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 MurrayDarling 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
AUSRIVAS OE
Basin
BRS
CAP
CRCFE
DEC
DEH
DIPNR
DSE
EMAP
EPBC
FPZ
IBI
ICM
ISRAG
LCF
MDBC
MDBMC
MSRL
NLWRA
NRM&E
NSW Fisheries
NTC
NTE
NTP
OE
OP
PERCH
Pilot
PIRSA
DPI
R2
RIVPACS
SL
SRA
SR-FI
SR-FId
SR-FIe
SR-FIn
TL
USC
VPZ
Australian River Health Assessment
Australian River Health Assessment, Observed/Expected ratio, used as an indicator
of river health
Murray-Darling Basin
Bureau of Rural Sciences
The cap on diversions, agreed to in 1995
Cooperative Research Centre for Freshwater Ecology
Department of Environment and Conservation, New South Wales
Commonwealth Department of Environment and Heritage
Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources, New South Wales
Department of Sustainability and Environment, Victoria
US EPA Environmental Monitoring Assessment Protocol
Environmental Protection of Biodiversity Act
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)
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.
Integrated Catchment Management
Independent Sustainable Rivers Audit Group
Expert group of ecologists undertaking the Audit for the SRA program
Length Caudal Fork
Murray-Darling Basin Commission
Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council
Maximum Species Richness Lines
National Land and Water Resources Audit
Department of Natural Resources, Mining and Energy, Queensland
New South Wales Fisheries
The Number of Taxa Captured
The Number of Taxa Expected
The Number of Taxa that had any Probability of occurring
Observed/Expected species ratio
Observed/Predicted species ratio
Pre-European Reference Condition for fisH
The Pilot project for the Sustainable Rivers Audit
Department of Primary Industries & Resources South Australia
Department of Primary Industries, Queensland
Correlation coefficient
River Invertebrate Prediction and Classification Scheme. The UK stream
assessment predictive model, using observed/expected taxa
Standard Length
Sustainable Rivers Audit
Sustainable Rivers – Fish Index
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)
Sustainable Rivers – Fish Subindex expected native species richness: Indicators that
contain information on native species richness relative to reference condition (OE,
OP, sp_rich)
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)
Total Length
University of the Sunshine Coast
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.
Condamine
Lachlan
Lower Murray
Ovens
Source
3
5
0
7
Transport
6
5
0
7
Deposition
12
16
24
7
Total
21
26
24
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 (subsampled 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
Abundance
Biomass
Native fish biodiversity
Aliens
Habitat guilds
Trophic guilds
Reproductive guilds
Migratory guilds
Tolerances
Abnormalities
Size distribution
Metric
1) Total abundance per unit effort
2) Total biomass per unit effort
3) Number of native species
4) Evenness of native species
5) Biomass
6) Abundance
7) Biomass as proportion of all fish
8) Abundance as proportion of all fish
Number of species (including aliens) that are:
9) Benthic
10) Pelagic
11) Riffle dwelling
12) Floodplain dwelling
Number of species (including aliens) that are:
13) Macrophagic carnivores
14) Microphagic carnivores
15) Omnivores
Number of species (including aliens) that are in:
16-19) Reproductive strategy 1, 2, 3a or 3b (Humphries et al.
1999)
Number of species (including aliens) that migrate at:
20) Basin scale
21) Audit river valley scale
22) Local (reach) scale
Average scores across all species for:
23) FSI (water quality)
24) FSI (migration)
25) FSI (general) sensu Chessman (in prep.)
Number of individuals (including aliens) that have:
27) Visible abnormalities
28) Parasites
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 hatcheryreared 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
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)
fish with abnormalities
(abnorm)
What is it?
This value is a comparison of the native species predicted to occur in that
VPZ with the species actually caught at a site during the SRA Pilot
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.
This value is a comparison of the native species predicted to have occurred
(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.
This value represents the proportion of the total biomass (weight) caught that
has been contributed by native species of fish.
This indicator compares the total species richness (native and alien) at each
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).
This indicator compares the species richness of benthic (bottom-dwelling)
fishes (native and alien) at each site to a predicted species richness based on
current condition.
This indicator compares the species richness of pelagic (mid-water) zone
fishes (native and alien) at each site to a predicted species richness based on
current condition.
This indicator compares the occurrence of native and alien species known to
be intolerant to various disturbances (e.g. low water quality, sediment, coldwater pollution, migration barriers) to a predicted number of species at each
site.
This indicator is the proportion of individual fish caught in each site that
were native species.
This indicator is the proportion of fish species in each site that were native
species.
This indicator is the proportion of individual fish (native and alien) in each
site that were macro-carnivores (i.e. eat prey <15mm length).
This indicator is the proportion of individual fish (native and alien) in each
site that were mega-carnivores (i.e. eat prey above 15mm length
This indicator is the total number of fish (native and alien) caught in each site
compared to the predicted number expected in a good site occurring at the
same altitude.
This indicator is the inverse median score of fish (native and alien) at a site
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
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Lachlan
Lachlan
Lachlan
L. Murray
L. Murray
L. Murray
Ovens
Ovens
Ovens
Depositional
Transportational
Source
Depositional
Transportational
Source
Depositional
Transportational
Source
Depositional
Transportational
Source
Expected species
richness
0.50
0.63
0.89
0.28
0.13
0.41
0.38
0.45
0.41
0.34
0.37
0.43
Nativeness
Diagnostic
Overall
0.84
0.80
0.90
0.39
0.33
0.78
0.58
0.84
0.62
0.36
0.83
0.32
0.10
0.10
0.64
0.41
0.61
0.10
0.60
0.44
0.20
0.10
0.61
0.41
0.55
0.65
0.89
0.33
0.19
0.48
0.47
0.59
0.44
0.33
0.57
0.42
Table 5. Fish community health scores by valley from the Pilot SRA.
Valley
Condamine
Lachlan
L. Murray
Ovens
Expected species
richness
0.57
0.28
0.42
0.38
Nativeness
Diagnostic
Overall
0.84
0.4
0.76
0.45
0.11
0.4
0.28
0.39
0.61
0.33
0.51
0.44
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report
Minor modification
Major modification
Moderate modification
Moderate modification
xiii
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report
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
1.2
1.4
Background .................................................................................................................... 3
Purpose of the audit........................................................................................................ 3
The Pilot SRA ................................................................................................................ 6
2
Conceptual basis for pilot........................................................................................................ 8
3
Why sample fish? ..................................................................................................................... 9
3.1
4
Pilot design.............................................................................................................................. 11
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
5
Site selection and layout in the landscape.................................................................... 11
Site characteristics........................................................................................................ 14
Number of assessment sites sampled ........................................................................... 18
Fish sampling ............................................................................................................... 21
Quality assurance and quality control procedures ....................................................... 23
Sampling frequency and season ................................................................................... 24
Primary fish variables measured .................................................................................. 24
Supplementary variables measured.............................................................................. 25
Pilot analyses........................................................................................................................... 26
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
5.10
6
Aims of the Fish theme ................................................................................................ 10
Coding of fish species .................................................................................................. 26
Estimating biomass ...................................................................................................... 26
Native fish proportions................................................................................................. 27
Using the best of current conditions as reference ........................................................ 28
Allocating species to guilds ......................................................................................... 31
Pre-European reference condition: perch..................................................................... 32
Selection of fish indicators........................................................................................... 35
Indicators selected in addition to those recommended in the framework report ......... 36
Indicators selected for the pilot .................................................................................... 37
Calculation of ‘river health’ scores .............................................................................. 39
Results of pilot ........................................................................................................................ 45
6.1
6.2
Results from ‘best available’ sites................................................................................ 45
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
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8
Primary sampling method ............................................................................................ 82
Trial of 2-hour daytime deployment of bait traps ........................................................ 82
How many fish sites and electrofishing shots are required in the full SRA?............... 83
Rationale for lay out of sites ........................................................................................ 87
Potential sampling strategy .......................................................................................... 89
Development of additional indicators for the full SRA ............................................... 89
Construction of length:weight relationships for other Murray-Darling basin species. 90
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
•
1.4
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.
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 mid1990’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 MurrayDarling 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
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
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
16
Figure 4. Locations of the 92 Assessment sites sampled for fish during Pilot SRA.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report
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
Manufacturing Industry
Weighting = 2
Urbanisation
Weighting = 2
Irrigated Cropping
Weighting = 2
Dryland cropping
Weighting = 1
Grazing
Weighting = 1
Recreation
Weighting = 1
Water extraction
Weighting = 2
Flow regulation
Weighting = 3
Hypolimnetic release
Weighting = 3
High influence = 3
Industrial areas (e.g.
factories, mining, power
plants) adjacent to the site or
close upstream (<20km?);
industrial discharges enter
the stream
Medium influence = 2
Substantial industrial
areas in the catchment
but not close to the site
Site lies within or close
downstream of high-density
urban area; urban drainage or
sewage discharge enters the
stream
Substantial urban areas
in the catchment but not
close to the site; or lowdensity urban areas
only near the site,
without direct drainage
or discharge
Substantial cropping
areas in the catchment
but not close to the site
Large irrigated cropping
areas (e.g. horticulture,
cotton, rice farms) adjacent
to the site or close upstream;
tailwater drainage enters the
stream
Large dryland cropping areas
(e.g. wheat, oilseeds farms)
adjacent to the site or close
upstream;
Riparian zone intensively
grazed; faeces, pug-marks,
eroded access tracks, or
chewing down of vegetation
conspicuously present
Clear evidence of
recreational use, e.g. people
present, trampling, litter,
fishing lines
Large irrigation districts
upstream of the site; total
flow volume greatly reduced
Seasonal or diel pattern of
flows greatly altered by
upstream storage and release
patterns
Bottom-release dam <150km
upstream; summer
temperatures substantially
below natural; winter
temperatures may be elevated
Substantial dryland
cropping areas in the
catchment but not close
to the site
Riparian zone ungrazed
or lightly grazed, but
substantial riparian
grazing near site, close
upstream or through
much of catchment
No clear evidence of
recreation but
accessibility suggests
some use is likely
Only localised
irrigation upstream of
the site; total flow
volume not greatly
reduced but substantial
portion of low flow
may be extracted
Upstream impoundment
alters diel or seasonal
flow pattern, but
unregulated tributary
flows result in
substantial
normalisation
Bottom-release dam
upstream but >150km
distant from site;
seasonal temperature
regime only moderately
altered
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report
Low influence = 1
No industrial areas in
catchment (small
catchments) or industrial
areas remote from the site
and a minuscule proportion
of catchment area (large
catchments)
No urban areas in
catchment (small
catchments) or urban areas
remote from the site and a
minuscule proportion of
catchment area (large
catchments)
No cropping in catchment
(small catchments) or
cropping remote from the
site and a minuscule
proportion of catchment
area (large catchments)
No dryland cropping in
catchment (small
catchments) or cropping
remote from the site and a
minuscule proportion of
catchment area (large
catchments
No grazing in catchment
(small catchments) or
grazing areas remote from
the site and a small
proportion of catchment
area (large catchments)
Site unlikely to be accessed
for recreation
Little or no extractive use
upstream of the site
No significant upstream
impoundment
No significant upstream
impoundment or upstream
impoundment with
effective multi-level offtake
19
(Table 2 cont)
Disturbance
Artificial barriers
Weighting = 3
Alien fish
Weighting = 2
Alien plants
Weighting = 2
Geomorphic change
Weighting = 3
High influence = 3
Medium influence = 2
Low influence = 1
High barriers <150km
downstream of the site, likely
to be severely constraining
fish migration
Barriers are likely to be
affecting migration
to/from the site but they
are low or distant from
the site
Alien fish present but
do not dominate
Any barriers are upstream
and remote from the site.
Riparian zone retains
native trees and shrubs
but substantial alien
vegetation present.
Aquatic plants
predominantly native
Moderate geomorphic
condition (River
Styles™ or similar
method)
Riparian and aquatic
vegetation not cleared.
Little or no alien plant
invasion
Alien fish dominate the site
in terms of either numbers or
biomass
Riparian zone has lost most
or all of original tree and
shrub cover; riparian and
aquatic vegetation dominated
by alien species
Poor geomorphic condition
(River Styles™ or similar
method)
No alien fish at the site
Good geomorphic
condition (River Styles™
or similar method)
Table 3. Number of fish ‘Best Available’ sites sampled by each jurisdiction per ecological
region.
Ecological region
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)
Total number of
sites
11
15
16
14
10
22
NSW
5
9
7
8
5
8
Vic
QLD
SA
6
6
9
6
5
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).
Condamine
Lachlan
Lower Murray
Ovens
Source
3
3
.
10
Transportational
6
3
.
4
Depositional
12
16
20
7
Total
21
22
20
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.
Condamine
Lachlan
Lower Murray
Ovens
Source
3
5
.
7
Transportational
6
5
.
7
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report
Depositional
12
16
24
7
Total
21
26
24
21
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
Large River Sites: generally > 15m
channel width
Small River Sites: generally < 15m
width
Wadeable habitats
Electrofishing Method
Large Boat
• 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 Boat
• 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
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 JulySeptember, 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
scale/frequency
Waterbody type (stream, channel, floodplain etc.) For entire site
For entire site
Migration barriers
(Wall height, distance upstream/downstream)
For entire site
Prevailing conditions
Weather (e.g. sunny, cloudy, rainy)
Wind (e.g. still, slight, windy)
Tidal (Y/N)
Water level (rising, steady, falling, unknown)
5 repetitions each site
Water Quality
Temperature
Conductivity &/or salinity
Turbidity
Each shot location
Physical habitat
Depth – mean
Velocity
Distance covered in shot
Wetted width of river
Mesohabitat type (riffle, run, pool, backwater)
Proportion of each
sampled each shot
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report
Method
Visual estimate
From GIS or other
databases
Visual estimate
Water quality meter at
20cm depth
Secchi disk
Graduated depth probe or
echo sounder
Visual estimate
Measuring tape or laser
range-finder (if applicable)
Visual estimate
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
BIDBID
CARAUR
CRAAMM
CRASTE
CYPCAR
GADBIS
GADMAR
GALOLI
GAMHOL
HYPSPP
LEIUNI
MACAMB
MACAUS
MACMAC
MACPEE
MISANG
MOGADS
NANAUS
NEMERE
NEOHYR
ONCMYK
PERFLU
RETSEM
SALTRU
TANTAN
5.3
Source
QLD
NSW
QLD
CRAAMM
ACT
ACT
NSW
QLD
ACT
NSW
NSW
ACT
ACT
VIC
VIC
ACT
QLD
ACT
QLD
NSW
ACT
ACT
NSW
ACT
NSW
constant
-5.2290
-4.3294
-5.2183
-5.2183
-4.632
-4.5985
-4.7346
-5.2684
-5.4443
-5.7476
-4.2737
-5.3226
-5.1003
-5.1428
-5.234
-5.1021
-4.9479
-4.1728
-5.2317
-4.8663
-4.6787
-5.3735
-5.6923
-4.985
-5.1879
slope
3.1615
2.9457
3.1462
3.1462
2.9489
2.7054
2.8147
3.0972
3.2335
3.6294
2.887
3.2058
3.1359
3.0935
3.1227
2.9316
2.9862
2.9969
3.1961
2.968
2.9073
3.2617
3.4186
3.0304
3.1038
N
309
256
11
R2
0.9950
0.9863
0.9825
534
906
74
39
53
1948
664
94
119
1039
2077
170
23
12
784
85
424
178
657
228
56
0.9959
0.9925
0.9918
0.9796
0.7697
0.8982
0.9457
0.9501
0.9981
0.9902
0.9917
0.9490
0.9897
0.9918
0.9862
0.9746
0.9749
0.9980
0.7711
0.9789
0.9572
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.
Rs
P > Rs
Upstream
catchment area
-0.92
<.0001
Stream Order
-0.87
<.0001
Mean
Conductivity
-0.54
<.0001
Mean Secchi
Depth
0.34
0.0008
Rs
P > Rs
Mean Wetted
Width
-0.78
<.0001
Standard Deviation
of Depth
-0.72
<.0001
Mean Depth
-0.71
<.0001
Standard
Deviation of Width
-0.53
<.0001
Rs
P > Rs
Percent of site
Pools
-0.41
<.0001
Percent of Site
Backwater
0.29
0.0044
Percent of
Site Runs
0.36
0.0003
Percent of Site
Riffles
0.58
<.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
pelagic
intol
5
4
3
2
1
0
1
0
0
0
9
0
0
8
0
0
7
0
0
6
0
0
5
0
0
4
0
0
3
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
Altitude
Figure 6. Maximum species richness lines (MSRL’s) used in the SRA Pilot Study.
900
800
T_abund
T_abund
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1
0
0
0
9
0
0
8
0
0
7
0
0
6
0
0
5
0
0
4
0
0
3
0
0
2
0
0
1
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 macrocarnivores (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
Ambassis agassizii
Bidyanus bidyanus
Carassius auratus
Craterocephalus fluviatilis
Craterocephalus
stercusmuscarum fulvus
Cyprinus carpio
Gadopsis bispinosus
Gadopsis marmoratus
Galaxias olidus
Gambusia holbrooki
Hypseleotris spp.
Leiopotherapon unicolor
Macquaria ambigua
Macquaria australasica
Maccullochella
macquariensis
Maccullochella peelii peelii
Melanotaenia fluviatilis
Misgurnus anguillicaudatus
Mogurnda adspersa
Nannoperca australis
Nematalosa erebi
Neosilurus hyrtlii
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Perca fluviatilis
Philypnodon grandiceps
Retropinna semoni
Salmo trutta
Tandanus tandanus
Native
Intolerant
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Benthic
Pelagic
Mega
carnivore
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Macro
carnivore
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report
Y
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.
