hydrobiology - ntepa.nt.gov.au

Hydrobiology

Rum Jungle Aquatic Ecosystem Survey

Early Dry Season 2014 June 2016

Rum Jungle Aquatic Ecosystem Survey June 2016 ii

Hydrobiology

ABN

26 096 574 659

GST The company is registered for GST

Head Office 27 / 43 Lang Parade

Auchenflower QLD 4066

Registered Office c/‐ de Blonk Smith and Young Accountants

GPO 119

Brisbane, QLD 4001

Postal Address PO Box 2151

Toowong QLD 4066

Phone 61 (07) 3368 2133

Fax 61 (07) 3367 3629

Email Contact [email protected]

Website http://www.hydrobiology.biz

© Hydrobiology Pty Ltd 2016

Disclaimer: This document contains confidential information that is intended only for the use by Hydrobiology’s Client. It is

not for public circulation or publication or to be used by any third party without the express permission of either the Client or

Hydrobiology Pty. Ltd. The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of Hydrobiology Pty Ltd.

Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written permission of Hydrobiology Pty Ltd constitutes an

infringement of copyright.

While the findings presented in this report are based on information that Hydrobiology considers reliable unless stated

otherwise, the accuracy and completeness of source information cannot be guaranteed. Furthermore, the information compiled

in this report addresses the specific needs of the client, so may not address the needs of third parties using this report for their

own purposes. Thus, Hydrobiology and its employees accept no liability for any losses or damage for any action taken or not

taken on the basis of any part of the contents of this report. Those acting on information provided in this report do so entirely at

their own risk.

Rum Jungle Aquatic Ecosystem Survey June 2016 iii

Hydrobiology



Document Control Information

Date Printed

Project Title Rum Jungle Impact Assessment

Project Manager Andy Markham

Job Number 14-003-NTG01 Report Number 1

Document Title Rum Jungle Aquatic Ecosystem Survey

Document File Name Document

Status Originator(s)

Reviewed By

Authorised By

Date

14-003-NTG01_R1_V0.3_DRAFT.docx

Draft RS, RJ, SG


AM 27/10/14


RS, RJ, SG RS 31/10/14

14-003-NTG01_R1_1.0.docx

Final AM AM 4/6/16

Distribution

Document File Name Description Issued To Issued By


Draft C. Stokes R. Smith

14-003-NTG01_R1_1.0.docx

Final M. Greally A. Markham

Rum Jungle Aquatic Ecosystem Survey June 2016 iv

Hydrobiology

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Hydrobiology was commissioned by the Northern Territory Government (Department of

Mines and Energy) to undertake an impact assessment and develop locally derived water

quality guidelines for the former Rum Jungle mine site. This report covers an aquatic

ecosystem survey conducted in May‐June 2014 that was undertaken to provide input data to

be used in that assessment. It was the first such survey since the 1990s, when post

remediation surveys were first conducted after the initial mine site rehabilitation in the mid

1980s (see Jeffree and Twining 2000, Jeffree et al. 2001).

Specifically for this survey, the objectives were to:

update the assessment of the status of the aquatic ecosystems downstream of the

mine lease area since the surveys of the 1990s, with particular focus on where the

patterns of aquatic ecosystem condition differed from those observed in the earlier

assessments;

provide contemporary aquatic ecosystem condition assessment and species

distribution patterns that in combination with water and sediment quality monitoring

data could be used to develop revised water quality objectives based on ecosystem

response to contaminant concentrations; and

investigate alternative sampling techniques that would potentially make future

sampling more appropriate and/or cost effective

Fishes, macrocrustaceans, general macroinvertebrates and benthic diatoms were sampled

from 18 sites in the Finniss River upstream of Walker’s Ford, including the East Branch to

upstream of the Rum Jungle mine lease area, between 18 May and 6 June 2014, where the

sites still retained water at the time and were appropriate for each type of sampling. Where

possible and appropriate at each site, sampling methods were designed to be comparable to

methods that had been used historically, but other methods were trialled according to the

third objective. This was the first such survey of the river system in relation to the Rum

Jungle mine in over 20 years.

It was demonstrated that a combination of sampling with a reduced set of floating gill nets

for an abbreviated set period of 1630‐2030 in combination with fyke netting, electrofishing

and bait trapping would capture the range of fish species collected in earlier sampling and be

comparable, after adjustment for set period and net area, to the full set of floating and

sinking gill nets set from dusk to dawn used in earlier sampling periods. This could be

achieved with greatly reduced effort, and concomitant reduction of issues with field crew

fatigue for an intensive sampling program and risk of enmeshing and drowning of

Freshwater Crocodiles, the populations of which had increased strongly since the 1990s.

There were generally consistent findings for the four groups of aquatic organisms targeted.

There were no indications of impact in the Finniss River downstream of the East Branch.

This was consistent with the findings of surveys conducted in the 1990s, except indicting

further recovery of mussel populations, and general recovery of the main Finniss River after

Rum Jungle Aquatic Ecosystem Survey June 2016 v

Hydrobiology

remediation of the mine site in the mid 1980s, but in contrast to the findings of surveys in the

1970s of impacts in the Finniss River as far downstream as Florence Creek.

There were also relatively consistent patterns of reductions in diversity and abundance of all

four groups in the mine lease area (zone 2) and gradual improvement in diversity and

abundance downstream of the mine lease to the Finniss River junction. Tissue metal

concentrations in a number of species also indicated increased bioavailability of copper and

zinc in the mine lease area, and cobalt and nickel either in the mine lease area or shortly

downstream of it, and gradual reduction of bioaccumulation of those metals downstream

through the East branch, with no evidence for increased bioaccumulation of them at any of

the Finniss River sites. This is consistent with known inputs of acid drainage containing

substantial quantities of those metals into the East Branch within the mine lease area.

The assemblages in the East Branch were improved for all three groups relative to what was

found in the 1990s, despite no further remediation of the mine lease area. The reason for this

is unclear, and may indicate:

i) there is a time dependency related to lag factors that are operating on the rates of

recolonisation after the step reduction in contaminants loads that was measured

in the 80’s and 90’s;

ii) annual contaminant loadings and/or their bioavailabilities have continued to

reduce since the 90s allowing for more recolonisation, such as via reduction of

sediment sources of contaminants over time; and/or

iii) there has been continued adaptation in the fish biota of the East Branch following

their decades of exposure to contaminants, as demonstrated in the 90s for one

species in the East Branch (Gale et al., 2003), although the patterns of

bioaccumulation by that species in 2014 were not consistent with a high level of

inhibition of copper uptake persisting for the East Branch population.

Exceptions were found to the general pattern of a gradient of impact in the East Branch

stemming from the mine lease area and improving downstream, and the inference that this

was caused by acid drainage:

Site EBdsRB supported a diverse, abundant macroinvertebrate assemblage that was

comparable to those of the Finniss River and upper East Branch control sites, despite

being within the mid‐reaches of zone 3 downstream of the mine lease area;

The fish assemblage at the site upstream of EBdsRB, EB@GS327, was more speciose

than for other zone 3 sites, and more comparable to the sites in zone 4, while the

assemblage at EBdsRB was more comparable to the site in the mine lease area

EB@GS200; and

The diatom assemblage of the East Branch, while less diverse and abundant than the

sites in the Finniss River system, was dominated by species that were classified as

alkalophilic or preferring circumneutral pH waters. The metal tolerances of the

dominant species were not known. The observed pH preferences of the dominant

species were not consistent with an impact caused by acid drainage, and this was

postulated to have resulted from altered grazing pressure caused by the absence of

Rum Jungle Aquatic Ecosystem Survey June 2016 vi

Hydrobiology

fish and macrocrustacean algivorous species and reduced abundance of

macroinvertebrate grazers. However, the absence of fish and macrocrustacean

algivores was also not able to be explained, and may have resulted from either

greater sensitivity to increase metal bioavailability of those species compared with

other feeding guilds, or to reduced quality of their algal food sources due to the

observed differences in algal assemblage composition.

It was acknowledged that the use of a single round of biological assessment over 20 years

after previous sampling was not a strong basis for comparison, and also that the timing of

the survey early in the dry season was not comparable to the later dry season sampling of the

1990s, particularly for the intermittent East Branch. Therefore it was recommended that:

Repeat sampling in 2015 of the Finniss and East Branch using the recommended new

suite of sampling methodologies, including a much reduced program of gill netting

to improve the baseline of contemporary ecosystem condition for use for assessment

of the success of further rehabilitation and be consistent with sets of multiple rounds

of sampling used in the previous periods. It is recommended that this occur in the

similar early dry season period as for the 2014 sampling because this will capture

maximal spatial extent of fish species when access permits; and

It was recommended that more effort be placed into understanding the current extent

of recovery and its drivers in the East Branch by:

o an additional sampling round later in the Dry of 2015 targeted at

macroinvertebrate and diatom assemblages but with fish sampling of the East

Branch only to provide a better comparison with sampling in the 90s; and

o ii) comparison of the presence of biota along the pollution gradient of the East

Branch with ecological risk predictions of the presence of different biota based

on water quality alone, including geochemical modelling of bioavailable

fractions, for comparison with similar 90s assessments.

Rum Jungle Aquatic Ecosystem Survey June 2016 vii

Hydrobiology



TABLE OF CONTENTS

executive summary ............................................................................................................................. iv

1 introduction ................................................................................................................................ 10

1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................... 10

1.2 Objectives ............................................................................................................................. 11

2 Methodology .............................................................................................................................. 11

2.1 Survey Timing and Sampling Sites .................................................................................. 11

2.2 Field procedure ................................................................................................................... 14

2.2.1 Gill netting ................................................................................................................... 14

2.2.2 Electrofishing .............................................................................................................. 15

2.2.3 Fyke nets ...................................................................................................................... 16

2.2.4 Bait traps ...................................................................................................................... 17

2.2.5 Cast netting .................................................................................................................. 17

2.2.6 Seine netting ................................................................................................................ 17

2.2.7 Macroinvertebrate sampling ..................................................................................... 17

2.2.8 Diatom sampling ........................................................................................................ 17

2.2.9 Tissue metal concentration samples ........................................................................ 18

2.3 Data Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 19

3 Results ......................................................................................................................................... 19

3.1 Fish and Macro‐crustaceans .............................................................................................. 19

3.1.1 Assessment of Sampling Methods ........................................................................... 19

3.1.2 Finniss River Site Gill Net Catches Over Time ....................................................... 28

3.1.3 2014 Finniss River versus East Branch Comparisons ............................................ 30

3.2 Diatoms ................................................................................................................................ 41

3.3 Macroinvertebrates ............................................................................................................ 45

3.3.1 Macroinvertebrates 2014 ............................................................................................ 45

3.3.2 Multivariate Analysis ................................................................................................. 48

3.3.3 Historical Comparison ............................................................................................... 52

3.4 Tissue Metal Concentrations ............................................................................................. 53

3.4.1 Comparison with Food Standards ........................................................................... 53

3.4.2 Spatial comparisons ................................................................................................... 54

3.5 Radionuclide analyses ....................................................................................................... 63

4 summary and discussion .......................................................................................................... 64

5 recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 67

Rum Jungle Aquatic Ecosystem Survey June 2016 viii

Hydrobiology

6 Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................... 67

7 References ................................................................................................................................... 67

TABLES

Table 2‐1 Sampling sites used for the 2014 survey and corresponding historical site codes. 12

Table 2‐2 Gill net set used in the historic sampling ...................................................................... 14

Table 2‐3 Gill nets used in 2014 ...................................................................................................... 15

Table 3‐1 Species caught by 13 mm gill net and seine netting in 1990s sampling and by

methods targeting smaller species used in 2014 ............................................................................ 22

Table 3‐2 Cumulative number of species collected in gill net set with each net check and

proportion of species collected in the 20:30 check of the cumulative total at 24:00 and 06:30 24

Table 3‐3 Cumulative abundance of fishes collected in gill net set with each net check and

proportion of specimens collected in the 20:30 check of the cumulative total at 24:00 and

06:30 ...................................................................................................................................................... 24

Table 3‐4 Species caught in each net check period and by other methods in 2014 sampling . 25

Table 3‐5 Species recorded at each site in 2014. Blue shading highlights diadromous species.

............................................................................................................................................................... 31

Table 3‐6 Species collected from sites in the East Branch sub‐catchment by period of

sampling .............................................................................................................................................. 34

Table 3‐7: Results from Multiple Range Test on Abundance data .............................................. 46

Table 3‐8: Multiple Range Test result for Richness data ............................................................... 47

Table 3‐9: Key to Functional Feeding Guild abbreviations .......................................................... 49

Table 3‐10 Between‐site ANOVA analyses for metal concentrations in purged M. bullatum

cephalothorax samples. ..................................................................................................................... 55

Table 3‐11 Between‐site ANOVA analyses for metal concentrations in M. nigrans whole body

samples. ............................................................................................................................................... 58

Table 3‐12 Between‐site ANOVA analyses for metal concentrations in M. mogurnda hind

body samples. ..................................................................................................................................... 60

Table 3‐13 Between‐site ANOVA analyses for metal concentrations in N. hyrtlii flesh

samples. ............................................................................................................................................... 62

Table 3‐14 Between‐site ANOVA analyses for metal concentrations in N. erebi flesh samples.

............................................................................................................................................................... 63

FIGURES

Figure 2‐1 Sampling site locations .................................................................................................. 13

Figure 3‐1 Abundance of fishes in each sinking or floating gill net at each site....................... 27

Figure 3‐2 Species richness in each sinking or floating gill net at each site .............................. 27

Rum Jungle Aquatic Ecosystem Survey June 2016 ix

Hydrobiology

Figure 3‐3 Group average agglomerative hierarchical cluster dendrogram for fish catch in

floating and sinking gill nets. ........................................................................................................... 28

Figure 3‐4. Abundances of seven species captured in a standardised set of gill nets ............. 29

Figure 3‐5. Number of fish species captured in a standardised set of gill nets. ........................ 29

Figure 3‐6 Group average agglomerative hierarchical cluster dendrogram of fish and

macrocrustacean presence/absence by site for 2014 ...................................................................... 35

Figure 3‐7 Group average agglomerative hierarchical cluster dendrogram for electrofisher

catches by site. ..................................................................................................................................... 36

Figure 3‐8 Group average agglomerative hierarchical cluster dendrogram for fyke net

catches by site. ..................................................................................................................................... 37

Figure 3‐9 Group average agglomerative hierarchical cluster dendrogram for combined

electrofishing, fyke netting and bait trapping catches by site. ..................................................... 39

Figure 3‐10 Group average agglomerative hierarchical cluster dendrogram for combined 13,

19, 25 and 40 mm floating gill net catches to 20:30 by site. ........................................................... 40

Figure 3‐11 Group average agglomerative hierarchical cluster dendrogram for combined 13,

19, 25 and 40 mm floating and sinking gill net catches to dawn by site ..................................... 40

Figure 3‐12 Diatom species richness by site and zone ................................................................. 41

Figure 3‐13 Diatom abundance by site and zone .......................................................................... 42

Figure 3‐14 Group average agglomerative hierarchical cluster dendrogram for diatom

samples by site .................................................................................................................................... 44

Figure 3‐15: Average macroinvertebrate abundance at sites sampled during 2014 ................. 45

Figure 3‐16: Taxa Richness of macroinvertebrates at sites sampled in 2014 .............................. 47

Figure 3‐17: Dendrogram showing differences in macroinvertebrate composition by zone .. 49

Figure 3‐18: Functional Feeding Guild compositions at sites sampled in 2014 ......................... 50

Figure 3‐19: Proportion of PET and non‐PET taxa in 2014 macroinvertebrate samples .......... 51

Figure 3‐20: Prevalence of Grazer and Non‐Grazer macroinvertebrates from 2014 samples . 52

Figure 3‐21 Concentrations of selected metals in M. bullatum cephalothorax samples by site

and zone and length where significant in the statistical analyses ............................................... 56

Figure 3‐22 Concentrations of selected metals in M. nigrans whole body samples by site and

zone and length where significant in the statistical analyses ....................................................... 59

Figure 3‐23 Concentrations of selected metals in M. mogurnda hind body samples by site and

zone ...................................................................................................................................................... 61

Figure 3‐24 Concentrations of selected metals in N. hyrtlii flesh samples by site and zone ... 62

Figure 3‐25 Concentrations of selected metals in N. erebi flesh samples by site and zone...... 63

Rum Jungle Aquatic Ecosystem Survey June 2016 10

Hydrobiology

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Hydrobiology was commissioned by the Northern Territory Government (Department of



ecosystem survey conducted in May‐June 2014 that was undertaken to provide input data to

be used in that assessment. It was the first such survey since the 1990s, when post

remediation surveys were first conducted after the initial mine site rehabilitation in the mid


As described in the study Terms of Reference (ToR), the former Rum Jungle Mine site was

mined in the 1950s‐1970s then rehabilitated during the 1980s. Monitoring of landform

stability and water quality has continued since that time. A current collaborative Northern

Territory and Commonwealth Governments project (under a Partnership Agreement) aims

to provide a more permanent reduction in environmental impacts from the site due to acid

and metalliferous drainage (AMD) by adopting leading practice rehabilitation methods. A

Conceptual Rehabilitation Plan was completed in May 2013 as the final output of Stage 1.

Already completed are some of the studies to apply the ANZECC (2000) water quality

guidelines for rehabilitation planning at the Rum Jungle Mine site. The aim of these studies

is to provide:

a clear definition of environmental values, or uses;

a good understanding of links between human activity, including indigenous uses,

and environmental quality;

unambiguous management goals;

appropriate water quality objectives, or targets; and

an effective management framework, including cooperative, regulatory, feedback

and auditing mechanisms.

Two reports already completed (Hydrobiology, 2013a and 2013b) have identified and

defined the receiving environment including the relevant environmental values of the

receiving environment in accordance with ANZECC/ARMCANZ methodology including

assessment of the aquatic ecosystems as well as fluvial sediments downstream of the mine

site. Building on these previous two studies, the purpose of this project was to:

undertake expanded environmental impact assessment monitoring to ensure a robust

data set is compiled and interpreted (in parallel with ongoing monitoring by DME)

and, based on this assessment, make recommendations in relation to any elevated

levels of contaminants identified or measurable biological impairment; and

develop locally derived water quality guidelines which can be applied to the process

of developing detailed designs for rehabilitated landforms at Rum Jungle. These will

be used as a basis for planning all existing and new data (gathered by DME and this

project).


Hydrobiology

1.2 Objectives





assessments; and

provide contemporary aquatic ecosystem condition assessment and species

distribution patterns that, in combination with water and sediment quality

monitoring data, could be used to develop revised water quality objectives based on

ecosystem response to contemporaneous contaminant concentrations.

This report provides a description of the survey that was undertaken and reviews the

aquatic ecosystem condition data in the light of those objectives.

In the course of developing and undertaking the survey, it became apparent that some

survey methodologies that had been used in the past were no longer regarded as good

sampling practice, were more labour intensive than was practicable for a wider ranging

survey being carried out within a limited timeframe, or were no longer appropriate due to

changes in the aquatic ecosystems for reasons of concern for animal welfare, as is discussed

in more detail in Section 3.1. The issues meant that an additional objective of the survey was

to investigate alternative sampling techniques that would potentially make future sampling

more appropriate and/or cost effective.

2 METHODOLOGY

2.1 Survey Timing and Sampling Sites

The survey was conducted between 18 May and 6 June 2014. It was conducted as a joint

exercise between Hydrobiology and the Northern Territory Department of Mines and

Energy (DME), including members of the Environmental Monitoring Unit of DME (EMU).

Although it was attempted to include traditional owners in the sampling team, via liaison

between DME and the Northern Land Council and some direct contact with traditional

owners on the Rum Jungle Liaison Committee, unfortunately no traditional owners were

able to volunteer to participate at the time of the survey.

The survey sites are listed in Table 2‐1 and their locations are shown in Figure 2‐1. Note that

by convention in this report the east branch of the Finniss River is referred to simply as the

East Branch. Also shown in the table and on the figure are the locations of river zones that

were defined by Hydrobiology (2013a) for the purpose of setting water quality objectives.

Those zones are used in this report to refer to groups of sites with differing levels of mine

site –related inputs and dilution of them, because the zone boundaries are defined by

sources of inputs and by major tributary junctions that will afford some dilution and

geochemical alteration of waters from the mine lease area.


Hydrobiology

Table 2-1 Sampling sites used for the 2014 survey and corresponding historical site codes.

Site Code Historic Code Site Name Easting Northing Zone

EB@LB East Branch at Lease Boundary 131.02700 -12.98820 1

FC@LB Fitch Creek at Lease Boundary 131.01600 -12.99887 1

EB@G_Dys East Branch at Dyson’s gauging station 131.01700 -12.98780 2

EB@GS200 East Branch at gauging station GS8150200 131.00059 -12.98996 2

TC@LB Tailings Creek at Lease Boundary 131.99840 -12.98010 2


EBdsRB EB5 East Branch downstream of Railway Bridge 130.98417 -12.98019 3


EBusHS EB3 East Branch upstream of Hannah's Spring 130.96402 -12.96414 3

EBdsHS EB2 East Branch downstream of Hannah's Spring 130.96090 -12.96346 4

EBusFR EB1 East Branch upstream of the Finniss River Confluence 130.95100 -12.95950 4

FRUSMB ~ FR6 Finniss River Upstream Mount Burton mine 130.96300 -12.98240 5

FRDSMB FR5 Finniss River Downstream Mount Burton mine 130.96039 -12.97912 5

FR@GS204 FR4 Finniss River at gauging station GS8150204 130.94200 -12.94780 6

FR3 FR3 Finniss River 1.1km downstream of GS8150204 130.93085 -12.94718 6

FRusFC FR2 Finniss River upstream of Florence Creek 130.78637 -12.97783 6

FRdsFC FR1 Finniss River downstream Florence Creek 130.76000 -12.96740 7

FR0 FR0 Finniss River at Walker's Ford 130.71533 -12.91317 7


Hydrobiology

Figure 2-1 Sampling site locations

!

Finniss River

Finniss River

FR0

FRdsFC

FRusFC

Zo

ne 5

Zone 6

Zo

ne 7

Zo

ne

8

BATCHELOR

Zone 2

Zone 3Zone 4

131°0'0"E

131°0'0"E

130°50'0"E

130°50'0"E

130°40'0"E

130°40'0"E

12°5

0'0

"S

12°5

0'0

"S

13°0

'0"S

13°0

'0"S

13°

10'0

"S

13°

10'0

"S

.

Legend

Sites

! City/Town

Rum Jungle Mine

Wetlands

Minor stream

Major Stream/River

Land Subject To Inundation

Saline Coastal Flat

Swamp

Finniss Catchment

State Boundary

!DARWIN

0 2 4 6 81

Kilometers

Coordinate System: GCS GDA 1994Datum: GDA 1994Units: Degree

FR3

TC@LB

EB@LB

FC@LB

EBusFR

EBdsHS

EBusHS

EBdsRB

FRDSMB

FRUSMB

FR@GS204

EB@GS327

EB@GS200

Zone 3Zone 5

Zone 6

Zone 2

Zone 4


Hydrobiology

2.2 Field procedure

2.2.1 Gill netting

As an objective of the survey was to compare 2014 fish catches with the historic datasets, it

was important to ensure that the methods used were comparable with those used in

previous rounds of sampling, whilst balancing that desire with the desire to trial less

destructive sampling techniques and control the overall sampling effort. Table 2‐2 shows the

historic gill net set. Descriptions of the historic net set in previous publications had

suggested that the mesh size referred to knot‐to‐knot measurements, but inquiry with the

field sampling team from the 1990s indicated that the measurements were actually stretched‐

mesh or the maximum length of the mesh hole size if stretched to its maximum extent. By

convention in this report, all nets are referred to by the knot‐to‐knot size in mm.

Table 2-2 Gill net set used in the historic sampling Weighting Length (m) Drop (m) Stretched Mesh Knot to knot

inch mm inch mm

Float 12.5 2.4 0.5 12 0.25 6

Sink 12.5 2.4 0.5 12 0.25 6

Float 25 1.56 1 26 0.5 13

Sink 25 1.56 1 26 0.5 13

Float 25 1.88 1.5 40 0.75 19

Sink 25 1.88 1.5 40 0.75 19

Float 25 2.5 2 50 1 25

Sink 25 2.5 2 50 1 25

Float 25 3.75 3 75 1.5 39

Sink 25 3.75 3 75 1.5 39

A critical parameter for gill nets is the diameter of the monofilament that is used to construct

the meshes. Thicker line is more robust, but tends to have reduced catch efficiency as the

resulting net becomes less flexible and fish a less likely to become enmeshed, particularly

smaller individuals that would normally be caught by smaller meshed nets.

In the absence of certainty of this parameter, it was assumed that the monofilament threads

used were those commonly used by Australian net manufacturers. There is a tendency of

these manufacturers to err in favour of more robust nets, rather than catch efficiency,

particularly for the smaller mesh sizes which are rarely used for commercial fishing

purposes. While the more robust nets work well for commercial fishing for larger species,

particularly in the tropics where crocodile damage to nets can be an operating cost burden,

the tendency to favour robustness can lead to under‐sampling of smaller fishes in the smaller

meshed nets. Hydrobiology experience has indicated that this commonly leads to a net catch

efficiency detriment for nets of 25 mm knot‐to‐knot measurement or less. Improved catch

efficiency has been found for nets sourced from southeast Asia or Europe for these mesh

sizes, as manufacturers in these countries tend to favour finer monofilament thread. Over

the years the most reliable supplier of such nets has been found to be Oy Lindemen AB of


Hydrobiology

Finland, and this has resulted in these nets being commonly referred to within the company

as Finnish nets. These nets use 0.2 to 0.25 mm diameter monofilament line. The comparable

Australian nets used 0.37 or 0.42 mm diameter line.

Consequently, as Hydrobiology usually maintains a stock of Finnish nets, these were used as

alternative/supplementary nets for the 13, 19 and 25 mm nets. Also, as the Finnish nets come

in a standard 10 m long by 2.4 m drop configuration, they are often more readily employed

in smaller waterholes and in snaggy areas than are the longer nets that were historically used

can be difficult to set fully extended.

Also, it was decided to use non‐destructive electrofishing and fyke netting techniques in the

hope that they could at least in part replace the destructive gill net sampling that had been

done in the past. Because these techniques favour capture of small‐bodied species, it was

decided to not include the 6 mm gill net that had been used in the past to target these smaller

species.

Table 2‐3 lists the full net set that was taken for use for this survey. Not all nets were able to

be used at each site, depending on the available aquatic habitat and

configuration/characteristics of the site. Further discussion of what nets were used at what

sites and why is made in Section 3.1.1. Generally there was a tendency to favour the Finnish

nets over the Australian nets where there was limited available space for nets.

Table 2-3 Gill nets used in 2014

Weighting Dimensions (length × drop) Source Line Mesh

m diameter mm mm

Float 10 × 2.4 Finnish 0.2 13

Sink 10 × 2.4 Finnish 0.2 13


Sink 10 × 2.4 Finnish 0.25 19

Float 25 × 1.88 Australian 0.37 19

Sink 25 × 1.88 Australian 0.37 19


Sink 10 × 2.4 Finnish 0.25 25





The nets were set for variable time periods as discussed in Section 3.1.1. The default was

from dusk to dawn with a net clearance (removal of enmeshed fishes) at midnight.

2.2.2 Electrofishing

Electrofishing was conducted using a Smith Root model LR20B backpack electrofisher. At

most sites where it was used, rainbowfishes were readily evident in the sampling area, and


Hydrobiology

so the instrument settings were adjusted according to the electrical conductivity of the water

and the responses of the rainbowfishes. If larger specimens, and particularly gudgeons were

present, the output settings were adjusted according to the responses of those species when

encountered. In particular, care was taken to avoid causing cervical muscle spasms in

gudgeons and gobies, which can result in debilitating injuries, as these groups are more

prone to this impact than other fishes. Generally, the instrument was initially set at 150 V,

with a pulse frequency of 70 Hz and a duty cycle of 40%, and adjusted according to fish

responses.

