azolla 90 40 30 None Creek - rehabilitation site Coalition 40 0 10 0 5 Arrowhead , 95 10 80 Regularly spaced Creek - Azolla rehabilitation site Coalition 80 0 0 0 1 Azolla 100 20 30 semi continuous Creek - rehabilitation site Coalition 120 0 100 0 5 Arrowhead , 100 5 20 semi continuous Creek - Azolla, rehabilitation duckweed site Coalition 160 0 20 10 5 Arrowhead , 90 20 70 semi continuous Creek - Azolla, rehabilitation duckweed site Coalition 200 0 80 0 15 Arrowhead , 95 10 60 semi continuous Creek - Azolla, rehabilitation duckweed site 35

River Blackfish translocation

Coalition 240 80 70 0 10 100 10 10 semi continuous Creek - rehabilitation site Coalition 280 0 100 0 10 100 10 10 semi continuous Creek - rehabilitation site Coalition 320 0 100 0 0 100 30 80 semi continuous Creek - rehabilitation site Coalition 360 0 100 0 5 Arrowhead , 95 60 70 semi continuous Creek - azolla, rehabilitation duckweed site Coalition 400 0 90 80 20 50 20 10 semi continuous Creek - rehabilitation site

Coalition 0 0 100 0 40 Azolla , 100 0 10 Willows Isolated Creek - non- Cumbungi rehabilitation site Coalition 20 40 100 0 70 Azolla , 100 1 0 None Creek - non- filamentous rehabilitation algae site Coalition 40 0 100 0 100 Azolla , 80 5 0 None Creek - non- Cumbungi rehabilitation site Coalition 60 0 100 0 80 90 0 0 None Creek - non- 36

River Blackfish translocation rehabilitation site Coalition 80 0 100 0 100 85 10 0 None Creek - non- rehabilitation site Coalition 100 50 20 100 10 90 10 10 Isolated Creek - non- rehabilitation site Coalition 120 0 0 0 100 Cumbungi 100 20 0 None Creek - non- rehabilitation site Coalition 140 0 10 0 100 80 15 5 Isolated Creek - non- rehabilitation site Coalition 160 100 10 0 30 Azolla , 80 20 5 Isolated Creek - non- filamentous rehabilitation algae site Coalition 200 5 5 0 100 80 15 1 Isolated Creek - non- rehabilitation site Coalition 240 0 60 100 20 90 30 40 Regularly spaced Creek - non- rehabilitation site Coalition 280 1 5 5 15 Azolla , 100 30 30 Isolated Creek - non- Cumbungi rehabilitation site Coalition 320 0 0 0 100 Cumbungi 95 40 40 Semi -continuous

River Blackfish translocation

Creek - non - rehabilitation site Coalition 360 0 100 0 5 85 20 90 Continuous Creek - non- rehabilitation site Coalition 400 70 100 0 60 95 30 80 Continuous Creek - non- rehabilitation site Coalition 440 30 90 40 40 40 40 60 Semi -continuous Creek - non- rehabilitation site

Appendix 5 – Habitat (Miscellaneous)

Waterway Distance from Fencing Stock access Undercut bank LHB height RHB height Comments start (m) (m) (m)

Boyles Creek 0 None Yes RHB Boyles Creek 40 None Yes RHB Boyles Creek 80 None Yes no Lots of meanders Boyles Creek 120 None Yes RHB Boyles Creek 160 None Yes no Boyles Creek 200 None Yes RHB Immediately downstream of road Boyles Creek 240 None Yes no Boyles Creek 280 None Yes no Boyles Creek 320 None Yes LHB Some erosion Boyles Creek 360 None Yes no Tarwin West 0 None Yes no Deep pool upstream of bridge branch Tarwin West 40 None Yes no branch Tarwin West 80 None Yes no branch Tarwin West 120 None Yes no branch Tarwin West 160 None Yes no branch Tarwin West 200 None Yes no branch

