Sustainable Rivers Audit
Pilot Audit
FISH THEME TECHNICAL REPORT
Murray-Darling Basin Commission
May 2004
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report i
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report ii Foreword
The Sustainable Rivers Audit is being developed to benchmark river health across the Murray- Darling Basin and provide information to guide the long term management of riverine resources in the Basin.
Development of the Audit has been a staged process with the initial focus on obtaining expert advice on the design of an effective Audit. This advice was given effect through establishing a Pilot Audit in four valleys in the Basin: the Ovens in Victoria, the Lachlan in New South Wales, the Condamine in Queensland and the Lower Murray in South Australia.
The purpose of the Pilot Audit was to trial the design recommended by the Cooperative Research Centre for Freshwater Ecology encapsulating five thematic sets of indicators: fish, aquatic macroinvertebrates, hydrology, water quality and physical habitat. The Pilot enabled the proposed methods to be evaluated, confirmed the indicators that could be used in a regular Audit and allowed the costs and logistics of a Basin wide Audit to be estimated.
This report covers all the technical aspects of the Pilot Audit investigations for the fish theme. The focus of this report is on method development. However, the resulting river health assessments for the four Pilot valleys are also summarised.
The Pilot Audit represents the largest effort in integrated river health monitoring in the Basin to date; with coordinated activity by each of the partner governments utilizing consistent indicators and methods at the same spatial and temporal scales.
I believe that the knowledge contained in this and companion documents represent a significant contribution to substantially improving the health of the river systems of the Murray-Darling Basin.
Scott Keyworth Director Rivers and Industries Unit May 2004
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report iii Acknowledgments
The implementation of the fish theme in the Pilot SRA was overseen by the SRA Taskforce and technical experts who participated in the various workshops and teleconferences, including Tarmo Raadik, Jason Lieschke, John Koehn and Justin O’Connor (Victoria Department of Sustainability and Environment, DSE), David Moffat (Queensland Department of Natural Resources, Mining and Energy, NRM&E) Michael Hutchison (Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Qld DPI), Mark Kennard (Griffith University), Dean Gilligan, Bob Creese and Simon Hartley (New South Wales Fisheries), Ivor Growns (New South Wales Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources, DIPNR) , Michael Hammer (University of Adelaide), Jason Higham, Jon Presser and Sean Sloan (Department of Primary Industries & Resourses South Australia, PIRSA), John Harris (Independent Sustainable Rivers Audit Group, ISRAG), Mark Lintermans (Environment ACT), Richard Norris (Cooperative Research Centre for Freshwater Ecology), Kylie Peterson (Department of Environment and Heritage).Thank you to all the people involved in the field sampling of fish populations.
Length:weight data sets were supplied to the Murray-Darling Basin Commission for the majority of the fish species sampled in the Pilot. Thanks to David Moffat (NRM&E), Simon Nicol (DSE), Dean Gilligan and Dennis Reid, (NSW Fisheries), Mark Lintermans, (Environment ACT), Mark Kennard (Griffith University) for supplying data or length:weight relationships.
The Fish Reference Group of Mark Lintermans, Tarmo Raadik, Dean Gilligan, Michael Hammer, David Moffat and John Harris provided advice on the predicted pre-European fish species list for the Pilot valleys, and assisted with the classification of species into guilds, with Ivor Growns providing unpublished information on reproductive guilds.
General development and implementation of the Pilot was guided by the SRA Taskforce, the Commission office project team and the Independent Sustainable Rivers Audit Group (ISRAG). Members of the Taskforce during the Pilot project were: Kylee Wilton (DIPNR), Klaus Koop and Peter Scanes (NSW Department of Environment and Conservation, DEC), Paul Wilson (DSE), Tiffany Inglis and Danny Simpson (South Australia Department of Water Land and Biodiversity Conservation , DWLBC), Brian Bycroft (NRM&E), Terry Loos and Paul Clayton (Queensland Environmental Protection Agency), Peter Donnelly (Environment ACT), Jean Chesson (Commonwealth Bureau of Rural Sciences,), Martin Shaffron and Kylie Peterson (Commonwealth Department of Heritage and Environment). Members of ISRAG are: Peter E. Davies (Chair), Terry Hillman, Keith Walker and John Harris. ISRAG and the Sustainable Rivers Audit Project Team developed the expert rules to integrate the individual indicators into a single assessment, with assistance of Steve Carter (Environmental Dynamics, Pty. Ltd.).
The results of the Fish theme were documented by the Sustainable Rivers Audit Project Team in this report. Data analysis was undertaken by Wayne Robinson (University of Sunshine Coast, USC) with assistance of ISRAG and Steve Carter for the expert rules. The report was primarily written by Mark Lintermans with assistance from Project Manager Jody Swirepik and project team members Julie Coysh, Damian Green, Leanne Wilkinson and Frederick Bouckaert. Maps were produced by Nick Bauer. Assistance with cover design and print colour quality was provided by Viv Martin. Assistance was also provided by the Bureau of Rural Sciences in compiling the Executive Summary of this report. Draft versions of the report were reviewed by various experts from relevant state agencies.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report iv Acronyms and abbreviations used in this report
AUSRIVAS Australian River Health Assessment AUSRIVAS OE Australian River Health Assessment, Observed/Expected ratio, used as an indicator of river health Basin Murray-Darling Basin BRS Bureau of Rural Sciences CAP The cap on diversions, agreed to in 1995 CRCFE Cooperative Research Centre for Freshwater Ecology DEC Department of Environment and Conservation, New South Wales DEH Commonwealth Department of Environment and Heritage DIPNR Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources, New South Wales DSE Department of Sustainability and Environment, Victoria EMAP US EPA Environmental Monitoring Assessment Protocol EPBC Environmental Protection of Biodiversity Act FPZ Functional Process Zone (an area of the river comprised of several reaches with similar geomorphologic and ecological functions) FPZ’s are aggregated to VPZ’s (see below) IBI Index of Biotic Integrity An index originally developed for fish but also applied to macroinvertebrates, using a number of indicators which are compared to an internally generated reference condition or benchmark based on least disturbed sites. ICM Integrated Catchment Management ISRAG Independent Sustainable Rivers Audit Group Expert group of ecologists undertaking the Audit for the SRA program LCF Length Caudal Fork MDBC Murray-Darling Basin Commission MDBMC Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council MSRL Maximum Species Richness Lines NLWRA National Land and Water Resources Audit NRM&E Department of Natural Resources, Mining and Energy, Queensland NSW Fisheries New South Wales Fisheries NTC The Number of Taxa Captured NTE The Number of Taxa Expected NTP The Number of Taxa that had any Probability of occurring OE Observed/Expected species ratio OP Observed/Predicted species ratio PERCH Pre-European Reference Condition for fisH Pilot The Pilot project for the Sustainable Rivers Audit PIRSA Department of Primary Industries & Resources South Australia DPI Department of Primary Industries, Queensland R2 Correlation coefficient RIVPACS River Invertebrate Prediction and Classification Scheme. The UK stream assessment predictive model, using observed/expected taxa SL Standard Length SRA Sustainable Rivers Audit SR-FI Sustainable Rivers – Fish Index SR-FId Sustainable Rivers – Fish Subindex ‘diagnostic’: Indicators that are considered of lesser importance in elucidating river health but that may be useful in diagnosing why poor river health may be evident (benthic, pelagic, intol, macro, mega, abnorm) SR-FIe Sustainable Rivers – Fish Subindex expected native species richness: Indicators that contain information on native species richness relative to reference condition (OE, OP, sp_rich) SR-FIn Sustainable Rivers – Fish Subindex ‘nativeness’: Indicators that contain information on the proportion of biomass and abundance that is native rather than alien (prop_N_biom, prop_N_abund, prop_N_sp) TL Total Length USC University of the Sunshine Coast VPZ Valley Process Zone: sediment source (upland), sediment transport (slope), sediment deposition (lowland) zones of a river
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report v
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report vi Executive Summary
Murray-Darling Basin water reforms were introduced to improve water use efficiency and to provide protection for aquatic ecosystems across the Basin. The most significant reform, the introduction of the Cap on diversions, sought to balance protection of the riverine environment with the need for consumptive water use. In 2000, the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council noted the absence of a long-term Basin-wide assessment that could determine the effectiveness of current management practices, including the Cap, in sustaining river health. They agreed to initiate the development of a Sustainable Rivers Audit (SRA) that would assess river health using five themes: macroinvertebrates, fish, water quality, hydrology and habitat.
The primary aim of the SRA would be to provide consistent Basin-wide information on the health of rivers (through a rigorous systematic monitoring program) to drive high level, sustainable land and water management decisions. In 2001, the Cooperative Research Centre for Freshwater Ecology developed a framework for assessing the health of the Basin’s rivers with the active involvement of jurisdictional representatives (Whittington et al., 2001). However, before the SRA could be implemented on a Basin-wide scale, it was agreed that a Pilot SRA be conducted in four catchments in 2002/03 (Condamine, Lachlan, Ovens and Lower Murray) to trial and refine indicators and methods, and to identify logistical constraints and indicative costs.
Fish provide ideal assessment tools for a long-term, broad-scale monitoring program such as the SRA as they are easily identified, relatively abundant, valued by the general community and sensitive to a range of changes in river health. Impacts on fish communities are long lasting and the existing communities show the net effects of environmental factors over a period of years, effectively summarising the recent history of the stream. Fish also have a high public profile, with significant recreational, economic, social and cultural values.
Until recently, there had been few attempts in Australia to use fish for bioassessment, and no standardised sampling methodology or analysis framework had been accepted and applied to fish communities in the Basin. The primary aim for the fish theme of the Pilot SRA was to establish and trial standard methods for fish bioassessment to provide informative and comparable results across the Basin.
Design and methods A referential framework has been adopted for the SRA. The aim is to express current river health relative to ‘natural’ condition (defined as ‘the condition that would exist now in the absence of human influence experienced during the past two centuries’). This ‘natural reference condition’ is used to facilitate comparisons across the Basin. It is used as a standardisation tool and does not equate with the objective of returning rivers to a natural condition. While ‘natural’ is the condition with the highest ecological integrity, it should not be construed as being the ‘optimum’ or ‘desired’ condition as we often accept a departure from natural as a necessity to securing other important social and economic values.
Sampling for the Pilot focussed on the main river network, actively excluding two important components of riverine ecosystems: aquatic habitats on the floodplain and ephemeral systems. Whilst these are very important aquatic environments in the Basin, they were excluded as robust assessment of these environments at a scale appropriate to the Basin was not considered to currently be technically feasible and would have made the initial Audit too ambitious. It is expected that these systems will be considered for inclusion in the full SRA given their importance to fish and macroinvertebrate communities.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report vii The four river valleys were divided into three valley process zones (VPZ’s) based on geomorphic characteristics. These were zones of: sediment source; sediment transfer; and sediment deposition. The Lower Murray, which strictly should be classified entirely within the sediment deposition zone, was divided into three surrogate zones for the fish theme (Murray mouth to Mannum, Mannum to Overland Corner, Overland Corner to Wentworth). These zones were also based on geomorphologic considerations.
The total number of sites was based on the need for adequate reporting at the valley scale. Results can be reported at finer resolutions but with lower confidence. The number of sites allocated to each zone was based on the area of the zone. Sites were located at random within a zone to ensure that the sampling was unbiased and measurements could therefore be combined to infer the condition of the entire valley. Where possible, sites for fish sampling were also used in the macroinvertebrate water processes and physical themes.
The number of ‘assessment’ sites sampled in the Pilot Audit in each valley process zone is shown in Table 1. Sampling was also carried out at 88 ‘best available’ sites chosen to be as close as possible to natural condition. Due to the scarcity of suitable sites with the Murray-Darling Basin, these sites were not restricted to the four Pilot valleys.
Table 1: The number of fish assessment sites within each zone of each valley for the Pilot SRA.
Source Transport Deposition Total Condamine 3 6 12 21 Lachlan 5 5 16 26 Lower Murray 0 0 24 24 Ovens 7 7 7 21
Three different approaches to establishing reference condition were investigated: prediction of historical species occurrence, comparison with best available sites, and an internal reference which benchmarked site results against the entire sampling dataset.
In three of the four valleys, sampling of assessment sites was conducted between March and May 2002. Most of the ‘best available’ sites were also sampled during this period. The Lower Murray was sampled as soon as possible after the irrigation flows ceased. The remaining ‘best available’ sites were sampled between October and December 2002. A variety of active and passive sampling gear-types were trialled including boat and backpack electrofishing, fyke nets and bait traps.
The primary variables for fish measured at each site were: • species identity • number of each species caught • lengths of individual fish (if necessary, a sub-sample of 50 fish per site/ per species/ per method was measured) • health and condition of individuals (parasites, lesions, diseases, and abnormalities (sub- sampled where necessary).
To enable the use of native/alien biomass ratios as an indicator, the weight of individual fish was calculated using existing length: weight relationships.
The 29 indicators considered in the Pilot are listed in Table 2.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report viii
Table 2. Fish indicators considered in the Pilot SRA.
Concept/Class Metric Abundance 1) Total abundance per unit effort Biomass 2) Total biomass per unit effort Native fish biodiversity 3) Number of native species 4) Evenness of native species Aliens 5) Biomass 6) Abundance 7) Biomass as proportion of all fish 8) Abundance as proportion of all fish Habitat guilds Number of species (including aliens) that are: 9) Benthic 10) Pelagic 11) Riffle dwelling 12) Floodplain dwelling Trophic guilds Number of species (including aliens) that are: 13) Macrophagic carnivores 14) Microphagic carnivores 15) Omnivores Reproductive guilds Number of species (including aliens) that are in: 16-19) Reproductive strategy 1, 2, 3a or 3b (Humphries et al. 1999) Migratory guilds Number of species (including aliens) that migrate at: 20) Basin scale 21) Audit river valley scale 22) Local (reach) scale Tolerances Average scores across all species for: 23) FSI (water quality) 24) FSI (migration) 25) FSI (general) sensu Chessman (in prep.) Abnormalities Number of individuals (including aliens) that have: 27) Visible abnormalities 28) Parasites Size distribution Number of individuals (list aliens separately) that are: 28) Adult, or 29) Sub adult.
Results Of the 29 indicators originally proposed for evaluation in the Pilot, eight were eliminated because of lack of an appropriate conceptual model, insufficient species in the Basin on which to base the indicator, or lack of agreement or knowledge with which to classify species into functional groups. Two of the eight were recommended for further investigation.
Both the prediction of historical species occurrence and the use of internal benchmarking were assessed as suitable approaches to determining reference condition. The approach of sampling ‘best available’ sites proved impractical due to the difficulty in finding suitable unimpacted sites. Reference condition for the Pilot was constructed from expert knowledge, previous research, museum collections and historical data. The result of this process (‘PERCH’: Pre-European Reference Condition for fisH) is used in the calculation of a number of the indicators. Due to the broad spatial and temporal scales of fish communities, PERCH is applicable at the zone not site scale.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report ix A total of 13,952 fish from 27 species (20 native, 7 alien) were caught from assessment sites using all methods in the Pilot. The largest number of individuals was captured in the Condamine valley, followed by the Lachlan, Lower Murray and Ovens respectively. The most abundant species were carp gudgeons and bony herring comprising 37% and 24% of the catch respectively. The most abundant alien species were eastern gambusia and carp comprising 6% and 4% of the catch respectively. An estimated total of 895 kilograms of fish were collected using all gear types, comprising 214 kg of native species and 681 kg of alien species.
The iconic Murray cod was surprisingly scarce with only 13 individuals recorded from five assessment sites, none of which were in the lower Murray. The species was recorded at one of the ‘Best Available’ sites on the lower Murray (3 individuals captured) and an individual was observed but not captured at one of the Lower Murray sites. The failure to capture Murray cod from randomly selected sites indicates that this once abundant and widespread species is now scarce over much of its former range, although localised populations still occur and are well known by local communities and anglers. The contribution of continued stocking of hatchery- reared fish to some populations is unknown.
Almost 10,000 fish were observed at assessment sites during sampling but not captured. Carp gudgeons, bony herring, Australian smelt and eastern gambusia dominated the species that were observed. The majority of the carp gudgeons observed were in the Lachlan, with bony herring commonly observed in the Condamine and Lower Murray, Australian smelt in the Ovens and eastern gambusia commonly observed in the Condamine and Lachlan valleys. These four species comprised 83% of all fish observed but not caught. Assessment of fish community health is based on captured fish only because of higher data reliability and the ability to calculate biomass from the length measurements.
On a community-composition basis, results from using electrofishing alone generally provided good estimates of the fish community at a site relative to using all gear-types. Whilst electrofishing failed to capture some of the rare and smaller species, the financial benefits of being able to sample more than a single site per day with electrofishing outweighs the cost of losing some information on rare species. Because electrofishing under-represented several rare (few individuals per site) and small (in length) fish species, there is potential for improving representation of these fish at some sites by setting bait traps for a short period. The detectability of some species in deep-water environments also needs further investigation.
Analysis of the Pilot data showed that 12 electrofishing shots per site and 7 sites per zone are recommended to return the full species list for the purposes of applying the PERCH method. Sample size calculations based on proportion native biomass gave much more variable results with a prohibitively large number of samples being required for a relatively modest improvement in terms of power.
Recommendations A full list of recommendations is provided in the technical report. Thirteen indicators were recommended for inclusion in the full SRA (Table 3). The value of additional indicators such as reproductive and migratory guilds, size structure and sensitivity/tolerance guilds should be investigated.
Sampling by electro-fishing is recommended as a cost effective means of obtaining adequate data for the purposes of the SRA. Supplementation with bait traps should be trialled and evaluated to improve representation of some species.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report x Table 3. Fish indicators recommended for inclusion in the full SRA (abbreviation for indicator shown in brackets). Indicator What is it? observed to expected This value is a comparison of the native species predicted to occur in that ratio VPZ with the species actually caught at a site during the SRA Pilot (OE) sampling. The total number of native species predicted to occur in the VPZ is corrected downwards for species believed to be rare and unlikely to be caught in sampling. observed to predicted This value is a comparison of the native species predicted to have occurred ratio(OP) (pre-European) in a zone (without correction for rarity) against the native species actually caught across all sites in that zone during the SRA Pilot sampling. proportion native This value represents the proportion of the total biomass (weight) caught that biomass has been contributed by native species of fish. (prop_N_biom) total species richness This indicator compares the total species richness (native and alien) at each (sp_rich) site to a predicted maximum species richness (native and alien), where the predicted maximum species richness is based on current condition (i.e. not pre-European). benthic species This indicator compares the species richness of benthic (bottom-dwelling) richness fishes (native and alien) at each site to a predicted species richness based on (benthic) current condition. pelagic species This indicator compares the species richness of pelagic (mid-water) zone richness fishes (native and alien) at each site to a predicted species richness based on (pelagic) current condition. intolerant species This indicator compares the occurrence of native and alien species known to richness be intolerant to various disturbances (e.g. low water quality, sediment, cold- (intol) water pollution, migration barriers) to a predicted number of species at each site. proportion native This indicator is the proportion of individual fish caught in each site that abundance were native species. (prop_N_abund) proportion native This indicator is the proportion of fish species in each site that were native species (prop_N_sp) species. proportion This indicator is the proportion of individual fish (native and alien) in each macrocarnivores site that were macro-carnivores (i.e. eat prey <15mm length). (macro) proportion mega This indicator is the proportion of individual fish (native and alien) in each carnivores (mega) site that were mega-carnivores (i.e. eat prey above 15mm length total abundance This indicator is the total number of fish (native and alien) caught in each site (T_abund) compared to the predicted number expected in a good site occurring at the same altitude. fish with abnormalities This indicator is the inverse median score of fish (native and alien) at a site (abnorm) that had diseases, parasites or abnormalities, across all sites in that VPZ (i.e. the higher the score the healthier the site).
The Pilot succeeded in developing an analytical framework for fish that was not previously available. The framework, incorporating the PERCH method for constructing reference condition and the method for aggregating indicators, is recommended for the full SRA.
Results from the Pilot will inform the overall audit design in terms of site layout, number of sites required and sampling frequency. Sites sampled for fish should continue to be overlapped as much as possible with site locations for other themes. Sites should be laid out in a stratified random approach and fixed for the first six years with a review thereafter. Seven sites per zone should be sampled to report with confidence at the zone scale. Fish communities should be sampled at every site in the Basin once every three years with one third of the valleys sampled in any one year.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report xi
Aggregation of indicators Expert rules were developed for combining the recommended indicators into one score to make a summary assessment of the fish community (Sustainable Rivers – Fish Index, SR-FI). This expert system technique provides an objective way of capturing the complex relationships between the indicators and fish community health that cannot be expressed by a simple weighted sum.
The 13 indicators were first grouped into three sub-indices:
• SR-FIe – expected species richness: Indicators that contain information on species richness relative to reference condition (OE, OP, sp_rich)
• SR-FIn - ‘nativeness’: Indicators that contain information on the proportion of biomass and abundance that is native rather than alien (prop_N_biom, prop_N_abund, prop_N_sp)
• SR-FId - ‘diagnostic’: Indicators that are considered of lesser importance in elucidating river health but that may be useful in diagnosing why poor river health may be evident (benthic, pelagic, intol, macro, mega, intol, abnorm).
The three indices were then combined using expert rules to give an overall measure of fish community health (SR-FI) for each valley zone and for each valley. The scores are expressed on a scale from 0 to 1, with 1 representing natural condition. To aid interpretation, scores can be described as a departure from natural with 0 to 0.2 described as ‘extreme modification’, 0.2 to 0.4 as ‘major modification’, 0.4 to 0.6 as ‘moderate modification’, 0.6 to 0.8 as ‘minor modification’ and 0.8 to 1 as ‘at or near natural condition’. However, it should be noted that the boundaries for these classes do not represent any known thresholds in river condition and rigid categories can lead to misleading interpretations when considering values near the boundary cut-offs (i.e. 0.59 and 0.61 fall in different classes but would not represent different fish community health. As such, interpretation on a continual scale is more appropriate (see figures 19-34).
Fish Community health assessments All fish community health assessments are based on electrofishing results only. The values of each of the three sub-indices and the SR-FI are shown by zone in Table 4 and by valley in Table 5. Figure 1 also shows SR-FI scores for each valley. The longevity and relatively high mobility of fish means that they are integrators of river health over time and space. Results at the valley scale have a greater level of confidence associated with them than results within each zone. Results for individual sites have relatively low confidence.
It is apparent that of the four Pilot valleys the Condamine has the highest level of expected species present, along with high levels of nativeness. There were relatively few alien species recorded in the Condamine (goldfish, carp, eastern gambusia) compared to other valleys with two of the three species being smaller species, which did not contribute heavily to the total biomass.
In contrast to the Condamine, the Lachlan had low proportions of the expected native species and high proportions of aliens, which resulted in the lowest Fish Index score. This suggests that native species thought once to be widespread are now rare or patchily distributed. This result is dominated by results from the two lower zones of the Lachlan. The source zone of the Lachlan catchment returned a high river health score due largely to the abundance of mountain galaxias in the smaller source streams.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report xii Fish Index scores for the lower Murray and Ovens lay in between the other two valleys with the lower Murray having a relatively high nativeness score moderated by a somewhat lower score for species richness. In the Ovens, the high nativeness score in the transport VPZ was outweighed by low scores in the source and depositional zones.
Table 4. Sustainable Rivers – Fish Index scores by zone from the Pilot SRA.
Valley Zone Expected species Nativeness Diagnostic Overall richness Condamine Depositional 0.50 0.84 0.10 0.55 Condamine Transportational 0.63 0.80 0.10 0.65 Condamine Source 0.89 0.90 0.64 0.89 Lachlan Depositional 0.28 0.39 0.41 0.33 Lachlan Transportational 0.13 0.33 0.61 0.19 Lachlan Source 0.41 0.78 0.10 0.48 L. Murray Depositional 0.38 0.58 0.60 0.47 L. Murray Transportational 0.45 0.84 0.44 0.59 L. Murray Source 0.41 0.62 0.20 0.44 Ovens Depositional 0.34 0.36 0.10 0.33 Ovens Transportational 0.37 0.83 0.61 0.57 Ovens Source 0.43 0.32 0.41 0.42
Table 5. Fish community health scores by valley from the Pilot SRA.
Valley Expected species Nativeness Diagnostic Overall richness Condamine 0.57 0.84 0.11 0.61 Minor modification Lachlan 0.28 0.4 0.4 0.33 Major modification L. Murray 0.42 0.76 0.28 0.51 Moderate modification Ovens 0.38 0.45 0.39 0.44 Moderate modification
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report xiii Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report Report –Fish Technical PilotAudit Theme Rivers Audit Sustainable
xiv Figure 1. Condition assessment of SR-FI in catchments assessed during the Pilot SRA (associated confidence in data displayed in legend). Colouring indicates the overall VPZ condition assessment.
TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword...... i
Acknowledgments ...... ii
Acronyms and abbreviations used in this report ...... iii
Executive summary...... vii Design and methods ...... vii Results ...... ix Recommendations...... x Aggregation of indicators...... xii Fish community health assessments...... xii Table of contents ...... 1
1 Introduction...... 3 1.1 Background ...... 3 1.2 Purpose of the audit...... 3 1.4 The Pilot SRA ...... 6 2 Conceptual basis for pilot...... 8
3 Why sample fish? ...... 9 3.1 Aims of the Fish theme ...... 10 4 Pilot design...... 11 4.1 Site selection and layout in the landscape...... 11 4.2 Site characteristics...... 14 4.3 Number of assessment sites sampled ...... 18 4.4 Fish sampling ...... 21 4.5 Quality assurance and quality control procedures ...... 23 4.6 Sampling frequency and season...... 24 4.7 Primary fish variables measured ...... 24 4.8 Supplementary variables measured...... 25 5 Pilot analyses...... 26 5.1 Coding of fish species ...... 26 5.2 Estimating biomass ...... 26 5.3 Native fish proportions...... 27 5.4 Using the best of current conditions as reference ...... 28 5.5 Allocating species to guilds ...... 31 5.6 Pre-European reference condition: perch...... 32 5.7 Selection of fish indicators...... 35 5.8 Indicators selected in addition to those recommended in the framework report ...... 36 5.9 Indicators selected for the pilot...... 37 5.10 Calculation of ‘river health’ scores...... 39 6 Results of pilot ...... 45 6.1 Results from ‘best available’ sites...... 45 6.2 General summary of numbers, species and biomass sampled from assessment sites..46
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 1 6.3 Results from electrofishing shots only...... 521 6.4 Comparison of using ‘caught’ data only and excluding ‘observed’ fish, and comparisons between using data from all shot types or electrofishing only...... 55 6.5 Similarity of community representation between sampling methods...... 56 6.6 Summary of fish indicators from the pilot SRA ...... 61 7 Sampling regime to be applied in audit...... 82 7.1 Primary sampling method ...... 82 7.2 Trial of 2-hour daytime deployment of bait traps ...... 82 7.3 How many fish sites and electrofishing shots are required in the full SRA?...... 83 7.4 Rationale for lay out of sites ...... 87 7.5 Potential sampling strategy ...... 89 7.6 Development of additional indicators for the full SRA ...... 89 7.7 Construction of length:weight relationships for other Murray-Darling basin species.90 7.8 Additional projects for potential exploration in full SRA...... 91 8 Recommendations ...... 93
9 References ...... 95
10 Appendices...... 99 APPENDIX 1. Location, altitude and catchment area of the 92 assessment sites sampled in the Pilot SRA...... 99 APPENDIX 2. Selection procedure for ‘best available’ sites...... 101 APPENDIX 3. Location of the 88 ‘best available’ sites sampled in the Pilot SRA and which valleys they were intended as reference for...... 105 APPENDIX 4. Sample sizes recommended for sampling fish and reporting at the river valley and VPZ scale for the SRA Pilot study...... 108 APPENDIX 5. Agreed species names list and codes...... 111 APPENDIX 6. Data massaging notes...... 113 APPENDIX 7. Maximum species richness line definitions used in the Pilot SRA...... 114 APPENDIX 8. Guild membership of Murray-Darling fish species...... 115 APPENDIX 9. Modified US EPA environmental monitoring and assessment program (EMAP) criteria as used in the pilot sra...... 117 APPENDIX 10. Decision surfaces constructed using expert rules...... 120 APPENDIX 11. Worked example of how site scores for individual indicators are aggregated to VPZ and valley SR-FI scores...... 124 APPENDIX 12. Species from all shot-types for individual ‘best available’ sites...... 127 APPENDIX 13. Species from all shot-types for individual assessment sites...... 134 APPENDIX 14. Species biomass (g) at assessment sites from all shot types...... 139 APPENDIX 15. Species from electrofishing only shot-types for individual assessment sites. …………………………………………………………………………… .145 APPENDIX 16. Species biomass (g) at assessment sites from electrofishing...... 150 APPENDIX 17. Individual assessment site scores for all fish metrics (electrofishing only) …………………………………………………………………………… .158 APPENDIX 18. Boxplots of fish indicators at valley scale from 2000 bootstrapped samples. ……………………………………………………………………………. 161 APPENDIX 19. Key to SR-FI map site numbers and SRA siteid...... 163 APPENDIX 20. Validation of the op adjustment method ...... 164 APPENDIX 21 Assessment maps of four pilot valleys for diagnostics by VPZ and by entire valley scale. Site scores are listed in Appendix 17...... 165
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 2 1. Introduction 1.1 Background Extensive reforms of the water industry have been introduced across the Murray-Darling Basin to improve efficiency in the way water is used and to provide basic protection for aquatic ecosystems. Recognition of the ongoing deterioration of the riverine environments contributed to the introduction of the Cap on diversions in 1995, seeking to balance protection of the riverine environment with the need for consumptive use of water. The two primary objectives of implementing the Cap were: ‘the need to maintain and, where appropriate, improve existing flow regimes in the waterways of the Murray-Darling Basin to protect and enhance the riverine environment; and, to achieve sustainable consumptive use by developing and managing Basin water resources to meet ecological, commercial and social needs’ (MDBC, 2000).
In 2000, the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council (MDBMC) commissioned a review of the operation of the Cap, which explicitly identified the need for a broad and comparable assessment of river health across the Basin. Since its introduction, compliance with the Cap had been reported annually, however a Basin-wide assessment of river health had not been undertaken, and consequently no information was available on whether the Basin’s rivers were likely to be sustainable under the Cap. The review highlighted the fact that hundreds of millions of dollars were being spent on initiatives to improve river health but there was no overarching monitoring program to assess the effectiveness of these investments. To address this deficiency, the review recommended a regular ecological Audit for the Basin which over time became known as the Sustainable Rivers Audit (SRA).
The Ministerial Council commissioned a scoping study to assess the feasibility of undertaking a Basin-wide assessment of river health (Scope of the Sustainable Rivers Audit, Cullen et al., 2000). In August 2000, Ministerial Council agreed to develop the framework of an Audit with the following broad components or themes: macroinvertebrates, fish, water quality, hydrology and habitat. A jurisdictional Taskforce was established (the Sustainable Rivers Audit Taskforce) to guide the development of the Audit. The CRC for Freshwater Ecology was contracted by the SRA Taskforce to undertake the project ‘Development of a Framework for the Sustainable Rivers Audit’ (Whittington et al., 2001).
The development of the Audit framework involved jurisdictional representatives through participation in workshops and where possible review of draft material. The report provided a framework for assessing the health of the Basin’s rivers, recognising that existing State and National programs lack uniformity (and hence the ability to provide Basin-wide inter-valley comparisons), on-going funding commitment and a random sampling design necessary for an unbiased assessment. The objective of the framework was to build as much as possible on existing state programs, and to target a scale and cost that could be realistically considered for ongoing monitoring at a Basin scale.
The Framework Report (Whittington et al., 2001) was submitted to Ministerial Council for consideration in August 2001 and it was agreed that a Pilot Audit be undertaken on four catchments. The aim of the Pilot was to trial and refine potential indicators and methods, and to identify indicative costs. Field work was undertaken in 2002-03. This document reports on the outcomes of the fish theme.
1.2 Purpose of the Audit A broad scale river health monitoring program such as the SRA is an essential tool for the Commission and the partner governments to fulfil statutory obligations, identify the effectiveness
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 3 of management activities, justify major policy initiatives and identify environmental assets. In addition, consistent information across the Basin is needed to compare river health condition across catchments. However, the current State and National monitoring programs do not allow this as they use a range of different methods and indicators (Whittington et al., 2001). To overcome this limitation, the assessment of river health made by the SRA will adopt a consistent monitoring approach across the Basin and be set up as a surveillance monitoring program to reflect the overall, cumulative impacts of current and past management activities. As such, information from the SRA will complement other programs that examine specific river health issues rather than replace them. The most significant use of the information from the SRA should be to drive changes in the on ground management of the Basin. This may be in the form of identifying areas for urgent action to stop deterioration, identify areas where new policies or strategies are needed, assist with prioritising funding decisions and assist in identifying assets worthy of protection. In this respect, the SRA is a fundamental tool to underpin the Commissions ICM Policy (which includes setting targets for river health) as well as more specific policies like the Native Fish Strategy and the Cap on diversions.
The Purpose and Principles for the Audit, as presented to the Ministerial Council Meeting 58, on 13th March 2001 are:
Purpose: The SRA will provide consistent, Basin-wide information on the health of rivers to enable and enhance sustainable land and water management by: • developing a common reporting framework using comparable information, through time and across catchments • reporting against a consistent and scientifically robust set of river health indicators • triggering further investigation or action in response to evidence of deteriorating river health • informing the development of targets for river health, and monitoring of progress towards achieving those targets.
Principles: Most of the current effort in the Basin is on investigative monitoring (monitoring impacts and detection of responses to specific management actions). However, recent experience in the National Land and Water Resources Audit highlights the difficulty in using these defined studies to build any systematic or unbiased picture of river health across catchments and jurisdictions. This is because information from these programs is generally biased towards locations with certain impacts or management relevance, and is often carried out for only a small geographic area or timeframe. To overcome this, one of the primary principles of the Audit will be to use randomly selected sites to enable an unbiased assessment of river condition.
Other principles which have guided the development of the SRA are that it should: • build upon available information and draw upon activities already being undertaken by partner governments • use independent auditors with appropriate skills to review information and comment on river health
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 4 • report annually to Ministerial Council on the implementation of the SRA to inform discussions on river health • publicly report audit findings on a regular basis, with assessment and interpretation of indicators at appropriate time-intervals (to be determined) • compile and report information to assess river health at the river-valley scale, to inform priorities for policy and programs at a Basin scale (Note that Audit results may trigger a more comprehensive investigation which may inform intra-valley management but State and Territory programs will normally guide intra-valley management).
1.3 What the Audit will provide In the short term, the proposed SRA will: • provide a benchmark for the current condition of river health for each of the river valleys in the Murray-Darling Basin (at the valley and valley zone scale, not at the reach level) • help identify where investments in natural resource management will provide the greatest benefit • provide scientific information to inform the community debate on river management processes such as The Living Murray and similar processes in other parts of the Basin related to river management planning or the balance between human use and river health • set up an overarching framework for Basin wide monitoring and provide impetus for standardisation and integration of monitoring programs across States.
In the longer term, the SRA will: • provide trend analysis for the selected components of river health so that temporal and spatial comparisons can be made • provide information to inform efforts to balance river health and human use • pnform and assist in the setting of targets for healthy working rivers in the Basin as required under the ICM strategy • alter the rate of change, timelines and resources secured to implement management programs and actions • provide a framework for further expansion of river health assessment to include floodplains, wetlands, estuaries and associated ecosystems • raise awareness amongst community members, landowners and other stakeholders of the condition and importance of river health by offering access to report results at various spatial levels, and by linking various local initiatives and providing contextual information.
It is important to recognise that the Audit will not: • assess the ecological impacts of any specific management activity or policy (like the Cap) in isolation. The Audit reports on the ecological condition of rivers which is a reflection of all current and past land and water management actions • replace existing investigative or compliance monitoring for specific activities or operations
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 5 • set targets for riverine health. Rather the Audit will supply information for the target setting process by providing an on-going Basin-wide assessment of the current condition of rivers.
1.4 The Pilot SRA The four catchments selected for the Pilot Audit were the Condamine-Culgoa in QLD, the Lachlan in NSW, the Ovens in Victoria and the Lower Murray in SA. These were selected by the states and represent a range of environmental conditions and river types found in the Basin on which the indicators and methods could be tested. Having a Pilot catchment in each major jurisdiction and one located across jurisdictions (the Condamine) also enabled a more realistic assessment of the likely costs and logistical constraints associated with implementation of a Basin-wide Audit.
Aims of the Pilot The intention of the Pilot Audit was to ensure that the SRA would provide an effective and cost efficient assessment of river health consistent across the Basin. The aims of the Pilot as stated in the Project Brief were to: 1. Provide background information to inform the detail of the audit design by: a. developing reference condition for each of the five themes b. confirming the criteria for selection of monitoring and reference sites c. refining and trialling methods for data collection and analysis of indicators d. providing data to determine the appropriate 'effect size' and hence sample size of individual indices to detect change at the recommended power and confidence level e. providing data to determine the behaviour of individual indices to ensure that the methods are appropriate to detect recommended differences and that the indicators are sensitive to the likely stressors. 2. Ensure the audit design meets the SRA objectives of comparable and robust information through time and across catchments by: a. detailing and trialling protocols for data collection, analysis, interpretation, quality control, reporting requirements including timeframes and archiving b. developing and trialling training programs and procedures c. developing a protocol for reporting and presenting the data. 3. Develop an information management and communication strategy for reporting Audit results to the Independent Sustainable Rivers Audit Group (ISRAG) and to stakeholders. 4. Trial the implementation and training tasks in each jurisdiction to give a clear indication of the costs of routine auditing and the implications of the reporting intervals. NOTE: The Pilot was primarily about the development of methods and costings for an ongoing SRA rather than making an assessment of condition of four catchments. This is reflected in the Pilot reports, where there is a strong focus on method development.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 6 Benefits of the Pilot The Pilot was seen as a logical step in implementing the full Audit and had the following benefits: • Data from the Pilot was used to more thoroughly explore indicators and look for redundancies. For example, does everything that is being measured need to be measured? The Pilot gave the opportunity to trial the indicators recommended in the framework report, which of necessity could not field test its recommendations. The Pilot also allowed investigation of some additional indicators and methods that could not be considered within the constraints that had been set for the Framework Report (Whittington et al., 2001). • The number of samples required and the frequency of sampling are driven by a number of factors, including the magnitude of the desired detectable change, the confidence in detecting that change, the initial condition score, the variability in the indicator and the reporting scale. While the sample size estimates presented in Whittington et al. (2001) were based on the best information available, a number of assumptions about the behaviour of the indicators had to be made. The Pilot data provided an opportunity to refine the estimates of samples sizes required across the Basin. • The Pilot has provided an opportunity on a small scale to assemble and in some cases train the technicians required for undertaking the monitoring to an appropriate standard. This has enabled a more accurate costing and a better understanding of the likely logistical issues with implementation of a Basin-wide audit. • The Pilot has enabled the development and refinement of field techniques and the trial of novel approaches to stream assessment. • The Pilot has enabled a trial of a range of analysis and reporting techniques which would not otherwise have been possible. • The Pilot has facilitated the investigation of various approaches to establishing reference condition, an essential part of measuring changes in river health. • The Pilot enabled the development of a range of implementation options. • The Pilot provided the opportunity to resolve issues identified by Whittington et al. (2001) as well as implementation issues that were not considered such as the development of methods and protocols for the recommended indicators, site selection, how to deal with ephemeral systems, etc. The Pilot provided an opportunity to reconvene the technical groups for each theme at the start of the Pilot to review the indicators to be trialled and provide guidance on the sampling protocols to be used.
The SRA Taskforce met regularly during the Pilot to manage and co-ordinate jurisdictional implementation and interests. ISRAG, a group of eminent river ecologists, was convened in September 2001 and also met regularly through out the Pilot. While the main role of ISRAG is to audit the results of the SRA, they undertook a technical quality assurance role in the Pilot Audit. This essentially ensured that they were comfortable with the Audit instrument they would need to work with for ongoing assessments.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 7 2 Conceptual basis for Pilot
The framework adopted in the Pilot for assessing river health is based on a report by Whittington et al. (2001). For the purposes of the SRA, river health is regarded as synonymous with ecological integrity and is defined as ‘the degree to which aquatic ecosystems support and maintain processes and a community of organisms and habitats with a species composition, diversity, and functional organisation relative to that of natural habitats within a region.’ This definition was subsequently simplified to ‘the degree to which the river supports ecological patterns and processes relative to conditions that have been minimally altered by humans.’