At each site a visual assessment was made of areas that could be safely waded. The

electrofisher operator and assistant then waded upstream through the selected area, with

one or more crocodile spotters on the stream high bank were judged appropriate, sampling

in all available habitats within the safe sampling area or when more than 10 mins had

transpired from the last new species collected, whichever occurred first. It was generally

attempted to use at least 300 s of instrument on‐time where possible. All captured specimens

were kept alive in a sampling bucket, and identified to species and counted before return to

the sampling site. Only one sample was taken per site using this device.

2.2.3 Fyke nets

Fyke nets of two sizes were used, depending on the availability of suitable setting locations

and the water depth at those locations. The nets were:

large fyke – 1 m diameter with wings 5 m long by 1 m deep with 4 mm woven mesh;

and

small fyke – 0.5 m diameter with wings 5 m long by 1 m deep with 4 mm woven

mesh.

Fyke nets were set overnight (dusk to dawn) at the time of setting the gill nets at each site,

after visual selection of suitable sites that were safe to wade, and were of suitable depth for

each size net. Only two nets were set at each site, with the combination of sizes used

dependent on the water depth at each site, with a bias toward using the 1 m diameter nets

were possible. At EB@GS097 two large and two small nets were set to provide some basis for

comparison between net sizes at a site.

The nets were set in a manner to ensure at least part of the final cod end was above water so

that any air breathing species collected would not drown overnight. In the morning, the nets

were retrieved and the catch was emptied into a bucket of water where the specimens were

kept alive until identified to species and counted and returned alive to the sampling site.

Any trapped reptiles (turtles and crocodiles were captured during the survey) were removed

from the net immediately on retrieval of the net, identified and counted before release at the

site of capture. Turtles were measured for carapace length and photographed prior to

release.


Hydrobiology

2.2.4 Bait traps

Standard recreational bait traps 43 cm × 25 cm × 25 cm, with 2 mm mesh and funnels on each

end were baited with cat biscuits and set in backwaters, snags and bank overhangs from

dawn to dusk. A total of five traps was set at each site where they were used. When

retrieved, captured specimens were identified to species, counted and returned to the water.

2.2.5 Cast netting

A nylon monofilament cast net with 12 mm knot to knot mesh and 1.86 m drop was used

opportunistically to catch fish where time and habitat suitability permitted. It was only used

to supplement the species list for sites, and was not used in a quantitative manner.

2.2.6 Seine netting

A seine net with 4 mm stretched mesh of woven multifilament which was 10 m long and

with a 2 m drop and central cod end built into the bag of the net was used only occasionally

where time and habitat (shallow areas with few snags and a shallow sloping bank profile for

the final stages of the net haul) permitted. It caught few fishes and did not add to the species

list for any site, and so the seine net catches were not used in the data analyse in the Results

section

2.2.7 Macroinvertebrate sampling

Macroinvertebrate sampling used a reconstruction of the submersible pumped water

sampler used by Edwards (2002). The sampler consists of a 250 mm internal diameter

cylindrical sampling head unit that is connected by a sampling hose and return water hose to

a second unit that encloses the sample collection mesh and a pump unit. The pump is used

to circulate water from the head unit through the collection mesh and back to the head unit,

trapping entrained macroinvertebrates. Samples were collected only from bed sands that

could be safely accessed by wading. Agitation of the sands enclosed by the head unit to a

depth of 100 mm by use of mild steel probe allowed collection of macroinvertebrates on the

sand surface and to a depth of 100 mm within the sand. Three replicate samples were

collected at each site, with each replicate selected randomly from the selected sampling area.

The mesh used was 500 μm mesh, on the recommendation of C. Edwards based on

knowledge of the macroinvertebrate assemblages from previous sampling in the 1990s. The

collected specimens and associated debris retained by the collection mesh were preserved in

70% ethanol in plastic jars and labelled. The preserved samples were sent to Alistair

Cameron Consulting for sample sorting and specimen identification, generally to the Family

level of identification used by Edwards (2002), and enumeration.

2.2.8 Diatom sampling

Diatom samples were collected by using a small plastic spatula to collect sediment surface

film from backwater/depositional areas that were safely accessible at each site. Each sample

consisted of sediment surface scrapes from at least three areas, and two replicate samples

were collected at each site. The samples were put into plastic vials, and preserved with


Hydrobiology

Lugol’s solution. The preserved samples were sent to the Geography, Environment and

Population Department at Adelaide University for identification and enumeration (based on

standard microscope fields of view).

2.2.9 Tissue metal concentration samples

Tissue samples of the following tissue types and species were collected at each site

depending on availability from the sampling conducted at each site:

Bony bream Nematalosa erebi flesh (dorsal muscle) samples;

Hyrtl’s tandan Neosilurus hyrtlii flesh samples;

Northern trout gudgeon Mogurnda mogurnda hind body samples;

Black‐banded rainbowfish Melanotaenia nigrans whole body samples; and

Macrobrachium bullatum purged (in site water for at least 48 h until faecal pellets were

no longer visible in the gut) cephalothorax samples.

Specimens for tissue metal concentration analysis were frozen until they could be dissected

on return to the EMU laboratories in Darwin. Dissections were performed on fresh

polyethylene sheets using instruments that had been washed in a solution of 10% analytical

grade nitric acid in demineralised water. Precautions were taken during dissection to

prevent contamination of tissues by changing scalpel blades between fish batches from each

site and species, having the dissector and assistants wear vinyl surgical gloves, and washing

all tissues and dissecting equipment with distilled/deionised water before and after each

dissection. After dissection each tissue sample was thoroughly washed with deionised water

and placed in a separate sample bag and labelled. This bag was then placed in a second bag,

also labelled. Samples were then frozen in readiness for shipping.

The frozen samples were then transported back to Brisbane on ice where they were on‐

forwarded to Advanced Analytical Australia in Brisbane for tissue metal concentration

analysis by ICP‐MS.

Samples of fish flesh for radionuclide activity analysis were also dissected on fresh polyethylene sheets using instruments that had been washed in a solution of 10% analytical grade nitric acid in demineralised water. At least 250 g of flesh tissue was taken per sample. After dissection each tissue sample was thoroughly washed with deionised water and placed in a separate sample bag and labelled. This bag was then placed in a second bag, also labelled. Samples were then frozen in readiness for shipping.

The frozen samples were then transported back to Brisbane on ice were they were on-forwarded to The National Centre for Radiation Science of ESR (Institute of Environmental Science and Research Ltd) in Christchurch, New Zealand for analysis for 210Pb, 210Po, 226Ra and 228Ra.

Mussel Velesunia angasi samples were collected by hand at each selected site where they occurred. Up to 50 specimens were collected at each site, and kept alive in site water until they could be delivered to the Environmental Research Institute of the Supervising Scientist (ERISS) for analysis for 210Pb, 210Po, 226Ra and 228Ra.


Hydrobiology

2.3 Data Analysis

Univariate statistical analyses were performed using the Tibco Spotfire S+ 8.2 statistical

analysis package. Multivariate analyses were performed using the Primer‐E Ltd, Primer 6.1

analysis package.

Electrofishing samples were standardised by scaling to 400 s of instrument on‐time for

abundance data, but not for species richness. Samples from individual gill nets were scaled

to the net dimensions of the historical dataset for abundance measurements, but not for

species richness. Fyke net and bait trap samples were not scaled.

The tissue metal concentrations were log transformed prior to analysis, as metals may

accumulate with age, and length is related to age by a growth curve, usually of the form:

e Kt

classageLengthLengthLengthLength ..0maxmax

Where t is age and K is the instantaneous growth rate. Thus, where metal concentration is

linearly correlated with age, it would be log‐correlated with length. Therefore, length was

included as a covariate in the analyses with log transformed metal as the dependent variable.

The assumptions of traditional ANCOVA, equality of variance and normality of the residual

variance, were checked by examination of graphs of the residuals against the model values,

and normal probability plots of the residuals. A manual stepwise analysis procedure with

term inclusion/exclusion threshold of P=0.10 used. Where more than one term had a P value

above the threshold in a step, the interaction term and then the covariate were preferentially

removed from the model in that sequence.

The metal concentrations were compared with the Food Standards Australia New Zealand

(FSANZ 2013) standards where appropriate.

3 RESULTS

3.1 Fish and Macro-crustaceans

3.1.1 Assessment of Sampling Methods

3.1.1.1 Non Gill Net Methods

Electrofishing and fyke netting were trialled in 2014 as replacements of the 13 mm gill net

used in previous rounds of sampling primarily to assess the possibility of using non‐

destructive sampling methods as a replacement of gill netting. They were also used as

replacements of seine netting, because they do not have the same restricting requirements for

areas with few obstructions to minimise snagging of the net and a good beach area for the

final stage of hauling the seine net. Essentially, the two devices were able to be used in a

wider variety of habitat types than the combination of 13 mm gill net and seine net and had

the added advantage of being non‐destructive sampling methods.


Hydrobiology

Backpack electrofishing is a widely used method of non‐destructive sampling of fishes, but

because of the need for the operator and assistant(s) to wade in the water and the relatively

low power output compared with larger, generator powered units, the technique will have

had the following limitations in the context of sampling in the Finniss River system:

is generally restricted to waters of wadable depth, typically less than 1 m;

in waters with resident crocodiles will be further restricted to habitats and

stream sections that are safe for people to wade, with good access for rapid

egress, and absence of or good visibility into potential crocodile habitat;

effectively can only be used during the day when visibility increases the

effectiveness of the device and when crocodile risks can be minimised; and

will tend to be biased towards macrocrustaceans and small bodied fishes due

to the ability of larger specimens to avoid or clear the effective capture zone

around the anode except when habitat configurations prevent that.

This combination of limitations meant that it was anticipated that the electrofisher would

overlap with the 13 mm gill net and seine net in terms of fish species targeted, but would

sample habitats that were not able to be sampled by either (e.g. shallow snaggy sections),

and would overlap in terms of habitats sampled by the seine net (i.e. shallow sandy areas),

but would not sample deeper areas sampled by the 13 mm gill net. It was considered to

have sampled a similar range of habitats to those sampled by rotenone sampling in the

1970s.

Fyke nets are also non‐destructive sampling devices that are widely used and come in a wide

variety of configurations, and have been selected as a standard sampling method for fishes

in Western Australia (WADOW 2009). They work best at night, when electrofishing is not

possible, from previous experience of Hydrobiology are known to be effective at collecting a

wide variety of fish species, and will also safely capture a range of aquatic tetrapods,

particularly turtles, which can provide supplementary information for targeted sampling of

that group of organisms. The size of the fyke net limits the depth of water that it can be set

in, because to be effective the “wings” and opening of the net should reach from the water

surface to the bottom. For this round of sampling two different sizes of fyke net were used,

as described in the Methods section, so that the nets targeted different ranges of depths. The

larger of the nets was anticipated to have overlapped with the water depths typically

targeted in the past by the 13 mm gill net.

An advantage of both sampling methods is that they do not require the fish to become

enmeshed in order to be captured, as do gill nets, and so are also able to capture fishes that

are not readily caught in gill nets, such as eels, flatfishes and rays.

Other non‐destructive methods that were trialled in 2014 included the use of collapsible bait

traps, a standard recreational bait capture method that uses bait to collect a range of fishes

and crustaceans, and seine netting. Bait traps were able to be used at most sites, but with

limited success, whereas seine netting was time consuming in an already busy field

schedule, and was restricted to use in areas where the net could be hauled without snagging


Hydrobiology

and with a good beach or low‐slope bank area where the net can be hauled ashore without

substantial loss of captured specimens. In 2014 it was not used widely because of these

restrictions, and the widespread use of other methods.

Table 3‐1 shows a comparison of the fish species caught by the combination of sampling

equipment used to target smaller fishes in the single round of sampling in May‐June 2014

compared with fish species caught by seine netting and the 13 mm gill net in all past

sampling rounds. Only three species collected in the 1990s by the 13 mm/seine were not

caught by the methods used in 2014, and only one of those, Acanthropagrus berda was not

caught by other gill nets in 2014. That species is a marine vagrant species that was not

collected by any method in 2014, most probably due to low abundance in fresh water at that

time. However, the suite of methods used in 2014 captured 11 fish species, 5 crustacean

species and a crocodile species that were not captured in the 1990s by the combination of the

13 mm gill net and seine netting (the latter only used in the East Branch in 1990s sampling).

Therefore, the suite of methods used in 2014 was much more comprehensive than the two

devices used to target smaller species in the 1990s, particularly the combination of

electrofishing and fyke netting, which captured all species captured by the full suite.


Hydrobiology

Table 3-1 Species caught by 13 mm gill net and seine netting in 1990s sampling and by methods targeting smaller species used in 2014 Dark shading indicates not caught in 2014. Light shading indicates not caught in 1990s.

Column1 1990's 2014

13 mm Gill Other Gill Seine trap E’fish L. fyke S. Fyke Seine Cast

Acanthopagrus australis X X

Ambassis macleayi X X X X X X X X

Amniataba percoides X X

Craterocephalus stercusmuscarum X X

Craterocephalus stramineus X X

Dytiscid sp 2 (Medium) X X

Glossamia aprion X X X X X X X X

Glossogobius giurus X X

Glossogobius species 2 X X

Hephaestus fuliginosus X X X

Lates calcarifer X X X

Leiopotherapon unicolor X X X

Megalops cyprinoides X X X X X X

Melanotaenia nigrans X X X X X

Melanotaenia splendida inornata X X X X X X X X

Mogurnda mogurnda X X X X X X

Nematalosa erebi X X

Neosilurus ater X X X X X X

Neosilurus hyrtlii X X X

Ophisternon gutturale X

Oxyeleotris lineolata X

Oxyeleotris selhemi X X X X

Toxotes chatareus X X

Caridina gracilirostris X X

Caridina typus X

Caridina cf longirostris X

Cherax quadricarinatus X X X X

Austrothelphusa transversa X X X X X X

Macrobrachium bullatum X X X X X

Macrobrachium handschini X X X X X

Crocodylus johnstoni X

Grand Total 8 11 10 8 24 23 12 7 5

3.1.1.2 Comparison of Gill Net Set Times

In the 1970s and 1990s, sampling with gill nets involved setting the nets before sunset

(nominally completed by 18:00) with the nets checked and cleared at midnight and after

dawn (nominally 06:00). This worked well, with only rare instances of crocodiles becoming

enmeshed or damaging the gill nets (R. Jeffree pers. obs.). Before the start of sampling for

this survey, it was acknowledged that the crocodile populations had increased in density


Hydrobiology

substantially since the 1990s, and that the chance of crocodiles becoming enmeshed had

increased concomitantly, particularly C. johnstoni. Therefore, in addition to the midnight and

dawn net checks, net checking for crocodiles only (i.e. not including removal of fishes) at 2 h

intervals was instigated for this survey to mitigate that risk.

Unfortunately, that system failed to prevent incident. Two C. johnstoni became enmeshed

and drowned in gill nets at the first site sampled, FRdsMB, despite the use of 2 h net check

intervals. At the second sampled site, FRusMB there were no incidents with 2 h net checks.

After that the sampling schedule moved to sites in the upper East Branch, where gill nets

were not used. This was because there had been no historic use of gill nets in the East

Branch, and the upstream sites had only shallow water that could be effectively sampled by

other means. The next site for which gill nets were used was EBusHS. At this site, only a

subset of gill nets could be used due to the limited extent of deeper habitats, and despite the

first net check being within 1.5 h of dusk, a specimen of C. johnstoni had drowned at that

time. It was decided then that the nets would be removed at 20:30 because a similarly limited

pre‐dusk to ~20:30 set time had proven to be an effective strategy to minimise C. johnstoni

capture while still collecting most fish species in other project work Hydrobiology had

conducted in the southern Gulf of Carpentaria. This strategy was also employed at site

EBdsHS, with the additional of hourly net checks for crocodiles. The nets were set slightly

earlier in the afternoon (16:30) to ensure the full peak period of fish movement around dusk

was included. Note that these sites had never been sampled using gill nets in the past, and

hence there were no historic data available for comparison. Although upstream of EBdsHS,

EB@GS327 was the next site sampled. This site included an extensive waterhole and so a set

of four gill nets was able to be deployed from 16:30 to 20:30 with hourly checks for

crocodiles.

At the next site, EBusFR, where the sampling site was in a large waterhole more comparable

to those in the Finniss River, it was decided that the sampling would revert to the full dusk

to dawn sampling period to enable comparison of catches at that site with the Finniss River

sites and the historic sampling in the Finniss River. However, it was apparent that there

would be benefit in future if the shorter 16:30 to 20:30 set time were able to be used as:

it would reduce field crew fatigue by limiting the period requiring hourly net

checks;

it would assist with minimising the risk of enmeshing and drowning or

harming C. johnstoni; and

if it resulted in effective sampling of fishes it would reduce the amount of

mortality to fishes as well.

Therefore, for EBusFR and the remaining Finniss River sites, the nets were:

set each afternoon at 16:30;

checked each hour until dawn;

checked and cleared of fishes at 20:30;

checked and cleared of fishes at 24:00; and


Hydrobiology

checked, cleared of fishes and removed at 06:30

Each time the nets were cleared of fishes, the catch was recorded as a separate event to

enable comparison of the effectiveness of each period at collecting a representative sample of

fishes. Table 3‐2 shows that the majority of species collected at each of the sites where the

20:30 net check was used were collected in that initial period. While additional species were

collected in subsequent checks they represented a small proportion of the total number of

species collected at each site. Similarly, Table 3‐3 shows that on average almost three

quarters of the total number of fish caught by midnight and half of the fish caught in total

overnight were collected in the first period. The standard errors of the mean proportions

caught for each period were small, indicating that a reliable estimate of the catch in terms of

number of species and number of fish at the midnight and dawn checks could be obtained

by extrapolation from the 20:30 check.

Table 3-2 Cumulative number of species collected in gill net set with each net check and proportion of species collected in the 20:30 check of the cumulative total at 24:00 and 06:30

Site 20:30 check 24:00 check 06:30 check %20:30/24:00 %20:30/06:30

EBUSFR 8 1 1 89% 80%

FR@GS204 11 1 0 92% 92%

FR3 11 0 0 100% 100%

FRDSFC 10 1 3 91% 71%

FRUSFC 10 0 2 100% 83%

FRUSMB 11 4

FRDSMB 8 5

Mean 94% 85%

SE 2.4% 4.9%

Table 3-3 Cumulative abundance of fishes collected in gill net set with each net check and proportion of specimens collected in the 20:30 check of the cumulative total at 24:00 and 06:30

Site 20:30 check 24:00 check 06:30 check %20:30/24:00 %20:30/06:30

EBUSFR 16 10 11 62% 43%

FR@GS204 25 8 8 76% 61%

FR3 36 11 23 77% 51%

FRDSFC 27 14 23 66% 42%

FRUSFC 34 12 24 74% 49%

FRUSMB 37 29

FRDSMB 36 36 Mean 71% 49% SE 3.0% 3.4%


Hydrobiology

Table 3‐4 shows the species that were caught in each check period across all sites. Only Liza

vaigiensis would not have been caught by a combination of the 20:30 check and the non‐gill

net sampling used in 2014, and that species was only represented by a single specimen

caught at FRdsMB. The species is primarily active at dawn, dusk and during the day, and so

the capture of a single specimen in the morning net check at one site is indicative only that it

was rare in the system, not that it would only be likely to be captured in a particular net

check period.

Table 3-4 Species caught in each net check period and by other methods in 2014 sampling

All Species 8:30 Midnight Morning Other Sampling

Ambassis macleayi Amniaataba percoides Glossamia aprion X Glossogobius sp. 2. X X Gunter sp. X Hephaestus fuliginosus X Lates calcarifer Leiopotherapon unicolor X Liza vaigiensis X X Megalops cyprinoides Melanotaenia splendida inornata Nematalosa erebi Neoarius bernyi X Neosilurus ater Neosilurus hyrtlii Oxyeleotris lineolata X Oxyeleotris selhemi X X Neoarius graeffei Strongylura krefftii Syncomistes butleri Toxotes chatareus Toxotes lorentzi X X

Using only the 16:30 to 20:30 set period would provide adequate compatibility with historic

sampling while minimising the risk of enmeshing crocodiles and allowing much improved

management of field team fatigue.

In order to complete the full night of sampling for this survey the team was split into two

groups. One set the nets and checked them for crocodiles until midnight, including doing

the 20:30 and 24:00 clearances and catch processing. The second team checked the nets for

crocodiles from 01:00 until the final clearance and removal at 06:30. While this allowed each

team to get some sleep each night, managing accumulated fatigue over sequential nights of

sampling, with daytime sampling activities included, was difficult. The reduction of the set


Hydrobiology

time to a 4 h period would greatly reduce this burden while collecting around 85% of the fish

species and 50% of the fish catch that would be obtained from the full set period.

3.1.1.3 Comparison of Sinking and Floating Gill Nets

Historically, gill nets of the same mesh size had been set at each site to either hang from the

water surface (floating nets) or remain in contact with the bottom of the water hole (sinking

nets), based on the concept that fishes of more demersal habits would tend to be more

effectively captured by the sinking nets, while more pelagic and surface‐dwelling species

would be more efficiently captured by the floating nets. However, it was noted in the 2014

sampling that many sites had water column depths within or only slightly more than the net

drop length and that those that were substantially deeper than the net drop tended to have

many snags at depth. The sinking nets did not appear to have collected a substantially

different fish catch, but were found to be markedly more prone to snagging and being

damaged during the course of the survey. If indeed there was no substantial advantage to

the use of sinking nets, future sampling could be greatly simplified, and incur less

equipment costs, if sinking nets were not used.

A comparison of the abundance of fishes captured in sinking and floating nets for sites

which had matched sets of floating and sinking nets, after taking differences between sites

and between net mesh sizes (ANOVA, with net type (sinking or floating), and site as main

factors and net mesh size nested within site) found that there was no significant difference

between catches in floating and sinking nets (p>0.05) but there were differences between

sites and net mesh sizes (p<<0.05). This is illustrated in Figure 3‐1.

Similarly, there was no difference in species richness between sinking and floating nets

(p>0.05), but there was also no difference between sites (p>0.05) or between mesh sizes

(p=0.06) (see Figure 3‐2).

A cluster analysis of the species caught in each gill net across all sites in 2014 and in 1992 is

illustrated in Figure 3‐3. In the figure, nets connected by dashed lines were not significantly

different by Simprof analysis (P>0.05). Floating and sinking nets of most net sizes formed a

single cluster, with floating and sinking nets of each mesh size paired within subgroups. The

2014 13 mm nets formed a separate cluster, in part because this size mesh tends to target

rainbowfishes and other small‐bodied species and because the nets of this mesh size used in

2014 had finer monofilament line used to construct the meshes, increasing the efficiency of

the net. The two 13 mm nets used in 1992 were distinct from all other nets, most probably

due to catch inefficiency of the coarser monofilament used previously.

Therefore, overall for the 1992 and 2014 sampling, there does not appear to have been any

substantial difference in the amount or type of fishes caught by sinking and floating nets,

after accounting for mesh size and sampling site.


Hydrobiology

F R 3 F R D S F C F R D S M B F R U S F C F R U S M B

S ite

3 0

7 0

3 0

7 0

Abu

ndan

ce

M e th o d : F lo a t in g

M e th o d : S in k in g

Figure 3-1 Abundance of fishes in each sinking or floating gill net at each site.

Figure 3-2 Species richness in each sinking or floating gill net at each site

F R 3 F R D S F C F R D S M B F R U S F C F R U S M B

S ite

3

6

3

6

Ric

hnes

s

M e th o d : F lo a t in g

M e th o d : S in k in g


Hydrobiology

Figure 3-3 Group average agglomerative hierarchical cluster dendrogram for fish catch in floating and sinking gill nets.

3.1.2 Finniss River Site Gill Net Catches Over Time

In Figure 3‐4 is shown a comparison of the average total abundances of fishes for the three

sites immediately downstream of the junction with the EB compared to those for the control

sites that occur upstream of the East Branch junction and downstream of the Florence Creek

junction. These data were based on those fishes caught in a standardised set of gill nets

which was consistent throughout all sampling periods and on the suite of species reported

by Jeffree and Twining (2000) for consistency with the historical datasets. All the sampling

periods, beginning in the 1970s, were included in this comparison which indicated the

following;

i) the fish abundances measured in 2014 at both control and impacted sites showed

comparable mean values relative to those measured in both 1992 and 1995;

ii) mean abundances were actually higher at the impacted than the control sites on

average for each of the three post remediation sampling periods; and

iii) fish abundances at control sites in 2014 were similar to those determined in both

1992 and 1995, but about a factor of three greater than those measured at control

sites during 1974.

13m

m_9

2_S

13m

m_9

2_F

13m

m_1

4_F

13m

m_1

4_S

19m

m_9

2_F

40m

m_9

2_S

19m

m_9

2_S

25m

m_9

2_S

25m

m_9

2_F

40m

m_9

2_F

19m

m_1

4_F

19m

m_1

4_S

40m

m_1

4_F

25m

m_1

4_F

25m

m_1

4_S

40m

m_1

4_S

Samples

100

80

60

40

20

Sim

ilarit

y

Transform: Presence/absenceResemblance: S17 Bray Curtis similarity


Hydrobiology

Figure 3-4. Abundances of seven species captured in a standardised set of gill nets

Figure 3‐5 shows a comparison of the mean number of fish species at impacted versus

control sites for 2014, and with all those for the previous sampling periods, pre‐ and post‐

remediation at Rum Jungle in the 1980s. For 2014 more species were caught at impacted sites

than control sites, a result similar to that for the sampling rounds in 1992 and 1995, although

more species in total were caught at both control and impacted sites in 2014 compared with

these earlier sampling periods. Numbers of species found at control sites were quite similar

among all the six sampling periods.

Figure 3-5. Number of fish species captured in a standardised set of gill nets.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1974‐1 1974‐2 1974‐3 1992 1995 2014

Abundan

ce

Potentially Impacted

Control

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1974‐1 1974‐2 1974‐3 1992 1995 2014

Richness

Potentially Impacted

Control


Hydrobiology

3.1.2.1 Discussion of results

The results for 2014, 1995 and 1992 showed remarkable consistencies in both the abundances

and diversity of fishes over a sampling period which spanned two decades, after remedial

activities at the Rum Jungle mine site in the 1980s. These consistencies were present in

groups of sites, both unexposed and exposed to contaminants from Rum Jungle. Such

consistencies suggested that any reductions in contaminant loadings or water concentrations

due to Rum Jungle effluents since the 1990s have had no appreciable additional benefit for

fishes in the main Finniss River sampling sites. Moreover, constancy at the control sites in

their fish diversity and abundances over this long period suggests that trends in other

environmental factors have been and currently are also of little significance for the viability

of these fish communities.

The low abundances at control sites during the three samplings in 1974 relative to the post‐

remedial samplings may provide an indication of the potential extent of natural variation

over a period of 40 years that can exist in fish populations in this region of the Finniss River.

However, it is not known why the control site abundances were so relatively low in 1974. It

is possible that precedent climatic conditions or other controlling factors played a role. Note

that among other potential influencing patterns, the population density of the piscivorous

Freshwater Crocodile Crocodylus johnstoni and partly piscivorous Saltwater Crocodiles C.

porosus were at their lowest for all of the sampling rounds in 1974, as commercial hunting of

them ceased in 1964 and 1974 respectively and the populations have been recovering since

that time. Therefore, high levels of predation from crocodiles would not have been a factor

in the low control site fish abundances in 1974.

The greater constancy in the diversity of fish species at control sites over the 40 year

sampling period suggests it may be a more reliable and useful measure of environmental

quality in the impacted region of the Finniss, than fish abundances alone.

The results of the fish sampling in 2014 also indicated the following;

a) There was no negative impact on fish diversity and abundances of the current levels

of contaminants being delivered to the Finniss River; this conclusion is particularly

supported by heightened numbers of species and total abundances at impacted sites

compared with controls,

b) The comparison of results among the three post‐remedial sampling programs

suggested an increase over time in fish diversity at the impacted but not control sites,

but this trend would require a further sampling round for verification.

3.1.3 2014 Finniss River versus East Branch Comparisons

3.1.3.1 All Methods

The use of a broad suite of methods of sampling at each site was designed to ensure the

majority of resident fish and macro‐crustacean species present at each site were recorded for

each sampling location. Table 3‐5 provides a complete list of all species collected in 2014 and

the sites where they were collected. It is clear that there was a progressive increase in the


Hydrobiology

number of fish species occurring at sites in the East Branch from the mine lease area

downstream except for a relatively high species richness at EB@GS327, where a large

waterhole was present offering relatively more habitat opportunities compared with the

other East Branch sites immediately upstream and downstream of it.