ACABUT
AMBAGA
ANGAUS
ANGREI
ARGHOL
ATHMIC
BIDBID
CRAFLU
CRASTE
FAVTAM
GADBIS
GADMAR
GALMAC
GALOLI
GALROS
GEOAUS
HYPSPP
LEIUNI
MACAMB
MACAUS
MACCOL
MACMAC
MACPEE
MELFLU
MOGADS
MORMOR
NANAUS
NANOBS
NEMERE
NEOHYR
PHIGRA
PORREN
PSEOLO
PSEURV
RETSEM
TANTAN
TASLAS
3
3
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
1
3
5
5
5
5
5
1
5
5
5
3
3
3
3
1
1
3
3
3
5
5
5
3
1
5
3
1
3
5
5
3
5
5
5
3
1
5
5
1
5
5
3
3
3
3
3
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
3
3
3
1
1
5
3
5
1
3
3
3
5
1
3
1
1
5
1
5
1
3
1
3
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
5
5
1
5
5
3
3
5
5
1
3
3
5
5
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report
Depositional
Transport
3
3
3
1
3
3
5
5
3
3
1
3
3
5
3
5
5
5
1
5
5
1
3
5
5
3
3
1
3
3
5
5
3
3
3
1
5
3
1
1
5
1
5
1
5
5
3
3
1
1
Source
Transport
Depositional
Ovens
1
1
5
5
3
3
1
3
5
3
3
5
3
Source
5
3
5
5
5
5
3
5
3
3
5
1
5
3
5
5
Lower Murray
Depositional
Transport
Source
Lachlan
Depositional
Transport
Source
Condamine
3
1
1
3
3
5
5
1
33
Table 12. PERCH patchiness scores used in Pilot SRA. Empty cells indicate where a species was
not predicted to occur.
ACABUT
AMBAGA
ANGAUS
ANGREI
ARGHOL
ATHMIC
BIDBID
CARAUR
CRAFLU
CRASTE
FAVTAM
GADBIS
GADMAR
GALMAC
GALOLI
GALROS
GEOAUS
HYPSPP
LEIUNI
MACAMB
MACAUS
MACCOL
MACMAC
MACPEE
MELFLU
MOGADS
MORMOR
NANAUS
NANOBS
NEMERE
NEOHYR
PHIGRA
PORREN
PSEOLO
PSEURV
RETSEM
TANTAN
TASLAS
3
3
1
1
1
1
5
5
3
3
1
1
1
3
1
5
3
5
3
5
3
3
5
3
.
1
5
5
3
3
5
3
5
1
5
3
3
5
5
3
3
3
5
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
3
1
1
3
3
3
5
1
5
5
1
1
5
5
3
5
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
1
1
5
1
5
1
3
1
1
5
1
5
1
1
5
3
3
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
5
5
1
3
5
5
1
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report
Depositional
Transport
3
1
3
3
5
3
3
1
3
5
3
5
5
5
1
5
5
5
5
3
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
5
1
5
5
5
3
1
3
1
5
5
1
3
5
1
1
1
5
5
3
1
1
1
5
5
5
Source
3
3
1
1
5
5
3
1
1
5
5
Ovens
Depositional
Transport
5
5
5
5
5
3
3
5
5
5
5
3
5
3
5
5
3
Source
Lower Murray
Depositional
Transport
Source
Lachlan
Depositional
Transport
Source
Condamine
5
1
1
3
3
5
5
1
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
Abundance
Biomass
Native fish biodiversity
Aliens
Habitat guilds
Trophic guilds
Reproductive guilds
Migratory guilds
Tolerances
Abnormalities
Size distribution
Indicator
1) Total abundance per unit effort
2) Total biomass per unit effort
3) Number of native species
4) Evenness of native species
5) Biomass
6) Abundance
7) Biomass as proportion of all fish
8) Abundance as proportion of all fish
Number of species (including aliens) that are:
9) Benthic
10) Pelagic
11) Riffle dwelling
12) Floodplain dwelling
Number of species (including aliens) that are:
13) Macrophagic carnivores
14) Microphagic carnivores
15) Omnivores
16-19) Number of species (including aliens) that are in:
reproductive strategy 1, 2, 3a or 3b (Humphries et al., 1999)
Number of species (including aliens) that migrate at:
20) Basin scale
21) Audit river valley scale
22) local (reach) scale
Average scores across all species for:
23) FSI (water quality)
24) FSI (migration)
25) FSI (general) sensu Chessman (in prep.)
Number of individuals (including aliens) that have:
26) visible abnormalities
27) parasites
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.
5.8
•
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).
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
expected ratio
(OE)
observed to
predicted
ratio(OP)
proportion native
biomass
(prop_N_biom)
total species
richness
(sp_rich)
benthic species
(benthic)
pelagic species
(pelagic)
intolerant species
(intol)
proportion native
abundance
(prop_N_abund)
proportion native
species
(prop_N_sp)
proportion macro
carnivores
(macro)
proportion mega
carnivores
(mega)
total abundance
(T_abund)
Fish with
abnormalites
(abnorm)
This value is a comparison of the native species predicted to occur in that VPZ with the
species actually caught at a site during the SRA Pilot 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. The values for each site in any VPZ are
then used to obtain a median score for that VPZ.
This value is a comparison of the native species predicted to have occurred (preEuropean) in a zone (without correction for rarity) against the native species actually
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.
This value represents the proportion of the total biomass (weight) caught that has been
contributed by native species of fish. The value is calculated at the site level and then the
median is determined for all sites in the VPZ.
This indicator compares the total species richness (native and alien) at each site to a
predicted maximum species richness, where the predicted maximum species richness is
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.
This indicator compares the species richness of benthic (bottom-dwelling) fishes(native
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.
This indicator compares the species richness of pelagic (mid-water) zone fishes(native
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.
This indicator compares the occurrence of native and alien species known to be
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.
This indicator is the proportion of individual fish caught in each site that were native
species, and is the median of all sites in that VPZ.
This indicator is the proportion of fish species in each site that were native species, and is
the median of all sites in that VPZ.
This indicator is the proportion of individual fish (native and alien) in each site that were
macro-carnivores (i.e. eat prey <15mm length), and is the median of all sites in that VPZ.
Metric 10 is the proportion of individual fish (native and alien) in each site that were
mega-carnivores (i.e. eat prey above 15mm length), and is the median of all sites in that
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.
This indicator is the total number of fish (native and alien) caught in each site compared
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.
This indicator is the inverse median score of fish (native and alien) at a site that had
diseases, parasites or abnormalities, across all sites in that VPZ (ie the
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 RiversFish Index (SR-FI) score. These are the rules used to develop a decision surface and the expert
system. H = high, L = low.
SR-FIe
SR-FIn
SR-FId
Rank
Final SR-FI score
H
H
H
9
10
L
H
H
5
5
H
L
H
7
7
H
L
L
6
6
H
H
L
8
9
L
L
H
3
2
L
H
L
4
4
L
L
L
2
1
(no fish)
(no fish)
(no fish)
1
0
The relationships between the indicators, sub-indices and final fish index can be summarised as
follows:
Relationship with
indicator
SR-FIe,n,d:
Expected species
OE
(+ve)
⎫
richness (SR-FIe)
OP
(+ve)
⎬SR-FIe
sp_rich
(+ve)
⎭
Nativeness (native prop_N_abund
(+ve)
⎫
Vs aliens) (SR-FIn) T_abund * prop_N_abund
(-ve) A
⎬SR-FIn
prop_N_sp
(+ve)
⎪
prop_N_biom
(+ve)
⎭
intolerance
(+ve)
Diagnostic
⎫
lack of abnormalities
(+ve)
(SR-FId)
⎪
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
Condamine-Culgoa
Lachlan
Lower Murray
Ovens
Deposition VPZ
(area in km2)
Source VPZ
(area in km2)
Transport VPZ
(area in km2)
122641
14347
70820
102762
15663
12442
84098 (135)
(301)
(446)
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
Ambassis agassizii
Bidyanus bidyanus
Carassius auratus
Craterocephalus stercusmuscarum
Cyprinus carpio
Gadopsis bispinosus
Gadopsis marmoratus
Galaxias olidus
Gambusia holbrooki
Hypseleotris spp.
Leiopotherapon unicolor
Macquaria ambigua
Macquaria australasica
Number
180
6
539
155
800
34
109
197
217
5112
223
229
13
Species
Maccullochella macquariensis
Maccullochella peelii peelii
Melanotaenia fluviatilis
Nannoperca australis
Nematalosa erebi
Neosilurus hyrtlii
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Perca fluviatilis
Philypnodon grandiceps
Porochilus rendahli
Retropinna semoni
Salmo trutta
Tandanus tandanus
Number
3
103
215
1
2106
153
7
38
72
7
720
112
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
i
i
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
Proportion native
species
Proportion native
biomass
Proportion native
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.
Ambassis agassizii
Bidyanus bidyanus
Carassius auratus
Craterocephalus stercusmuscarum
Cyprinus carpio
Gadopsis bispinosus
Gadopsis marmoratus
Galaxias olidus
Gambusia holbrooki
Hypseleotris spp.
Leiopotherapon unicolor
Macquaria ambigua
Macquaria australasica
Maccullochella macquariensis
Maccullochella peelii peelii
Melanotaenia fluviatilis
Misgurnus anguillicaudatus
Mogurnda adspersa
Nannoperca australis
Nematalosa erebi
Neosilurus hyrtlii
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Perca fluviatilis
Philypnodon grandiceps
Retropinna semoni
Salmo trutta
Tandanus tandanus
TOTAL
Cond
Dep
29
1
44
0
57
0
0
0
106
172
382
77
0
0
0
29
0
0
0
1919
0
0
0
0
3
0
2
2821
Cond
Tran
1
0
23
0
19
0
0
0
192
602
83
20
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
180
18
0
0
0
25
0
16
1186
5955
Cond
Srce
9
0
10
123
7
0
0
0
1
1544
15
3
0
0
0
82
0
88
0
9
0
0
0
0
35
0
22
1948
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report
Lach
Dep
0
0
130
0
126
0
0
0
83
2345
0
5
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
297
0
0
32
0
41
0
0
3063
Lach
Tran
0
0
1
0
40
0
0
52
347
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
1
0
446
4205
Lach
Srce
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
475
51
124
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
2
20
4
0
696
L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr Ovens
Dep
Tran
Srce
Dep
0
0
4
83
66
0
0
0
7
12
0
22
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
187
0
0
0
3
33
0
0
418
0
0
32
62
62
0
0
0
0
84
0
38
0
0
0
30
0
0
0
571
0
0
1
2
317
0
0
1199
2575
47
0
0
5
48
77
0
0
0
7
200
0
40
0
0
0
83
0
0
0
236
0
0
0
35
227
0
0
958
0
0
10
0
60
1
11
5
27
84
0
2
0
5
1
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
2
2
83
0
0
296
Ovens
Tran
0
0
0
0
13
189
28
46
5
4
0
0
2
9
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
2
0
43
10
0
362
1217
Ovens
Srce
0
0
0
0
0
187
0
24
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
171
0
0
0
177
0
559
TOTAL
39
1
263
316
527
377
39
602
826
5172
480
207
2
14
13
232
1
88
2
3399
18
175
54
46
827
192
40
13952
Table 19. Biomass (kg) of alien and native fish species sampled in Assessment sites with all gear
types.
Condamine
58.8
52.7
111.5
Alien biomass
Native biomass
Total biomass
Lachlan
177.5
25.0
202.4
L. Murray
264.3
117.2
381.5
Ovens
180.4
19.5
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
+
+
Ambassis agassizii
Bidyanus bidyanus
Gadopsis bispinosus
Gadopsis marmoratus
Leiopotherapon unicolor
Macquaria australasica
Maccullochella macquariensis
Misgurnus anguillicaudatus
Mogurnda adspersa
Nannoperca australis
Neosilurus hyrtlii
Tandanus tandanus
Lachlan
L. Murray
Ovens
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Biomass (kg) per site
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
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
Condamine
Dep
Condamine
Tran
Condamine
Source
Lachlan
Dep
Lachlan
Tran
Lachlan
Source
L. Murray
Dep
L. Murray
Tran
L. Murray
Source
Ovens
Dep
Ovens
Tran
Ovens
Source
sum
mean
median
sum
mean
median
sum
mean
median
sum
mean
median
sum
mean
median
sum
mean
median
sum
mean
median
sum
mean
median
sum
mean
median
sum
mean
median
sum
mean
median
sum
mean
median
total
biomass
65.6
5.5
3.2
17.6
2.9
2.7
28.2
9.4
0.8
150.9
9.4
7.7
47.8
9.6
0.2
3.8
0.8
0.7
92.7
23.21
23.5
112.5
14.1
13.5
176.2
14.7
13.1
106.9
15.3
9.7
60.4
8.6
3.0
32.5
4.6
5.3
native
biomass
36.4
3.0
2.1
9.6
1.6
1.3
6.7
2.2
0.8
23.9
1.5
0.7
0.2
0.04
0.04
0.8
0.2
0.2
24.3
6.1
6.2
57.4
7.2
5.9
35.4
3.0
2.4
5.1
0.7
0.5
11.3
1.6
0.7
3.1
0.4
0.6
alien Proportion VPZ native
biomass biomass
29.2
0.55
2.4
1.4
8.0
0.55
1.3
1.2
21.5
0.24
7.2
0.1
127.0
0.16
7.9
7.2
47.6
0.00
9.5
0.2
3.0
0.21
0.6
0.7
68.4
0.26
17.1
15.7
55.1
0.51
6.9
7.0
140.8
0.20
11.7
11.0
101.8
0.05
14.5
9.7
49.1
0.19
7.0
2.2
29.5
0.10
4.2
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.
Ambassis agassizii
Bidyanus bidyanus
Carassius auratus
Craterocephalus stercusmuscarum
Cyprinus carpio
Gadopsis bispinosus
Gadopsis marmoratus
Galaxias olidus
Gambusia holbrooki
Hypseleotris spp
Leiopotherapon unicolor
Macquaria ambigua
Macquaria australasica
Maccullochella macquariensis
Maccullochella peelii peelii
Melanotaenia fluviatilis
Misgurnus anguillicaudatus
Mogurnda adspersa
Nannoperca australis
Nematalosa erebi
Neosilurus hyrtlii
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Perca fluviatilis
Philypnodon grandiceps
Retropinna semoni
Salmo trutta
Tandanus tandanus
TOTAL
Cond
Dep
0
0
11
0
42
0
0
0
37
56
77
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1075
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1306
Cond
Tran
0
0
3
0
5
0
0
0
441
7
29
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
159
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
648
2117
Cond
Srce
1
0
3
24
2
0
0
0
0
68
2
1
0
0
2
8
0
44
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
4
163
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report
Lach
Dep
0
0
131
0
133
0
0
0
89
2303
0
6
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
296
0
0
33
0
44
0
0
3041
Lach
Tran
0
0
1
0
40
0
0
52
346
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
0
1
0
446
4192
Lach
Srce
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
484
51
124
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
2
20
4
0
705
L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr Ovens
Dep
Tran
Srce
Dep
0
0
1
0
31
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
119
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
160
0
0
16
10
26
0
0
0
0
1
0
18
0
0
1
3
0
0
0
356
0
0
1
0
37
0
0
469
911
50
0
0
0
5
46
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
0
0
0
15
0
0
0
152
0
0
0
0
49
0
0
282
0
0
1
0
25
0
4
1
13
9
0
3
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
213
0
0
274
Ovens
Tran
0
0
0
0
29
55
5
47
0
0
0
0
0
9
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2171
7
0
2326
2754
Ovens
Srce
0
0
0
0
0
26
0
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
0
0
0
89
0
154
TOTAL
1
0
171
39
379
81
9
598
977
2569
108
52
0
9
16
27
0
44
0
2159
1
26
53
4
2545
101
5
9974
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, purplespotted 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.
Ambassis agassizii
Carassius auratus
Craterocephalus stercusmuscarum
Cyprinus carpio
Gadopsis bispinosus
Gadopsis marmoratus
Galaxias olidus
Gambusia holbrooki
Hypseleotris spp.
Leiopotherapon unicolor
Macquaria ambigua
Maccullochella macquariensis
Maccullochella peelii peelii
Melanotaenia fluviatilis
Misgurnus anguillicaudatus
Mogurnda adspersa
Nematalosa erebi
Neosilurus hyrtlii
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Perca fluviatilis
Philypnodon grandiceps
Retropinna semoni
Salmo trutta
Tandanus tandanus
TOTAL
Cond
Dep
1
37
0
45
0
0
0
106
25
237
36
0
0
29
0
0
1646
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
2166
Cond
Tran
0
19
0
7
0
0
0
191
36
62
10
0
0
6
0
0
134
1
0
0
0
18
0
4
488
3067
Cond
Srce
0
10
47
7
0
0
0
1
176
15
3
0
0
23
0
83
3
0
0
0
0
32
0
13
413
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report
Lach
Dep
0
80
0
108
0
0
0
32
59
0
2
0
4
0
0
0
264
0
0
13
0
38
0
0
600
Lach
Tran
0
0
0
25
0
0
6
249
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
283
1359
Lach
Srce
0
4
0
0
0
0
309
23
114
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
19
3
0
476
L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr Ovens
Dep
Tran
Srce
Dep
0
4
12
64
0
0
0
4
1
0
13
0
0
1
0
0
148
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
257
0
25
22
59
0
0
0
0
2
0
33
0
0
29
0
0
497
0
0
1
0
21
0
0
689
1517
0
2
42
75
0
0
0
7
6
0
31
0
0
81
0
0
212
0
0
0
1
114
0
0
571
0
9
0
55
1
10
5
27
22
0
0
4
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
1
83
0
0
221
Ovens
Tran
0
0
0
13
139
25
46
3
0
0
0
9
8
0
0
0
0
0
3
2
0
41
7
0
296
957
Ovens
Srce
0
0
0
0
137
0
24
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
143
0
0
0
136
0
440
TOTAL
1
190
119
458
277
35
390
643
441
314
128
13
13
169
1
83
2904
1
147
22
3
378
147
19
6900
52
Table 24. Number of sites from which each species was recorded using electrofishing shots only.