The use of a referential framework in which results are compared to ‘natural’ provides a powerful way of comparing river health in both space and time without requiring a full definition and functional understanding of the components of the ecosystem. The Pilot adopted as the working definition of ‘natural’: ‘the condition that would exist now in the absence of human influence experienced during the past two centuries.’ The use of a natural as a reference does not equate with the objective of returning rivers to a natural condition. While ‘natural’ is by definition the condition with the highest ecological integrity we often accept a departure from natural as necessary for securing other important social and economic values.
The conceptual model underlying the Pilot design assumes that if habitat, connectivity and metabolic functioning are maintained in their natural state, then a river’s ecological integrity will be maintained. This model predicts that catchment management has had a significant impact on river health and that the resultant changes will be most clearly quantified by assessing the fish and invertebrate communities, hydrology, water quality and physical habitat. These five themes were recommended in an earlier scoping study (Cullen et al., 2000) that took into account existing programs, methods and data as well as consistency with conceptual models of river function. Other themes such as benthic algae and waterbirds may be appropriate for inclusion in a future, expanded SRA.
The indicators developed for these environmental themes can be broadly classified into driver and outcome indices. Driver indicators describe the state of the physical environment and provide a diagnostic function for the condition reported by the biotic and biological process (outcome) indicators. Some physio-chemical indicators such as water quality and habitat can also be outcome indicators when they result from or are significantly modified by biological activity.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 8
3 Why sample fish?
In Australia biological assessment of water quality or river health has been applied more often in recent years as managers have moved to an ecosystem approach rather than simple compliance monitoring (Norris and Norris, 1995; Norris and Thoms, 1999; Ladson et al., 1999). Assessment of aquatic biota is an effective means of evaluating non-point-source cumulative impacts such as river regulation, habitat degradation and deterioration in water quality (Karr, 1991). Although there have been some investigations into the use of diatoms, algae and stream metabolism (Reid et al., 1995; Whitton and Kelly, 1995; Chessman et al., 1999; Bunn et al., 1999), the majority of aquatic biological assessment programs in Australia have been focussed on macroinvertebrates (Simpson et al., 1996; Resh et al., 1995; Chessman, 1995; Growns et al., 1995; Wright et al., 1995). Fish are the group of aquatic biota with the highest public profile and have significant recreational, economic and social values. The fish community of the Murray-Darling Basin contains iconic species such as Murray cod and golden perch that capture public interest and concern. There is considerable public concern over the current state of fish within the Basin with 16 species listed as threatened in either State or national legislation. The fish community in the Basin is estimated to be at around 10% of pre-European levels, and significant attention and resources are devoted to the rehabilitation of fish populations (MDBC, 2002).
The advantages of using fish as a bioassessment tool were summarised by Harris (1995) with benefits including: • fish are relatively long-lived and mobile, and so provide good indicators of long-term and broader spatial-scale impacts • fish communities often include a range of trophic levels (omnivores, carnivores, herbivores) and so integrate various lower level impacts • The general public can interpret the results of fish monitoring, and the results allow direct assessment of economic resources • Fish are easy to collect and identify as the taxonomy is generally well documented • Fish can be identified and released alive in the field, removing the requirements for destructive sampling and laboratory processing • The ecology and habitat requirements of fish are relatively well known (compared to invertebrates) • Fishes are typically present even in very small streams and polluted waters • biological integrity can be evaluated rapidly using fish.
Fish have been widely used in the USA as a biological assessment tool with the multimetric Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) the most widely used analytical framework for fish assessments (Karr, 1981, 1991; Karr et al., 1986; Fausch et al., 1984; Plafkin et al., 1989). Before the mid- 1990’s, fish community assessments were not utilised in Australia as it was thought that the low diversity in Australian freshwater fish and the high proportion of alien species (at least in southern Australia) precluded the successful application of an IBI type approach (Lake, 1986) though single species approaches had been successfully trialled (Davies, 1989). However, Harris (1995) argued that fish had considerable potential for bioassessment in Australia and the IBI was assessed and validated in the NSW Rivers Survey (Harris and Gehrke, 1997; Harris and Silveira, 1999). Subsequently, fish community analysis has been used in southeast Queensland where a regression-tree analysis approach was used (Kennard et al., 2001).
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 9 3.1 Aims of the Fish Theme The aims of the fish theme in the Pilot SRA were to: • establish a standard methodology for fish bioassessment across the Murray-Darling Basin • trial the assessment of river health in the Murray-Darling Basin using fish data.
All fishery agencies within the Murray-Darling Basin use a suite of active and passive fishing gear in survey programs, involving different combinations of electrofishing, nets and traps. However there was no standardised sampling procedure which was consistent between research programs within an agency or between agencies .The NSW Rivers Survey (Harris and Gehrke, 1997) was the largest general survey of fish populations in the Murray-Darling Basin and utilised a standard sampling procedure which consisted of nets, traps and electrofishing. Analysis of the relative efficiency of these gear types in collecting a representative sample of the fish community identified that electrofishing was the method of choice for sampling freshwater fish communities in southeastern Australia (Faragher and Rogers, 1997). Concern about the adequacy of a single sampling method to adequately represent the fish community in all river types led to the inclusion of a range of active and passive gear types in Pilot sampling methods. The efficiency of gear types was planned to be reviewed as part of the Pilot.
The lack of a generally accepted analysis framework for fish bioassessment in Australia resulted in one of the aims of the Pilot being to develop and trial an analytical framework. Two analytical frameworks were identified as being potentially suitable for fish-based bioassessment in the Audit (Whittington et al., 2001) — multimetric analysis and predictive modelling using both multivariate and univariate methods. Both frameworks have recently been applied to stream fish communities in or adjacent to the Basin. Two methods have been developed within each of the two frameworks: • multimetric — the IBI, and two fish metrics developed under the NSW DLWC MARA program; and • multivariate predictive — AUSRIVAS/RIVPACS (multivariate), and the regression tree approach (univariate). Neither framework had been fully evaluated at the Basin scale before the Pilot. It was recognised that the quantitative identification of reference condition (‘undisturbed’ or ‘least disturbed’) for fish communities within the Basin was problematic. Two approaches were used, — a ‘Best Available’ and a ‘historical’. For the IBI, the ‘Best Available’ approach used data from all sites to establish ‘maximum species richness lines’ (MSRL’s, see below). For other analyses using this approach, data were used from the best reference sites or reaches identified within the Murray- Darling Basin following screening for human impacts. The ‘historical’ approach using expert knowledge and historical sources to define lists of species known or believed to have occurred in each river valley and valley zone prior to agricultural development in the Basin.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 10 4 Pilot Design 4.1 Site selection and layout in the landscape Implicit in the Audit’s assessment of river health is the ability to identify, measure and interpret the key ecological processes and communities in a valley compared to reference. This is difficult in large river systems because ecosystem processes and community structure change along a river from upstream to downstream.
The Pilot Audit adopted a geomorphic approach for stratifying valleys into similar zones at two scales: Functional Process Zones (FPZ’s), Figure 2, and Valley Process Zones (VPZ’s), Figure 3. Functional Process Zones are lengths of a river that have similar discharge and sediment regimes (Thoms, 1998). Their gradient, stream power, valley dimensions and boundary material define them. A detailed descriptions of the geomorphic characteristics for each of the FPZ’s are outlined in Thoms (1998) and the Framework Report (Whittington et al., 2001). For each FPZ, typically tens to hundreds of kilometres in length, a model of river function describing the key ecosystem processes and structures has been developed (see Appendix 2 of Whittington et al., 2001). Functional Process Zones and associated models provided: • a geomorphic template in which to develop conceptual models of river function • a basis for identifying VPZ’s, which have been used to stratify sites in the Pilot • a framework in which to assess the relevance of indicators and reference conditions.
Valley Process Zones (VPZ’s) are geomorphically similar regions within a river valley, identified broadly by their sediment transport characteristics. These are described as regions of sediment source, sediment transport and sediment deposition and were mapped and defined using FPZ’s1. Most river valleys in the Basin have three VPZ’s, with sediment source regions in the headwaters, sediment deposition regions in the lowlands and the slopes being sediment transport zones (Figure 3). The Lower Murray whilst strictly a single VPZ according to the classification of Whittington et al.(2001), comprises three clear geomorphic zones, with these three zones being used as surrogate VPZ’s for the purposes of the Pilot. The three zones are:
Zone A: from the mouth of the river at Wellington upstream to Mannum. This reach would have previously been strongly influenced by its proximity to the marine environment, and would have been expected to have a strong estuarine or diadromous fish fauna. (surrogate for depositional VPZ).
Zone B: Mannum to Overland Corner: This reach is strongly confined with less lateral connectivity (surrogate for transport VPZ)
Zone C: Overland Corner to Wentworth: This reach has significant floodplain and anabranch systems (surrogate for source VPZ).
1 Repeating units of sediment characteristic (e.g. sediment source, transport, source, etc.) do not allow the strict mapping of FPZ’s into VPZ’s without sometimes having repeating VPZ types in the one river valley. Since VPZ’s are used to stratify the valley for a reporting framework at a broad scale we did not want repeating patterns of VPZ’s. To overcome this, VPZ’s were mapped using the following convention. Mapping started at the bottom of the valley. The FPZ at the bottom of the valley defined the first VPZ. Moving upstream, the first FPZ from the next VPZ became the boundary for that VPZ, and so on. If an FPZ from a downstream VPZ was encountered, this was included in the current VPZ. The outcome of this is that occasionally an FPZ will be allocated to a VPZ of different sediment transport characteristics (e.g. a depositional FPZ in a transport VPZ).
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 11 Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report Report Technical Fish Theme – PilotAudit Rivers Audit Sustainable
12 Figure 2. Functional Process Zones (FPZ’s) mapped for the Murray Daring Basin (Source: Whittington et al., 2001)
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report Report Technical Fish Theme – PilotAudit Rivers Audit Sustainable
13 Figure 3. Valley Process Zones (VPZ’s) used in the SRA (Source: Whittington et al., 2001)
While the original intention of the Audit was to report only at the valley scale, valleys cover such large and diverse geographical areas that significant interest was expressed by the jurisdictions through the Taskforce to report at a finer resolution than the valley scale if that was economically viable. However, more reporting units usually require more sites to be sampled to be able to report with confidence at this finer scale. The VPZ’s were proposed as a suitable finer reporting scale that was still large enough to enable sufficient statistical confidence in most cases without making the number of sites required prohibitive. The Pilot was designed so that all themes could report with a high level of confidence in results at the valley scale, and where possible, at the VPZ scale as well. In some cases results are reported at the VPZ level, but with less confidence than those at the valley level.
Both assessment sites and ‘Best Available’ reference sites were sampled for the fish theme of the Pilot SRA. Assessment sites form the basis of the valley fish community health scores outlined in this report. As noted earlier, two methods of determining fish reference condition were explored in the Pilot SRA; one based on field sampling of ‘Best Available’ sites, and another based on a list of fish species predicted to have occurred in each VPZ. The procedure used in the expert opinion reference method is described in section 5.6
4.2 Site characteristics Sites for the Pilot SRA were restricted to the main river network to provide a clearly defined core set of indicators of the condition of the whole river. Two important components of riverine ecosystems which were not sampled were: • Aquatic habitats on the floodplain: It was recognised that rivers vary in their connectivity to the floodplain and that aquatic environments on the floodplain are of utmost importance to the functioning of many rivers. However, the because of the need to restrict the focus of these initial developmental stages of the Audit, floodplain habitats were not sampled. • Ephemeral Systems: The Pilot SRA sought to collect a full data set for all themes. For this reason, river reaches sampled were required to be perennial or at least expected to be carrying water at the sampling times for the main SRA indicators.
A sampling site was defined for the purposes of the fish theme as being approximately1km long.
4.2.1 Assessment Sites Assessment sites were randomly selected and then field-verified. Sites were discarded if they were inaccessible, were not able to be sampled using the sampling procedures outlined below, or were dry or ephemeral. The locations of the 92 assessment sites are shown in Figure 4 and listed in APPENDIX 1. The following guidelines were used to select monitoring sites for the macroinvertebrate and fish themes: 1. Determine total number (n) of monitoring sites required for each indicator for the various Valley Process Zones in the Pilot catchment. 2. Randomly select the desired n sites in each VPZ by adding together the lengths of the reaches (based on the NLWRA stream network) for each VPZ into a linear system, and then randomly selecting distances from the total. There is no minimum distance between sites, but sample units should not overlap. 3. Discard a site if: (a) Accessibility - The site is not possible to access (Note: every reasonable effort should be made to access sites or repeated rejection of sites could compromise the random Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 14
layout and the picture of river health gained from the overall assessment) or permission cannot be gained to access the site. (b) Sampleability – the site cannot be sampled using the agreed procedure for both biotic themes (for those sites at which sampling by both methods is to be conducted), and/or the site is dry/ephemeral 4. During desktop random selection, a greater number of sites should be identified than the ultimate number requiring for sampling so that field teams have ‘backup’ sites should any sites not be accessible or sampling cannot be undertaken for some other reason. 5. A log must be kept of all sites randomly chosen but discarded for any of the above reasons. This record should include the specific reason the site was deemed not suitable for Pilot sampling.
Because of the climatic conditions proceeding and during the Pilot, many areas were in drought and a large number of randomly selected sites had to be discarded because of a lack of sampleable habitat, particularly a problem in the Condamine and Lachlan catchments. To facilitate this process in the Lachlan catchment, staff undertook an aerial reconnaissance of the Lachlan catchment and mapped all of the stream network that contained water. Occasionally problems with site access also led to a randomly chosen site being unable to be sampled and a new site had to be chosen.
4.2.2 ‘Best Available’ Sites For the purposes of the Pilot SRA, the reference condition was represented by a reconstruction of the natural condition.
Reference condition was defined for the SRA by the Independent Sustainable Rivers Audit Group (ISRAG) as:
‘The condition that would exist now in the absence of human influence experienced during the past two centuries.’
Other reference points such as targets, least-disturbed conditions and undesirable conditions were considered, however, all of these are likely to change over time and do not lend themselves easily to a Basin-wide comparison of river health.
It should be noted that the use of this referential approach does not equate with the objective of returning rivers to a natural condition. Target and objective setting is a separate process, outside the scope of the SRA.
Due to the scarcity of sites close to reference condition within the Murray-Darling Basin, selection of ‘Best Available’ sites was not restricted to the four Pilot valleys. Based largely on the results of the NSW Rivers Survey (Harris and Gehrke, 1997), two distinct fish ecological regions are recognised as being present in the Basin: northern and southern Basin. Each of these bioregions was then subdivided into three valley process zone equivalents, giving a total of six ecological regions (Figure 5): • North Basin source VPZ (upland) • North Basin transportational VPZ (slopes) • North Basin depositional VPZ (lowland) • South Basin source VPZ (upland)
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 15
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report Report Technical Fish Theme – PilotAudit Rivers Audit Sustainable
16 Figure 4. Locations of the 92 Assessment sites sampled for fish during Pilot SRA.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report Report Technical Fish Theme – PilotAudit Rivers Audit Sustainable
17 Figure 5. Fish ecological regions used to select ‘Best Available’ sites.
• South Basin transportational VPZ (slopes) • South Basin depositional VPZ (lowland).
A desktop process identified ‘Best Available’ sites in each ecological region that were thought to be near to reference condition quality. These sites were then assessed with regard to accessibility and ability to be sampled using the SRA fish sampling protocol, and scored against a series of criteria (Table 2). The potential sites were then ranked based on their scores, and sites selected with priority given to sites in the best ecological condition whilst ensuring that all natural habitat types in each ecological region were represented. The full procedure for selecting ‘Best Available’ sites is listed in APPENDIX 2.
A total of 88 ‘Best Available’ sites were sampled from the six ecological regions (Table 3). The location of the ‘Best Available’ sites and the valleys that they were intended to provide reference for are listed at APPENDIX 3.
4.3 Number of Assessment sites sampled The number of samples required (i.e. sites per VPZ assessed) for the Audit was influenced by a number of factors including: • spatial reporting scale of the assessment (the finer the reporting scale the more sites that are required) • variability of the indicator (the more variable the indicator, the more samples required to detect meaningful change) • initial condition score of the indicator • degree of aggregation of data and reporting statistics used • desired level of change to be detected and • desired confidence in detecting that change.
The original task of the SRA was to report on river health at the valley scale. However, as management authorities operate at finer geographic scales than the river valley, it was recognised early in the Pilot that reporting at VPZ level, (or, for some themes, even at the site level) would be advantageous. But the need for statistically sound assessments of river health, requiring multiple samples from each of the spatial scales to be assessed, together with the Basin-wide application of the SRA, constrained the feasible scale of assessment and reporting. In addition, construction of reference condition was not considered practicable at the site scale, and this also influenced the scale of reporting. Thus it was considered appropriate and desirable to report at the VPZ scale, although it is acknowledged that for any particular number of sites, this can only be done with lower confidence than at the valley scale.
Before the Pilot sampling, exploratory statistical analysis of a number of existing fish data sets was used to determine the minimum number of sites required in each VPZ. A full explanation of these analyses of existing data sets is provided in APPENDIX 4. Weighting by catchment area in each VPZ gave the actual number of sites required in each of the VPZ’s of the four Pilot valleys (Table 4). Three sites per VPZ and 20 sites per valley had previously been determined as the minimum sample sizes desirable.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 18
Table 2. Rating system for human disturbance at potential ‘Best Available’ sites.
Disturbance High influence = 3 Medium influence = 2 Low influence = 1 Manufacturing Industry Industrial areas (e.g. Substantial industrial No industrial areas in factories, mining, power areas in the catchment catchment (small Weighting = 2 plants) adjacent to the site or but not close to the site catchments) or industrial close upstream (<20km?); areas remote from the site industrial discharges enter and a minuscule proportion the stream of catchment area (large catchments) Urbanisation Site lies within or close Substantial urban areas No urban areas in downstream of high-density in the catchment but not catchment (small Weighting = 2 urban area; urban drainage or close to the site; or low- catchments) or urban areas sewage discharge enters the density urban areas remote from the site and a stream only near the site, minuscule proportion of without direct drainage catchment area (large or discharge catchments) Irrigated Cropping Large irrigated cropping Substantial cropping No cropping in catchment areas (e.g. horticulture, areas in the catchment (small catchments) or Weighting = 2 cotton, rice farms) adjacent but not close to the site cropping remote from the to the site or close upstream; site and a minuscule tailwater drainage enters the proportion of catchment stream area (large catchments) Dryland cropping Large dryland cropping areas Substantial dryland No dryland cropping in (e.g. wheat, oilseeds farms) cropping areas in the catchment (small Weighting = 1 adjacent to the site or close catchment but not close catchments) or cropping upstream; to the site remote from the site and a minuscule proportion of catchment area (large catchments Grazing Riparian zone intensively Riparian zone ungrazed No grazing in catchment grazed; faeces, pug-marks, or lightly grazed, but (small catchments) or Weighting = 1 eroded access tracks, or substantial riparian grazing areas remote from chewing down of vegetation grazing near site, close the site and a small conspicuously present upstream or through proportion of catchment much of catchment area (large catchments) Recreation Clear evidence of No clear evidence of Site unlikely to be accessed Weighting = 1 recreational use, e.g. people recreation but for recreation present, trampling, litter, accessibility suggests fishing lines some use is likely Water extraction Large irrigation districts Only localised Little or no extractive use upstream of the site; total irrigation upstream of upstream of the site Weighting = 2 flow volume greatly reduced the site; total flow volume not greatly reduced but substantial portion of low flow may be extracted Flow regulation Seasonal or diel pattern of Upstream impoundment No significant upstream flows greatly altered by alters diel or seasonal impoundment Weighting = 3 upstream storage and release flow pattern, but patterns unregulated tributary flows result in substantial normalisation Hypolimnetic release Bottom-release dam <150km Bottom-release dam No significant upstream upstream; summer upstream but >150km impoundment or upstream Weighting = 3 temperatures substantially distant from site; impoundment with below natural; winter seasonal temperature effective multi-level offtake temperatures may be elevated regime only moderately altered
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 19
(Table 2 cont) High influence = 3 Medium influence = 2 Low influence = 1 Disturbance Artificial barriers High barriers <150km Barriers are likely to be Any barriers are upstream downstream of the site, likely affecting migration and remote from the site. Weighting = 3 to be severely constraining to/from the site but they fish migration are low or distant from the site Alien fish Alien fish dominate the site Alien fish present but No alien fish at the site Weighting = 2 in terms of either numbers or do not dominate biomass Alien plants Riparian zone has lost most Riparian zone retains Riparian and aquatic or all of original tree and native trees and shrubs vegetation not cleared. Weighting = 2 shrub cover; riparian and but substantial alien Little or no alien plant aquatic vegetation dominated vegetation present. invasion by alien species Aquatic plants predominantly native Geomorphic change Poor geomorphic condition Moderate geomorphic Good geomorphic Weighting = 3 (River Styles™ or similar condition (River condition (River Styles™ method) Styles™ or similar or similar method) method)
Table 3. Number of fish ‘Best Available’ sites sampled by each jurisdiction per ecological region. Ecological region Total number of NSW Vic QLD SA sites North Basin source VPZ (montane) 11 5 6 North Basin transportational VPZ (slopes) 15 9 6 North Basin depositional VPZ (lowland) 16 7 9 South Basin source VPZ (montane) 14 8 6 South Basin transportational VPZ (slopes) 10 5 5 South Basin depositional VPZ (lowland) 22 8 6 8
Table 4. Power analysis results, giving minimum sample-size requirements for fish sampling to detect a change of 20% in the mean of an indicator, with a power = 0.8 and using alpha = 0.05 (River-valley level interpretation only)(note that the Lower Murray was not subdivided into three zones for this process). Source Transportational Depositional Total Condamine 3 6 12 21 Lachlan 3 3 16 22 Lower Murray . . 20 20 Ovens 10 4 7 21
The results of the power analysis were then conservatively adjusted upwards for the Lachlan and Lower Murray which resulted in a total of 92 sites being sampled across the four Pilot valleys (Table 5).
Table 5. Numbers of assessment sites by VPZ used in the Pilot SRA. Source Transportational Depositional Total Condamine 3 6 12 21 Lachlan 5 5 16 26 Lower Murray . . 24 24 Ovens 7 7 7 21
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 20
4.4 Fish Sampling
4.4.1 Gear types used At each site a suite of sampling methods were used: • Electrofishing • Fyke nets • Bait traps
Electrofishing Boat Electrofishing Boats: Large electrofishing boats (>4 m) currently in use by fisheries agencies within the Basin have similar configurations of generators (7.5 or 9 KW) and electrofishing booms. The generator develops an electric current which is rectified by the pulsator to produce a pulsed direct current (DC) waveform. The waveform is delivered to the water via large electrodes on booms at the front of the boat, thereby producing an electric field in the water (Cowx, 1990; Cowx & Lamarque, 1990). Fish encountering direct current do not experience the potentially harmful muscle contractions attributable to alternating current, and they recover more quickly from a direct current shock. Consequently only direct current was used in the Pilot, as recommended by the Australian Code of Electrofishing Practice (Anon., 1997).
Large-boat teams consisted of three people, with one operator and two netters. Small electrofishing boats were equipped with a 2.5 – 3.5 KW generator and either single or double anodes. Small-boat teams consisted of two people, with one operator and one netter. Electrofisher output settings were not standardised for either small or large boats, operator judgement being used to select the setting that maximised efficiency at each site. Electrofishing dipnets were standardised across all teams with the dimensions of the net-head being 400 mm wide X 350 mm long, net depth of 180 mm and a knotless mesh diameter of 6 mm.
Sampling was carried out in two-minute shots (elapsed time) during which the boat was slowly driven along the river with one operator at the back controlling the boat and electrofisher settings whilst the netters at the front controlled the passage of the electric current into the water and removed any immobilised fish. Immobilised fish were immediately dip-netted from the water and placed in a tank of water on board the boat to recover prior to identification, measurement and release. Wherever possible, 15 shots were made at each site. A minimum of 8 shots at each site were undertaken if the site was classed as being suitable for a large boat. Shots were carried out so that all habitats were sampled in approximate proportion to their occurrence at that site. Shots were as independent as possible. In wide streams (>15m), shots were conducted on alternate banks to cover all habitat types and to reduce any herding effect. Mid-channel shots were also included where necessary. In Zone A of the Lower Murray (‘depositional’), dense overhanging willows prevented boat electrofishing of shallow, near-bank habitats. Consequently boat electrofishing was conducted in deeper water than usual, at the margins of the overhanging willows. Team members involved in netting the fish wore polarising glasses to minimise glare and maximise capture efficiency. In narrower streams, shots were spaced to maintain independence, with a minimum of 2 minutes left between shots. Two minute elapsed-time shots generally resulted in 60-70 seconds of power-on time.
Backpack electrofishing Backpack electrofishers (Smith Root 24V, Model 12) with standard square-wave settings were used, with a 30cm diameter anode ring without an anode net. Teams consisted of two people, the
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 21 operator carrying the backpack unit and an assistant to collect immobilised fish. All collected fish were placed in a bucket of water and allowed to recover before release. Electrofisher output settings were not standardised, operator judgement being used to select the setting that maximised efficiency at each site.
Sampling was carried out in five-minute (elapsed time) shots, with eight shots at each site. Whilst slowly walking upstream, intermittent ‘power-on’ time was used during shots to avoid herding fish, with both operators wearing polarising glasses to minimise glare and maximise capture efficiency. Dip-nets for backpack electrofishing had a maximum mesh size of 6mm stretch-mesh. In narrow streams (<10m), the shots were zig-zagged from bank to bank. In wider streams (>10m) shots were carried out on both banks to ensure all habitat was sampled. As for the boat electrofishing, habitat was sampled in approximate proportion to its occurrence at each site. In deep areas (i.e. pools), the wadeable habitat was sampled with backpack electrofishing and unwadeable areas were sampled using fyke nets, bait traps or boat electrofishing if possible. Five minute elapsed time shots generally resulted in 130-140 seconds of power-on time.
All electrofishing was carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Australian Code of Electrofishing Practice (Anon., 1997).
For each electrofishing shot (boat or backpack), the following data were recorded: ‘elapsed’ time, ‘power-on’ time, the electrofisher settings, the mean depth, the velocity class, wetted stream width, the proportion of each mesohabitat type sampled (for example riffle, run, pool, backwater) and the approximate distance travelled for each shot.
For the purposes of the Pilot, electrofishing shots were considered comparable, whether they were small boat, large boat or backpack shots. Considerations regarding which electrofishing equipment to use at a site included: • width of river • depth of river • length of habitat available to sample • accessibility for boats, etc.
Table 6 was used as a guide for deciding which electrofishing method to use at a particular site.
Nets and Traps Fyke nets and bait traps (see below) were intended to be used in all sites, with nets and traps being set overnight. Nets and traps were set 2 hours before sunset and retrieved 2 hours after sunrise. Fyke nets and bait traps were placed in areas that were relatively independent of the electrofishing sites.
Fyke nets Four fyke nets were set at each site. Each fyke net had two 5m long wings and three funnels, with the net entrance D-ring being 60 cm high. The fyke nets were constructed from 4 ply twisted nylon, with 10mm stretched mesh. Nets were generally set with the mouth of the net facing downstream, and the cod-end tied above the water level. Each net had a polystyrene float in the cod end to avoid mortality of non-target vertebrates such as platypus or turtles, in case of rising water levels.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 22
Table 6. Electrofishing sampling methods by river category for the Pilot SRA.
River Category Electrofishing Method Large River Sites: generally > 15m Large Boat channel width • 15 X 2 minute shots with a 2 minute gap between shots • A minimum of 8 shots at each site should be taken if the site is classed as being suitable for a large boat • Include backpack shots as necessary to cover all habitat • Sample all habitats in approximate proportion to their occurrence at a site Small River Sites: generally < 15m Small Boat width • 15 X 2 minute shots with 2 minutes between shots • A minimum of 8 shots at each site should be taken if the site is classed as suitable for a small boat • Include backpack shots as necessary to cover all habitat • Sample all habitats in approximate proportion to their occurrence at a site Wadeable habitats Backpack only • 8 X 5 minute shots • In narrow streams (<10m) zigzag from bank to bank as appropriate • In wider streams (>10m) carry out shots on both banks to ensure all habitat is sampled
Bait traps Commercial concertina bait traps were used with 10 traps deployed at each site. Traps were not baited but fitted with Cyalume 12 hour light sticks. Yellow light sticks were used as this colour has been previously demonstrated to increase capture success (Gehrke, 1994). Traps were set in the ‘Best Available’ habitat at each site, generally slow-flowing or backwater areas, with a maximum depth of approximately 1m.
The time of setting and pulling for both fyke nets and bait traps was recorded, as was the time of the sunset (on the day sampling began) and the sunrise (on the day sampling finished). The mean depth and velocity (assigned to a class) and habitat type was also recorded for each net or trap set. At two sites in the lower Murray (Zone C, A41 & A42) bait traps and fyke nets were not used and at two sites (Ovens depositional VIC06, Ovens source VIC11) fyke nets were not used.
4.5 Quality assurance and quality control procedures Consistency in sampling across the Basin is crucial to the quality and comparability of the data collected. A training workshop was held in Albury before sampling began to trial and finalise the standardised techniques for the Pilot. To ensure all sampling teams were using consistent methods and approaches to problem scenarios, an Audit team visited sampling teams in each jurisdiction for some of the initial sampling visits. Data were entered by each Pilot jurisdiction, with double-entry, and data were checked for mismatches.
4.5.1 Avoiding damage to fish Every effort was made to avoid excessive stress, injury or death of organisms sampled. Unless State legislation prevented it, all animals were returned to the water (unless they were required for identification purposes). If State legislation prevented the return of noxious species to the water, sampling teams followed their standard procedures for disposing of those fish.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 23
4.6 Sampling Frequency and Season Fish are thought to integrate river health over broad geographic and temporal scales (Plafkin et al., 1989; Harris, 1995; Karr, 1981), so for the Pilot only a single sampling run was conducted. Considerations influencing timing of sampling included flow conditions (e.g. low flow, high flow and peak water abstraction periods), fish life cycles and water temperature. For all States except South Australia sampling of assessment sites was conducted between March and May 2002 (although a single Condamine site was sampled in early June). Because of high irrigation flows in the River Murray during this time, the lower Murray was sampled as soon as possible after the irrigation flows ceased, with 20 sites sampled in May 2002 and five sites sampled in September 2002.
Sampling was discontinued if a flood occurred during or immediately prior to sampling, with the site/s re-sampled as soon as possible after the flow receded. Sampling of most of the ‘Best Available’ sites was conducted over the same time period as the assessment sites. However because all ‘Best Available’ sites could not be sampled before the onset of cold-water conditions at the end of June, sampling of these sites ceased during July- September, with the remaining ‘Best Available’ sites sampled between October-December 2002.
4.7 Primary fish variables measured The Framework Report (Whittington et al., 2001) identified the broad variables to be measured in the field, with an initial workshop of the Fish Reference Group refining these further. The primary variables for fish measured at each site were: • species identity • number of each species caught • lengths of individual fish (a sub-sample was measured) • health and condition of individuals assessed (parasites, lesions, diseases, abnormalities (a sub-sample was assessed).
All individual fish larger than 15 mm length were counted and identified to species, with the exception of carp gudgeons, Hypseleotris spp. The taxonomy of carp gudgeons is confused with a number of species and hybrids present in the Basin (Bertozzi et al., 2000). Individuals smaller than 15 mm length were not included as part of the sample due to concerns about the relative inefficiency of the gear types used for fish of this size. Exclusion of small fish also removed the need to employ specialised collecting apparatus for larval fish, and the need for routine laboratory identification of samples, thus reducing the time and cost associated with sampling each site. A sub-sample of 50 individuals per species per method (i.e. boat electrofishing, backpack electrofishing, fyke nets and bait traps) used at each site was measured for length. In shots/replicates where a large number of individuals of a particular species were sampled, the sub-sample of 50 fish was randomly selected. Individual fish were measured to the nearest millimetre with Total Length (TL) used for round-tailed fish and Caudal Fork Length (LCF) used for fork-tailed fish. The sub-sample of fish measured was also examined for external parasites, lesions, diseases and abnormalities.
The number of fish caught and fish observed was recorded separately, with observed fish only recorded if the species or genus could be confidently determined.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 24
4.8 Supplementary Variables Measured A number of environmental variables were collected at each site to assist in interpretation of the fish catch data (Table 7).
Table 7. Environmental Variables measured at each site.
Variable Sample Method scale/frequency Waterbody type (stream, channel, floodplain etc.) For entire site Visual estimate Migration barriers For entire site From GIS or other (Wall height, distance upstream/downstream) databases Prevailing conditions For entire site Visual estimate Weather (e.g. sunny, cloudy, rainy) Wind (e.g. still, slight, windy) Tidal (Y/N) Water level (rising, steady, falling, unknown) Water Quality 5 repetitions each site Temperature Water quality meter at Conductivity &/or salinity 20cm depth Turbidity Secchi disk Physical habitat Each shot location Depth – mean Graduated depth probe or echo sounder Velocity Visual estimate Distance covered in shot Measuring tape or laser Wetted width of river range-finder (if applicable) Mesohabitat type (riffle, run, pool, backwater) Proportion of each Visual estimate sampled each shot
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 25
5 Pilot Analyses 5.1 Coding of Fish Species The scientific and common names of fish that could potentially be recorded in the Pilot were agreed upon at the outset, along with a standardised code comprising the first three letters of the generic and specific names (APPENDIX 5).
Standardised field data sheets were used by all sampling teams and then entered into a database by the State agencies and transmitted to the MDBC for central analysis.
Where species were incorrectly coded on data sheets or where an individual was identified to genus only, the data was corrected according to the notes outlined in APPENDIX 6.
5.2 Estimating Biomass To minimise field-processing time and stress on captured fish, the weight of individual fish was not measured in the field. To enable biomass estimates to be made, length:weight data from previous fisheries projects were used to construct relationships for each fish species caught, with these relationships then used to estimate the weight of individual fish. Fisheries researchers and agencies in southeastern Australia were contacted to elicit length:weight data sets for fish species occurring in the Murray-Darling Basin. These data sets were then used to prepare log10:log10 regression lines of best fit for the length:weight relationship for each species. The regressions generated were based on TL for round-tailed species or LCF for fork-tailed species. Data sets for riverine populations were preferred to lacustrine data sets. Where possible, data were sought that had been collected within the Basin, but where these were not available, data collected outside the Basin were used. If TL or LCF was not available in the data, the relevant measurement was estimated from standard length (SL) data. Where no length:weight data could be located, published length:weight relationships were examined but were not considered valid, so were not used. Where no length:weight data could be located for a species, relationships from species with similar body shape were applied. There were only two species captured at assessment sites in the Pilot SRA for which no length:weight data could be located. These were Craterocephalus stercusmuscarum fulvus (flyspecked hardyhead, southern form), with the relationship for Craterocephalus amniculus (Darling River hardyhead) used for estimating weight for this species, and Melanotaenia fluviatilis (Murray-Darling rainbowfish) with the relationship for Melanotaenia duboulayi (crimson-spotted rainbowfish) used for estimating weight for this species (see below).
There were three species for which only information on standard length and weight was available, with the following length:weight relationships supplied:
Philypnodon grandiceps: Log10 Wt (g) = -5.12+3.228*Log10 S.L.(mm) Ambassis agassizi: Log10 Wt (g) = -4.455+2.918*Log10 S.L.(mm) Melanotaenia duboulayi: Log10 Wt (g) = -4.817+3.071*Log10 S.L.(mm)
The ratio of SL/TL for Mogurnda adspersa (0.9) and ratios of SL/FL for small (<100mm) Nematalosa erebi (0.9) and small (<100mm) Bidyanus bidyanus (0.85) were then used to adjust SL for Philypnodon grandiceps, Ambassis agassizi, and Melanotaenia duboulayi respectively
The formulae were used to estimate biomass (g) from length (mm) measurements are shown in Table 8.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 26
Generally the R2 values were all above 0.94 with the exceptions of eastern gambusia Gambusia holbrooki, which was only 0.77, because of the sexual dimorphism in body shape in this species, and Hypseleotris spp. which contains multiple species and hybrids (Bertozzi et al., 2000). Australian smelt, Retropinna semoni also had a lower R2 value, the reason for which is unclear. Investigation of the data did not reveal consistent between-site differences, or biases related to sexual maturity or sex. It appears that this species simply has a more variable length:weight relationship.
When more individuals were recorded than were measured, the biomass was extrapolated by multiplying the average biomass of those measured (in that type of shot – boat, backpack, fyke net or bait trap) by the number of fish recorded. This occurs because according to the sampling protocol only the first 50 (randomly selected) of a species needed to be measured in a shot type in a site and this occurred in about 55 shots for the study.
Table 8. Length: weight relationships used to estimate biomass in the Pilot SRA.
GENSPP Source constant slope N R2 BIDBID QLD -5.2290 3.1615 309 0.9950 CARAUR NSW -4.3294 2.9457 256 0.9863 CRAAMM QLD -5.2183 3.1462 11 0.9825 CRASTE CRAAMM -5.2183 3.1462 CYPCAR ACT -4.632 2.9489 534 0.9959 GADBIS ACT -4.5985 2.7054 906 0.9925 GADMAR NSW -4.7346 2.8147 74 0.9918 GALOLI QLD -5.2684 3.0972 39 0.9796 GAMHOL ACT -5.4443 3.2335 53 0.7697 HYPSPP NSW -5.7476 3.6294 1948 0.8982 LEIUNI NSW -4.2737 2.887 664 0.9457 MACAMB ACT -5.3226 3.2058 94 0.9501 MACAUS ACT -5.1003 3.1359 119 0.9981 MACMAC VIC -5.1428 3.0935 1039 0.9902 MACPEE VIC -5.234 3.1227 2077 0.9917 MISANG ACT -5.1021 2.9316 170 0.9490 MOGADS QLD -4.9479 2.9862 23 0.9897 NANAUS ACT -4.1728 2.9969 12 0.9918 NEMERE QLD -5.2317 3.1961 784 0.9862 NEOHYR NSW -4.8663 2.968 85 0.9746 ONCMYK ACT -4.6787 2.9073 424 0.9749 PERFLU ACT -5.3735 3.2617 178 0.9980 RETSEM NSW -5.6923 3.4186 657 0.7711 SALTRU ACT -4.985 3.0304 228 0.9789 TANTAN NSW -5.1879 3.1038 56 0.9572
5.3 Native Fish Proportions Total numbers and biomass of fish at each site were calculated and divided into alien and native fish components. The proportions of alien and native abundance and biomass were then calculated. The absolute values for native biomass and total fish biomass were not used as indicators for two major reasons: • It is extremely difficult to set a reference condition for either biomass figure as there are no pre-European-settlement data on fish biomass, and no measure of how biomass has changed with habitat degradation and the invasion of alien species. Similarly, the
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 27
lack of unimpacted reference sites for fish also hampers interpretation of current data. For example it is not possible to say whether alien fish have increased total fish biomass or replaced native fish biomass. • Issues of sampling intensity also hampered the interpretation of biomass estimates, with sites in the source VPZ thought to be more effectively sampled than sites in the depositional VPZ. This is related to stream size, with smaller streams likely to be more effectively sampled.
These limitations on interpreting total or native fish biomass do not apply to the proportion of native fish at a site, as a reference condition is obvious (zero percent alien species), and the sampling intensity issue mentioned above is assumed to apply evenly to both native and alien species. Percent Native Fish Abundance is reported and included as an indicator in the analysis of the Pilot data.
5.4 Using the best of current conditions as reference In order to make valid comparisons of fish assemblages from different river valleys or zones, a framework for standardising the data is required. Until recently there has been little development of standardised, formal analytical frameworks for freshwater fish in Australia (Whittington et al., 2001). The NSW Rivers Survey used the Index of Biotic Integrity (Harris, 1995; Harris and Gehrke, 1997; Harris and Silveira, 1999), which has been developed and widely applied in the USA over the last 25 years. The IBI uses a series of indicators (univariate descriptors derived from variables) of aquatic biological communities to provide an overall score for a site. ‘Metric’ is the term for indicators used in the IBI literature. An indicator is defined as: ‘a calculated term or enumeration representing some aspect of biological assemblage structure, function or other measurable characteristic that changes in a predictable way with increased human influence.’ (Barbour and Yoder, 2000)
A large suite of indicators is available in the IBI approach, with suites for fish and macroinvertebrates derived by Karr (see Fausch et al., 1986), and modified by Barbour and others (Barbour et al., 1995). A large set of indicators was adopted by the US EPA within its set of Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (Barbour et al., 1999) and have been used by a number of other US Federal and state agencies for aquatic bioassessment since the mid 1980s. Indicators are chosen to be: • ecologically relevant to the assemblage under study and to the program objectives • sensitive to stressors • responsive in a way that can be discriminated from natural variation.