Table 3-5 Species recorded at each site in 2014. Blue shading highlights diadromous species.

Species Finniss

FC@LB

EB@LB

EB@GS200

EB@GS327

EBdsRB EB5)

EB@GS097

EBusHS (EB3)

EBdsHS (EB2)

EBusFR (EB

1)

FRusM

B

FRdsM

B

FR@GS204

FR3

FRusFC (FR2)

FRdsFC (FR1)

Fishes

Ambassis macleayi X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Melanotaenia nigrans X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Melanotaenia splendida inornata X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Mogurnda mogurnda X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Neosilurus ater X X X X X X X X X X X X

Glossamia aprion X X X X X X X X X X

Neosilurus hyrtlii X X X X X X X X X

Oxyeleotris selhemi X X X X X

Glossogobius sp. 2. X X X X X X X X

Megalops cyprinoides X X X X X X X X X

Leiopotherapon unicolor X X X X X

Craterocephalus stercusmuscarum X X X X

Oxyeleotris lineolata X X X

Lates calcarifer X X X X X X X X

Craterocephalus stramineus X X X X X

Amniataba percoides X X X X X X X X

Strongylura krefftii X X X X X X

Hephaestus fuliginosus X X X X X X X

Neoarius berneyi X X X

Neoarius graeffei X X X X

Glossogobius giurus X

Liza vaigiensis X

Ophisternon gutturale X X

Nematalosa erebi X X X X X X

Syncomistes butleri X X X X X X

Toxotes chatareus X X X X X X

Toxotes lorentzi X

Crustacea

Caridina gracilirostrus X X X X X X

Caridina typus X X X X


Hydrobiology

Species Finniss

FC@LB

EB@LB

EB@GS200

EB@GS327

EBdsRB EB5)

EB@GS097

EBusHS (EB3)

EBdsHS (EB2)

EBusFR (EB

1)

FRusM

B

FRdsM

B

FR@GS204

FR3

FRusFC (FR2)

FRdsFC (FR1)

Caridina cf. longirostris X X

Macrobrachium bullatum X X X X X X X X X X X

Macrobrachium handschini X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Cherax quadricarinatus X X X X X

Austrothelphusa transversa X X X

The two sites upstream of the mine had comparable numbers of species to the sites within

the lease area, but with the addition of one species, Neosilurus ater, that is known to migrate

upstream into intermittent streams to spawn (Orr and Milward 1984). Only young of the

year specimens of that species were collected from this upstream site, but they were in high

abundance, indicating successful spawning in the upper reaches of the East Branch.

Crustaceans were well represented in the East Branch, with the exception of Cherax

quadricarinatus upstream of gauging station 097, and the complete absence of Atyidae

shrimp. That Family was well represented by three species of the genus Caridina in the main

Finniss sites. Species of this Family are generally regarded as being metal sensitive, and as

algal grazers, require food sources that are also sensitive to increased metal bioavailability.

Notably, three diadromous1 species were recorded from the East Branch. Two catadromous2

species (Barramundi Lates calcarifer, and Tarpon Megalops cyprinoides) and one

amphidromous3 species (Munro’s Goby Glossogobius sp. 2) were found. The amphidromous

Flathead Goby Glossogobius giurus and the marine vagrant4 Diamond‐scale Mullet Liza

vaigiensis were collected from the Finniss River upstream of the East Branch and the other

three migratory species were found at all Finniss River sites or all sites downstream of the

East Branch for Munro’s Goby. This indicates that the water quality of the East Branch did

not prevent these species from migrating into or past the East Branch. As noted above, at

least one potamodromous5 species, the Black Catfish Neosilurus ater, was able to make a

spawning migration through the mine lease area to spawn in the headwaters of the East

Branch.

1 Diadromous = migrates between fresh and marine waters 2 Catadromous = Resident in fresh water but spawns in marine environments 3 Amphidromous = Resident in fresh water and spawns in fresh water but has an obligatory marine

larval stage 4 Marine vagrant = primarily resident and spawning in marine waters but may enter fresh waters 5 Potamodromous = has obligatory migrations within freshwaters for feeding or spawning purposes.

Term is not generally applied to the need to retreat to refugia during the dry season and disperse from

refugia in the wet season for fishes in intermittent/ephemeral systems.


Hydrobiology

The fishes that were not recorded from the East Branch included two algivorous species,

Bony Bream Nematalosa erebi and Butler’s Grunter Syncomistes butleri, both Ariidae species,

Berney’s Catfish Neoarius berneyi and Lesser Salmon Catfish Neoarius graeffei, both Toxotidae

species, the Seven‐spot Archerfish Toxotes chatareus and the Primitive Archerfish Toxotes

lorentzi, the above mentioned Flathead Goby and Diamond‐scale Mullet, and the Swamp Eel

Ophisternon gutturale. The Swamp Eel catches were the first records of this species from the

Finniss River system, although the related One‐gilled Eel O. bengalense was collected in 1975

by rotenone sampling in Florence Creek and FR6(FRusMB). Note that as the taxonomy of

this group is uncertain, it is possible that the earlier record was of the same species.

The absence of the Atyidae Family of algivorous shrimp, and the two algivorous fish species

from the East Branch may be indicative of a water quality impact on the quality of algal food

sources in that branch. Note that the assessment of benthic diatoms highlighted differences

in taxonomic composition of that group of single‐celled algae in the East Branch, but the

connection to water quality was not obvious (see Section 3.2). It is also possible that all the

algivorous fishes and Atyidae were themselves particularly metal intolerant. It should be

noted that Atyidae are widely used for ecotoxicity testing in Australia and are generally

regarded as being relatively metal sensitive for macrocrustaceans, and the only known test of

copper tolerance of a species of the same genus as Bony Bream, Nematalosa papuensis,

indicated that it was relatively sensitive to copper for mature fishes (Hydrobiology 2006),

with a 3 h LC50 that was mid‐range for published 96 h LC50 values for fishes.

The number of species collected from the East Branch was substantially greater than for

previous sampling (Table 3‐6). No doubt that was at least in part due to the additional

sampling methods used (see Section 3.1.1.1), and also potentially time of sampling in an

intermittent stream relative to the end of the wet season, but it did show a clear increase in

the abundance and diversity of fishes and crustaceans compared with sampling in either the

1970s or 1990s. Sampling in the 1990s was primarily based on seine netting in the East

Branch, but again effort was put into collecting all the resident species that could be

collected. Also, it should be noted that sampling in the previous decades involved more

than one round of sampling and hence a greater likelihood of collecting rare species.

Therefore, the large increase in the number of species collected from a single survey in 2014,

and in particular the collection of fishes and crustaceans from the mine lease area (zone 2),

indicated substantial improvement in the aquatic ecosystem of the East Branch since the

1990s.


Hydrobiology

Table 3-6 Species collected from sites in the East Branch sub-catchment by period of sampling

A cluster analysis of the presence/absence data reflected the observed incremental addition

of species down the East Branch. The first cluster included the East Branch sites from

upstream of the mine lease area and within the mine lease area (zones 1 and 2) as well as site

EBdsRB in the upper reaches of zone 3. EB@GS327, which had unusually high species

richness for its position in the catchment, formed its own cluster, but was most similar to a

group containing the remaining East Branch sites (zones 3 and 4). The sites from the upper

Finniss River in zone 5 formed a distinct cluster that was most similar to a group containing

the remaining sites in the Finniss River from zones 6 and 7. The lower East Branch site

clusters were more similar to the Finniss River clusters than to the upper East Branch cluster.

1 (EB

usFR)

2 (EB

dsH

S)

2A (Han

nah

s Springs)

3 (EB

usH

S)

4 (EB

@GS097)

5 (EB

dsRB)

6 (EB

@GS200)

8A1 (@

FC and EB Junction)

EBusFR

EBdsH

S

EBusH

S

EB@GS097

EBdsRB

EB@GS327

TC@LB

EB@GS200

EB@LB

FC@LB

EBusFR

EBdsH

S

EBusH

S

EB@GS097

EBdsRB

EB@GS327

TC@LB

EB@GS200

EB@LB

FC@LB

Ambassis macleayi X X X X X X X X X X X X

Amniataba percoides X X

Craterocephalus stercusmuscarum X X X X

Craterocephalus stramineus X X

Glossamia aprion X X X X X X

Glossogobius sp. 2. X X X X

Hephaestus fuliginosus X

Lates calcarifer X X

Leiopotherapon unicolor X X X X X X X X

Megalops cyprinoides X X X X

Melanotaenia nigrans X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Melanotaenia splendida inornata X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Mogurnda mogurnda X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Neosilurus ater X X X X X X X X X

Neosilurus hyrtlii X X X X X

Oxyeleotris lineolata X X

Oxyeleotris selhemi X X X X

Strongylura krefftii X

Caridina gracilirostris X

Caridina sp.1 X

Cherax quadricarinatus X X X X

Austrothelphusa transversa X X X X X X X

Macrobrachium bullatum X X X X X X X X X

Macrobrachium handschini X X X X X X X X

1990'S1973‐74 2014

KEY

Zone 4

Zone 3

Zone 2

Zone 1

Diadromous Species


Hydrobiology

Figure 3-6 Group average agglomerative hierarchical cluster dendrogram of fish and macrocrustacean presence/absence by site for 2014

3.1.3.2 Electrofishing

Electrofishing was unreplicated at each site, because the main emphasis of the use of the

technique was capture of a wide range of species of small‐bodied fishes and macro‐

crustaceans. Crocodile risk also meant that it was difficult to find sufficient safe areas to

electrofish for replicated sampling and minimisation of the time spent wading. Hence a

single unreplicated sample was judged to be best for risk management.

Therefore, while parametric analyses could be performed by grouping sites within river

zones, the resulting analyses had little discriminatory power. Although there were

significant differences between zones for electrofisher abundance and species richness per

site (ANOVA, p<0.05) the only pair‐wise difference that could be discerned by multiple

range test was that the abundance for sites in zone 2 was less than for sites in zone 6.

Multivariate analyses were made, with similar grouping of sites resulting from non‐metric

multidimensional scaling and by group average agglomerative hierarchical clustering. The

latter was selected for simplicity and is shown in Figure 3‐7. Solid lines in the figure indicate

significant groupings. The upper most and lower most sites in the East Branch, EB@LB and

EBusFR, formed a significant grouping, which Simper analysis indicated was most strongly

linked to the abundances of Northern Trout Gudgeon Mogurnda mogurnda, and

Macrobrachium bullatum but also with good catches of M. handschini. This group was most

similar to a group containing the other two upper East Branch sites, FC@LB and EB@GS200,

which was characterised by the abundance of Northern Trout Gudgeon and M. bullatum

with the absence of M. handschini. The remaining East Branch sites formed a distinct

grouping characterised again by the abundances of Northern Trout Gudgeon and M.

bullatum. The Finniss River sites formed the final cluster consisting of two groups of sites

closer to (FR@GS204, FR3) and further from (FRusFC, FRdsFC) the East Branch junction

characterised by the abundance of a group of crustaceans (Caridina gracilirostris, M. bullatum,

EB

dsR

B

EB

@G

S2

00

FC

@L

B

EB

@L

B

EB

@G

S3

27

EB

usH

S

EB

dsH

S

EB

@G

S0

97

EB

usF

R

FR

usM

B

FR

dsM

B

FR

@G

S2

04

FR

3

FR

usF

C

FR

dsF

C

Samples

100

80

60

40

Sim

ilarit

y

Transform: Presence/absenceResemblance: S17 Bray Curtis similarity


Hydrobiology

M. handschini and C. typus) at the upstream sites and the same species with C. longirostris at

the downstream sites.

Therefore, overall the electrofishing data indicated that the East Branch differed from the

Finniss River in terms of the composition of the assemblage of small‐bodied species targeted

by that sampling method, particularly the crustaceans. The reason for the grouping of the

lowermost and uppermost sites in the East Branch on the basis of Northern Trout Gudgeon

and crustacean catches is not readily apparent although five of the seven taxa caught by

electrofishing at EBusFR were caught at EB@LB.

Figure 3-7 Group average agglomerative hierarchical cluster dendrogram for electrofisher catches by site.

3.1.3.3 Fyke Netting

Fyke netting was the most widely used sampling method, which enabled comparison across

all river zones except zone 7. Using each fyke net as a replicate at each site nested within

each zone, on the assumption that small and large fyke nets were equivalent because they

sampled similarly in waters of different depths, nested ANOVA designs were used to assess

whether catches differed between zones. For species richness there was a significant

difference between zones (p<0.05) with both zones 1 and 4 having greater richness than zone

6, but no significant site effect. For abundance, there was also a significant difference

between zones (p<0.05) but not sites within zone (p>0.05). The geometric mean of abundance

for zone 1 was greater than for all other zones, with zones 2, 3 and 4 in the East Branch

having greater abundance in turn than for the Finniss River zones 5 and 6. This reflects the

high catches of Black Catfish from the EB@LB in zone 1, and probably also the fact that at the

Finniss River sites the fyke nets had to be set in shallow areas between water holes due to

crocodile risk, whereas fish were most abundant in the deeper waterholes at the Finniss

River sites. At the East Branch sites there were usually more extensive areas of shallower

habitat suitable for fyke netting, and they represented a larger proportion of the available

habitat at each site. This may have contributed to the relatively better catches in fyke nets at

the East Branch sites.

Cluster analysis of the fyke netting data (Figure 3‐8) was generally consistent with the

ANOVA analyses, but provided more detail on differences between sites and samples in

catch composition. Reading the dendrogram from right to left, there was a cluster of mostly

EB

@L

B

EB

US

FR

EB

@G

S2

00

FC

@L

B

FR

@G

S2

04

FR

3

FR

DS

FC

FR

US

FC

EB

@G

S3

27

EB

DS

HS

EB

@G

S0

97

EB

DS

RB

EB

US

HS

Samples

100

80

60

40

20

Sim

ilari

ty

Transform: Log(X+1)Resemblance: S17 Bray Curtis similarity


Hydrobiology

samples from sites in zones 3 and 4 in the lower East Branch, but also including one sample

from the upper Finniss in zone 5. The next major group, although including sub‐groupings

was primarily samples from sites in the upper East Branch in zones 1, 2 and 3, but also one of

the replicates from EBusFR in zone 4. These two primarily East Branch groups were more

similar to each other than to any other groups. The next cluster was an unusual grouping of

one replicate from EBusHS in the lower reach of zone 3 and one replicate from FRusMB in

zone 5. The next group contained a replicate each from two zone 6 sites, FR@GS204 and

FRusFC. This group was more similar to the remaining two groups than to any other

clusters. The next two groups included the remaining zone 6 replicates with one samples

from FRusFC significantly different from the other zone 6 replicates. The final group was the

two FRdsMB samples, which were distinct from all other sites.

Overall this cluster analysis highlighted the differences in the catches between Finniss River

and East Branch sites, with a secondary distinction between upper and lower East Branch

sites, but it also highlighted that very local influences on the catch efficiency and selectivity

of fyke nets caused substantial variability between replicates at some sites.

Figure 3-8 Group average agglomerative hierarchical cluster dendrogram for fyke net catches by site.

3.1.3.4 Gill Netting

As discussed above, the use of gill nets varied between sites in response to the sometimes

conflicting requirements to:

As far as practical provide backwards compatibility with historic sampling;

Minimise the likelihood of enmeshing freshwater crocodiles;

Manage fatigue levels in the sampling team; and

Deploy only as many nets as could be effectively used in the available water holes at

each sampling site without the nets interfering with catches in neighbouring nets.

Group average

FR

DS

MB

-L1

FR

DS

MB

-L2

FR

US

FC

-L1

FR

3-L

1

FR

@G

S2

04

-L2

FR

3-L

2

FR

@G

S2

04

-L1

FR

US

FC

-L2

EB

US

HS

-L2

FR

US

MB

-L1

EB

@L

B-S

1

EB

@L

B-S

2

EB

US

FR

-L1

EB

DS

RB

-L1

EB

DS

RB

-L2

EB

@G

S2

00

-L1

EB

@G

S2

00

-L2

EB

@G

S3

27

-L1

EB

@G

S3

27

-L2

FC

@L

B-S

1

FC

@L

B-S

2

EB

DS

HS

-L1

EB

@G

S0

97

-S1

EB

US

HS

-L1

EB

US

FR

-L2

FR

US

MB

-L2

EB

DS

HS

-L2

EB

@G

S0

97

-S2

EB

@G

S0

97

-L1

EB

@G

S0

97

-L2

Samples

100

80

60

40

20

0

Sim

ilari

ty


Zone321465


Hydrobiology

The resulting differences in the suite of nets used at each site and the durations over which

they were set meant that it was not possible to compare gill net catches across a wide range

of sites. However, in the next section some net subsets were used to make comparisons of

catches across subsets of sites.

3.1.3.5 Combined Methods Most Widely Used

Because the methods varied between sites depending on the aquatic habitat characteristics of

each site, it was difficult to identify a suite of methods that was both used widely across sites

and collected the majority of fish species. In particular, gill nets were not used at most East

Branch sites, and where used, different subsets of the full gill net suite were used at each site

depending on the available volume of water that could be sampled. The following sections

examine spatial patterns using suites of sampling methods that best provided coverage of

sampling sites and zones and the types of sampling conducted.

Electrofishing,FykeNettingandBaitTrappingCombined

The suite that was most widely used included electrofishing, fyke nets and bait traps. Figure

3‐9 shows a cluster dendrogram for the catches for each site for the combined methods suite.

It indicated that the catch at FRusMB was different from that at any other site, possibly due

to the restricted areas available at that site for fyke nets and electrofishing. FR@GS204 and

FR3 formed a distinct grouping of those two adjacent sites in zone 6, while the only other

Finniss River site that was included in the analysis, FRusFC was more similar to a grouping

of East Branch sites in zones 3 and 4 than to the other Finniss River sites. This might have

been because that site had a reach of braided, shallow flowing habitats where these methods

were used that was heavily vegetated and snaggy but afforded habitat diversity that was

more akin to that found at the East Branch sites than were the shallower areas available at

the other Finniss River sites. The remaining group included the sites in the upper East

Branch that did not include deepwater habitat.


Hydrobiology

Figure 3-9 Group average agglomerative hierarchical cluster dendrogram for combined electrofishing, fyke netting and bait trapping catches by site.

GillNetSubsets

A suite of 13, 19, 25 and 40 mm floating gill nets was set between late afternoon and 20:30 at

sites FR@GS204, FR3, FRusFC and FRdsFC in the Finniss River and at sites EB@GS327 and

EBusFR in the East Branch. Cluster analysis (Figure 3‐10) showed that catches from the two

river branches were distinct. Simper analysis indicated that the distinction between groups

was influenced by the abundances of Tarpon Megalops cyprinoides, Hyrtl’s Tandan Neosilurus

hyrtlii, and Black Catfish N. ater at the East Branch sites and of Bony Bream Nematalosa erebi,

Tarpon, Seven‐spot Archerfish Toxotes chatareus, Black Catfish and Longtom Strongylura

krefftii at the Finniss River sites. The absence of Bony Bream and Archerfish from the East

Branch has already been noted.

Group average

FR

@G

S20

4

FR

3

FR

US

MB

EB

DS

RB

EB

@LB

EB

@G

S20

0

FC

@LB

FR

US

FC

EB

US

FR

EB

@G

S09

7

EB

DS

HS

EB

@G

S32

7

EB

US

HS

Samples

100

80

60

40

20

Sim

ilarit

y



Hydrobiology

Figure 3-10 Group average agglomerative hierarchical cluster dendrogram for combined 13, 19, 25 and 40 mm floating gill net catches to 20:30 by site.

A suite of floating 13, 19, 25 and 40 mm gill nets and a sinking 13 mm net was set from dusk

to dawn at all Finniss River sites and EBusFR. Cluster analysis of those catches (Figure 3‐11)

demonstrated that the East Branch catch was distinct from all Finniss River site catches. The

Finniss River catches were all more similar to each other than to the EBusFR catch but there

were some significant differences between sites. These distinctions were not related to

proximity to the East Branch, but more probably were related to the size of the water hole

sampled at each site. Sites not significantly distinct from each other included FR@GS204 in

zone 6 and FRusMB in zone 5, and FR3 in zone 6 and FRdsFC in zone 7. FRdsMB and

FRusFC were distinct from the other Finniss River sites.

Figure 3-11 Group average agglomerative hierarchical cluster dendrogram for combined 13, 19, 25 and 40 mm floating and sinking gill net catches to dawn by site

Group average

FR

@G

S20

4

FR

US

FC

FR

3

FR

DS

FC

EB

@G

S32

7

EB

US

FR

Samples

100

80

60

40

20

Sim

ilarit

y


Group average

EB

US

FR

FR

@G

S20

4

FR

US

MB

FR

DS

MB

FR

US

FC

FR

3

FR

DS

FC

Samples

100

80

60

40

Sim

ilarit

y



Hydrobiology

The full suite of sinking and floating 13, 19, 25 and 40 mm gill nets set from dusk to dawn

was used only at sites FRusMB, FRdsMB, FR3, FRusFC and FRdsFC. Cluster analysis of

those catches found no significant distinctions between sites, indicating comparability of gill

net catches from Finniss River sites in zones 5, 6 and 7.

3.2 Diatoms

Diatom species richness was lower for zone 2 than for zones 6 and 1, while abundance was

lower for zone 2 than for all other zones except 7 (ANOVA, p<0.05). The samples for

FRdsFC in zone 7 were collected from the only available shallow water habitat that could be

safely waded, which was a high flow area with few backwater areas, and where it would be

expected that the diatom assemblage would have been scoured to some extent in all

accessible collection locations. Figure 3‐12 and Figure 3‐13 clearly show the reduced diatom

assemblage in zone 2, and recovery of the assemblage through zones 3 and 4 in the East

Branch. Note the high variability in abundance in Zone 6, especially for FR3 and FRusFC,

which reflected the difficulty of finding safe sites for sampling that were not in high current

areas and not heavily shaded.

Figure 3-12 Diatom species richness by site and zone

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Zone

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Ric

hne

ss

EBG_DysEBGS200EBGS327EBLBEBdsHSEBdsRBEBusFREBusHSFCLBFRGS204FR3FRdsFCFRdsMBFRusFCFRusMB


Hydrobiology

Figure 3-13 Diatom abundance by site and zone

A cluster analysis of the diatom samples was also conducted (Figure 3‐14). This did not

differentiate the zone 2 sites from the remainder of the East Branch sites as strongly as the

univariate analyses indicated, suggesting that while zone 2 had reduced abundance and

species richness, the diatom assemblages nonetheless remained compositionally similar to

those of the other East Branch Sites. The diatom assemblages of the zone 1 sites were more

comparable to each other and one of the replicates from the zone 7 site FRdsFC than to the

other East Branch sites, but all other East Branch samples were grouped into one cluster. The

zone 1 sample cluster was more similar to the Finniss River groupings, which included a

grouping of the samples from FRusFC and the remaining sample from FRdsFC, and another

grouping of most Finniss River samples from zones 5 and 6. A single replicate from

FD@GS204 was distinct from all other samples, but the reason for this was unclear. It did

have around five times the abundance of Navicula menisculoides of any other site.

The diatom species that primarily contributed to the separation of sample groups in the

cluster analysis did not have known water quality sensitivities that were relevant to the

known water qualities of the zones. The species primarily associated with the group

containing all East Branch sites downstream of zone 1 according to Simper analysis were

Acanthidium minutissimum, Nitschia palea, Rhopalodia musculus and Nitzschia paleaceae. Of

those, little is knows of the tolerances of the first other than that it is classified as slightly‐

motile, the second is understood to prefer waters of circum‐neutral pH, while the third and

fourth are alkaliphilous, which was not expected for key species for the East Branch. The

key species contributing to the difference between the zone 1 and zones 2, 3 and 4 sites was

Acanthidium minutissimum, which did not elucidate what water or sediment quality

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Zone

0

100

200

300

400

Ab

und

ance

EBG_DysEBGS200EBGS327EBLBEBdsHSEBdsRBEBusFREBusHSFCLBFRGS204FR3FRdsFCFRdsMBFRusFCFRusMB


Hydrobiology

characteristics might have contributed to the differences in the assemblages. None of the key

contributing taxa have known metal sensitivities, but it may be relevant that the marine

species Nitzschia closterium is widely used in ecotoxicity testing and is known to be very

sensitive to metals. The Finniss River sample groupings were characterised by a number of

species, including several in the genus Navicula including N. radiosafallax, N. menisculus, N.

veneta and N. schreoterii. The key contributing species with known pH affinities were all

either alkaliphilous or preferring circum‐neutral waters.

Therefore, while the diatom assemblages clearly identified a region of detriment in zone 2

with recovery down the East Branch, and indicated closer affinity of samples from the upper

East Branch with samples from the Finniss River than to the other East Branch zones, the

observed assemblage differences were not readily associated with key water or sediment

quality characteristics. However, it may be pertinent that the fish fauna of the East Branch

was found to be devoid of algivorous species and the algal grazing shrimp Family Atyidae

were also absent from the East Branch, and so the differences in the diatom assemblages

between zones may have reflected differences in grazing pressure rather than water or

sediment quality. Conversely, the differences in algal assemblages represented by the

differences in diatom assemblages may had been the cause of the absence of algivorous taxa

from the East Branch, if this resulted in reduced quality of the algal food sources.

The results of this survey of the diatom assemblages were generally very consistent with the

limited data and interpretation provided in the only previous assessment of the sand‐

associated benthic diatom flora of the East Branch by Ferris et al. (2002) which found a

gradient of improving condition of the flora from the mine lease area downstream through

the East Branch, a distinct difference in assemblage composition between reference sites in

the upper East Branch and the upper Finniss River, and a range of “a few to 23 species” per

site in the East Branch compared with 3 to 20 species found per sample per site in the East

Branch in this survey (see Figure 3‐12).


Hydrobiology

Figure 3-14 Group average agglomerative hierarchical cluster dendrogram for diatom samples by site

FR@GS204-2

EBusHS-2

EBdsHS-1

EBdsHS-2

EBusFR-1

EBusFR-2

EB@G_Dys-1

EB@G_Dys-2

EB@GS200-1

EB@GS200-2

EBdsRB-1

EBdsRB-2

EBusHS-1

EB@GS327-1

EB@GS327-2

EB@LB-1

EB@LB-2

FRdsFC-1

FC@LB-1

FC@LB-2

FRdsFC-2

FRusFC-1

FRusFC-2

FR3-2

FRdsMB-1

FRusMB-2

FRdsMB-2

FR@GS204-1

FRusMB-1

FR3-1

Sam

ple

s

10

0

80

60

40

20 0

SimilarityT

ransfo

rm: S

quare ro

ot

Resem

blance: S

17 Bray C

urtis similarity


Hydrobiology

3.3 Macroinvertebrates

Macroinvertebrate samples taken during the May/June 2014 sampling round in the Rum

Jungle study area were identified and analysed and the results are presented below.

Available macroinvertebrate data from surveys conducted by Cyrus Edwards as part of his

MSc in 1995 were incorporated to allow a historical comparison of data.

3.3.1 Macroinvertebrates 2014

Initial analysis was performed on the 2014 macroinvertebrate data set to determine the

current state of populations and identify if any differences existed in macroinvertebrate

composition between sites.

3.3.1.1 Abundance

Average macroinvertebrate abundance was calculated for each site surveyed in 2014 and the

results were graphed (See Figure 3‐15).

Figure 3-15: Average macroinvertebrate abundance at sites sampled during 2014

As Figure 3‐15 indicated that there may exist significant differences in abundances between

sites, an ANOVA analysis was performed on the data to determine site comparisons were

significant. The test revealed that there was an overall significant difference in abundance

between sites (P<0.001).

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

FC@LB

EB@LB

EB@GS200

EB@GS327

EBdsRB

EB@GS097

EBusHS

EBdsHS

EBusFR

FRusM

B

FRdsM

B

FR@GS204

FR3

FRusFC

FRdsFC

FR0

U/S of Lease

Boundary

East Branch Finnis River

Average

Abundance

Site


Hydrobiology

The data were analysed using a Multiple Range Analysis in S+ to determine which sites were

significantly different from each other. The resultant groupings are presented in Table 3‐7.