Species
Ambassis agassizii
Carassius auratus
Craterocephalus stercusmuscarum
Cyprinus carpio
Gadopsis bispinosus
Gadopsis marmoratus
Galaxias olidus
Gambusia holbrooki
Hypseleotris spp.
Leiopotherapon unicolor
Macquaria ambigua
Maccullochella macquariensis
No. sites
1
35
16
63
14
3
12
26
22
13
39
4
Species
Maccullochella peelii peelii
Melanotaenia fluviatilis
Misgurnus anguillicaudatus
Mogurnda adspersa
Nematalosa erebi
Neosilurus hyrtlii
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Perca fluviatilis
Philypnodon grandiceps
Retropinna semoni
Salmo trutta
Tandanus tandanus
No. sites
5
28
1
1
47
1
9
13
3
43
10
6
80
0
108 25
32 249
0
0
0
1
13
1
0
1
38.8 97.9
40.0
4
0
23
0
0
3
3
6.9
Totals
Ovens
Source
Ovens
Transport
Ovens
Deposition
Lower Murray
Source
Lower Murray
Transport
Lower Murray
Deposition
10
7
1
0
0
0
0
4.4
Lachlan
Source
19
7
191
0
0
0
0
44.5
13.8
Lachlan
Transport
Condamine
Source
37
45
106
0
0
0
0
8.7
Lachlan
Deposition
Condamine
Transport
Carassius auratus
Cyprinus carpio
Gambusia holbrooki
Misgurnus anguillicaudatus
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Perca fluviatilis
Salmo trutta
VPZ % alien abundance
overall % alien abundance
Condamine
Deposition
Table 25. Number of alien fish of each species captured by electrofishing at Assessment sites in
the Pilot SRA.
4
25
2
9
0
0
64
59
75
55
13
0
4
0
7
27
3
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
143
0
1
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
7
136
28.0 12.3 14.7 42.5 9.5 63.4
15.9
41.9
190
458
643
1
147
22
147
23.3
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.
Alien biomass
Native biomass
Total biomass
Condamine
51.1
38.2
89.4
Lachlan
160.0
21.6
181.7
L. Murray
261.0
108.5
369.5
Ovens
153.2
15.6
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
Condamine
Dep
Condamine
Tran
Condamine
Source
Lachlan
Dep
Lachlan
Tran
Lachlan
Source
L. Murray
Dep
L. Murray
Tran
L. Murray
Source
Ovens
Dep
Ovens
Tran
Ovens
Source
sum
mean
median
sum
mean
median
sum
mean
median
sum
mean
median
sum
mean
median
sum
mean
median
sum
mean
median
sum
mean
median
sum
mean
median
sum
mean
median
sum
mean
median
sum
mean
median
total
native
alien
Proportion VPZ native
biomass biomass biomass biomass
49.2
26.6
22.6
0.54
4.1
2.2
1.9
2.0
1.2
0.7
13.6
6.6
7.0
0.49
2.3
1.1
1.2
1.8
0.7
1.1
26.5
5.0
21.5
0.19
8.8
1.7
7.2
0.5
0.4
0.1
131.8
21.1
110.7
0.16
8.2
1.3
6.9
6.3
0.1
6.3
47.0
0.02
47.0
0.00
9.4
0.003
99.4
0.02
0
0.02
2.8
0.5
2.3
0.18
0.6
0.1
0.5
0.3
0.1
0.3
88.5
22.3
66.2
0.25
22.1
5.6
16.5
22.9
5.7
15.7
106.5
52.1
54.4
0.49
13.3
6.5
6.8
12.6
5.3
7.0
174.6
34.1
140.5
0.20
14.5
2.8
11.7
12.9
2.3
11.0
94.2
4.1
90.1
0.04
13.5
0.6
12.9
5.8
0.03
5.8
56.8
10.0
46.8
0.18
8.1
1.4
6.7
1.6
0.3
1.3
17.7
1.5
16.3
0.08
2.5
0.2
2.3
2.2
0.2
2.2
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report
54
Biomass (kg) per site
25
20
total/site
15
native /site
10
alien/site
5
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.
Native biomass
Alien Biomass
Total biomass
All gear
214
681
895
Biomass (kg)
Electrofishing
184
625
809
Proportion of
Electrofishing/All
0.86
0.92
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
Condamine
Condam
in
Lower
L. Murray
M
ur r a
Lachlan
Lachl an
Ovens
O
vens
0. 3
0. 2
0. 1
0. 0
0. 0 0. 1 0. 2 0. 3 0. 4 0. 5 0. 6 0. 7 0. 8 0. 9 1. 0
O
bser ved + Caught %Nat i ve Bi om
ass
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.
River
Cond
Cond
Cond
Cond
Cond
Cond
Cond
Cond
Cond
Lach
Lach
Lach
Lach
Lach
Lach
Lach
Lach
Lach
L. M
L. M
L. M
L. M
L. M
L. M
L. M
L. M
L. M
Oven
Oven
Oven
Oven
Oven
Oven
Oven
Oven
Oven
VPZ
D
D
D
T
T
T
S
S
S
D
D
D
T
T
T
S
S
S
‘D’
‘D’
‘D’
‘T’
‘T’
‘T’
‘S’
‘S’
‘S’
D
D
D
T
T
T
S
S
S
Gear-type
Elec
Fyke
Bait
Elec
Fyke
Bait
Elec
Bait
Fyke
Elec
Fyke
Bait
Elec
Fyke
Bait
Elec
Bait
Fyke
Elec
Bait
Fyke
Elec
Bait
Fyke
Elec
Bait
Fyke
Elec
Bait
Fyke
Elec
Bait
Fyke
Elec
Fyke
Bait
n
10
10
10
6
6
6
3
3
3
16
16
16
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
8
8
8
12
10
10
7
7
6
7
7
7
7
6
7
Mean Lance
Williams
distance
0.942
0.673
0.621
0.890
0.536
0.334
0.952
0.599
0.560
0.922
0.500
0.312
0.724
0.687
0.605
1.000
0.808
0.700
0.926
0.575
0.325
0.859
0.689
0.477
0.912
0.557
0.337
0.907
0.426
0.331
0.940
0.438
0.281
1.000
0.887
0.667
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report
P
0.0660
0.0001
0.0002
0.0377
0.0019
0.0004
0.2111
0.1846
0.0824
0.0088
0.0000
0.0000
0.0565
0.1035
0.0847
.
0.0903
0.0877
0.0847
0.0260
0.0006
0.0036
0.0001
0.0000
0.0016
0.0006
0.0000
0.0472
0.0000
0.0003
0.1039
0.0007
0.0019
.
0.1020
0.0061
Tukeys Group
A
B
B
B
C
C
A
A
A
B
C
D
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
C
D
B
C
D
B
C
C
A
B
B
A
A
B
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.
Valley
Cond
Cond
Cond
Lach
Lach
Lach
L. M
L. M
L. M
Oven
Oven
Oven
Basin
Geartype
Elec
Fyke
Bait
Elec
Fyke
Bait
Elec
Bait
Fyke
Elec
Bait
Fyke
Elec
Fyke
Bait
n
19
19
19
26
26
26
24
22
22
21
21
19
Mean Lance
Williams
distance
0.927
0.612
0.527
0.899
0.574
0.464
0.896
0.608
0.386
0.949
0.510
0.488
P
0.0016
0.0000
0.0000
0.0025
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0091
0.0000
0.0000
90
86
88
0.916
0.515
0.525
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Tukeys Group
B
C
C
B
C
C
B
C
D
B
C
C
B
C
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 geartypes.
River
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Lachlan
Lachlan
Lachlan
L. Murray
L. Murray
L. Murray
Ovens
Ovens
Ovens
VPZ
D
T
S
D
T
S
‘D’
‘T’
‘S’
D
T
S
Gear
-type
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
L. Murray
L. Murray
L. Murray
Lachlan
Lachlan
Lachlan
Ovens
Ovens
Ovens
D
T
S
D
T
S
D
T
S
D
T
S
Elec
Elec
Elec
Elec
Elec
Elec
Elec
Elec
Elec
Elec
Elec
Elec
No.
species
12
12
13
9
9
8
10
10
10
15
13
4
11
11
12
9
9
10
9
6
8
13
11
4
‘Caught’ data only
No. alien
No. native
species
species
3
9
3
9
3
10
4
5
6
3
4
4
3
7
3
7
3
7
5
10
5
8
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
5
4
5
5
2
8
8
9
6
6
7
5
1
4
8
6
2
‘Caught’ plus ‘Observed’
No.
No. alien
No. native
species
species
species
12
3
9
12
3
9
3
14
11
9
4
5
9
6
3
8
4
4
10
3
7
3
11
8
10
3
7
15
5
10
13
5
8
4
2
2
11
11
13
9
10
10
9
6
8
14
11
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
5
4
5
5
2
8
8
10
6
7
7
5
1
4
9
6
2
Philypnodon
grandiceps
Nannoperca
australis
+
Macquaria
australsica
+
Macquaria
ambigua
Bidyanus
bidyanus
Ambassis
agassizii
Hypseleotris
spp
Dep
Srce
Tran
Dep
Tran
Srce
Dep
Tran
Srce
Dep
Tran
Srce
Carassius
auratus
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Lachlan
Lachlan
Lachlan
L. Murray
L. Murray
L. Murray
Ovens
Ovens
Ovens
VPZ
River
Table 32. Species that were missed by electrofishing at the VPZ scale.
+
+
+
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.
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Lachlan
Lachlan
Lachlan
L. Murray
L. Murray
L. Murray
Ovens
Ovens
Ovens
Dep
Tran
Srce
Dep
Tran
Srce
Dep
Tran
Srce
Dep
Tran
Srce
Philypnodon
grandiceps
Nannoperca
australis
Macquaria
australsica
Macquaria
ambigua
Hypseleotris
spp
Carassius
auratus
Bidyanus
bidyanus
Ambassis
agassizii
VPZ
River
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.
1(1)
1(1)
9(2)
1(1)
1(1)
2(2)
3(1)
2(2)
2(2)
4(2)
2(1)
2(1)
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 geartype 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
Condamine
Lachlan
L. Murray
Ovens
Macquaria ambigua
Nannoperca
australis
Macquaria
australasica
2 (2) 1
2 (1) 1
2 (1) 1
1 (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
0.86
0.66
0.85
0.52
0.00
0.91
0.66
0.78
0.70
0.55
0.84
0.55
0.61
0.61
0.69
0.44
0.00
0.56
0.61
0.62
0.70
0.56
0.61
0.39
0.24
0.66
0.76
0.78
1.00
1.00
0.43
0.27
0.51
0.90
1.00
1.00
0.20
0.20
0.60
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.67
0.67
0.86
0.55
0.52
1.00
0.67
0.72
0.59
0.52
0.59
0.78
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.60
1.00
0.20
0.40
0.20
0.20
0.20
1.00
0.60
*Adj_OP
T-abund
0.00
0.00
0.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.33
0.33
0.00
0.00
0.33
1.00
prop_N_
biom
mega
0.29
0.65
1.00
0.32
0.32
0.72
0.70
0.60
0.60
0.27
0.00
0.00
OE
macro
0.40
0.60
0.86
0.20
0.20
0.60
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.60
0.78
abnorm
prop_N_
sp
0.56
0.81
1.00
0.44
0.25
0.71
0.67
0.67
0.56
0.44
0.41
0.49
prop_N_
abund
Dep
Tran
Srce
Dep
Tran
Srce
Dep
Tran
Srce
Dep
Tran
Srce
intol
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Lachlan
Lachlan
Lachlan
L. Murray
L. Murray
L. Murray
Ovens
Ovens
Ovens
pelagic
VPZ
sp_rich
River
benthic
Table 35. Median values of the 13 fish indicators from electrofishing in the Pilot SRA.
0.38 0.57 0.54
0.48 0.55 0.57
0.71 0.66 0.77
0.14 0.19 0.29
0.00 0.00009 0.09
0.14 0.43 0.41
0.30 0.28 0.22
0.40 0.57 0.27
0.34 0.30 0.33
0.20 0.16 0.43
0.27 0.51 0.49
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
level
Indicator values
VPZ
level
VPZ median
indicator values
Valley
level
Weight
by VPZ
area
+ OP
SR-FIe
SR-FIn
SR-FId
Expert Rules
calculate
subindices
Expert Rules
calculate
subindices
SR-FIe
SR-FIn
SR-FId
Expert Rules
calculate index
Expert Rules
calculate index
SR-FI
SR-FI
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
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Lachlan
Lachlan
Lachlan
L. Murray
L. Murray
L. Murray
Ovens
Ovens
Ovens
VPZ SR-FI_expected
Dep
0.5
Tran
0.63
Srce
0.89
Dep
0.28
Tran
0.13
Srce
0.41
Dep
0.38
Tran
0.45
Srce
0.41
Dep
0.34
Tran
0.37
Srce
0.43
SR-FI_native
0.84
0.8
0.9
0.39
0.33
0.78
0.58
0.84
0.62
0.36
0.83
0.32
SR-FI_diagnostic
0.1
0.1
0.64
0.41
0.61
0.1
0.6
0.44
0.2
0.1
0.61
0.41
SR-FI
0.55
0.65
0.89
0.33
0.19
0.48
0.47
0.59
0.44
0.33
0.57
0.42
1
SR-FI_expected
Fish Community Health
0.9
SR-FI_nativeness
0.8
SR-FI_diagnostic
0.7
SR-FI
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
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
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
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
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
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.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report
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.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report
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, flatheaded 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
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report
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.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report
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
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.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report
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.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report
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
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
Condamine
L. Murray
Lachlan
Ovens
0.57
0.42
0.28
0.38
SR-FI_Native
0.84
0.76
0.4
0.45
SR-FI_Diagnostic
0.11
0.28
0.4
0.39
Fish Community Health
0.9
SR-FI Overall
Assessment
0.61 Minor modification
0.51 Moderate modification
0.33 Major modification
0.44 Moderate modification
SR-FIexpected
0.8
SR-FInativeness
0.7
SR-FIdiagnostic
0.6
SR-FI
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
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
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report
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.
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report
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
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 MurrayDarling 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 youngof-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
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
L. Murray
Lachlan
Lachlan
Lachlan
Ovens
Ovens
Ovens
VPZ
Dep
Srce
Tran
Dep
Dep
Srce
Tran
Dep
Srce
Tran
AMBAGA
HYPSPP
MACAUS NANAUS PHIGRA
+
+
+
+
+
+
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.
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
L. Murray
Lachlan
Lachlan
Lachlan
Ovens
Ovens
Ovens
Dep
Srce
Tran
Dep
Dep
Srce
Tran
Dep
Srce
Tran
AMBAGA BIDBID
+
+
+
CARAUR LEIUNI MACAMB PHIGRA
+
+
+
+
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 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
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
L- V
O
-V
L- X
O
-X
30
20
10
0
0. 0
0. 2
0. 4
0. 6
0. 8
1. 0
Hal f W
i 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
Correction
Factor
Condamine
Dep
1.011
Lachlan
Dep
1.010
Lower
Murray A
1.000
Lower
Murray B
1.000
Ovens
Dep
1.096
Ovens
Trans
1.064
Ovens
Source
1.008
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 subpopulations 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
(1/3rd of valleys)
(1/3rd of valleys)
(1/3rd of valleys)
Sentinel (1 per zone,
all valleys)
7.6
Yr
1
9
Yr
2
Yr
3
Yr
4
9
9
9
9
Yr
5
Yr
6
Yr
7
9
Yr
8
9
9
9
9
9
Yr
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
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
7.7
•
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).
Construction of length:weight relationships for other MurrayDarling 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 fishsampling 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 MurrayDarling 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: 3955.