Fish indicators include measures of species richness and community composition, trophic structure, abundance and individual fish ‘health’. Assessment using measures at a range of levels of organisation is a feature of the IBI approach. Indicators are derived from standardised sampling of the fish community, combined with internal standardisation against the highest values obtained for each variable, standardised by some factor, usually catchment area. This is done by plotting values against catchment area and fitting lines by eye close to the maximum values (i.e. which lie above 95% of the sites surveyed). This line is referred to as the ‘maximum species richness line’ or MSRL by Fausch et al., (1984). Once indicator values are derived, they are then transformed to standardised scores, and these scores are then used to form a composite score for a site. Plotting of the values from the Pilot SRA for individual indicators against catchment area revealed little relationship between indicator value and catchment area, and so
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 28 several other potential map scale and in-situ variables were trialed. Ultimately the relationships with altitude were found to demonstrate much clearer relationships allowing for easier setting of the MSRL’s by eye. Altitude was significantly correlated with a suite of other potential variables (Table 9) and is therefore an ideal candidate for setting the MSRL’s for the Pilot study data.
Table 9. Spearmans Rank Correlation of Altitude with variables deemed to have potential to be related to species richness and abundance of fish in sites. Depth and Width were measured at each site and Percent Site Characteristics (pool, riffle etc) were estimated for every shot at every site (i.e. 15 boat shots = 15 depth measurements). Where Boat and Backpack shots were taken at the same site (n=6) only boat values are used. Conductivity and Secchi Depth were measured at five random locations within each site. Upstream Mean Mean Secchi catchment area Stream Order Conductivity Depth Rs -0.92 -0.87 -0.54 0.34 P > Rs <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 0.0008
Mean Wetted Standard Deviation Standard Width of Depth Mean Depth Deviation of Width Rs -0.78 -0.72 -0.71 -0.53 P > Rs <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001
Percent of site Percent of Site Percent of Percent of Site Pools Backwater Site Runs Riffles Rs -0.41 0.29 0.36 0.58 P > Rs <.0001 0.0044 0.0003 <.0001
Altitude showed consistent relationships with the scores for indicators sp_rich, benthic, pelagic, intol and T_abundance (Figure 6) (for a description of the individual indicators selected for use in the Pilot SRA see section 5.9). The MSRL’s were set by eye with T_abund being calculated using Log10 Abundance (Figure 7). The proportional metrics (prop_N_abun, prop_N_sp, macro) were scored the same way, with scores given an arcsin (square root) transformation. The formulas for the MSRL’s are recorded in APPENDIX 7.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 29
sp _rich benthic
5 pelagic intol 4
3
2
1
0 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Altitude
Figure 6. Maximum species richness lines (MSRL’s) used in the SRA Pilot Study.
900 T_abund T_abund 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Altitude
Figure 7. MSRL for total fish abundance used in the SRA Pilot Study. Note that using raw abundance would give considerably lower scores than Log10 Abundance.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 30
5.5 Allocating species to guilds The Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) uses measures of fish guilds and habitat associations in some indicators. The guild memberships as used in Harris (1995), Harris and Gehrke (1997) and Schiller and Harris (2001) were modified by the Fish Reference Group (Table 10) and then used in the IBI-style fish indicators adopted for the Pilot SRA.
The five guilds used in the final analysis were: native or alien species; intolerance to a range of impacts (low water quality, sedimentation, thermal pollution, migration barriers); benthic pool species; pelagic pool-dwelling species; mega-carnivores (dietary items > 15 mm); and macro- carnivores (dietary items < 15 mm). Species were also provisionally assigned to three classes relating to the scale of their migratory behaviour (local, river valley, Basin), and additional dietary and habitat guilds but these criteria were not used in the final analysis (see discussion in section 5.7). The full guild membership list is at APPENDIX 8.
Where species occurred in a number of habitats (pool or riffle, benthic or pelagic), the major habitat of occurrence was chosen. Where differences in opinion occurred among the Fish Reference Group relating to species’ guild membership, the majority opinion was used. The allocation of species to guilds is based upon best current knowledge, with guild membership open to modification as new information becomes available.
Table 10. Species affiliations used in calculating the IBI-type indicators for species caught in SRA Pilot study.
Species Native Intolerant Benthic Pelagic Mega Macro carnivore carnivore Ambassis agassizii Y Y Y Y Bidyanus bidyanus Y Y Y Carassius auratus Y Craterocephalus fluviatilis Y Y Y Y Craterocephalus Y Y Y Y stercusmuscarum fulvus Cyprinus carpio Y Y Gadopsis bispinosus Y Y Y Y Gadopsis marmoratus Y Y Y Galaxias olidus Y Y Y Gambusia holbrooki Y Y Hypseleotris spp. Y Y Y Leiopotherapon unicolor Y Y Y Macquaria ambigua Y Y Y Macquaria australasica Y Y Y Y Maccullochella Y Y Y Y macquariensis Maccullochella peelii peelii Y Y Y Melanotaenia fluviatilis Y Y Misgurnus anguillicaudatus Y Mogurnda adspersa Y Y Y Y Nannoperca australis Y Y Y Y Nematalosa erebi Y Y Neosilurus hyrtlii Y Y Y Oncorhynchus mykiss Y Y Y Perca fluviatilis Y Y Philypnodon grandiceps Y Y Y Retropinna semoni Y Y Y Salmo trutta Y Y Y Tandanus tandanus Y Y Y Y
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 31
5.6 Pre-European Reference Condition: PERCH In order to facilitate comparisons of native fish communities between rivers and across time, a natural reference condition (pre-European) for fish communities was constructed for each Pilot VPZ. This Pre-European Reference Condition for fisH (PERCH) can then be used in an observed-versus-expected (O/E) score to compare the fish communities of VPZ’s and river valleys.
Reconstruction of the natural reference condition involved compiling species lists for each VPZ in the Pilot valleys, utilising expert knowledge, the results of previous fisheries research, museum collections and historical data. The VPZ was chosen as the most appropriate scale for reconstructing natural reference. The site scale was considered spatially too fine as many fish species are highly mobile and patchily distributed both spatially and temporally. The river valley scale was considered too coarse as it is widely accepted that there are natural differences in fish communities associated with upland and lowland streams, and combining these communities would mask important patterns. Reconstruction of reference at the VPZ scale was also considered appropriate as this is the scale at which management authorities often operate.
A Fish Reference Group was established comprising senior fisheries scientists from each jurisdiction. This group sought further expertise or information within their jurisdiction to compile the species lists. Fish species that were largely confined to floodplain habitats were excluded from the reference reconstruction process as the Pilot sampled only the river-channel habitats.
Each native fish species known or expected to have occurred in each VPZ prior to European settlement was then scored for its expected rarity (pre-European) (Table 11), with the scoring criteria being: Score 0: Not predicted to occur in that VPZ Score 1: Predicted to have been rare in that VPZ (expected to occur on <20% of sampling occasions) Score 3: Predicted to have usually occurred in that VPZ (21-70% of sampling occasions) Score 5: Predicted to have occurred almost invariably in that VPZ (71-100% of sampling occasions)
The process and scoring was fully documented by each jurisdiction in order to make the procedure as transparent as possible and to facilitate re-scoring as knowledge increases. Scores were discussed at a meeting of the Fish Reference Group, which allowed some adjustment of the scores.
These scores were then converted to an estimate of a probability of being sampled, with the probability set as approximately the mid-point for the criteria range, i.e. score 1 = 0.1 (mid-point of 0-20%), score 3 = 0.50 (~mid-point of 21-70%), score 5 = 0.85 (mid-point of 71-100%).
Initially species were also scored (using a 1, 3, 5 scoring system) for the expected patchiness of their distribution within a site. For example, species that were predicted to be restricted to specific habitats and/or only detected at certain times of year or after certain events were given a score of 1. Species that were generally predicted in several habitats and with little temporal variation received a score of 2 and species predicted in most habitats with little temporal variation received a score of 3 (Table 12).
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 32
Table 11. PERCH rarity scores used in Pilot SRA. Empty cells indicated where the species was not predicted to occur in a VPZ. Condamine Lachlan Lower Murray Ovens Source Source Source Source Transport Transport Transport Transport Transport Transport Transport Transport Depositional Depositional Depositional Depositional Depositional Depositional Depositional Depositional
ACABUT 3 AMBAGA 3 3 1 5 3 3 3 ANGAUS 1 ANGREI 1 1 ARGHOL 1 ATHMIC 1 3 BIDBID 3 3 3 1 3 5 5 5 3 1 3 CRAFLU 3 3 3 3 CRASTE 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 3 FAVTAM 1 GADBIS 3 3 GADMAR 5 5 5 3 3 3 1 1 3 5 GALMAC 1 3 GALOLI 5 5 1 1 5 3 1 GALROS 3 3 3 3 GEOAUS 1 1 1 HYPSPP 5 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 LEIUNI 5 5 5 1 1 1 1 MACAMB 5 5 5 1 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 MACAUS 5 3 1 3 5 5 MACCOL 1 3 MACMAC 5 5 3 1 1 1 5 5 MACPEE 3 5 5 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 MELFLU 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 3 MOGADS 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 MORMOR 3 3 3 1 NANAUS 3 3 3 1 1 3 1 3 3 NANOBS 1 NEMERE 3 5 5 1 5 5 5 5 1 NEOHYR 1 3 3 PHIGRA 1 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 3 PORREN 3 PSEOLO 3 PSEURV 1 1 3 RETSEM 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 5 5 TANTAN 3 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 5 1 TASLAS 1
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 33
Table 12. PERCH patchiness scores used in Pilot SRA. Empty cells indicate where a species was not predicted to occur. Condamine Lachlan Lower Murray Ovens Source Source Source Source Transport Transport Transport Transport Transport Transport Transport Transport Depositional Depositional Depositional Depositional Depositional Depositional Depositional Depositional
ACABUT 3 AMBAGA 3 3 1 1 3 3 3 ANGAUS 1 ANGREI 1 1 ARGHOL 1 ATHMIC 1 BIDBID 1 5 5 1 3 5 3 5 5 1 3 CARAUR CRAFLU 1 3 3 3 CRASTE 3 3 1 5 5 5 5 3 FAVTAM 1 GADBIS 3 3 GADMAR 3 5 5 3 1 3 3 1 3 5 GALMAC 1 3 GALOLI 3 5 3 . 1 5 3 1 GALROS 1 3 GEOAUS 1 1 1 HYPSPP 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 LEIUNI 5 5 5 1 1 1 1 MACAMB 3 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 MACAUS 3 3 1 3 5 5 MACCOL 1 MACMAC 3 5 3 1 1 1 5 5 MACPEE 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 MELFLU 3 5 5 3 5 5 5 3 MOGADS 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 MORMOR 1 1 1 NANAUS 3 1 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 NANOBS 1 NEMERE 3 5 5 1 5 5 5 5 1 NEOHYR 1 5 5 PHIGRA 1 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 3 PORREN 1 PSEOLO 1 PSEURV 1 1 3 RETSEM 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 5 5 TANTAN 3 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 5 1 TASLAS 1
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 34
5.7 Selection of Fish Indicators The Framework Report (Whittington et al., 2001) recommended that 29 fish indicators be examined in the Pilot (Table 13).
Table 13. Derived indicators suggested for use in Pilot SRA (Whittington et al., 2001).
Concept/Class Indicator Abundance 1) Total abundance per unit effort Biomass 2) Total biomass per unit effort Native fish biodiversity 3) Number of native species 4) Evenness of native species Aliens 5) Biomass 6) Abundance 7) Biomass as proportion of all fish 8) Abundance as proportion of all fish Habitat guilds Number of species (including aliens) that are: 9) Benthic 10) Pelagic 11) Riffle dwelling 12) Floodplain dwelling Trophic guilds Number of species (including aliens) that are: 13) Macrophagic carnivores 14) Microphagic carnivores 15) Omnivores Reproductive guilds 16-19) Number of species (including aliens) that are in: reproductive strategy 1, 2, 3a or 3b (Humphries et al., 1999) Migratory guilds Number of species (including aliens) that migrate at: 20) Basin scale 21) Audit river valley scale 22) local (reach) scale Tolerances Average scores across all species for: 23) FSI (water quality) 24) FSI (migration) 25) FSI (general) sensu Chessman (in prep.) Abnormalities Number of individuals (including aliens) that have: 26) visible abnormalities 27) parasites Size distribution Number of individuals (list aliens separately) that are: 28) adult, or 29) subadult.
A meeting of the Fish Reference Group was held to review the indicators proposed in the framework report (Whittington et al., 2001). Issues such as the lack of, or inability to construct suitable reference condition, and uncertainty surrounding competing categorisation processes led to a decision not to use several of the suggested indicators. The indicators suggested in the framework report that were not used in the Pilot SRA and the reasons for not proceeding with them were: • Evenness of native species: Was not used because of a lack of a conceptual model for evaluating the meaning of differing levels of evenness. It was also not possible to construct a reference condition for this indicator. • Proportion of omnivores: This indicator could not be used because of the lack of a sufficient number of species in the Basin in this trophic group to provide meaningful evaluation of results. • Number of riffle species: This indicator could not be used because of the lack of a sufficient number of species in the Basin in this habitat group to provide meaningful Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 35
evaluation of results. The classification of a species as a ‘riffle species’ also varies across the Basin, with Australian smelt considered a riffle species in Queensland and a pool species in the southern Basin. • Number of individuals in adult or sub-adult size class: Expert advice from the Fish Reference Group suggested there were still problems in calculating age-class from length data at present. However fish length still needs to be measured (in order to estimate biomass) and this indicator is recommended for further development in the full SRA. • Three fish sensitivity indices (water quality, migration, general): These indices could not be used for the Pilot analyses because the categorisation and analytical frameworks for these metrics have not been completed. • Three fish migration indices: These indices could not be developed because of the lack of detailed information on the migration requirements or scale of movement for many fish species in the Basin. (However, fish migration requirements were considered as part of the fish intolerance metric (M 5)). • Reproductive guilds: These indices could not be developed because there is no agreed reproductive guild classification for Australian freshwater fish species. There are currently 3 different classifications proposed in Australia (see Humphries et al., 2000; Growns, unpublished; Schiller and Harris, 2001 pp.233-234) plus other international classification systems (Balon, 1975 and 1981, and others). These indices are recommended for further development in the full SRA. • Abnormalities and parasites: The indicators based on these characteristics were combined into a single indicator (abnorm).
5.8 Indicators selected in addition to those recommended in the framework report Pre-European Reference Condition for Fish (PERCH, see section 5.6)
The constructed ‘natural’ species list and capture probabilities (rarity and patchiness scores) (Tables 11 and 12) were used to calculate a number of measures at both the site and VPZ levels. Note that the PERCH procedure only measures the ratio of observed to expected for native species. The number of alien fish species at a site has no effect on the site score, nor does the abundance of individual species. Other metrics take these factors into account.
The Number of Taxa that had any Probability of occurring (NTP) was calculated. The sum of all probabilities was also calculated to give the Number of Taxa Expected (NTE) for each VPZ. The Number of Taxa (from the NTP list only) that were Captured (NTC) within the SITE was then recorded. The site OE ratio is simply derived as the NTC/NTE ratio for the site.
The OE scores at the VPZ level were calculated as the median OE of all sites in that VPZ. Furthermore, the Taxa Captured list for the VPZ was calculated by including the cumulative fish species captures for all sites in that VPZ. An Observed-to-Predicted score (OP) was calculated at the VPZ level as VPZ Taxa Captured/NTP. The OP score is intuitively practical at the VPZ scale because even a species with only a probability of 0.2 would be expected to occur at least once if there are five sites in that VPZ. The OP score is adjusted for the predicted number of taxa in the VPZ (see section 7.3.2).
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 36
5.8.1 Effect of using Rarity only or Rarity & Patchiness Analysis of the scores for patchiness from each jurisdiction indicated that there was some variation in how species were being scored, with some jurisdictions assessing habitat patchiness within a site, whilst others were assessing distributional patchiness across a VPZ. Statistical analysis of the effects of excluding the patchiness score revealed that whilst there was a significant difference in the absolute value of the VPZ assessment score received, there were no differences in the relative pattern of the scores. Consequently, to minimise uncertainty associated with the varying application of the patchiness score, it was dropped from the final analysis, with only rarity being used.
5.9 Indicators selected for the Pilot A total of 13 indicators were selected for use in reporting the results of the Pilot. An explanation of the meaning of each indicator is presented in Table 14.
The indicators selected were evaluated against a set of Indicator Guidelines used as a template for selection and development of indicators in the SRA. They are largely derived from the US EPA Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) criteria with input from ISRAG and MDBC. The EMAP criteria were developed to facilitate technical evaluation of ecological indicators (Jackson et al., 2000). There are 13 criteria that are grouped into four themes examining the conceptual relevance, feasibility of implementation, response variability and interpretation and utility (see below). The full criteria are presented at APPENDIX 9 but are summarised below.
Conceptual Relevance 1. Relevance to Audit 2. Relevance to ecological health Feasibility of Implementation 3. Data collection 4. Logistics 5. Information management 6. Quality assurance 7. Monetary Costs Response Variability 8. Errors in sampling, measurement and analysis 9. Intra-annual variability 10. Inter-annual variability 11. Reference conditions and spatial variability Interpretation and Utility 12. Data quality objectives and effect detection 13. Links to management and the community
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 37
Table 14. Indicators selected for reporting in the Pilot (abbreviation for indicator is in brackets). Indicator What is it? observed to This value is a comparison of the native species predicted to occur in that VPZ with the expected ratio species actually caught at a site during the SRA Pilot sampling. The total number of (OE) native species predicted to occur in the VPZ is corrected downwards for species believed to be rare and unlikely to be caught in sampling. The values for each site in any VPZ are then used to obtain a median score for that VPZ. observed to This value is a comparison of the native species predicted to have occurred (pre- predicted European) in a zone (without correction for rarity) against the native species actually ratio(OP) caught across all sites in that zone during the SRA Pilot sampling. OP is adjusted up to the predicted native species list for 7 sites if there were less than 7 sites sampled (section 7.3.3.2). As this calculation is done at the VPZ level there are no individual sites scores available. For site-level assessments, the VPZ value is inferred for each site. proportion native This value represents the proportion of the total biomass (weight) caught that has been biomass contributed by native species of fish. The value is calculated at the site level and then the (prop_N_biom) median is determined for all sites in the VPZ. total species This indicator compares the total species richness (native and alien) at each site to a richness predicted maximum species richness, where the predicted maximum species richness is (sp_rich) based on current condition (i.e. not pre-European). The prediction is calculated from all sites (Assessment and ‘Best Available’) where fish sampling has been undertaken and making an adjustment for the altitude of the site sampled. benthic species This indicator compares the species richness of benthic (bottom-dwelling) fishes(native (benthic) and alien) at each site to a predicted species richness based on current condition. The predicted species richness is drawn from all sites where fish sampling has been undertaken with an adjustment for the altitude of the site sampled. pelagic species This indicator compares the species richness of pelagic (mid-water) zone fishes(native (pelagic) and alien) at each site to a predicted species richness based on current condition. The predicted species richness is drawn from all sites where fish sampling has been undertaken with an adjustment for the altitude of the site sampled. intolerant species This indicator compares the occurrence of native and alien species known to be (intol) intolerant to various disturbances (e.g. low water quality, sediment, cold-water pollution, migration barriers) to a predicted number of species at each site. The predicted number of intolerant species is estimated from all sites where fish sampling is undertaken, with an adjustment for the altitude of the site sampled. proportion native This indicator is the proportion of individual fish caught in each site that were native abundance species, and is the median of all sites in that VPZ. (prop_N_abund) proportion native This indicator is the proportion of fish species in each site that were native species, and is species the median of all sites in that VPZ. (prop_N_sp) proportion macro This indicator is the proportion of individual fish (native and alien) in each site that were carnivores macro-carnivores (i.e. eat prey <15mm length), and is the median of all sites in that VPZ. (macro) proportion mega Metric 10 is the proportion of individual fish (native and alien) in each site that were carnivores mega-carnivores (i.e. eat prey above 15mm length), and is the median of all sites in that (mega) VPZ. This is scale modified and the number isn’t simply a proportion. Proportions from 0-0.03 scored 0.2, from 0.03-0.1 scored 0.6 and proportions above 0.1 scored 1. total abundance This indicator is the total number of fish (native and alien) caught in each site compared (T_abund) to the predicted number expected in a good site occurring at the same altitude, where the predicted MSRL for number of individual fish is based on current condition. Fish with This indicator is the inverse median score of fish (native and alien) at a site that had abnormalites diseases, parasites or abnormalities, across all sites in that VPZ (ie the (abnorm) higher the score the healthier the site). This is scale modified and the number isn't simply a proportion. Proportions from 0-0.02 scored 1, from 0.02-0.05 scored 0.6 and proportions above 0.05 scored 0.2.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 38
5.10 Calculation of ‘river health’ scores The initial SRA will measure at least 28 indicators across three themes (13 for fish, 3 for macroinvertebrates and 12 for hydrology) with more likely to be added over time. For many people interested in river health, a list of individual indicator values will not be particularly helpful. They need a more aggregated summary of what the indicator values tell us about river health.
A weighted sum is a common and readily understood way of combining indicator data into a single value. Indicators judged most important are given the highest weight and therefore dominate the result. However, a weighted sum has limited ability to represent the complexity inherent in concepts such as river health. For example, it does not have the flexibility to incorporate the idea that for fish, high productivity (general abundance of fish) in a river is seen as more positive sign of river health if it is dominated by native fish rather than exotic fish. A weighted sum gives the same weight to a particular indicator irrespective of the values of the other indicators and so cannot incorporate this professional input into the resulting score.
A more flexible approach is needed for the SRA. This has been achieved in the Pilot by creating ‘expert rules’ for combining indicators within the fish, macroinvertebrate and hydrology themes. The development of an expert rule system involves taking a set of rules specified by one or more experts and creating a decision surface. Given any set of input indicator values, the decision surface provides a single score that represents the ‘expert’ interpretation of the values of all the indicators. A decision surface for a simple average of two indicators is shown in Figure 8. A decision surface for a weighted-sum of two indicators is shown in Figure 9. A decision surface for a more complex set of rules is shown in Figure 10.
Figure 8. A linear decision surface, representing a simple average of two indicators. Colours are not intended to correspond to the assessment maps (section 6.6)
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 39
Figure 9. A linear decision surface, representing a weighted sum of two indicators. Colours are not intended to correspond to the assessment maps (section 6.6)
Figure 10. Example of a non-linear decision surface for two indicators. Colours are not intended to correspond to the assessment maps (section 6.6)
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 40
The same principle applies for three or more indicators, but the surface is harder to display on paper. The use of an expert system allows for a broad range of decision surfaces that may include the simple weighted sum if this is what is considered to be the optimum way of combining the indicators. It can also produce an output which takes into account the interactions between different indicators (as in the example for fish above).
The process of developing the decision surface for complex rules uses an area of mathematics known as fuzzy logic. The use of fuzzy logic ensures that a small change in the value of one indicator does not cause a sudden jump in the result (which is often the case if indicators are classed into categories). It also allows outputs to be generated when there is a degree of uncertainty (‘fuzziness’) about the inputs and their relationship to the output. This is a particularly important asset when there is uncertainty associated with measured values, or when river health is similar across a range of indicator values.
An expert system documents the opinion of a particular set of ‘experts’ at a particular time. Conceptually, it is a similar process to expert panels, which have become popular in recent times for the same reasons (Swales and Harris, 1994; Thoms et al., 2000). However, the advantage of the expert system approach is that the rules and decisions are documented, transparent, repeatable, can be adjusted where necessary, and can be integrated. Expert rules may be modified over time as our understanding of river health increases. Provided the same indicators are involved, a new expert system can be applied retrospectively to earlier data and the results compared. Similarly, the affect of applying alternative expert systems which reflect competing opinions or concepts can be explored.
Matlab, a powerful scientific and engineering computing software package used worldwide for technical computing, was used to develop expert systems for the SRA Pilot from the rules developed by experts involved in the process. The expert systems generated in the Pilot exist as computer software. They are menu-driven and can accept data either manually or from an Excel file. Data checking is included for quality control. Output can be provided as a file or on the screen. The software for any or all of the systems can be provided to others as needed to enable them to apply the system to their input data.
The development of the expert system is done in four steps: 1. expert evaluation of the relationships between indicators and the need for/benefit of grouping them on the basis of similar roles or information content as they pertain to ecological condition and river health 2. expert ranking of the river health output for each combination of input indicator values (e.g. high, medium, high, high, low, low etc), and converting the ranking into a score 3. coding the rules within a software platform (e.g. Matlab), using the resulting decision surface to check that the rule sets accurately reproduce the above scores, and analysing dummy and real data to check results (with the experts) 4. finalising the rule set coding for later use in analysing data.
The details of all expert systems developed during the Pilot Sustainable Rivers Audit are documented in Carter (2003). An example of how this was done for the Pilot fish theme follows.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 41
Application of expert rules to the fish data In this assessment, a group of experts (ISRAG and others) provided rules that relate ranges of values of the indicators (which are inputs to the rules) to an output score for fish community health. This score has been termed the Sustainable Rivers- Fish Index (SR-FI).
1. Grouping the indicators All the fish indicators were reviewed and then divided into three groups which described distinct features of fish community health (Figure 11): • the ‘expected species assemblage’ • the ‘nativeness’ of the fish assemblage • ‘diagnostic’ features of the fish assemblage.
A sub-index was then designated for each of these areas. The sub-indices are:
(a) SR-FIe - containing information on the ‘expected species richness’, compared to reference condition (based on metrics: OE, OP, sp_rich)
(b) SR-FIn - containing information on the ‘nativeness’ of the fish community, i.e. the proportion of biomass and abundance that is native rather than alien, again relative to reference condition (based on metrics: prop_N_abund, prop_N_sp7, prop_N_ biom)
(c) SR-FId - a sub-index considered useful in a ‘diagnostic role’, based on habitat guilds (benthic, pelagic), feeding groups (macro, mega), intolerant species (intol) and abnormalities (abnorm), again all relative to reference condition.
These three sub-indices were then also used as inputs into an overall Sustainable Rivers – Fish Index , SR-FI.
2. Relating the indicators as inputs to indices Sub-indices: The majority of the indicators were treated as having a linear relationship with the sub-indices, with the exception of (mega) and (abnorm) which are scale-modified and not simply proportional. For example, the indicators - proportion biomass as native, proportion abundance as native and proportion of native species - were all considered to be positively correlated with the ‘nativeness’ sub-index (SRFIn) of river health. The nature of the relationships between the indicators and sub-indices is shown in Figure 11. The decision surfaces developed for each of the combined indices into a subindex are presented in APPENDIX 10, and were developed using the relationships in Figure 11, rather than using definition tables (Carter, 2003). For the future SRA, ISRAG has decided that definition tables will be developed for aggregation of all indicators for reasons of transparency.
Overall fish index: Combinations of the three sub-index values were then ranked in a definition table in order of decreasing river health (Table 15). The ranks were then converted into scores ranging from 0 (extreme low river health) to 10 (best attainable river health). The scores allocated to each of the nine scenarios below were then entered as rules into Matlab and used to develop a decision surface. This final rule set converts values of SR-FIe, SR-FIn and SR-FId to an overall SR-FI index score.
For example, when SR-FIe, SR-FIn and SR-FId are all high, then the site is obviously in good condition (high SR-FI), and scores the highest of all the combinations (Table 15). The scenario Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 42 when SR-FIe is low, but the other indices are high, is ranked as having lower health (ranked 5) than when SR-FIn is low but the other indices are high (ranked 7). This reflects the expert group’s opinion that river health is higher if the majority of expected species are present (even if there are lots of alien species also present), than if there is a lower representation of expected species with a lower proportion of aliens.
Table 15. Pairwise comparisons of scenarios for the three sub-indices of the Sustainable Rivers- Fish Index (SR-FI) score. These are the rules used to develop a decision surface and the expert system. H = high, L = low.
SR-FIe H L H H H L L L (no fish)
SR-FIn H H L L H L H L (no fish)
SR-FId H H H L L H L L (no fish) Rank 9 5 7 6 8 3 4 2 1 Final SR-FI score 10 5 7 6 9 2 4 1 0
The relationships between the indicators, sub-indices and final fish index can be summarised as follows: indicator Relationship with SR-FIe,n,d: Expected species OE (+ve) ⎫ richness (SR-FIe) OP (+ve) ⎬SR-FIe sp_rich (+ve) ⎭ Nativeness (native prop_N_abund (+ve) ⎫ A Vs aliens) (SR-FIn) T_abund * prop_N_abund (-ve) ⎬SR-FIn prop_N_sp (+ve) ⎪ prop_N_biom (+ve) ⎭ Diagnostic intolerance (+ve) ⎫ (SR-FId) lack of abnormalities (+ve) ⎪ pelagic (+ve) ⎬ SR-Fid benthic (+ve) ⎪ macrocarnivores (+ve) ⎪ megacarnivores (+ve) ⎭
A : if (total abundance is high and prop_N_abund is low, then decrease SR-FI
Figure 11. Representation of the indicators included in the three sub-indices.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 43
3. Encoding the rules and producing decision surfaces. The relationships above were then encoded as rules (‘fuzzy rules’) within MatLab, with appropriate membership functions and centroid defuzzification to give single (‘crisp’) outputs for each set of input values. Results were checked by using plots of the resulting decision surfaces.
Plots of the decision surface for the relationship between the subindices and the overall index are shown in APPENDIX 10.
5.10.1 Calculation of Fish community health scores at the Valley scale The values of the 13 indicators at the VPZ level were then aggregated to calculate health of the fish community at the valley scale by weighting the individual VPZ indicator scores according to their proportional catchment areas in the valley. For the Lower Murray, weighting by catchment area is inappropriate, as the fish community of the river should not be expected to represent the entire Murray-Darling Basin catchment. Consequently the lower Murray has been weighted by stream length in each of the three zones (which are surrogate VPZ’s). The area of the VPZ’s is shown in Table 16.
Table 16. Catchment area in each Valley Process Zone (VPZ) of the River valleys in the Pilot SRA. For the Lower Murray the stream length (km) in each zone is shown in brackets.
River Valley Deposition VPZ Source VPZ Transport VPZ (area in km2) (area in km2) (area in km2) Condamine-Culgoa 122641 14347 70820 Lachlan 102762 15663 12442 Lower Murray 84098 (135) (301) (446) Ovens 3951 5855 2567
A worked example of how individual site scores are aggregated to VPZ SR-FI scores and then valley SR-FI scores is presented in APPENDIX 11.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 44
6 Results of Pilot 6.1 Results from ‘Best Available’ sites A total of 11,392 fish from 26 species were collected from the ‘Best Available’ sites (Table 17 and APPENDIX 12). Carp gudgeons and bony herring together comprised 63 percent of the catch.
Table 17. Species and numbers of fish collected from ‘Best Available’ sites in the Pilot SRA.
Species Number Species Number Ambassis agassizii 180 Maccullochella macquariensis 3 Bidyanus bidyanus 6 Maccullochella peelii peelii 103 Carassius auratus 539 Melanotaenia fluviatilis 215 Craterocephalus stercusmuscarum 155 Nannoperca australis 1 Cyprinus carpio 800 Nematalosa erebi 2106 Gadopsis bispinosus 34 Neosilurus hyrtlii 153 Gadopsis marmoratus 109 Oncorhynchus mykiss 7 Galaxias olidus 197 Perca fluviatilis 38 Gambusia holbrooki 217 Philypnodon grandiceps 72 Hypseleotris spp. 5112 Porochilus rendahli 7 Leiopotherapon unicolor 223 Retropinna semoni 720 Macquaria ambigua 229 Salmo trutta 112 Macquaria australasica 13 Tandanus tandanus 41
The sampling at the ‘Best Available’ sites resulted in the addition of a new fish species to those previously recorded from the Murray-Darling Basin. Rendahl’s tandan (Porochilus rendahli)(Figure 12) was previously known to be patchily distributed in northern Australia in the Kimberley region of Western Australia, some coastal drainages of the Northern Territory and Cape York (Allen et al., 2002; Herbert and Peters, 1995).
Figure 12. Rendahl’s tandan (Porochilus rendahli) from the Condamine valley (Photo: Glynn Aland).
They were also known from the Burdekin River system in Queensland but were unknown in the Murray-Darling Basin. A total of seven individuals were collected, all from fyke nets, from two sites on Branch Creek and Burriburri Creek in the Condamine transport zone. The capture of a new species for the Basin indicates the incompleteness of current knowledge on the Basin’s fish fauna, and demonstrates the need for continued survey and monitoring effort.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 45
6.1.1 Use of ‘Best Available’ sites as reference It was originally anticipated that the results from these ‘Best Available’ sites could be adjusted for known impacts to provide an estimate of ‘natural’ reference for fish communities. Analysis of the data revealed that even though a standardised selection process was followed for these ‘Best Available’ sites, they do not closely approach the natural condition on a number of metrics, and they have not been used in the Pilot analysis other than to be included to increase the sample size in the setting of the MSRL’s.
To test the value of these ‘Best Available’ sites for assessing natural condition, the ‘nativeness’ metrics from these sites were summarised (Figure 13). Only six out of the 80 sites had no alien species present, while the mean ‘nativeness’ based on three metrics (prop_N_abund, prop_n_sp, prop_N_biomass) all fell between 40 and 60%.
p 1.0 i 0.9 i 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 Proportion native Proportion native Proportion native species biomass individuals Figure 13. Proportion Nativeness scores of reference sites from Pilot SRA. Lines extend to range and box is mean +/- 2 standard errors. A value of 1 indicates no alien species were present.
It is apparent that there are very few or no sites that can be considered to have fish communities in natural condition. Sampling the ‘Best Available’ sites comprised almost half the total cost of field sampling for the fish theme (80 ‘Best Available’ sites and 92 assessment sites), but the data from the ‘Best Available’ sites contributed little to the reconstruction of natural condition. Consequently, sampling ‘Best Available’ sites for the full SRA is not considered justified on a cost-benefit basis.
6.2 General summary of numbers, species and biomass sampled from Assessment sites
6.2.1 Results from using all shot types A total of 13,952 fish from 27 species (20 native, 7 alien) were caught from assessment sites using all methods in the Pilot (Table 18). A detailed breakdown of species by site is presented in APPENDIX 13. The largest number of individuals was captured in the Condamine drainage, followed by the Lachlan, Lower Murray and Ovens respectively.
The most abundant species were carp gudgeons (Hypseleotris spp.) and bony herring (Nematalosa erebi), comprising 37% and 24% of the catch respectively. The most abundant alien species were eastern gambusia (Gambusia holbrooki) and carp (Cyprinus carpio), comprising 6% and 4% of the catch respectively. An estimated total of 895 kilograms of fish were collected using all shot types, comprising 214 kg of native species and 681 kg of alien species (Table 19).
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 46
Table 18. Number of fish of each species captured by all gear-types in Assessment sites.
Cond Cond Cond Lach Lach Lach L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr Ovens Ovens Ovens TOTAL Dep Tran Srce Dep Tran Srce Dep Tran Srce Dep Tran Srce Ambassis agassizii 29 1 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 Bidyanus bidyanus 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Carassius auratus 44 23 10 130 1 4 4 32 5 10 0 0 263 Craterocephalus stercusmuscarum 0 0 123 0 0 0 83 62 48 0 0 0 316 Cyprinus carpio 57 19 7 126 40 0 66 62 77 60 13 0 527 Gadopsis bispinosus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 189 187 377 Gadopsis marmoratus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 28 0 39 Galaxias olidus 0 0 0 0 52 475 0 0 0 5 46 24 602 Gambusia holbrooki 106 192 1 83 347 51 7 0 7 27 5 0 826 Hypseleotris spp. 172 602 1544 2345 1 124 12 84 200 84 4 0 5172 Leiopotherapon unicolor 382 83 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 480 Macquaria ambigua 77 20 3 5 0 0 22 38 40 2 0 0 207 Macquaria australasica 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 Maccullochella macquariensis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 9 0 14 Maccullochella peelii peelii 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 0 13 Melanotaenia fluviatilis 29 7 82 0 0 0 1 30 83 0 0 0 232 Misgurnus anguillicaudatus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Mogurnda adspersa 0 0 88 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 88 Nannoperca australis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 Nematalosa erebi 1919 180 9 297 0 0 187 571 236 0 0 0 3399 Neosilurus hyrtlii 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 Oncorhynchus mykiss 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 171 175 Perca fluviatilis 0 0 0 32 1 16 0 1 0 2 2 0 54 Philypnodon grandiceps 0 0 0 0 2 2 3 2 35 2 0 0 46 Retropinna semoni 3 25 35 41 0 20 33 317 227 83 43 0 827 Salmo trutta 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 10 177 192 Tandanus tandanus 2 16 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 TOTAL 2821 1186 1948 3063 446 696 418 1199 958 296 362 559 13952 5955 4205 2575 1217
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 47
Table 19. Biomass (kg) of alien and native fish species sampled in Assessment sites with all gear types.
Condamine Lachlan L. Murray Ovens Alien biomass 58.8 177.5 264.3 180.4 Native biomass 52.7 25.0 117.2 19.5 Total biomass 111.5 202.4 381.5 199.9
Four species had fewer than three individuals captured in total, with 12 species only recorded in a single river valley (Table 20).
Table 20. Species that were only recorded in a single valley in the Pilot sampling (all gear types combined).
Condamine Lachlan L. Murray Ovens Ambassis agassizii + Bidyanus bidyanus + Gadopsis bispinosus + Gadopsis marmoratus + Leiopotherapon unicolor + Macquaria australasica + Maccullochella macquariensis + Misgurnus anguillicaudatus + Mogurnda adspersa + Nannoperca australis + Neosilurus hyrtlii + Tandanus tandanus +
In the majority of VPZ’s, the biomass per site of alien species outweighed native species (Table 21), the exceptions being the Condamine depositional and transport zones, and Lower Murray transport zone, where native species contributed marginally more biomass. A complete listing of alien and native biomass by site is at APPENDIX 14. There is no obvious trend within valleys in either of the two components of total biomass (alien, native), and no trend for increasing biomass with decreasing altitude (Figure 14).
25
20 total/site 15 native/site 10 alien/site 5
0 Biomass (kg) per site CD CT CS LD LT LS LMD LMT LMS OD OT OS VPZ
Figure 14. Native, alien and total biomass (kg) per site from all gear types at the VPZ scale.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 48
Table 21. Biomass (kg) summary at VPZ scale of results from all gear types in the Pilot SRA.
River VPZ total native alien Proportion VPZ native biomass biomass biomass biomass Condamine Dep sum 65.6 36.4 29.2 0.55 mean 5.5 3.0 2.4 median 3.2 2.1 1.4 Condamine Tran sum 17.6 9.6 8.0 0.55 mean 2.9 1.6 1.3 median 2.7 1.3 1.2 Condamine Source sum 28.2 6.7 21.5 0.24 mean 9.4 2.2 7.2 median 0.8 0.8 0.1 Lachlan Dep sum 150.9 23.9 127.0 0.16 mean 9.4 1.5 7.9 median 7.7 0.7 7.2 Lachlan Tran sum 47.8 0.2 47.6 0.00 mean 9.6 0.04 9.5 median 0.2 0.04 0.2 Lachlan Source sum 3.8 0.8 3.0 0.21 mean 0.8 0.2 0.6 median 0.7 0.2 0.7 L. Murray Dep sum 92.7 24.3 68.4 0.26 mean 23.21 6.1 17.1 median 23.5 6.2 15.7 L. Murray Tran sum 112.5 57.4 55.1 0.51 mean 14.1 7.2 6.9 median 13.5 5.9 7.0 L. Murray Source sum 176.2 35.4 140.8 0.20 mean 14.7 3.0 11.7 median 13.1 2.4 11.0 Ovens Dep sum 106.9 5.1 101.8 0.05 mean 15.3 0.7 14.5 median 9.7 0.5 9.7 Ovens Tran sum 60.4 11.3 49.1 0.19 mean 8.6 1.6 7.0 median 3.0 0.7 2.2 Ovens Source sum 32.5 3.1 29.5 0.10 mean 4.6 0.4 4.2 median 5.3 0.6 4.6
6.2.2 Observed Fish Almost 10,000 fish were observed but not captured at assessment sites during sampling for the Pilot SRA (Table 22). Carp gudgeons, bony herring, Australian smelt (Retropinna semoni) and eastern gambusia dominated the species that were observed.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 49
Table 22. Number of fish of each species observed at Assessment sites during the Pilot SRA.