Table 3-7: Results from Multiple Range Test on Abundance data

Multiple Range Test result

EB@GS200 EB@GS327 EB@GS097 EBusHS FRusMB EBdsHS EBusFR EB@LB FRusFC FRdsMB FRdsFC EBdsRB FC@LB FR0 FR3 EB@GS204

The Multiple Range test grouped sites EB@GS200 (Zone 2), EB@GS327 (Zone 3), EB@GS097

(Zone 3) & EBusHS (Zone 3) together indicating that no significant differences occurred

between those sites. Mean abundance ranged from four (EB@GS200) to 12 (EB@GS097)

specimens per site. Site EB@GS200 had significantly lower abundance than all other sites

with the exception of those three sites.

Sites EB@GS327, EB@GS097 and EBusHS were also found not to be significantly different

from sites FRusMB (Zone 5), EBdsHS (Zone 4) & EBusFR (Zone 4), although they differed

significantly from all other sites except EB@GS200. The inclusion of site FRusMB in this

grouping was due to the low abundances observed at this site, despite it having been

selected as a control site. This was most likely due to the limited area suitable for sampling

at that site, with sampling having to be done adjacent to a road crossing.

Furthermore, sites FRusMB, EBdsHS & EBusFR were grouped with sites EB@LB (Zone 1),

FRusFC (Zone 6), FRdsMB (Zone 5), FRdsFC (Zone 7) & EBdsRB (Zone 3), which were not

significantly different from each other but were significantly different from sites FC@LB

(Zone 1), FR0 (Zone 7), FR3 (Zone 6) & EB@GS204 (Zone 6). The grouping of the two Zone 4

sites (EBdsHS & EBusFR) and the Zone 5 site (FRusMB) with the Zone 1, 5, 6 & 7 sites shows

that these sites these lower East Branch sites were comparable in abundance to a number of

Finniss River sites, including control sites. Although site EBdsRB was located in Zone 3, this

site exhibited high abundances which were similar to abundances seen in Zones 1, 5, 6 and 7.

With the exception of site FRusMB, all the Finniss River and upper East Branch control sites

were not significantly different, indicating no impact to macroinvertebrate abundances

downstream of the East Branch junction.

Overall the Multiple Range Test analysis indicated that significant differences existed

between sites from zones 2 and 3 and sites from zones 1, 5, 6 and 7, with the exceptions of

FRusMB, which had unusually low abundances for a Finniss River site, and EBdsRB, which

had unusually high abundance for a zone 3 site.


Hydrobiology

3.3.1.2 Richness

Taxa richness for the 2014 data set was also calculated and is presented graphically in Figure

3‐16.

Figure 3-16: Taxa Richness of macroinvertebrates at sites sampled in 2014

Taxa richness data was analysed using an ANOVA to determine if any significant differences

in taxa richness occurred between sites. The test revealed that there was a significant overall

difference in richness between sites (P<0.001).

The data were analysed using a Multiple Range Analysis in S Plus to determine which sites

were significantly different from each other. The resultant groupings are presented Table

3‐8.

Table 3-8: Multiple Range Test result for Richness data

Multiple Range Test result

EB@GS200 < FRusMB EB@GS327 EBusHS EB@GS097 EBusFR EB@LB EBdsHS FRusFC FRdsFC FRdsMB EBdsRB EB@GS204 FC@LB FR0 FR3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

FC@LB

EB@LB

EB@GS200

EB@GS327

EBdsRB

EB@GS097

EBusHS

EBdsHS

EBusFR

FRusM

B

FRdsM

B

FR@GS204

FR3

FRusFC

FRdsFC

FR0

U/S of Lease Boundary


Taxa Richness

Site


Hydrobiology

The Multiple range test revealed that site EB@GS200(Zone 2) was significantly different from

all other sites sampled. This site exhibited the lowest taxa richness value of any site.

The analysis grouped sites FRusMB (zone 5), EB@GS327 (zone 3), EBusHS (zone 3),

EB@GS097 (zone 3), EBusFR (zone 4), EB@LB (zone 1) and EBdsHS (zone 4) together as they

were not significantly different from each other in taxa richness. Again we can see that sites

from Zones 3 and 4 were grouped together although sites FRusMB and EB@LB were also

grouped with the sites from these zones. Figure 3‐15 shows that these two sites had

abundances lower than other sites in their respective Zones, although the reason for this is

not known.

Several of the sites in the above grouping (sites EBusHS, EB@GS097, EBusFR, EB@LB and

EBdsHS which had richnesses ranging from 10‐12 taxa) also grouped with sites FRusFC

(zone 6), FRdsFC (zone 7), FRdsMB (zone 5), EBdsRB (zone 3), EB@GS204 (zone 6) and

FC@LB (zone 1), sites which had richness ranging between 17 and 21 taxa. The grouping of

these Zone 1, 5, 6 & 7 sites (as well as the anomalous site, EBdsRB from Zone 3) with the

Zone 3, 4 and 1 sites listed suggests that, as the taxa richnesses at these sites were not

significantly different, some overlap occurred, indicating that conditions in Zones 3 and 4

were becoming more similar to conditions in Zones 1, 5, 6 & 7.

The log average richness for EB@GS200 was significantly lower than for all other sites.

3.3.2 Multivariate Analysis

To determine whether significant differences in macroinvertebrate composition occurred

between sites and zones, cluster analysis and non‐metric multi‐dimensional scaling were

carried out. These highlighted possible differences in macroinvertebrate composition

between zones although few obvious differences in sites within zones were apparent.

Only the cluster analysis results are presented in Figure 3‐18 because the MDS ordinations

produced similar groupings. The samples from EB@GS200 were distinct from the samples

collected from all other sites. The next cluster consisted of the majority of East Branch

samples from zones 3 and 4, with the exception of the samples from EBdsRB, but also

included two of three samples from EB@LB in zone 1, the three samples from FRusMB in

zone 5, and one of three samples from FRdsFC. The remaining samples were grouped

together, but that group contained some significant sub‐groups. One sample from FRusFC

was distinct from the other Finniss River samples. The next cluster contained the remaining

samples from zone 1, while the next group contained samples from Finniss River sites in

zones 5, 6 and 7, but also two of three samples from EBdsRB. This was followed by a group

of the samples from FR@GS204 in zone 6, and then a final group containing samples from

zones 5 and 6 and the remaining sample from EBdsRB.


Hydrobiology

Overall, the cluster analysis demonstrated that the only site in zone 2 was distinct from all

other sites, the East Branch sites from downstream of the mine lease area were distinct from

most Finniss River and upper East Branch sites, except for individual relatively depauperate

samples and the samples from FRusMB, which has been noted to have potentially been

impacted by proximity of a road crossing to the only available sampling area. EBdsRB,

which was found to have unusual abundance and richness of macroinvertebrates for an East

Branch site, was more similar to Finniss River sites than to the other East Branch sites in

composition too. It is not known why this site supported such a relatively intact

macroinvertebrate assemblage.

Figure 3‐17: Dendrogram showing differences in macroinvertebrate composition by zone

3.3.2.1 Functional Feeding Guild

Functional Feeding Guild (FFG) composition for each site was calculated and then graphed

(see Figure 3‐18).

Table 3-9: Key to Functional Feeding Guild abbreviations

Functional Feed Guild Key

Abbreviation Guild Descriptor

Fco Filtering Collector

Gco Gathering Collector

Sc Scraper

P Predator

Sh Shredder

U Undetermined

Group average

EB

@G

S20

0_3

EB

@G

S20

0_1

EB

@G

S20

0_2

EB

usF

R_1

EB

@LB

_1

EB

@LB

_3

EB

dsH

S_1

EB

dsH

S_2

EB

@G

S09

7_2

FR

usM

B_3

EB

usF

R_2

EB

usF

R_3

FR

usM

B_1

FR

dsF

C_1

EB

dsH

S_3

FR

usM

B_2

EB

@G

S09

7_1

EB

usH

S_2

EB

@G

S32

7_1

EB

usH

S_3

EB

@G

S32

7_3

EB

usH

S_1

EB

@G

S09

7_3

EB

@G

S32

7_2

FR

usF

C_2

FC

@LB

_1

EB

@LB

_2

FC

@LB

_2

FC

@LB

_3

FR

0_2

FR

0_3

FR

dsF

C_3

FR

0_1

FR

dsF

C_2

FR

usF

C_1

FR

3_2

FR

3_1

FR

3_3

FR

dsM

B_1

EB

dsR

B_2

EB

dsR

B_3

FR

@G

S20

4_2

FR

@G

S20

4_1

FR

@G

S20

4_3

EB

dsR

B_1

FR

dsM

B_2

FR

dsM

B_3

FR

usF

C_3

Samples

100

80

60

40

20

0

Sim

ilari

ty

Transform: Square rootResemblance: S17 Bray Curtis similarity

ZoneZone 3Zone 2Zone 1Zone 4Zone 6Zone 5Zone 7


Hydrobiology

Figure 3-18: Functional Feeding Guild compositions at sites sampled in 2014

As can be seen from Figure 3 above, the majority of sites in the Rum Jungle study area were

dominated by Gathering Collector and Filtering Collector guilds. The only exception to this

is site EBusHS which had a dominant Predator guild present. Predators were generally most

abundant in the East Branch sites although they did occur in the control sites upstream of the

lease boundary and the Finniss River sites. However, there was a larger proportion of

scrapers at the majority of the Finniss River sites compared with the East Branch sites.

3.3.2.2 PET Taxa

Presence of PET (Plecoptera, Ephemeroptera and Trichoptera) taxa in samples was

calculated to determine the proportion of macroinvertebrate populations that these taxa

constituted. The results are presented in Figure 3‐19.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

EB@LB

FC@LB

EB@GS200

EB@GS327

EBdsRB

EB@GS097

EBusH

S

EBdsH

S

EBusFR

FRusM

B

FRdsM

B

FR@GS204

FR3

FRusFC

FRdsFC

FR0

U/S of Lease

Boundary


FFG (%)

Site

U

Sh

Sc

P

Gco

Fco


Hydrobiology

Figure 3-19: Proportion of PET and non-PET taxa in 2014 macroinvertebrate samples

As can be seen from Figure 3‐19, proportions of PET taxa at all sites were relatively low, with

the lowest numbers of PET taxa occurring primarily at the East Branch sites (again site

EBdsRB seems to have been an exception to this). Sites FRusMB and EB@GS200 did not have

any PET taxa at all present. Site EB@GS200 was located in the mine lease area and the lack of

PET taxa at this site is indicative of disturbance. It is interesting to note that PET taxa

increased from Zone 2 into upper Zone 3 and Zone 4, which is consistent with gradual

improvement in water quality downstream. The highest number of PET taxa occurred at site

FR@GS204, with the second highest occurring at sites FR3 and FRdsFC.

3.3.2.3 Grazers & Non-Grazers

During the 2014 survey round Diatom samples were taken as another indicator organism to

be used to determine the state of the waters in the study area. It was observed in the results

of the diatom analysis that abundance and richness of diatoms were suppressed in zone 2

but recovered through zones 3 and 4 and that the diatom assemblage composition of the East

Branch sites differed from those of the other zones. Whether differences in the abundance

and diversity of grazers (macroinvertebrates which primarily feed on algal matter) and non‐

grazers (those macroinvertebrates that feed on other sources of food) might explain the

differences in diatom assemblage composition was examined.

0

5

10

15

20

25

FC@LB

EB@LB

EB@GS200

EB@GS327

EBdsRB

EB@GS097

EBusHS

EBdsHS

EBusFR

FRusM

B

FRdsM

B

FR@GS204

FR3

FRusFC

FRdsFC

FR0

U/S East Branch


No. of Taxa

Site

PET

Non‐PET


Hydrobiology

Figure 3-20: Prevalence of Grazer and Non-Grazer macroinvertebrates from 2014 samples

Figure 3‐20 shows proportions of grazers which appeared similar across all sites. It is

important to note that the abundances of macroinvertebrates at the East Branch sites was

significantly lower than other sites, therefore less grazer specimens were present at those

sites than at other sites in the study area.

3.3.3 Historical Comparison

When the findings of the 2014 survey round are compared to the analysis carried out by

Cyrus Edwards in 1995 for his Master’s thesis some similarities were noted between data

sets. The 1995 findings showed that there was a marked difference in abundance and

richness and species composition between sites EBdsRB, EB@LB, FC@LB, FRusMB, FRdsMB

and sites EBusFR, EBdsHS, EBusHS and EB@GS327. This same difference occurred in the

2014 data set (see Figure 3‐15 and Figure 3‐16).

The 1995 thesis also indicated that the most common taxa present in samples were the

Ceratopogonidae, Chironominae and Tanypodinae, although abundances of these taxa were

low in samples taken from the East Branch sites at the time, whereas sites upstream of the

lease boundary and the Finniss River had substantial amounts of these taxa present.

Additionally the East Branch sites had very few or no Caenidae present whereas sites on the

Finnis River and upstream of the lease boundary had them present in notable numbers. A

similar scenario occurred in the 2014 samples in regards to distribution of the above

mentioned taxa, and their abundances at each site.


Hydrobiology

Furthermore, the presence of Ecnomidae, Baetidae, Nematoda and Orthocladiinae in

significant numbers in the 1995 data set, set the sites in the Finniss River and upstream from

the lease boundary apart from the sites affected by mine processes in the East Branch.

A difference between the 1995 data set and the 2014 data set was that, in 1995 sites on the

Finniss River held large numbers of Dytiscidae beetles whereas the 2014 data set recovered

very few of these from any site sampled.

The 1995 data set revealed that no Acarina, Chironomidae, Nematoda, Ecnomidae or

Baetidae occurred at sites in the East Branch but all occurred in the Finniss River and sites

upstream of the lease boundary. This result differed from the findings of the 2014 survey as

these taxa were found at several sites in the East Branch, albeit in very low numbers.

Results from ANOSIM analysis of the 1995 data performed by Cyrus Edwards showed that

sites EB@LB and FC@LB differed from the other sites on the East Branch (i.e. sites EBusFR,

EBdsHS, EBusHS, EBdsRB & EB@GS327) significantly, which was also found for the 2014

data.

Although results from the 2014 data set were generally similar to those found during 1995,

there was an indication that an improvement in macroinvertebrate assemblage condition in

the East Branch had occurred. The occurrence of macroinvertebrate taxa previously not

recorded in the East Branch as well as a trend of increasing PET taxa abundance downstream

from site EB@GS200 indicated that the assemblages had improved. However,

macroinvertebrate abundance levels at the East Branch sites were not yet as high as those in

the Finniss River and upstream of the lease boundary, although taxa richness levels were

more similar.

There was one marked improvement to the geographic range of a group of

macroinvertebrates that was noted during field sampling that while not quantitatively

measured was noteworthy. Markich et al. (2002) reported that mussels were absent from the

Finniss River for 10 km downstream of the East Branch junction. However in the 2014

sampling mussels were collected from FR@GS204 for radionuclide analysis, while it was not

possible to collect them from any site in the East Branch downstream of the upstream

boundary of the mine lease area. Mussels were not otherwise specifically targeted for

sampling, but they were observed at all Finniss River sites downstream of FR@GS204. This

indicates that there had been substantial recovery of the mussel populations since the 1990s.

3.4 Tissue Metal Concentrations

3.4.1 Comparison with Food Standards

The tissue metal concentration analyses are provided in Appendix X as the analysis

laboratory report, a tabulated summary including specimen information and graphed in

comparison with the relevant FASANZ (2013) food standards. No metal concentrations

were found to be above any human health standard.


Hydrobiology

3.4.2 Spatial comparisons

The concentrations of metals in each tissue type were examined for spatial (between zone

and site) differences, either for increased bioaccumulation at sites near the mine or for

suppressed bioaccumulation at potentially impacts sites as was found previously by Jeffree

et al. (2014). Only metals and metalloids for which the majority of analyses at least at some

sites were above the analytical detection limit were considered for statistical analysis for each

tissue type.

3.4.2.1 Macrobrachium bullatum purged cephalothorax samples

This species was only collected for tissue metal analysis from zones, 3, 4, 6 and 7. Table 3‐10

summarises the findings of the spatial analyses. Significant differences between sites were

found for cadmium, cobalt, lead, nickel and zinc. The multiple range tests generally found

few significant differences between sites. For cadmium, the log‐average for EBusFR was

greater than for FR3, but no other significant differences were found. Similarly for cobalt,

EBusHS was greater than for FRdsFC but no other differences were significant. For nickel,

EB@GS327 was greater than for FRdsFC. The greatest numbers of between‐site differences

were for lead and zinc. For lead EBusHS was greater than for all Finniss River sites except

FR3 and also greater than EBusFR. Figure 3‐21 shows that the measured values at this site

were generally higher than at any other site, but that some replicates from EB@GS327 and

EBdsHS had similar concentrations. For zinc, EB@GS327 was higher than for all Finniss sites

except FRusFC, and also the two zone 4 sites in the East Branch. FRusFC was also higher

than was FR3.

Figure 3‐21 Shows that there were general gradients of higher and more variable

concentrations of cobalt, nickel and zinc in the East Branch closer to the mine, in zone 3, than

at the zone 4 sites in the lower East Branch and zone 6 and 7 sites in the Finniss River. This is

consistent with a source of increased bioavailability of those elements at the mine lease area,

and generally declining bioavailability after mixing with the tributaries that form the zone

boundaries. The increased variability for specimens closer to the source is consistent with

variable residence time of individuals that have to migrate upstream to access aquatic habitat

in this intermittent stream. There was no indication of suppressed bioaccumulation for

specimens with greater exposure to elevated metals.


Hydrobiology

Table 3-10 Between-site ANOVA analyses for metal concentrations in purged M. bullatum cephalothorax samples. NS=not significant. – not included in final model. Int.=interaction term

Element Site Length Multiple Range Test result

Aluminium NS ‐

Arsenic NS ‐

Cadmium P=0.018 ‐ FR3 FR@GS204 FRdsFC EBusHS FRusFC EBdsHS EB@GS327 EBusFR

Cobalt P=0.041 ‐ FRdsFC FR@GS204 FR3 FRusFC EBusFR EB@GS327 EBdsHS EBusHS

Copper NS ‐

Lead P=0.037 Int. p<0.05 FR@GS204 FRusFC EBusFR FRdsFC FR3 EBusHS EB@GS327 EBdsHS

Manganese NS ‐ Single high concentration sample for FRusFC caused significant site effect

Nickel P=0.009 ‐ FRdsFC FR@GS204 FR3 EBusFR EBdsHS EBusHS FRusFC EB@GS327

Zinc P<0.001 ‐ FR3 FRdsFC FR@GS204 EBusFR EBdsHS EBusHS FRusFC EB@GS327


Hydrobiology

Figure 3-21 Concentrations of selected metals in M. bullatum cephalothorax samples by site and zone and length where significant in the statistical analyses

3.4.2.2 Black-banded Rainbowfish Melanotaenia nigrans whole body samples

This species was collected for tissue analysis from all zones except zone 5, the Finniss River

above the East Branch. Because of the small size of this species, specimens were analysed

whole, and without purging because of a lack of facilities to purge gut contents from more

3 4 6 7

Zone

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

[Cd]

µg/

g

EBGS327EBdsHSEBusFREBusHSFR3FRGS204FRdsFCFRusFCEBGS327EBdsHSEBusFREBusHSFR3FRGS204FRdsFCFRusFC

3 4 6 7

Zone

0

4

8

12

[Co]

µg/

g


3 4 6 7

Zone

50

90

130

170

[Cu]

µg/

g


8 10 12 14

8 10 12 14

Length (mm)

0.3

0.6

0.3

0.6

0.3

0.6

0.3

0.6

[Pb]

µg/

g

Site: EBGS327 Site: EBdsHS

Site: EBusFR Site: EBusHS

Site: FR3 Site: FRGS204

Site: FRdsFC Site: FRusFC

3 4 6 7

Zone

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

[Ni]

µg/

g


3 4 6 7

Zone

50

70

90

110

130

150

[Zn]

µg/

g



Hydrobiology

than one species per site. The East Branch population of this species had been the subject of a

study of bioaccumulation of copper after exposure to the acid drainage from the Rum Jungle

site in comparison with reference site populations by Gale et al. (2003) and found to have

relatively reduced uptake of copper compared with the non‐exposed populations.

Table 3‐11 shows the results of the step‐wise ANCOVA analyses, while Figure 3‐22

illustrates the significant relationships. For cobalt, copper nickel and zinc there were

differences between sites and trends through the East Branch sites that were consistent with

a source of increased bioavailability of each metal within the mine lease area, and reducing

bioaccumulation with distance and after the tributary junctions that mark the zone

boundaries. Note that variability of bioaccumulation also decreased with distance from zone

2. For zinc this was complicated by a significantly negative overall relationship between zinc

concentration and body length. Note that for all those metals the average concentrations and

variability were lower for zone 1 than for any other East Branch zone.

Importantly, the pattern of bioaccumulation of copper was not consistent with greatly

reduced capacity for or suppressed bioaccumulation for the specimens from the East Branch,

with much lower bioaccumulation for the Finniss River sites and somewhat higher and more

variable bioaccumulation for the zone 1 specimens compared with the zone 6 and 7

specimens, consistent with having had to pass through the other East Branch zones to reach

zone 1.

For the other metals with significant between‐site differences, the patterns were less clearly

related to a source in the mine lease area. For aluminium and lead the highest average and

greatest variability was for EBusFR, with the other East Branch sites not being significantly

different from the control sites. For arsenic, most analyses were at the detection limit and

measured concentrations were only found for zones 1, 2, 3 and 4, and with no sites being

significantly different from all relevant control sites. For manganese, FC@LB was unusually

low compared with the other sites, but the samples from zones 2, 3 and 4 were not

significantly different from any other control sites.


Hydrobiology

Table 3-11 Between-site ANOVA analyses for metal concentrations in M. nigrans whole body samples. NS=not significant. – not included in final model. Int.=interaction term


Aluminium P=0.002 P=0.018 EB@LB EBdsRB FC@LB EB@GS097 FRdsFC EB@GS327 EB@GS200 FRusFC EBusHS EBusFR

Arsenic P=0.030 NS FC@LB FRdsFC EBusHS EB@LB EBdsRB FRusFC EB@GS097 EB@GS200 EBusFR EB@GS327

Cobalt P<0.001 ‐ EB@LB FC@LB FRdsFC FRusFC EB@RB EB@GS097 EB@GS327 EBusHS EBusFR EB@GS200

Copper P<0.001 ‐ FRusFC FRdsFC FC@LB EB@LB EBdsRB EB@GS097 EBusHS EBusFR EB@GS327 EB@GS200

Lead P=0.033 ‐ EB@LB EBdsRB FRdsFC FRusFC EB@GS327 EB@GS200 FC@LB EBusHS EB@GS097 EBusFR

Manganese P<0.001 ‐ FC@LB FRusFC EB@GS200 FRdsFC EBusHS EB@GS097 EB@LB EBusFR EBdsRB EB@GS327

Nickel P<0.001 ‐ EB@LB FC@LB FRdsFC FRusFC EBdsRB EB@GS097 EBusHS EB@GS200 EBusFR EB@GS327

Zinc P<0.001 P=0.017 FC@LB EB@LB EBusHS EB@GS097 EBusFR EBdsRB FRusFC FRdsFC EB@GS327 EB@GS200

1 2 3 4 6 7

Zone

0

4

8

12

[Al]

µg/

g

EBGS097EBGS200EBGS327EBLBEBRBEBusFREBusHSFCLBFRdsFCFRusFCEBGS097EBGS200EBGS327EBLBEBRBEBusFREBusHSFCLBFRdsFCFRusFC

1 2 3 4 6 7

Zone

0.10

0.14

0.18

0.22

[As]

µg/

g


1 2 3 4 6 7

Zone

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

[Co]

µg/

g


1 2 3 4 6 7

Zone

0

4

8

12

[Cu]

µg/

g



Hydrobiology

Figure 3-22 Concentrations of selected metals in M. nigrans whole body samples by site and zone and length where significant in the statistical analyses

3.4.2.3 Northern Trout Gudgeon Mogurnda mogurnda hind body samples

Tissue samples for this species were collected from zones 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6. Significant between

site differences were found only for cobalt, manganese, nickel and zinc (Table 3‐12). For

cobalt the highest log average concentrations were found for the samples from EBdsRB and

EBusFR, but the three samples collected from FR@GS204 were very variable, and the log

average concentrations for EB@GS327 and EB@GS200 were also relatively high compared

with at least one control site. The pattern of observed bioaccumulation would be consistent

with a source of increased bioavailability in the mine area if residence times of the specimens

collected from EB@GS200 were relatively short, but would also be consistent with a source of

cobalt downstream of that site.

For manganese, the pattern of bioaccumulation was not consistent with the Rum Jungle mine

lease being a source of increased bioavailability, as the log average concentrations for

EB@GS200 and FC@LB were significantly lower than for all other sites except EBdsHS, and

relatively high concentrations were found for FR@GS204 and EB@LB.

1 2 3 4 6 7

Zone

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

[Pb]

µg/

g


1 2 3 4 6 7

Zone

0

20

40

60

[Mn]

µg/

g


1 2 3 4 6 7

Zone

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

[Ni]

µg/

g


30 60 30 60

Length

50

100

50

100

50

100

[Zn]

µg/

g

EBGS097 EBGS200 EBGS327

EBLB EBRB EBusFR

EBusHS FCLB FRdsFC

FRusFC


Hydrobiology

The pattern for nickel was comparable to that for cobalt, with the highest concentrations

found for the zone 3 sites EBdsRB and EB@GS327. For zinc the only site that differed from

any others was FR@GS204, which was higher than a combination of East Branch and Finniss

River sites.

Table 3-12 Between-site ANOVA analyses for metal concentrations in M. mogurnda hind body samples. NS=not significant. – not included in final model. Int.=interaction term


Arsenic NS ‐

Cobalt P<0.001 P=0.010 FC@LB FRusFC EB@097 EB@LB EBusHS EBdsHS FR3 FR@204 EB@200 EB@327 EBusFR EBdsRB

Copper NS P=0.019

Lead NS ‐

Manganese P=0.043 P=0.032 FC@LB EB@200 EBdsHS EBusHS EBusFR EB@327 EB@LB EB@097 FR3 EBdsRB FR@204 FRusFC

Nickel P=0.006 ‐ FRusFC EB@LB EB@097 FC@LB FR3 EBusHS EBdsHS EB@200 FR@204 EBusFR EBdsRB EB@327

Zinc P=0.009 NS FC@LB FR3 EB@097 FRusFC EBusFR EB@200 EB@LB EBusHS EB@327 EBdsRB EBdsHS FR@204


Hydrobiology

Figure 3-23 Concentrations of selected metals in M. mogurnda hind body samples by site and zone

3.4.2.4 Hyrtl’s Tandan Neosilurus hyrtlii flesh samples

Samples of this species were collected from zones 3, 4, 6 and 7.

Significant differences were found only for cobalt, copper and zinc (see Table 3‐13 and

Figure 3‐24). For all three metals the samples from the East Branch zone 3 sites were higher

on average (after adjustment for length for cobalt) than for the Finniss River sites in zones 6

and 7 and the lower zone 4 site, EBusFR. The other zone 4 site, EBdsHS, was not

significantly different from the zone 3 sites for any metal, but was also not significantly

different from the downstream sites for zinc. These results are consistent with a source of

elevated bioavailability of these metals in the East Branch at or above zone 3. There was no

indication of inhibited bioaccumulation of metals by specimens of this species from the more

impacted sites, as was reported by Jeffree et al. (2014).