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
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Lachlan
Lachlan
Lachlan
Lachlan
Lachlan
Lachlan
Lachlan
Lachlan
Lachlan
Lachlan
Lachlan
Lachlan
Lachlan
Lachlan
Lachlan
Lachlan
Lachlan
Lachlan
Lachlan
Lachlan
Lachlan
siteID
12015
12017
SRA0005
SRA0006
SRA0007
SRA0008
SRA0009
SRA0012
SRA0014
SRA0022
SRA0023
SRA0024
SRA0039
SRA0040
SRA0041
SRA0013
SRA0015
SRA0017
SRA0018
SRA0020
SRA0030
12002
12003
12004
12005
12010
12011
12012
12019
12021
12025
12026
12027
12028
12029
12030
12031
12006
12009
12036
12037
12038
VPZ
Depositional
Depositional
Depositional
Depositional
Depositional
Depositional
Depositional
Depositional
Depositional
Depositional
Depositional
Depositional
Source
Source
Source
Transport
Transport
Transport
Transport
Transport
Transport
Depositional
Depositional
Depositional
Depositional
Depositional
Depositional
Depositional
Depositional
Depositional
Depositional
Depositional
Depositional
Depositional
Depositional
Depositional
Depositional
Source
Source
Source
Source
Source
latitude
longitude altitude (m) catch.area (km2)
-29.3606
147.613
129.1
76180.9
-29.1497 148.0076
151.6
76105
-28.58
148.2
173.1
74921
-28.9
147.82
144.7
75397
-27.28
148.6
242
370
-28.1
148.62
191.1
71604
-28.52
148.27
174.8
74857
-27.11
148.76
274
141.3
-27.23
148.77
240
2090
-27.81
147.33
200
2042
-28.92
146.88
127
20360
-27.31
147.32
255
3921
-27.87
151.62
419
5989.5
-28.2
151.99
418
1465
-28.22
152.25
511
142.023
-26.79
149.21
266
801.2
-26.9
149.83
268
4590
-26.61
149.11
307
52
-26.85
148.42
304
620
-26.51
149.39
311
541.3
-26.33
150.4
314
451.47
-33.394
148.091
233
20335
-33.4071 147.7775
218
1751
-33.1447 148.0207
258
248
-33.1275
148.221
301
347
-33.166
147.139
185
10723
-33.138 147.6787
213
590
-33.1967 148.1565
280.1
854
-33.1774 144.9686
97.5
66512
-33.085
146.929
173.8
19518
-33.159
146.467
152.4
35790
-33.2205 146.4151
153
46664
-33.345
146.076
133.5
42543
-33.37
145.658
120.6
56385
-34.221
144.454
75
68669
-34.234
144.245
74
68977
-34.087
144.64
81
66168
-33.6018
149.204
798.3
220
-34.035
149.6
780
184
-34.229
149.554
718
107.3
-34.306
149.598
767.9
75.5
-33.98
149.167
371
3563
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report
99
Appendix 1 (cont.).
River
Lachlan
Lachlan
Lachlan
Lachlan
Lachlan
Lower Murray
Lower Murray
Lower Murray
Lower Murray
Lower Murray
Lower Murray
Lower Murray
Lower Murray
Lower Murray
Lower Murray
Lower Murray
Lower Murray
Lower Murray
Lower Murray
Lower Murray
Lower Murray
Lower Murray
Lower Murray
Lower Murray
Lower Murray
Lower Murray
Lower Murray
Lower Murray
Lower Murray
Ovens
Ovens
Ovens
Ovens
Ovens
Ovens
Ovens
Ovens
Ovens
Ovens
Ovens
Ovens
Ovens
Ovens
Ovens
Ovens
Ovens
Ovens
Ovens
Ovens
Ovens
siteID
12000
12001
12007
12008
12018
A11
A12
A13
A14
A31
A32
A33
A34
A35
A36
A37
A38
A41
A42
A43
A44
A21
A22
A23
A24
A25
A26
A27
A28
VIC04
VIC05
VIC06
VIC18
VIC19
VIC20
VIC21
VIC01
VIC02
VIC07
VIC08
VIC09
VIC11
VIC12
VIC03
VIC10
VIC13
VIC14
VIC15
VIC16
VIC17
Location, altitude and catchment area of the 92 assessment sites sampled
in the Pilot SRA.
VPZ
Transport
Transport
Transport
Transport
Transport
Depositional
Depositional
Depositional
Depositional
Source
Source
Source
Source
Source
Source
Source
Source
Source
Source
Source
Source
Transport
Transport
Transport
Transport
Transport
Transport
Transport
Transport
Depositional
Depositional
Depositional
Depositional
Depositional
Depositional
Depositional
Source
Source
Source
Source
Source
Source
Source
Transport
Transport
Transport
Transport
Transport
Transport
Transport
latitude
-33.596
-33.574
-34.0157
-33.8636
-34.102
-35.2201
-35.0507
-35.0318
-34.9342
-34.4514
-34.2245
-34.045
-34.0145
-33.9955
-33.9722
-33.9686
-33.9849
-34.2103
-34.1659
-34.1364
-34.0613
-34.878
-34.708
-34.6193
-34.3641
-34.1057
-34.0641
-34.0632
-34.1823
-36.19
-36.03
-36.19
-36.22
-36.1
-36.14
-36.05
-36.58
-36.48
-37
-36.56
-36.58
-37.05
-37.04
-36.51
-36.51
-36.45
-36.35
-36.32
-36.26
-36.24
longitude
148.5843
148.829
148.8216
148.6735
148.888
139.4016
139.3216
139.366
139.2763
140.5291
140.7359
140.8218
140.888
140.9044
140.8923
140.9019
140.9722
141.5341
141.4568
141.41
141.0228
139.6421
139.5731
139.6125
139.6297
139.6756
139.8391
139.8494
140.0714
146.17
146.38
146.27
146.21
146.14
146.16
146.12
146.34
146.37
146.48
146.44
146.46
146.34
146.29
146.33
146.41
146.25
146.45
146.4
146.31
146.28
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report
altitude (m)
280.7
355.7
301
279
351.9
2.5
5
5.2
5.3
18.9
11.8
19.3
14.7
15
15.4
15.5
18.7
40
33
29
19
6.7
7
8.5
9.4
10.4
10.6
10.6
14
140
145
170
145
135
135
125
530
300
460
390
410
820
660
350
305
235
220
200
170
155
catch.area (km2)
2300
1665
1826
12182
243
1162609
1161756
1161596
1161157
1121198
1120554
1110681
1110621
1110601
1110581
1110555
1110097
1095801
1096111
1096506
1109681
1155242
1154509
1154001
1151450
1147895
1131110
1131105
1125558
420
215
365.5
5275
6685.11
6550.61
6741
196
352
200
57.6
110
181
503.2
673
1421.5
3173
3517.3
3580
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
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)
NSW
Vic
QLD
SA
10
10
15
10
10
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
Manufacturing
Industry
Weighting = 2
Urbanization
Weighting = 2
Irrigated Cropping
Weighting = 2
Dryland cropping
Weighting = 1
Grazing
Weighting = 1
Recreation
Weighting = 1
Water extraction
Weighting = 2
Flow regulation
Weighting = 3
Hypolimnetic
release
Weighting = 3
High influence = 3
Industrial areas (e.g.
factories, mining, power
plants) adjacent to the site
or close upstream
(<20km?); industrial
discharges enter the stream
Medium influence = 2
Substantial industrial areas in
the catchment but not close to
the site
Site lies within or close
downstream of high-density
urban area; urban drainage
or sewage discharge enters
the stream
Substantial urban areas in the
catchment but not close to the
site; or low-density urban
areas only near the site,
without direct drainage or
discharge
Large irrigated cropping
areas (e.g. horticulture,
cotton, rice farms) adjacent
to the site or close upstream;
tailwater drainage enters the
stream
Large dryland cropping
areas (e.g. wheat, oilseeds
farms) adjacent to the site or
close upstream;
Substantial cropping areas in
the catchment but not close to
the site
Riparian zone intensively
grazed; faeces, pug-marks,
eroded access tracks, or
chewing down of vegetation
conspicuously present
Riparian zone ungrazed or
lightly grazed, but substantial
riparian grazing near site,
close upstream or through
much of catchment
Clear evidence of
recreational use, e.g. people
present, trampling, litter,
fishing lines
Large irrigation districts
upstream of the site; total
flow volume greatly
reduced
No clear evidence of
recreation but accessibility
suggests some use is likely
Seasonal or diel pattern of
flows greatly altered by
upstream storage and
release patterns
Bottom-release dam
<150km upstream; summer
temperatures substantially
below natural; winter
temperatures may be
elevated
Substantial dryland cropping
areas in the catchment but not
close to the site
Only localised irrigation
upstream of the site; total
flow volume not greatly
reduced but substantial
portion of low flow may be
extracted
Upstream impoundment
alters diel or seasonal flow
pattern, but unregulated
tributary flows result in
substantial normalisation
Bottom-release dam
upstream but >150km distant
from site; seasonal
temperature regime only
moderately altered
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report
Low influence = 1
No industrial areas in
catchment (small
catchments) or industrial
areas remote from the site
and a minuscule proportion
of catchment area (large
catchments)
No urban areas in
catchment (small
catchments) or urban areas
remote from the site and a
minuscule proportion of
catchment area (large
catchments)
No cropping in catchment
(small catchments) or
cropping remote from the
site and a minuscule
proportion of catchment
area (large catchments)
No dryland cropping in
catchment (small
catchments) or cropping
remote from the site and a
minuscule proportion of
catchment area (large
catchments
No grazing in catchment
(small catchments) or
grazing areas remote from
the site and a small
proportion of catchment
area (large catchments)
Site unlikely to be accessed
for recreation
Little or no extractive use
upstream of the site
No significant upstream
impoundment
No significant upstream
impoundment or upstream
impoundment with
effective multi-level offtake
103
Table A2-2 (cont)
Artificial barriers
Weighting = 3
Alien fish
Weighting = 2
Alien plants
Weighting = 2
Geomorphic
change
Weighting = 3
High barriers <150km
downstream of the site,
likely to be severely
constraining fish migration
Alien fish dominate the site
in terms of either numbers
or biomass
Riparian zone has lost most
or all of original tree and
shrub cover; riparian and
aquatic vegetation
dominated by alien species
Poor geomorphic condition
(River Styles™ or similar
method)
Barriers are likely to be
affecting migration to/from
the site but they are low or
distant from the site
Alien fish present but do not
dominate
Any barriers are upstream
and remote from the site.
Riparian zone retains native
trees and shrubs but
substantial alien vegetation
present. Aquatic plants
predominantly native
Moderate geomorphic
condition (River Styles™ or
similar method)
Riparian and aquatic
vegetation not cleared.
Little or no alien plant
invasion
No alien fish at the site
Good geomorphic
condition (River Styles™
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
SRA0019
SRA0025
SRA0026
SRA0027
SRA0028
SRA0029
SRA0031
SRA0032
SRA0033
SRA0021
SRA0034
SRA0035
SRA0036
SRA0037
SRA0042
SRA0003
SRA0004
SRA0010
SRA0011
SRA0016
SRA0038
R11
Warrego River
Warrego River
Paroo River
Paroo River
Paroo River
Warrego River
Condamine River
Langlo River
Warrego River
Stock Dam
One Mile Creek
Marlong Creek
Baldrock Creek
Severn River
Condamine River
Branch Creek
Burraburri Creek
Condamine River
Condamine River
Myall Creek
Maranoa River
River Murray (Swanport)
Basin
bioregion
North
North
North
North
North
North
North
North
North
North
North
North
North
North
North
North
North
North
North
North
North
South
R21
River Murray (shacks)
R31
latitude
longitude
-27.26
-28.65
-27.18
-28.7
-26.8
-26.28
-27.31
-26.12
-25.79
-25.87
-25.06
-25.03
-28.83
-28.84
-28.29
-26.49
-26.51
-27.08
-26.98
-27.2
-26.47
-34.9833
Ref site for
which VPZ?
145.92 Depositional
145.58 Depositional
145.35 Depositional
144.78 Depositional
145.35 Depositional
146.32 Depositional
148.85 Depositional
145.66 Depositional
146.59 Depositional
147.6 Source
148.03 Source
147.9 Source
151.94 Source
151.65 Source
152.36 Source
150.68 Transport
150.97 Transport
149.78 Transport
150.11 Transport
151.51 Transport
147.97 Transport
139.3333 Depositional
South
-34.8667
139.5 Depositional
River Murray (Katarapko)
South
-34.25
140.7 Depositional
R32
Pike River
South
-34.4333
140.4333 Depositional
R33
Monoman River
South
-34
141 Depositional
R34
Chowilla Creek
South
-34
141 Depositional
R35
Chowilla Creek
South
-34
141 Depositional
R36
River Murray (Camp25)
South
-34
141 Depositional
12014
12032
Namoi River
Murrumbidgee River
North
South
-30.7421
-34.7174
150.0703 Depositional
143.3839 Depositional
12033
Murray River
South
-35.822
145.4668 Depositional
12035
Murray River
South
-34.1327
141.8394 Depositional
12039
12041
12051
Barwon River
Namoi River
Murray River
North
North
South
-29.067
-30.7421
-35.822
148.8316 Depositional
150.0703 Depositional
145.4668 Depositional
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report
Ref site for which
valleys?
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Lower Murray/
Lachlan/Ovens
Lower Murray/
Lachlan/Ovens
Lower Murray/
Lachlan/Ovens
Lower Murray/
Lachlan/Ovens
Lower Murray/
Lachlan/Ovens
Lower Murray/
Lachlan/Ovens
Lower Murray/
Lachlan/Ovens
Lower Murray/
Lachlan/Ovens
Condamine
Lachlan/Ovens/
Lower Murray
Lachlan/Ovens/
Lower Murray
Lachlan/Ovens/
Lower Murray
Condamine
Condamine
Lachlan/Ovens/
Lower Murray
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
12052
Murrumbidgee River
Basin
bioregion
South
12053
Murrumbidgee River
12054
12057
12058
12059
12061
latitude
-34.5602
Ref site for
which VPZ?
145.9339 Depositional
South
-34.8051
146.6556 Depositional
Namoi River
Bogan River
Paroo River
Bogan River
Murray River
North
North
North
North
South
-30.2529
-31.6259
-29.8351
-30.2633
-34.1327
149.3697 Depositional
147.1793 Depositional
144.123 Depositional
146.7538 Depositional
141.8394 Depositional
12063
Darling River
South
-33.8501
142.0053 Depositional
12016
12022
12023
12024
12034
12043
12046
12048
12049
12050
12060
12062
12069
12013
12020
12040
12042
12044
12045
12047
12055
12056
12064
12065
12066
12067
12068
vicref11
Mole River
Lachlan River
Goodradigbee River
Abercrombie River
Murrumbidgee River
MacDonald River
Mole River
Deepwater River
Goodradigbee River
Lachlan River
Goobarragandra River
Murray River
Turon River
Landry Lagoon
Beardy River
Gwydir River
Macintyre River
Castlereagh River
Warrah Creek
Beardy River
Horton River
Myall Creek
Adelong Creek
Lachlan River
Boorowa River
Tumut River
Lachlan River
Ovens River
North
South
South
South
South
North
North
North
South
South
South
South
North
North
North
North
North
North
North
North
North
North
South
South
South
South
South
South
-29.018
-34.4188
-35.1465
-33.9568
-34.9157
-30.6233
-29.018
-29.2935
-35.1465
-34.4188
-35.4184
-36.2366
-33.0747
-30.9356
-29.2195
-29.4734
-28.8914
-31.8305
-31.6674
-29.2195
-29.8354
-29.7992
-35.1061
-33.5677
-34.2967
-35.1234
-33.6749
-36.11
151.6015 Source
149.0947 Source
148.6829 Source
149.3202 Source
148.5468 Source
151.1064 Source
151.6015 Source
151.922 Source
148.6829 Source
149.0947 Source
148.4375 Source
148.0461 Source
149.6491 Source
150.2161 Transport
151.3827 Transport
150.0786 Transport
150.7768 Transport
149.177 Transport
150.6426 Transport
151.3827 Transport
150.3526 Transport
150.5832 Transport
148.0397 Transport
148.3888 Transport
148.782 Transport
148.2055 Transport
148.5523 Transport
146.14 Depositional
vicref12
Sevens Creek
South
-36.35
145.28 Depositional
vicref13
Broken
South
-36.26
145.32 Depositional
vicref15
Broken Creek
South
-36.01
144.59 Depositional
vicref16
Lindsay
South
-34.07
147.06 Depositional
vicref17
Mullaroo Creek
South
-34.07
147.08 Depositional
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report
longitude
Ref site for which
valley?
Lachlan/Ovens/
Lower Murray
Lachlan/Ovens/
Lower Murray
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Lachlan/Ovens/
Lower Murray
Lachlan/Ovens/
Lower Murray
Condamine
Lachlan/Ovens
Lachlan/Ovens
Lachlan/Ovens
Lachlan/Ovens
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Lachlan/Ovens
Lachlan/Ovens
Lachlan/Ovens
Lachlan/Ovens
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Lachlan/Ovens
Lachlan/Ovens
Lachlan/Ovens
Lachlan/Ovens
Lachlan/Ovens
Ovens/Lachlan/
Lower Murray
Ovens/Lachlan/
Lower Murray
Ovens/Lachlan/
Lower Murray
Ovens/Lachlan/
Lower Murray
Ovens/Lachlan/
Lower Murray
Ovens/Lachlan/
Lower Murray
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
vicref01
vicref02
vicref03
vicref04
vicref05
vicref10
vicref06
vicref07
vicref08
vicref09
vicref14
Watchbed Creek
Swindlers Creek
Morass Creek
Steavenson River
Acheron River
Yea River
Ryans Creek
Kiewa River
Mitta Mitta River
King River
Boosey Creek
Basin
bioregion
South
South
South
South
South
South
South
South
South
South
South
latitude
-36.52
-36.58
-36.52
-37.28
-37.31
-37.18
-36.41
-36.35
-36.28
-36.4
-36.06
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report
longitude
Ref site for
which VPZ?
147.19 Source
147.09 Source
147.42 Source
145.44 Source
145.4 Source
145.28 Source
146.12 Transport
147.06 Transport
147.2 Transport
146.25 Transport
145.44 Transport
Ref site for which
valley?