Cond Cond Cond Lach Lach Lach L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr Ovens Ovens Ovens TOTAL Dep Tran Srce Dep Tran Srce Dep Tran Srce Dep Tran Srce Ambassis agassizii 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Bidyanus bidyanus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carassius auratus 11 3 3 131 1 4 1 16 0 1 0 0 171 Craterocephalus stercusmuscarum 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 10 5 0 0 0 39 Cyprinus carpio 42 5 2 133 40 0 31 26 46 25 29 0 379 Gadopsis bispinosus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 26 81 Gadopsis marmoratus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 5 0 9 Galaxias olidus 0 0 0 0 52 484 0 0 0 1 47 14 598 Gambusia holbrooki 37 441 0 89 346 51 0 0 0 13 0 0 977 Hypseleotris spp 56 7 68 2303 1 124 0 1 0 9 0 0 2569 Leiopotherapon unicolor 77 29 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 108 Macquaria ambigua 7 1 1 6 0 0 1 18 15 3 0 0 52 Macquaria australasica 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Maccullochella macquariensis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 9 Maccullochella peelii peelii 0 0 2 6 0 0 0 1 0 5 2 0 16 Melanotaenia fluviatilis 0 1 8 0 0 0 0 3 15 0 0 0 27 Misgurnus anguillicaudatus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mogurnda adspersa 0 0 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 Nannoperca australis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nematalosa erebi 1075 159 2 296 0 0 119 356 152 0 0 0 2159 Neosilurus hyrtlii 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Oncorhynchus mykiss 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 26 Perca fluviatilis 0 0 0 33 2 16 0 1 0 0 1 0 53 Philypnodon grandiceps 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Retropinna semoni 1 0 2 44 0 20 8 37 49 213 2171 0 2545 Salmo trutta 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 7 89 101 Tandanus tandanus 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 TOTAL 1306 648 163 3041 446 705 160 469 282 274 2326 154 9974 2117 4192 911 2754
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 50
The majority of the carp gudgeons observed were in the Lachlan, with bony herring commonly observed in the Condamine and Lower Murray, Australian smelt in the Ovens and eastern gambusia commonly observed in the Condamine and Lachlan valleys. These four species comprised 83% of all fish observed but not caught.
6.3 Results from electrofishing shots only Twenty-four species were captured by electrofishing, with a total of 6,900 fish caught (Table 23). The largest number of individuals was captured in the Condamine valley, followed by the Lower Murray, Lachlan and Ovens respectively. Seven species had less than 20 individuals captured in total, with bony herring comprising 42%, and eastern gambusia approximately 9% of the electrofishing catch (Table 23). Results for individual Assessment sites are presented in APPENDIX 15.
The most widespread native species from the electrofishing catch was bony herring, recorded at 47 sites, with golden perch (Macquaria ambigua) and Australian smelt recorded at 39 and 43 sites respectively (Table 24). Three native species (olive perchlet Ambassis agassizii, purple- spotted gudgeon Mogurnda adspersa and Hyrtl’s tandan Neosilurus hyrtlii) were only recorded from a single site (Table 24).
The iconic Murray cod (Maccullochella peelii peelii) was surprisingly scarce, with only 13 individuals recorded from five sites (two sites in the Lachlan and three in the Ovens), none of which were in the lower Murray. The species was recorded at one of the ‘Best Available’ sites on the Lower Murray (three individuals captured) and an individual was observed but not captured at one of the Lower Murray sites, but its absence from the catch data at the assessment sites indicates its patchy current distribution. The NSW Rivers Survey (Harris and Gehrke, 1997) which used a random site selection procedure also failed to capture Murray cod in the Murray River, with the species recently listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act. The failure to capture Murray cod from randomly selected sites indicates that this once abundant and widespread species is now scarce over much of its former range, although localised populations still occur. The contribution of continued stocking of hatchery-reared fish to some populations is unknown.
6.3.1 Alien species recorded from electrofishing The most widespread alien species was carp, recorded at 63 of the 92 Assessment sites (Table 24 above). The overall proportion of alien fish in the electrofishing catch was 23.3% across all four Pilot valleys, with the Lachlan and Ovens drainages having the highest proportions of alien species (Table 25).
Extremely high alien species abundance was recorded in the Lachlan Transport Zone where eastern gambusia dominated the catch, with only six individuals of native species caught (mountain galaxias Galaxias olidus). The Ovens Source Zone also had very high alien abundance, with trout dominating the catch.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 51
Table 23. Number of fish of each species caught by electrofishing at assessment sites in the Pilot SRA.
Cond Cond Cond Lach Lach Lach L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr Ovens Ovens Ovens TOTAL Dep Tran Srce Dep Tran Srce Dep Tran Srce Dep Tran Srce Ambassis agassizii 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Carassius auratus 37 19 10 80 0 4 4 25 2 9 0 0 190 Craterocephalus stercusmuscarum 0 0 47 0 0 0 12 22 42 0 0 0 119 Cyprinus carpio 45 7 7 108 25 0 64 59 75 55 13 0 458 Gadopsis bispinosus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 139 137 277 Gadopsis marmoratus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 25 0 35 Galaxias olidus 0 0 0 0 6 309 0 0 0 5 46 24 390 Gambusia holbrooki 106 191 1 32 249 23 4 0 7 27 3 0 643 Hypseleotris spp. 25 36 176 59 0 114 1 2 6 22 0 0 441 Leiopotherapon unicolor 237 62 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 314 Macquaria ambigua 36 10 3 2 0 0 13 33 31 0 0 0 128 Maccullochella macquariensis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 9 0 13 Maccullochella peelii peelii 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 0 13 Melanotaenia fluviatilis 29 6 23 0 0 0 1 29 81 0 0 0 169 Misgurnus anguillicaudatus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Mogurnda adspersa 0 0 83 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83 Nematalosa erebi 1646 134 3 264 0 0 148 497 212 0 0 0 2904 Neosilurus hyrtlii 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Oncorhynchus mykiss 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 143 147 Perca fluviatilis 0 0 0 13 1 3 0 1 0 2 2 0 22 Philypnodon grandiceps 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 Retropinna semoni 2 18 32 38 0 19 10 21 114 83 41 0 378 Salmo trutta 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 7 136 147 Tandanus tandanus 2 4 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 TOTAL 2166 488 413 600 283 476 257 689 571 221 296 440 6900 3067 1359 1517 957
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 52
Table 24. Number of sites from which each species was recorded using electrofishing shots only.
Species No. sites Species No. sites Ambassis agassizii 1 Maccullochella peelii peelii 5 Carassius auratus 35 Melanotaenia fluviatilis 28 Craterocephalus stercusmuscarum 16 Misgurnus anguillicaudatus 1 Cyprinus carpio 63 Mogurnda adspersa 1 Gadopsis bispinosus 14 Nematalosa erebi 47 Gadopsis marmoratus 3 Neosilurus hyrtlii 1 Galaxias olidus 12 Oncorhynchus mykiss 9 Gambusia holbrooki 26 Perca fluviatilis 13 Hypseleotris spp. 22 Philypnodon grandiceps 3 Leiopotherapon unicolor 13 Retropinna semoni 43 Macquaria ambigua 39 Salmo trutta 10 Maccullochella macquariensis 4 Tandanus tandanus 6
Table 25. Number of alien fish of each species captured by electrofishing at Assessment sites in the Pilot SRA.
Condamine Condamine Deposition Condamine Transport Condamine Source Lachlan Deposition Lachlan Transport Lachlan Source Murray Lower Deposition Murray Lower Transport Murray Lower Source Ovens Deposition Ovens Transport Ovens Source Totals Carassius auratus 37 19 10 80 0 4 4 25 2 9 0 0 190 Cyprinus carpio 45 7 7 108 25 0 64 59 75 55 13 0 458 Gambusia holbrooki 106 191 1 32 249 23 4 0 7 27 3 0 643 Misgurnus anguillicaudatus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Oncorhynchus mykiss 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 143 147 Perca fluviatilis 0 0 0 13 1 3 0 1 0 2 2 0 22 Salmo trutta 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 7 136 147 VPZ % alien abundance 8.7 44.5 4.4 38.8 97.9 6.9 28.0 12.3 14.7 42.5 9.5 63.4 23.3 overall % alien abundance 13.8 40.0 15.9 41.9
6.3.2 Biomass from electrofishing An estimated total of 809 kilograms of fish were collected from assessment sites using electrofishing, comprising 184 kg of native species and 625 kg of alien species (Table 26). A complete listing of electrofishing alien and native biomass by site is at APPENDIX 16.
Table 26. Biomass (kg) of alien and native fish species sampled with electrofishing at Assessment sites in the Pilot SRA.
Condamine Lachlan L. Murray Ovens Alien biomass 51.1 160.0 261.0 153.2 Native biomass 38.2 21.6 108.5 15.6 Total biomass 89.4 181.7 369.5 168.8
The relative ratios of native to alien biomass in electrofishing data have changed little from those in the all-shots data (Table 27). The majority of VPZ’s had a proportion of native species of less Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 53 than 0.5, the only exception being the Condamine Depositional Zone. The exceptionally low proportion of native biomass in the Lachlan Transport Zone is due to the only native species collected (mountain galaxias) being a small fish, with only six individuals (weighing a total of 16 g) collected and the total biomass dominated by 2 large trout (1 each of rainbow trout and brown trout). Similarly the biomass in the Ovens Source Zone was dominated by trout and the Ovens Depositional Zone was dominated by carp.
As with the all-shots data, there was no clear gradient in VPZ biomass from electrofishing (Figure 15).
Table 27. Biomass (kg) summary at VPZ scale of results from electrofishing at Assessments sites in the Pilot SRA.
River VPZ total native alien Proportion VPZ native biomass biomass biomass biomass Condamine Dep sum 49.2 26.6 22.6 0.54 mean 4.1 2.2 1.9 median 2.0 1.2 0.7 Condamine Tran sum 13.6 6.6 7.0 0.49 mean 2.3 1.1 1.2 median 1.8 0.7 1.1 Condamine Source sum 26.5 5.0 21.5 0.19 mean 8.8 1.7 7.2 median 0.5 0.4 0.1 Lachlan Dep sum 131.8 21.1 110.7 0.16 mean 8.2 1.3 6.9 median 6.3 0.1 6.3 Lachlan Tran sum 47.0 0.02 47.0 0.00 mean 9.4 0.003 99.4 median 0.02 0 0.02 Lachlan Source sum 2.8 0.5 2.3 0.18 mean 0.6 0.1 0.5 median 0.3 0.1 0.3 L. Murray Dep sum 88.5 22.3 66.2 0.25 mean 22.1 5.6 16.5 median 22.9 5.7 15.7 L. Murray Tran sum 106.5 52.1 54.4 0.49 mean 13.3 6.5 6.8 median 12.6 5.3 7.0 L. Murray Source sum 174.6 34.1 140.5 0.20 mean 14.5 2.8 11.7 median 12.9 2.3 11.0 Ovens Dep sum 94.2 4.1 90.1 0.04 mean 13.5 0.6 12.9 median 5.8 0.03 5.8 Ovens Tran sum 56.8 10.0 46.8 0.18 mean 8.1 1.4 6.7 median 1.6 0.3 1.3 Ovens Source sum 17.7 1.5 16.3 0.08 mean 2.5 0.2 2.3 median 2.2 0.2 2.2
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 54
25
20
15 total/site native /site 10 alien/site
5 Biomass (kg)per site 0 CD CT CS LD LT LS LMD LMT LMS OD OT OS VPZ
Figure 15. Native, alien and total biomass (kg) per site from electrofishing at the VPZ scale.
6.4 Comparison of using ‘caught’ data only and excluding ‘observed’ fish, and comparisons between using data from all shot types or electrofishing only
6.4.1 Biomass Electrofishing data alone returned similar total biomass values to using all gear types (Fyke net, Bait trap, Boat electrofishing or Backpack electrofishing), indicating that the non-electrofishing methods captured mainly small fish (Table 28). Electrofishing returned 90 % of the all gear biomass, with electrofishing apparently slightly more efficient at catching alien than native fish
Table 28. Biomass (kg) of native and alien fish captured by electrofishing and all shot types in the Pilot SRA.
Biomass (kg) Proportion of All gear Electrofishing Electrofishing/All Native biomass 214 184 0.86 Alien Biomass 681 625 0.92 Total biomass 895 809 0.90
Overall, a high proportion of the fish recorded were observed but not caught. The biomass of observed fish is extrapolated from the mean biomass of those that were caught. So if there is a size difference between caught and observed fish, the total biomass calculations using caught + observed are not as reliable as using only data from fish actually caught. There are also inherent biases and uncertainties in which species get recorded as ‘observed’ and how accurate the estimates of abundance are. For example large iconic species such as cod or perch are likely to be recorded more often and more accurately than species with a lower perceived value or smaller size (but often higher abundance) such as eastern gambusia or Australian smelt.
Proportion Native Biomass Four estimates of biomass were calculated for each site, using combinations of electrofishing or all gear and observed or caught data. A four-factor repeated measures analysis was run with River, VPZ and Assessment/’Best Available’ sites as fixed factors and the type of gear calculated
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 55 as a repeated measure. There was a statistically significant difference in assessments between the all-gear and electrofishing alone however this was consistent across all site types, VPZ’s and rivers (no significant interactions) and the actual difference was less than 1 percent. There was no difference between ‘caught’ and ‘caught’ plus ‘observed’ estimates of Proportion Native Biomass when using all gear data and the measures were highly correlated (Figure 16).
1. 0
0. 9
0. 8
0. 7
0. 6
0. 5
0. 4
0. 3 CondamineCondam in LowerL. Murray Murra 0. 2 LachlanLachl an 0. 1 OvensOvens
0. 0
0. 0 0. 1 0. 2 0. 3 0. 4 0. 5 0. 6 0. 7 0. 8 0. 9 1. 0 Obser ved + Caught % Nat i ve Bi omass
Figure 16. Relationship between using only ‘caught’ data and the addition of ‘observed’ data and effects on Proportion Native Biomass estimates.
6.5 Similarity of community representation between sampling methods. On a community-composition basis, results from using electrofishing alone generally provided good estimates of the fish community at a site relative to using all gear-types (Table 29). Fyke nets and bait traps alone generally provided a different species composition to all gear combined or electrofishing alone, although fyke nets and bait traps performed better in the source zones where species diversity is lower (Table 29).
However at the river valley scale, electrofishing alone returned a significantly different species composition to that obtained with all gear-types in all four Pilot valleys (Table 30). Across all four Pilot valleys the average Lance Williams similarity coefficients for electrofishing shots were 0.916 of the all-gear-types data (Table 30). Bait traps and fyke nets returned average Lance Williams similarity coefficients of 0.525 and 0.515 respectively of the all-gear-types data (Table 30).
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 56
Table 29. Mean Lance Williams Binary Similarity Coefficients for species composition in VPZ’s by gear-type when compared to all-gear-types combined. The Lance Williams Binary coefficient ranges from 0 to 1 with 1 representing a matching species list and 0 representing no species in common. ‘P’ values compare each mean to the all gear mean using a paired ‘t’ test. Tukeys test groups with different letters identify significantly different means. Tukeys Group A includes the all-gear-type data.
Mean Lance Williams River VPZ Gear-type n distance P Tukeys Group Cond D Elec 10 0.942 0.0660 A Cond D Fyke 10 0.673 0.0001 B Cond D Bait 10 0.621 0.0002 B Cond T Elec 6 0.890 0.0377 B Cond T Fyke 6 0.536 0.0019 C Cond T Bait 6 0.334 0.0004 C Cond S Elec 3 0.952 0.2111 A Cond S Bait 3 0.599 0.1846 A Cond S Fyke 3 0.560 0.0824 A Lach D Elec 16 0.922 0.0088 B Lach D Fyke 16 0.500 0.0000 C Lach D Bait 16 0.312 0.0000 D Lach T Elec 5 0.724 0.0565 A Lach T Fyke 5 0.687 0.1035 A Lach T Bait 5 0.605 0.0847 A Lach S Elec 5 1.000 . A Lach S Bait 5 0.808 0.0903 A Lach S Fyke 5 0.700 0.0877 A L. M ‘D’ Elec 4 0.926 0.0847 A L. M ‘D’ Bait 4 0.575 0.0260 B L. M ‘D’ Fyke 4 0.325 0.0006 B L. M ‘T’ Elec 8 0.859 0.0036 B L. M ‘T’ Bait 8 0.689 0.0001 C L. M ‘T’ Fyke 8 0.477 0.0000 D L. M ‘S’ Elec 12 0.912 0.0016 B L. M ‘S’ Bait 10 0.557 0.0006 C L. M ‘S’ Fyke 10 0.337 0.0000 D Oven D Elec 7 0.907 0.0472 B Oven D Bait 7 0.426 0.0000 C Oven D Fyke 6 0.331 0.0003 C Oven T Elec 7 0.940 0.1039 A Oven T Bait 7 0.438 0.0007 B Oven T Fyke 7 0.281 0.0019 B Oven S Elec 7 1.000 . A Oven S Fyke 6 0.887 0.1020 A Oven S Bait 7 0.667 0.0061 B
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 57
Table 30. Mean Lance Williams Binary Similarity Coefficients for SRA valley species composition by gear-type when compared to all-gear-types combined. ‘P’ values compare each mean to the all gear mean using a paired ‘t’ test. Tukeys test groups with different letters identify significantly different means. Tukeys Group A includes the all-gear-type data.
Mean Lance Gear- Williams Valley type n distance P Tukeys Group Cond Elec 19 0.927 0.0016 B Cond Fyke 19 0.612 0.0000 C Cond Bait 19 0.527 0.0000 C Lach Elec 26 0.899 0.0025 B Lach Fyke 26 0.574 0.0000 C Lach Bait 26 0.464 0.0000 C L. M Elec 24 0.896 0.0000 B L. M Bait 22 0.608 0.0000 C L. M Fyke 22 0.386 0.0000 D Oven Elec 21 0.949 0.0091 B Oven Bait 21 0.510 0.0000 C Oven Fyke 19 0.488 0.0000 C
Basin Elec 90 0.916 0.0000 B Fyke 86 0.515 0.0000 C Bait 88 0.525 0.0000 C
When looking at the actual species list for each VPZ, electrofishing regularly returned fewer species than using all gear-types (Table 31). On two occasions, using ‘Observed’ data added a single species to the species list from electrofishing for the VPZ (Table 31).
These data are summarised in Table 32 which shows the species not sampled by electrofishing but which were detected using the combination of all gear-types
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 58
Table 31. Species Richness estimates at Valley Process Zone level in the Pilot SRA Assessment sites using all gear-types or electrofishing only, and either ‘Caught’ data alone or ‘Caught’ plus ‘Observed’ data. Bolded numbers are where ‘Observed’ information added to the species list for the VPZ. Shaded numbers are where Electrofishing returned less species than using all gear- types. ‘Caught’ data only ‘Caught’ plus ‘Observed’ Gear No. No. alien No. native No. No. alien No. native River VPZ -type species species species species species species Condamine D All 12 3 9 12 3 9 Condamine T All 12 3 9 12 3 9 Condamine S All 13 3 10 14 3 11 Lachlan D All 9 4 5 9 4 5 Lachlan T All 9 6 3 9 6 3 Lachlan S All 8 4 4 8 4 4 L. Murray ‘D’ All 10 3 7 10 3 7 L. Murray ‘T’ All 10 3 7 11 3 8 L. Murray ‘S’ All 10 3 7 10 3 7 Ovens D All 15 5 10 15 5 10 Ovens T All 13 5 8 13 5 8 Ovens S All 4 2 2 4 2 2
Condamine D Elec 11 3 8 11 3 8 Condamine T Elec 11 3 8 11 3 8 Condamine S Elec 12 3 9 13 3 10 L. Murray D Elec 9 3 6 9 3 6 L. Murray T Elec 9 3 6 10 3 7 L. Murray S Elec 10 3 7 10 3 7 Lachlan D Elec 9 4 5 9 4 5 Lachlan T Elec 6 5 1 6 5 1 Lachlan S Elec 8 4 4 8 4 4 Ovens D Elec 13 5 8 14 5 9 Ovens T Elec 11 5 6 11 5 6 Ovens S Elec 4 2 2 4 2 2
Table 32. Species that were missed by electrofishing at the VPZ scale.
spp auratus auratus agassizii australis ambigua ambigua bidyanus bidyanus Ambassis Bidyanus Carassius Carassius australsica grandiceps grandiceps Macquaria Macquaria Macquaria Hypseleotris Nannoperca Nannoperca Philypnodon Philypnodon River VPZ Condamine Dep + Condamine Srce + Condamine Tran + Lachlan Dep Lachlan Tran + + + Lachlan Srce L. Murray Dep + L. Murray Tran + L. Murray Srce Ovens Dep + + Ovens Tran + + Ovens Srce
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 59
The number of individuals of each species and the number of sites where species were missed by electrofishing but captured using all gear-types is shown in Table 33. It is apparent that in the 12 instances where species were missed from a VPZ by electrofishing, the only case where the abundance of the missed species was greater than two individuals was with Ambassis agassizii in the Condamine Source zone. Therefore in 11 of the 12 cases where electrofishing missed species at the VPZ scale, the species could be considered rare.
Table 33. Numbers of individuals of species captured by all gear-types but missed by electrofishing. Figures in brackets indicate the number of sites in each VPZ where the species was captured by all gear-types. spp auratus auratus agassizii australis ambigua ambigua bidyanus bidyanus Ambassis Bidyanus Carassius Carassius australsica grandiceps grandiceps Macquaria Macquaria Macquaria Hypseleotris Nannoperca Nannoperca Philypnodon Philypnodon River VPZ Condamine Dep 1(1) Condamine Tran 1(1) Condamine Srce 9(2) Lachlan Dep Lachlan Tran 1(1) 1(1) 2(2) Lachlan Srce L. Murray Dep 3(1) L. Murray Tran 2(2) L. Murray Srce Ovens Dep 2(2) 2(1) Ovens Tran 4(2) 2(1) Ovens Srce
At the Valley scale, the use of electrofishing resulted in the loss of four species from data on individual valleys (Table 34), with three of these species (Bidyanus bidyanus, Nannoperca australis and Macquaria australasica) being lost from the entire data set. These three species had been in very low abundance in the all gear-type data set (1, 2 and 2 individuals respectively) with all three species only recorded from a single site and all captured in bait traps. The fourth species (Macquaria ambigua) was lost from the Ovens valley where it was represented in the all gear- type data by a single fish at each of two sites in the depositional zone. All four species should therefore be considered rare species in the all-gear data, with chance alone likely to be the main factor in their absence from the electrofishing data.
Table 34. Species that were captured by all gear-types combined but missed by electrofishing at the valley scale. Bold figures indicate numbers of individuals, figures in brackets and underlined figures are number of sites and the number of VPZ’s respectively where the species was recorded by all gear types in the valley.
Bidyanus bidyanus Macquaria ambigua Nannoperca Macquaria australis australasica Condamine 1 (1) 1 Lachlan L. Murray Ovens 2 (2) 1 2 (1) 1 2 (1) 1
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 60
Conclusions Electrofishing provides the most comprehensive representation of the fish community of any single sampling technique. For the majority of VPZ’s, the fish community representation from electrofishing was not significantly different from that collected with all gear types. Electrofishing regularly collected fewer species than all gear types combined, with the missing species usually small or rare species. The inclusion of observed data only added to the species list in two of the 12 VPZ’s, and the difficulty in extrapolating biomass figures and the inherent biases in recording observed fish reduce the value of observed data.
6.6 Summary of fish indicators from the Pilot SRA All further analysis is based upon the results from electrofishing at assessment sites, as this is the sampling method proposed for adoption in the full SRA. The inclusion of different gear types shouldn’t affect the indicators because the MSRL’s are set according to the dataset specific to the gear type used, and those measures not using MSRL’s use criteria independent of sampling method. For verification, the effects of using different subsets of the data on the indicator scores for the River Valleys were investigated and the use of electrofishing only always gave scores within +/- 0.04 of using all gear type scores. It is further assumed that any effect of these minor differences is moderated by the use of the Expert Rules when converting indicator results to the indices SR-FIe, SR-FIn, SR-FId and SR-FI (see following section).
6.6.1 Valley Process Zone results It must be remembered that the Pilot SRA is a snapshot of the fish community represented by a single sample in a single year, and that the major aims of the Pilot were to: • establish a standard methodology for fish bioassessment across the Murray-Darling Basin • trial the assessment of river health in the Murray-Darling Basin using fish data.
The Pilot was designed to confidently report at the river valley scale, but it was agreed that reporting at the VPZ scale was appropriate, though with lower confidence. In some of the VPZ’s where few sites were sampled (some of the source VPZ’s) the results for individual indicators should be viewed with some caution. For example, the absence of a particular species from the dataset does not necessarily mean that it is not present in that VPZ, but simply that the random allocation of sampling sites and the sampling techniques used has failed to detect it. Analysis of the Pilot results has determined minimum site numbers recommended for use in the SRA (see section 7.3) which will improve confidence at the VPZ scale.
Values for each of the 13 indicators for each VPZ are summarised in Table 35. These values then formed the input data for analysis in the Expert Rules system to determine the SRA index values (Figure 17). The individual site values for each indicator are listed in APPENDIX 17. Confidence intervals were calculated for Pilot results at each spatial scale by computer re-sampling. Two thousand bootstrap samples were used to calculate confidence intervals with the confidence intervals for each indicator at the valley scale presented in APPENDIX 18.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 61
Table 35. Median values of the 13 fish indicators from electrofishing in the Pilot SRA.
River VPZ
sp OE intol biom mega macro macro abund abund pelagic pelagic sp_rich benthic abnorm T-abund T-abund prop_N_ prop_N_ prop_N_ prop_N_ prop_N_ *Adj_OP *Adj_OP
Condamine Dep 0.56 0.40 0.29 0.00 0.86 0.61 0.24 0.20 0.67 0.20 0.38 0.57 0.54 Condamine Tran 0.81 0.60 0.65 0.00 0.66 0.61 0.66 0.20 0.67 0.20 0.48 0.55 0.57 Condamine Srce 1.00 0.86 1.00 0.40 0.85 0.69 0.76 0.60 0.86 0.20 0.71 0.66 0.77 Lachlan Dep 0.44 0.20 0.32 0.00 0.52 0.44 0.78 0.20 0.55 0.60 0.14 0.19 0.29 Lachlan Tran 0.25 0.20 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.20 0.52 1.00 0.00 0.00009 0.09 Lachlan Srce 0.71 0.60 0.72 0.00 0.91 0.56 1.00 0.20 1.00 0.20 0.14 0.43 0.41 L. Murray Dep 0.67 0.40 0.70 0.33 0.66 0.61 0.43 0.60 0.67 0.40 0.30 0.28 0.22 L. Murray Tran 0.67 0.40 0.60 0.33 0.78 0.62 0.27 0.60 0.72 0.20 0.40 0.57 0.27 L. Murray Srce 0.56 0.40 0.60 0.00 0.70 0.70 0.51 0.60 0.59 0.20 0.34 0.30 0.33 Ovens Dep 0.44 0.40 0.27 0.00 0.55 0.56 0.90 0.20 0.52 0.20 0.20 0.16 0.43 Ovens Tran 0.41 0.60 0.00 0.33 0.84 0.61 1.00 0.20 0.59 1.00 0.27 0.51 0.49 Ovens Srce 0.49 0.78 0.00 1.00 0.55 0.39 1.00 0.20 0.78 0.60 0.44 0.14 0.29 *OP is adjusted for low sample size in VPZ’s where number of sites was 7 or less (see explanation in section 7.3.2.2)
The 13 indicators were combined using the Expert Rules model to produce the three component scores for fish community health at the VPZ level (Table 36, Figure 18).
Note: The relative influence of the SR-FIn sub-index on the overall SR-FI score for a VPZ or valley is contentious as some alien species may be regarded as a driver of river condition (e.g. carp) whilst others (e.g. trout) may even be considered indicative of good river health. This is considered an issue because the focus of the fish index has been to identify the health of the fish community rather than potential stressors on overall river health. Currently there is no distinction made between individual alien species, and the Expert Rule set ranks high proportions of aliens as undesirable and indicative of lowered fish community health. Further investigation is required of the sensitivity of the overall SR-FI score to changes in the weightings for individual indicators in the Expert Rule set.
Site Indicator values level
- VPZ VPZ median Expert Rules SR-FIe Expert Rules SR- FI OP calculate SR-FIn level indicator values + calculate index subindices SR-FId
Valley Weight Expert Rules SR-FIe Expert Rules by VPZ calculate SR-FIn calculate index SR- FI level area subindices SR-FId
Figure 17. Process to calculate fish index scores at site, VPZ and valley level.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 62
Table 36. Fish community health scores (fish theme) for VPZ’s from the Pilot SRA.
River VPZ SR-FI_expected SR-FI_native SR-FI_diagnostic SR-FI Condamine Dep 0.5 0.84 0.1 0.55 Condamine Tran 0.63 0.8 0.1 0.65 Condamine Srce 0.89 0.9 0.64 0.89 Lachlan Dep 0.28 0.39 0.41 0.33 Lachlan Tran 0.13 0.33 0.61 0.19 Lachlan Srce 0.41 0.78 0.1 0.48 L. Murray Dep 0.38 0.58 0.6 0.47 L. Murray Tran 0.45 0.84 0.44 0.59 L. Murray Srce 0.41 0.62 0.2 0.44 Ovens Dep 0.34 0.36 0.1 0.33 Ovens Tran 0.37 0.83 0.61 0.57 Ovens Srce 0.43 0.32 0.41 0.42
1 SR-FI_expected 0.9 SR-FI_nativeness 0.8 SR-FI_diagnostic 0.7 SR-FI 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3
Fish Community Health 0.2 0.1 0 C-D C-T C-S L-D L-T L-S M-D M-T M-S O-D O-T O-S VPZ
Figure 18. Fish community health scores for the three sub-indices and overall at the VPZ scale.
The confidence intervals for each of the sub-indices and overall SR_FI are shown in the following maps of fish community health (Figures 19-30).
A re-sampling procedure was used to estimate confidence intervals at the VPZ and River Valley scales. The samples were bootstrapped 2000 times within each VPZ and the median score for each measure for each sample was calculated. These 2000 possible median combinations were then run through the expert model to create 2000 possible SR-FI scores for each VPZ. The confidence intervals were calculated as the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles of the 2000 bootstrapped resampled SR-FI scores. Subsequently, the 2000 bootstrapped samples for each VPZ were weighted and confidence intervals for the SR-FI at the River Valley scale calculated.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 63
It is apparent that of the four Pilot valleys all three VPZ’s in the Condamine have the highest level of expected species present along with high levels of nativeness (Figures 18 & 19). The Condamine source zone scored highest of the three VPZ’s with high OE, OP, species richness and nativeness indicators resulting in an assessment of at or near reference for SR_FIe in this zone.
Whilst Figure 19 shows considerable variation in SR-FIe between sites, it must be remembered that two of the three indicators in this sub-index (OE & OP) were designed for reporting at the VPZ scale, not the site scale, and so differences between sites do not have great meaning. The Condamine depositional zone had the lowest OE and OP levels in this valley with several species such as silver perch, Hyrtl’s tandan, Murray cod and fly-specked hardyhead not recorded where they would have been expected to be relatively widespread in pre-European times. Silver perch was in fact sampled, but not by electrofishing, and only a single individual was captured. Therefore this species could be classified as rare where historically it was predicted to be moderately widespread.
There were relatively few alien species recorded in the Condamine (goldfish, carp, eastern gambusia) compared to other valleys with two of the three species being smaller species which did not contribute heavily to the total biomass. All three VPZ’s in the Condamine were assessed as at or near reference for SR-FIn (Figure 20). The site variation on SR-FIn scores was largely in the three least modified bands with two sites (sites 8 & 10) having no alien fish in the electrofishing catch and few sites assessed as majorly modified for nativeness.
The overall SR-FI assessment for the Condamine (Figure 21) varied from at or near reference in the source through to moderately modified in the depositional zone, with the depositional zone scoring towards the upper boundary of the category.
In contrast to the Condamine, the Lachlan transportational zone had exceptionally low proportions of expected species (Figure 22) and high proportions of aliens (Figure 23) which resulted in the lowest SR-FI score for any of the VPZ’s. The only native species recorded from the Lachlan transportational zone was mountain galaxias, with expected fish groups such as cod and perch, gudgeons, blackfish, smelt, and pygmy perch all absent from the catch. This is not to say that these species are not present somewhere in this VPZ, but that species that historically were predicted to be widespread are now rare and/or patchily distributed and were not detected by the random allocation of sampling sites.
Whilst the Lachlan transportational had a good score overall on the diagnostics (Figure 18), this component has little bearing on the overall fish river health score. It is simply the lack of expected native fish species and the abundance of alien species that has caused the poor SR-FI score for this VPZ (Figure 24).
The highest SR-FI score in the Lachlan (moderately modified) was in the source zone where high levels of nativeness occurred because of the abundance of mountain galaxias in the smaller source streams (see Figure 24). The prevailing drought conditions (and consequent low water levels and higher water temperatures) may also have contributed to the relatively higher nativeness in this VPZ with trout in lower abundance than usual. The Lachlan depositional zone had a relatively poor representation of expected species with fish species such as freshwater catfish, silver perch, hardyheads, rainbowfish, flat-headed gudgeons and pygmy perch all absent. This low OE and OP score, combined with high alien biomass resulted in a low overall fish community health score (Figure 24).
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 64
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report Report Technical Fish Theme – PilotAudit Rivers Audit Sustainable
65 Figure 19. Condition assessment of SR-FIe in the Condamine (associated confidence in data displayed in legend). VPZ colours indicate the overall VPZ condition assessment. Site colours indicate the condition assessment for that site.(Key map to site ID numbers is at APPENDIX 20)
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report Report Technical Fish Theme – PilotAudit Rivers Audit Sustainable
66 Figure 20. Condition assessment of SR-FIn in the Condamine (associated confidence in data displayed in legend). VPZ colours indicate the overall VPZ condition assessment. Site colours indicate the condition assessment for that site.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report Report Technical Fish Theme – PilotAudit Rivers Audit Sustainable
67 Figure 21. Condition assessment of overall SR-FI in the Condamine(associated confidence in data displayed in legend). VPZ colours indicate the overall VPZ condition assessment. Site colours indicate the condition assessment for that site.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report Report Technical Fish Theme – PilotAudit Rivers Audit Sustainable
68 Figure 22. Condition assessment of SR-FIe in the Lachlan (associated confidence in data displayed in legend). VPZ colours indicate the overall VPZ condition assessment. Site colours indicate the condition assessment for that site.
Report Technical Fish Theme – PilotAudit Rivers Audit Sustainable
69
Figure 23. Condition assessment of SR-FIn in the Lachlan (associated confidence in data displayed in legend). VPZ colours indicate the overall VPZ condition assessment. Site colours indicate the condition assessment for that site.
Report Technical Fish Theme – PilotAudit Rivers Audit Sustainable
70
Figure 24. Condition assessment of overall SR-FI in the Lachlan (associated confidence in data displayed in legend). VPZ colours indicate the overall VPZ condition assessment. Site colours indicate the condition assessment for that site.
The Ovens source and transportational zones had SR-FIe assessed as majorly modified (Figure 25). The Ovens depositional was assessed as moderately modified for SR-FIe, having a low OE score with species such as golden perch, flat-headed gudgeon, Macquarie perch, silver perch, Murray-Darling rainbowfish, hardyheads, flat-headed galaxias and southern pygmy perch not recorded where historically they were predicted to be widespread in this VPZ. Although undoubtedly some of these species are still present in this VPZ, they are now hard to detect because of their rarity or patchiness. Similarly the Ovens transportational zone had poor OE scores with predicted species such as golden perch, Macquarie perch, flat-headed galaxias, flat- headed gudgeon, carp gudgeon and southern pygmy perch absent.
The Ovens depositional zone had low levels of nativeness (Figure 26) with carp biomass dominating this zone. However, the high relative abundance of smaller native species such as blackfish, galaxias and smelt and the patchy abundance of alien species resulted in a high median nativeness score which has elevated the overall SR-FI score for this zone (Figure 27).
The Ovens source zone had a relatively small number of species (seven) predicted to occur, with four of these species predicted to be rare historically. Sampling detected two native species, resulting in a moderate OE score, but the high abundance and biomass of alien species (Figure 26 produced a lower overall SR-FI score for this zone (Figure 27).
The Lower Murray overall was assessed as majorly modified for SR-FIe (Figure 28) with the OE in the depositional zone lowered by the absence of the species with a marine life-stage which historically were predicted to occur in this zone. Such species include gobies, estuary perch, short-headed lamprey, common galaxias, tupong, black bream and mulloway. The absence of these species is likely to be due to restricted fish passage at the barrages largely excluding such species from the catch, although other factors such as local habitat conditions and altered flow regime are also likely to be involved. These marine/estuarine species are still known to occur in the Coorong and lower lakes.
Other species which were predicted to occur throughout the Lower Murray but which were not recorded include silver perch, Murray cod, Murray hardyhead, purple-spotted gudgeon, river blackfish, freshwater catfish, and olive perchlet.
The SR-FIn assessment for the Lower Murray was moderately modified overall, with median native biomass approximately 30% in the source and depositional zones (Figure 29). Carp dominated the alien biomass in these two zones. By contrast the nativeness score for the transportational zone was high (0.84) with median native biomass at approximately 57 %. Again carp dominated the alien biomass in this zone, but higher abundance and biomass of bony herring contributed to the high nativeness score.
The overall SR-FI for the Lower Murray was assessed as moderately modified (Figure 30).
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 71 Report Technical Fish Theme – PilotAudit Rivers Audit Sustainable
72
Figure 25. Condition assessment of SR-FIe in the Ovens (associated confidence in data displayed in legend). VPZ colours indicate the overall VPZ
condition assessment. Site colours indicate the condition assessment for that site.
Report Technical Fish Theme – PilotAudit Rivers Audit Sustainable
73 Figure 26. Condition assessment of SR-Fin in the Ovens (associated confidence in data displayed in legend). VPZ colours indicate the overall VPZ condition assessment. Site colours indicate the condition assessment for that site.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report Report Technical Fish Theme – PilotAudit Rivers Audit Sustainable
74 Figure 27. Condition assessment of overall SR-FI in the Ovens (associated confidence in data displayed in legend). VPZ colours indicate the overall VPZ condition assessment. Site colours indicate the condition assessment for that site.
Report Technical Fish Theme – PilotAudit Rivers Audit Sustainable 75
Figure 28. Condition assessment of SR-FIe in the Lower Murray (associated confidence in data displayed in legend). VPZ colours indicate the overall VPZ condition assessment. Site colours indicate the condition assessment for that site.
Report Technical Fish Theme – PilotAudit Rivers Audit Sustainable
76
Figure 29. Condition assessment of SR-FIn in the Lower Murray (associated confidence in data displayed in legend). VPZ colours indicate the overall VPZ condition assessment. Site colours indicate the condition assessment for that site.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report Report Technical Fish Theme – PilotAudit Rivers Audit Sustainable
77 Figure 30. Condition assessment of overall SR-FI in the Lower Murray (associated confidence in data displayed in legend). VPZ colours indicate the overall VPZ condition assessment. Site colours indicate the condition assessment for that site.
6.6.2 River Valley SR-FI Results The VPZ results were aggregated (using the weighting’s outlined in section 5.10.2) to provide scores at the river valley scale (Table 37, Figures 31-34).
Table 37. Sustainable rivers fish index scores for valleys from the Pilot SRA.
River SR-FI_Expected SR-FI_Native SR-FI_Diagnostic SR-FI Overall Assessment Condamine 0.57 0.84 0.11 0.61 Minor modification L. Murray 0.42 0.76 0.28 0.51 Moderate modification Lachlan 0.28 0.4 0.4 0.33 Major modification Ovens 0.38 0.45 0.39 0.44 Moderate modification
0.9 SR-FIexpected 0.8 SR-FInativeness 0.7 SR-FIdiagnostic 0.6 SR-FI 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 Fish Community Health 0.1 0 Condamine Lachlan Murray Ovens
Figure 31. Fish community health scores for the three sub-indices and overall at the valley scale.
The Condamine scored highest of the four valleys with an assessment of minorly modified for fish community health (Figure 34). The high score for the Condamine source VPZ (at or near reference) (see Figure 21) had little effect at the valley scale due to its small area. Fish ‘nativeness’ at the valley scale was assessed as at or near reference in the Condamine (the highest of all valleys) and the Condamine also had the highest proportion of expected species (Figure 32). The lower Murray was assessed as moderately modified overall with a relatively high SR-FIn score (0.76) but an assessment of moderately modified’ for the SR-FIe sub-index.
The Ovens was also assessed as moderately modified overall with majorly modified SR-FIe and moderately modified SR-FIn with the high nativeness scores for the transportational VPZ outweighed by the low scores in the depositional and source zones. The Lachlan was assessed as having the most modified fish community of the four valleys with an overall assessment of majorly modified. The high ‘nativeness’ score in the small Lachlan source VPZ was downgraded by the low scores in the larger transportational and depositional zones. Maps of the SR-FId assessments are presented in APPENDIX 21.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 78 Report Technical Fish Theme – PilotAudit Rivers Audit Sustainable
79
Figure 32. Condition assessment of SR-FIe in all Pilot Valleys (associated confidence in data displayed in legend). VPZ colours indicate the overall VPZ condition assessment.