50 100 50 100

50 100 50 100

Length (mm)

0.3

0.6

0.3

0.6

0.3

0.6

[Co]

µg/

g

EBGS097 EBGS200 EBGS327 EBLB

EBRB EBdsHS EBusFR EBusHS

FCLB FR3 FRGS204 FRusFC

50 100 50 100

50 100 50 100

Length (mm)

10

120

10

120

10

120

[Mn]

µg/

g

EBGS097 EBGS200 EBGS327 EBLB

EBRB EBdsHS EBusFR EBusHS

FCLB FR3 FRGS204 FRusFC

1 2 3 4 6

Zone

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

[Ni]

µg/

g

EBGS097EBGS200EBGS327EBLBEBRBEBdsHSEBusFREBusHSFCLBFR3FRGS204FRusFCEBGS097EBGS200EBGS327EBLBEBRBEBdsHSEBusFREBusHSFCLBFR3FRGS204FRusFC

1 2 3 4 6

Zone

15

19

23

27

31

[Zn]

µg/

g

EBGS097EBGS200EBGS327EBLBEBRBEBdsHSEBusFREBusHSFCLBFR3FRGS204FRusFCEBGS097EBGS200EBGS327EBLBEBRBEBdsHSEBusFREBusHSFCLBFR3FRGS204FRusFC


Hydrobiology

Table 3-13 Between-site ANOVA analyses for metal concentrations in N. hyrtlii flesh samples. NS=not significant. – not included in final model. Int.=interaction term


Arsenic NS ‐

Cobalt P<0.001 P=0.019 EBusFR FRdsFC FRusFC < EBusHS EBdsHS EB@GS327

Copper P<0.001 ‐ FRusFC FRdsFC EBusFR < EB@GS327 EBdsHS EBusHS

Manganese NS P=0.005

Nickel NS ‐

Zinc P=0.002 P=0.040 EBusFR FRusFC FRdsFC EBdsHS EB@GS327 EBusHS

Figure 3-24 Concentrations of selected metals in N. hyrtlii flesh samples by site and zone

3.4.2.5 Bony Bream Nematalosa erebi flesh samples

Bony Bream were not caught at any East Branch site, but this species had been used for

assessment of metal bioaccumulation previously (Jeffree et al. 2014). Flesh samples were

collected from all Finniss River sites in this survey, but between site differences were only

found for arsenic and manganese Table 3‐14. Importantly, no significant differences were

100 150 200 250

100 150 200 250

Length (mm)

0.2

0.4

0.2

0.4

0.2

0.4

[Co]

µg/

g

EBGS327 EBdsHS

EBusFR EBusHS

FRdsFC FRusFC

3 4 6 7

Zone

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

[Cu]

µg/

g

EBGS327EBdsHSEBusFREBusHSFRdsFCFRusFCEBGS327EBdsHSEBusFREBusHSFRdsFCFRusFC

3 4 6 7

Zone

5

7

9

11

[Zn]

µg/

g

EBGS327EBdsHSEBusFREBusHSFRdsFCFRusFCEBGS327EBdsHSEBusFREBusHSFRdsFCFRusFC


Hydrobiology

found for cobalt, copper, lead, nickel, uranium or zinc, in contrast to the findings of Jeffree et

al. (2014). For arsenic, the highest log average concentration was found for FRusMB, the

upstream control site. For manganese the log average concentration for FRusFC was greater

than for FRusMB, but Figure 3‐25 shows that this analysis was influenced by a relatively

high concentration found for a single specimen from FRdsFC. Without that specimen in the

analysis, the log average concentration for FRusFC remained significantly greater than for

FRusMB but was also significantly greater than for FRdsMB, and FR3, FRdsFC and

FR@GS204 were all significantly greater than FRusMB but not FRdsMB.

The observed differences between sites in arsenic and manganese bioaccumulation in this

species were not consistent with a source of either enhanced or reduced bioaccumulation of

those metalloids from the East Branch, but rather reflected differences between the upper

Finniss River and sites near Florence Creek. As both elements can be relatively more soluble

in ground waters, this might reflect localised differences in relative inflows of ground water.

Table 3-14 Between-site ANOVA analyses for metal concentrations in N. erebi flesh samples. NS=not significant. – not included in final model. Int.=interaction term


Arsenic P=0.001 ‐ FRusFC FRdsFC FR3 FRdsMB FR@GS204 FRusMB

Copper NS ‐

Manganese P=0.001 ‐ FRusMB FRdsMB FR@GS204 FR3 FRdsFC FRusFC

Zinc NS ‐

Figure 3-25 Concentrations of selected metals in N. erebi flesh samples by site and zone

3.5 Radionuclide analyses

At the time of writing, no results had been received from any laboratory for radionuclide

activity concentrations in aquatic organism samples collected during the survey. Those

results will be reported separately when they become available.

5 6 7

Zone

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

[As]

µg/

g

FR3FRGS204FRdsFCFRdsMBFRusFCFRusMBFR3FRGS204FRdsFCFRdsMBFRusFCFRusMB

5 6 7

Zone

0

5

10

15

[Mn]

µg/

g

FR3FRGS204FRdsFCFRdsMBFRusFCFRusMBFR3FRGS204FRdsFCFRdsMBFRusFCFRusMB


Hydrobiology

4 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION This first investigation in 20 years of the ecological status of the Finniss River and its East

Branch had the following broad range of objectives:

i) To give an intensive ‘snapshot’ indication of the aquatic ecosystem diversity and

abundances based predominantly on samples of fishes obtained from gill‐ netting

and other supplementary methods, for comparison with those results from

replicated sampling programs undertaken in the 90’s, when their recovery in the

Finniss River proper was such that no impacts due to the presence of

contaminants could be statistically discerned (Jeffree and Twining 2000),

compared with unexposed regions;

ii) To initiate the definition of a benchmark of contemporary detriment to freshwater

biotas so that any future changes may be discerned as a consequence of further

remedial activities at Rum Jungle, as well as their temporal sequence;

iii) To expand the range of biotic measures that could be used system‐wide in order

to determine environmental quality, including the use of measures of

macroinvertebrate and benthic diatom diversity, abundance and assemblage

composition;

iv) Use sampling methodologies for fishes and larger macroinvertebrates that could

permit modifications to those used historically in order to minimise adverse

impacts on target and non‐target biota, and reducing sampling effort but still

retain scientific validity and comparability with historic datasets;

v) Discern any improvements in environmental quality compared with the 90s;

particularly for the East Branch where there was still detriment to fishes and

macroinvertebrates at that time;

vi) Expand the geographical scale of the assessment for the first time to include

evaluation of effluents from the Mount Burton mine site;

vii) Provide the first data for the development of a subsequent cost‐effective

monitoring program;

viii) Provide further refinement in the status of the aquatic biota based on

contemporary developments in their taxonomic resolution; and

ix) Provide a dataset that could be used to refine the water quality objectives

developed for the mine site rehabilitation plan based on comparison of aquatic

ecosystem status and measured water and sediment quality.

With regard to fishes the results indicated that in the main Finniss River there was no

adverse impact on fish diversity and abundances due to their continuing exposures to

effluents from Rum Jungle or Mount Burton mine. These results were thus comparable to

those obtained from replicated sampling campaigns in the 90s that had shown recovery

of sites downstream of the East Branch to levels that showed no significant differences

from unexposed sites (Jeffree and Twining 2000). Such a result would be expected if there

was no appreciable increases since the 90s in the contaminant loads being delivered to

the main Finniss. This consistency in their recovery may also be attributed in part to the


Hydrobiology

adaptation of the fish biota, based on recent findings for 90s data (Jeffree et al., 2014),

although those findings were not overtly supported by the 2014 sampling results.

In comparison with the 90s data for fishes at sites in the East Branch the results showed

appreciable improvements in both the assemblage diversity as well as the geographical

distributions of species, although there was a still a marked degree of reduction

immediately downstream of the region of inflow of Rum Jungle contaminants in the East

Branch. This appreciable recovery that has taken place over the last 20 years despite the

absence of any further remedial efforts at the Rum Jungle mine site to further reduce the

annual contaminant loadings. There are a number of possible explanations that are not

mutually exclusive, viz.:

iv) There is a time dependency related to lag factors that are operating on the rates of

recolonization after the step reduction in contaminants loads that was measured

in the 80s and 90s;

v) Annual contaminant loadings and/or their bioavailabilities have continued to

reduce since the 90s permitting further degrees of recolonisation, such as via

reduction of sediment sources of contaminants over time; and

vi) There has been continued adaption in the fish biota of the East Branch following

their decades of exposure to contaminants, as demonstrated in the 90s for one

species in the East Branch (Gale et al. 2003), although the patterns of

bioaccumulation of metals by that species were not consistent with continuance of

a high level of inhibition of metal uptake for that species.

These explanations of continued recovery would suggest that there is a considerable

degree of dynamism in the relationships between current contaminant levels and the

recolonising capacities of the fish communities. This snapshot of continued recovery is

probably also enhanced by the period in the annual cycle within which these current

studies were undertaken, relative to the 90s investigations (very early Dry compared to

later Dry in an intermittent system), as well as a more intensive sampling effort in 2014.

Continued recolonisation of the riparian vegetation would also improve the aquatic

habitats of East Branch.

In the context of the establishment of a contemporary benchmark against which to assess

the environmental benefits of further remediation at Rum Jungle for the Finniss River the

East Branch is where such improvements will be most clearly observed, as recovery in

fish diversity in the main Finniss is already complete, or at least not discernibly different

from unexposed sites, according to this current snapshot.

Given that the biological status of the intermittent East Branch will be a function of both

the contaminant loads from Rum Jungle as well as water flows, both factors need to be

taken into account when developing a monitoring program with the validity to

demonstrate ecological improvements that can be attributed to further mine site

remediation.


Hydrobiology

With respect to the adoption of new sampling methods and reductions in the duration

and intensity of gill netting the results are supportive of an objective of the reduction of

adverse impacts of a routine monitoring program. Reductions in both the period over

which gill nets are set and also their number, in combination with electro‐fishing, fyke

netting and trapping, are indicated to be adequate to evaluate the biodiversity of these

biota, but with greatly reduced mortalities of these target organisms as well as

Freshwater Crocodiles.

Although recolonisation of the intermittent East Branch by fishes each year is necessarily

by upstream movement from the Finniss River, for the majority of macroinvertebrates

and diatoms recolonisation can be aerially or via aestivating life stages in situ in the East

Branch. Establishment of assemblages for these groups will therefore be less contingent

on connectivity with and sources of recruits from downstream reaches. This is evidenced

by the assemblages of both groups at sites in the very intermittent upper East Branch

catchment in zone 1 having been generally comparable to the assemblages in the upper

Finniss River, whereas those sites supported depauperate fish and macrocrustacean

assemblages.

Nonetheless, these ecosystem components indicated broadly similar patterns of

assemblage condition across sites to those observed for fishes. The most impacted sites

were those in zone 2, with generally recovery through zones 3 and 4, and with no

indication of impact at the Finniss River sites. Site EBdsRB was anomalous in terms of its

macroinvertebrate assemblage, being comparable to Finniss River sites rather than other

East branch sites. This was not the case for the fish or diatom assemblages at that site.

For fishes, the adjacent site EB@GS327 had unusually high species richness for its

location in the East Branch, which was attributed to greater habitat diversity, but EBdsRB

had richness indicative of its position in zone 3. The reason for this difference in

macroinvertebrate assemblage health at this site is not clear, but as it was a shallow,

somewhat isolated site, it may have reflected improved water quality at this site due to

local runoff inflows.

Despite the anomaly of the macroinvertebrate assemblages of EBdsRB, the consistency of

the general pattern of reduced biodiversity at East Branch sites in zone 2 with gradual

improvement through zones 3 and 4 for all three groups of aquatic organisms suggests

that this pattern was driven by a gradient of contaminant concentrations rather than

limitation of recolonisation of an intermittent stream from downstream sources.

Mussels are not able to disperse aerially, but are able to disperse upstream via fish hosts

carrying their glochidium larval stage as temporary parasites on gill and other external

surfaces. Therefore, while requiring aquatic connectivity to colonise new areas, the

movement of fishes into the East Branch would afford opportunities for this to occur.

That they have fully recovered their geographic range in the Finniss River since the 90s,

in the absence of further remediation of the mine lease area, is notable, as is their

continued absence from the East Banch downstream of zone 1.


Hydrobiology

The tissue metal results were consistent with sources of increased bioavailability of

cobalt, copper, nickel and zinc within or near the mine lease area, or zone 2. For cobalt

and nickel, the results for Northern Trout Gudgeon were suggesting that the source

might be just downstream of the mine lease area, in the upper reaches of zone 3, which is

where water discharges from the moth‐balled Brown’s Oxide polymetal mining

operation had occurred in 2014. Other tissue types were indicative that at least copper

and zinc had a primary source of elevated bioavailability in zone 2, and that the source of

elevated cobalt and nickel bioavailability could also be in zone 2. These results were

therefore also consistent with a potential driver of the observed patterns of impacts to the

diatom, macroinvertebrate and fish assemblages being elevated bioavailable

concentrations of those metals from within or near zone 2. Given the known

continuation of loading of acid rock drainage into the East Branch from sources in the

mine lease area, this finding was to be expected.

5 RECOMMENDATIONS Repeat sampling in 2015 of the Finniss and East Branch using the recommended new

suite of sampling methodologies, including a much reduced program of gill netting

to improve the baseline of contemporary ecosystem condition for use for assessment

of the success of further rehabilitation and be consistent with sets of multiple rounds

of sampling used in the previous periods. It is recommended that this occur in the

similar early dry season period as for the 2014 sampling because this will capture

maximal spatial extent of fish species when access permits; and

It was recommended that more effort be placed into understanding the current extent

of recovery and its drivers in the East Branch by:

o an additional sampling round later in the Dry of 2015 targeted at

macroinvertebrate and diatom assemblages but with fish sampling of the East

Branch only to provide a better comparison with sampling in the 90s; and

o ii) comparison of the presence of biota along the pollution gradient of the East

Branch with ecological risk predictions of the presence of different biota based

on water quality alone, including geochemical modelling of bioavailable

fractions, for comparison with similar 90s assessments.

6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank Cyrus Edwards and the EMU team members including Amanda

Schaarschmidt, Grant Robinson and ??? for their invaluable assistance with the field work,

particularly when the burden of increased frequency of net checks through the night became

apparent. Overall support was provided by the DME Rum Jungle Project team, particularly

Mitchell Rider and Tania Laurencont.

7 REFERENCES ANZECC/ARMCANZ (Australia and New Zealand Environment and Conservation

Council)/(Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand)


Hydrobiology

(2000a). Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality.

(Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand: Canberra).

Edwards, C. A. (2002). Effects of Acid Rock Drainage from the Remediated Rum Jungle Mine

on the Macroinvertebrate Community Composition in the East Finniss River, Northern

Territory. MSc thesis, University of Technology, Sydney, pp. 208.

Ferris J.M., Vyverman W, Gell P and Brown P L (2002). Diatoms as Biomonitors in two

Temporary Streams Affected by Acid Drainage from Disused Mines, in Proceedings of the

Finniss River Symposium, August 23‐24, 2001, Darwin, eds. S. J. Markich and R. A Jeffree,

ANSTO E/748, pp. 26‐31.

Food Standards Australia New Zealand (2013) Standard 1.4.4 Contaminants and Natural

Toxicants. (http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/foodstandards/foodstandardscode.cfm).

Gale S. A., Smith S. V., Lim R. P., Jeffree R. A., and Petocz P. (2003). Insights into the

Mechanisms of Copper Tolerance of a Population of Black‐banded Rainbowfish

(Melanotaenia nigrans) (Richardson) Exposed to Mine Leachate, using 64/67Cu. Aquatic

Toxicology, 62 (2), 135 – 153.

Hydrobiology (2006) Fly River Herring Copper Toxicity Testing. Hydrobiology, Brisbane.

Hydrobiology (2013a). Environmental Values Downstream of the Former Rum Jungle

Minesite – Phase 1. Hydrobiology, Brisbane.

Hydrobiology (2013b). Environmental Values Downstream of the Former Rum Jungle Mine

site – Phase 2. Hydrobiology, Brisbane.

Jeffree R.A. and Twining J.R. (2000). Contaminant water chemistry and distribution of fishes

in the East Branch, Finniss River, following remediation of the Rum Jungle uranium/copper

mine site. Proceedings of Contaminated Site Remediation: From Source Zones to

Ecosystems, Proc. 2000 CSRC, Melbourne, Vic., Dec 2000.

Jeffree R. A., Twining J.R. and Thomson, J. (2001). Recovery of fish communities in the

Finniss River, Northern Australia, following remediation of the Rum Jungle uranium/copper

mine site. Environ. Sci. Technol. 35(14):2932‐2941

Jeffree R.A., Markich, S.J. and Twining, J.R. (2014). Diminishing metal accumulation in

riverine fishes exposed to acid mine drainage over five decades. PLoS ONE 9(3):e91371.

Doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0091371.

Markich S. J., Jeffree R. A. and Burke, P. J. (2002). Freshwater bivalve shells as archival

indicators of metal pollution from a copper‐uranium mine in tropical northern Australia.

Environ. Sci. Technol., 36, 821‐832


Hydrobiology

Orr, T.M. and Milward, N.E. (1984). Reproduction and development of Neosiluris ater

(Perugia) and Neosiluris hyrtlii Steindachner (Teleostei: Plotosidae) in a tropical Queensland

stream. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 35:187‐195.

Western Australia Department of Water (2009). Inception Report Volume 2: Methods.

Framework for the Assessment of River and Wetland Health (FARWH) in the south‐west of

Western Australia. WADoW, Perth.

Hydrobiology


Early and Late Dry Season 2015 June 2016

Rum Jungle Aquatic Ecosystem Survey June 2016 ii

Hydrobiology

ABN

26 096 574 659

GST The company is registered for GST

Head Office 27 / 43 Lang Parade

Auchenflower QLD 4066

Registered Office c/‐ de Blonk Smith and Young Accountants

GPO 119

Brisbane, QLD 4001

Postal Address PO Box 2151

Toowong QLD 4066

Phone 61 (07) 3368 2133

Fax 61 (07) 3367 3629

Email Contact [email protected]

Website http://www.hydrobiology.biz

© Hydrobiology Pty Ltd 2016

Disclaimer: This document contains confidential information that is intended only for the use by Hydrobiology’s Client. It is

not for public circulation or publication or to be used by any third party without the express permission of either the Client or

Hydrobiology Pty. Ltd. The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of Hydrobiology Pty Ltd.

Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written permission of Hydrobiology Pty Ltd constitutes an

infringement of copyright.

While the findings presented in this report are based on information that Hydrobiology considers reliable unless stated

otherwise, the accuracy and completeness of source information cannot be guaranteed. Furthermore, the information compiled

in this report addresses the specific needs of the client, so may not address the needs of third parties using this report for their

own purposes. Thus, Hydrobiology and its employees accept no liability for any losses or damage for any action taken or not

taken on the basis of any part of the contents of this report. Those acting on information provided in this report do so entirely at

their own risk.

Rum Jungle Aquatic Ecosystem Survey June 2016 iii

Hydrobiology



Document Control Information

Date Printed 10 June 2016

Project Title Rum Jungle Aquatic Ecosystem Survey

Project Manager Dr Andy Markham

Job Number 15-014-NTG01 Report Number R8

Document Title Rum Jungle Aquatic Ecosystem Survey

Document File Name Document

Status Originator(s)

Reviewed By

Authorised By

Date

15-014-NTG01_Aquatic Biology_V1.0Draft

Draft AMc Dr Ross Jeffree

RS 30/10/15

15-014-NTG01_Aquatic Biology_V1.3

Final AMc, DAH AJM AJM 10/6/16

Distribution

Document File Name Description Issued To Issued By

15-014-NTG01_Aquatic Biology_V1.0Draft

Draft Mark Greally AJM

15-014-NTG01_Aquatic Biology_V1.3

Final Mark Greally AJM

Rum Jungle Aquatic Ecosystem Survey June 2016 iv

Hydrobiology

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Hydrobiology was commissioned by the Northern Territory Government (Department of



ecosystem surveys conducted in the early dry season (May‐June) in 2014 and 2015, and late

dry season (September) in 2015, which was undertaken to provide input data to be used in

that assessment. It was the first such survey since the 1990s, when post remediation surveys

were first conducted after the initial mine site rehabilitation in the mid‐1980s (see Jeffree and

Twining 2000, Jeffree et al. 2001).

Specifically, the objectives were to:

1. update the assessment of the status of the aquatic ecosystems downstream of the



assessments;

2. provide contemporary aquatic ecosystem condition assessment and species



ecosystem response to contaminant concentrations; and

3. investigate alternative sampling techniques that would potentially make future

sampling more appropriate and/or cost effective

Fishes and macrocrustaceans, macroinvertebrates and benthic diatoms were sampled from

up to 18 sites in the Finniss River upstream of Walker’s Ford, including the East Branch to

upstream of the Rum Jungle mine lease area, in May – June 2014 and May 2015. A further

sampling round was conducted in September 2015, to characterise the aquatic community

during the late dry season in the East Branch. However, due to 2015 having a particularly

severe dry season, control sites upstream of the mine lease were dry, thus sampling was

limited only to sites downstream of the mine area. Where possible and appropriate at each

site, sampling methods were designed to be comparable with methods which had been used

historically, but other methods were trialled according to the third objective.

Diatoms

Diatom assemblages that develop in a particular area depend on different environmental

factors, including metal concentrations; therefore, the species that can be found in given

water body will inform about localised environmental conditions. One species which is

known to be a very reliable indicator of metal contamination by its presence is Achnanthidium

minutissimum. This species showed a clear and obvious reduction in its abundance and its

proportional contribution to communities further downstream of the mine (from May‐June

2014/15 data). Furthermore, it was not present in samples from the East branch catchment

upstream of the mine and largely absent from sites in zones 5 and 6 of the Finniss River.

Other taxa, also noted as tolerant of high metal concentrations (e.g. Nitzschia palea) showed a

Rum Jungle Aquatic Ecosystem Survey June 2016 v

Hydrobiology

similar pattern. These results appear to be very consistent with those of a study by Ferris et

al. (2002), wherein a gradient of improving diatom condition was observed through the East

Branch downstream from the mine lease. In contrast to the community data, values of total

abundance and species richness were not particularly useful in determining differences

among and between zones. For the September sampling round, sampling was restricted only

to sites within and downstream of the mine lease. Surprisingly, values of abundance and

diversity were very similar to that of May‐June sampling, and did not show a great deal of

variation among sites; the only exception being EB@GS200 (zone 2) where species richness

was noticeably reduced.

Macroinvertebrates

The 2015 assessment showed that sites within and immediately downstream of the mine (i.e.

zones 2 and 3) had lower values of abundance and taxonomic diversity and PET taxa

richness than control sites upstream of the mine (Zones 1 and 5). The community assemblage

at sites in zone 2, and several sites in zone 3, were also shown to be statistically distinct, and

were typified by high proportions of chironomids (midges). In contrast, sites upstream of the

mine lease, and at control sites and sites further downstream (in zones 4, 6 and 7) were

composed of a more even spread of taxa, and high proportions of Caenidae (mayflies). The

one exception to the above was site FRusFC (Zone 6), which was shown to be distinct from

all other sites. The overall patterns of abundance, richness and community composition

were broadly similar across 2014/15 sampling rounds, given the natural variation due to the

ephemeral nature of some components of the system. A similar pattern of relative abundance

and richness was also observed across zones to that previously reported by Edwards (2002)

(also in May/June). For the September 2015 sampling round, both abundances and richness

appeared to show a gradient of lower values within and immediately downstream of the

mine area but progressively higher towards zone 4, where values again decreased.

Historical comparisons of fish

A comparison of fish community composition, diversity and abundance at sites downstream

of the mine on the Finniss River with unexposed sites prior to remediation and ~10 (1990s)

and ~30 years post remediation (2010s) was undertaken. Overall it was found that fish

communities from sites downstream of mine inputs prior to the 1980s remediation were

significantly different from unexposed sites, being depleted in abundance and diversity.

However, this was not the case for samples post remediation where there appeared to have

been recovery of fish communities at the exposed sites in zone 6. There was clear evidence

that downstream and upstream communities were more alike post remediation. Despite this

observation, abundances at zone 6 were reduced in the most recent sampling rounds (2010s)

relative to the 1990s. However, flow in this reach of the Finniss River is particularly variable

and is likely to be a substantial confounding factor affecting abundances.

Rum Jungle Aquatic Ecosystem Survey June 2016 vi

Hydrobiology

Fishes and macrocrustaceans

Contrasting patterns of total abundance and richness between Fyke nets and electrofishing

methods were observed. The Fyke net data showed abundances to be generally higher in the

East Branch relative to the Finniss River, and the upstream control site EB@LB contained

significantly higher abundances than all other sites. However, this was not reflected in

species richness, as values across sites were reasonably similar (and not significantly

different). Electrofishing, however, revealed a highly contrasting dataset. Abundances were

particularly low upstream of the East Branch (zone 1) and within the mine lease (zone2),

with consistently higher values across all other zones; whereas richness values were more

consistent across East Branch sites (~7), but generally lower than the Finniss River (~10).

Analysis of the community composition identified a far greater similarity between datasets.

Results from both methods revealed the East Branch and Finniss River to be composed of

distinctively different communities; but neither resulted in a clear distinction between up

and downstream sites within each branch (e.g. East Branch or Finniss River). For the

September sampling round, abundances were much reduced relative to May‐ June sampling,

but richness was more comparable. Both metrics recorded lower values at sites closest to the

mine.

Tissue metals

For cobalt, lead, manganese, nickel and zinc there were differences through sites consistent

with a source of increased bioavailability within the East Branch, but concentrations of

cobalt, lead and manganese were often higher at sites some way downstream of the mine

lease in the upper reaches of zone 3, close to where water discharges from Brown’s Oxide

mining operation (which is currently in care and maintenance). Compared to the 2014

dataset, concentrations in 2015 were generally lower. Contaminant processes are dominated

by climatic regime and flow rates, whereby later rains and lower flow rates in 2015 relative to

2014, resulted in a lower level of contaminant transport to the East Branch, which appears to

be what was observed.

This report provides a contemporary assessment of the status of the aquatic ecosystems

downstream of the mine lease, the first of its kind since the surveys of the 1990s. Some

interesting patterns emerged and are discussed in detail within. In short, little evidence of an

impact from the mine on aquatic biota within the Finniss River (downstream of the East

Branch) was detected, but strong evidence that the mine continues to impact the aquatic

ecosystem within the East Branch itself was recorded. Therefore, this modern assessment of

the East Branch should be used as the baseline from which to determine any improvements

from remediation in the future.

Given that the biological status of the intermittent East Branch will be a function of both the

contaminant loads from Rum Jungle as well as water flows, both factors need to be taken

into account when developing a monitoring program with the validity to demonstrate

ecological improvements that can be attributed to further mine site remediation.

Rum Jungle Aquatic Ecosystem Survey June 2016 vii

Hydrobiology

The investigation of alternative fish sampling techniques, determined that the use of Fyke

nets combined with electrofishing provides a simple affordable and comprehensive

assessment of fish populations, and is therefore, highly recommended for future sampling

rounds.