Ovens/Lachlan
Ovens/Lachlan
Ovens/Lachlan
Ovens/Lachlan
Ovens/Lachlan
Ovens/Lachlan
Ovens/Lachlan
Ovens/Lachlan
Ovens/Lachlan
Ovens/Lachlan
Ovens/Lachlan
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
Condamine
Lachlan
Lower Murray
Ovens
Area
Area
Area
Area
Condamine
Lachlan
Lower Murray
Ovens
Reaches
Reaches
Reaches
Reaches
Source
7%
11%
Transportational
34%
9%
48%
32%
106
237
308
63
194
43
Depositional
59%
80%
100%
21%
613
396
74
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
River Valley
0.05
0.1
530
481
309
251
183 119 82.6 60.7
47 38.1 31.7 26.2
141 88.8 60.7 45.2 34.5
28 23.4 19.6
River Valley +VPZ
River Valley +VPZ
0.05
0.1
605
574
447
393
322
268
237
190
180
141
140 112 92.4 77.1 66.7
107 85.6 69.1 58.3 49.6
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
183
55
210
143
47
133
110
40
89
85
33
63
67
28
47
54
24
36
44
21
29
37
18
24
32
16
20
Using RIVER SURVEY standard deviations
Bound (%) ->
Reporting Scale
Source
Transportational
Depositional
Confidence Interval
95%
221
95%
61
95%
324
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
IMEF
NSW River Survey
Upper Murrumbidgee
Survey
NSW River Survey
Year
Lachlan
Lachlan
Lachlan
Lachlan
Lachlan
Murrumbidgee
VPZ
equivalent
Lowland
Lowland
Montane
Slopes
Lowland
Upland
1997
Standard Deviation of
percent native fish
0.293
0.328
0.442
0.3077
0.329
0.286
Murrumbidgee
Upland
1998
0.401
Lachlan
River Valley
1997
1998
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report
0.367
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
4
8
12
16
20
Half Width of 90% Interval
4
8
12
16
20
Reporting scale
Source
Tranportational
Depositional
River Valley
River Valley + VPZ
83
169
230
398
484
51
73
83
143
209
32
39
42
70
115
22
25
25
43
74
16
18
18
29
54
76
142
183
317
403
42
56
61
106
161
25
30
31
52
88
17
18
19
31
56
12
13
13
21
40
Ovens
Source
Tranportational
Depositional
River Valley
River Valley + VPZ
128
39
41
198
210
65
31
32
105
130
37
23
24
61
86
24
18
18
39
62
17
14
14
28
47
112
38
39
176
191
51
28
28
83
109
28
19
20
46
69
18
14
15
29
49
13
11
11
20
37
Lachlan
Source
Tranportational
Depositional
River Valley
River Valley + VPZ
145
55
191
337
393
69
39
77
134
187
38
27
40
68
107
25
20
25
42
72
17
15
18
29
52
125
52
157
277
336
54
34
58
101
148
29
22
30
51
83
18
16
19
31
55
13
12
13
21
40
Murray
Depositional
63
43
29
20
16
59
36
24
16
12
Condamine
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.
Condamine
Lachlan
Lower Murray
Ovens
Source
3
3
.
10
Transportational
6
3
.
4
Depositional
12
16
20
7
Total
21
22
20
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
Afurcagobius tamarensis
Ambassis agassizii
Anguilla australis
Anguilla reinhardtii
Amoya bifrenatus
Atherinosoma microstoma
Bidyanus bidyanus
Carassius auratus
Craterocephalus amniculus
Craterocephalus fluviatilis
Craterocephalus stercusmuscarum fulvus
Cyprinus carpio
Cyprinus x Carassius
Gadopsis bispinosus
Gadopsis marmoratus
Galaxias brevipinnis
Galaxias fuscus
Galaxias maculatus
Galaxias olidus
Galaxias rostratus
Galaxias truttaceus
Gambusia holbrooki
Geotria australis
Hypseleotris spp.
Leiopotherapon unicolor
Liza argentea
Macquaria ambigua
Macquaria australasica
Macquaria colonorum
Maccullochella macquariensis
Maccullochella peelii peelii
Melanotaenia fluviatilis
Misgurnus anguillicaudatus
Mogurnda adspersa
Mordacia mordax
Mugil cephalus
Myxus elongatus
Nannoperca australis
Nannoperca obscura
Nematalosa erebi
Neosilurus hyrtlii
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Oreochromis mossambicus
Perca fluviatilis
Philypnodon grandiceps
Philypnodon species 1
Porochilus rendahli
Pseudaphritis urvillii
Pseudogobius olorum
Retropinna semoni
Rutilus rutilus
Salvelinus fontinalis
Salmo salar
Common name(s)
Tamar River Goby
Olive perchlet
Short-finned eel
Long-finned eel
Bridled goby
Small-mouthed hardyhead
Silver perch
Goldfish
Darling River hardyhead
Murray hardyhead
Flyspecked hardyhead (southern form)
Carp
Carp/goldfish hybrid
Two-spined blackfish
River blackfish
Climbing galaxias
Barred galaxias
Common galaxias
Mountain galaxias
Flat-headed galaxias
Spotted galaxias
Eastern Gambusia
Pouched lamprey
Carp Gudgeons
Spangled perch
Flat-tail mullet
Golden perch
Macquarie perch
Estuary perch
Trout cod
Murray cod
Murray-Darling rainbowfish
Oriental weatherloach
Southern purple-spotted gudgeon
Shortheaded lamprey
Striped mullet, Sea mullet
Sand mullet
Southern pygmy perch
Yarra pygmy perch
Bony herring
Hyrtl's tandan
Rainbow trout
Tilapia
Redfin perch
Flathead gudgeon
Dwarf Flathead Gudgeon
Rendahl’s tandan
Congolli; Tupong
Blue-spot Goby, Swan River Goby
Australian smelt
Roach
Brook char
Atlantic salmon
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report
Gen code
AFU
AMB
ANG
ANG
ARE
ATH
BID
CAR
CRA
CRA
CRA
CYP
CYP
GAD
GAD
GAL
GAL
GAL
GAL
GAL
GAL
GAM
GEO
HYP
LEI
LIZ
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MEL
MIS
MOG
MOR
MUG
MYX
NAN
NAN
NEM
NEO
ONC
ORE
PER
PHI
PHI
POR
PSE
PSE
RET
RUT
SAL
SAL
Sp code
TAM
AGA
AUS
REI
BIF
MIC
BID
AUR
AMM
FLU
STE
CAR
HYB
BIS
MAR
BRE
FUS
MAC
OLI
ROS
TRU
HOL
AUS
SPP
UNI
ARG
AMB
AUS
COL
MAC
PEE
FLU
ANG
ADS
MOR
CEP
ELO
AUS
OBS
ERE
HYR
MYK
MOS
FLU
GRA
SP1
REN
URV
OLO
SEM
RUT
FON
SAL
111
Species
Salmo trutta
Tandanus tandanus
Tinca tinca
Common name(s)
Brown trout
Freshwater catfish
Tench
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report
Gen code
SAL
TAN
TIN
Sp code
TRU
TAN
TIN
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)*(1000alt));
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
Mordacia mordax
Geotria australis
Anguilla australis
Anguilla reinhardtii
Gadopsis marmoratus
Gadopsis bispinosus
Galaxias maculatus
Galaxias rostratus
Galaxias olidus
Galaxias fuscus
Pseudaphritis urvillii
Maccullochella peelii peelii
Maccullochella macquariensis
Macquaria ambigua
Macquaria australasica
Macquaria colonorum
Bidyanus bidyanus
Nannoperca australis
Nannoperca obscura
Retropinna semoni
Tandanus tandanus
Nematalosa erebi
Porochilus rendahli
Neosilurus hyrtlii
Mogurnda adspersa
Hypseleotris spp
Leiopotherapon unicolor
Philypnodon grandiceps
Philypnodon sp. nov.
Pseudogobius olorum
Tasmanogobius lastii
Favonigobius tamarensis
Melanotaenia fluviatilis
Craterocephalus amniculus
Craterocephalus stercusmuscarum fulvus
Craterocephalus fluviatilis
Ambassis agassizii
Acanthopagrus butcheri
Argyrosomus hololepidotus
Galaxias brevipinnis
Galaxias truttaceus
benthic/pool
benthic/pool
benthic/pool
benthic/pool
benthic/pool
benthic/pool
pelagic/pool
pelagic/pool
benthic/pool
benthic/pool
benthic/pool
benthic/pool
benthic/pool
benthic/pool
benthic/pool
benthic/pool
benthic/pool
benthic/pool
benthic/pool
pelagic/pool
benthic/pool
pelagic/pool
benthic/pool
benthic/pool
benthic/pool
benthic/pool
benthic/pool
benthic/pool
benthic/pool
benthic/pool
benthic/pool
benthic/pool
pelagic/pool
pelagic/pool
pelagic/pool
pelagic/pool
pelagic/pool
benthic/pool
pelagic/pool
benthic//pool
benthic//pool
macro carnivore
macro carnivore
mega carnivore
mega carnivore
macro carnivore
micro carnivore
macro carnivore
macro carnivore
macro carnivore
macro carnivore
mega carnivore
mega carnivore
mega carnivore
mega carnivore
macro carnivore
mega carnivore
omnivore
macro carnivore
macro carnivore
macro carnivore
mega carnivore
herbivore/detritovore
macro carnivore
macro carnivore
macro carnivore
macro carnivore
macro carnivore
macro carnivore
macro carnivore
omnivore
omnivore
omnivore
omnivore
macro carnivore
macro carnivore
macro carnivore
macro carnivore
macro carnivore
mega carnivore
macro carnivore
macro carnivore
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report
Migratory
Guild
Basin
Basin
Basin
Basin
local
local
river valley
river valley
local
local
river valley
river valley
river valley
river valley
local
river valley
Basin
local
local
river valley
river valley
river valley
local
local
local
local
Basin
local
local
local
local
local
local
local
local
river valley
river valley
local
river valley
local (in MDB)
local (in MDB)
115
Appendix 8 (cont).
Guild membership of Murray-Darling fish species as agreed to by Fish
Reference Group.
Scientific name
Habitat Guild
Trophic Guild
Salmo trutta
Salvelinus fontinalis
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Salmo salar
Cyprinus carpio
Rutilus rutilus
Tinca tinca
Carassius auratus
Perca fluviatilis
Gambusia holbrooki
Misgurnus anguillicaudatus
benthic/pool
pelagic/pool
benthic/pool
pelagic/pool
benthic/pool
pelagic/pool
benthic/pool
benthic/pool
pelagic/pool
pelagic/pool
benthic/pool
macro carnivore
macro carnivore
macro carnivore
macro carnivore
macro carnivore
Omnivore
macro carnivore
macro carnivore
macro carnivore
macro carnivore
detritovore
Migratory
Guild
river valley
local
river valley
local
river valley
local
local
local
local
local
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
decision surface
Symbol used in
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
decision surface
Symbol used in
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
decision surface
Symbol used in
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
decision surface
Symbol used in
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 Level assessment
VPZ Median of indicators
Combine SR-FIe,
SR-FIn,
SR-FId
into SR-FI
(expert rules)
Weight for VPZ area
Combine SR-FIe
SR-FIn
SR-FId
into SR-FI (expert rules)
River Valley Level Assessment
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.
0.86
0.77
0.97
0.86
0.90
0.87
0.74
1.00
1.00
0.59
0.51
0.67
0.85
0.77
1.00
0.57
0.67
0.93
0.65
0.19
0.77
0.50
0.50
0.70
0.50
0.64
0.70
0.50
1.00
1.00
0.61
0.56
0.61
0.67
0.69
1.00
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.64
0.55
0.61
0.14
0.23
0.04
0.19
0.48
0.13
0.26
1.00
0.00
0.59
0.62
0.42
0.76
0.71
0.86
0.62
0.69
0.18
0.38
0.89
1.00
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report
0.2
0.6
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.6
0.2
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.2
0.6
0.2
0.6
0.2
1.0
0.2
1.0
0.2
0.2
0.60
0.45
1.00
0.91
0.90
0.97
0.67
0.67
0.51
0.42
0.62
0.98
0.71
0.86
1.00
0.79
0.56
0.72
0.54
0.81
0.63
0.6
0.2
0.6
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.6
0.2
0.2
1.0
0.2
0.6
0.2
1.0
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.6
0.2
0.13
0.26
0.51
0.38
0.51
0.51
0.26
0.26
0.38
0.51
0.38
0.51
0.71
0.83
0.59
0.48
0.71
0.24
0.60
0.48
0.24
prop_N_
biom
macro
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.33
0.33
0.00
0.00
0.40
0.40
1.00
0.00
0.33
0.00
0.34
0.00
0.00
OE
prop_N_s
p
0.26
0.27
0.82
0.53
1.00
0.83
0.27
0.00
0.30
0.28
0.26
0.91
1.00
1.00
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.32
0.65
0.65
0.66
abnorm
prop_N_a
bun
0.20
0.40
0.40
0.60
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.72
0.96
0.86
0.40
1.00
0.40
0.80
0.81
0.20
Tabund
intol
0.22
0.44
0.56
0.67
0.82
0.56
0.44
0.24
0.35
0.67
0.56
0.72
1.00
1.00
0.91
0.73
1.00
0.38
0.89
0.90
0.39
mega
pelagic
VPZ
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
S
S
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
benthic
siteid
12015
12017
SRA0005
SRA0006
SRA0007
SRA0008
SRA0009
SRA0012
SRA0014
SRA0022
SRA0023
SRA0024
SRA0039
SRA0040
SRA0041
SRA0013
SRA0015
SRA0017
SRA0018
SRA0020
SRA0030
sp_rich
Table A11-1: Site fish indicator scores from the Condamine River.
0.17
0.40
0.83
0.34
0.82
0.53
0.27
1.00
1.00
0.51
0.24
0.68
0.81
0.16
1.00
0.72
0.29
0.66
0.51
0.15
0.95
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.
mega
T-abund
abnorm
OE
prop_N_
biom
*Adj_OP
0.86
0.85
0.66
macro
0.00
0.40
0.00
prop_N_
sp
0.29
1.00
0.65
abund
0.40
0.86
0.60
Intol
pelagic
0.56
1.00
0.81
benthic
VPZ
D
S
T
sp_rich
Table A11-2. VPZ OP Score + Median scores for individual fish indicator in the Pilot SRA in
the Condamine River.
0.61
0.69
0.61
0.24
0.76
0.66
0.20
0.60
0.20
0.67
0.86
0.67
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.38
0.71
0.48
0.57
0.66
0.55
0.54
0.77
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).
sp_rich
benthic
pelagic
Intol
prop_N_
abund
prop_N_
sp
macro
mega
T-abund
abnorm
OE
prop_N_
biom
*Adj_OP
Table A11-4: Weighted average scores for Individual metrics used to calculate SR-FI.
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
0.57
SR_FIn
0.84
SR_FId
0.11
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report
SR-FI
0.61
126
APPENDIX 12.
Site
Species from all shot-types for individual ‘Best Available’ sites.
Warrego Warrego Paroo
River
River
River
Paroo
River
Paroo
River
Warrego Condamine Langlo
River
River
River
Warrego Stock Dam One Mile Marlong
River
Creek
Creek
Baldrock Severn
Creek
River
SRA0019 SRA0025 SRA0026 SRA0027 SRA0028 SRA0029 SRA0031 SRA0032 SRA0033 SRA0021 SRA0034 SRA0035 SRA0036 SRA0037
siteID
Cond
Cond
Cond
Cond
Cond
Cond
Cond
Cond
Cond
Cond
Cond
Cond
Cond
Reference for Cond
Dep
Dep
Dep
Dep
Dep
Dep
Dep
Dep
Dep
Srce
Srce
Srce
Srce
Srce
AMBAGA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
BIDBID
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CARAUR
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
13
401
0
0
0
0
0
CRASTE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
CYPCAR
2
3
0
0
1
6
11
20
117
0
0
0
0
10
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
30
0
GALOLI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
GAMHOL
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
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
4
1
3
8
7
1
5
40
2
0
0
0
0
2
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
5
MELFLU
2
0
1
2
7
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
NANAUS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
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
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
0
0
0
0
0
PORREN
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RETSEM
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
SALTRU
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TANTAN
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
3
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
River
siteID
SRA0042
Reference for Cond
Srce
AMBAGA
BIDBID
CARAUR
CRASTE
CYPCAR
GADBIS
GADMAR
GALOLI
GAMHOL
HYPSPP
LEIUNI
MACAMB
MACAUS
MACMAC
MACPEE
MELFLU
NANAUS
NEMERE
NEOHYR
ONCMYK
PERFLU
PHIGRA
PORREN
RETSEM
SALTRU
TANTAN
TOTAL
Branch
Creek
Burrabur Condamine Condamine Myall
ri Creek River
River
Creek
Maranoa River
River
Murray
(Swanport)
SRA0016 SRA0038 R11
SRA0003 SRA000 SRA0010 SRA0011
4
Cond
Cond
Cond
Cond
Cond
Tran
Tran
Tran
Tran
Tran
0
13
166
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
4
1
5
0
0
35
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
36
0
0
0
0
0
144
9
2
0
19
469
544
10
0
0
7
4
3
2
0
0
0
13
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
4
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
741
7
0
0
4
0
51
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
57
640
784
775
66
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report
Cond
Tran
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
32
2
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
39
L. Murr
Dep
0
0
48
0
0
0
0
0
0
41
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
99
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
16
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
41
River
Murray
(shacks)
R21
River
Pike
Murray
River
(Katarapko)
R31
R32
L. Murr
Tran
L. Murr
Srce
0
0
0
0
13
0
0
0
0
5
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
58
0
0
93
Monoman Chowilla Chowilla
River
Creek
Creek
R33
R34
R35
L. Murr L. Murr
L. Murr L. Murr
Srce
Srce
Srce
Srce
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
1
3
41
12
7
0
0
12
12
10
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
3
105
5
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
15
7
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
28
41
38
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
23
15
62
21
60
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
66
110
249
93
87
128
Appendix 12 (cont). Species from all shot-types for individual ‘Best Available’ sites sampled in the Pilot SRA.