Report Technical Fish Theme – PilotAudit Rivers Audit Sustainable
80
Figure 33. Condition assessment of SR-FIn in all Pilot Valleys (associated confidence in data displayed in legend). VPZ colours indicate the overall VPZ condition assessment.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report Report Technical Fish Theme – PilotAudit Rivers Audit Sustainable
81 Figure 34. Condition assessment of overall SR-FI in all Pilot Valleys (associated confidence in data displayed in legend). VPZ colours indicate the overall VPZ condition assessment.
7 Sampling Regime to be applied in Audit 7.1 Primary Sampling Method One of the major costs associated with fish sampling using passive gear types (nets and traps) is the time field staff are required to be in attendance with this gear. Such gear is usually set overnight to maximise catch rates in the relatively low-diversity fish communities of the Murray- Darling Basin. Passive gear cannot be left unattended due to the likelihood of theft or interference with the gear, and so sampling more than one site concurrently is not an option. The long set-time of passive gear restricts field teams to sampling a single site per day, and when sampling sites are distributed over a large area (such as NSW), the travel time to and from sites means that usually only three or four sites can be sampled in a working week.
By contrast, electrofishing is an active technique that can rapidly collect a representative sample of the fish community and permits sampling of more than a single site per day. The comparison of results from electrofishing to those from all gear types demonstrates that while some rare species may be missed, the overall representation of the fish community is not compromised. The benefits of being able to sample more than one site per day outweigh the loss of occasional rare species from the sample. Sampling by electrofishing alone will significantly reduce the cost of the fish-sampling program for the SRA. The NSW Rivers Survey also compared the costs and benefits of using passive gear versus electrofishing and also concluded that electrofishing was the method of choice (Faragher and Rogers, 1997).
7.2 Trial of 2-hour daytime deployment of bait traps When the electrofishing catch was compared to the all-gear catch, it was apparent that electrofishing had under-represented several fish species. Most of the species or individuals missed by electrofishing were rare (few individuals per site) and small in length. Electrofishing efficiency usually increases with fish size, so it was predictable that some of the smaller species may be missed. There is potential for improving species representation at some sites by using bait traps set for a short period. The species that were caught by bait traps and not by electrofishing in each VPZ in the Pilot SRA are shown in Table 38. Most are small species, with the exception of Macquaria australasica. The M. australasica individuals sampled by bait traps were both young- of-the-year fish of 41 and 44 mm total length.
Table 38. Species caught by bait traps but missed by electrofishing in the Pilot SRA.
River VPZ AMBAGA HYPSPP MACAUS NANAUS PHIGRA Condamine Dep Condamine Srce + Condamine Tran L. Murray Dep Lachlan Dep Lachlan Srce Lachlan Tran + + Ovens Dep + Ovens Srce Ovens Tran + +
Table 39 indicates the species that were caught by Fyke nets but not electrofishing. Comparing Tables 38 & 39, it can been seen that both bait traps and fyke nets captured Philypnodon grandiceps in the Lachlan transport zone and Ambassis agassizi in the Condamine source, but otherwise there is no overlap in the additional species collected by each gear type.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 82
Table 39. Species caught by fyke nets but missed by electrofishing in the Pilot SRA.
AMBAGA BIDBIDCARAUR LEIUNI MACAMB PHIGRA Condamine Dep + Condamine Srce + Condamine Tran + L. Murray Dep Lachlan Dep + Lachlan Srce Lachlan Tran + + Ovens Dep + Ovens Srce Ovens Tran
As it is impractical to trial a short set of fyke nets (because of the time involved in setting and collecting), it is recommended to trial a two-hour bait trap set at each site in the first round of the full SRA. Bait traps could easily be set before electrofishing commences, and retrieved when electrofishing is completed. The use of bait traps will facilitate the sampling of habitats that may be difficult to sample with conventional electrofishing, such as submerged weed beds.
7.3 How Many Fish sites and electrofishing shots are required in the full SRA? The number of sites sampled in the Pilot SRA was determined using two pieces of information – The variability associated with Percent Native Abundance and the number of reaches in each River Valley/VPZ. After inferring that one fish site sampled represented the fish community in a given reach, the variability of the measure could be adjusted for sampling a known proportion of the population. Hence the Pilot sample sizes were smaller than had the variability in percent abundance been used alone.
In developing the recommendations for the full SRA, the inference of one site per reach has been discarded because of the inadequate definition of a reach. Two possible models for determining the number of sites required were examined: • A model using results from the Pilot SRA based on the number of sites required to estimate the full species list allowing for the most accurate possible scoring of the PERCH score at the VPZ level • A model based on variability observed in the Percent Native Biomass score in the Pilot study. This biomass measure was used as it can be determined regardless of sampling intensity, is not scaled in anyway, and has a known true reference value.
7.3.1 PERCH Requirements In the Pilot, the PERCH expected taxa list and rarity scores were set at the VPZ level, hence it was necessary to determine how many sites, and shots per site, were needed to return the complete or most efficient species list for that VPZ. Two points are relevant: first, this approach will apply to whatever geographic, geomorphic or bioregional zones are used to predict expected taxa lists in the future, and, second, in the Pilot there was no observed relationship between the size of the zone and the number of taxa Predicted/Expected. Nor was there a relationship between the size of the zone and the number of taxa observed, hence the IBI-type metrics are altitude adjusted not area adjusted. This means that equal site numbers appear adequate in the respective zones, however they are determined.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 83
Estimating number of shots and sites required Species-accumulation curves were investigated in data from VPZ’s where larger numbers of sites were sampled. For each VPZ the method was to: 1. Select 1 site at random from the zone 2. Select 1 electrofishing shot at random from that site 3. Select another site at random from the zone 4. Select 1 electrofishing shot at random from that site 5. Combine the species lists for the two sites 6. Repeat up to maximum number of sites in that zone 7. Calculate the asymptote and standard error of the species-accumulation curve 8. Repeat all above steps with 2 electrofishing shots per site, etc up to 15 shots (if available). 9. Repeat Steps 1 to 8 one hundred times.
Typically, 10 electrofishing shots per site and six sites were enough to return the full species list more than 95 % of the time. The standard error of the predicted number of species was generally less then two species when six or more sites were sampled. The models needed five sites to converge every time (see example in Figure 35). It is therefore recommended that seven sites per zone and 12 shots per site will represent the species present in the zone most efficiently. The exception to the above results was always the Ovens Source zone and inspection of the raw data revealed that there were only four species captured, with two species occurring in all sites, and two species occurring in all but one site. In other words once any two sites had been sampled in the Ovens Source zone, the species list was complete.
YHAT 10
9
8
7
6
5
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718
sites
Figure 35. Species-accumulation curve for random sample number 13 in the Lachlan River Depositional VPZ. The Y axis is the predicted number of species in the zone. The curves for 10, 12 and 14 shots per site are hidden behind the curve for eight shots.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 84
Sample-size Requirements for Proportion Native Biomass Using Formula 8.4 of Zar (1984) the samples sizes associated with determining 95% confidence intervals for Prop_N_biom in each zone were calculated. Only zones where there had been at least five sites sampled in the Pilot study were used and power was set to 0.8. Similar curves were generated for OE, sp_rich, T_abund and prop_N_abun.
The number of sites required is directly related to the variability of the measure of interest. Thus the requirement varies between measures and between geographical locations. The number of sites required within individual VPZ’s and within river valleys was examined, with and without stratification. Where stratification was used the standard deviation was calculated after Quinn and Keogh (2002) formula 7.3.
Individual VPZ’s had different variability, hence different sample size requirements (Figure 36). For example, to calculate the mean Prop_N_biom to within +/- 20% would require 30 sites in the Ovens Transportational zone and 10 sites in the Lower Murray River ‘Zone B’ (‘Transportational’). The river valley curves were less variable than those for VPZ’s and showed little effect from stratification except at low sample sizes (Figure 36). Typically, 20 sites in a river valley would allow calculation of the Prop_N_biom to within +/- 20% and 30 sites would allow calculation to +/- 15%.
50 C-V M-V 40 C-X M-X 30 L- V O-V 20 L- X O-X
10
0
0. 0 0. 2 0. 4 0. 6 0. 8 1. 0
Hal f Wi dt h of 95% Conf i dence I nt er val
Figure 36. Sample sizes required to estimate mean Prop_N_biom of fish in individual VPZ’s (top) and at the river valley level (bottom). C= Condamine, L= Lachlan, M= Lower Murray, O= Ovens. D= Depositional, S= Source, T = Transportational, V= Valley without stratification, X = Valley with stratification.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 85
Costs and Benefits
PERCH method
If the PERCH OP score is to be used in the SRA it would seem desirable that a complete species list for each zone of prediction should be obtained.
As the PERCH method was developed after the Pilot study sampling was undertaken some of the VPZ’s have fewer than the desired number of sites sampled (seven sites per zone were desirable, see section 7.3.2). For reporting of the OP to be comparable across zones an adjusted OP has been calculated for these zones. The method was: • For each of the 100 re-samples for the given sampling regime: o calculate how many species were predicted to occur in the zone o calculate how many species occurred in the re-samples o calculate how many species occurred in the zone. • Calculate the adjustment factor for the OP score by: o calculating by how much the species in the re-samples underestimated the true species richness on average o adding the underestimation value to the predicted number of species o dividing the new value by the actual number of species in the zone. • Adjust the OP Score by multiplying it by the adjustment factor.
For example, in the Condamine Source zone there were only three sites sampled and 12 species were captured. In the re-sampling procedure for these sites the average number of species captured was 11.45 and the average of the predicted true species richness for the zone was 15.04.
Therefore the adjustment factor for this zone = [(11.45 – 12) + 15.04] / 12 = 1.299
Generally it is assumed the accuracy of the measure is higher when more sites are sampled. To investigate this, the above technique for seven sites was applied to zones where seven or more sites were sampled. Results indicated the OP scores after seven sites were very close to the scores when all sites were included (Table 40). The Ovens depositional zone may have had 9.6% species under the actual and the Ovens transportational 6.4% under but the rest were no more than 1% under (Table 40).
Table 40. Correction factors for zones where the recommended sampling regime was employed.
Zone Condamine Lachlan Lower Lower Ovens Ovens Ovens Dep Dep Murray A Murray B Dep Trans Source Correction 1.011 1.010 1.000 1.000 1.096 1.064 1.008 Factor
A validation of the use of the OP adjustment procedure is presented in APPENDIX 20.
Summary: A minimum of 7 sites per zones is recommended for the PERCH method giving the final OP score to within +/- 10%. However a statistical conversion method does allow for some correction and estimation when this isn’t possible. Where a valley may only have two zones, 21 sites is still Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 86
required to have adequate confidence in the metric results at the valley scale. Percent Native Biomass is notoriously variable and hence the sample sizes required are large to give accuracy greater than +/- 20%. A total of 21 sites will give Percent Native Biomass estimates which will have an accuracy of approximately +/- 20%. If it is required to know Percent Native Biomass as accurately as possible then ideally 30 sites within a River Valley would give a sufficiently accurate measure (+/- 15%). However the cost of sampling 30 fish sites per valley is prohibitive and results in only a relatively small increase in accuracy and so is not recommended.
7.4 Rationale for Lay out of Sites The exact design and approach to be taken to lay sites out in the landscape is still being considered. It is generally agreed that sites sampled for fish should continue to be overlapped as much as possible with site locations for other themes and that the approach used to lay out sites should be consistent across themes. It is also of paramount importance that all sites should be randomly selected to avoid bias. Other considerations include:
7.4.1 Meeting the needs of the program in terms of condition assessment and trend detection There are trade-offs associated with the priorities of the SRA program. If condition assessment is the main focus, the design of the program would be optimised by sampling a minimum number of randomly selected sites and then choosing a new set of randomly selected sites for each sampling visit. This would make sure that any bias in the sites was minimised so that the assessment would be as close as possible to the true condition of the region. However, if detection of trend over time is considered more important, the same sites (which are still initially randomly selected) would be visited on each subsequent sampling occasion (i.e. they would become fixed sites). This would ensure that the noise between sampling occasions was minimised and trends may be more readily identified. If both trend and condition assessment are considered important then the sampling design will be a compromise between fixing the sites after the initial random allocation versus reselecting new random sites with each new sampling visit to a valley.
Some of the advantages of visiting the same sites over consecutive rounds of the Audit are that site selection only has to be done once, and the logistics and costs of travel to sites and access can be better estimated/managed. However some of the disadvantages of fixing the location of sites are: there could be changes to sites from the field sampling; there may be remedial action aimed at the site biasing future assessments, autocorrelation issues could be introduced and tolerance of landholders could be strained.
While important, the risks from any of these issues are likely to be small over the first 6 years of the Audit. Thus, the ultimate design will largely be determined by the relative importance of trend versus condition assessment and will most likely be a trade-off between the two and therefore have some fixed and some rotating sites. However, cementing down the design in the first year is not crucial, as even after the first one or two years of sampling the number of sites that are fixed for subsequent years could be changed with few consequences for the Audit.
7.4.2 Stratification of sites Stratification of sites into biologically or geomorphologically similar regions is sometimes incorporated into designs prior to laying sites out in the environment, and was done in the SRA Pilot using VPZ’s. Experience in other similar programs suggests that stratification should be used sparingly (Overton and Stehman, 1996). Stratification has the potential to result in a loss of precision if the strata boundaries are not clearly defined (Larsen et al., 1994) and post stratification may give more precise values than prior stratification (Holt and Smith, 1979). This
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 87
may mean slightly increasing sample sizes to allow for post sampling stratification into sub- populations of interest (Scheuder and Czaplewski, 1993).
In the SRA, stratification into zones based on altitude are currently being considered for reporting, as the use of VPZ’s in the Pilot was problematic for a number of reasons. The most important of these was that VPZ’s were not mapped for the whole Basin, they were only mapped for the main streams. This caused significant problems with defining the boundaries of zones on unmapped streams in the Pilot Audit. Other issues are that; the jurisdictions currently have not had training to allow the rapid mapping of other streams; and that the VPZ’s used in the Pilot did not necessarily represent source, transportational and depositional areas because they were a forced aggregation of more reliable FPZ’s.
The advantages of using altitude for reporting is that information on altitude is already available and ready to use, altitude has been shown in a number of studies to be directly correlated to the biota being measured in the Audit, and use of altitude would ensure a consistent approach and comparison of like sections of the Basin. In the Pilot, depositional sites in different catchments ranged from 2.5m to 301m altitude and source sites from 300m to 820m, over which a range of different biological communities would be expected to occur.
The question is then whether this stratification layer is used to lay out sites or used as a post stratification layer. With no geographical stratification the random allocation of sites to the region of interest will on average result in proportional representation of the sub regions. There are, however, occasions when by random sampling some areas may be over or under represented. Systematic random sampling can avoid this whilst guaranteeing broad coverage of the region of interest, a fundamental requirement in analysing the spatial variance component of the measure of interest (Urquhart et al., 1998).
The perceived benefits of pre-sampling stratification for the SRA are: • For reporting: the fish theme of the Audit can report on valley zones with a reasonable confidence so it is appropriate to consider stratification in advance to ensure enough sites are selected in each zone. • For construction of reference condition (comparing like with like) • Distinguishing biological or geomorphologically distinct areas for which conceptual models of function/ interpretation of results may be applied • To separate areas not suitable for sampling (e.g. high altitude streams for fish).
7.4.3 The method to be used for laying out sites There are a number of methods that can be used to randomly lay sites out in the landscape. Sites can be allocated totally randomly, or systematically randomly. Although no decision has yet been made for the full audit, systematic randomisation is currently being investigated to see if it can reduce clumping and ensure an even coverage of the catchment. Systematic layout of sites would involve division of each valley into a number of evenly spaced segments based on catchment area or stream length, and random selection of a site within a segment based on stream length or another method.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 88
7.4.4 The stream network to be used The choice of stream network has many implications for the design. The entire stream network is rarely used because of practical considerations. Many drainage lines may be mapped but very rarely hold any water, such as first order streams, ephemeral streams and lowland arid streams. First or second order streams may also be unsuitable for sampling even if water is present, for example, diverse fish communities are not really present in many small streams, often only a single species is present. The stream network may be reduced by using stream order, stream volume catchment area or by other methods. For the Audit, these issues will be finalised during the implementation planning period.
7.5 Potential sampling strategy Whilst the final design and layout of sampling sites has not been finalised, the following scenario or minor variants thereof is likely to be recommended. It is recommended that seven sites per zone be sampled, which for most valleys gives a total of 21 sites per valley. Occasionally, valleys have four zones requiring 28 sites. In a valley with only two zones, seven sites per zone are required for OE, however, a total of 18 sites is required to have confidence at the whole of valley assessment valley scale in the other fish metrics. As such, 18 should be the minimum number of sites for any valley. Results may also be reported at lower scales (i.e. lower than valley or zone scale) but these assessments will have less confidence.
For most jurisdictions it is not considered practicable to sample all valleys within a jurisdiction in a single year. It is recommended that one third of valleys will be sampled each year, with all sites in a valley sampled. In a six year reporting cycle this schedule will provide two complete health assessments for all valleys from which trends can be detected. It is recommended that one sentinel site per zone (sites that are sampled every year to provide information on inter-annual variation) be sampled each year for all valleys. The sampling schedule is represented by Table 41.
Table 41. Possible sampling design for fish monitoring in the SRA.
Site set Yr Yr Yr Yr Yr Yr Yr Yr Yr 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (1/3rd of valleys) 9 9 9 (1/3rd of valleys) 9 9 9 (1/3rd of valleys) 9 9 9 Sentinel (1 per zone, 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 all valleys)
7.6 Development of additional indicators for the full SRA Other potential fish indicators were recommended in the framework report (Whittington et al., 2001) but could not be pursued in the Pilot SRA. The opportunity exists to investigate some of these indicators in the first sampling round of the full SRA with a view to assessing their value for the final analysis framework.
The potential fish indicators recommended for further investigation are: • evenness of native species (development of conceptual framework and reference condition?) • use of fish length data to indicate recruitment
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 89
• fish sensitivity/tolerance indices (sensu Chessman, 1995) e.g. water quality/thermal pollution/sedimentation etc) • fish movement indices (sensu Chessman, 1995; local/regional/Basin movement requirements) • Reproductive guilds (sensu Balon, 1975, 1981; Humphries et al., 1999).
7.7 Construction of length:weight relationships for other Murray- Darling Basin species In order to calculate biomass estimates for any site in the Basin, there needs to be a collection of length:weight data for species in the Basin not sampled in the four Pilot valleys. The Pilot SRA utilised existing datasets to construct length:weight relationships for 24 species, with relationships estimated for another four species. An essential task for the full SRA is to construct length:weight relationships for the remaining Basin fish species. Datasets for these other species may already exist and simply need analysis, or the data may be able to be collected as part of other fisheries projects within the Murray-Darling Basin. The species for which such relationships need to be constructed are: Melanotaenia fluviatilis Philypnodon sp. 1 (dwarf flat-headed gudgeon) Craterocephalus fluviatilis Craterocephalus stercusmuscarum fulvus Porochilus rendahli Galaxias rostratus Galaxias brevipinnis Galaxias truttaceus Galaxias fuscus Galaxias maculatus Geotria australis Nannoperca obscura Mordacia mordax Macquaria colonorum Pseudaphritis urvillii Tinca tinca Rutilis rutilis Salmo salar Salvelinus fontinalis
Some of these species are small, with similar body shapes, so one species from each group may initially be able to be used as a surrogate for the other species. For example Craterocephalus amniculus can be used as a surrogate for the other two Craterocephalus species, and Galaxias olidus can be used as a surrogate for Galaxias fuscus and Galaxias rostratus.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 90
There are also number of estuarine species which are only found in the lower Murray River and these species also need length:weight relationships constructed as the improvement of fish passage in the lower Murray is likely to lead to increasing abundance of these species in the catch in future years.
Two species (Philypnodon grandiceps, Ambassis agassizi) require validation of the length:weight relationships used in the Pilot, as both these species only had data on Standard Length available. Two other species (Nannoperca australis, Craterocephalus amniculus), had length:weight relationships constructed from very small sample sizes and these species would benefit from additional data collection.
Collection of data for these species can be prioritised according to the species rarity (threatened species, estuarine species) and the presence of suitable interim surrogate species (see examples above).
7.8 Additional projects for potential exploration in full SRA The analysis of the Pilot data has highlighted some issues and/or knowledge gaps that would benefit from further research. The SRA is not the only funding program under which such investigations could be carried out, with a variety of State and federal programs or funding bodies potentially interested in such research.
7.8.1 Investigate use of size data to potentially detect recruitment It was originally intended that the length data collected in the Pilot would be used for detecting recruitment at a site. This was not deemed possible within the short timeframe of the Pilot. However, the benefits of being able to reliably infer recruitment in a variety of fish species are obvious for a river health assessment. There needs to be further work done for certain species or geographical areas, to determine the validity of such an approach. The absence of recruitment at a site does not necessarily infer poor river health, as fish may recruit in one river zone and then move to another as adults or juveniles. Consideration should also be given to developing a technique to reliably separate stocked fish from natural recruits.
7.8.2 Investigate/develop reproductive guilds concept One of the ideas canvassed in the framework report (Whittington et al., 2001) was to use reproductive guild membership (i.e. whether a species has pelagic or adhesive eggs, exhibits parental care, has large or small eggs, is cued by flooding or temperature etc.) as a metric in the fish analysis. It is thought that different reproductive guilds may react in different ways to environmental degradation, or that the absence of a particular reproductive guild may give an indication of the particular stressors at a site. This approach could not be pursued in the Pilot because of the lack of an agreed framework for allocating species to reproductive guilds. Further work is required to determine the feasibility and applicability of such an approach.
7.8.3 Develop better definition of the intolerance metric The intolerance classification of a species for the Pilot is an amalgamation of a species response to a number of environmental stressors, including sedimentation, barriers to migration, thermal pollution and water quality effects. Greater diagnostic capacity is likely if the response to individual stressors can be considered independently, but currently this information does not exist. Information on the response of individual species to a range of common stressors should be investigated, with a range of life history stages investigated.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 91
7.8.4 Refine pre-European reference condition approach The scoring system used in the Pilot to create a pre-European reference condition developed as part of the Pilot is in need of further refinement. Currently only a single ‘filter’ was applied (rarity) to the expected-species list but there is potential for applying habitat filters, as well as for developing expected-taxa lists at a site rather than the VPZ scale.
7.8.5 Development of an indicator based on individual condition Condition of individual fish can be assessed through the use of condition indicators, which require the weight as well as length of a fish. Such indices have been used for many years in assessing the body condition of recreational species such as trout. The potential benefits of using fish condition in fish community health assessments should be explored, especially for the larger species such as perch, cod, grunters etc.
7.8.6 Use of biomarkers The analysis of body tissue and fluid samples (fins, blood, liver etc) can provide useful insights into the physiological status of individual fish, and should be considered for further investigation. Holdway et al. (1995) identified a number of useful biomarkers for fish including mixed-function oxidases, bile metabolites, metallothionein, relative concentrations of adenylates, etc. which show predictable responses in fish to exposure to foreign chemicals (xenobiotics). This investigation should also monitor for effects of pollutant chemicals affecting reproductive development in fish.
7.8.7 Thresholds for electrofishing power transfer One of the criticisms of current electrofishing practice is the lack of standardisation of the electric field applied to the water. A recent workshop on electrofishing held in Yarrawonga outlined the methodology and information requirements for standardising the electric field based on power transfer theory (Kolz, 1989; Kolz and Reynolds, 1989). The application of power transfer and standardisation of field requires information on fish thresholds, with the final electrofishing settings chosen having to reflect some average threshold across species and size classes, with the settings having to be calibrated for each electrofishing unit. Burkhardt and Gutreuter (1995) reported that the standardisation of electrofishing effort through the application of power transfer theory eliminated substantial amounts of catch variation at virtually no additional cost. The Pilot SRA has recommended that the application of power transfer theory be pursued as an important part of standardising fishing effort. However, there is little information on the response of Australian fish species to different pulse frequencies, shapes, or voltage settings, and the collection of such information is essential if standardisation is to be improved.
7.8.8 Investigation of electrofishing efficiency in deep-water habitats The efficiency of electrofishing in deep-water habitats (>3m) is unknown, with some concerns expressed that benthic fish species in such habitats may be under-represented in the catch or that turbidity may decrease efficiency. Other sampling gear-types (such as gill nets) may provide a better representation of the abundance of large benthic species in deep-water habitats, but are expensive to use because of long set-times and the requirement to be in attendance, which means that only a single site can be sampled per day. Such gear can also have unfavourable consequences for non-target species such as Platypus. It may be possible to investigate the relative efficiency of a number of gear types in deep-water habitats and obtain a correction factor for data obtained by electrofishing.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 92
8 Recommendations
Recommendation 1: Major sampling technique The comparison of results from electrofishing to those from all gear types demonstrates that while some rare species may be missed, the overall representation of the fish community is not compromised. Sampling by electrofishing alone will significantly reduce the cost of the fish- sampling program and this method is recommended for the SRA, using twelve electrofishing shots per site.
Recommendation 2: Trial of supplementary sampling technique Because electrofishing under-represented several rare (few individuals per site) and small (in length) fish species, there is potential for improving representation of these fish at some sites by setting bait traps for a short period. It is recommended to assess the results from setting ten bait traps for two hours at each site in the first round of the full SRA.
Recommendation 3: Indicator selection The 29 fish-based indicators originally proposed in the SRA framework report have been reduced to 13 following the Pilot. The following indicators are recommended for use in the SRA: • observed to expected ratio (OE) • observed to predicted ratio (OP) • proportion native biomass (prop_N_biom) • total species richness (sp_rich) • benthic species richness (benthic) • pelagic species richness (pelagic) • intolerant species richness (intol) • proportion native abundance (prop_N_abund) • proportion native species (prop_N_sp) • proportion macrocarnivores (macro) • proportion mega carnivores (mega) • total abundance (T_abund) • proportion with abnormalities (abnorm).
The value of additional indicators such as reproductive and migratory guilds, size structure and sensitivity/tolerance guilds should be investigated.
Recommendation 4: Analytical framework The analytical framework used in the Pilot SRA was partially based on the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) with site scores aggregated using an Expert Rules system to provide assessments at the VPZ and valley scale. It is recommended that this approach be used in the full SRA.
Recommendation 5: Sensitivity analysis The relative influence of the SR-FIn sub-index on the overall SR-FI score for a VPZ or valley is contentious as some alien species may be regarded as a driver of river condition (e.g. carp) whilst others (e.g. trout) may be considered indicative of good river health. Currently there is no Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 93
distinction made betweem individual alien species, and the Expert Rule set ranks high proportions of aliens as undesirable and indicative of lowered river health. Further investigation is required of the sensitivity of the overall SR-FI score to changes in the weightings for individual indicators in the Expert Rule set.
Recommendation 6: Reference condition The use of the Pre-European Reference Condition for fisH (PERCH) procedure to derive predicted species lists for each VPZ should be continued in the SRA, with PERCH species lists derived for all river valleys. The sampling of ‘best available’ sites for fish is not recommended as there are few if any unimpacted fish communities within the Basin. The use of maximum species richness lines (MSRL’s) to provide an internal scaling/reference system in the IBI type metrics is recommended, with altitude rather than catchment area used in scaling. The MSRL’s should be recalculated after every complete sampling run (three years) to ensure that the internal scaling is temporally relevant
Recommendation 7: Site layout Sites sampled for fish should continue to be overlapped as much as possible with site locations for other themes. The layout of sites will depend on resolution of the stratification and status versus trend issues that are common to all themes and linked to the reporting. Sites should be laid out in a stratified random approach and then be fixed for the first six years, with a review thereafter.
Recommendation 8: Number of sites required It is recommended that seven sites per zone be sampled to report OE with confidence (+/- 10%) at the zone scale. For most valleys this means sampling 21 sites per valley, although occasional valleys have four zones requiring 28 sites. Where a valley has only two zones, a total of 18 sites is required to have confidence at the valley scale in the other fish metrics, with a minimum of seven sites per zone required for OE. Results may also be reported at lower scales but with less confidence.
Recommendation 9: Sampling frequency Fish communities should be sampled at every site in the Basin once every three years. It is recommended that one third of valleys should be sampled each year, with all sites in a valley to be sampled. It is recommended that one sentinel site per zone (sites that are sampled every year to provide information on interannual variation) be sampled each year for all valleys. In a six year reporting cycle this schedule will provide two complete health assessments for all valleys from which trends can be detected.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 94
9 References
Allen, G.R., Midgley, S.H. and Allen, M. (2002). Field Guide to the Freshwater Fishes of Australia. Western Australian Museum, Perth.
Anon. (1997) Australian Code of Electrofishing Practice. NSW Fisheries Management Publication No. 1.
Balon, E. K. (1975). Reproductive guilds of fishes: A proposal and definition. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 32: 821-864.
Balon, E. K. (1981). Additions and amendments to the classification of reproductive styles in fishes. Environmental Biology of Fishes 6: 377-389.
Barbour, M.T., Gerritson, J., Snyder, B.D. and Stribling, J.B. (1999). Rapid Bioassessment Protocols For Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish. Second edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
Barbour, M.T., Stribling, J.B., Karr, J.R. (1995). Multimetric approach for establishing biocriteria and measuring biological condition. In: Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision Making. (eds. W.S. Davis,. and T.P. Simon,) pp. 63-77. Lewis, Boca Raton, Florida.
Barbour, M.T. and Yoder, C.O. (2000). The multimetric approach to bioassessment as used in the United States of America. In: Assessing the biological quality of freshwaters. (Eds. J.R. Wright, D.W. Sutcliffe, and M.T.Furse) pp. 113-124. Freshwater Biological Association, Cumbria, UK.
Bertozzi, T., Adams, M. and Walker, K.F. (2000). Species boundaries in carp gudgeons (Eleotridae: Hypseleotris) from the River Murray, South Australia: evidence for multiple species and extensive hybridization. Marine and Freshwater Research 51: 805-815.
Bunn, S.E., Davies, P.M. and Mosich, T.D. (1999). Ecosystem measures of river health and their response to riparian and catchment degradation. Freshwater Biology 41: 333-345.
Burkhardt, R.W. and Gutreuter, S. (1995). Improving electrofishing catch consistency by standardizing power. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 15: 375-381.
Carter, S. (2003). Sustainable Rivers Audit Data Aggregation Software. Report to the Murray- Darling Basin Commission. Environmental Dynamics Project ED5090.
Chessman, B.C. (1995). Rapid assessment of rivers using macroinvertebrates: A procedure based on habitat-specific sampling, family level identification and a biotic index. Australian Journal of Ecology 20: 122-129.
Chessman, B., Growns, I., Currey, J. and Plunkett-Cole, N. (1999). Predicting diatom communities at the genus level for the rapid biological assessment of rivers. Freshwater Biology 41: 317-331.
Cowx, I.G. (1990). Developments in Electric Fishing. Fishing News Books, Oxford, UK.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 95
Cowx, I.G. and Lamarque, P. (eds) (1990). Fishing with Electricity: Applications in Freshwater Fisheries Management. Fishing News Books, Oxford, UK.
Davies P.E. (1989). Relationships between habitat characteristics and population abundance for brown trout, Salmo trutta L., and blackfish, Gadopsis marmoratus Rich., in Tasmanian streams. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 40: 341–359.
Faragher, R.A. and Rogers, M. (1997). Performance of sampling-gear types in the New South Wales rivers survey. In: Fish and Rivers in Stress: The NSW Rivers Survey. (Eds. J.H. Harris, and P.C Gehrke) pp. 251-268. New South Wales Fisheries and the Cooperative Research Centre for Freshwater Ecology.
Fausch, K.D., Karr, J.R. and Yant, P.R. (1984). Regional application of an index of biotic integrity based on stream communities. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 113: 39- 55.
Gehrke, P.C. (1994). Influence of light intensity and wavelength on phototactic behaviour of larval silver perch Bidyanus bidyanus and golden perch Macquaria ambigua and the effectiveness of light traps. Journal of Fish Biology 44: 741-751.
Growns, J.E, Chessman, B.C., McEvoy, P.K. and Wright, I.A. (1995). Rapid assessment of rivers using macroinvertebrates: case studies in the Nepean River and Blue Mountains, NSW. Australian Journal of Ecology 20: 130-141.
Harris, J.H. (1995). The use of fish in ecological assessments. Australian Journal of Ecology 20: 65-80.
Harris, J.H. and Gehrke, P.C. (eds.) (1997). Fish and Rivers in Stress: The NSW Rivers Survey. New South Wales Fisheries and the Cooperative Research Centre for Freshwater Ecology.
Harris, J.H. and Silveira, R. (1999). Large-scale assessments of river health using an index of biotic integrity with low-diversity fish communities. Freshwater Biology 41: 235-252.
Herbert, B. and Peters, J. (1995). Freshwater Fishes of Far North Queensland. Department of Primary Industries, Queensland.
Holdway, D.A., Brennan, S.E. and Ahokas, J.T. (1995). Short review of selected fish biomarkers of xenobiotic exposure with an example of using fish hepatic mixed-function oxidase. Australian Journal of Ecology 20: 34-44.
Holt, D. and Smith, T. (1979). Post Stratification. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, 142: 33-46.
Humphries, P., King, A.J. and Koehn, J.D. (1999). Fish, flows and flood plains: links between freshwater fishes and their environment in the Murray-Darling River system, Australia. Environmental Biology of Fishes 56: 129-151.
Jackson, L., Kurtz, J. and Fisher, W. (eds) (2000). Evaluation Guidelines for Ecological Indicators. http://www.epa.gov/emap/html/pubs/docs/resdocs/ecoind.html
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 96
Karr, J.R. (1981). Assessments of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries (Bethesda) 6: 21-27.
Karr, J.R. (1991). Biological integrity: A long-neglected aspect of water resource management. Ecological Applications 1: 66-84.
Karr, J.R., Fausch, K.D., Angermeir, P.L., Yant, P.R. and Schlosser, I.J. (1986). Assessing Biological Integrity in running waters: A Method and its Rationale. Illinois Natural History Survey Special Publication 5. Champaign.
Kolz, A.L. (1989). A power transfer theory for electrofishing. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fish and Wildlife Technical Report 22: 1-11.
Kolz, A.L. and Reynolds, J.B. (1989). Determination of power threshold response curves. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fish and Wildlife Technical Report 22: 15-24.
Ladson, A.R., White, L.J., Doolan, J.A.,Finlayson, B.L., Hart, B.T., Lake, P.S. and Tilleard, J.W.(1999) Development and testing of an Index of stream condition for waterway management in Australia. Freshwater Biology 41: 453-468.
Lake, P.S. (1986). Stream communities and the management of streams. In: Stream Protection: The Management of rivers for Instream Uses. (Ed. I.C. Campbell) pp 3-21 Water Studies Centre, Chisholm Institute of Technology, Melbourne.
Murray-Darling Basin Commission (2002). Draft Native Fish Strategy for the Murray-Darling Basin 2002-2012. MDBC, Canberra.
Norris, R.H. and Norris, K.R. (1995). The need for biological assessment of water quality: Australian perspective. Australian Journal of Ecology 20: 1-6.
Norris, R.H. and Thoms, M.C. (1999). What is river health? Freshwater Biology 41: 197-209.
Overton, W.S. and Stehman, S.V. (1996). Desirable design characteristics for long term monitoring of ecological variables. Environmental and Ecological Statistics 3: 349 – 361.
Plafkin, J.L., Barbour, M.T., Porter, K.D., Gross, S.K. and Hughes, R.M. (1989). Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers: Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA/440/4-89/001.
Quinn, G. and Keogh, M. (2002) Experimental Design and Data Analysis for Biologists. University of Cambridge Press Syndicate.
Reid, M.A., Tibby, J.C., Penny, D. and Gell, P.A. (1995). The use of diatoms to assess past and present water quality. Australian Journal of Ecology 20: 57-64.
Resh, V.H., Norris, R.H. and Barbour, M.T. (1995). Design and implementation of rapid assessment approaches for water resource monitoring using benthic macroinvertebrates. Australian Journal of Ecology 20: 108-121.
Scheuder, H.T. and Czaplewski, R.L. (1993). Long-term strategy for the statistical design of a forest health monitoring system. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 27: 81 – 94.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 97
Schiller, C.B. and Harris, J.H. (2001). Native and alien fish. In: Rivers as Ecological Systems: The Murray-Darling Basin. (Ed. W.J Young) pp 229-258. Murray Darling Basin Commission, Canberra.
Simpson, J., Norris, R., Barmuta, L. and Blackman, P. (1996). Australian River Assessment System: National River Health Program Predictive Model manual. URL http://ausrivas.canberra.edu.au/ausrivas
Kennard, M.J., Harch, B.D., Arthington, A.H., Mackay, S.J. and Pusey, B.J. (2001). Freshwater Fish as Indicators of Ecosystem Health In: Southeast Queensland Regional Water Quality Management Strategy: Stage 3. Project DIBM3: Design and Implementation of Baseline Monitoring, Final Report. (Eds. M.J. Smith, and A.W. Storey)
Swales, S. and Harris, J.H. (1994). The Expert Panel Assessment Method (EPAM): A New Tool for Determining Environmental Flows in Regulated Rivers. In: The Ecological Basis for River Management (Eds. D. Harper and A. Ferguson,) pp125 - 134. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester.
Thoms, M., Suter, P., Roberts, J., Koehn, J., Jones, G., Hillman, T. and Close, A. (2000). Report of the River Murray Scientific Panel on Environmental Flows. Murray Darling Basin Commission, Canberra.
Urquhart, N.S., Paulsen, S.G., Larsen, D.P., (1998). Monitoring for policy-relevant regional trends over time’. Ecological Applications 8(2): 246-57.
Whittington, J., Coysh, J., Davies, P., Dyer, F., Gawne, B., Lawrence, I., Liston, P., Norris, R., Robinson, W. and M. Thoms (2001). Development of a Framework for the Sustainable Rivers Audit. Technical Report 8/2001. Cooperative Research Centre for Freshwater Ecology, Canberra.
Whitton, B.A. and Kelly, M.G. (1995). Use of algae and other plants to assess past and present water quality. Australian Journal of Ecology 20: 45-56.
Wright, I.A., Chessman, B.C., Fairweather, P.G. and Benson, L.J. (1995). Measuring the impact of sewage effluent on the macroinvertebrate community of an upland stream: The effect of different levels of taxonomic resolution and quantification. Australian Journal of Ecology 20: 142-149.