Rum Jungle Aquatic Ecosystem Survey June 2016 viii

Hydrobiology



TableofContentsexecutive summary ............................................................................................................................. iv

1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Objectives ............................................................................................................................... 2

2 Methodology ................................................................................................................................ 3

2.1 Survey Timing and Sampling Sites .................................................................................... 3

2.2 Field procedure ..................................................................................................................... 5

2.2.1 Gill netting ..................................................................................................................... 5

2.2.2 Electrofishing ................................................................................................................ 5

2.2.3 Fyke nets ........................................................................................................................ 5

2.2.4 Bait traps ........................................................................................................................ 6

2.2.5 Macroinvertebrate sampling ....................................................................................... 6

2.2.6 Diatom sampling .......................................................................................................... 6

2.2.7 Tissue metal concentration samples .......................................................................... 7

2.3 Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 8

3 Results ......................................................................................................................................... 10

3.1 Diatoms ................................................................................................................................ 10

3.1.1 Total abundance, taxonomic richness and community composition .................. 10

3.1.2 Community Compositions ........................................................................................ 12

3.1.3 Summary (Diatoms) ................................................................................................... 15

3.2 Benthic macroinvertebrates ............................................................................................... 16

3.2.1 Total Abundance, Taxonomic and PET Taxa Richness ......................................... 16

3.2.2 Historical Comparison ............................................................................................... 22

3.2.3 Summary (Macroinvertebrates) ................................................................................ 23

3.3 Fish – Historical Comparisons .......................................................................................... 23

3.4 Summary (Historical comparisons of fish) ..................................................................... 28

3.4.1 Fish Communities 2014‐2015 .................................................................................... 28

3.5 May/June Sampling ............................................................................................................ 28

3.5.1 Fyke samples ............................................................................................................... 28

3.5.2 Electrofishing .............................................................................................................. 29

3.5.3 Fish distributions ........................................................................................................ 33

3.5.4 Fyke and Electrofishing abundance and richness .................................................. 35

3.5.5 Comparison between May/June and September sampling in the East Branch . 38

3.5.6 Summary (Fish Communities 2014‐2015) ............................................................... 40

Rum Jungle Aquatic Ecosystem Survey June 2016 ix

Hydrobiology

3.6 Tissue metals ....................................................................................................................... 41

3.6.1 Spatial comparisons ................................................................................................... 41

3.6.2 Summary (Tissue metals) .......................................................................................... 45

3.7 Radionuclides in Fish, Mussel and Prawn Tissues ........................................................ 45

4 Discussion ................................................................................................................................... 47

5 Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................... 49

6 References ................................................................................................................................... 50

Appendix 1 2014 & 2015 Diatoms .............................................................................................. 52

Appendix 2 2014 & 2015 Macroinvertebrates........................................................................... 54

Appendix 3 2014 Tissue Metals .................................................................................................. 56

Appendix 4 2015 Tissue Metals .................................................................................................. 59

Appendix 5 2015 Fish Data ......................................................................................................... 63

Appendix 6 2014 Fish Data ......................................................................................................... 78

Figures

Figure 2‐1 Sampling site locations .................................................................................................... 4

Figure 3‐1 Total abundance (upper panel) and species richness (lower panel) across sites,

years and sampling rounds. Hatched bars represent June 2014 data, empty bars represent

June 2015 data, and black line represents Sep 2015 data .............................................................. 11

Figure 3‐2 MDS plot of all June 2014 and 2015 samples, with samples labelled as: (A) year

and branch; and (B) year and zone. ................................................................................................. 13

Figure 3‐3 Mean values of total abundance (upper panel) and taxonomic richness (lower

panel) across sites and sampling years (2014/2015). Hatched and open bars represent 2014

and 2015 data respectively. Black line = data from Edwards (2002) ........................................... 17

Figure 3‐4 PET taxa richness across sites for May/June sampling ............................................... 18

Figure 3‐5 Mean total abundance (upper panel) and taxonomic richness (lower panel) across

EB sites in Sep 2015 ............................................................................................................................ 19

Figure 3‐6 Cluster analysis (upper panel) and nMDS plot (lower panel) of macroinvertebrate

communities. Red circles indicate significant cluster groups. ..................................................... 21

Figure 3‐7 nMDS plot of community composition across sampling sites, impact status and

years. .................................................................................................................................................... 24

Figure 3‐8 Cluster analysis of fish communities ............................................................................ 25

Figure 3‐9 Total abundance and no. of taxa across sites and decades. Cross hatched bars

represent 1970s, single hatched 1990s and clear bars 2010s. Red = impacted, and cyan =

unimpacted .......................................................................................................................................... 27

Figure 3‐10 Cluster analysis (upper panel) and nMDS plot (lower panel) of fish communities

from Fyke samples. Sampled are labelled by their respective sample numbers described in

Table 3‐5. .............................................................................................................................................. 30

Rum Jungle Aquatic Ecosystem Survey June 2016 x

Hydrobiology

Figure 3‐11 Cluster analysis (upper panel) and nMDS (lower panel) of fish communities from

electrofishing samples. Samples are labelled according to their respective sampling number

described in Table 3‐5. ....................................................................................................................... 31

Figure 3‐12 Fyke samples: Total abundance (upper panel) and taxonomic richness (lower

panel) across sites and years. Hatched bars represent 2014 data and empty bars 2015 data.

Line plot represents Sep 2015 data. Cyan = upstream control sites and red = downstream sites

............................................................................................................................................................... 36

Figure 3‐13 Electrofishing: Total abundance (upper panel) and taxonomic richness (lower

panel) across sites. See Figure 3‐12 for a description of symbols. ............................................... 37

Figure 3‐14 Cluster analysis of Fyke samples (upper panel) and electrofishing samples (lower

panel) September samples with corresponding May/June samples. .......................................... 39

Figure 3‐15 Concentrations of selected metals in M. bullatum by site ......................................... 43

Figure 3‐16 Concentrations of selected metals in the tissue of M. nigrans (upper panels) and

M. mogurnda (lower panel) ................................................................................................................ 44

TablesTable 2‐1 Sampling sites used for the 2015 survey and corresponding historical site codes. .. 3

Table 3‐1 Results of SIMPER analysis identifying the species responsible for the similarities

within zones and the dissimilarities among zones for: (A) the combined June 2014 and 2015

datasets; and (B) September 2015 dataset. ...................................................................................... 14

Table 3‐2 Sample number reference for Figure 3‐7 and 3‐8. ......................................................... 25

Table 3‐3 Results from SIMPER analysis. Identifies: (1) which taxa were principally

responsible for similarities within groups; and (2) the average similarity within groups; and

(3) dissimilarities between groups. .................................................................................................. 26

Table 3‐4 Mean abundance of each taxon within each impact status group and sampling

decade. ................................................................................................................................................. 27

Table 3‐5 Details of sampling sites, their branch, position, zone and respective sampling

number. ................................................................................................................................................ 29

Table 3‐6 Results from SIMPER analysis ........................................................................................ 32

Table 3‐7 Species of fish recorded at each site in 2014 and 2015. Blue shading highlights

diadromous species. Highlighted cells (yellow, EB and green, Finniss River) highlight

differences between years. ................................................................................................................ 34

Table 3‐8 Tissue‐metal sampling design. Numbers represent replicates of each species at each

site ......................................................................................................................................................... 41

Table 3‐9 Summary of significant differences in tissue metal concentrations between

downstream sites with each upstream control site. ...................................................................... 42


Hydrobiology

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Hydrobiology was commissioned by the Northern Territory Government (Department of



ecosystem survey conducted in May‐June 2014 which was undertaken to provide input data

to be used in that assessment. It was the first such survey since the 1990s, when post

remediation surveys were first conducted after the initial mine site rehabilitation in the mid‐


As described in the study Terms of Reference (ToR), the former Rum Jungle Mine site was

mined in the 1950s‐1970s then rehabilitated during the 1980s. Monitoring of landform

stability and water quality has continued since that time. A current collaborative Northern

Territory and Commonwealth Governments project (under a Partnership Agreement) aims

to provide a more permanent reduction in environmental impacts from the site due to acid

and metalliferous drainage (AMD) by adopting leading practice rehabilitation methods. A

Conceptual Rehabilitation Plan was completed in May 2013 as the final output of Stage 1.

Already completed are some of the studies to apply the ANZECC (2000) water quality

guidelines for rehabilitation planning at the Rum Jungle Mine site. The aim of these studies

is to provide:

a clear definition of environmental values, or uses;

a good understanding of links between human activity, including indigenous uses,

and environmental quality;

unambiguous management goals;

appropriate water quality objectives, or targets; and

an effective management framework, including cooperative and regulatory, feedback

and auditing mechanisms.

Two reports which already been completed (Hydrobiology, 2013a and 2013b) have identified

and defined the receiving environment including their relevant environmental values in

accordance with ANZECC/ARMCANZ methodology including assessment of the aquatic

ecosystems as well as fluvial sediments downstream of the mine site. Building on these

previous two studies, the purpose of this project was to:

undertake expanded environmental impact assessment monitoring to ensure a robust

data set is compiled and interpreted (in parallel with ongoing monitoring by DME)

and, based on this assessment, make recommendations in relation to any elevated

levels of contaminants identified or measurable biological impairment; and

develop locally derived water quality guidelines which can be applied to the process

of developing detailed designs for rehabilitated landforms at Rum Jungle. These will

be used as a basis for planning all existing and new data (gathered by DME and this

project).


Hydrobiology

1.2 Objectives





assessments; and

Provide contemporary aquatic ecosystem condition assessment and species



ecosystem response to contemporaneous contaminant concentrations.

This report provides a description of the survey that was undertaken and reviews the

aquatic ecosystem condition data in the light of those objectives.


Hydrobiology

2 METHODOLOGY

2.1 Survey Timing and Sampling Sites

The survey was conducted from the 17th of May to the 3rd of June and the 7th to the 14th of

September, 2015. Sampling was conducted by Hydrobiology with field support from Ecoz

Pty Ltd. Although inclusion of Traditional Owners in the sampling team was sought, via

liaison between DME and the Northern Land Council, unfortunately no Traditional Owners

were able to volunteer to participate at the time of the survey. Figure 1 displays the locations

of sites on the Finniss River in relation to the Rum Jungle Mine (RJM). The 18 sites were

distributed across seven zones that relate to distances downstream of or locations upstream

of inputs of mine‐derived contaminants and sources of dilution (see Hydrobiology 2013).

Sampling sites on the EB cover four zones. These zones contained: (1) sites upstream of the

RJM (control sites, zone1); sites in the immediate vicinity of the RJM (impacted sites, zone 2),

and sites progressively further downstream (zones 3 and 4). Acid Mine Drainage (AMD)

enters the intermittent East Branch (sites prefixed EB) within zone 2 and the upper limits of

zone 3. Zones on the Finniss River are defined by the catchment upstream of the East

branch, and reaches between major tributary junctions that incur some level of dilution and

geochemical alteration of mine‐derived water. The survey sites are listed in Table 2‐1 and

their locations are shown in Figure 2‐1.

Table 2-1 Sampling sites used for the 2015 survey and corresponding historical site codes.

Site Code Historic Code Site Name Easting Northing Zone

EB@LB East Branch at Lease Boundary 131.02700 -12.98820 1

FC@LB Fitch Creek at Lease Boundary 131.01600 -12.99887 1

EB@G_Dys East Branch at Dyson’s gauging station 131.01700 -12.98780 2


TC@LB Tailings Creek at Lease Boundary 131.99840 -12.98010 2


EBdsRB EB5 East Branch downstream of Railway Bridge 130.98417 -12.98019 3


EBusHS EB3 East Branch upstream of Hannah's Spring 130.96402 -12.96414 3

EBdsHS EB2 East Branch downstream of Hannah's Spring 130.96090 -12.96346 4

EBusFR EB1 East Branch upstream of the Finniss River Confluence 130.95100 -12.95950 4

FRUSMB ~ FR6 Finniss River Upstream Mount Burton mine 130.96300 -12.98240 5

FRDSMB FR5 Finniss River Downstream Mount Burton mine 130.96039 -12.97912 5

FR@GS204 FR4 Finniss River at gauging station GS8150204 130.94200 -12.94780 6

FR3 FR3 Finniss River 1.1km downstream of GS8150204 130.93085 -12.94718 6

FRusFC FR2 Finniss River upstream of Florence Creek 130.78637 -12.97783 6

FRdsFC FR1 Finniss River downstream Florence Creek 130.76000 -12.96740 7

FR0 FR0 Finniss River at Walker's Ford 130.71533 -12.91317 7


Hydrobiology

Figure 2-1 Sampling site locations


Hydrobiology

2.2 Field procedure

2.2.1 Gill netting

Gill nets were set out at from 16:30 to midnight and were checked at 20:30. Samples from

individual gill nets were scaled to the net dimensions of the historical dataset for abundance

measurements, but not for species richness (see 2.3). For a detailed description of the gill

netting procedure please refer to Hydrobiology (2014) and the results section below.


Electrofishing was conducted using a Smith Root model LR20B backpack electro fisher. At

most sites where it was used, rainbowfishes were readily evident in the sampling area, and

so the instrument settings were adjusted according to the electrical conductivity of the water

and the responses of the rainbowfishes. If larger specimens and particularly gudgeons were

present, the output settings were adjusted according to the responses of those species when

encountered. In particular, care was taken to avoid causing cervical muscle spasms in

gudgeons and gobies, which can result in debilitating injuries, as these groups are more

prone to this impact than other fishes. Generally, the instrument was initially set at 150 V,

with a pulse frequency of 70 Hz and a duty cycle of 40%, and adjusted according to fish

responses.

At each site a visual assessment was made of areas that could be safely waded. The electro

fisher operator and assistant then waded upstream through the selected area, with one or

more crocodile spotters on the stream high bank where judged appropriate, sampling in all

available habitats within the safe sampling area or when more than 10 mins had transpired

from the last new species collected, whichever occurred first. Electrofishing samples were

standardised by scaling to 400 s of instrument on‐time for abundance data, but not for

species richness. All captured specimens were kept alive in a sampling bucket, and

identified to species and counted before return to the sampling site. Only one sample was

taken per site using this device.

2.2.3 Fyke nets

Fyke nets of two sizes were used, depending on the availability of suitable setting locations

and the water depth at those locations. The nets were:

large Fyke – 1 m diameter with wings 5 m long by 1 m deep with 4 mm woven mesh;

and

small Fyke – 0.5 m diameter with wings 5 m long by 1 m deep with 4 mm woven

mesh.

Fyke nets were set overnight (dusk to dawn) at the time of setting the gill nets at each site (if

set), after visual selection of suitable sites that were safe to wade, and were of suitable depth

for each size net. Only two nets were set at each site, with the combination of sizes used

dependent on the water depth at each site, with a preference toward using the 1 m diameter


Hydrobiology

nets where possible. At EB@GS097 two large and two small nets were also set to provide

some basis for comparison between net sizes at a site.

The nets were set in a manner to ensure at least part of the final cod end was above water so

that any air breathing species collected would not drown overnight. In the morning, the nets

were retrieved and the catch was emptied into a bucket of water where the specimens were

kept alive until identified to species and counted and then returned alive to the sampling

site. Any trapped reptiles (turtles and crocodiles were captured during the survey) were

removed from the net immediately on retrieval of the net, identified and counted before

release at the site of capture. Turtles were measured for carapace length and photographed

prior to release.

2.2.4 Bait traps

Standard recreational bait traps 43 cm × 25 cm × 25 cm, with 2 mm mesh and funnels on each

end were baited with cat biscuits and set in backwaters, snags and bank overhangs from

dawn to dusk. A total of five traps was set at each site where they were employed. After the

traps were retrieved, captured specimens were identified to species, counted and returned to

the water.

2.2.5 Macroinvertebrate sampling

Macroinvertebrate sampling used a reconstruction of the submersible pumped water

sampler used by Edwards (2002). The sampler consists of a 250 mm internal diameter

cylindrical sampling head unit that is connected by a sampling hose and a return water hose

to a second unit that encloses the sample collection mesh and a pump unit. The pump is

used to circulate water from the head unit through the collection mesh and back to the head

unit, trapping entrained macroinvertebrates. Samples were collected only from river bed

sands that could be safely accessed by wading. Agitation of the sands enclosed by the head

unit to a depth of 100 mm by use of mild steel probe allowed collection of

macroinvertebrates on the sand surface and to a depth of 100 mm within the sand. Three

replicate samples were collected at each site, with each replicate selected randomly from the

selected sampling area.

The mesh size used was 500 μm, on the recommendation of C. Edwards (DME) based on

knowledge of the macroinvertebrate assemblages from previous sampling campaigns in the

1990s. The collected specimens and associated debris retained by the collection mesh were

preserved in 70% ethanol in plastic jars and labelled. The preserved samples were sent to

Alistair Cameron Consulting for sample sorting and specimen identification, generally to the

Family level of identification used by Edwards (2002), and enumeration.

2.2.6 Diatom sampling

Diatom samples were collected with the use of a small plastic spatula to collect sediment

surface film from backwater/depositional areas that were safely accessible at each site. Each

sample consisted of sediment surface scrapes from at least three areas, with two replicates at


Hydrobiology

each site. The samples were placed into plastic vials, and preserved with Lugol’s solution.

The preserved samples were sent to the Geography, Environment and Population

Department at Adelaide University for identification and enumeration (based on standard

microscope fields of view).

2.2.7 Tissue metal concentration samples

Samples of the following tissue types and species were collected at each site, depending on

their availability from the sampling regime at each site:

Bony bream Nematalosa erebi flesh (dorsal muscle) samples;

Hyrtl’s tandan Neosilurus hyrtlii flesh samples;

Northern trout gudgeon Mogurnda mogurnda hind body samples;

Black‐banded rainbowfish Melanotaenia nigrans whole body samples; and

Macrobrachium bullatum purged (in site water for at least 48 h until faecal pellets were

no longer visible in the gut) cephalothorax samples.

Specimens for tissue metal concentration analysis were then frozen until they could be

dissected upon return to the EMU laboratories in Darwin. Dissections were performed on

fresh polyethylene sheets using instruments that had been washed in a solution of 10%

analytical grade nitric acid in demineralised water. Precautions were taken during dissection

to prevent contamination of tissues by i) changing scalpel blades between fish batches from

each site and species, ii) having the dissector and assistants wear vinyl surgical gloves, and

iii) washing all tissues and dissecting equipment with distilled/deionised water before and

after each dissection. After dissection each tissue sample was thoroughly rinsed with

deionised water and placed in a separate sample bag and labelled. This bag was then placed

in a second bag, which was also labelled. Samples were then frozen prior to shipping.

The frozen samples were then transported back to Brisbane on ice where they were on‐

forwarded to Advanced Analytical Australia in Brisbane for tissue metal concentration

analysis by ICP‐MS.

Samples of fish flesh for radionuclide activity analysis were also dissected on fresh polyethylene sheets using instruments that had been washed in a solution of 10% analytical grade nitric acid in demineralised water. At least 250 g of flesh tissue was taken per sample. After dissection each tissue sample was thoroughly washed with deionised water and placed in a separate sample bag and labelled. This bag was then placed in a second bag, which was also labelled. Samples were then frozen in readiness for shipping.

The frozen samples were then transported back to Brisbane on ice were they were on-forwarded to The National Centre for Radiation Science of ESR (Institute of Environmental Science and Research Ltd) in Christchurch, New Zealand, for analysis for 210Pb, 210Po, 226Ra and 228Ra.

Mussel (Velesunia angasi) samples were collected by hand at each selected site where they occurred. Up to 50 specimens were collected at each site, and kept alive in site water until


Hydrobiology

they could be delivered to the Environmental Research Institute of the Supervising Scientist (ERISS) for analysis for 210Pb, 210Po, 226Ra and 228Ra.

2.3 Data Analysis

Data sets for diatoms, benthic macroinvertebrates and fish were each analysed separately,

but using similar statistical approaches and methods. Total abundances and taxonomic

richness were tested for significant differences between sites, zones and years, using either

parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA) or the non‐parametric equivalent, Krustal‐Wallace

(K‐W). Pairwise comparisons were conducted using either the Tukey test (ANOVA) or

Mann‐Whitney U test (K‐W), using the Bonferroni adjustment. For benthic

macroinvertebrates only, analysis of Signal 2 Scores was conducted; whereby, samples were

separated into 1 of 4 quadrants, which infer information about the likely conditions of those

sites in relative space (see Chessman 2003).

Multivariate analyses: Patterns in community structure were investigated using the

PRIMER (V.6) software package. Each dataset was fourth root transformed to reduce the

weighting of dominant taxa. Bray‐Curtis similarities were calculated to produce similarity

matrices, which were classified by Nonmetric Multi‐Dimensional Scaling (MDS) and cluster

analysis. Cluster analyses were tested using the SIMPROF routine. The SIMPER procedure

was applied to identify key taxa in discriminating between samples. Analysis of Similarity

(ANOSIM) was applied to identify if significant differences existed among and between the

predefined Zones (1‐7).

Historical comparisons: For benthic macroinvertebrates and fish, pre‐existing data was

available for comparisons with the current dataset. For macroinvertebrates, this was limited

simply to total abundance and taxonomic diversity. For fish, the data were far more detailed,

and represented previously published work (Jeffree & Williams 1975, Jeffree et al. 2001). A

comparison of fish community composition, abundance and diversity at impacted sites on

the Finniss River with sites unexposed to mine contaminants, prior to remediation and at ~10

(1990s) and ~30 years post remediation (2010s) was undertaken. Data on the abundances of

the seven most commonly occurring taxa caught were reported previously (Jeffree &

Williams 1975, Jeffree et al. 2001). The data from these studies were confined to six sites,

which corresponded to FRusFC, FR3 and FR@GS204 (designated as impacted) and FRdsFC,

FRdsMB and FRusMB (designated as unimpacted). Our analysis was therefore limited to

these sites and taxa. the same standardisation procedure as detailed in Hydrobiology (2014)

was used, but with the following addition. In 2014 gill nets were set out at from 16:30 to

midnight and were checked at 20:30. In 2015 nets were only set from 16:30 and removed at

20:30. In order to correct for this, the proportion of individuals and species that were caught

between 20:30 and midnight from the 2014 sampling (Hydrobiology 2014) was determined,

and adjusted the data accordingly.

Three sampling rounds were conducted in the 1970s (May/June, Aug/Sep and Nov 1974),

two in the 1990s (July/Aug 1992 and 1995), and two in the 2010s (May/June 2014 and 2015).

Our analyses followed a similar multivariate procedure to that outlined above.


Hydrobiology

Tissue metal concentrations: The tissue metal concentrations were log transformed prior to

statistical analysis, as metals may accumulate with age, and length is related to age by a

growth curve, usually of the form:

e Kt

classageLengthLengthLengthLength ..0maxmax

Where t is age and K is the instantaneous growth rate. Thus, where metal concentration is

linearly correlated with age, it would be log‐correlated with length. Therefore, length was

included as a covariate in the analyses with log transformed metal as the dependent variable.

Analysis of variance (ANCOVA) was conducted to test for significant differences between

sites, with Post Hoc Tukey multiple‐comparison tests used to determine which upstream

control sites differed to downstream impacted sites. Data were also examined for significant

interaction between metal concentration at sites and taxa length. All residual data were

examined for having a normal distribution and homogeneity of variance prior to analysis.

The metal concentrations were compared with the Food Standards Australia New Zealand

(FSANZ 2013) standards where appropriate.


Hydrobiology

3 RESULTS

3.1 Diatoms

3.1.1 Total abundance, taxonomic richness and community composition

Mean values of total abundance and taxonomic richness for each zone, year and month are

displayed in Figure 3‐1. Abundances varied significantly across sites for both June and

September sampling rounds (one‐way ANOVA, P = 0.02 and P = 0.03, respectively). Pairwise

comparisons of the June dataset revealed EB@G‐Dys (in zone 2) to have significantly higher

abundance than EB@GS097 and EBusHS (zone 3) (P > 0.05). The September dataset revealed

EBdsHS (zone 4) to have significantly higher abundances than EB@GS097 (zone 3) and

EBusFR (zone 4) (P <0.05). Taxonomic richness also showed significant differences for the

June dataset (P <0.01), but not for September (P >0.1). Pairwise comparisons of the June

dataset revealed multiple differences, with sites in zone 3 (EBdsRB, EB@GS097 and EBdsHS)

eliciting significantly lower values relative to sites across zones 1 (FC@LB), zone 5 (FRusMB)

and zone 6 (FRusFC).

Across years and sampling rounds, values were generally consistent, which is somewhat

unexpected given the ephemeral nature of the East Branch system; particularly when

comparing early and late dry season data for 2015. During the sampling period in September

2015 the dry season was particularly severe, with most of the upstream reaches of the East

Branch having dried up (i.e. EB@LB, FC@LB and EB@G‐Dys) and even Hanna’s Spring

ceasing to flow.


Hydrobiology

Site

FC

@LB

EB

@LB

EB

@G

-Dys

EB

@G

S20

0

EB

@G

S32

7

EB

dsR

B

EB

@G

S09

7

EB

usH

S

EB

dsH

S

EB

usF

R

FR

usM

B

FR

dsM

B

FR

@G

S20

4

FR

3

FR

usF

C

FR

dsF

C

To

tal a

bun

da

nce

(S

E)

0

100

200

300

400

500

Site

FC

@LB

EB

@LB

EB

@G

-Dys

EB

@G

S20

0

EB

@G

S32

7

EB

dsR

B

EB

@G

S09

7

EB

usH

S

EB

dsH

S

EB

usF

R

FR

usM

B

FR

dsM

B

FR

@G

S20

4

FR

3

FR

usF

C

FR

dsF

C

Sp

eci

es

rich

ness

(S

E)

0

10

20

30

40

50

Figure 3-1 Total abundance (upper panel) and species richness (lower panel) across sites, years and sampling rounds. Hatched bars represent June 2014 data, empty bars represent June 2015 data, and black line represents Sep 2015 data


Hydrobiology

3.1.2 Community Compositions

With the combination of June 2014 and 2015 data for diatoms, an MDS plot (based on Bray‐

Curtis similarity) revealed samples to be generally grouped by zone, with a separation

between downstream EB samples from those of the FR, irrespective of year (Figure 3‐2).

Results from a one‐way ANOSIM revealed significant differences between zones overall (i.e.

P =<0.05), and each pairwise comparison, except between zones 5, 6 and 7. To determine the

species driving the similarities within zones and dissimilarities between zones, a SIMPER

analysis was conducted (see Table 3‐1). Zone 1 was characterised by Sellaphora pupula and

Synedra ulna, and Nitzschia frustulum and Gomphonema parvulum; with each of these species

being largely absent across the other zones. Little is known of these species as indicators of

water quality, but their presence in this zone (with relatively good water quality conditions)

and absence elsewhere, suggests that these may be positive indicators of good water quality.

Zone 2 was characterised by Achnanthidium minutissimum and Nitzschia palea; species also

known to be tolerant of elevated heavy metal concentrations (Silva‐Benavides 1996,

Cantonati et al. 2014). Zones 3 and 4 were likewise largely characterised by these species,

but their contributions declined away from zone 2; and both species were largely absent

from zones 5 and 6, but interestingly A. minutissimum was present and prominent in zone 7.

In analysing September 2015 sampling data for diatoms, an MDS plot did not reveal any

clear partitioning of samples, nor were there any significant differences detected between

zones (one‐way ANOSIM, P = >0.05). However, some patterns did emerge from the SIMPER

analysis (see Table 2‐1B). Although both zones 3 and 4 were characterised by Rhopalodia

musculus, zone 4 was also characterised by Diadesmis confervacea; a species largely absent

from zone 3, and from the June dataset. Further, Nitzschia filiformis was a large contributor to

the similarity in zone 3, but completely absent from zone 4. Little is known of the tolerances

of each of the above species, except that R. musculus is regarded as alkaliphilous. It is

therefore somewhat surprising that this species be so prominent on the EB.


Hydrobiology

Figure 3-2 MDS plot of all June 2014 and 2015 samples, with sampleslabelled as: (A) year and branch; and (B) year and zone.


Hydrobiology

Table 3-1 Results of SIMPER analysis identifying the species responsible for the similarities within zones and the dissimilarities among zones for: (A) the combined June 2014 and 2015 datasets; and (B) September 2015 dataset.

(A) June 2014 and 2015 Zone (% contribution)

Taxa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Sellaphora pupula 12.1

Synedra ulna 9.8

Nitzschia palea 9.2 24.8 19.8 21.3

Nitzschia frustulum 7.3

Gomphonema parvulum 6.3

Nitzschia paleaceae 6.1

Achnanthidium minutissimum 45.9 20.9 13.8 19.7

Rhopalodia musculus 27.3 15.7

Nitzschia linearis 14.6

Navicula menisculus 15.6 15.5

Navicula schroeterii 12

Encyonema silesiacum 9.8

Navicula veneta 18.1 10.3

Nitzschia palea 12.2

Navicula schroeterii 7.5

Navicula radiosa 11.6

Navicula cryptotenella 9.9

Av. Similarity (%) 33.6 26.7 37.3 41.1 37.2 30.7 40.3

(B) Sep 2015 Zone (%

contribution)

Taxa 3 4

Rhopalodia musculus 40.1 27.3

Nitzschia filiformis 16.6

Cyclotella stelligera 12.1

Diadesmis confervacea 37.0

Av. Similarity (%) 38.4 33.4


Hydrobiology

3.1.3 Summary (Diatoms)

Diatoms which establish populations in a particular area are dependent upon different

environmental factors: temperature, salinity, pH, flow, shading, availability of substrata, and

chemicals in the water. Therefore, the species which can be found in a water body will

inform about localised environmental characteristics and conditions. One species known to

be a robust indicator of metal contamination is Achnanthidium minutissimum. This species

showed a clear and obvious reduction in its abundance and its proportional contribution to

communities further downstream of the mine. Indeed, it was not present in samples

upstream of the mine and largely absent from zones 5 and 6 along the Finniss River. Other

taxa, also noted as tolerant of high metal concentrations (e.g. Nitzschia palea), showed a

similar pattern. These results appear to be very much in agreement with those of a study by

Ferris et al (2002), focussing on sand‐associated benthic diatoms, where a gradient of

improving diatom condition was observed through the EB away from the mine lease. In

contrast to the community data, values of total abundance and species richness were not

particularly useful in determining differences among and between zones. It should also be

noted that diatom communities were extremely variable, even among samples in close

proximity and during the same sampling round.