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)
R36
12014
12032 12033 12035 12039 12041 12051
12052
12053 12054 12057 12058 12059 12061 12063
siteID
Lachl Lachl Lachl Lachl Lachl Lachl
Lachl
Lachl Lachl Lachl Lachl Lachl Lachl
Reference for L. Murr Lachl Lachl
Srce
Dep
Dep
Dep
Dep
Dep
Dep
Dep
Dep
Dep
Dep
Dep
Dep
Dep
Dep
Dep
AMBAGA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
BIDBID
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CARAUR
2
0
0
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
9
1
2
0
CRASTE
0
0
3
0
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
1
0
CYPCAR
12
4
0
23
1
21
4
8
4
3
15
23
48
12
2
14
GADBIS
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
GALOLI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
GAMHOL
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
HYPSPP
2
17
0
4
36
19
17
11
3
2
24
928
0
58
37
8
LEIUNI
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
MACAMB
8
6
2
2
6
20
0
2
1
1
1
0
11
3
5
4
MACAUS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MACMAC
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
MACPEE
3
3
2
0
0
0
2
2
0
5
4
0
0
0
0
0
MELFLU
0
111
7
0
3
4
1
0
0
0
2
0
4
0
0
0
NANAUS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NEMERE
36
6
1
0
139
36
3
0
0
0
3
4
24
45
0
1
NEOHYR
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
PERFLU
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PHIGRA
4
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
PORREN
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RETSEM
27
3
27
35
10
4
1
97
18
38
1
0
0
0
24
10
SALTRU
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
TOTAL
94
150
42
67
221
106
28
122
26
50
50
965
96
120
72
37
Site
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
River River
River
12016 12022
siteID
Lachl
Reference for Lachl Lachl
Srce Srce
Srce
AMBAGA
0
0
BIDBID
0
0
CARAUR
5
0
CRASTE
4
0
CYPCAR
12
31
GADBIS
0
0
GADMAR
0
0
GALOLI
0
0
GAMHOL
1
0
HYPSPP
19
311
LEIUNI
0
0
MACAMB
1
0
MACAUS
0
4
MACMAC
0
0
MACPEE
6
0
MELFLU
0
0
NANAUS
0
0
NEMERE
0
0
NEOHYR
0
0
ONCMYK
0
0
PERFLU
0
0
PHIGRA
0
5
PORREN
0
0
RETSEM
3
4
SALTRU
0
0
TANTAN
8
0
TOTAL
59
355
Abercrombie
River
12023
12024
Lachl
Srce
0
0
0
0
28
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
1
0
43
Murrumbidgee MacDonald
River
River
12034
Lachl
Srce
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
66
0
0
5
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
2
0
0
89
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report
Lachl
Srce
0
1
0
0
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
19
Mole Deepwater Goodradigbee
River River
River
12043 12046
12048
Lachl Lachl
Lachl
Srce Srce
Srce
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
15
1
0
94
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
2
10
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
10 121
13
12049
Lachlan Goobarragandra Murray Turon
River
River
River
River
12050
Lachl
Lachl
Srce
Srce
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
39
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
35
57
12060
12062 12069
Lachl Lachl
Srce
Srce
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
121
0
0
1
0
0
94
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
1
0
0
0
0
10
6
216
130
Appendix 12 (cont). Species from all shot-types for individual ‘Best Available’ sites sampled in the Pilot SRA.
Landry Beardy Gwydir Macintyre Castlereagh Warrah Beardy Horton Myall Adelong Lachlan Boorowa Tumut
Lagoon River River River
River
Creek River River Creek Creek
River
River
River
12013 12020 12040
12042
12044 12045 12047 12055 12056
12064 12065
12066 12067
siteID
Lachl Lachl Lachl
Lachl
Lachl Lachl Lachl Lachl Lachl
Lachl
Lachl
Lachl
Reference for Lachl
Tran
Tran
Tran
Tran
Tran
Tran
Tran
Tran
Tran Tran
Tran
Tran
Tran
AMBAGA
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
CARAUR
17
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CRASTE
0
0
0
15
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
CYPCAR
59
8
9
3
12
5
8
29
16
4
5
2
2
GADBIS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
GADMAR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
GALOLI
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
HYPSPP
72
5
4
135
212
1089
258
41
7
0
2
0
0
LEIUNI
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MACAMB
2
0
3
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
MACAUS
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
MACPEE
0
10
3
1
0
0
7
3
2
0
0
0
0
MELFLU
0
11
0
8
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
NANAUS
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
NEOHYR
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
PERFLU
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
0
PHIGRA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
39
0
PORREN
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RETSEM
0
33
3
0
1
0
0
4
0
1
0
0
0
SALTRU
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
4
TANTAN
0
4
1
1
0
14
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
225
72
47
168
225
1108
286
95
25
6
9
59
7
Site
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report
Lachlan Ovens River
River
12068 vicref11
Lachl
Ovens
Tran
Dep
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
3
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
6
0
0
1
24
0
0
0
0
14
36
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
vicref12
siteID
Reference for Ovens
Dep
AMBAGA
BIDBID
CARAUR
CRASTE
CYPCAR
GADBIS
GADMAR
GALOLI
GAMHOL
HYPSPP
LEIUNI
MACAMB
MACAUS
MACMAC
MACPEE
MELFLU
NANAUS
NEMERE
NEOHYR
ONCMYK
PERFLU
PHIGRA
PORREN
RETSEM
SALTRU
TANTAN
TOTAL
vicref13 vicref15
Ovens Ovens
Dep
Dep
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
1
0
0
7
0
3
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
6
1
0
0
0
0
22
5
vicref16 vicref17
Ovens Ovens
Dep
Dep
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
7
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
1
55
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
12
1
3
0
0
0
0
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
37
0
0
0
0
32
117
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report
vicref01
Ovens
Srce
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
16
0
5
0
0
2
22
0
6
0
0
0
1
0
28
0
0
88
vicref02
Ovens
Srce
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
0
21
vicref03
Ovens
Srce
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
32
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
0
49
vicref04
Ovens
Srce
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
7
0
10
Acheron River
vicref05
Ovens
Srce
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
6
0
13
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
20
0
23
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
vicref10 vicref06
siteID
Ovens
Reference for Ovens
Srce
Tran
AMBAGA
0
BIDBID
0
CARAUR
0
CRASTE
0
CYPCAR
0
GADBIS
0
GADMAR
8
GALOLI
1
GAMHOL
0
HYPSPP
0
LEIUNI
0
MACAMB
0
MACAUS
0
MACMAC
0
MACPEE
0
MELFLU
0
NANAUS
0
NEMERE
0
NEOHYR
0
ONCMYK
0
PERFLU
0
PHIGRA
0
PORREN
0
RETSEM
0
SALTRU
3
TANTAN
0
TOTAL
12
vicref07
Ovens
Tran
0
0
0
0
0
0
48
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
49
vicref08
Ovens
Tran
0
0
0
0
8
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
0
25
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report
vicref09
Ovens
Tran
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
13
vicref14
Ovens
Tran
0
0
0
0
7
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
34
0
0
7
0
9
0
0
0
0
4
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
2
0
0
29
133
APPENDIX 13.
Species from all shot-types for individual assessment sites.
Cond Cond Cond
Cond
Cond
Cond
Cond
Cond
Cond
Cond
Cond
Cond
Cond
Cond
Cond
Cond
Cond
River
12015 12017 SRA0005 SRA0006 SRA0007 SRA0008 SRA0009 SRA0012 SRA0014 SRA0022 SRA0023 SRA0024 SRA0039 SRA0040 SRA0041 SRA0013 SRA0015
siteID
Dep
Dep
Dep
Dep
Dep
Dep
Dep
Dep
Dep
Dep
Dep
Dep
Srce
Srce
Srce
Tran
Tran
VPZ
#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
0
0
0
2
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
99
1
0
0
45
4
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.
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
River
SRA0017 SRA0018 SRA0020 SRA0030 A11
A12
A13
A14
A21
A22
A23
A24
A25
A26
A27
A28
A31
A32
A33
siteID
Tran
Tran
Tran
Tran
Dep
Dep
Dep
Dep
Tran
Tran
Tran
Tran
Tran
Tran
Tran
Tran
Srce
Srce
Srce
VPZ
#shots
23
29
22
22
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
AMBAGA
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
CARAUR
3
5
6
0
1
1
0
2
1
17
7
3
1
1
1
1
1
3
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
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
GALOLI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
GAMHOL
0
0
137
6
0
1
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
HYPSPP
0
1
14
580
5
0
2
5
3
12
14
3
17
13
10
12
5
9
12
LEIUNI
8
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MACAMB
0
8
2
0
7
7
3
5
4
5
5
6
6
5
1
6
2
1
3
MACAUS
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
MACPEE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MELFLU
0
1
4
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
2
1
25
11
10
26
MISANG
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
NANAUS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
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
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
PERFLU
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
PHIGRA
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
1
0
0
0
1
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
RETSEM
0
7
0
17
3
1
24
5
13
35
52
117
5
49
41
5
17
18
15
SALTRU
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TANTAN
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
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.
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
River
A34
A35
A36
A37
A38
A41
A42
A43
A44
12002 12003 12004 12005 12010 12011 12012 12019 12021 12025 12026 12027
siteID
Srce
Srce
Srce
Srce
Srce
Srce
Srce
Srce
Srce
Dep
Dep
Dep
Dep
Dep
Dep
Dep
Dep
Dep
Dep
Dep
Dep
VPZ
#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
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
72
0
3
2
0
0
2
1
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.
Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens
River
12028 12029 12030 12031 12006 12009 12036 12037 12038 12000 12001 12007 12008 12018 VIC04 VIC05 VIC06 VIC18 VIC19 VIC20 VIC21 VIC01 VIC02
siteID
Dep
Dep
Dep
Dep
Srce
Srce
Srce
Srce
Srce
Tran Tran Tran Tran Tran Dep
Dep
Dep
Dep
Dep
Dep
Dep
Srce
Srce
VPZ
#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
4
2
3
7
0
0
0
0
20
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
28
51
3
0
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.
Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens
River
VIC07 VIC08 VIC09 VIC11 VIC12 VIC03 VIC10 VIC13 VIC14 VIC15 VIC16 VIC17
siteID
Srce
Srce
Srce
Srce
Srce
Tran Tran Tran Tran Tran Tran Tran
VPZ
#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.
River
siteID
VPZ
AMBAGA
BIDBID
CARAUR
CRASTE
CYPCAR
GADBIS
GADMAR
GALOLI
GAMHOL
HYPSPP
LEIUNI
MACAMB
MACAUS
MACMAC
MACPEE
MELFLU
MISANG
MOGADS
NANAUS
NEMERE
NEOHYR
ONCMYK
PERFLU
PHIGRA
RETSEM
SALTRU
TANTAN
TOTAL
Species biomass (g) at assessment sites from all shot types.
Cond Cond Cond
Cond
Cond
Cond
Cond
Cond
Cond
Cond
Cond
Cond
Cond
Cond
12015 12017 SRA0005 SRA0006 SRA0007 SRA0008 SRA0009 SRA0012 SRA0014 SRA0022 SRA0023 SRA0024 SRA0039 SRA0040
Dep Dep Dep
Dep
Dep
Dep
Dep
Dep
Dep
Dep
Dep
Dep
Srce
Srce
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
88
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
348
0
619
238
0
470
0
0
687
823
439
102
958
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
42
2155
221
742
2177
0
10544
4462
0
997
3289
989
0
0
20455
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
36
1
0
0
0
0
0
73
5
0
4
2
0
0
0
10
313
6
0
42
56
1461
0
0
2649
0
1366
227
1164
361
43
0
134
42
586
0
9370
760
0
1482
2902
7
36
0
3986
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
13
13
0
0
0
0
0
1
14
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
158
250
6984
800
364
1270
537
0
867
188
169
1088
72
898
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
387
822
0
0
97
0
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
siteID
VPZ
AMBAGA
BIDBID
CARAUR
CRASTE
CYPCAR
GADBIS
GADMAR
GALOLI
GAMHOL
HYPSPP
LEIUNI
MACAMB
MACAUS
MACMAC
MACPEE
MELFLU
MISANG
MOGADS
NANAUS
NEMERE
NEOHYR
ONCMYK
PERFLU
PHIGRA
RETSEM
SALTRU
TANTAN
TOTAL
Cond
Cond
Cond
Cond
Cond
Cond
Cond
L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr
SRA0041 SRA0013 SRA0015 SRA0017 SRA0018 SRA0020 SRA0030 A11
A12
A13
A14
A21
A22
A23
A24
Srce
Tran
Tran
Tran
Tran
Tran
Tran
Dep
Dep
Dep
Dep
Tran
Tran
Tran
Tran
8
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
242
60
113
1220
359
0
10
20
0
729
102
525
704
490
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
12
2
8
13
3
2
0
313
1655
1083
2086
826
0
7242
9935
29716
20714
9596
15561
1686
8353
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
1
0
0
30
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
309
7
0
0
1
9
110
1
0
1
3
1
2
2
1
0
458
172
273
108
24
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27
364
0
1100
1101
0
2121
1974
1611
3221
667
2025
555
6186
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
50
3
0
0
1
3
0
3
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
138
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
793
137
1922
1424
0
0
1911
6005
3047
4384
4508
12127
5301
5959
0
0
459
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
12
4
1
17
8
22
45
44
218
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
307
41
151
0
372
0
525
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
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
siteID
VPZ
AMBAGA
BIDBID
CARAUR
CRASTE
CYPCAR
GADBIS
GADMAR
GALOLI
GAMHOL
HYPSPP
LEIUNI
MACAMB
MACAUS
MACMAC
MACPEE
MELFLU
MISANG
MOGADS
NANAUS
NEMERE
NEOHYR
ONCMYK
PERFLU
PHIGRA
RETSEM
SALTRU
TANTAN
TOTAL
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
A25
A26
A27
A28
A31
A32
A33
A34
A35
A36
A37
A38
A41
A42
A43
A44
Tran
Tran
Tran
Tran
Srce
Srce
Srce
Srce
Srce
Srce
Srce
Srce
Srce
Srce
Srce
Srce
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
70
6
43
130
6
42
0
168
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
8
1
8
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
5117
1734
62
10903
3853
26656
1780
22001
2373
8825
669
3935
13297
13148
22832
21215
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
6
4
1
5
4
6
9
2
1
6
0
3
2
0
0
50
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3331
4045
226
3135
877
681
1066
112
1526
2109
1210
743
1153
283
581
7288
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
3
1
50
6
9
14
3
0
15
6
1
1
6
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3483
1828
2299
1168
8001
1802
1547
279
1550
235
1308
540
373
0
0
1696
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
61
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
25
1
0
0
0
5
57
35
4
21
19
8
91
15
4
8
10
10
31
34
40
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
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
siteID
VPZ
AMBAGA
BIDBID
CARAUR
CRASTE
CYPCAR
GADBIS
GADMAR
GALOLI
GAMHOL
HYPSPP
LEIUNI
MACAMB
MACAUS
MACMAC
MACPEE
MELFLU
MISANG
MOGADS
NANAUS
NEMERE
NEOHYR
ONCMYK
PERFLU
PHIGRA
RETSEM
SALTRU
TANTAN
TOTAL
Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach
12002 12003 12004 12005 12010 12011 12012 12019 12021 12025 12026 12027 12028 12029 12030
Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
702 1279 1136
147
0 1522 2081
133
0
0
33
0 2927 1789
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8002 5483 1481 1392 7964
283 1551 5260 6943 6791
997 9179 24995 6809 15101
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
51
3
376
0
5 1537
0
0
4
7
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 1729
0
886
0
66
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 6413
0
0 5431
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
33
0
170 2031
194
109 2005 1197
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
45
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
105
35 2306
132
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
12
7
5
3
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8006 6286 2762 2915 8111
289 4609 7374 13501 6966 4775 14962 26030 14051 18291
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report
Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach
12031 12006 12009 12036 12037 12038
Dep Srce Srce Srce Srce Srce
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
960
254
0
0
0
977
0
0
0
0
0
0
4146
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
254
161
356
0
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
53
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1569
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5252
431
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
9
0
0
0
0
20
0
0
0 1280
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11934
685
254 1452
356 1052
142
Appendix 14 (cont). Species biomass (g) at assessment sites from all shot types.
River
siteID
VPZ
AMBAGA
BIDBID
CARAUR
CRASTE
CYPCAR
GADBIS
GADMAR
GALOLI
GAMHOL
HYPSPP
LEIUNI
MACAMB
MACAUS
MACMAC
MACPEE
MELFLU
MISANG
MOGADS
NANAUS
NEMERE
NEOHYR
ONCMYK
PERFLU
PHIGRA
RETSEM
SALTRU
TANTAN
TOTAL
Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens
12000 12001 12007 12008 12018 VIC04 VIC05 VIC06 VIC18 VIC19 VIC20 VIC21 VIC01 VIC02 VIC07 VIC08 VIC09 VIC11 VIC12
Tran Tran Tran Tran Tran Dep
Dep
Dep
Dep
Dep
Dep
Dep
Srce
Srce
Srce
Srce
Srce
Srce
Srce
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
174
0
122
339
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
166 34114
14 12240
0
9523
5441
0 13603 49609 18203
4949
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
604
618
625
259
674
0
261
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
454
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
4
1
189
0
0
16
0
0
0
0
11
4
0
0
0
0
19
2
3
22
0
37
2
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
15
12
0
1
4
22
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
407
0
511
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1009
9
435
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2105
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
251
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
874
405
2497
939
1204
2100
155
0
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
30
48
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
521
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4902
0
4044
4222
3396
1024
3696
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
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
siteID
VPZ
AMBAGA
BIDBID
CARAUR
CRASTE
CYPCAR
GADBIS
GADMAR
GALOLI
GAMHOL
HYPSPP
LEIUNI
MACAMB
MACAUS
MACMAC
MACPEE
MELFLU
MISANG
MOGADS
NANAUS
NEMERE
NEOHYR
ONCMYK
PERFLU
PHIGRA
RETSEM
SALTRU
TANTAN
TOTAL
Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens
VIC03 VIC10 VIC13 VIC14 VIC15 VIC16 VIC17
Tran
Tran
Tran
Tran
Tran
Tran
Tran
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 23500
9136 12750
738
1032
214
208
57
42
124
0
0
0
0
0
436
169
8
0
16
21
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2105
6080
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
50
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
32
42
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
8
2216
1339
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
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.