Zar, J. H. (1984) Biostatistical Analysis. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 98
10 Appendices APPENDIX 1. Location, altitude and catchment area of the 92 assessment sites sampled in the Pilot SRA.
River siteID VPZ latitude longitude altitude (m) catch.area (km2) Condamine 12015 Depositional -29.3606 147.613 129.1 76180.9 Condamine 12017 Depositional -29.1497 148.0076 151.6 76105 Condamine SRA0005 Depositional -28.58 148.2 173.1 74921 Condamine SRA0006 Depositional -28.9 147.82 144.7 75397 Condamine SRA0007 Depositional -27.28 148.6 242 370 Condamine SRA0008 Depositional -28.1 148.62 191.1 71604 Condamine SRA0009 Depositional -28.52 148.27 174.8 74857 Condamine SRA0012 Depositional -27.11 148.76 274 141.3 Condamine SRA0014 Depositional -27.23 148.77 240 2090 Condamine SRA0022 Depositional -27.81 147.33 200 2042 Condamine SRA0023 Depositional -28.92 146.88 127 20360 Condamine SRA0024 Depositional -27.31 147.32 255 3921 Condamine SRA0039 Source -27.87 151.62 419 5989.5 Condamine SRA0040 Source -28.2 151.99 418 1465 Condamine SRA0041 Source -28.22 152.25 511 142.023 Condamine SRA0013 Transport -26.79 149.21 266 801.2 Condamine SRA0015 Transport -26.9 149.83 268 4590 Condamine SRA0017 Transport -26.61 149.11 307 52 Condamine SRA0018 Transport -26.85 148.42 304 620 Condamine SRA0020 Transport -26.51 149.39 311 541.3 Condamine SRA0030 Transport -26.33 150.4 314 451.47 Lachlan 12002 Depositional -33.394 148.091 233 20335 Lachlan 12003 Depositional -33.4071 147.7775 218 1751 Lachlan 12004 Depositional -33.1447 148.0207 258 248 Lachlan 12005 Depositional -33.1275 148.221 301 347 Lachlan 12010 Depositional -33.166 147.139 185 10723 Lachlan 12011 Depositional -33.138 147.6787 213 590 Lachlan 12012 Depositional -33.1967 148.1565 280.1 854 Lachlan 12019 Depositional -33.1774 144.9686 97.5 66512 Lachlan 12021 Depositional -33.085 146.929 173.8 19518 Lachlan 12025 Depositional -33.159 146.467 152.4 35790 Lachlan 12026 Depositional -33.2205 146.4151 153 46664 Lachlan 12027 Depositional -33.345 146.076 133.5 42543 Lachlan 12028 Depositional -33.37 145.658 120.6 56385 Lachlan 12029 Depositional -34.221 144.454 75 68669 Lachlan 12030 Depositional -34.234 144.245 74 68977 Lachlan 12031 Depositional -34.087 144.64 81 66168 Lachlan 12006 Source -33.6018 149.204 798.3 220 Lachlan 12009 Source -34.035 149.6 780 184 Lachlan 12036 Source -34.229 149.554 718 107.3 Lachlan 12037 Source -34.306 149.598 767.9 75.5 Lachlan 12038 Source -33.98 149.167 371 3563
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 99
Appendix 1 (cont.). Location, altitude and catchment area of the 92 assessment sites sampled in the Pilot SRA. River siteID VPZ latitude longitude altitude (m) catch.area (km2) Lachlan 12000 Transport -33.596 148.5843 280.7 2300 Lachlan 12001 Transport -33.574 148.829 355.7 1665 Lachlan 12007 Transport -34.0157 148.8216 301 1826 Lachlan 12008 Transport -33.8636 148.6735 279 12182 Lachlan 12018 Transport -34.102 148.888 351.9 243 Lower Murray A11 Depositional -35.2201 139.4016 2.5 1162609 Lower Murray A12 Depositional -35.0507 139.3216 5 1161756 Lower Murray A13 Depositional -35.0318 139.366 5.2 1161596 Lower Murray A14 Depositional -34.9342 139.2763 5.3 1161157 Lower Murray A31 Source -34.4514 140.5291 18.9 1121198 Lower Murray A32 Source -34.2245 140.7359 11.8 1120554 Lower Murray A33 Source -34.045 140.8218 19.3 1110681 Lower Murray A34 Source -34.0145 140.888 14.7 1110621 Lower Murray A35 Source -33.9955 140.9044 15 1110601 Lower Murray A36 Source -33.9722 140.8923 15.4 1110581 Lower Murray A37 Source -33.9686 140.9019 15.5 1110555 Lower Murray A38 Source -33.9849 140.9722 18.7 1110097 Lower Murray A41 Source -34.2103 141.5341 40 1095801 Lower Murray A42 Source -34.1659 141.4568 33 1096111 Lower Murray A43 Source -34.1364 141.41 29 1096506 Lower Murray A44 Source -34.0613 141.0228 19 1109681 Lower Murray A21 Transport -34.878 139.6421 6.7 1155242 Lower Murray A22 Transport -34.708 139.5731 7 1154509 Lower Murray A23 Transport -34.6193 139.6125 8.5 1154001 Lower Murray A24 Transport -34.3641 139.6297 9.4 1151450 Lower Murray A25 Transport -34.1057 139.6756 10.4 1147895 Lower Murray A26 Transport -34.0641 139.8391 10.6 1131110 Lower Murray A27 Transport -34.0632 139.8494 10.6 1131105 Lower Murray A28 Transport -34.1823 140.0714 14 1125558 Ovens VIC04 Depositional -36.19 146.17 140 420 Ovens VIC05 Depositional -36.03 146.38 145 215 Ovens VIC06 Depositional -36.19 146.27 170 365.5 Ovens VIC18 Depositional -36.22 146.21 145 5275 Ovens VIC19 Depositional -36.1 146.14 135 6685.11 Ovens VIC20 Depositional -36.14 146.16 135 6550.61 Ovens VIC21 Depositional -36.05 146.12 125 6741 Ovens VIC01 Source -36.58 146.34 530 Ovens VIC02 Source -36.48 146.37 300 196 Ovens VIC07 Source -37 146.48 460 Ovens VIC08 Source -36.56 146.44 390 352 Ovens VIC09 Source -36.58 146.46 410 200 Ovens VIC11 Source -37.05 146.34 820 57.6 Ovens VIC12 Source -37.04 146.29 660 110 Ovens VIC03 Transport -36.51 146.33 350 181 Ovens VIC10 Transport -36.51 146.41 305 503.2 Ovens VIC13 Transport -36.45 146.25 235 673 Ovens VIC14 Transport -36.35 146.45 220 1421.5 Ovens VIC15 Transport -36.32 146.4 200 3173 Ovens VIC16 Transport -36.26 146.31 170 3517.3 Ovens VIC17 Transport -36.24 146.28 155 3580
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 100
APPENDIX 2. Selection procedure for ‘Best Available’ sites.
Protocol for the selection of reference sites for the fish theme of the Pilot Sustainable Rivers Audit
A procedure has been identified drawing on discussions with key experts and then discussion by the ISRAG and the SRA Taskforce. Both groups were happy with the basic process identified, which is summarised in the diagram below:
Murray-Darling Basin
1) Stratification of MDB based on fish community composition (= ecological regions) 2) Direct selection of X sites thought to be of reference quality in each identified ecological region
3) Apply the rating system for human disturbance to all sites identified. 4) Calculate a score by multiplying the influence weighting by the disturbance
5) Select the required number of reference sites starting with those with the lowest disturbance value
In undertaking the process of selecting reference sites each State will need to use their best available knowledge and commonsense in applying the following procedure.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 101
STEP BY STEP GUIDE TO REFERENCE SITE SELECTION FOR FISH
6. Determine which ecological regions are represented in your state. A map of the proposed ecological regions is attached. There are 6 proposed ecological regions including: • North Basin source VPZ (montane) • North Basin transportational VPZ (slopes) • North Basin depositional VPZ (lowland) • South Basin source VPZ (montane) • South Basin transportational VPZ (slopes) • South Basin depositional VPZ (lowland)
7. Determine total number (N) of reference sites required for each ecological region from Table A2-1 below, and which states have land covered by each ecological region.
Table A2-1. Number of fish reference sites per ecological region
Total number NSW Vic QLD SA North Basin source VPZ (montane) 10 North Basin transportational VPZ (slopes) 10 North Basin depositional VPZ (lowland) 15 South Basin source VPZ (montane) 10 South Basin transportational VPZ (slopes) 10 South Basin depositional VPZ (lowland) 20
8. Each state should then undertake a desktop process to identify sites in each ecological region that are thought to be near to reference condition quality (this may rely heavily on regional staff identifying areas in good condition or States may use whatever data they have at their disposal like ISC or NLWRA data etc)
9. The potential site locations selected should then be assessed for suitability as a reference site using the criteria below and the table at Appendix 1: Discard site if: (c) Accessibility – The site is not possible to access (Note: every reasonable effort should be made to access sites or repeated rejection of sites could compromise the random layout and the picture of river health gained from the overall assessment) or permission cannot be gained to access the site. (d) Sampleability – The site/reach is not able to be sampled using the agreed fish protocol, and/or the site is dry/ephemeral.
Assessment of each potential site against Table A2-1 should result in a score for each site.
10. List all of the potential reference sites in ascending order of their scores so that the ones in better condition are listed at the top of the list. You will also need to make an educated decision about sites that have arrived at the same score in different ways (i.e. is a couple of high influence scores better or worse than all moderate influence scores, etc.).
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 102
Table A2-2. Draft rating system for human disturbance at potential reference sites
Disturbance High influence = 3 Medium influence = 2 Low influence = 1 Manufacturing Industrial areas (e.g. Substantial industrial areas in No industrial areas in Industry factories, mining, power the catchment but not close to catchment (small plants) adjacent to the site the site catchments) or industrial Weighting = 2 or close upstream areas remote from the site (<20km?); industrial and a minuscule proportion discharges enter the stream of catchment area (large catchments) Urbanization Site lies within or close Substantial urban areas in the No urban areas in downstream of high-density catchment but not close to the catchment (small Weighting = 2 urban area; urban drainage site; or low-density urban catchments) or urban areas or sewage discharge enters areas only near the site, remote from the site and a the stream without direct drainage or minuscule proportion of discharge catchment area (large catchments) Irrigated Cropping Large irrigated cropping Substantial cropping areas in No cropping in catchment areas (e.g. horticulture, the catchment but not close to (small catchments) or Weighting = 2 cotton, rice farms) adjacent the site cropping remote from the to the site or close upstream; site and a minuscule tailwater drainage enters the proportion of catchment stream area (large catchments) Dryland cropping Large dryland cropping Substantial dryland cropping No dryland cropping in areas (e.g. wheat, oilseeds areas in the catchment but not catchment (small Weighting = 1 farms) adjacent to the site or close to the site catchments) or cropping close upstream; remote from the site and a minuscule proportion of catchment area (large catchments Grazing Riparian zone intensively Riparian zone ungrazed or No grazing in catchment grazed; faeces, pug-marks, lightly grazed, but substantial (small catchments) or Weighting = 1 eroded access tracks, or riparian grazing near site, grazing areas remote from chewing down of vegetation close upstream or through the site and a small conspicuously present much of catchment proportion of catchment area (large catchments) Recreation Clear evidence of No clear evidence of Site unlikely to be accessed Weighting = 1 recreational use, e.g. people recreation but accessibility for recreation present, trampling, litter, suggests some use is likely fishing lines Water extraction Large irrigation districts Only localised irrigation Little or no extractive use upstream of the site; total upstream of the site; total upstream of the site Weighting = 2 flow volume greatly flow volume not greatly reduced reduced but substantial portion of low flow may be extracted Flow regulation Seasonal or diel pattern of Upstream impoundment No significant upstream flows greatly altered by alters diel or seasonal flow impoundment Weighting = 3 upstream storage and pattern, but unregulated release patterns tributary flows result in substantial normalisation Hypolimnetic Bottom-release dam Bottom-release dam No significant upstream release <150km upstream; summer upstream but >150km distant impoundment or upstream temperatures substantially from site; seasonal impoundment with Weighting = 3 below natural; winter temperature regime only effective multi-level offtake temperatures may be moderately altered elevated
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 103
Table A2-2 (cont) Artificial barriers High barriers <150km Barriers are likely to be Any barriers are upstream downstream of the site, affecting migration to/from and remote from the site. Weighting = 3 likely to be severely the site but they are low or constraining fish migration distant from the site Alien fish Alien fish dominate the site Alien fish present but do not No alien fish at the site Weighting = 2 in terms of either numbers dominate or biomass Alien plants Riparian zone has lost most Riparian zone retains native Riparian and aquatic or all of original tree and trees and shrubs but vegetation not cleared. Weighting = 2 shrub cover; riparian and substantial alien vegetation Little or no alien plant aquatic vegetation present. Aquatic plants invasion dominated by alien species predominantly native Geomorphic Poor geomorphic condition Moderate geomorphic Good geomorphic change (River Styles™ or similar condition (River Styles™ or condition (River Styles™ Weighting = 3 method) similar method) or similar method)
11. Liaise with any others States that have sites in the same ecological region so that your lists of potential sites can be compared and/or merged. Decide which sites should be selected from the combined lists using the following principles as a guide: Attempt to choose the sites in best quality over the ecological region instead of being rigid about sharing the sites equally between states. Attempt to place the sites so that all natural habitat types in that ecological region are represented.
12. During the desktop selection of sites, a greater number of sites should be identified than the ultimate number requiring sampling so that field teams have “backup” sites should any sites not be accessible or sampling cannot be undertaken for some other unforeseen reason.
Other considerations/requirements: A log must be kept of the procedure. This will be useful, not only to justify site selection, but to provide information, such as the scores for each site, that can be used to analyse the effectiveness of reference sites.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 104
APPENDIX 3. Location of the 88 ‘Best Available’ sites sampled in the Pilot SRA and which valleys they were intended as reference for. siteID River Basin latitude longitude Ref site for Ref site for which bioregion which VPZ? valleys? SRA0019 Warrego River North -27.26 145.92 Depositional Condamine SRA0025 Warrego River North -28.65 145.58 Depositional Condamine SRA0026 Paroo River North -27.18 145.35 Depositional Condamine SRA0027 Paroo River North -28.7 144.78 Depositional Condamine SRA0028 Paroo River North -26.8 145.35 Depositional Condamine SRA0029 Warrego River North -26.28 146.32 Depositional Condamine SRA0031 Condamine River North -27.31 148.85 Depositional Condamine SRA0032 Langlo River North -26.12 145.66 Depositional Condamine SRA0033 Warrego River North -25.79 146.59 Depositional Condamine SRA0021 Stock Dam North -25.87 147.6 Source Condamine SRA0034 One Mile Creek North -25.06 148.03 Source Condamine SRA0035 Marlong Creek North -25.03 147.9 Source Condamine SRA0036 Baldrock Creek North -28.83 151.94 Source Condamine SRA0037 Severn River North -28.84 151.65 Source Condamine SRA0042 Condamine River North -28.29 152.36 Source Condamine SRA0003 Branch Creek North -26.49 150.68 Transport Condamine SRA0004 Burraburri Creek North -26.51 150.97 Transport Condamine SRA0010 Condamine River North -27.08 149.78 Transport Condamine SRA0011 Condamine River North -26.98 150.11 Transport Condamine SRA0016 Myall Creek North -27.2 151.51 Transport Condamine SRA0038 Maranoa River North -26.47 147.97 Transport Condamine R11 River Murray (Swanport) South -34.9833 139.3333 Depositional Lower Murray/ Lachlan/Ovens R21 River Murray (shacks) South -34.8667 139.5 Depositional Lower Murray/ Lachlan/Ovens R31 River Murray (Katarapko) South -34.25 140.7 Depositional Lower Murray/ Lachlan/Ovens R32 Pike River South -34.4333 140.4333 Depositional Lower Murray/ Lachlan/Ovens R33 Monoman River South -34 141 Depositional Lower Murray/ Lachlan/Ovens R34 Chowilla Creek South -34 141 Depositional Lower Murray/ Lachlan/Ovens R35 Chowilla Creek South -34 141 Depositional Lower Murray/ Lachlan/Ovens R36 River Murray (Camp25) South -34 141 Depositional Lower Murray/ Lachlan/Ovens 12014 Namoi River North -30.7421 150.0703 Depositional Condamine 12032 Murrumbidgee River South -34.7174 143.3839 Depositional Lachlan/Ovens/ Lower Murray 12033 Murray River South -35.822 145.4668 Depositional Lachlan/Ovens/ Lower Murray 12035 Murray River South -34.1327141.8394 Depositional Lachlan/Ovens/ Lower Murray 12039 Barwon River North -29.067 148.8316 Depositional Condamine 12041 Namoi River North -30.7421 150.0703 Depositional Condamine 12051 Murray River South -35.822 145.4668 Depositional Lachlan/Ovens/ Lower Murray
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 105
Appendix 3 (cont). Location of the 88 ‘Best Available’ sites sampled in the Pilot SRA and which valleys they were intended as reference for. siteID River Basin latitude longitude Ref site for Ref site for which bioregion which VPZ? valley? 12052 Murrumbidgee River South -34.5602 145.9339 Depositional Lachlan/Ovens/ Lower Murray 12053 Murrumbidgee River South -34.8051 146.6556 Depositional Lachlan/Ovens/ Lower Murray 12054 Namoi River North -30.2529 149.3697 Depositional Condamine 12057 Bogan River North -31.6259 147.1793 Depositional Condamine 12058 Paroo River North -29.8351 144.123 Depositional Condamine 12059 Bogan River North -30.2633 146.7538 Depositional Condamine 12061 Murray River South -34.1327 141.8394 Depositional Lachlan/Ovens/ Lower Murray 12063 Darling River South -33.8501 142.0053 Depositional Lachlan/Ovens/ Lower Murray 12016 Mole River North -29.018 151.6015 Source Condamine 12022 Lachlan River South -34.4188 149.0947 Source Lachlan/Ovens 12023 Goodradigbee River South -35.1465 148.6829 Source Lachlan/Ovens 12024 Abercrombie River South -33.9568 149.3202 Source Lachlan/Ovens 12034 Murrumbidgee River South -34.9157 148.5468 Source Lachlan/Ovens 12043 MacDonald River North -30.6233 151.1064 Source Condamine 12046 Mole River North -29.018 151.6015 Source Condamine 12048 Deepwater River North -29.2935 151.922 Source Condamine 12049 Goodradigbee River South -35.1465 148.6829 Source Lachlan/Ovens 12050 Lachlan River South -34.4188 149.0947 Source Lachlan/Ovens 12060 Goobarragandra River South -35.4184 148.4375 Source Lachlan/Ovens 12062 Murray River South -36.2366 148.0461 Source Lachlan/Ovens 12069 Turon River North -33.0747 149.6491 Source Condamine 12013 Landry Lagoon North -30.9356 150.2161 Transport Condamine 12020 Beardy River North -29.2195 151.3827 Transport Condamine 12040 Gwydir River North -29.4734 150.0786 Transport Condamine 12042 Macintyre River North -28.8914 150.7768 Transport Condamine 12044 Castlereagh River North -31.8305 149.177 Transport Condamine 12045 Warrah Creek North -31.6674 150.6426 Transport Condamine 12047 Beardy River North -29.2195 151.3827 Transport Condamine 12055 Horton River North -29.8354 150.3526 Transport Condamine 12056 Myall Creek North -29.7992 150.5832 Transport Condamine 12064 Adelong Creek South -35.1061 148.0397 Transport Lachlan/Ovens 12065 Lachlan River South -33.5677 148.3888 Transport Lachlan/Ovens 12066 Boorowa River South -34.2967 148.782 Transport Lachlan/Ovens 12067 Tumut River South -35.1234 148.2055 Transport Lachlan/Ovens 12068 Lachlan River South -33.6749 148.5523 Transport Lachlan/Ovens vicref11 Ovens River South -36.11 146.14 Depositional Ovens/Lachlan/ Lower Murray vicref12 Sevens Creek South -36.35 145.28 Depositional Ovens/Lachlan/ Lower Murray vicref13 Broken South -36.26 145.32 Depositional Ovens/Lachlan/ Lower Murray vicref15 Broken Creek South -36.01 144.59 Depositional Ovens/Lachlan/ Lower Murray vicref16 Lindsay South -34.07 147.06 Depositional Ovens/Lachlan/ Lower Murray vicref17 Mullaroo Creek South -34.07 147.08 Depositional Ovens/Lachlan/ Lower Murray
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 106
Appendix 3 (cont). Location of the 88 ‘Best Available’ sites sampled in the Pilot SRA and which valleys they were intended as reference for. siteID River Basin latitude longitude Ref site for Ref site for which bioregion which VPZ? valley? vicref01 Watchbed Creek South -36.52 147.19 Source Ovens/Lachlan vicref02 Swindlers Creek South -36.58 147.09 Source Ovens/Lachlan vicref03 Morass Creek South -36.52 147.42 Source Ovens/Lachlan vicref04 Steavenson River South -37.28 145.44 Source Ovens/Lachlan vicref05 Acheron River South -37.31 145.4 Source Ovens/Lachlan vicref10 Yea River South -37.18 145.28 Source Ovens/Lachlan vicref06 Ryans Creek South -36.41 146.12 Transport Ovens/Lachlan vicref07 Kiewa River South -36.35 147.06 Transport Ovens/Lachlan vicref08 Mitta Mitta River South -36.28 147.2 Transport Ovens/Lachlan vicref09 King River South -36.4 146.25 Transport Ovens/Lachlan vicref14 Boosey Creek South -36.06 145.44 Transport Ovens/Lachlan
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 107
APPENDIX 4. Sample sizes recommended for sampling fish and reporting at the river valley and VPZ scale for the SRA Pilot study.
Wayne Robinson, CSU, Albury.
Data from the NSW River Survey and the IMEF in the Lachlan River and data from the Murrumbidgee River were analysed. Indexes assessed in detail included percent native fish by abundance, number of native species, raw abundance, log transformed abundance and arcsin transformed percent native fish. Various power analysis were performed using traditional formulas and modern bootstrapping methods involving parametric and non parametric tests. There was considerable variability in sample size determinations attributable to variability between the index being used, differences between data sets, between dates and between process zones. Of all the indexes tried, percent native species stood out as the logical choice because; it gave more consistent results (lower relative variability); gave generally lower number of samples required in the power analysis, and; it is somewhat independent of sample intensity (ie. Backpack Vs Boat electrofishing Vs Net, compared to abundance measures). Generally speaking the results returned were similar using either parametric or non-parametric tests or using traditional formulas or newer bootstrapping techniques. A minimum sample size of 20 was determined to be necessary within any VPZ for acceptable power of at least one of the indexes. However the number could be refined if the population is considered to be a known and finite size, the method and results summary is detailed below.
Using the NSW River Survey Data from the Lachlan River the standard deviation of the percent native species was calculated for the Montane (~ Source VPZ), Slopes (~ Transportational VPZ) and Lowland (~ Depositional VPZ) zones. The sample size required to estimate the true average percent native species within each zone and across the whole river valley was calculated using the formula of Zar (1984). There is a finite and countable number of reaches available to be sampled in each VPZ of the SRA (Table 1). If it is assumed one site represents a reach, then the SRA will actually be sampling a known proportion of the population of reaches, hence the calculations can be corrected using the formula of Cochran (1977).
Table A4-1: Proportion of Catchment area and total number of reaches in each Valley Process Zone for four SRA Pilot River Valleys.
River Valley Source Transportational Depositional Condamine Area 7% 34% 59% Lachlan Area 11% 9% 80% Lower Murray Area 100% Ovens Area 48% 32% 21%
Condamine Reaches 106 308 613 Lachlan Reaches 237 63 396 Lower Murray Reaches 74 Ovens Reaches 194 43 45
The samples sizes were determined to allow calculation of half of the 90% and 95% confidence intervals of percent native species to within 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16,18 and 20% (Table A4- 2).
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 108
Table A4-2. Sample sizes required to report % Native Fish with confidence at various reporting scales in the Lachlan River using the NSW River Survey Data. Bound is width of half confidence interval. For example to report at the River Valley Scale only with 90% confidence and be accurate to +/- 20%, a sample size of 20 is required. Standard deviations used were Source = 0.442, Transportational = 0.308, Depositional = 0.329, Whole River Valley = 0.369.
River Valley 0.05 530 309 183 119 82.6 60.7 47 38.1 31.7 26.2 River Valley 0.1 481 251 141 88.8 60.7 45.2 34.5 28 23.4 19.6
River Valley +VPZ 0.05 605 447 322 237 180 140 112 92.4 77.1 66.7 River Valley +VPZ 0.1 574 393 268 190 141 107 85.6 69.1 58.3 49.6
Using RIVER SURVEY standard deviations
Bound (%) -> 2468101214161820 Reporting Scale Confidence Interval Source 95% 221 183 143 110 85 67 54 44 37 32 Transportational 95% 61 55 47 40 33 28 24 21 18 16 Depositional 95% 324 210 133 89 63 47 36 29 24 20
The analysis was then re-run for all VPZ's and river valleys to be sampled in the Pilot with the standard deviation set to 0.3 for individual VPZ's as most of the available data had standard deviations within 0.300 +/- 0.03 (Table A4-3). The sample sizes for the river valleys were calculated using 0.40 which is slightly higher than the Lachlan Data value and should result in a slightly conservative estimate (ie. slightly better than calculated power) (Table A4-4).
Table A4-3. Standard Deviations of the percent Native fish for several sets of trial data.
Study River VPZ Year Standard Deviation of equivalent percent native fish IMEF Lachlan Lowland 1997 0.293 Lachlan Lowland 1998 0.328 NSW River Survey Lachlan Montane 0.442 Lachlan Slopes 0.3077 Lachlan Lowland 0.329 Upper Murrumbidgee Murrumbidgee Upland 1997 0.286 Survey Murrumbidgee Upland 1998 0.401
NSW River Survey Lachlan River Valley 0.367
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 109
Table A4-4. Number of sites to be sampled within each Valley Process Zone for fish in the Pilot SRA study to estimate the mean percent native species with confidence. Shaded cells are recommended sample sizes to estimate the true percent native species to within +/- 20% with 90% confidence and power of 0.8.
Half Width of 95% Interval Half Width of 90% Interval 4 8 12 16 20 4 8 12 16 20 Reporting scale Condamine Source 83 51 32 22 16 76 42 25 17 12 Tranportational 169 73 39 25 18 142 56 30 18 13 Depositional 230 83 42 25 18 183 61 31 19 13 River Valley 398 143 70 43 29 317 106 52 31 21 River Valley + VPZ 484 209 115 74 54 403 161 88 56 40
Ovens Source 128 65 37 24 17 112 51 28 18 13 Tranportational 39 31 23 18 14 38 28 19 14 11 Depositional 41 32 24 18 14 39 28 20 15 11 River Valley 198 105 61 39 28 176 83 46 29 20 River Valley + VPZ 210 130 86 62 47 191 109 69 49 37
Lachlan Source 145 69 38 25 17 125 54 29 18 13 Tranportational 55 39 27 20 15 52 34 22 16 12 Depositional 191 77 40 25 18 157 58 30 19 13 River Valley 337 134 68 42 29 277 101 51 31 21 River Valley + VPZ 393 187 107 72 52 336 148 83 55 40
Murray Depositional 63 43 29 20 16 59 36 24 16 12
At the Fish workshop (MDBC December 2001) it was recognised that there was a computational advantage in sampling a minimum of 3 sites per Valley Process Zone and a minimum of 20 sites per River Valley. So the recommended number of sites (= reaches) to be sampled in each VPZ for the SRA Pilot study were calculated using sample sizes recommended in Table A4-4, stratified by the catchment areas listed in Table A4-1 and set to a minimum of 3 per VPZ and 20 per River Valley (Table A4-5).
Table A4-5. Recommended site numbers for fish component of SRA.
Source Transportational Depositional Total Condamine 3 6 12 21 Lachlan 3 3 16 22 Lower Murray . . 20 20 Ovens 10 4 7 21
References (APPENDIX 4)
Cochran, W. G. (1977) Sampling Techniques. 3rd Edition John Wiley, New York.
Zar, J. H. (1984) Biostatistical Analysis. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 110
APPENDIX 5. Agreed species names list and codes. Species Common name(s) Gen code Sp code Afurcagobius tamarensis Tamar River Goby AFU TAM Ambassis agassizii Olive perchlet AMB AGA Anguilla australis Short-finned eel ANG AUS Anguilla reinhardtii Long-finned eel ANG REI Amoya bifrenatus Bridled goby ARE BIF Atherinosoma microstoma Small-mouthed hardyhead ATH MIC Bidyanus bidyanus Silver perch BID BID Carassius auratus Goldfish CAR AUR Craterocephalus amniculus Darling River hardyhead CRA AMM Craterocephalus fluviatilis Murray hardyhead CRA FLU Craterocephalus stercusmuscarum fulvus Flyspecked hardyhead (southern form) CRA STE Cyprinus carpio Carp CYP CAR Cyprinus x Carassius Carp/goldfish hybrid CYP HYB Gadopsis bispinosus Two-spined blackfish GAD BIS Gadopsis marmoratus River blackfish GAD MAR Galaxias brevipinnis Climbing galaxias GAL BRE Galaxias fuscus Barred galaxias GAL FUS Galaxias maculatus Common galaxias GAL MAC Galaxias olidus Mountain galaxias GAL OLI Galaxias rostratus Flat-headed galaxias GAL ROS Galaxias truttaceus Spotted galaxias GAL TRU Gambusia holbrooki Eastern Gambusia GAM HOL Geotria australis Pouched lamprey GEO AUS Hypseleotris spp. Carp Gudgeons HYP SPP Leiopotherapon unicolor Spangled perch LEI UNI Liza argentea Flat-tail mullet LIZ ARG Macquaria ambigua Golden perch MAC AMB Macquaria australasica Macquarie perch MAC AUS Macquaria colonorum Estuary perch MAC COL Maccullochella macquariensis Trout cod MAC MAC Maccullochella peelii peelii Murray cod MAC PEE Melanotaenia fluviatilis Murray-Darling rainbowfish MEL FLU Misgurnus anguillicaudatus Oriental weatherloach MIS ANG Mogurnda adspersa Southern purple-spotted gudgeon MOG ADS Mordacia mordax Shortheaded lamprey MOR MOR Mugil cephalus Striped mullet, Sea mullet MUG CEP Myxus elongatus Sand mullet MYX ELO Nannoperca australis Southern pygmy perch NAN AUS Nannoperca obscura Yarra pygmy perch NAN OBS Nematalosa erebi Bony herring NEM ERE Neosilurus hyrtlii Hyrtl's tandan NEO HYR Oncorhynchus mykiss Rainbow trout ONC MYK Oreochromis mossambicus Tilapia ORE MOS Perca fluviatilis Redfin perch PER FLU Philypnodon grandiceps Flathead gudgeon PHI GRA Philypnodon species 1 Dwarf Flathead Gudgeon PHI SP1 Porochilus rendahli Rendahl’s tandan POR REN Pseudaphritis urvillii Congolli; Tupong PSE URV Pseudogobius olorum Blue-spot Goby, Swan River Goby PSE OLO Retropinna semoni Australian smelt RET SEM Rutilus rutilus Roach RUT RUT Salvelinus fontinalis Brook char SAL FON Salmo salar Atlantic salmon SAL SAL Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 111
Species Common name(s) Gen code Sp code Salmo trutta Brown trout SAL TRU Tandanus tandanus Freshwater catfish TAN TAN Tinca tinca Tench TIN TIN
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 112
APPENDIX 6. Data Massaging notes.
SA Fish data: • Site A11 had two independent sets of records for bait trap. There were no records for R36, so the second data set was manually changed to R36 after consultation with Jason Higham (SARDI). • Unknown Craterocephalus species added to CRASTE on advice from Jason Higham (SARDI) • PHIGRA = PHIGRA, PHISPP and PHISP1 combined • CYPCAR = CYPCAR + CYPHYB combined • CARAUR changed to CYPCAR in Data sheet 8 for biomass calculations only • Sites A41 and A42 have only electrofishing records, and no habitat details
Vic Fish Data: • HYPKLU added to HYPSPP • GALOLI=GALOLI + GALSPP+GALSP2+GALSP2, • GALsp2 changed to GALOLI in all sheets • All MACSPP (n=5) changed to MACPEE as the sites all had MACPEE positively identified anyway. All MACSPP were only observed. • GADSPP changed to GADBIS or GADMAR according to which species was also caught and most abundant at the site. • TROUTSPP changed to ONCMYK or SALTRU according to which species was also caught and most abundant at the site. When neither was recorded a guess was made based on water temperatures and SALTRU tending to occur in cooler sites, usually SALTRU. • Secchi depths recorded as “>x” recoded as “x”
QLD Fish Data: • HYPKLU and HYPSP added to HYPSPP • AMBAGA=AMBAGA+AMBSPP
NSW Fish Data: • GALOLI=GALOLI + GALROS • Change siteid to Mainidmain to stop from overwriting data where a site may have been sampled twice. Mainidmain is unique to each site/date. • Deleted site with mainidmain 102 from condition calculations as there is no effort data for that site.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 113
APPENDIX 7. Maximum Species Richness Line definitions used in the Pilot SRA. lscore11=log10(score11); if alt <1000 then do; if alt >200 then metric1=score1/((9/800)*(1000-alt)); else metric1=score1/9;end; else metric1=.; if metric1>1 then metric1=1; if alt <1000 then do; if alt >300 then metric3=score3/((5/700)*(1000-alt)); else metric3=score3/5;end; else metric3=.; if metric3>1 then metric3=1; if alt <1000 then do; if alt >100 then metric4=score4/((4/900)*(1000-alt)); else metric4=score4/5;end; else metric4=.; if metric4>1 then metric4=1; if alt <1000 then do; if alt >300 then metric5=score5/((3/700)*(1000-alt)); else metric5=score5/3;end; else metric5=.; if metric5>1 then metric5=1; if alt <1000 then do; if alt >350 then metric11=lscore11/((2.7/650)*(1000- alt)); else metric11=lscore11/2.7;end; else metric11=.; if metric5>1 then metric5=1;
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 114
APPENDIX 8. Guild membership of Murray-Darling fish species. The following table was compiled by the Fish Reference Group for the Pilot SRA.
Scientific name Habitat Guild Trophic Guild Migratory Guild Mordacia mordax benthic/pool macro carnivore Basin Geotria australis benthic/pool macro carnivore Basin Anguilla australis benthic/pool mega carnivore Basin Anguilla reinhardtii benthic/pool mega carnivore Basin Gadopsis marmoratus benthic/pool macro carnivore local Gadopsis bispinosus benthic/pool micro carnivore local Galaxias maculatus pelagic/pool macro carnivore river valley Galaxias rostratus pelagic/pool macro carnivore river valley Galaxias olidus benthic/pool macro carnivore local Galaxias fuscus benthic/pool macro carnivore local Pseudaphritis urvillii benthic/pool mega carnivore river valley Maccullochella peelii peelii benthic/pool mega carnivore river valley Maccullochella macquariensis benthic/pool mega carnivore river valley Macquaria ambigua benthic/pool mega carnivore river valley Macquaria australasica benthic/pool macro carnivore local Macquaria colonorum benthic/pool mega carnivore river valley Bidyanus bidyanus benthic/pool omnivore Basin Nannoperca australis benthic/pool macro carnivore local Nannoperca obscura benthic/pool macro carnivore local Retropinna semoni pelagic/pool macro carnivore river valley Tandanus tandanus benthic/pool mega carnivore river valley Nematalosa erebi pelagic/pool herbivore/detritovore river valley Porochilus rendahli benthic/pool macro carnivore local Neosilurus hyrtlii benthic/pool macro carnivore local Mogurnda adspersa benthic/pool macro carnivore local Hypseleotris spp benthic/pool macro carnivore local Leiopotherapon unicolor benthic/pool macro carnivore Basin Philypnodon grandiceps benthic/pool macro carnivore local Philypnodon sp. nov. benthic/pool macro carnivore local Pseudogobius olorum benthic/pool omnivore local Tasmanogobius lastii benthic/pool omnivore local Favonigobius tamarensis benthic/pool omnivore local Melanotaenia fluviatilis pelagic/pool omnivore local Craterocephalus amniculus pelagic/pool macro carnivore local Craterocephalus stercusmuscarum fulvus pelagic/pool macro carnivore local Craterocephalus fluviatilis pelagic/pool macro carnivore river valley Ambassis agassizii pelagic/pool macro carnivore river valley Acanthopagrus butcheri benthic/pool macro carnivore local Argyrosomus hololepidotus pelagic/pool mega carnivore river valley Galaxias brevipinnis benthic//pool macro carnivore local (in MDB) Galaxias truttaceus benthic//pool macro carnivore local (in MDB)
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 115
Appendix 8 (cont). Guild membership of Murray-Darling fish species as agreed to by Fish Reference Group.
Scientific name Habitat Guild Trophic Guild Migratory Guild Salmo trutta benthic/pool macro carnivore river valley Salvelinus fontinalis pelagic/pool macro carnivore local Oncorhynchus mykiss benthic/pool macro carnivore river valley Salmo salar pelagic/pool macro carnivore local Cyprinus carpio benthic/pool macro carnivore river valley Rutilus rutilus pelagic/pool Omnivore local Tinca tinca benthic/pool macro carnivore local Carassius auratus benthic/pool macro carnivore local Perca fluviatilis pelagic/pool macro carnivore local Gambusia holbrooki pelagic/pool macro carnivore local Misgurnus anguillicaudatus benthic/pool detritovore local Key: • Habitat guild (Benthic Pool, Pelagic Pool, Riffle,) • Trophic Guild (Mega carnivores[prey >15mm,{yabbies, prawns, fish, shrimps}], Macro carnivores [prey<15 mm], Omnivores, herbivores, detritovores) • Migratory guild (scale of migration: Basin, river valley, local/reach)
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 116
APPENDIX 9. Modified US EPA Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) criteria as used in the Pilot SRA.
These guidelines govern selection and development of indicators in the SRA. They are based on the EMAP Indicator Guidelines (US EPA, 2000), with input from ISRAG and MDBC.
A. Conceptual relevance Indicators and metrics should be relevant to the purpose of the Audit and to the ecological resource or function at issue.
Guideline 1: Relevance to Audit • Each indicator should permit identification of changes in ecosystem health, in a way that would facilitate a management decision. The same applies to individual indicators aggregated as indices. • Each indicator should complement indicators at other spatial and temporal scales and different levels of biological organisation. • Redundancy among indicators is permissible where enhanced performance or critical information is included. • Each indicator must be appropriate to the valley (VPZ) spatial scale and 1-5 yearly temporal scale.
Guideline 2: Relevance to ecological health • Each indicator must be conceptually linked to ecological health. The same applies to individual indicators aggregated as indices. • If the conceptual link (above) is obscure, the nature of the link and the ecological relevance of the indicator should be explained.
B. Feasibility Methods for sampling and measurement should be appropriate within bounds determined by practical constraints.
Guideline 3: Data collection • Standard, well-documented methods are preferred. If standard methods are varied, or if new methods are introduced, the changes should be documented, supported by evidence of performance and, if possible, compared to standard methods. If multiple methods are used, the results should be comparable across sites. • Methods for sampling, measurement and analysis should be subject to quality assurance and control. • Sampling and measurements should be appropriate to the spatial scale of analysis. • Sampling should not significantly disturb a site, nor have an adverse impact on protected species, species of special concern, or protected habitats. • Samples should be independent. Measurements during one visit should not affect the same measurements on subsequent visits, and simultaneous measurements at one site should not affect one another.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 117
Guideline 4: Logistics • Sampling, measurement and analysis should all be feasible within the bounds of available resources (for example: trained personnel, time, instrumentation and cost. These constraints must be identified. • Logistic costs should be weighed against the needs of the Audit.
Guideline 5: Information management • Needs for processing, analysis, storage and retrieval of data should be identified. • Information management systems and standards should be compatible with the long-term needs of the Audit. • Data exchange between states and agencies, and between different applications (e.g. statistical analysis, geographic information systems), should be facilitated. • Methods for data storage, analysis and exchange should be standardised.
Guideline 6: Quality assurance • For each theme within the Audit, a Quality Assurance Plan should be developed, reviewing data collection, management and analysis. • The Plan should specify data quality objectives for each indicator, and confirm that these meet the needs of the Audit. • Methods for auditing data quality should be integrated into the work plan.
Guideline 7: Monetary costs • For each indicator within a theme, implementation costs and benefits should be evaluated to identify the most cost-efficient options. • This evaluation should consider economy of scale, as costs may decline when data are collected for multiple indicators at a given site.
C. Response variability Errors in data collection and analysis, and the extent of natural variability in time and space, should be documented and sufficiently understood to permit reliable comparisons within and between sites
Guideline 8: Errors in sampling, measurement and analysis • Errors in sampling, measurement and analysis should be estimated, from Pilot studies or otherwise, and reported for all indicators. This may include errors associated with different observers. • As a principle, errors should be limited so as to permit reliable comparisons of indicators within and between sites • Where a source of error cannot be estimated from available data, this should be subjected to investigation.
Guideline 9: Intra-annual variability • For some themes, indicators apply only within a particular year, season or time of day. The use of any such period should be defensible, and the associated variability should be estimated.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 118
Guideline 10: Inter-annual variability • Indicators should be reviewed each 1-3 years to assess variability between years. To provided this assessment, data should be gathered for several years at sites which remain in a similar ecological condition. • Estimates of variability should be examined to determine whether each indicator truly reflects trends relevant to ecosystem health.
Guideline 11: Reference conditions and spatial variability • Indicators are to be analysed and reported within a referential framework. A Reference Condition therefore should be defined for each indicator at each site. This should initially correspond to perceived natural condition, pending later development of targets for management. • Indicators are to be reported at the valley (VPZ) scale, in normalised form. For this reason, intra-valley variations in indicator values and reference conditions must be accounted and incorporated into the assessment.
D. Interpretation and utility Indicators should convey information on ecosystem health that is meaningful to decision-makers and stake-holders.
Guideline 12: Data quality objectives and effect detection • The discriminatory ability of each indicator should be evaluated against Audit data quality objectives and constraints. In particular, the effects of sample size, monitoring frequency and other variables on the accuracy and precision of results should be considered, using statistical power analyses where appropriate. • Statistical power analyses should be conducted also to consider the magnitudes of detectable changes in indicator values (“effect size”) within and between sites. • By these means, sampling and measurement protocols should be optimised to meet Audit data quality objectives.
Guideline 13: Links to management and the community • Collectively, indicators should identify the health status and health trends of valleys (VPZ), facilitate and prioritise decisions by policy makers and resource managers, and quantify the effects of past decisions. • Indicators should also aim to facilitate and promote public understanding and acceptance, and thereby inform the community about river health. • All parties, professional and public, should be able to recognise the implications of indicator results for their perceptions of river health.
References APPENDIX 9
US EPA (2000). Evaluation Guidelines for Ecological Indicators (Eds. L.E. Jackson, J.C. Kurtz, W.S. Fisher) EPA/620/R-99/005, Office of Research and Development, Washington, April 2000.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 119
APPENDIX 10. Decision surfaces constructed using expert rules.