Hydrobiology

3.2 Benthic macroinvertebrates

3.2.1 Total Abundance, Taxonomic and PET Taxa Richness

3.2.1.1 Contemporary assessment

May/June sampling 2014/15

Mean values of total abundance and taxonomic richness are displayed in Figure 3‐3 and PET

taxa richness are given in Figure 3‐4. Across the region, abundances for May/June 2015

varied significantly across sites (Two‐way ANOVA, P <0.001), but not across zones (P = 0.18).

Values ranged from 237 (± 32.2) at FC@LB to just 13 (± 3.2) at EB@GS200. The largest

differences were found between control sites in Zones 1 and downstream sites in zones 2 and

3, with pairwise comparisons revealing significantly greater values in both Zone 1 sites

relative to each in Zone 2 (i.e. P <0.001). Compared to the 2014 sampling round, values were

broadly similar, given that some level of natural variation would be expected, due to the

ephemeral nature of the East Branch system. However, total abundances were noticeably

low in Zone 6 for 2015 relative to 2014; and significantly so at site FR@GS204 (i.e. P < 0.05).

Values of taxonomic richness (at the family level) were also significantly different among

sites (Two‐way ANOVA, P = 0.001), but again not among zones (P = 0.12), with values

ranging from 15.3 (± 2.2) at FRusMB to just 5 at EB@GS327. Pairwise comparisons revealed

only one significant difference though, with the control site FC@LB being significantly

greater than EB@GS327 (P < 0.05). However, several other site comparisons between years

were very close to being significantly different (e.g. P < 0.07). Compared to the 2014 dataset,

values were broadly similar, but for the exception of FRusMB, where richness was

significantly higher in 2015 (T‐test, P < 0.05). PET taxa richness generally varied (across sites)

with taxonomic richness (see Figure 3‐3). The only notable exception was site EBdsRB (in

Zone 2 of the EB), where PET taxa were only a minor contributor to an already homogenous

group.

3.2.1.2 Historical comparisons

Mean values of total abundance and taxonomic richness for 1995 data (extracted from

Edwards (2002)), are plotted against 2014/15 data for corresponding sites in Figure 3. 3. In

comparing these contemporary datasets with that of the investigation conducted some 20

years ago, it is clear that abundances were very different. This is largely explained by

Edwards (2002) employing a finer mesh size (250 μm) than that employed here (500 μm, at

the recommendation of Edwards pers. comm.); with the larger mesh size expected to collect

fewer individuals from early life‐history stages. This is what was observed, but the 2002

dataset was still useful to compare relative differences in abundances across sites and zones.

There was good agreement between recent and historic datasets, particularly for taxonomic

richness, where values appeared to directly correspond.


Hydrobiology

Site

EB

@LB

FC

@LB

EB

@G

S20

0

EB

@G

S32

7

EB

dsR

B

EB

@G

S09

7

EB

usH

S

EB

dsH

S

EB

usF

R

FR

usM

B

FR

dsM

B

FR

@G

S20

4

FR

3

FR

2

FR

1

To

tal a

bun

da

nce

(S

E)

0

200

400

600

Re

lativ

e a

bun

da

nce

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Site

EB

@LB

FC

@LB

EB

@G

S20

0

EB

@G

S32

7

EB

dsR

B

EB

@G

S09

7

EB

usH

S

EB

dsH

S

EB

usF

R

FR

usM

B

FR

dsM

B

FR

@G

S20

4

FR

3

FR

2

FR

1

Ta

xono

mic

ric

hne

ss (

SE

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Re

lativ

e r

ichn

ess

0102030405060708090100

Figure 3-3 Mean values of total abundance (upper panel) and taxonomic richness (lower panel) across sites and sampling years (2014/2015). Hatched and open bars represent 2014 and 2015 data respectively. Black line = data from Edwards (2002)


Hydrobiology

Figure 3-4 PET taxa richness across sites for May/June sampling

3.2.1.3 September sampling of the East Branch (2015)

Mean values of total abundance and taxonomic richness are displayed in Figure 3‐5. Due to

2015 dry season being particularly severe, control sites upstream of the mine lease were dry,

thus sampling was limited only to downstream sites. Both total abundance and taxonomic

richness were significantly different across sites (One‐way ANOVA, P <0.01), and appeared

to show a gradient of lower values within and immediately downstream of the mine lease

but progressively higher towards zone 4, where values again decreased. For abundance,

EBusHS had significantly higher values than EB@GS200, EB@GS327 and EBdsRB (P < 0.05).

These differences, however, are confounded by the fact that each site represented a different

volume of water, and it is hard to differentiate their causes.

Site

FC

@LB

EB

@LB

EB

@G

S20

0

EB

@G

S32

7

EB

dsR

B

EB

@G

S09

7

EB

usH

S

EB

dsH

S

EB

usF

R

FR

usM

B

FR

dsM

B

FR

@G

S20

4

FR

3

FR

2

FR

1

Ta

xono

mic

ric

hne

ss (

SE

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

PET taxa


Hydrobiology

Site

FC

@LB

EB

@LB

EB

@G

S20

0

EB

@G

S32

7

EB

dsR

B

EB

@G

S09

7

EB

usH

S

EB

dsH

S

EB

usF

R

To

tal a

bun

da

nce

(S

E)

0

100

200

300

400

Site

EB

@LB

FC

@LB

EB

@G

S20

0

EB

@G

S32

7

EB

dsR

B

EB

@G

S09

7

EB

usH

S

EB

dsH

S

EB

usF

R

Ta

xono

mic

ric

hne

ss (

SE

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Figure 3-5 Mean total abundance (upper panel) and taxonomic richness (lower panel) across EB sites in Sep 2015

Dry

Dry


Hydrobiology

3.2.1.4 Community composition

A total of 37 macro‐invertebrate families were identified across sites and zones for 2015,

compared with 42 in 2014. Cluster analysis (using SIMPROF) of the 2015 dataset revealed

four significantly distinct clusters (i.e. P <0.05); each represented within a corresponding

MDS plot (Figure 3‐6). Table 2‐5 describes the proportional contribution of each taxon to the

similarity within cluster groups. Cluster 1 was composed of a single site, FRusFC which was

characterised by relatively few taxa, dominated by Caenidae (42%), Oligochaeta,

Leptoceridae and Elmidae (~20%). Cluster 2 included a site each from zones 2 and 3

(EB@GS200 and EB@GS327), and was characterised by relatively low diversity but with high

proportions of Tanypodinae (43%) and Chironominae (18%). Cluster 3 included eight sites

from zones 1, 5, 6 and 7, and was characterised by a relatively high number and even spread

of taxa. Families that typified cluster 3 were Caenidae, Chironominae and Tanypodinae, each

contributing ~15‐20% of the overall similarity. Cluster 4 included four sites, all from Zone 3

(EBdsRB, EB@GS097, EBusHS and EBdsHS) and was characterised by a narrow range of

taxa, typified by the Chironominae and Copepods (~25% each).


Hydrobiology

Figure 3-6 Cluster analysis (upper panel) and nMDS plot (lower panel) of macroinvertebrate communities. Red circles indicate significant cluster groups.


Hydrobiology

3.2.2 Historical Comparison

When the findings of the 2014 survey round are compared to the analysis carried out by

Cyrus Edwards in 1995 for his Master’s thesis some similarities were noted between data

sets. The 1995 findings showed that there was a marked difference in abundance and

richness and species composition between sites EBdsRB, EB@LB, FC@LB, FRusMB, FRdsMB

and sites EBusFR, EBdsHS, EBusHS and EB@GS327. This same difference was also observed

in the 2014 data set (see Hydrobiology, 2014).

The 1995 thesis also indicated that the most common taxa present in samples were the less

sensitive taxa, Ceratopogonidae, Chironominae and Tanypodinae, although abundances of

these taxa were low in samples taken from the East Branch sites at the time, whereas sites

upstream of the lease boundary and the Finniss River had substantial amounts of these taxa

present. Additionally the East Branch sites had very few or no Caenidae present whereas

sites on the Finniss River and upstream of the lease boundary had representative of this

Family present in notable numbers. A similar pattern of occurrence was found in the 2014

samples with regards to the distribution of the above mentioned taxa, and also their

abundances at each site.

Furthermore, the presence of Ecnomidae, Baetidae, Nematoda and Orthocladiinae in

significant numbers in the 1995 data set, set the sites in the Finniss River and upstream from

the lease boundary apart from the sites affected by mine processes in the East Branch.

A difference between the 1995 and 2014 data sets was that, in 1995 sites on the Finniss River

held large numbers of Dytiscidae beetles whereas the 2014 data set recovered very few of

these from any site sampled.

The 1995 data set revealed that no Acarina, Chironomidae, Nematoda, Ecnomidae or

Baetidae occurred at sites in the East Branch but all occurred in the Finniss River and at sites

upstream of the lease boundary. This result differed from the findings of the 2014 survey as

these taxa were found at several sites in the East Branch, albeit in very low numbers.

Results from ANOSIM analysis of the 1995 data performed by Cyrus Edwards showed that

sites EB@LB and FC@LB differed from the other sites on the East Branch (i.e. sites EBusFR,

EBdsHS, EBusHS, EBdsRB & EB@GS327) significantly, which was also found for the 2014

data.

Although results from the 2014 data set were generally similar to those found during 1995,

there was also an indication that some improvement had occurred in macroinvertebrate

assemblage condition in the East Branch. The occurrence of macroinvertebrate taxa

previously not recorded in the East Branch as well as a trend of increasing PET taxa

abundance downstream from site EB@GS200 indicated that the assemblages had improved,

i.e. towards the taxonomic compositions of macroinvertebrates at control sites. However,

macroinvertebrate abundance levels at the East Branch sites were not yet as high as those in

the Finniss River and upstream of the lease boundary, although taxa richness levels were

more similar.


Hydrobiology

There was one marked improvement to the geographic range of a group of

macroinvertebrates that was noted during field sampling that while not quantitatively

measured was noteworthy. Markich et al. (2002) reported that mussels were absent from the

Finniss River for 10 km downstream of the East Branch junction. However in the 2014

sampling mussels were collected from FR@GS204 for radionuclide analysis, while it was not

possible to collect them from any site in the East Branch downstream of the upstream

boundary of the mine lease area. Mussels were not otherwise specifically targeted for

sampling, but they were observed at all Finniss River sites downstream of FR@GS204. This

indicates that there had been substantial recovery of the mussel populations in the main

Finniss since the 1990s.

3.2.3 Summary (Macroinvertebrates)

The 2015 sampling data shows that sites within and immediately downstream of the mine

lease (i.e. zones 2 and 3) had lower values of abundance and taxonomic and PET taxa

richness than control sites upstream of the mine influence (Zones 1 and 5). The community

assemblage at sites in zones 2, and several sites in zone 3, were also shown to be statistically

distinct, and were typified by high proportions of less sensitive chironomids (midges). In

contrast sites upstream of the mine lease, and at reference sites and sites downstream (in

zones 4, 6 and 7) were composed of a more even spread of taxa, and high proportions of

caenids (mayflies). The one exception to the above was site FRusFC (Zone 6), which was

shown to be distinct from all other sites.

The overall patterns of abundance, richness and community composition recorded this year

were broadly similar to last year’s results, given that some level of natural variation would

be expected due to the ephemeral nature of the East Branch system. A similar pattern of

relative abundance and richness across zones to that observed by Edwards (2002) (also in

May/June) was also observed.

3.3 Fish – Historical Comparisons

Figure 3‐7 displays the two‐dimensional nMDS plot of community composition for all

samples from sites sampled in the main Finniss River across all sampling rounds. Samples

are labelled according to their sample number shown in Table 3‐2 and their impact status

(i.e. impacted vs. unimpacted). Figure 3‐8 displays the partitioning of samples into six

significantly different clusters at the 55% similarity level, which have been superimposed

onto Figure 3‐7.

The nMDS plot shows community composition at impacted sites from the 1970s (pre

remediation) to be clearly separated from most other sites, with most of these samples falling

into two distinctive groups (with the exception of Nov samples). Samples from the 1990s and

2010s (irrespective of impact status) were more closely related and clustered. These patterns

are further supported by the ANOSIM and SIMPER results (Table 3‐3). Impacted sites in the

1970s were shown to be significantly different from corresponding control sites and

impacted sites in the 1990s and 2010s (ANOSIM, p = 0.01). In testing for differences between


Hydrobiology

impact and control sites within sampling decade, results revealed significant differences

between groups in the 1970s (p < 0.05, dissimilarity ~63%) but not for the 1990s or the 2010s

(p > 0.05, dissimilarities = 27 and 16%, respectively). These results appear to show that fish

communities at impacted sites (zone 6), have progressed towards an unimpacted state.

Figure 3-7 nMDS plot of community composition across sampling sites, impact status and years.

1

2

3

4

5

6 7 8

9

10

11

1213

1415

16

17 18

19

20

2122

23

2425

26

27

28

29

30

31

3233

3435

36

37

38

39404142

2D Stress: 0.12


Hydrobiology

Table 3-2 Sample number reference for Figure 3-7 and 3-8.

FRdsFC FRusFC FR3 FR@GS204 FRdsMB FRusMB

Sampling period Sample number

Site (May/June 74) 1 2 3 4 5 6

Site (Aug/Sep 1974) 7 8 9 10 11 12

Site (Nov 74) 13 14 15 16 17 18

Site (Jul/Aug 92) 19 20 21 22 23 24

Site (Jul/Aug 95) 25 26 27 28 29 30

Site (May 2014) 31 32 33 34 35 36

Site (May 2015) 37 38 39 40 41 42

Figure 3-8 Cluster analysis of fish communities


Hydrobiology

Table 3-3 Results from SIMPER analysis. Identifies: (1) which taxa were principally responsible for similarities within groups; and (2) the average similarity within groups; and (3) dissimilarities between groups.

Av. Abundance

1970s 1990s 2010s

Taxa Unimpacted Impacted Unimpacted Impacted Unimpacted Impacted

Neosilurus spp. 2.05 1.31 2.41 2.12 2.32 2.05

Megalops 1.95 1.14 2.35 2.59 2.42 2.34

Black bream 1.49 0.65 0.43 0.46 1.7 2.4

Nematalosa 1.94 0.26 3.24 4.44 3.43 3.44

Amniataba 1.29 0.24 0.77 0.96 2.04 2.46

Toxotes spp. 0.98 0 0.69 1.08 1.66 2.22

Melanotaenia 0.61 0 0 1.41 0.39 0.51

Av. Similarity 76.1% 44.2% 68.9% 80.5% 84.1% 85.6

Dissimilarity 63.1% 27.3% 16.1%

Figure 3‐9 displays total abundance and taxonomic richness across sites, decades and impact

status, and Table 3‐4 gives the average abundance of each taxon within these groupings.

Total abundance and taxonomic richness were clearly reduced at impacted sites relative to

unimpacted sites pre remediation in the 1970s, but not for the 1990s or 2010s. In fact, both of

these decades had higher abundances, although taxonomic richness was marginally lower at

impacted sites. Overall, abundances at unimpacted sites have increased since the 1970s, but

while this was also true for impacted sites, values in the 2010s were much reduced relative to

the 1990s.


Hydrobiology

Table 3-4 Mean abundance of each taxon within each impact status group and sampling decade.

Av. Abundance

1970s 1990s 2010s

Taxa Unimpacted Impacted Unimpacted Impacted Unimpacted Impacted

Neosilurus 20.7 0.4 45.7 21.7 31.2 25.7

Megalops 18.8 7.9 33.8 48.3 38.7 34.4

Black bream 6.8 0.3 1.0 1.3 9.7 38.3

Nematalosa 34.8 3.4 202.7 459.0 174.4 154.8

Amniataba 5.3 0.0 2.8 3.3 35.7 57.0

Toxotes 3.2 0.0 2.3 11.3 9.2 25.8

Melanotaenia 0.9 7.0 1.3 5.3 0.6 1.9

Total. Av 90.4 19.1 289.7 550.3 299.5 338.0

Figure 3-9 Total abundance and no. of taxa across sites and decades. Cross hatched bars represent 1970s, single hatched 1990s and clear bars 2010s. Red = impacted, and cyan = unimpacted

Tot

al a

bund

ance

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Site

FRdsFC FRusFC FR3 FR@GS204 FRdsMB FRusMB

Num

be

r of

ta

xa

0

2

4

6

8


Hydrobiology

3.4 Summary (Historical comparisons of fish)

In this section, fish community composition, diversity and abundance at impacted sites on

the Finniss River were compared with unexposed sites prior to remediation and ~10 (1990s)

and ~30 years post remediation (2010s). Overall it was found that fish communities from

sites downstream of mine inputs prior to remediation were significantly different from

unexposed sites, being depleted in abundance and diversity. However, this was not the case

for samples post remediation where there appeared to have been recovery of fish

communities at the exposed sites in zone 6. There was clear evidence that impacted and

unimpacted communities were more alike post remediation. Despite this observation,

abundances at zone 6 were reduced in the most recent sampling rounds (2010s) relative to

the 1990s. However, flow at this reach of the Finniss River is particularly variable and is

likely to be a substantial confounding factor affecting abundances.

3.4.1 Fish Communities 2014-2015

3.5 May/June Sampling

Figure 3‐10 and Figure 3‐11 display the cluster analysis of community composition for Fyke

and electrofishing samples. Samples are labelled according to their respective sample

numbers, site names, river branch, and position (i.e. control vs. downstream of mine), as

shown in Table 3‐5. The SIMPROF routine identified four significant cluster groups for each

fishing method, which are superimposed onto their respective MDS plots. The East Branch

and Finniss River were shown to support significantly different communities, irrespective of

sampling method or year. For Fyke nets, two further subgroups were identified within each

branch; whereas for electrofishing the EB was separated into three groups. Table 3‐6 displays

the contribution of different taxa to the similarity within each cluster.

3.5.1 Fyke samples

For the Fyke samples, cluster 1 was composed of East Branch (EB) samples from zones 1, 2

and 3, including six downstream sites and all four control samples (i.e. EB@LB and FC@LB,

2014 and 2015). Each of these were characterised by a dominance of four taxa, M. mogurnda,

M. nigrans, M. splendida, and Ambassis macleayi (contributing >95%) (See table 2‐7).

Interestingly, despite containing EB control samples, this group also contained the samples

from EB@GS200 and EB@GS327, located either within or immediately downstream of the

mine lease. Cluster 2 included East Branch samples downstream of those identified in

cluster 1. These samples were composed of a broader spread of taxa contributing to their

similarity, including relatively high contributions from O. selhemi and N. ater (~ 10% each).

Cluster 3 included all samples located in Zone 6 and one sample from Zone 5. Like cluster 2,

these samples were characterised by a relatively broad spread of taxa, but contained high

proportions of several taxa either absent or recorded in low numbers in other clusters, e.g. C.

stramineus and Glossogobius sp. Cluster 4 contained samples from zones 5 and 7, including

the control samples at FRdsMB and FRusMB, and were dominated by only three taxa, M.


Hydrobiology

nigrans, M. splendida, and G. aprion; the latter being only recorded in low numbers elsewhere.

It is somewhat surprising that this cluster was composed of samples from zones 5 and 7,

given that these zones are separated by zone 6.


The electrofishing samples elicited a similar pattern to the Fyke samples, but clusters were

not quite as clearly defined. Cluster 1 was composed of EB sites from zones 1 and 2,

including three of the four reference samples and both EB@GS200 (2014/15) samples. These

were largely dominated by two species: M. bullatum and M. mogurnda (>80%). Clusters 2 and

3 were composed mainly of samples from zones 3 and 4. Cluster 2, like cluster 1, also had

high contributions from M. bullatum and M. mogurnda, but was also characterised by a more

even spread of taxa, including a relatively high contribution of N. hytlii. Cluster 3 contrasted

in that M. bullatum was absent and G. aprion was a relatively important component of this

group. Cluster four included only Finniss River sites, with all samples sharing at least 70%

similarity; and was composed of a far broader and diverse range of taxa.

Table 3-5 Details of sampling sites, their branch, position, zone and respective sampling number.

2014 2015

Site number Site Reach Zone Status Sample no.

1 EB@LB EB 1 Control 1 16

2 FC@LB EB 1 Control 2 17

3 EB@GS200 EB 2 Downstream 3 18


5 EBDSRB EB 3 Downstream 5 20


7 EBusHS EB 3 Downstream 7 22

8 EBdsHS EB 4 Downstream 8 23

9 EBusFR EB 4 Downstream 9 24

10 FRusMB FR 5 Control 10 25

11 FRdsMB FR 5 Control 11 26

12 FR@GS204 FR 6 Downstream 12 27

13 FR3 FR 6 Downstream 13 28

14 FRusFC FR 7 Downstream 14 29

15 FRdsFC FR 7 Control 15 30


Hydrobiology

Figure 3-10 Cluster analysis (upper panel) and nMDS plot (lower panel) of fish communities from Fyke samples. Sampled are labelled by their respective sample numbers described in Table 3-5.


Hydrobiology

Figure 3-11 Cluster analysis (upper panel) and nMDS (lower panel) of fish communities from electrofishing samples. Samples are labelled according to their respective sampling number described in Table 3-5.


Hydrobiology

Table 3-6 Results from SIMPER analysis

Fyke nets Cluster Group (% contribution)

Taxa 1 2 3 4

Mogurnda mogurnda 31.87 20.28 16.65 8.23

Melanotaenia nigrans 28 11.04 8.53 28.34

Melanotaenia splendida 23.17 15.44 14.3 27.26

Ambassis macleayi 14.69 13.71 3.34 7.91

Neosilurus hyrtlii 2.02 8.87 1.56

Glossamia aprion 0.26 6.14 3.94 28.26

Craterocephalus stramineus 0.29 21.61

Glossogobius species 2. 1.89 12.46

Neosilurus ater 9.58 5.46

Hephaestus fuliginosus 3.56

Lates calcarifer 3.14

Oxyeleotris selhemi 10.27 1.99

Leiopotherapon unicolor 1.69 1.84

Megalops cyprinoides 1.62

Craterocephalus stercusmuscarum 0.78

Av. Similarity (%) 72.3 72.5 62.1 51.8

Electrofishing Cluster Group (% contribution)

Taxa 1 2 3 4

Macrobrachium bullatum 47.18 40.25 20.1

Mogurnda mogurnda 35.88 27.29 21.96 8.43

Melanotaenia splendida inornata 12.78 11.14 16.58 5.36

Melanotaenia nigrans 4.16 11.61 14.92 5.33

Caridina gracilirostris 16.43

Macrobrachium handschini 0.48 36.53 15.92

Caridina typus 13.22

Glossogobius species 2. 0.41 5.02

Macrobrachium spinipes 2.15

Hephaestus fuliginosus 1.9

Neosilurus ater 0.29 1.67

Glossamia aprion 7.73 1.28

Oxyeleotris selhemi 0.29 0.58

Leiopotherapon unicolor 1.08 0.51

Cherax quadricarinatus 0.4 0.5

Craterocephalus stramineus 0.48

Neosilurus hyrtlii 6.47 1.2 0.47

Caridina cf longirostris 0.29

Ophisternon gutturale 0.19


Hydrobiology

Amniataba percoides 0.18

Ambassis macleayi 0.29 1.08

Av. Similarity (%) 75.3 73.2 68.1 61.0

3.5.3 Fish distributions

Table 3‐7 shows the distribution of taxa across sites for the 2014 and 2015 sampling rounds.

In the EB, taxonomic richness clearly increased with distance downstream from the mine

lease. The only teleost taxa consistently recorded within or upstream of the mine lease were

Mo. mogurnda, Melanotaenia nigrans and Me. splendida (rainbowfish) and A. macleayi. Each

species have wide physiochemical tolerances, and are known to inhabit a range of

environments (Jeffree & Williams 1980, Cheng et al. 2010). In particular, a genetic study of

Melanotaenia sp. (rainbowfish) within the EB of the Finniss River showed that these fish have

adapted to pollution levels that would normally be toxic (see Hortsman, 2002). However,

while this may have been true in the past, this does not appear to be the case now, as

patterns of metal bioaccumulation that are indicative of metal exclusion are not evident (see

Hydrobiology, 2014).

In addition to those taxa described above, a further 14 species were recorded in the EB but

downstream of the mine lease. Most of these are likely to have simply dispersed a short way

into the EB, but some may have migrated further upstream, if not blocked by a reduction in

water quality. For example, the black catfish N. ater and the mouth almighty G. aprion, which

are known to migrate to intermittent streams and pools (refs) were absent in zones 1 and 2 in

2015. For N. ater, this contrasted with 2014, which had a higher‐flow wets season than 2015,

whereupon this species migrated to and spawned in zone 1.


Hydrobiology

Table 3-7 Species of fish recorded at each site in 2014 and 2015. Blue shading highlights diadromous species. Highlighted cells (yellow, EB and green, Finniss River) highlight differences between years.


Hydrobiology

3.5.4 Fyke and Electrofishing abundance and richness

3.5.4.1 Fyke samples

Total abundance and taxonomic richness are displayed in Figure 3‐12 and Figure 3‐13.

Abundances: A two‐way ANOVA revealed significant differences in fish abundances across

sites (p = <0.01), but not years; nor were there any dependencies (interactions) between

factors. Taxonomic richness: Taxonomic richness did not vary significantly across sites or

years (p = >0.05). Therefore, the 2014 and 2015 data from each site were pooled to increase the

sample size and statistical power in a simple one‐factor analysis, testing for differences

among and between sites. In doing so it was found that abundances were still significantly

different across sites (p = <0.01), but not so for taxonomic richness (P = 0.29). Abundances

were generally higher in the EB relative to the Finniss River and pair‐wise comparisons

revealed significantly higher values upstream at the control site EB@LB relative to all other

sites (p < 0.01).

3.5.4.2 Electrofishing samples

Abundances: A one‐way ANOVA revealed significant differences in abundance among sites

(with values pooled across years) (P = 0.01). In contrast to Fyke samples, upstream control

sites on the EB recorded relatively low values, but the lowest values recorded were within

the mine lease at EB@GS200. Pairwise comparisons revealed FC@LB (zone 1) and EB@GS200

(zone 2) to have significantly lower values than FRusFC and FR@GS204 in zone 6 (P < 0.05),

but values were relatively similar elsewhere. Taxonomic richness: Significant differences

among sites were also detected for taxonomic richness (Krustal‐Wallace, P = 0.04); but none

of the pairwise comparisons were shown to be significantly different. However, visual

inspection of the plots showed marginally higher values across the Finniss River relative to

the EB; and with values in the EB steadily increasing downstream. Clearly these two

methods and datasets indicate different patterns in fish abundance.


Hydrobiology

To

tal a

bun

da

nce

(S

E)

0

50

100

150

200

Site

EB

@LB

FC

@LB

EB

@G

S20

0

EB

@G

S32

7

EB

dsR

B

EB

@G

S09

7

EB

usH

S

EB

dsH

S

EB

usF

R

FR

usM

B

FR

dsM

B

FR

@G

S20

4

FR

3

FR

usF

C

Ta

xono

mic

ric

hne

ss

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Figure 3-12 Fyke samples: Total abundance (upper panel) and taxonomic richness (lower panel) across sites and years. Hatched bars represent 2014 data and empty bars 2015 data. Line plot represents Sep 2015 data. Cyan = upstream control sites and red = downstream sites


Hydrobiology

To

tal a

bun

da

nce

(S

E)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Site

EB

@LB

FC

@LB

EB

@G

S20

0

EB

@G

S32

7

EB

DS

RB

EB

@G

S09

7

EB

usH

S

EB

dsH

S

EB

usF

R

FR

US

MB

FR

DS

MB

FR

@G

S20

4

FR

3

FR

US

FC

FR

DS

FC

Ta

xono

mic

ric

hne

ss (

SE

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Figure 3-13 Electrofishing: Total abundance (upper panel) and taxonomic richness (lower panel) across sites. See Figure 3-12 for a description of symbols.