River Blackfish translocation

Tarwin West 240 None Yes no branch Tarwin West 280 None Yes Yes branch Tarwin West 320 None Yes no branch Coalition Creek 0 None Yes RHB, LHB Road on RHB rehabilitation site Coalition Creek 40 None Yes No 5 2 rehabilitation site Coalition Creek 80 None Yes no 2 1 rehabilitation site Coalition Creek 120 None Yes Yes when water 2 2 Barrier upstream of site rehabilitation site level higher Coalition Creek 160 None Yes RHB and LHB when water level higher rehabilitation site Coalition Creek 200 Yes No RHB when water 3 to 6 2 rehabilitation site level higher Coalition Creek 240 Yes No No 10 3 rehabilitation site Coalition Creek 280 Yes No LHB when water level higher, RHB undercut 30cm now rehabilitation site Coalition Creek 320 Yes No No 0 2 RHB bedrock, LHB soil rehabilitation site Coalition Creek 360 Yes No RHB and LHB 4 2 rehabilitation site when water level higher Coalition Creek 400 Yes No RHB and LHB 3 3 Site is located just upstream rehabilitation site when water level of bridge. Boulders because higher of bridge construction. Coalition Creek 0 Yes LHB and RHB No No End of site adjacent to non-rehabilitation willows site Coalition Creek 20 Yes LHB and RHB No No non-rehabilitation 40

River Blackfish translocation site Coalition Creek 40 Yes LHB and RHB No No Some erosion on LHB non-rehabilitation site Coalition Creek 60 RHB fenced Yes No non-rehabilitation site Coalition Creek 80 RHB fenced Yes No non-rehabilitation site Coalition Creek 100 RHB fenced Yes No First decent pool, 8m x 5m, non-rehabilitation max depth >1.0m site Coalition Creek 120 Yes LHB and RHB No No non-rehabilitation site Coalition Creek 140 Yes LHB and RHB Yes (from No Some erosion on LHB due to non-rehabilitation d/s) cattle site Coalition Creek 160 Yes LHB and RHB Yes No Some erosion on LHB due to non-rehabilitation cattle site Coalition Creek 200 Yes LHB and RHB Yes No Some erosion on LHB due to non-rehabilitation cattle site Coalition Creek 240 No, RHB too steep, LHB is roadside No 0.5 1 non-rehabilitation near bridge site Coalition Creek 280 Yes No No 1 1.5 Just below bridge, top of non-rehabilitation pool, LHB and RHB eroded, site pool is unwadeable in centre >1.4m Coalition Creek 320 Yes LHB, no RHB (road) No non-rehabilitation site 41

River Blackfish translocation

Coalition Creek 360 No RHB some erosion and road, non-rehabilitation LHB there is a drainage point site from milk factory Coalition Creek 400 No 0.7 0.8 At top of pool and bottom of non-rehabilitation run site Coalition Creek 440 yes rhb only 1 1 Road is adjacent to site, LHB non-rehabilitation and RHB show signs of site erosion

Fencing Stock access Undercut bank LHB height (m)

None Yes RHB

None Yes no

None Yes RHB

None Yes no

None Yes RHB

None Yes no

None Yes LHB

None Yes no

None Yes Yes

None Yes no

None Yes RHB, LHB

None Yes No 5

None Yes no 2

None Yes Yes when water level higher 2

River Blackfish translocation

None Yes RHB and LHB when water level higher

Yes No RHB when water level higher 3 to 6

Yes No No 10

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

Yes No No 0

Yes No RHB and LHB when water level higher 4

Yes No RHB and LHB when water level higher 3

Yes LHB and RHB No No

RHB fenced Yes No

Yes LHB and RHB No No

Yes LHB and RHB Yes (from No d/s)

Yes LHB and RHB Yes No

No, RHB too steep, LHB is roadside near No 0.5 bridge

Yes No No 1

Yes LHB, no RHB (road) No

No 0.7

yes rhb only 1