(a) SR-FIn
Symbol used in Symbol used in decision surface SRA reports Description
Indiv T_abund Total individuals Nat Ind prop_N_abund Native individuals Nat Species prop_N_sp Native species Biomass prop_N_biom Proportion native biomass FRHN SR-FI-n Sustainable Rivers Fish Nativeness sub-index
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 120
Appendix 10(cont).
(b) SR-FIe
Symbol used in Symbol used in decision surface SRA reports Description
Mean OE OE Median (not mean) observed to expected species ratio OP OP Observed to predicted ratio Num Native sp_rich Total species richness FRHE SR-FI-e Sustainable Rivers Fish Expected sub-index
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 121
Appendix 10 (cont).
(c) SR-FId
Symbol used in Symbol used in decision surface SRA reports Description
Benthic Benthic Benthic species richness Pelagic pelagic Pelagic species richness Abnormal abnorm Proportion with abnormalities RHFD SR-FI-d Sustainable Rivers Fish Diagnostic sub-index
Decision surfaces identical for all other input pairs.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 122
Appendix 10 (cont).
(d) Expert_SR-FI (to combine the three sub-indices)
Symbol used in Symbol used in decision surface SRA reports Description
Expect SR-FI-e Sustainable Rivers Fish Expected sub-index Native SR-FI-n Sustainable Rivers Fish Nativeness sub-index Diagnostic SR-FI-d Sustainable Rivers Fish Diagnostic sub-index RHF SR-FI Sustainable Rivers Fish Index
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 123
APPENDIX 11. Worked example of how site scores for individual indicators are aggregated to VPZ and valley SR-FI scores.
Site Level Data site values of 12 indicators (excludes OP)
VPZ Level data OP + VPZ Median of indicators
VPZ Level assessment Combine SR-FIe, SR-FIn, Weight for VPZ area SR-FId into SR-FI (expert rules) Combine SR-FIe SR-FI River Valley Level Assessment n SR-FId into SR-FI (expert rules)
Figure A11-1. Calculation of Fish community health using fish data in SRA.
A FULLY WORKED EXAMPLE FOR THE CONDAMINE RIVER WITH COLOURS MATCHING FIGURE A11-1 ABOVE IS PRESENTED BELOW. Table A11-1: Site fish indicator scores from the Condamine River. p OE bun intol mega macro macro pelagic pelagic sp_rich benthic Tabund Tabund prop_N_s prop_N_a siteid VPZ abnorm prop_N_ biom 12015 D 0.22 0.20 0.26 0.00 0.86 0.50 0.14 0.2 0.60 0.6 0.13 0.17 12017 D 0.44 0.40 0.27 0.00 0.77 0.50 0.23 0.6 0.45 0.2 0.26 0.40 SRA0005 D 0.56 0.40 0.82 0.00 0.97 0.70 0.04 0.2 1.00 0.6 0.51 0.83 SRA0006 D 0.67 0.60 0.53 0.00 0.86 0.50 0.19 0.2 0.91 0.2 0.38 0.34 SRA0007 D 0.82 0.40 1.00 0.33 0.90 0.64 0.48 0.2 0.90 0.2 0.51 0.82 SRA0008 D 0.56 0.40 0.83 0.00 0.87 0.70 0.13 0.2 0.97 0.2 0.51 0.53 SRA0009 D 0.44 0.40 0.27 0.00 0.74 0.50 0.26 0.6 0.67 0.6 0.26 0.27 SRA0012 D 0.24 0.40 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.2 0.67 0.2 0.26 1.00 SRA0014 D 0.35 0.40 0.30 0.33 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.0 0.51 0.2 0.38 1.00 SRA0022 D 0.67 0.80 0.28 0.33 0.59 0.61 0.59 1.0 0.42 1.0 0.51 0.51 SRA0023 D 0.56 0.60 0.26 0.00 0.51 0.56 0.62 0.6 0.62 0.2 0.38 0.24 SRA0024 D 0.72 0.40 0.91 0.00 0.67 0.61 0.42 0.2 0.98 0.6 0.51 0.68 SRA0039 S 1.00 0.72 1.00 0.40 0.85 0.67 0.76 0.6 0.71 0.2 0.71 0.81 SRA0040 S 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.40 0.77 0.69 0.71 0.2 0.86 1.0 0.83 0.16 SRA0041 S 0.91 0.86 0.92 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.6 1.00 0.2 0.59 1.00 SRA0013 T 0.73 0.40 0.92 0.00 0.57 0.61 0.62 0.2 0.79 0.2 0.48 0.72 SRA0015 T 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.33 0.67 0.61 0.69 1.0 0.56 0.2 0.71 0.29 SRA0017 T 0.38 0.40 0.32 0.00 0.93 0.61 0.18 0.2 0.72 0.2 0.24 0.66 SRA0018 T 0.89 0.80 0.65 0.34 0.65 0.64 0.38 1.0 0.54 0.2 0.60 0.51 SRA0020 T 0.90 0.81 0.65 0.00 0.19 0.55 0.89 0.2 0.81 0.6 0.48 0.15 SRA0030 T 0.39 0.20 0.66 0.00 0.77 0.61 1.00 0.2 0.63 0.2 0.24 0.95
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 124
THE MEDIANS FOR EACH SCORE ARE THEN CALCULATED FOR THE VPZ LEVEL. E.g. Source zone median sp_rich = (1.00 + 1.00 + 0.91) = 1.00 and so on (Table A11-2). The VPZ level measured PERCH OP Score is also calculated.
Table A11-2. VPZ OP Score + Median scores for individual fish indicator in the Pilot SRA in the Condamine River.
VPZ sp_rich benthic pelagic Intol abund prop_N_ sp macro mega T-abund abnorm OE prop_N_ biom *Adj_OP D 0.56 0.40 0.29 0.00 0.86 0.61 0.24 0.20 0.67 0.20 0.38 0.57 0.54 S 1.00 0.86 1.00 0.40 0.85 0.69 0.76 0.60 0.86 0.20 0.71 0.66 0.77 T 0.81 0.60 0.65 0.00 0.66 0.61 0.66 0.20 0.67 0.20 0.48 0.55 0.57
The SR-FId, SR-FIn and SR-FIe for each VPZ can now be calculated using the Expert Rules (Table A11-3).
Table A11-3. Fish Fish community health Scores for Valley Process Zones in Condamine River in SRA Pilot Study.
VPZ SR_FIe SR_FIn SR_FId SR-FI D 0.5 0.84 0.1 0.55 S 0.89 0.9 0.64 0.89 T 0.63 0.8 0.1 0.65
The VPZ median scores (Table A11-2) can then be weighted by the catchment area (or river length for the Lower Murray) to generate the VPZ weighted average score for all the individual metrics (Table A11-4).
Table A11-4: Weighted average scores for Individual metrics used to calculate SR-FI. sp_rich benthic pelagic Intol prop_N_ abund prop_N_ sp macro mega T-abund abnorm OE prop_N_ biom *Adj_OP 0.67 0.50 0.46 0.03 0.79 0.61 0.42 0.23 0.69 0.20 0.44 0.57 0.56
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 125
THE VALLEY SCORE CAN THEN BE CALCULATED USING THE EXPERT RULES (TABLE A11-5).
Table A11-5. SR-FI Scores for Condamine River.
SR_FIe SR_FIn SR_FId SR-FI 0.57 0.84 0.11 0.61
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 126
APPENDIX 12. Species from all shot-types for individual ‘Best Available’ sites. Site Warrego Warrego Paroo Paroo Paroo Warrego Condamine Langlo Warrego Stock Dam One Mile Marlong Baldrock Severn River River River River River River River River River Creek Creek Creek River siteID SRA0019 SRA0025 SRA0026 SRA0027 SRA0028 SRA0029 SRA0031 SRA0032 SRA0033 SRA0021 SRA0034 SRA0035 SRA0036 SRA0037 Reference for Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Srce Srce Srce Srce Srce AMBAGA 00 0000 00 000000 BIDBID 00 0011 00 000000 CARAUR 01 0000 013 40100000 CRASTE 00 0000 00 000002 CYPCAR 2 3 0 0 1 6 11 20 117 0 0 0 0 10 GADBIS 00 0000 00 000000 GADMAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 GALOLI 00 0000 00 000000 GAMHOL 00 0000 00 000000 HYPSPP 12 4 0 0 1 0 0 5 104 0 0 0 0 63 LEIUNI 1 0 6 4 3 0 0 21 4 22 0 142 0 0 MACAMB 41 3871 540 200002 MACAUS 00 0000 00 000000 MACMAC 00 0000 00 000000 MACPEE 00 0000 00 000005 MELFLU 20 1270 01 000000 NANAUS 00 0000 00 000000 NEMERE 30 190 6 39 22 2 7 82 388 0 0 0 0 0 NEOHYR 0 25 39 19 14 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 ONCMYK 00 0000 00 000000 PERFLU 00 0000 00 000000 PHIGRA 00 0000 00 000000 PORREN 00 0000 00 000000 RETSEM 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 SALTRU 00 0000 00 000000 TANTAN 00 0001 01 100003 TOTAL 63 224 55 72 56 11 23 184 1017 22 0 142 30 91
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 127
Appendix 12 (cont). Species from all shot-types for individual ‘Best Available’ sites sampled in the Pilot SRA. Site Condamine Branch Burrabur Condamine Condamine Myall Maranoa River River River Pike Monoman Chowilla Chowilla River Creek ri Creek River River Creek River Murray Murray Murray River River Creek Creek (Swanport) (shacks) (Katarapko) siteID SRA0042 SRA0003 SRA000 SRA0010 SRA0011 SRA0016 SRA0038 R11 R21 R31 R32 R33 R34 R35 4 Reference for Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr Srce Tran Tran Tran Tran Tran Tran Dep Tran Srce Srce Srce Srce Srce AMBAGA 0 13 166 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BIDBID 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CARAUR 2 1 4 1 5 2 48 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 CRASTE 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 41 12 7 0 CYPCAR 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 12 13 0 12 12 10 7 GADBIS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GADMAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GALOLI 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GAMHOL 0 144 9 2 0 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HYPSPP 19 469 544 10 0 2 41 0 5 25 3 105 5 3 LEIUNI 0 7 4 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MACAMB 0 0 0 13 1 1 2 1 7 0 7 15 7 4 MACAUS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MACMAC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MACPEE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MELFLU 0 4 4 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 NANAUS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NEMERE 0 0 9741 7 0 7 16 10 12 28 41 38 12 NEOHYR 0 0 4 0 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ONCMYK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PERFLU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHIGRA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 0 PORREN 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RETSEM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 58 23 15 62 21 60 SALTRU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TANTAN 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 57 640 784 775 66 39 99 41 93 66 110 249 93 87
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 128
Appendix 12 (cont). Species from all shot-types for individual ‘Best Available’ sites sampled in the Pilot SRA. Site River Namoi Murrumbidgee Murray Murray Barwon Namoi Murray Murrumbidgee Murrumbidgee Namoi Bogan Paroo Bogan Murray Darling Murray River River River River River River River River River River River River River River River (Camp25) siteID R36 12014 12032 12033 12035 12039 12041 12051 12052 12053 12054 12057 12058 12059 12061 12063 Reference for L. Murr Lachl Lachl Lachl Lachl Lachl Lachl Lachl Lachl Lachl Lachl Lachl Lachl Lachl Lachl Lachl Srce Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep AMBAGA 00 000000 0 001000 0 BIDBID 00 010101 0 000000 0 CARAUR 20 013000 0 006912 0 CRASTE 00 30170000 003001 0 CYPCAR 12 4 0 23 1 21 4 8 4 3 15 23 48 12 2 14 GADBIS 00 000000 0 000000 0 GADMAR 00 000000 0 000000 0 GALOLI 00 000000 0 000000 0 GAMHOL 00 000000 0 000000 0 HYPSPP 2 17 0 4 36 19 17 11 3 2 24 928 0 58 37 8 LEIUNI 00 000100 0 000010 0 MACAMB 86 22620021 1101135 4 MACAUS 00 000000 0 000000 0 MACMAC 00 010001 0 100000 0 MACPEE 33 200022 0 540000 0 MELFLU 0111 703410 0 020400 0 NANAUS 00 000000 0 000000 0 NEMERE 36 6 1 0 139 36 3 0 0 0 3 4 24 45 0 1 NEOHYR 00 000000 0 000000 0 ONCMYK 00 000000 0 000000 0 PERFLU 00 000000 0 000000 0 PHIGRA 40 006000 0 000001 0 PORREN 00 000000 0 000000 0 RETSEM 273 27351041971838100024 10 SALTRU 00 000000 0 000000 0 TANTAN 00 000000 0 000000 0 TOTAL 94 150 42 67 221 106 28 122 26 50 50 965 96 120 72 37
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 129
Appendix 12 (cont). Species from all shot-types for individual ‘Best Available’ sites sampled in the Pilot SRA. Site Mole Lachlan Goodradigbee Abercrombie Murrumbidgee MacDonald Mole Deepwater Goodradigbee Lachlan Goobarragandra Murray Turon River River River River River River River River River River River River River siteID 12016 12022 12023 12024 12034 12043 12046 12048 12049 12050 12060 12062 12069 Reference for Lachl Lachl Lachl Lachl Lachl Lachl Lachl Lachl Lachl Lachl Lachl Lachl Lachl Srce Srce Srce Srce Srce Srce Srce Srce Srce Srce Srce Srce Srce AMBAGA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BIDBID 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CARAUR 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 CRASTE 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CYPCAR 12 31 28 12 13 0 6 0 27 13 0 4 0 GADBIS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 GADMAR 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GALOLI 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 121 GAMHOL 1 0 1 0 0 0 15 1 0 0 0 0 1 HYPSPP 19 311 0 66 0 0 94 0 0 39 0 0 94 LEIUNI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MACAMB 1 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 MACAUS 0 4 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 MACMAC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MACPEE 6 0 2 1 0 4 2 10 3 0 0 0 0 MELFLU 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 NANAUS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NEMERE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NEOHYR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ONCMYK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 PERFLU 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 PHIGRA 0 5 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PORREN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RETSEM 3 4 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 SALTRU 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 TANTAN 8 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 59 355 43 89 19 10 121 13 35 57 10 6 216
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 130
Appendix 12 (cont). Species from all shot-types for individual ‘Best Available’ sites sampled in the Pilot SRA. Site Landry Beardy Gwydir Macintyre Castlereagh Warrah Beardy Horton Myall Adelong Lachlan Boorowa Tumut Lachlan Ovens River Lagoon River River River River Creek River River Creek Creek River River River River siteID 12013 12020 12040 12042 12044 12045 12047 12055 12056 12064 12065 12066 12067 12068 vicref11 Reference for Lachl Lachl Lachl Lachl Lachl Lachl Lachl Lachl Lachl Lachl Lachl Lachl Lachl Lachl Ovens Tran Tran Tran Tran Tran Tran Tran Tran Tran Tran Tran Tran Tran Tran Dep AMBAGA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BIDBID 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CARAUR 17 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CRASTE 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CYPCAR 59 8 9 3 12 5 8 29 16 4 5 2 2 2 3 GADBIS 00 0 0 0 0000 00 00 0 0 GADMAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 10 0 GALOLI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GAMHOL 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HYPSPP 72 5 4 135 212 1089 258 41 7 0 2 0 0 0 0 LEIUNI 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MACAMB 20 3 2 0 0010 00 00 0 1 MACAUS 00 0 0 0 0000 00 00 0 0 MACMAC 00 0 0 0 0000 00 00 0 0 MACPEE 0 10 3 1 0 0 7 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 MELFLU 0 11 0 8 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NANAUS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NEMERE 74 0 22 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NEOHYR 00 0 0 0 0000 00 00 0 0 ONCMYK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PERFLU 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 PHIGRA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 0 1 6 PORREN 00 0 0 0 0000 00 00 0 0 RETSEM 0 33 3 0 1 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 1 24 SALTRU 00 0 0 0 0000 10 04 0 0 TANTAN 04 1 1 014220 00 00 0 0 TOTAL 225 72 47 168 225 1108 286 95 25 6 9 59 7 14 36
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 131
Appendix 12 (cont). Species from all shot-types for individual ‘Best Available’ sites sampled in the Pilot SRA. Site Sevens Creek Broken Broken Creek Lindsay Mullaroo Creek Watchbed Creek Swindlers Creek Morass Creek Steavenson River Acheron River siteID vicref12 vicref13 vicref15 vicref16 vicref17 vicref01 vicref02 vicref03 vicref04 vicref05 Reference for Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Srce Srce Srce Srce Srce AMBAGA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BIDBID 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CARAUR 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CRASTE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CYPCAR 4 1 7 5 8 0 0 0 0 0 GADBIS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 2 GADMAR 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GALOLI 3 0 0 0 0 0 32 0 2 0 GAMHOL 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HYPSPP 0 2 1 55 16 0 0 0 0 0 LEIUNI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MACAMB 1 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 MACAUS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MACMAC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MACPEE 0 1 12 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 MELFLU 0 0 3 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 NANAUS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NEMERE 0 0 0 16 6 0 0 0 0 0 NEOHYR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ONCMYK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 PERFLU 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHIGRA 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 PORREN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RETSEM 6 1 2 37 28 0 0 0 0 0 SALTRU 0 0 0 0 0 21 17 7 6 20 TANTAN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 22 5 32117 88 21 49 10 13 23
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 132
Appendix 12 (cont). Species from all shot-types for individual ‘Best Available’ sites sampled in the Pilot SRA. Site Yea River Ryans Creek Kiewa River Mitta Mitta River King River Boosey Creek siteID vicref10 vicref06 vicref07 vicref08 vicref09 vicref14 Reference for Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Srce Tran Tran Tran Tran Tran AMBAGA 0 0 0 0 0 0 BIDBID 0 0 0 0 0 0 CARAUR 0 0 0 0 0 7 CRASTE 0 0 0 0 0 0 CYPCAR 0 0 8 5 7 9 GADBIS 0 0 2 0 21 0 GADMAR 8 48 0 0 0 0 GALOLI 1 0 1 0 0 0 GAMHOL 0 0 0 0 0 0 HYPSPP 0 0 0 0 0 4 LEIUNI 0 0 0 0 0 0 MACAMB 0 0 0 0 0 2 MACAUS 0 0 0 0 0 0 MACMAC 0 0 0 0 0 0 MACPEE 0 0 0 0 5 0 MELFLU 0 0 0 0 0 0 NANAUS 0 0 0 0 1 0 NEMERE 0 0 0 0 0 0 NEOHYR 0 0 0 0 0 0 ONCMYK 0 0 0 0 0 0 PERFLU 0 0 0 0 0 5 PHIGRA 0 0 0 0 0 0 PORREN 0 0 0 0 0 0 RETSEM 0 0 0 0 0 2 SALTRU 3 1 14 8 0 0 TANTAN 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 12 49 25 13 34 29
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 133
APPENDIX 13. Species from all shot-types for individual assessment sites. River Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond siteID 12015 12017 SRA0005 SRA0006 SRA0007 SRA0008 SRA0009 SRA0012 SRA0014 SRA0022 SRA0023 SRA0024 SRA0039 SRA0040 SRA0041 SRA0013 SRA0015 VPZ Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Srce Srce Srce Tran Tran #shots 29 28 29 29 22 29 29 25 29 29 22 22 22 25 28 22 27 AMBAGA 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 3 6 1 0 BIDBID 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CARAUR 4 1 0 9 2 0 2 0 0 4 11 11 2 8 0 7 2 CRASTE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 78 45 0 0 CYPCAR 6 1 1 4 0 19 11 0 1 1 13 0 0 7 0 11 2 GADBIS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GADMAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GALOLI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GAMHOL 000 2 500000 099100454 HYPSPP 0 0 0 0 147 15 0 9 1 0 0 0 20 964 560 7 0 LEIUNI 1 0 1 12 132 0 0 124 0 7 14 91 14 1 0 58 15 MACAMB 0 1 19 10 0 12 9 0 5 3 6 12 0 3 0 7 3 MACAUS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MACMAC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MACPEE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MELFLU 0 0 1 0 10 15 0 0 0 0 0 3 7 20 55 2 0 MISANG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MOGADS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 88 0 0 NANAUS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NEMERE 40 13 505 266 142 428 61 0 21 4 27 412 2 7 0 74 2 NEOHYR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 ONCMYK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PERFLU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHIGRA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PORREN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RETSEM 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 15 0 0 1 SALTRU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TANTAN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 0 19 3 11
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 134
Appendix 13 (cont.). Species from all shot-types for individual assessment sites sampled in the Pilot SRA. River Cond Cond Cond Cond L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr siteID SRA0017 SRA0018 SRA0020 SRA0030A11 A12 A13 A14 A21 A22 A23 A24 A25 A26 A27 A28 A31 A32 A33 VPZ Tran Tran Tran Tran Dep Dep Dep Dep Tran Tran Tran Tran Tran Tran Tran Tran Srce Srce Srce #shots 23 29 22 22 29 29 29 29 29 29 2929 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 AMBAGA 00 0 0000000 00000000 0 BIDBID 00 0 0000000 00000000 0 CARAUR 35 6 01102117 73111113 0 CRASTE 0 0 0 0 6 1 74 2 5 5 3 4 1 11 11 22 3 10 2 CYPCAR 1 4 1 0 14 5 30 17 9 17 7 6 7 4 1 11 2 10 4 GADBIS 0 0 0 0000000 00000000 0 GADMAR 0 0 0 0000000 00000000 0 GALOLI 00 0 0000000 00000000 0 GAMHOL 0 0 137 6016000 00000003 0 HYPSPP 01 14 5805025312 1431713101259 12 LEIUNI 81 1 0000000 00000000 0 MACAMB 08 2 0773545 56651621 3 MACAUS 00 0 0000000 00000000 0 MACMAC 00 0 0000000 00000000 0 MACPEE 00 0 0000000 00000000 0 MELFLU 01 4 0100010 00121251110 26 MISANG 00 0 0000000 00000000 0 MOGADS 00 0 0000000 00000000 0 NANAUS 0 0 0 0000000 00000000 0 NEMERE 80 24 0 0 36 57 47 47 56 92 88 108 60 62 60 45 39 29 66 NEOHYR 0 0 0 0000000 00000000 0 ONCMYK 00 0 0000000 00000000 0 PERFLU 00 0 0000000 00100000 0 PHIGRA 00 0 0003010 00100000 0 PORREN 00 0 0000000 00000000 0 RETSEM 0 7 0 17 3 1 24 5 13 35 52 117 5 49 41 5 17 18 15 SALTRU 00 0 0000000 00000000 0 TANTAN 01 0 1000000 00000000 0
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 135
Appendix 13 (cont.). Species from all shot-types for individual assessment sites sampled in the Pilot SRA. River L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach siteID A34 A35 A36 A37 A38 A41 A42 A43 A44 12002 12003 12004 12005 12010 12011 12012 12019 12021 12025 12026 12027 VPZ Srce Srce Srce Srce Srce Srce Srce Srce Srce Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep #shots 29 29 29 29 29 29 15 15 29 28 27 18 19 22 22 28 29 26 24 28 27 AMBAGA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BIDBID 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CARAUR 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 19 5 2 0 11 36 1 0 0 2 CRASTE 28 0 0 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CYPCAR 13 3 5 1 4 9 6 9 11 3 5 4 3 12 2 8 14 4 3 2 11 GADBIS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GADMAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GALOLI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GAMHOL 0 0 0 4 00 0 0 000 1720320021 2 HYPSPP 9 9 14 0 5 4 0 0 133 0 87 3 429 0 7 1780 0 0 7 9 23 LEIUNI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MACAMB 5 3 4 2 2 3 1 1 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 MACAUS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MACMAC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MACPEE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 MELFLU 4 1 13 8 2 2 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MISANG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MOGADS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NANAUS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NEMERE 3 15 2 65 5 8 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 53 40 NEOHYR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ONCMYK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PERFLU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 PHIGRA 0 0 1 0 33 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PORREN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RETSEM 73 16 4 8 8 7 19 19 23 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 8 5 SALTRU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TANTAN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 136
Appendix 13 (cont.). Species from all shot-types for individual assessment sites sampled in the Pilot SRA. River Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens siteID 12028 12029 12030 12031 12006 12009 12036 12037 12038 12000 12001 12007 12008 12018 VIC04 VIC05 VIC06 VIC18 VIC19 VIC20 VIC21 VIC01 VIC02 VPZ Dep Dep Dep Dep Srce Srce Srce Srce Srce Tran Tran Tran Tran Tran Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Srce Srce #shots 23 29 28 28 26 20 22 22 24 19 26 22 28 22 22 19 18 28 28 29 29 22 22 AMBAGA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BIDBID 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CARAUR 0 26 13 12 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CRASTE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CYPCAR 18 12 18 7 0 0 0 0 0 8 22 1 9 0 4 5 0 5 24 19 3 0 0 GADBIS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 13 41 GADMAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 GALOLI 0 0 0 0 0 129 110 236 0 0 6 1 1 44 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 9 4 GAMHOL 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 1 7 3 97 0 240 20 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 HYPSPP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 124 0 0 0 1 0 4 5 14 0 1 5 55 0 0 LEIUNI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MACAMB 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 MACAUS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MACMAC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 MACPEE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 MELFLU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MISANG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MOGADS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NANAUS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 NEMERE 15 84 40 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NEOHYR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ONCMYK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 15 PERFLU 1 13 3 13 16 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 PHIGRA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 PORREN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RETSEM 423 7 0000200000 01000285130 0 SALTRU 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 TANTAN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 137
Appendix 13 (cont.). Species from all shot-types for individual assessment sites sampled in the Pilot SRA. River Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens siteID VIC07 VIC08 VIC09 VIC11 VIC12 VIC03 VIC10 VIC13 VIC14 VIC15 VIC16 VIC17 VPZ Srce Srce Srce Srce Srce Tran Tran Tran Tran Tran Tran Tran #shots 22 22 22 18 22 22 22 22 22 29 29 27 AMBAGA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BIDBID 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CARAUR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CRASTE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CYPCAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 3 4 GADBIS 19 54 44 0 16 62 80 28 8 3 1 7 GADMAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 10 GALOLI 0 0 0 0 11 7 0 16 22 0 0 1 GAMHOL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 HYPSPP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 LEIUNI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MACAMB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MACAUS 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 MACMAC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 MACPEE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 MELFLU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MISANG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MOGADS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NANAUS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NEMERE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NEOHYR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ONCMYK 30 14 17 65 8 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 PERFLU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 PHIGRA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PORREN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RETSEM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 5 SALTRU 17 8 18 97 11 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 TANTAN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 138
APPENDIX 14. Species biomass (g) at assessment sites from all shot types. River Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond siteID 12015 12017 SRA0005 SRA0006 SRA0007 SRA0008 SRA0009 SRA0012 SRA0014 SRA0022 SRA0023 SRA0024 SRA0039 SRA0040 VPZ Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Srce Srce AMBAGA 00 0 010000 020004 BIDBID 00 0 008800 000000 CARAUR 9 348 0 619 238 0 470 0 0 687 823 439 102 958 CRASTE 00 0 00000 0000042 CYPCAR 2155 221 742 2177 0 10544 4462 0 997 3289 989 0 0 20455 GADBIS 00 0 00000 000000 GADMAR 00 0 00000 000000 GALOLI 00 0 00000 000000 GAMHOL 00 0 12000 0003610 HYPSPP 00 0 073504 200010313 LEIUNI 6 0 42 56 1461 0 0 2649 0 1366 227 1164 361 43 MACAMB 0 134 42 586 0 9370 760 0 1482 2902 7 36 0 3986 MACAUS 00 0 00000 000000 MACMAC 00 0 00000 000000 MACPEE 00 0 00000 000000 MELFLU 00 1 0131300 00011420 MISANG 00 0 00000 000000 MOGADS 00 0 00000 000000 NANAUS 00 0 00000 000000 NEMERE 158 250 6984 800 364 1270 537 0 867 188 169 1088 72 898 NEOHYR 00 0 00000 000000 ONCMYK 00 0 00000 000000 PERFLU 00 0 00000 000000 PHIGRA 00 0 00000 000000 RETSEM 00 0 00000 00002510 SALTRU 00 0 00000 000000 TANTAN 00 0 00000 38782200970 TOTAL 2327 953 7810 4239 2161 21291 6230 2653 3735 9257 2215 2764 680 26727
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 139
Appendix 14 (cont). Species biomass (g) at assessment sites from all shot types. River Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr siteID SRA0041 SRA0013 SRA0015 SRA0017 SRA0018 SRA0020 SRA0030 A11 A12 A13 A14 A21 A22 A23 A24 VPZ Srce Tran Tran Tran Tran Tran Tran Dep Dep Dep Dep Tran Tran Tran Tran AMBAGA 81 0000000000000 BIDBID 00 0000000000000 CARAUR 0 242 60 113 1220 359 0 10 20 0 729 102 525 704 490 CRASTE 170 000009012281332 CYPCAR 0 313 1655 1083 2086 826 0 7242 9935 29716 20714 9596 15561 1686 8353 GADBIS 00 0000000000000 GADMAR 00 0000000000000 GALOLI 00 0000000000000 GAMHOL 012 10 0 30100100000 HYPSPP 3097 001911010131221 LEIUNI 0458 17227310824000000000 MACAMB 0 27 364 0 1100 1101 0 2121 1974 1611 3221 667 2025 555 6186 MACAUS 00 0000000000000 MACMAC 00 0000000000000 MACPEE 00 0000000000000 MELFLU 503 0013030001000 MISANG 00 0000000000000 MOGADS 1380 0000000000000 NANAUS 00 0000000000000 NEMERE 0 793 137 1922 1424 0 0 1911 6005 3047 4384 4508 12127 5301 5959 NEOHYR 00 459000000000000 ONCMYK 00 0000000000000 PERFLU 00 0000000000000 PHIGRA 00 0000000200000 RETSEM 00 10001241178224544218 SALTRU 00 0000000000000 TANTAN 30741 1510372052500000000 TOTAL 828 1898 3000 3391 6312 2352 648 11302 17935 34407 29062 14907 30297 8295 21209
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 140
Appendix 14 (cont). Species biomass (g) at assessment sites from all shot types. River L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr siteID A25 A26 A27 A28 A31 A32 A33 A34 A35 A36 A37 A38 A41 A42 A43 A44 VPZ Tran Tran Tran Tran Srce Srce Srce Srce Srce Srce Srce Srce Srce Srce Srce Srce AMBAGA 00 0 000000 0000000 BIDBID 00 0 000000 0000000 CARAUR 706 43 13064201680 0000000 CRASTE 02 2 818070 0000200 CYPCAR 5117 1734 62 10903 3853 26656 1780 22001 2373 8825 669 3935 13297 13148 22832 21215 GADBIS 00 0 000000 0000000 GADMAR 00 0 000000 0000000 GALOLI 00 0 000000 0000000 GAMHOL 00 0 001000 0100000 HYPSPP 64 1 546921 60320050 LEIUNI 00 0 000000 0000000 MACAMB 3331 4045 226 3135 877 681 1066 112 1526 2109 1210 743 1153 283 581 7288 MACAUS 00 0 000000 0000000 MACMAC 00 0 000000 0000000 MACPEE 00 0 000000 0000000 MELFLU 43 1 50691430 15611621 MISANG 00 0 000000 0000000 MOGADS 00 0 000000 0000000 NANAUS 00 0 000000 0000000 NEMERE 3483 1828 2299 1168 8001 1802 1547 279 1550 235 1308 540 373 0 0 1696 NEOHYR 00 0 000000 0000000 ONCMYK 00 0 000000 0000000 PERFLU 610 0 000000 0000000 PHIGRA 00 0 000000 10251000 RETSEM 5 57 35 4 21 19 8 91 15 4 8 10 10 31 34 40 SALTRU 00 0 000000 0000000 TANTAN 00 0 000000 0000000 TOTAL 12078 7678 2669 15404 12768 29224 4424 22663 5465 11194 3201 5256 14836 13470 23450 30291
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 141
Appendix 14 (cont). Species biomass (g) at assessment sites from all shot types. River Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach siteID 12002 12003 12004 12005 12010 12011 12012 12019 12021 12025 12026 12027 12028 12029 12030 12031 12006 12009 12036 12037 12038 VPZ Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Srce Srce Srce Srce Srce AMBAGA 00 0 0 0000000 000000000 0 BIDBID 00 0 0 0000000 000000000 0 CARAUR 0 702 1279 1136 147 0 1522 2081 133 0 0 33 0 2927 1789 960 254 0 0 0 977 CRASTE 00 0 0 0000000 000000000 0 CYPCAR 80025483 1481 1392 79642831551526069436791997 91792499568091510141460000 0 GADBIS 00 0 0 0000000 000000000 0 GADMAR 00 0 0 0000000 000000000 0 GALOLI 00 0 0 0000000 000000254161356 0 GAMHOL 00 0 11 0000000 1000000110 0 HYPSPP 051 3 376 0515370047 1200000000 53 LEIUNI 00 0 0 0000000 000000000 0 MACAMB 00 0 0 0000001729 088606600000 0 MACAUS 00 0 0 0000000 000000000 0 MACMAC 00 0 0 0000000 000000000 0 MACPEE 00 0 0 0000641300 543100000000 0 MELFLU 00 0 0 0000000 000000000 0 MISANG 00 0 0 0000000 000000000 0 MOGADS 00 0 0 0000000 000000000 0 NANAUS 00 0 0 0000000 000000000 0 NEMERE 00 0 0 0003301702031 1941092005119715690000 0 NEOHYR 00 0 0 0000000 000000000 0 ONCMYK 00 0 0 0000000 000000000 0 PERFLU 045 0 0 0000000 1053523061325252431000 0 PHIGRA 00 0 0 0000000 000000000 2 RETSEM 45 0 0 000012012 753590000 20 SALTRU 00 0 0 0000000 000000012800 0 TANTAN 00 0 0 0000000 000000000 0 TOTAL 8006 6286 2762 2915 8111 289 4609 7374 13501 6966 4775 14962 26030 14051 18291 11934 685 254 1452 356 1052
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 142