Cond Cond Cond
Cond
Cond
Cond
Cond
Cond
Cond
Cond
Cond
Cond
Cond
Cond
Cond
Cond
River
12015 12017 SRA0005 SRA0006 SRA0007 SRA0008 SRA0009 SRA0012 SRA0014 SRA0022 SRA0023 SRA0024 SRA0039 SRA0040 SRA0041 SRA0013
siteID
Dep Dep Dep
Dep
Dep
Dep
Dep
Dep
Dep
Dep
Dep
Dep
Srce
Srce
Srce
Tran
VPZ
# shots
15
14
15
15
8
15
15
11
15
15
8
8
8
11
14
8
AMBAGA
0
0
0
0
1
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
CARAUR
0
1
0
8
2
0
2
0
0
4
11
9
2
8
0
7
CRASTE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
42
5
0
CYPCAR
2
1
1
4
0
16
8
0
0
1
12
0
0
7
0
0
GADBIS
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
GALOLI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
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
0
1
1
7
0
8
4
0
4
3
4
4
0
3
0
0
MACAUS
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
MACPEE
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
4
18
1
1
MISANG
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
83
0
NANAUS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NEMERE
40
13
483
263
134
367
51
0
19
1
11
264
1
2
0
41
NEOHYR
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
PERFLU
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
RETSEM
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
12
0
0
SALTRU
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
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.
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
River
SRA0015 SRA0017 SRA0018 SRA0020 SRA0030 A11
A12
A13
A14
A21
A22
A23
A24
A25
A26
A27
A28
siteID
Tran
Tran
Tran
Tran
Tran
Dep
Dep
Dep
Dep
Tran
Tran
Tran
Tran
Tran
Tran
Tran
Tran
VPZ
# shots
13
9
15
8
8
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
AMBAGA
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
CARAUR
2
0
5
5
0
1
1
0
2
0
14
7
2
0
1
1
0
CRASTE
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
4
2
2
2
3
2
0
0
1
12
CYPCAR
2
1
3
1
0
14
5
28
17
9
17
7
6
7
2
1
10
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
4
0
0
136
6
0
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
HYPSPP
0
0
0
8
27
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
LEIUNI
15
6
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MACAMB
2
0
7
1
0
4
2
3
4
2
3
5
5
6
5
1
6
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
4
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
2
1
24
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
0
0
0
NANAUS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NEMERE
2
80
11
0
0
28
54
23
43
55
77
77
94
40
59
54
41
NEOHYR
1
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
PERFLU
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
PHIGRA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RETSEM
1
0
0
0
17
3
1
2
4
5
1
3
0
0
7
2
3
SALTRU
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TANTAN
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
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.
L. Murr L. Murr L. Murr 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
River
A31
A32
A33
A34
A35
A36
A37
A38
A41
A42
A43
A44
12002 12003 12004 12005 12010 12011 12012 12019
siteID
Srce
Srce
Srce
Srce
Srce
Srce
Srce
Srce
Srce
Srce
Srce
Srce
Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep
VPZ
# shots
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
14
6
5
8
8
15
15
AMBAGA
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
CARAUR
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
12
0
2
0
11
18
CRASTE
0
9
0
28
0
0
2
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CYPCAR
2
10
4
13
3
4
1
4
8
6
9
11
3
5
3
1
10
0
8
6
GADBIS
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
GALOLI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
GAMHOL
0
3
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
24
0
3
2
0
HYPSPP
1
2
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
36
0
1
18
0
LEIUNI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MACAMB
1
1
2
1
3
4
2
1
2
1
1
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MACAUS
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
MACPEE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MELFLU
11
10
26
4
1
13
8
1
1
2
1
3
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
MOGADS
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
NEMERE
33
26
59
2
15
2
64
2
5
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
NEOHYR
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
PERFLU
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
PHIGRA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RETSEM
7
11
9
6
16
3
8
0
5
19
19
11
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
SALTRU
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
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.
Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Lach Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens
River
12021 12025 12026 12027 12028 12029 12030 12031 12006 12009 12036 12037 12038 12000 12001 12007 12008 12018 VIC04 VIC05 VIC06 VIC18
siteID
Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Dep Srce Srce Srce Srce Srce Tran Tran Tran Tran Tran Dep Dep Dep Dep
VPZ
# shots
12
12
14
13
9
15
15
14
12
6
8
8
10
5
12
8
14
8
8
8
8
14
AMBAGA
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
CARAUR
1
0
0
0
0
12
10
12
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
4
5
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
CYPCAR
4
3
2
11
18
11
16
7
0
0
0
0
0
1
15
0
9
0
0
5
0
4
GADBIS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
GADMAR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
GALOLI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
46
55 208
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
GAMHOL
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
22
0
1
6
2
49
0 192
20
0
7
0
HYPSPP
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 114
0
0
0
0
0
2
3
14
0
LEIUNI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MACAMB
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
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
MACMAC
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
MACPEE
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
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
MISANG
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
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
NANAUS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NEMERE
0
4
46
35
13
79
40
46
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
ONCMYK
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
PERFLU
0
0
0
1
1
7
1
2
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PHIGRA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RETSEM
6
0
7
5
4
2
3
7
0
0
0
0
19
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
SALTRU
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
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
0
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.
Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens
River
VIC19 VIC20 VIC21 VIC01 VIC02 VIC07 VIC08 VIC09 VIC11 VIC12 VIC03 VIC10 VIC13 VIC14 VIC15 VIC16 VIC17
siteID
Dep Dep Dep Srce Srce Srce Srce Srce Srce Srce Tran Tran Tran Tran Tran Tran Tran
VPZ
# shots
14
15
15
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
15
15
14
AMBAGA
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
CARAUR
0
0
0
0
0
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
0
0
0
0
0
CYPCAR
24
19
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
3
4
GADBIS
0
0
0
6
24
14
48
35
0
10
52
47
24
5
3
1
7
GADMAR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
10
GALOLI
0
0
0
9
4
0
0
0
0
11
7
0
16
22
0
0
1
GAMHOL
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
HYPSPP
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LEIUNI
0
0
0
0
0
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
0
0
0
0
0
MACAUS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MACMAC
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
MACPEE
1
0
0
0
0
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
0
0
0
0
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
0
0
0
NANAUS
0
0
0
0
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
0
0
0
0
NEOHYR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ONCMYK
0
0
0
19
13
27
11
11
54
8
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
PERFLU
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
PHIGRA
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RETSEM
28
51
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
38
3
SALTRU
0
0
0
12
0
14
3
15
88
4
4
3
0
0
0
0
0
TANTAN
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
149
APPENDIX 16.
Cond
River
12015
siteID
Dep
VPZ
AMBAGA
BIDBID
CARAUR
CRASTE
CYPCAR
GADBIS
GADMAR
GALOLI
GAMHOL
HYPSPP
LEIUNI
MACAMB
MACAUS
MACMAC
MACPEE
MELFLU
MISANG
MOGADS
NANAUS
NEMERE
NEOHYR
ONCMYK
PERFLU
PHIGRA
RETSEM
SALTRU
TANTAN
TOTAL
Species biomass (g) at assessment sites from electrofishing.
Cond
12017
Dep
0
0
0
0
752
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
158
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
909
Cond
SRA0005
Dep
0
0
348
0
221
0
0
0
0
0
0
134
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
250
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
953
0
0
0
0
742
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
3679
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4429
Cond
SRA0006
Dep
0
0
605
0
2177
0
0
0
1
0
52
582
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
806
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4223
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report
Cond
SRA0007
Dep
0
0
238
0
0
0
0
0
2
21
752
0
0
0
0
13
0
0
0
299
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1325
Cond
SRA0008
Dep
0
0
0
0
8775
0
0
0
0
0
0
9052
0
0
0
13
0
0
0
890
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18731
Cond
SRA0009
Dep
0
0
470
0
2840
0
0
0
0
0
0
745
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
506
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4562
Cond
SRA0012
Dep
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
527
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
528
Cond
SRA0014
Dep
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1482
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
799
0
0
0
0
0
0
387
2667
Cond
SRA0022
Dep
0
0
687
0
3289
0
0
0
0
0
393
2902
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
822
8106
Cond
SRA0023
Dep
0
0
823
0
222
0
0
0
0
0
199
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
133
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1381
Cond
SRA0024
Dep
0
0
397
0
0
0
0
0
36
0
617
11
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
302
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1364
150
Appendix 16 (cont). Species biomass (g) at assessment sites from electrofishing shot types.
Cond
Cond
Cond
Cond
Cond
Cond
Cond
Cond
Cond
L. Murr
L. Murr
L. Murr
River
SRA0039
SRA0040
SRA0041
SRA0013
SRA0015
SRA0017
SRA0018
SRA0020
SRA0030
A11
A12
A13
siteID
Srce
Srce
Srce
Tran
Tran
Tran
Tran
Tran
Tran
Dep
Dep
Dep
VPZ
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
102
958
0
242
60
0
1220
216
0
10
20
0
CRASTE
0
23
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
2
CYPCAR
0
20455
0
0
1655
1083
1660
826
0
7242
9935
27527
GADBIS
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
GALOLI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
GAMHOL
1
0
0
12
1
0
0
31
1
0
0
1
HYPSPP
3
15
89
1
0
0
0
5
9
0
0
0
LEIUNI
361
43
0
241
172
138
108
24
0
0
0
0
MACAMB
0
3986
0
0
364
0
1098
154
0
2022
1773
1611
MACAUS
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
MACPEE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MELFLU
8
18
0
1
0
0
1
3
0
3
0
0
MISANG
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MOGADS
0
0
112
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NANAUS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NEMERE
25
66
0
417
137
1922
1422
0
0
1456
5596
2872
NEOHYR
0
0
0
0
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ONCMYK
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
PHIGRA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RETSEM
25
9
0
0
1
0
0
0
12
4
1
3
SALTRU
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TANTAN
15
0
216
0
18
0
372
0
0
0
0
0
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.
L. Murr
L. Murr
L. Murr
L. Murr
L. Murr
L. Murr
L. Murr
L. Murr
L. Murr
L. Murr
L. Murr
L. Murr
River
A14
A21
A22
A23
A24
A25
A26
A27
A28
A31
A32
A33
siteID
Dep
Tran
Tran
Tran
Tran
Tran
Tran
Tran
Tran
Srce
Srce
Srce
VPZ
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
729
0
395
704
448
0
6
43
0
0
38
0
CRASTE
2
4
6
3
1
0
0
0
8
0
8
0
CYPCAR
20714
9596
15561
1686
8353
5117
1655
62
10719
3853
26656
1780
GADBIS
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
GALOLI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
GAMHOL
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
HYPSPP
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
2
0
LEIUNI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MACAMB
3185
599
1973
555
6026
3331
4045
226
3135
828
681
1043
MACAUS
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
MACPEE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MELFLU
0
1
0
0
0
4
3
1
50
6
9
14
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
3738
4458
11105
4677
5177
1947
1673
2143
936
7649
1753
1487
NEOHYR
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
PERFLU
0
0
0
0
0
61
0
0
0
0
0
0
PHIGRA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RETSEM
6
7
2
3
0
0
14
4
3
12
10
5
SALTRU
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
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.
L. Murr
L. Murr
L. Murr
L. Murr
L. Murr
L. Murr
L. Murr
L. Murr
L. Murr
Lach
Lach
Lach
River
A34
A35
A36
A37
A38
A41
A42
A43
A44
12002
12003
12004
siteID
Srce
Srce
Srce
Srce
Srce
Srce
Srce
Srce
Srce
Dep
Dep
Dep
VPZ
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
684
641
CRASTE
7
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
CYPCAR
22001
2373
8790
669
3935
13161
13148
22832
21215
8002
5483
1206
GADBIS
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
GALOLI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
GAMHOL
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
HYPSPP
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
LEIUNI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MACAMB
20
1526
2109
1210
700
1141
283
581
7260
0
0
0
MACAUS
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
MACPEE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MELFLU
3
0
15
6
0
0
6
2
1
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
278
1550
235
1047
424
360
0
0
1696
0
0
0
NEOHYR
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
PERFLU
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
45
0
PHIGRA
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RETSEM
9
15
3
8
0
7
31
34
19
4
3
0
SALTRU
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
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.
Lach
River
12005
siteID
Dep
VPZ
AMBAGA
BIDBID
CARAUR
CRASTE
CYPCAR
GADBIS
GADMAR
GALOLI
GAMHOL
HYPSPP
LEIUNI
MACAMB
MACAUS
MACMAC
MACPEE
MELFLU
MISANG
MOGADS
NANAUS
NEMERE
NEOHYR
ONCMYK
PERFLU
PHIGRA
RETSEM
SALTRU
TANTAN
TOTAL
Lach
12010
Dep
0
0
0
0
81
0
0
0
3
26
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
110
Lach
12011
Dep
0
0
147
0
6024
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6171
Lach
12012
Dep
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Lach
12019
Dep
0
0
1522
0
1551
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3077
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report
Lach
12021
Dep
0
0
1421
0
4922
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
33
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6375
Lach
12025
Dep
0
0
133
0
6943
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6413
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
13501
Lach
12026
Dep
0
0
0
0
6791
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
170
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6961
Lach
12027
Dep
0
0
0
0
997
0
0
0
0
0
0
1729
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1941
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
4678
Lach
12028
Dep
0
0
0
0
9179
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
5431
0
0
0
0
190
0
0
105
0
7
0
0
14913
Lach
12029
Dep
0
0
0
0
24995
0
0
0
0
0
0
886
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
106
0
0
35
0
5
0
0
26028
Lach
12030
Dep
0
0
1633
0
6134
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1859
0
0
914
0
3
0
0
10543
0
0
1267
0
14731
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1197
0
0
21
0
5
0
0
17222
154
Appendix 16 (cont). Species biomass (g) at assessment sites from electrofishing shot types.
Lach
Lach
River
12031
12006
siteID
Dep
Srce
VPZ
AMBAGA
0
BIDBID
0
CARAUR
960
CRASTE
0
CYPCAR
4146
GADBIS
0
GADMAR
0
GALOLI
0
GAMHOL
0
HYPSPP
0
LEIUNI
0
MACAMB
0
MACAUS
0
MACMAC
0
MACPEE
0
MELFLU
0
MISANG
0
MOGADS
0
NANAUS
0
NEMERE
1041
NEOHYR
0
ONCMYK
0
PERFLU
18
PHIGRA
0
RETSEM
9
SALTRU
0
TANTAN
0
TOTAL
6173
Lach
12009
Srce
0
0
254
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19
0
0
0
0
273
Lach
12036
Srce
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
93
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
93
Lach
12037
Srce
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
84
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1030
0
1119
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report
Lach
12038
Srce
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
297
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
297
Lach
12000
Tran
0
0
977
0
0
0
0
0
0
46
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
20
0
0
1044
Lach
12001
Tran
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
Lach
12007
Tran
0
0
0
0
33938
0
0
16
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
0
0
0
0
33971
Lach
12008
Tran
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
Lach
12018
Tran
0
0
0
0
12240
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
251
0
0
0
521
0
13012
Ovens
VIC04
Dep
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
23
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
23
0
0
67
0
0
0
0
0
2
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
91
155
Appendix 16 (cont). Species biomass (g) at assessment sites from electrofishing shot types.
Ovens
Ovens
River
VIC05
VIC06
siteID
Dep
Dep
VPZ
AMBAGA
0
BIDBID
0
CARAUR
339
CRASTE
0
CYPCAR
5441
GADBIS
0
GADMAR
0
GALOLI
0
GAMHOL
0
HYPSPP
10
LEIUNI
0
MACAMB
0
MACAUS
0
MACMAC
0
MACPEE
0
MELFLU
0
MISANG
0
MOGADS
0
NANAUS
0
NEMERE
0
NEOHYR
0
ONCMYK
0
PERFLU
0
PHIGRA
0
RETSEM
0
SALTRU
0
TANTAN
0
TOTAL
5790
Ovens
VIC18
Dep
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
4
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
32
0
0
0
0
11480
7
424
0
0
0
0
0
0
1009
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12920
Ovens
VIC19
Dep
0
0
0
0
49609
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
2105
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
0
0
51754
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report
Ovens
VIC20
Dep
0
0
0
0
18203
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
432
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
0
48
0
0
18702
Ovens
VIC21
Dep
Ovens
VIC01
Srce
0
0
0
0
4949
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
4951
Ovens
VIC02
Srce
0
0
0
0
0
220
0
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
637
0
0
0
2458
0
3325
Ovens
VIC07
Srce
0
0
0
0
0
284
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
370
0
0
0
0
0
659
Ovens
VIC08
Srce
0
0
0
0
0
309
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2280
0
0
0
3685
0
6274
Ovens
VIC09
Srce
0
0
0
0
0
187
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
558
0
0
0
643
0
1387
Ovens
VIC11
Srce
0
0
0
0
0
293
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
445
0
0
0
2424
0
3162
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1301
0
0
0
887
0
2188
156
Appendix 16 (cont). Species biomass (g) at assessment sites from electrofishing shot types.