Appendix 14 (cont). Species biomass (g) at assessment sites from all shot types. River Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens siteID 12000 12001 12007 12008 12018 VIC04 VIC05 VIC06 VIC18 VIC19 VIC20 VIC21 VIC01 VIC02 VIC07 VIC08 VIC09 VIC11 VIC12 VPZ Tran Tran Tran Tran Tran Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Srce Srce Srce Srce Srce Srce Srce AMBAGA 00 0 0 0000000 0000000 0 BIDBID 00 0 0 0000000 0000000 0 CARAUR 00 0 174 01223390000 0000000 0 CRASTE 00 0 0 0000000 0000000 0 CYPCAR 16634114 14 12240 0952354410136034960918203 4949000000 0 GADBIS 00 0 0 0000700 06046186252596740 261 GADMAR 00 0 0 000045400 0000000 0 GALOLI 016 4 1 1890016000 01140000 19 GAMHOL 23 22 0 37204000 0000000 0 HYPSPP 00 0 0 061512014 22000000 0 LEIUNI 00 0 0 0000000 0000000 0 MACAMB 00 0 0 000004070 511000000 0 MACAUS 00 0 0 0000000 0000000 0 MACMAC 00 0 0 000010099435 0000000 0 MACPEE 00 0 0 0000021050 0000000 0 MELFLU 00 0 0 0000000 0000000 0 MISANG 00 0 0 01600000 0000000 0 MOGADS 00 0 0 0000000 0000000 0 NANAUS 00 0 0 00016000 0000000 0 NEMERE 00 0 0 0000000 0000000 0 NEOHYR 00 0 0 0000000 0000000 0 ONCMYK 00 0 251 0000000 0874405249793912042100 155 PERFLU 017 0 0 00000017 0000000 0 PHIGRA 08 0 0 0000000 2000000 0 RETSEM 00 0 0 020003048 1000000 0 SALTRU 00 0 521 0000000 0490204044422233961024 3696 TANTAN 00 0 0 0000000 0000000 0 TOTAL 169 34158 39 13187 225 9670 5796 48 15073 52161 18707 5485 6391 1027 7166 5420 5274 3125 4131
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 143
Appendix 14 (cont). Species biomass (g) at assessment sites from all shot types. River Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens siteID VIC03 VIC10 VIC13 VIC14 VIC15 VIC16 VIC17 VPZ Tran Tran Tran Tran Tran Tran Tran AMBAGA 00 0 0000 BIDBID 00 0 0000 CARAUR 00 0 0000 CRASTE 00 0 0000 CYPCAR 0 0 0 0 23500 9136 12750 GADBIS 738 1032 214 208 57 42 124 GADMAR 0 0 0 0 0 436 169 GALOLI 80 16 21001 GAMHOL 00 0 0001 HYPSPP 0 0 0 0 1 0 30 LEIUNI 00 0 0000 MACAMB 00 0 0000 MACAUS 02 0 0000 MACMAC 00 0 12000 MACPEE 0 0 0 0 2105 6080 0 MELFLU 00 0 0000 MISANG 00 0 0000 MOGADS 00 0 0000 NANAUS 00 0 0000 NEMERE 00 0 0000 NEOHYR 00 0 0000 ONCMYK 050 0 0000 PERFLU 0 0 0 032420 PHIGRA 00 0 0000 RETSEM 0 0 0 0 0 25 8 SALTRU 22161339 0 0000 TANTAN 00 0 0000 TOTAL 2962 2424 230 241 25696 15762 13083
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 144
APPENDIX 15. Species from electrofishing only shot-types for individual assessment sites. River Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond siteID 12015 12017 SRA0005 SRA0006 SRA0007 SRA0008 SRA0009 SRA0012 SRA0014 SRA0022 SRA0023 SRA0024 SRA0039 SRA0040 SRA0041 SRA0013 VPZ Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Srce Srce Srce Tran # shots 15 14 15 15 8 15 15 11 15 15 8 8 8 11 14 8 AMBAGA 000 010000 0000000 BIDBID 000 000000 0000000 CARAUR 010 820200 41192807 CRASTE 000 000000 00004250 CYPCAR 2 1 1 4 0 16 8 0 0 1 12 0 0 7 0 0 GADBIS 000 000000 0000000 GADMAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GALOLI 000 000000 0000000 GAMHOL 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 99 1 0 0 45 HYPSPP 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 8 28 140 1 LEIUNI 0 0 0 11 94 0 0 65 0 4 9 54 14 1 0 39 MACAMB 011 708404 3440300 MACAUS 000 000000 0000000 MACMAC 000 000000 0000000 MACPEE 000 000000 0000000 MELFLU 0 0 1 0 10 15 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 18 1 1 MISANG 000 000000 0000000 MOGADS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83 0 NANAUS 000 000000 0000000 NEMERE 40 13 483 263 134 367 51 0 19 1 11 264 1 2 0 41 NEOHYR 000 000000 0000000 ONCMYK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PERFLU 000 000000 0000000 PHIGRA 000 000000 0000000 RETSEM 001 001000 000201200 SALTRU 000 000000 0000000 TANTAN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 11 0
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 145
Appendix 15 (cont.). Species from electrofishing only shot-types for individual assessment sites sampled in the Pilot SRA. River Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr siteID SRA0015 SRA0017 SRA0018 SRA0020 SRA0030 A11 A12 A13 A14 A21 A22 A23 A24 A25 A26 A27 A28 VPZ Tran Tran Tran Tran Tran Dep Dep Dep Dep Tran Tran Tran Tran Tran Tran Tran Tran # shots 13 9 15 8 8 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 AMBAGA 00 0 0 00000 00000000 BIDBID 00 0 000000 00000000 CARAUR 20 5 501102 014720110 CRASTE 00 0 006042 223200112 CYPCAR 2 1 3 1 0 14 5 28 17 9 17 7 6 7 2 1 10 GADBIS 00 0 000000 00000000 GADMAR 00 0 0 00000 00000000 GALOLI 00 0 000000 00000000 GAMHOL 40 0 13660130 00000000 HYPSPP 00 0 8271000 00000200 LEIUNI 156 1 100000 00000000 MACAMB 20 7 1 04234 23556516 MACAUS 00 0 000000 00000000 MACMAC 00 0 0 00000 00000000 MACPEE 00 0 000000 00000000 MELFLU 00 1 401000 100012124 MISANG 00 0 000000 00000000 MOGADS 00 0 0 00000 00000000 NANAUS 00 0 000000 00000000 NEMERE 2 80 11 0 0 28 54 23 43 55 77 77 94 40 59 54 41 NEOHYR 10 0 000000 00000000 ONCMYK 00 0 0 00000 00000000 PERFLU 00 0 000000 00001000 PHIGRA 00 0 000000 00000000 RETSEM 10 0 0173124 51300723 SALTRU 00 0 000000 00000000 TANTAN 30 1 000000 00000000
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 146
Appendix 15 (cont.). Species from electrofishing only shot-types for individual assessment sites sampled in the Pilot SRA. River L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. MurrLach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach siteID A31 A32 A33 A34 A35 A36 A37 A38 A41 A42 A43 A44 12002 12003 12004 12005 12010 12011 12012 12019 VPZ Srce Srce Srce Srce Srce Srce Srce Srce Srce Srce Srce Srce Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep # shots 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 14 14 6 5 8 8 15 15 AMBAGA 00 0 0000000 000000000 0 BIDBID 00 0 0000000 000000000 0 CARAUR 02 0 0000000 00021202011 18 CRASTE 09 0 28002002 100000000 0 CYPCAR 210 4 13341486 91135311008 6 GADBIS 00 0 0000000 000000000 0 GADMAR 00 0 0000000 000000000 0 GALOLI 00 0 0000000 000000000 0 GAMHOL 03 0 0004000 0000124032 0 HYPSPP 12 0 3000000 00040360118 0 LEIUNI 00 0 0000000 000000000 0 MACAMB 11 2 1342121 1120000000 0 MACAUS 00 0 0000000 000000000 0 MACMAC 00 0 0000000 000000000 0 MACPEE 00 0 0000000 000000000 0 MELFLU 11 10 26 4 1 13 8 1 1 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MISANG 00 0 0000000 000000000 0 MOGADS 00 0 0000000 000000000 0 NANAUS 00 0 0000000 000000000 0 NEMERE 33 26 59 2 15 2 64 2 5 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 NEOHYR 00 0 0000000 000000000 0 ONCMYK 00 0 0000000 000000000 0 PERFLU 00 0 0000000 000100000 0 PHIGRA 00 0 0000100 000000000 0 RETSEM 711 9 616380519 19112200000 0 SALTRU 00 0 0000000 000000000 0 TANTAN 00 0 0000000 000000000 0
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 147
Appendix 15 (cont.). Species from electrofishing only shot-types for individual assessment sites sampled in the Pilot SRA. River Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens siteID 12021 12025 12026 12027 12028 12029 12030 12031 12006 12009 12036 12037 12038 12000 12001 12007 12008 12018 VIC04 VIC05 VIC06 VIC18 VPZ Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Srce Srce Srce Srce Srce Tran Tran Tran Tran Tran Dep Dep Dep Dep # shots 121214 13 915151412688 10512814888814 AMBAGA 000 0 00000000 0000000000 BIDBID 000 0 00000000 0000000000 CARAUR 100 0 01210122000 2000004500 CRASTE 000 0 00000000 0000000000 CYPCAR 432 11 18111670000 01150900504 GADBIS 000 0 00000000 0000000001 GADMAR 000 0 00000000 00000000010 GALOLI 000 0 000004655208 0060000050 GAMHOL 000 2 000000220 16249019220070 HYPSPP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 114 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 14 0 LEIUNI 000 0 00000000 0000000000 MACAMB 001 0 10000000 0000000000 MACAUS 000 0 00000000 0000000000 MACMAC 000 0 00000000 0000000001 MACPEE 300 1 00000000 0000000000 MELFLU 000 0 00000000 0000000000 MISANG 000 0 00000000 0000001000 MOGADS 000 0 00000000 0000000000 NANAUS 000 0 00000000 0000000000 NEMERE 0446 35 137940460000 0000000000 NEOHYR 000 0 00000000 0000000000 ONCMYK 000 0 00000000 0000100000 PERFLU 000 1 17123000 0010000000 PHIGRA 000 0 00000000 1000000000 RETSEM 607 5 42370000 19000001000 SALTRU 000 0 00000030 0000100000 TANTAN 000 0 00000000 0000000000
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 148
Appendix 15 (cont.). Species from electrofishing only shot-types for individual assessment sites sampled in the Pilot SRA. River Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens siteID VIC19 VIC20 VIC21 VIC01 VIC02 VIC07 VIC08 VIC09 VIC11 VIC12 VIC03 VIC10 VIC13 VIC14 VIC15 VIC16 VIC17 VPZ Dep Dep Dep Srce Srce Srce Srce Srce Srce Srce Tran Tran Tran Tran Tran Tran Tran # shots 141515 8 88888888 88151514 AMBAGA 000 0 00000000 00000 BIDBID 000 0 00000000 00000 CARAUR 000 0 00000000 00000 CRASTE 000 0 00000000 00000 CYPCAR 24193 0 00000000 00634 GADBIS 000 6 241448350105247 245317 GADMAR 000 0 00000000 0001510 GALOLI 000 9 400001170 1622001 GAMHOL 000 0 00000000 00003 HYPSPP 030 0 00000000 00000 LEIUNI 000 0 00000000 00000 MACAMB 000 0 00000000 00000 MACAUS 000 0 00000000 00000 MACMAC 120 0 00000000 09000 MACPEE 100 0 00000000 00170 MELFLU 000 0 00000000 00000 MISANG 000 0 00000000 00000 MOGADS 000 0 00000000 00000 NANAUS 000 0 00000000 00000 NEMERE 000 0 00000000 00000 NEOHYR 000 0 00000000 00000 ONCMYK 000 19 1327111154803 00000 PERFLU 110 0 00000000 00110 PHIGRA 001 0 00000000 00000 RETSEM 28513 0 00000000 000383 SALTRU 000 12 01431588443 00000 TANTAN 000 0 00000000 00000
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 149
APPENDIX 16. Species biomass (g) at assessment sites from electrofishing. River Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond siteID 12015 12017 SRA0005 SRA0006 SRA0007 SRA0008 SRA0009 SRA0012 SRA0014 SRA0022 SRA0023 SRA0024 VPZ Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep AMBAGA 00 0000000000 BIDBID 00 0000000000 CARAUR 0 348 0 605 238 0 470 0 0 687 823 397 CRASTE 00 0000000000 CYPCAR 752 221 742 2177 0 8775 2840 0 0 3289 222 0 GADBIS 00 0000000000 GADMAR 00 0000000000 GALOLI 00 0000000000 GAMHOL 00 01200000036 HYPSPP 00 00210010000 LEIUNI 0 0 0 52 752 0 0 527 0 393 199 617 MACAMB 0 134 7 582 0 9052 745 0 1482 2902 4 11 MACAUS 00 0000000000 MACMAC 00 0000000000 MACPEE 00 0000000000 MELFLU 00 101313000001 MISANG 00 0000000000 MOGADS 00 0000000000 NANAUS 00 0000000000 NEMERE 158 250 3679 806 299 890 506 0 799 12 133 302 NEOHYR 00 0000000000 ONCMYK 00 0000000000 PERFLU 00 0000000000 PHIGRA 00 0000000000 RETSEM 00 0000000000 SALTRU 00 0000000000 TANTAN 00 00000038782200 TOTAL 909 953 4429 4223 1325 18731 4562 528 2667 8106 1381 1364
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 150
Appendix 16 (cont). Species biomass (g) at assessment sites from electrofishing shot types. River Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond Cond L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr siteID SRA0039 SRA0040 SRA0041 SRA0013 SRA0015 SRA0017 SRA0018 SRA0020 SRA0030 A11 A12 A13 VPZ Srce Srce Srce Tran Tran Tran Tran Tran Tran Dep Dep Dep AMBAGA 00 0000000000 BIDBID 00 0000000000 CARAUR 102 958 0 242 60 0 1220 216 0 10 20 0 CRASTE 023 3000000902 CYPCAR 0 20455 0 0 1655 1083 1660 826 0 7242 9935 27527 GADBIS 00 0000000000 GADMAR 00 0000000000 GALOLI 00 0000000000 GAMHOL 10 012100311001 HYPSPP 315 89100059000 LEIUNI 36143 0241172138108240000 MACAMB 0 3986 0 0 364 0 1098 154 0 2022 1773 1611 MACAUS 00 0000000000 MACMAC 00 0000000000 MACPEE 00 0000000000 MELFLU 818 0100130300 MISANG 00 0000000000 MOGADS 00 112000000000 NANAUS 00 0000000000 NEMERE 25 66 0 417 137 1922 1422 0 0 1456 5596 2872 NEOHYR 00 00210000000 ONCMYK 00 0000000000 PERFLU 00 0000000000 PHIGRA 00 0000000000 RETSEM 259 00100012413 SALTRU 00 0000000000 TANTAN 150 216018037200000 TOTAL 539 25571 420 913 2428 3143 5882 1258 22 10746 17326 32015
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 151
Appendix 16 (cont). Species biomass (g) at assessment sites from electrofishing shot types. River L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr siteID A14 A21 A22 A23 A24 A25 A26 A27 A28 A31 A32 A33 VPZ Dep Tran Tran Tran Tran Tran Tran Tran Tran Srce Srce Srce AMBAGA 00 0000000000 BIDBID 00 0000000000 CARAUR 729 0 395 704 448 0 6 43 0 0 38 0 CRASTE 24 6310008080 CYPCAR 20714 9596 15561 1686 8353 5117 1655 62 10719 3853 26656 1780 GADBIS 00 0000000000 GADMAR 00 0000000000 GALOLI 00 0000000000 GAMHOL 00 0000000010 HYPSPP 00 0000100120 LEIUNI 00 0000000000 MACAMB 3185 599 1973 555 6026 3331 4045 226 3135 828 681 1043 MACAUS 00 0000000000 MACMAC 00 0000000000 MACPEE 00 0000000000 MELFLU 01 000431506914 MISANG 00 0000000000 MOGADS 00 0000000000 NANAUS 00 0000000000 NEMERE 3738 4458 11105 4677 5177 1947 1673 2143 936 7649 1753 1487 NEOHYR 00 0000000000 ONCMYK 00 0000000000 PERFLU 00 00061000000 PHIGRA 00 0000000000 RETSEM 67 2300144312105 SALTRU 00 0000000000 TANTAN 00 0000000000 TOTAL 28375 14666 29042 7628 20005 10460 7397 2479 14851 12350 29157 4329
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 152
Appendix 16 (cont). Species biomass (g) at assessment sites from electrofishing shot types. River L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr Lach Lach Lach siteID A34 A35 A36 A37 A38 A41 A42 A43 A44 12002 12003 12004 VPZ Srce Srce Srce Srce Srce Srce Srce Srce Srce Dep Dep Dep AMBAGA 00 0000000000 BIDBID 00 0000000000 CARAUR 00 00000000684641 CRASTE 70 0000200000 CYPCAR 22001 2373 8790 669 3935 13161 13148 22832 21215 8002 5483 1206 GADBIS 00 0000000000 GADMAR 00 0000000000 GALOLI 00 0000000000 GAMHOL 00 0100000000 HYPSPP 10 0000000040 LEIUNI 00 0000000000 MACAMB 20 1526 2109 1210 700 1141 283 581 7260 0 0 0 MACAUS 00 0000000000 MACMAC 00 0000000000 MACPEE 00 0000000000 MELFLU 30 15600621000 MISANG 00 0000000000 MOGADS 00 0000000000 NANAUS 00 0000000000 NEMERE 278 1550 235 1047 424 360 0 0 1696 0 0 0 NEOHYR 00 0000000000 ONCMYK 00 0000000000 PERFLU 00 00000000450 PHIGRA 00 0010000000 RETSEM 915 3807313419430 SALTRU 00 0000000000 TANTAN 00 0000000000 TOTAL 22318 5464 11151 2941 5060 14669 13470 23450 30191 8006 6220 1847
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 153
Appendix 16 (cont). Species biomass (g) at assessment sites from electrofishing shot types. River Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach siteID 12005 12010 12011 12012 12019 12021 12025 12026 12027 12028 12029 12030 VPZ Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep AMBAGA 00 0000000000 BIDBID 00 0000000000 CARAUR 0 147 0 1522 1421 133 0 0 0 0 1633 1267 CRASTE 00 0000000000 CYPCAR 81 6024 0 1551 4922 6943 6791 997 9179 24995 6134 14731 GADBIS 00 0000000000 GADMAR 00 0000000000 GALOLI 00 0000000000 GAMHOL 30 0000001000 HYPSPP 260 1400000000 LEIUNI 00 0000000000 MACAMB 00 000001729088600 MACAUS 00 0000000000 MACMAC 00 0000000000 MACPEE 0 0 0 0 0 6413 0 0 5431 0 0 0 MELFLU 00 0000000000 MISANG 00 0000000000 MOGADS 00 0000000000 NANAUS 00 0000000000 NEMERE 0 0 0 0 33 0 170 1941 190 106 1859 1197 NEOHYR 00 0000000000 ONCMYK 00 0000000000 PERFLU 00 0000001053591421 PHIGRA 00 0000000000 RETSEM 00 000120127535 SALTRU 00 0000000000 TANTAN 00 0000000000 TOTAL 110 6171 1 3077 6375 13501 6961 4678 14913 26028 10543 17222
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 154
Appendix 16 (cont). Species biomass (g) at assessment sites from electrofishing shot types. River Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Ovens siteID 12031 12006 12009 12036 12037 12038 12000 12001 12007 12008 12018 VIC04 VPZ Dep Srce Srce Srce Srce Srce Tran Tran Tran Tran Tran Dep AMBAGA 00 0000000000 BIDBID 00 0000000000 CARAUR 960254 0009770000067 CRASTE 00 0000000000 CYPCAR 41460 000083393801224000 GADBIS 00 0000000000 GADMAR 00 0000000000 GALOLI 00 938429700160000 GAMHOL 00 040011110232 HYPSPP 00 00046000004 LEIUNI 00 0000000000 MACAMB 00 0000000000 MACAUS 00 0000000000 MACMAC 00 0000000000 MACPEE 00 0000000000 MELFLU 00 0000000000 MISANG 00 00000000016 MOGADS 00 0000000000 NANAUS 00 0000000000 NEMERE 10410 0000000000 NEOHYR 00 0000000000 ONCMYK 00 000000025100 PERFLU 1819 00000170000 PHIGRA 00 0002000000 RETSEM 90 00020000002 SALTRU 0 0 0 1030 0 0 0 0 0 521 0 0 TANTAN 00 0000000000 TOTAL 6173 273 93 1119 297 1044 9 33971 11 13012 23 91
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 155
Appendix 16 (cont). Species biomass (g) at assessment sites from electrofishing shot types. River Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens siteID VIC05 VIC06 VIC18 VIC19 VIC20 VIC21 VIC01 VIC02 VIC07 VIC08 VIC09 VIC11 VPZ Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Srce Srce Srce Srce Srce Srce AMBAGA 00 0000000000 BIDBID 00 0000000000 CARAUR 3390 0000000000 CRASTE 00 0000000000 CYPCAR 54410 1148049609182034949000000 GADBIS 00 70002202843091872930 GADMAR 00 424000000000 GALOLI 016 00001140000 GAMHOL 04 0000000000 HYPSPP 1012 0020000000 LEIUNI 00 0000000000 MACAMB 00 0000000000 MACAUS 00 0000000000 MACMAC 00 100994320000000 MACPEE 00 0210500000000 MELFLU 00 0000000000 MISANG 00 0000000000 MOGADS 00 0000000000 NANAUS 00 0000000000 NEMERE 00 0000000000 NEOHYR 00 0000000000 ONCMYK 00 000063737022805584451301 PERFLU 00 00170000000 PHIGRA 00 0001000000 RETSEM 00 030481000000 SALTRU 00 00002458036856432424887 TANTAN 00 0000000000 TOTAL 5790 32 12920 51754 18702 4951 3325 659 6274 1387 3162 2188
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 156
Appendix 16 (cont). Species biomass (g) at assessment sites from electrofishing shot types. River Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens siteID VIC03 VIC10 VIC13 VIC14 VIC15 VIC16 VIC17 VPZ Tran Tran Tran Tran Tran Tran Tran AMBAGA 00 00000 BIDBID 00 00000 CARAUR 00 00000 CRASTE 00 00000 CYPCAR 0 0 0 0 23500 9136 12750 GADBIS 331 447 155 99 57 42 124 GADMAR 0 0 0 0 0 350 169 GALOLI 8 0 16 21 0 0 1 GAMHOL 00 00001 HYPSPP 00 00000 LEIUNI 00 00000 MACAMB 00 00000 MACAUS 00 00000 MACMAC 00 012000 MACPEE 0 0 0 0 2105 6080 0 MELFLU 00 00000 MISANG 00 00000 MOGADS 00 00000 NANAUS 00 00000 NEMERE 00 00000 NEOHYR 00 00000 ONCMYK 050 00000 PERFLU 0 0 0 0 32 42 0 PHIGRA 00 00000 RETSEM 0 0 0 0 0 25 5 SALTRU 126128 00000 TANTAN 00 00000 TOTAL 1601 525 171 132 25695 15676 13050
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 157
APPENDIX 17. Individual assessment site scores for all fish metrics (electrofishing only). River siteID VPZ abnorm prop_N_sp macro prop_N_abund mega sp_rich benthic pelagic intol T_abund OE prop_N_Biom adjust_OP Condamine 12015 Deposition 0.6 0.5000 0.1400 0.8599 0.2000 0.2222 0.2000 0.2584 0.0000 0.6012 0.1282 0.1734 0.5385 Condamine 12017 Deposition 0.2 0.5000 0.2301 0.7699 0.6000 0.4444 0.4000 0.2652 0.0000 0.4460 0.2564 0.4036 0.5385 Condamine SRA0005 Deposition 0.6 0.7048 0.0408 0.9711 0.2000 0.5556 0.4000 0.8163 0.0000 0.9954 0.5128 0.8325 0.5385 Condamine SRA0006 Deposition 0.2 0.5000 0.1880 0.8602 0.2000 0.6667 0.6000 0.5261 0.0000 0.9147 0.3846 0.3411 0.5385 Condamine SRA0007 Deposition 0.2 0.6410 0.4788 0.8970 0.2000 0.8209 0.4000 1.0000 0.3333 0.9005 0.5128 0.8190 0.5385 Condamine SRA0008 Deposition 0.2 0.7048 0.1310 0.8729 0.2000 0.5556 0.4000 0.8345 0.0000 0.9665 0.5128 0.5315 0.5385 Condamine SRA0009 Deposition 0.6 0.5000 0.2566 0.7434 0.6000 0.4444 0.4000 0.2727 0.0000 0.6714 0.2564 0.2743 0.5385 Condamine SRA0012 Deposition 0.2 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.2000 0.2449 0.4000 0.0000 0.0000 0.6739 0.2564 1.0000 0.5385 Condamine SRA0014 Deposition 0.2 1.0000 0.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.3509 0.4000 0.2961 0.3333 0.5112 0.3846 1.0000 0.5385 Condamine SRA0022 Deposition 1.0 0.6082 0.5922 0.5922 1.0000 0.6667 0.8000 0.2813 0.3333 0.4245 0.5128 0.5095 0.5385 Condamine SRA0023 Deposition 0.2 0.5641 0.6178 0.5068 0.6000 0.5556 0.6000 0.2577 0.0000 0.6193 0.3846 0.2434 0.5385 Condamine SRA0024 Deposition 0.6 0.6082 0.4190 0.6671 0.2000 0.7159 0.4000 0.9060 0.0000 0.9765 0.5128 0.6827 0.5385 Condamine SRA0039 Source 0.2 0.6667 0.7608 0.8456 0.6000 1.0000 0.7229 1.0000 0.4016 0.7110 0.7101 0.8098 0.7740 Condamine SRA0040 Source 1.0 0.6875 0.7128 0.7709 0.2000 1.0000 0.9622 1.0000 0.4009 0.8615 0.8284 0.1626 0.7740 Condamine SRA0041 Source 0.2 1.0000 0.8564 1.0000 0.6000 0.9089 0.8589 0.9202 1.0000 1.0000 0.5917 1.0000 0.7740 Condamine SRA0013 Transport 0.2 0.6082 0.6217 0.5719 0.2000 0.7266 0.4000 0.9196 0.0000 0.7878 0.4762 0.7225 0.5653 Condamine SRA0015 Transport 0.2 0.6082 0.6902 0.6667 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.9221 0.3333 0.5575 0.7143 0.2930 0.5653 Condamine SRA0017 Transport 0.2 0.6082 0.1831 0.9316 0.2000 0.3848 0.4040 0.3247 0.0000 0.7183 0.2381 0.6553 0.5653 Condamine SRA0018 Transport 0.2 0.6410 0.3762 0.6480 1.0000 0.8940 0.8046 0.6466 0.3352 0.5416 0.5952 0.5103 0.5653 Condamine SRA0020 Transport 0.6 0.5456 0.8854 0.1937 0.2000 0.9031 0.8128 0.6531 0.0000 0.8123 0.4762 0.1473 0.5653 Condamine SRA0030 Transport 0.2 0.6082 1.0000 0.7748 0.2000 0.3887 0.2041 0.6560 0.0000 0.6292 0.2381 0.9509 0.5653 Lachlan 12002 Deposition 0.2 0.5000 1.0000 0.4359 0.2000 0.2318 0.2000 0.2934 0.0000 0.2589 0.0917 0.0004 0.2941 Lachlan 12003 Deposition 0.2 0.4359 1.0000 0.4544 0.2000 0.5683 0.4000 0.5754 0.0000 0.4245 0.1835 0.0011 0.2941 Lachlan 12004 Deposition 0.2 0.0000 1.0000 0.0000 0.2000 0.3594 0.2000 0.3032 0.0000 0.4460 0.0000 0.0000 0.2941 Lachlan 12005 Deposition 1.0 0.3918 1.0000 0.5577 0.2000 0.3815 0.4006 0.3219 0.0000 0.6612 0.0917 0.2380 0.2941 Lachlan 12010 Deposition 0.2 0.0000 1.0000 0.0000 0.2000 0.2222 0.2000 0.0000 0.0000 0.3997 0.0000 0.0000 0.2941 Lachlan 12011 Deposition 1.0 0.5000 1.0000 0.3333 0.2000 0.2259 0.2000 0.2859 0.0000 0.2230 0.0917 0.6251 0.2941 Lachlan 12012 Deposition 1.0 0.3333 1.0000 0.4755 0.2000 0.4939 0.4000 0.3125 0.0000 0.5893 0.0917 0.0015 0.2941 Lachlan 12019 Deposition 1.0 0.3918 0.8718 0.1282 0.2000 0.3333 0.2000 0.2000 0.0000 0.5178 0.0917 0.0051 0.2941 Lachlan 12021 Deposition 0.2 0.5000 0.6936 0.5922 1.0000 0.4444 0.4000 0.2723 0.0000 0.4245 0.1835 0.4759 0.2941 Lachlan 12025 Deposition 0.2 0.5000 0.4544 0.5456 0.2000 0.2222 0.2000 0.2655 0.0000 0.3130 0.0917 0.0245 0.2941 Lachlan 12026 Deposition 1.0 0.6667 0.2626 0.8790 0.2000 0.4444 0.4000 0.5313 0.0000 0.6475 0.2752 0.7869 0.2941
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 158
Appendix 17 (cont.). Individual assessment site scores for all fish metrics (electrofishing only ) from the Pilot SRA. River siteID VPZ abnorm prop_N_sp macro prop_N_abund mega sp_rich benthic pelagic intol T_abund OE prop_N_Biom adjust_OP Lachlan 12027 Deposition 0.2 0.5000 0.4000 0.6633 0.2000 0.6667 0.4000 1.0000 0.0000 0.6446 0.2752 0.3774 0.2941 Lachlan 12028 Deposition 0.6 0.5641 0.5782 0.4914 0.2000 0.5556 0.4000 0.7676 0.0000 0.5808 0.2752 0.0383 0.2941 Lachlan 12029 Deposition 1.0 0.4359 0.3608 0.6520 0.2 0.5556 0.2000 0.6000 0.0000 0.7575 0.1835 0.1766 0.2941 Lachlan 12030 Deposition 0.6 0.4359 0.4544 0.5734 0.2 0.5556 0.2000 0.6000 0.0000 0.6834 0.1835 0.0698 0.2941 Lachlan 12031 Deposition 1.0 0.4359 0.4218 0.6423 0.2 0.5556 0.2000 0.6000 0.0000 0.6923 0.1835 0.1701 0.2941 Lachlan 12006 Source 1.0 0.0000 1.0000 0.0000 0.2 0.8814 0.0000 1.0000 0.0000 0.8343 0.0000 0.0000 0.4092 Lachlan 12009 Source 0.2 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.2 0.4040 0.6364 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000 0.1361 1.0000 0.4092 Lachlan 12036 Source 0.2 0.3918 1.0000 0.6224 0.2 0.9456 0.9929 0.7979 0.8274 1.0000 0.1361 0.0755 0.4092 Lachlan 12037 Source 0.2 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.2 0.3830 0.6032 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000 0.1361 1.0000 0.4092 Lachlan 12038 Source 0.6 0.5641 1.0000 0.9054 0.2 0.7066 0.4452 0.7154 0.0000 0.8178 0.4082 0.0645 0.4092 Lachlan 12000 Transport 1.0 0.0000 1.0000 0.0000 0.2 0.2472 0.2000 0.3128 0.0000 0.3130 0.0000 0.0000 0.0929 Lachlan 12001 Transport 0.2 0.3333 1.0000 0.3333 0.2 0.5518 0.4346 0.6984 0.0000 0.5157 0.1111 0.0005 0.0929 Lachlan 12007 Transport 1.0 0.0000 1.0000 0.0000 0.2 0.1272 0.0000 0.3219 0.0000 0.6260 0.0000 0.0000 0.0929 Lachlan 12008 Transport 0.2 0.0000 1.0000 0.0000 0.2 0.3699 0.6000 0.0000 0.6667 0.3857 0.0000 0.0000 0.0929 Lachlan 12018 Transport 1.0 0.0000 1.0000 0.0000 0.2 0.1372 0.0000 0.3472 0.0000 0.8481 0.0000 0.0000 0.0929 L. Murray A11 Deposition 0.2 0.6667 0.4560 0.6604 0.6 0.8889 0.6000 0.8000 0.3333 0.6531 0.4428 0.3251 0.2194 L. Murray A12 Deposition 1.0 0.5000 0.2301 0.7854 0.6 0.6667 0.4000 0.6000 0.0000 0.6690 0.2214 0.4254 0.2194 L. Murray A13 Deposition 0.2 0.6082 0.5559 0.5051 0.6 0.6667 0.4000 0.8000 0.3333 0.6664 0.2952 0.1402 0.2194 L. Murray A14 Deposition 0.6 0.6082 0.4012 0.6565 0.6 0.6667 0.4000 0.6000 0.3333 0.6879 0.2952 0.2443 0.2194 L. Murray A31 Source 0.2 0.7323 0.2804 0.8779 0.2 0.6667 0.6000 0.6000 0.0000 0.6446 0.4310 0.6880 0.3333 L. Murray A32 Source 0.6 0.6082 0.5000 0.7027 0.2 1.0000 0.6000 1.0000 0.3333 0.6923 0.5172 0.0845 0.3333 L. Murray A33 Source 0.6 0.7048 0.2348 0.8718 0.2 0.5556 0.4000 0.6000 0.0000 0.7407 0.3448 0.5888 0.3333 L. Murray A34 Source 0.2 0.7532 0.7721 0.6830 0.2 0.7778 0.6000 0.8000 0.3333 0.6503 0.5172 0.0142 0.3333 L. Murray A35 Source 0.2 0.7048 0.5000 0.8187 0.6 0.5556 0.4000 0.6000 0.0000 0.5851 0.3448 0.5658 0.3333 L. Murray A36 Source 0.2 0.7048 0.3473 0.7434 1.0 0.5556 0.4000 0.6000 0.0000 0.5241 0.3448 0.2118 0.3333 L. Murray A37 Source 0.2 0.6410 0.2693 0.8477 0.2 0.7778 0.4000 1.0000 0.3333 0.7220 0.4310 0.7722 0.3333 L. Murray A38 Source 0.2 0.7048 0.5354 0.5354 1.0 0.5556 0.6000 0.4000 0.0000 0.3534 0.3448 0.2225 0.3333 L. Murray A41 Source 0.6 0.7048 0.5765 0.5765 0.6 0.5556 0.4000 0.6000 0.0000 0.4897 0.3448 0.1028 0.3333 L. Murray A42 Source 0.2 0.7048 0.7952 0.7048 0.6 0.5556 0.4000 0.6000 0.3333 0.5471 0.3448 0.0239 0.3333 L. Murray A43 Source 0.2 0.7048 0.8365 0.6377 0.6 0.5556 0.4000 0.6000 0.3333 0.5524 0.3448 0.0263 0.3333 L. Murray A44 Source 0.6 0.7048 0.5233 0.6534 1.0 0.5556 0.4000 0.6000 0.0000 0.5973 0.3448 0.2973 0.3333 L. Murray A21 Transport 0.2 0.7323 0.3079 0.7732 0.2 0.6667 0.4000 0.8000 0.3333 0.6923 0.4425 0.3456 0.2727
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 159
Appendix 17 (cont.). Individual assessment site scores for all fish metrics (electrofishing only ) from the Pilot SRA. River siteID VPZ abnorm prop_N_sp macro prop_N_abund mega sp_rich benthic pelagic intol T_abund OE prop_N_Biom adjust_OP L. Murray A22 Transport 0.2 0.6082 0.3678 0.6508 0.2 0.6667 0.4000 0.6000 0.3333 0.7618 0.3540 0.4506 0.2727 L. Murray A23 Transport 0.2 0.6082 0.2920 0.7584 0.6 0.6667 0.4000 0.6000 0.3333 0.7439 0.3540 0.6867 0.2727 L. Murray A24 Transport 0.2 0.5641 0.1959 0.8253 0.6 0.5556 0.4000 0.4000 0.3333 0.7546 0.2655 0.5600 0.2727 L. Murray A25 Transport 0.2 0.5641 0.2491 0.7509 1.0 0.5556 0.4000 0.6000 0.0000 0.6446 0.2655 0.5050 0.2727 L. Murray A26 Transport 0.6 0.6410 0.2566 0.8743 0.6 0.7778 0.6000 0.6000 0.0000 0.7008 0.4425 0.7755 0.2727 L. Murray A27 Transport 0.6 0.6410 0.1848 0.8841 0.2 0.7778 0.4000 0.8000 0.3333 0.6612 0.4425 0.9575 0.2727 L. Murray A28 Transport 0.2 0.7323 0.3409 0.7908 0.6 0.6667 0.4000 0.8000 0.3333 0.7342 0.4425 0.2782 0.2727 Ovens VIC04 Deposition 0.2 0.4359 0.8790 0.2123 0.2 0.5556 0.4000 0.5233 0.0000 0.5360 0.2030 0.0658 0.4262 Ovens VIC05 Deposition 1.0 0.3918 1.0000 0.3190 0.2 0.3333 0.4000 0.0000 0.0000 0.4126 0.1015 0.0016 0.4262 Ovens VIC06 Deposition 1.0 0.6082 1.0000 0.6527 0.2 0.3333 0.4000 0.2711 0.0000 0.5241 0.2030 0.8875 0.4262 Ovens VIC18 Deposition 0.2 0.6667 0.8391 0.6667 0.6 0.4444 0.8000 0.0000 0.6667 0.4460 0.2030 0.1115 0.4262 Ovens VIC19 Deposition 0.2 0.5641 0.8779 0.5290 0.6 0.5556 0.6000 0.5202 0.3333 0.6446 0.3046 0.0414 0.4262 Ovens VIC20 Deposition 0.6 0.5641 0.8963 0.6571 0.2 0.5556 0.6000 0.5202 0.3333 0.6966 0.3046 0.0258 0.4262 Ovens VIC21 Deposition 0.2 0.6082 1.0000 0.5456 0.2 0.3333 0.4000 0.2571 0.0000 0.3130 0.2030 0.0005 0.4262 Ovens VIC01 Source 1.0 0.5000 1.0000 0.3869 0.2 0.7565 1.0000 0.0000 1.0000 0.8517 0.8889 0.0693 0.2879 Ovens VIC02 Source 0.6 0.6082 1.0000 0.6192 0.2 0.3810 0.6000 0.0000 0.6667 0.5973 0.8889 0.4375 0.2879 Ovens VIC07 Source 0.6 0.3918 1.0000 0.3367 0.2 0.4938 0.7778 0.0000 1.0000 0.7759 0.4444 0.0492 0.2879 Ovens VIC08 Source 1.0 0.3918 1.0000 0.6848 0.2 0.4372 0.6885 0.0000 1.0000 0.7074 0.4444 0.1346 0.2879 Ovens VIC09 Source 0.2 0.3918 1.0000 0.5471 0.2 0.4520 0.7119 0.0000 1.0000 0.7285 0.4444 0.0927 0.2879 Ovens VIC11 Source 1.0 0.0000 1.0000 0.0000 0.2 0.9877 1.0000 0.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.2879 Ovens VIC12 Source 0.2 0.5000 1.0000 0.5879 0.2 1.0000 1.0000 0.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.8889 0.2203 0.2879 Ovens VIC03 Transport 1.0 0.6082 1.0000 0.8378 0.2 0.4103 0.6462 0.0000 0.7179 0.6664 0.2667 0.2121 0.4911 Ovens VIC10 Transport 1.0 0.3918 1.0000 0.7815 0.2 0.3837 0.6043 0.0000 1.0000 0.6386 0.1333 0.8509 0.4911 Ovens VIC13 Transport 1.0 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.2 0.2324 0.4000 0.0000 0.3333 0.5934 0.2667 1.0000 0.4911 Ovens VIC14 Transport 0.6 1.0000 0.6667 1.0000 1.0 0.3419 0.6000 0.0000 0.6667 0.5764 0.4000 1.0000 0.4911 Ovens VIC15 Transport 1.0 0.5000 0.8050 0.4121 0.6 0.4444 0.6000 0.2813 0.3333 0.3857 0.2667 0.0842 0.4911 Ovens VIC16 Transport 0.2 0.6082 0.7871 0.8404 1.0 0.6667 0.8000 0.5422 0.3333 0.6714 0.5333 0.4145 0.4911 Ovens VIC17 Transport 0.2 0.6082 1.0000 0.6667 0.2 0.6667 0.8000 0.5325 0.3333 0.5360 0.5333 0.0229 0.4911
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report 160
APPENDIX 18. Boxplots of fish indicators at valley scale from 2000 bootstrapped samples. Box equals mean +/- 2 standard errors of 2000 resamples of the raw data (medians).Tick marks indicate the range. C-W = Condamine weighted, L-W = Lachlan weighted etc
1. 0 1. 0 0. 9 0. 9 0. 8 0. 8 0. 7 0. 7 0. 6 0. 6 0. 5 0. 5 0. 4 0. 4 0. 3 0. 3 Pelagic Species Pelagic Species 0. 2 0. 2 0. 1 0. 1 Sustainable Rivers Fish Index Index Fish Rivers Sustainable 0. 0 0. 0
C-W L-W M-W O-W C-W L-W M-W O-W
rivpz rivpz
1. 0 1.0 0. 9 0.9 0. 8 0.8 0. 7 0.7 0. 6 0.6 0. 5 0.5 0. 4
0.4 Intolerant Species 0. 3 0.3
Species Richness Species Richness 0. 2 0.2 0. 1 0.1 0. 0 0.0 C-W L-W M-W O-W C-W L-W M-W O-W rivpz 1. 0 1. 0 0. 9 0. 9 0. 8 0. 8 0. 7 0. 7 0. 6 0. 6 0. 5 0. 5 0. 4 0. 4 0. 3 0. 3
Benthic Species Benthic Species 0. 2 0. 2 0. 1 0. 1 Prop. Native abundance 0. 0 0. 0 C-W L-W M-W O-W C-W L-W M-W O-W rivpz rivpz
161 Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report
Appendix 18 (cont.).
1. 0 1. 0 0. 9 0. 9 0. 8 0. 8 0. 7 0. 7 0. 6 0. 6 0. 5 0. 5 0. 4 0. 4 0. 3 0. 3 0. 2 0. 2 Prop. Native Species Prop. Native 0. 1 0. 1 Prop. With abnormalites 0. 0 0. 0
C-W L-W M-W O-W C-W L-W M-W O-W rivpz rivpz
1. 0 1. 0 0. 9 0. 9 0. 8 0. 8 0. 7 0. 7 0. 6 0. 6 0. 5 0. 5 0. 4 0. 4 0. 3 0. 3 0. 2 0. 2 0. 1 Prop. Macro carnivores Macro carnivores Prop. 0. 1 0. 0 Observerd / Expected (OE) / Expected Observerd 0. 0 C-W L-W M-W O-W
C-W L-W M-W O-W rivpz 1. 0 rivpz 0. 9 0. 8 1. 0 0. 7 0. 9 0. 6 0. 8 0. 5 0. 7 0. 4 0. 6 0. 3 0. 5 0. 4 0. 2 0. 1 0. 3 Percent Native biomass 0. 2 0. 0 0. 1 C-W L-W M-W O-W Prop. Mega carnivores carnivores Mega Prop. 0. 0 rivpz C-W L-W M-W O-W 1. 0 rivpz 0. 9 1.0 0. 8 0.9 0. 7 0.8 0. 6 0.7 0. 5 0.6 0. 4 0.5 0. 3 0.4 0. 2 0.3 0. 1 0.2 0. 0 Total abundance (aOP) Observed/Predicted Adjucted 0.1 C-W L-W M-W O-W 0.0 rivpz C-W L-W M-W O-W rivpz 162 Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report
APPENDIX 19. Key to SR-FI map site numbers and SRA SiteID.
Map ID SITE ID Map ID SITE ID Map ID SITE ID No. No. No. 1 12015 32 A27 63 12026 2 12017 33 A28 64 12027 3 SRA0005 34 A31 65 12028 4 SRA0006 35 A32 66 12029 5 SRA0007 36 A33 67 12030 6 SRA0008 37 A34 68 12031 7 SRA0009 38 A35 69 12036 8 SRA0012 39 A36 70 12037 9 SRA0013 40 A37 71 12038 10 SRA0014 41 A38 72 VIC01 11 SRA0015 42 A41 73 VIC02 12 SRA0017 43 A42 74 VIC03 13 SRA0018 44 A43 75 VIC04 14 SRA0020 45 A44 76 VIC05 15 SRA0022 46 12000 77 VIC06 16 SRA0023 47 12001 78 VIC07 17 SRA0024 48 12002 79 VIC08 18 SRA0030 49 12003 80 VIC09 19 SRA0039 50 12004 81 VIC10 20 SRA0040 51 12005 82 VIC11 21 SRA0041 52 12006 83 VIC12 22 A11 53 12007 84 VIC13 23 A12 54 12008 85 VIC14 24 A13 55 12009 86 VIC15 25 A14 56 12010 87 VIC16 26 A21 57 12011 88 VIC17 27 A22 58 12012 89 VIC18 28 A23 59 12018 90 VIC19 29 A24 60 12019 91 VIC20 30 A25 61 12021 92 VIC21 31 A26 62 12025
163 Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report
APPENDIX 20. Validation of the OP adjustment method
The Ovens River Transportational and Depositional Zones had the recommended sampling regime of 7 sites applied. I took 10 random samples of 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 sites in each of these zones and calculated the OP score for each sample. I then averaged the 10 OP scores for each combination and multiplied it by the adjustment factor (calculated for each combination) to get the estimated OP (Table 1).
When there were seven sites sampled the correction factors (1.073 & 1.106) were extremely close to those calculated without re-sampling (previous Table X) suggesting the method of re-sampling worked well. The Adjusted OP for the Depositional re-samples were all within +/- 0.05 of the true value when any of 3 to 7 samples sizes were used. However, the Adjusted OP for the Transportational Zone were not as accurate until 6 sites were sampled (Table X). It is concluded that the adjustment works reasonably well but will work better in some zones than others.
Table A20-1. Estimated OP score after adjustment in the Ovens Transportational and Depositional zones if fewer than recommended sites were sampled. True values for OP were 0.46 in the Transportational and 0.39 in the Depositional zones.
Zone Sites Adjustment Estimated Adjusted OP OP TRANS 3 1.694 0.338 0.573 4 1.394 0.385 0.536 5 1.230 0.454 0.558 6 1.121 0.431 0.483 7 1.073 0.462 0.495
DEP 3 1.541 0.250 0.385 4 1.493 0.294 0.440 5 1.296 0.317 0.410 6 1.168 0.361 0.422 7 1.106 0.389 0.430
164 Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report
APPENDIX 21 Assessment maps of four Pilot Valleys for diagnostics by VPZ and by entire valley scale. Site scores are listed in APPENDIX 17. Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report Report Technical Fish Theme – PilotAudit Rivers Audit Sustainable
165 Figure A21-1. Condition assessment of SR-FId for all VPZ’s within the four Pilot Valleys (associated confidence in data displayed in legend). VPZ colours indicate the overall VPZ condition assessment.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report Report Technical Fish Theme – PilotAudit Rivers Audit Sustainable
Figure A21-2. Condition assessment of SR-FId for the four Pilot Valleys (associated confidence in data displayed in legend). 166 Valley colours indicate the overall Valley condition assessment.