Ovens
Ovens
Ovens
Ovens
Ovens
Ovens
Ovens
River
VIC03
VIC10
VIC13
VIC14
VIC15
VIC16
VIC17
siteID
Tran
Tran
Tran
Tran
Tran
Tran
Tran
VPZ
AMBAGA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
BIDBID
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CARAUR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CRASTE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
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
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
HYPSPP
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LEIUNI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MACAMB
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MACAUS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MACMAC
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
MACPEE
0
0
0
0
2105
6080
0
MELFLU
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MISANG
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MOGADS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NANAUS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NEMERE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NEOHYR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ONCMYK
0
50
0
0
0
0
0
PERFLU
0
0
0
0
32
42
0
PHIGRA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RETSEM
0
0
0
0
0
25
5
SALTRU
1261
28
0
0
0
0
0
TANTAN
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
1601
525
171
132
25695
15676
13050
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report
157
APPENDIX 17.
River
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Condamine
Lachlan
Lachlan
Lachlan
Lachlan
Lachlan
Lachlan
Lachlan
Lachlan
Lachlan
Lachlan
Lachlan
siteID
12015
12017
SRA0005
SRA0006
SRA0007
SRA0008
SRA0009
SRA0012
SRA0014
SRA0022
SRA0023
SRA0024
SRA0039
SRA0040
SRA0041
SRA0013
SRA0015
SRA0017
SRA0018
SRA0020
SRA0030
12002
12003
12004
12005
12010
12011
12012
12019
12021
12025
12026
Individual assessment site scores for all fish metrics (electrofishing only).
VPZ
abnorm prop_N_sp macro prop_N_abund
Deposition
0.6
0.5000 0.1400
0.8599
Deposition
0.2
0.5000 0.2301
0.7699
Deposition
0.6
0.7048 0.0408
0.9711
Deposition
0.2
0.5000 0.1880
0.8602
Deposition
0.2
0.6410 0.4788
0.8970
Deposition
0.2
0.7048 0.1310
0.8729
Deposition
0.6
0.5000 0.2566
0.7434
Deposition
0.2
1.0000 1.0000
1.0000
Deposition
0.2
1.0000 0.0000
1.0000
Deposition
1.0
0.6082 0.5922
0.5922
Deposition
0.2
0.5641 0.6178
0.5068
Deposition
0.6
0.6082 0.4190
0.6671
Source
0.2
0.6667 0.7608
0.8456
Source
1.0
0.6875 0.7128
0.7709
Source
0.2
1.0000 0.8564
1.0000
Transport
0.2
0.6082 0.6217
0.5719
Transport
0.2
0.6082 0.6902
0.6667
Transport
0.2
0.6082 0.1831
0.9316
Transport
0.2
0.6410 0.3762
0.6480
Transport
0.6
0.5456 0.8854
0.1937
Transport
0.2
0.6082 1.0000
0.7748
Deposition
0.2
0.5000 1.0000
0.4359
Deposition
0.2
0.4359 1.0000
0.4544
Deposition
0.2
0.0000 1.0000
0.0000
Deposition
1.0
0.3918 1.0000
0.5577
Deposition
0.2
0.0000 1.0000
0.0000
Deposition
1.0
0.5000 1.0000
0.3333
Deposition
1.0
0.3333 1.0000
0.4755
Deposition
1.0
0.3918 0.8718
0.1282
Deposition
0.2
0.5000 0.6936
0.5922
Deposition
0.2
0.5000 0.4544
0.5456
Deposition
1.0
0.6667 0.2626
0.8790
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report
mega
0.2000
0.6000
0.2000
0.2000
0.2000
0.2000
0.6000
0.2000
1.0000
1.0000
0.6000
0.2000
0.6000
0.2000
0.6000
0.2000
1.0000
0.2000
1.0000
0.2000
0.2000
0.2000
0.2000
0.2000
0.2000
0.2000
0.2000
0.2000
0.2000
1.0000
0.2000
0.2000
sp_rich
0.2222
0.4444
0.5556
0.6667
0.8209
0.5556
0.4444
0.2449
0.3509
0.6667
0.5556
0.7159
1.0000
1.0000
0.9089
0.7266
1.0000
0.3848
0.8940
0.9031
0.3887
0.2318
0.5683
0.3594
0.3815
0.2222
0.2259
0.4939
0.3333
0.4444
0.2222
0.4444
benthic
0.2000
0.4000
0.4000
0.6000
0.4000
0.4000
0.4000
0.4000
0.4000
0.8000
0.6000
0.4000
0.7229
0.9622
0.8589
0.4000
1.0000
0.4040
0.8046
0.8128
0.2041
0.2000
0.4000
0.2000
0.4006
0.2000
0.2000
0.4000
0.2000
0.4000
0.2000
0.4000
pelagic
0.2584
0.2652
0.8163
0.5261
1.0000
0.8345
0.2727
0.0000
0.2961
0.2813
0.2577
0.9060
1.0000
1.0000
0.9202
0.9196
0.9221
0.3247
0.6466
0.6531
0.6560
0.2934
0.5754
0.3032
0.3219
0.0000
0.2859
0.3125
0.2000
0.2723
0.2655
0.5313
intol
T_abund
0.0000
0.6012
0.0000
0.4460
0.0000
0.9954
0.0000
0.9147
0.3333
0.9005
0.0000
0.9665
0.0000
0.6714
0.0000
0.6739
0.3333
0.5112
0.3333
0.4245
0.0000
0.6193
0.0000
0.9765
0.4016
0.7110
0.4009
0.8615
1.0000
1.0000
0.0000
0.7878
0.3333
0.5575
0.0000
0.7183
0.3352
0.5416
0.0000
0.8123
0.0000
0.6292
0.0000
0.2589
0.0000
0.4245
0.0000
0.4460
0.0000
0.6612
0.0000
0.3997
0.0000
0.2230
0.0000
0.5893
0.0000
0.5178
0.0000
0.4245
0.0000
0.3130
0.0000
0.6475
OE
prop_N_Biom adjust_OP
0.1282
0.1734
0.5385
0.2564
0.4036
0.5385
0.5128
0.8325
0.5385
0.3846
0.3411
0.5385
0.5128
0.8190
0.5385
0.5128
0.5315
0.5385
0.2564
0.2743
0.5385
0.2564
1.0000
0.5385
0.3846
1.0000
0.5385
0.5128
0.5095
0.5385
0.3846
0.2434
0.5385
0.5128
0.6827
0.5385
0.7101
0.8098
0.7740
0.8284
0.1626
0.7740
0.5917
1.0000
0.7740
0.4762
0.7225
0.5653
0.7143
0.2930
0.5653
0.2381
0.6553
0.5653
0.5952
0.5103
0.5653
0.4762
0.1473
0.5653
0.2381
0.9509
0.5653
0.0917
0.0004
0.2941
0.1835
0.0011
0.2941
0.0000
0.0000
0.2941
0.0917
0.2380
0.2941
0.0000
0.0000
0.2941
0.0917
0.6251
0.2941
0.0917
0.0015
0.2941
0.0917
0.0051
0.2941
0.1835
0.4759
0.2941
0.0917
0.0245
0.2941
0.2752
0.7869
0.2941
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
Lachlan
12027
Deposition
0.2
0.5000 0.4000
0.6633 0.2000 0.6667 0.4000
Lachlan
12028
Deposition
0.6
0.5641 0.5782
0.4914 0.2000 0.5556 0.4000
Lachlan
12029
Deposition
1.0
0.4359 0.3608
0.6520
0.2 0.5556 0.2000
Lachlan
12030
Deposition
0.6
0.4359 0.4544
0.5734
0.2 0.5556 0.2000
Lachlan
12031
Deposition
1.0
0.4359 0.4218
0.6423
0.2 0.5556 0.2000
Lachlan
12006
Source
1.0
0.0000 1.0000
0.0000
0.2 0.8814 0.0000
Lachlan
12009
Source
0.2
1.0000 1.0000
1.0000
0.2 0.4040 0.6364
Lachlan
12036
Source
0.2
0.3918 1.0000
0.6224
0.2 0.9456 0.9929
Lachlan
12037
Source
0.2
1.0000 1.0000
1.0000
0.2 0.3830 0.6032
Lachlan
12038
Source
0.6
0.5641 1.0000
0.9054
0.2 0.7066 0.4452
Lachlan
12000
Transport
1.0
0.0000 1.0000
0.0000
0.2 0.2472 0.2000
Lachlan
12001
Transport
0.2
0.3333 1.0000
0.3333
0.2 0.5518 0.4346
Lachlan
12007
Transport
1.0
0.0000 1.0000
0.0000
0.2 0.1272 0.0000
Lachlan
12008
Transport
0.2
0.0000 1.0000
0.0000
0.2 0.3699 0.6000
Lachlan
12018
Transport
1.0
0.0000 1.0000
0.0000
0.2 0.1372 0.0000
L. Murray A11
Deposition
0.2
0.6667 0.4560
0.6604
0.6 0.8889 0.6000
L. Murray A12
Deposition
1.0
0.5000 0.2301
0.7854
0.6 0.6667 0.4000
L. Murray A13
Deposition
0.2
0.6082 0.5559
0.5051
0.6 0.6667 0.4000
L. Murray A14
Deposition
0.6
0.6082 0.4012
0.6565
0.6 0.6667 0.4000
L. Murray A31
Source
0.2
0.7323 0.2804
0.8779
0.2 0.6667 0.6000
L. Murray A32
Source
0.6
0.6082 0.5000
0.7027
0.2 1.0000 0.6000
L. Murray A33
Source
0.6
0.7048 0.2348
0.8718
0.2 0.5556 0.4000
L. Murray A34
Source
0.2
0.7532 0.7721
0.6830
0.2 0.7778 0.6000
L. Murray A35
Source
0.2
0.7048 0.5000
0.8187
0.6 0.5556 0.4000
L. Murray A36
Source
0.2
0.7048 0.3473
0.7434
1.0 0.5556 0.4000
L. Murray A37
Source
0.2
0.6410 0.2693
0.8477
0.2 0.7778 0.4000
L. Murray A38
Source
0.2
0.7048 0.5354
0.5354
1.0 0.5556 0.6000
L. Murray A41
Source
0.6
0.7048 0.5765
0.5765
0.6 0.5556 0.4000
L. Murray A42
Source
0.2
0.7048 0.7952
0.7048
0.6 0.5556 0.4000
L. Murray A43
Source
0.2
0.7048 0.8365
0.6377
0.6 0.5556 0.4000
L. Murray A44
Source
0.6
0.7048 0.5233
0.6534
1.0 0.5556 0.4000
L. Murray A21
Transport
0.2
0.7323 0.3079
0.7732
0.2 0.6667 0.4000
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report
pelagic
1.0000
0.7676
0.6000
0.6000
0.6000
1.0000
0.0000
0.7979
0.0000
0.7154
0.3128
0.6984
0.3219
0.0000
0.3472
0.8000
0.6000
0.8000
0.6000
0.6000
1.0000
0.6000
0.8000
0.6000
0.6000
1.0000
0.4000
0.6000
0.6000
0.6000
0.6000
0.8000
intol
T_abund OE
prop_N_Biom adjust_OP
0.0000
0.6446 0.2752
0.3774
0.2941
0.0000
0.5808 0.2752
0.0383
0.2941
0.0000
0.7575 0.1835
0.1766
0.2941
0.0000
0.6834 0.1835
0.0698
0.2941
0.0000
0.6923 0.1835
0.1701
0.2941
0.0000
0.8343 0.0000
0.0000
0.4092
0.0000
1.0000 0.1361
1.0000
0.4092
0.8274
1.0000 0.1361
0.0755
0.4092
0.0000
1.0000 0.1361
1.0000
0.4092
0.0000
0.8178 0.4082
0.0645
0.4092
0.0000
0.3130 0.0000
0.0000
0.0929
0.0000
0.5157 0.1111
0.0005
0.0929
0.0000
0.6260 0.0000
0.0000
0.0929
0.6667
0.3857 0.0000
0.0000
0.0929
0.0000
0.8481 0.0000
0.0000
0.0929
0.3333
0.6531 0.4428
0.3251
0.2194
0.0000
0.6690 0.2214
0.4254
0.2194
0.3333
0.6664 0.2952
0.1402
0.2194
0.3333
0.6879 0.2952
0.2443
0.2194
0.0000
0.6446 0.4310
0.6880
0.3333
0.3333
0.6923 0.5172
0.0845
0.3333
0.0000
0.7407 0.3448
0.5888
0.3333
0.3333
0.6503 0.5172
0.0142
0.3333
0.0000
0.5851 0.3448
0.5658
0.3333
0.0000
0.5241 0.3448
0.2118
0.3333
0.3333
0.7220 0.4310
0.7722
0.3333
0.0000
0.3534 0.3448
0.2225
0.3333
0.0000
0.4897 0.3448
0.1028
0.3333
0.3333
0.5471 0.3448
0.0239
0.3333
0.3333
0.5524 0.3448
0.0263
0.3333
0.0000
0.5973 0.3448
0.2973
0.3333
0.3333
0.6923 0.4425
0.3456
0.2727
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.
1. 0
1. 0
0. 9
0. 9
0. 8
0. 8
0. 7
0. 7
Pelagic Species
Sustainable Rivers Fish Index
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
0. 6
0. 5
0. 4
0. 3
0. 6
0. 5
0. 4
0. 3
0. 2
0. 2
0. 1
0. 1
0. 0
0. 0
C- W
L- W
M
-W
O- W
C- W
L- W
r i vpz
M
-W
O- W
r i vpz
1. 0
0. 9
0.9
0. 8
Intolerant Species
1.0
Species Richness
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0. 7
0. 6
0. 5
0. 4
0. 3
0.3
0. 2
0.2
0. 1
0.1
0. 0
0.0
C- W
C-W
L-W
M-W
L- W
M
-W
O- W
M
-W
O
-W
O-W
r i vpz
1. 0
0. 9
0. 9
Prop. Native abundance
1. 0
Benthic Species
0. 8
0. 7
0. 6
0. 5
0. 4
0. 3
0. 2
0. 1
0. 7
0. 6
0. 5
0. 4
0. 3
0. 2
0. 1
0. 0
0. 0
C- W
0. 8
L- W
M
-W
O
-W
r i vpz
C- W
L- W
r i vpz
161
Sustainable Rivers Audit Pilot Audit – Fish Theme Technical Report
1. 0
1. 0
0. 9
0. 9
Prop. With abnormalites
Prop. Native Species
Appendix 18 (cont.).
0. 8
0. 7
0. 6
0. 5
0. 4
0. 3
0. 2
0. 1
0. 7
0. 6
0. 5
0. 4
0. 3
0. 2
0. 1
0. 0
0. 0
C- W
0. 8
L- W
M
-W
C- W
O
-W
L- W
1. 0
Observerd / Expected (OE)
1. 0
Prop. Macro carnivores
O
-W
r i vpz
r i vpz
0. 9
0. 8
0. 7
0. 6
0. 5
0. 4
0. 3
0. 2
0. 1
0. 9
0. 8
0. 7
0. 6
0. 5
0. 4
0. 3
0. 2
0. 1
0. 0
0. 0
C- W
M
-W
C- W
L- W
M
-W
L- W
M
-W
O
-W
r i vpz
O
-W
1. 0
r i vpz
Percent Native biomass
0. 9
1. 0
Prop. Mega carnivores
0. 9
0. 8
0. 7
0. 6
0. 5
0. 4
0. 3
0. 8
0. 7
0. 6
0. 5
0. 4
0. 3
0. 2
0. 1
0. 0
0. 2
0. 1
C- W
L- W
0. 0
M
-W
O
-W
r i vpz
1.0
0.9
0.8
Total abundance
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
M
-W
O
-W
1. 0
0. 9
0. 8
0. 7
0. 6
0. 5
0. 4
0. 3
0. 2
0. 1
0. 0
0.1
C- W
0.0
C-W
O
-W
r i vpz
L- W
Adjucted Observed/Predicted (aOP)
C- W
M
-W
L- W
r i vpz
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
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
SITE ID
12015
12017
SRA0005
SRA0006
SRA0007
SRA0008
SRA0009
SRA0012
SRA0013
SRA0014
SRA0015
SRA0017
SRA0018
SRA0020
SRA0022
SRA0023
SRA0024
SRA0030
SRA0039
SRA0040
SRA0041
A11
A12
A13
A14
A21
A22
A23
A24
A25
A26
Map ID
No.
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
SITE ID
A27
A28
A31
A32
A33
A34
A35
A36
A37
A38
A41
A42
A43
A44
12000
12001
12002
12003
12004
12005
12006
12007
12008
12009
12010
12011
12012
12018
12019
12021
12025
Map ID
No.
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
SITE ID
12026
12027
12028
12029
12030
12031
12036
12037
12038
VIC01
VIC02
VIC03
VIC04
VIC05
VIC06
VIC07
VIC08
VIC09
VIC10
VIC11
VIC12
VIC13
VIC14
VIC15
VIC16
VIC17
VIC18
VIC19
VIC20
VIC21
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
TRANS
3
4
5
6
7
1.694
1.394
1.230
1.121
1.073
Estimated
OP
0.338
0.385
0.454
0.431
0.462
DEP
3
4
5
6
7
1.541
1.493
1.296
1.168
1.106
0.250
0.294
0.317
0.361
0.389
Adjusted
OP
0.573
0.536
0.558
0.483
0.495
0.385
0.440
0.410
0.422
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
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
166
Figure A21-2. Condition assessment of SR-FId for the four Pilot Valleys (associated confidence in data displayed in legend).
Valley colours indicate the overall Valley condition assessment.