Hydrobiology

3.5.5 Comparison between May/June and September sampling in the East Branch

Figure 3‐12 and Figure 3‐13 display the total abundance and taxonomic richness of fish

collected in September for Fyke nets and electrofishing (plotted against May/June samples).

Figure 3‐14 displays the cluster analysis of community composition for the same datasets.

September sampling occurred at the end of a particularly severe dry season. As a result, the

EB was fragmented throughout. Indeed both sites in zone 1 (EB@LB and FC@LB) and one site

in zone 2 (EB@G_Dys) were completely dry, and only small contracted and isolated pools

were sampled across all remaining sites. Interestingly, water volume did not increase

downstream, with EBdsRB and EBusHS (in zone 3) representing large pools relative to other

sites (even in zone 4). Unsurprisingly total fish abundance and species richness were highest

at the sites with the largest water bodies for both sampling methods. An assessment of the

fish communities revealed large seasonal changes across all sites (for each method), but for

the exception of EBdsRB Fyke samples (which retained >70% of the June community) (Figure

2‐13).


Hydrobiology

Figure 3-14 Cluster analysis of Fyke samples (upper panel) and electrofishing samples (lower panel) September samples with corresponding May/June samples.


Hydrobiology

3.5.6 Summary (Fish Communities 2014-2015)

Contrasting patterns of total abundance and richness between Fyke nets and electrofishing

methods was observed. The Fyke net data showed abundances to be generally higher in the

East Branch relative to the Finniss River, and the upstream control site EB@LB contained

significantly higher abundances than all other sites. However, this was not reflected in

species richness, as values across sites were reasonably similar (and not significantly

different). Electrofishing, however, revealed a highly contrasting dataset. Abundances were

particularly low upstream of the EB (zone 1) and within the mine lease (zone2), with

consistently higher values across all other sites; whereas richness values were more

consistent across EB sites (~7), but generally lower than the Finniss River (~10).

Analysis of the community composition identified a far greater similarity between datasets.

Results from both methods revealed the EB and Finniss River to be composed of distinctively

different communities; but neither resulted in a clear distinction between up and

downstream sites within each branch (e.g. EB or Finniss River).


Hydrobiology

3.6 Tissue metals

3.6.1 Spatial comparisons

The concentrations of metals in each tissue type were examined for spatial (between zone

and site) differences, either for increased bioaccumulation at sites near the mine or for

suppressed bioaccumulation at downstream sites as noted by Jeffree et al. (2014). Table 3‐8

describes which species/tissues were sampled at which site and the number of samples

collected. Table 3-8 Tissue-metal sampling design. Numbers represent replicates of each species at each site

Macrobrachium

bullatum Melanotaenia

nigrans Mogurnda mogurnda

Nematalosa erebi

Neosilurus hyrtlii

Cephalothorax Whole body Hind body Flesh Flesh FRusMB 2 1 1 5 4 FRdsMB 4 1 5 5 EB@LB 2 1 4 FC@LB 5 4 5 EB@GS200 3 5 EB@GS327 5 3 5 5 EB@RB 5 5 5 2 EB@GS097 4 5 3 EBusHS 5 5 5 5 EBdsHS 5 5 5 2 EBusFR 5 5 5 5 FR@GS204 5 3 2 5 FR3 5 5 FRusFC 5 5 5 5 FRdsFC 5 5 2

Table 3‐9 and Figure 3‐15/16 describe metals, sites and species where significant differences

were detected between downstream sites with upstream control sites. Figure For M.

bullatum, the only metals which showed significantly elevated concentrations at downstream

sites relative to background control sites, where lead and manganese (zone 4 sites) and nickel

(zones 2‐4). Both M. nigrans and M. mogurnda showed significantly higher concentrations of

cobalt at zone 2 sites; while M. mogurnda also showed significantly higher concentrations of

lead in zone 4.


Hydrobiology

Table 3-9 Summary of significant differences in tissue metal concentrations between downstream sites with each upstream control site.

M. bullatum

Lead Site Length*Site EB@LB FC@LB FrusMB Overall test P < 0.001 Not sig. EBdsHS

Manganese Site Length*Site EB@LB FC@LB FrusMB Overall test P < 0.001 Not sig. EBusFR

Nickel Site Length*Site EB@LB FC@LB FrusMB Overall test P < 0.001 Not sig. EB@GS327

EBdsRB

EBdsHS

FRusFC

M. nigrans Cobalt Site Length*Site EB@LB FC@LB FrusMB Overall test P = 0.001 Not sig. EB@GS200 EB@GS327 EBdsRB

EBusHS

M. mogurnda Cobalt Site Length*Site EB@LB FC@LB FrusMB Overall test P > 0.001 P > 0.001 EB@GS200 Lead Site Length*Site EB@LB FC@LB FrusMB Overall test P > 0.001 Not sig. EBdsHS


Hydrobiology

Figure 3-15 Concentrations of selected metals in M. bullatum by site

Lead

(m

g/kg

)

0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0

Man

gane

se (

mg/

kg)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Site

EB

@LB

FC

@LB

EB

@G

S20

0

EB

@G

S32

7

EB

dsR

B

EB

@G

S09

7

EB

usH

S

EB

dsH

S

EB

usF

R

FR

usM

B

FR

dsM

B

FR

@G

S20

4

FR

3

FR

usF

C

FR

dsF

C

Nic

kel (

mg/

kg)

0

1

2

3

4

5

M. bullatum

M. bullatum

M. bullatum

20152014


Hydrobiology

Co

ba

lt (m

g/kg

)

0

2

4

6

8

10M. nigrans

Co

balt

(mg/

kg)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Site

EB

@LB

FC

@LB

EB

@G

S20

0

EB

@G

S32

7

EB

dsR

B

EB

@G

S09

7

EB

usH

S

EB

dsH

S

EB

usF

R

FR

usM

B

FR

dsM

B

FR

@G

S20

4

FR

3

FR

usF

C

Le

ad (

mg/

kg)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

M. nigrans

M. mogurnda

20152014

Figure 3-16 Concentrations of selected metals in the tissue of M. nigrans(upper panels) and M. mogurnda (lower panel)


Hydrobiology

3.6.2 Summary (Tissue metals)

For cobalt, lead, manganese, nickel and zinc there were differences through sites consistent

with a source of increased bioavailability within the East Branch, but concentrations of

cobalt, lead and manganese were often higher at sites some way downstream of the mine

lease in the upper reaches of zone 3, close to where water discharges from the Brown’s Oxide

mining operation which is currently in care and maintenance. Compared to the 2014 dataset,

concentrations in 2015 were generally lower. Contaminant processes are dominated by

climatic regime and flow rates (Jeffree et al. 2001), and it is likely that the heavier rains and

higher flow rates experienced in 2014 resulted in a greater level of contaminant transport to

the East Branch.

3.7 Radionuclides in Fish, Mussel and Prawn Tissues

In 2015, it was decided to focus the effort devoted to examining radionuclide bioavailability

to the East Branch, given the indications of no mine influence on samples from the main

Finniss River in 2014. However, the lack of mussels or large bodied fishes in the East Branch,

meant that another approach would be needed than the more traditional collection of large

tissue samples for radiation emission counts. The lack of large‐bodied fishes and mussels

was confirmed for the East Branch in the 2015 sampling.

Therefore, it was decided to trial the auto‐radiography technique that had been developed

by Cresswell et al. (2015). This technique has been shown to trace the location of and relative

accumulation of tracer radioisotopes for laboratory metal bioaccumulation studies in the

freshwater prawn Macrobrachium australiense. As the related Macrobrachium bullatum is a

common constituent of East Branch aquatic assemblages, and mussels in the catchment were

known to accumulate substantial quantities of 210Po and 228Ra, it was considered possible that

M. bullatum would bioaccumulate sufficient radionuclides at East branch sites for the

autoradiography technique to work. If it did, while not providing numeric activity‐

concentration data it would provide pictorial evidence of relative bioaccumulation. Such

visual data would also be potentially useful in discussion of radionuclide bioaccumulation

by aquatic organisms in the catchment with stakeholders, particularly Traditional Owner

groups.

To that end, up to five specimens of M. bullatum were collected from each site in the main

Finniss River and East Branch. The specimens were euthanised by putting on dry ice, and

then immersed in Cryomatrix resin (Thermofisher) and frozen by placing on dry ice. The

collected specimens were shipped on dry ice to Dr Tom Cresswell at ANSTO for further

analysis. Once received the specimens were stored in a ‐80°C freezer until analysed.

Specimens from the sites most likely to have the highest natural bioavailability of

radionuclides (FC@LB, EB@LB, EB@GS200, EB@GS327) were then frozen sectioned at 20 μm

in the Cryomatrix using a cryomicrotome (Cryostat Leica CM3050 S, Leica Biosystems) and

then thaw mounted onto gelatin‐coated glass slides. The slides were immediately

dehydrated on a slide warmer at 37°C for 15 min and then covered with a thin mylar film


Hydrobiology

and exposed to a phosphor plate (BASSR 2040) in the dark at room temperature for three

weeks, and the resulting exposed plate imaged in a GE Typhoon FLA 7000 reader.

Although this method has been proven to work to image the location and relative amount of

bioaccumulated radioisotopes in laboratory tracer studies at realistic total metal

concentrations, the plates produced from the East Branch specimens failed to register any

visible evidence of radioactivity. Unfortunately, since this technique did not work at the

levels of radioactivity in field collected prawns, and in the absence of large bodies fishes or

mussels in the East Branch that can be used for more traditional measurements of

radionuclide activity concentrations, we have been unable to determine the patterns of

exposure to bioavailable radionuclides at sites in the East Branch in zones 2, 3 or 4.


Hydrobiology

4 DISCUSSION This second stage of the first investigation in 20 years of the ecological status of the Finniss

River and its East Branch had the following broad range of objectives:

i) To give an intensive ‘snapshot’ indication of the aquatic ecosystem diversity and

abundances based predominantly on samples of fishes obtained from gill‐ netting

and other supplementary methods, for comparison with those results from

replicated sampling programs undertaken in the 90’s, when their recovery in the

Finniss River proper was such that no impacts due to the presence of

contaminants could be statistically discerned (Jeffree and Twining 2000; Jeffree et

al, 2001), compared with unexposed regions;

ii) To initiate the definition of a benchmark of contemporary detriment to freshwater

biotas so that any future changes may be discerned as a consequence of further

remedial activities at Rum Jungle, as well as their temporal sequence;

iii) To expand the range of biotic measures that could be used system‐wide in order

to determine environmental quality, including the use of measures of

macroinvertebrate and benthic diatom diversity, abundance and assemblage

composition;

iv) Use sampling methodologies for fishes and larger macroinvertebrates that could

permit modifications to those used historically in order to minimise adverse

impacts on target and non‐target biota, and reduce sampling effort but still retain

scientific validity and comparability with historic datasets;

v) Discern any improvements in environmental quality compared with the 90s;

particularly for the East Branch where there was still obvious detriment to fishes

and macroinvertebrates at that time;

vi) Expand the geographical scale of the assessment for the first time to include

evaluation of effluents from the Mount Burton mine site;

vii) Provide the first data for the development of a subsequent cost‐effective

monitoring program;

viii) Provide further refinement in the status of the aquatic biota based on

contemporary developments in their taxonomic resolution; and

ix) Provide a dataset that could be used to refine the water quality objectives

developed for the mine site rehabilitation plan based on comparison of aquatic

ecosystem status and measured water and sediment quality.

With regard to fishes the combined results from 2014 and 2015 indicated that in the main

Finniss River there was no clear impact on fish diversity and abundances due to their

continuing exposures to effluents from Rum Jungle or Mount Burton mine. These results

were thus comparable to those obtained from replicated sampling campaigns in the 90s

that had shown recovery of sites downstream of the East Branch to levels that showed no

significant differences from unexposed sites (Jeffree and Twining 2000; Jeffree et al. ,

2001). Such a result would be expected if there was no appreciable increases since the 90s

in the contaminant loads being delivered to the main Finniss. This consistency in their


Hydrobiology

recovery may also be attributed in part to the adaptation of the fish biota, based on recent

findings for 90s data (Jeffree et al., 2014), although those findings were not overtly

supported here.

In the context of the establishment of a contemporary benchmark against which to assess

the environmental benefits of further remediation at Rum Jungle for the Finniss River the

East Branch is where such improvements will be most clearly observed, as recovery in

fish diversity in the main Finniss is not discernibly different from unexposed sites,

according to this current assessment.

Given that the biological status of the intermittent East Branch will be a function of both

the contaminant loads from Rum Jungle as well as water flows, both factors need to be

taken into account when developing a monitoring program with the validity to

demonstrate ecological improvements that can be attributed to further mine site

remediation.

With respect to the adoption of new sampling methods, Fyke netting in combination

with electrofishing are indicated to be adequate to evaluate biodiversity, but with greatly

reduced mortalities of target organisms as well as Freshwater Crocodiles.

For the tissue metal results, cobalt, lead, manganese, nickel and zinc showed differences

through sites consistent with a source of increased bioavailability within the East Branch,

but concentrations of cobalt, lead and manganese were often higher at sites some way

downstream of the mine lease in the upper reaches of zone 3, close to where water

discharges from the moth‐balled Brown’s Oxide mining operation. Compared to the 2014

dataset, concentrations in 2015 were generally lower. Contaminant processes are

dominated by climatic regime and flow rates (Jeffree et al. 2001), and it is likely that the

heavier rains and higher flow rates experienced in 2014 resulted in a greater level of

contaminant transport to the East Branch, resulting in higher tissue concentrations.


Hydrobiology

5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Hydrobiology would like to thank Cyrus Edwards and the EMU team members including

Amanda Schaarschmidt, Grant Robinson for their invaluable assistance with the field work,

particularly when the burden of increased frequency of net checks through the night became

apparent. Overall support was provided by the DME Rum Jungle Project team, particularly

Mitchell Rider and Tania Laurencont.


Hydrobiology

6 REFERENCES ANZECC/ARMCANZ (Australia and New Zealand Environment and Conservation

Council)/(Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand)

(2000a). Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality.

(Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand: Canberra).

Cantonati M, Angeli N, Virtanen L, Wojtal AZ, Gabrieli J, Falasco E, Lavoie I, Morin S,

Marchetto A, Fortin C, Smirnova S (2014) Achnanthidium minutissimum (Bacillariophyta)

valve deformities as indicators of metal enrichment in diverse widely‐distributed freshwater

habitats. Sci Total Environ 475:201–15

Cheng K, Hogan A, Parry D (2010) Uranium toxicity and speciation during chronic exposure

to the tropical freshwater fish, Mogurnda mogurnda. Chemosphere 41:1912‐1923

Edwards, C. A. (2002). Effects of Acid Rock Drainage from the Remediated Rum Jungle Mine

on the Macroinvertebrate Community Composition in the East Finniss River, Northern

Territory. MSc thesis, University of Technology, Sydney, pp. 208.

Ferris J.M., Vyverman W, Gell P and Brown P L (2002). Diatoms as Biomonitors in two

Temporary Streams Affected by Acid Drainage from Disused Mines, in Proceedings of the

Finniss River Symposium, August 23‐24, 2001, Darwin, eds. S. J. Markich and R. A Jeffree,

ANSTO E/748, pp. 26‐31.

Food Standards Australia New Zealand (2013) Standard 1.4.4 Contaminants and Natural

Toxicants. (http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/foodstandards/foodstandardscode.cfm).

Gale S. A., Smith S. V., Lim R. P., Jeffree R. A., and Petocz P. (2003). Insights into the

Mechanisms of Copper Tolerance of a Population of Black‐banded Rainbowfish

(Melanotaenia nigrans) (Richardson) Exposed to Mine Leachate, using 64/67Cu. Aquatic

Toxicology, 62 (2), 135 – 153.

Hydrobiology (2006) Fly River Herring Copper Toxicity Testing. Hydrobiology, Brisbane.

Hydrobiology (2013a). Environmental Values Downstream of the Former Rum Jungle

Minesite – Phase 1. Hydrobiology, Brisbane.

Hydrobiology (2014). Rum Jungle Aquatic Ecosystem Survey (May‐June 2014).

Hydrobiology, Brisbane.

Hydrobiology (2013b). Environmental Values Downstream of the Former Rum Jungle Mine

site – Phase 2. Hydrobiology, Brisbane.

Hortsman, Mark (2002). Rainbowfish pass the toxic test. ABC Science online:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2002/10/08/692610.htm?site=science/Askanexpert&top

ic=latestJeffree R.A. and Twining J.R. (2000). Contaminant water chemistry and distribution


Hydrobiology

of fishes in the East Branch, Finniss River, following remediation of the Rum Jungle

uranium/copper mine site. Proceedings of Contaminated Site Remediation: From Source

Zones to Ecosystems, Proc. 2000 CSRC, Melbourne, Vic., Dec 2000.

Jeffree R. A., Twining J.R. and Thomson, J. (2001). Recovery of fish communities in the

Finniss River, Northern Australia, following remediation of the Rum Jungle uranium/copper

mine site. Environ. Sci. Technol. 35(14):2932‐2941

Jeffree R.A., Markich, S.J. and Twining, J.R. (2014). Diminishing metal accumulation in

riverine fishes exposed to acid mine drainage over five decades. PLoS ONE 9(3):e91371.

Doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0091371.

Markich S. J., Jeffree R. A. and Burke, P. J. (2002). Freshwater bivalve shells as archival

indicators of metal pollution from a copper‐uranium mine in tropical northern Australia.

Environ. Sci. Technol., 36, 821‐832

Orr, T.M. and Milward, N.E. (1984). Reproduction and development of Neosiluris ater

(Perugia) and Neosiluris hyrtlii Steindachner (Teleostei: Plotosidae) in a tropical Queensland

stream. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 35:187‐195.

Silva‐Benavides A (1996) The use of water chemistry and benthic diatom communities for

qualification of a polluted tropical river in Costa Rica. Rev Biol Trop

Western Australia Department of Water (2009). Inception Report Volume 2: Methods.

Framework for the Assessment of River and Wetland Health (FARWH) in the south‐west of

Western Australia. WADoW, Perth.

52

APPENDIX 1 2014 & 2015 DIATOMS

53

Achnanthidium minutissimum 10 22 14 174 226 72 58 68 52 16 117 26 4 48 32 26 68 8 12 38 16 170 52 46 24 22 102 94 318 326 76 112 186 205 62 84 32 12 12 24 34 6 22 172 108Achnanthidium sp. 12 4 18 15Amphora libyca 2 4Aulacoseira granulata 6Brachysira brachysira 34 136 16 22 4Brachysira vitrea 2Cocconeis placentula 2 4Craticula cuspidata 8Craticula halophila 6 54Craticula halophiloides 18 4 10 2Cyclotella atomus 2 2Cyclotella meneghiniana 4 2 4Cymbella cistula 2 2Cymbella delicatula 2 2Cymbella helvetica 2 2 2Diatoma tenuis 2 2Diploneis ovalis 2 2 2 2Diploneis parma 10 2 2 2 4Encyonema gracilis 4 2Encyonema minuta 8 2 2Encyonema silesiacum 2 8 8 8 64 18 22 12 2 12Encyonopsis cesatii 4 24 2 4Eolimna minima 2 2Epithemia adnata 4Eunotia arcus 2 2Eunotia b ilunaris 2 10 16Eunotia b ilunaris v. mucophila 2 2 28 30 2 2Eunotia fallax 2 4 2Eunotia formica 8 2Eunotia implicata 2 2 2Eunotia incisa 2 2 2 2 2 8Eunotia minor 2 2 2Eunotia naeglii 2 4Eunotia paludosa 4 2 2Eunotia serpentina 2 2 2Fallacia tenera 52 72 36 4 8 8Fragilaria capucina var capucina 16 12 8 12 4 16 28 42Fragilaria capucina var gracilis 2 4 8Fragilaria capucina var rumpens 8 2 2 4 4 2 4 4Fragilaria capucina var vaucheriae 2Fragilaria parasitica 2Fragilaria tenera 82 12 68 20 4 12 4 2Fragilariforma virescens 4 2 2Geissleria decussis 2 2 2 2Geissleria schoenfeldii 2Gomphonema acuminatum 2 2Gomphonema affine 10 2Gomphonema angustum 18 24 24 4Gomphonema angustum var "subminutum" 2 4 2Gomphonema clavatum 2 2 2 2 2 2Gomphonema gracile 4 4 4Gomphonema minutum 2 2 2 2Gomphonema parvulum 44 4 14 16 16 14 16 44 8 12 4 2 8 4 8 8Gomphonema pseudoaugar 2 2 2Gyrosigma parkerii 14Hantzschia amphioxys 2Haslea spicula 2 2 2 2Karayevia clevei 2 2 2 2 2Karayevia laterostrata 2 4 2 2 2Kolbesia kolbei 4 2 2 2Luticola mutica 4 2 4 2 2Navicula bryophila 2 28 12 72 8 12Navicula capitatoradiata 2 4 2Navicula cari 2 4 2 2 2 2Navicula cincta 4 2Navicula cryptocephala 6 2 2 4 12Navicula cryptotenella 8 2 2 8 58 48 8 18 8 40 84 18 22 12Navicula duerrenbergiana 2Navicula expecta 2Navicula goeppertiana 2 4 4Navicula gottlandica 2 2 2Navicula gregaria 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 4Navicula jaagii 2 2 8 8 4Navicula lanceolata 2 4 4 2 2 2 12 16 18 54 16Navicula leptostriata 2 4 2 4 2 26Navicula libonensis 2 2 2 2Navicula mediocris 12 2 4 24 2Navicula menisculoides 4 2 2 10 12 58 6 6Navicula menisculus 2 14 8 30 92 128 54 4 22 14 10 4 8 10 2 4 42 84 42 52 48 8 72 54 36 8 8Navicula phyllepta 4 2 8 2 4 2 12 42 34 42 8 4 6 2Navicula radiosa 12 32 10 8 12 26 12 8 22 4 4 16 22Navicula radiosafallax 2 2 2 4Navicula recens 4 4 2 2Navicula rhynchocephala 4 2Navicula schroeterii 2 2 30 16 4 18 10 20 26 18 20 28 54 8 10Navicula sp (small) 4 42 76Navicula spp 2 2 18 12 36 6Navicula submuralis 4 2 4 6 8 2 8 6Navicula subrhynocephala 6 4 18Navicula suchlandtii 2 2 2 8Navicula veneta 2 2 12 54 12 32 36 8 6 8 12 20 4 2 118 18 20 42 80 48 16 96 26Navicula viridula 4 36 36 34 10 2 8Navicula viridula v. germanii 2Navicula viridula v. rostella 2 2Neidium affine 4 2Nitzschia acicularis 8 6Nitzschia agnita 2 12 4Nitzschia amphib ia 2 2 2 2Nitzschia braunii 2 2Nitzschia capitellata 2 2 2 2 2Nitzschia desertorum 4 2 2 2 2Nitzschia diversa 2 2 2Nitzschia elegantula 26 2Nitzschia filiformis 4 2 12 152 12 16 12 32 56 8 2 24 2Nitzschia flexa 2 2 4 8Nitzschia fonticola 16 24 2 18 22 8 4 12 14 12 2 2 12 12 22Nitzschia frustulum 4 4 2 8 8 4 2 2 8 12 16 8 4Nitzschia frustulum var. bulnhemiana 2Nitzschia gessneri 2 2Nitzschia gracilis 8 12 20 2 54 34 10 8 56 12 42 22 2 2 4 12 12 8 10 2 42 4Nitzschia inconspicua 4 2 4 2 2 8 2Nitzschia intermedia 4 2Nitzschia lacuum 4 12 2 2 4Nitzschia linearis 4 4 44 30 58 4 52 12 16 24 16 92 14 12 2Nitzschia lorenziana 2 2 2Nitzschia microcephala 2 2 8Nitzschia nana 2 2 8Nitzschia palea 8 16 12 14 12 38 8 22 28 42 30 94 44 38 52 146 74 18 36 18 8 8 4 2 4 40 26 8 12 4 48 12 28 14 142 156 86 172 204 4 14 12 4 4Nitzschia paleaceae 52 12 4 4 28 26 12 42 12 30 32 8 10 20 4 8 30 10 8 30 30 20 4 48 24 44 46 42 30 36 28 18 6 6Nitzschia pumilla 2 2 8 44 48 36 4 16 22 72 22 28Nitzschia pura 4 4 4 2 2Nitzschia reversa 4 2 4 2Nitzschia sigma 64 26 6 4 12 8 8 4 2Nitzschia sociab ilis 4 2 4 4 2 2Nitzschia sp 18Nitzschia suchlandii 6 2 2 2 12 2Nitzschia supralitorea 8 2 4Nitzschia umbonata 2Nitzschia valdecostata 2 2Nitzschia valdestriata 2 2Nitzschia vermicularis 2 2 2Opephora olsenii 2 2Pinnularia aff. Subrostrata 58 4 4 4 18 12 6 18 4Pinnularia borealis 4 2 4 2 4 2 4Pinnularia braunii 2 2 2 2 6Pinnularia gibba 2 4 6Pinnularia intermedia 2 2 4 2 4 2 2Pinnularia interrupta 2 2 4 4 4Pinnularia legumen 2 6 4Pinnularia microstauron 2 4 2 2 2Pinnularia obtusa 2 2Pinnularia similis 2 6 2Pinnularia viridula 2 2Placoneis clementis 2Placoneis elginensis 2 2Planothidium frequentissimum 2 2Planothidium lanceolatum 2 2 44 4 8Psammothidium saccula 2 2 2Pseudostaurosira brevistriata 2 2 2 2 2Rhoicosphenia abbreviata 2 2 2 2Rhopalodia brebissonii 2 2Rhopalodia constricta 2 2Rhopalodia musculus 2 150 202 154 172 172 180 96 178 224 154 88 26 134 118 84 16 110 58 6 12 32 32 6Sellaphora pupula 26 4 64 58 2 16 14 8 26 8 12 16 16 8 8 4Sellaphora seminulum 10 38 8 12 2Stauroneis anceps 2Stauroneis nob ilis 12Staurosira construens forma venter 2Stenopterob ia curvula 12 2 2 2 8 8 12 22 4 12 8 8Surirella angusta 2 2 10Surirella brebissonii 6 4 6Surirella elegans 2 2 4 2Surirella minuta 2 4 2Surirella ovalis 2 4Surirella subsalsa 8 4 12Synedra ulna 8 8 10 46 68 4 22 30 18 8 8 16

FRdsFC

2015 2014East Branch Finniss East Branch Finniss

EBusFR FRusMB FRdsMB FR@GS204 FR3 FRusFCEB@G_Dys EB@GS200 EB@GS327 EBdsRB EBusHS EBdsHSFR@GS204 FR3 FRusFC FRdsFC FC@LB EB@LBFRdsMBFC@LB EB@LB EB@G-Dys EB@GS200 EB@GS327 EBdsRB EB@GS097 EBusHS EBdsHS EBusFR FRusMB

54

APPENDIX 2 2014 & 2015 MACROINVERTEBRATES

55

FC

@ L

B

FC

@ L

B

FC

@ L

B

EB

@ L

B

EB

@ L

B

EB

@ L

B

EB

@ G

S2

00

EB

@ G

S2

00

EB

@ G

S2

00

EB

@ G

S3

27

EB

@ G

S3

27

EB

@ G

S3

27

EB

d/s

RB

EB

d/s

RB

EB

d/s

RB

EB

@ G

S0

97

EB

@ G

S0

97

EB

@ G

S0

97

EB

u/s

HS

(E

B3

)

EB

u/s

HS

(E

B3

)

EB

u/s

HS

(E

B3

)

EB

d/s

HS

(E

B2

)

EB

d/s

HS

(E

B2

)

EB

d/s

HS

(E

B2

)

EB

u/s

FR

(E

B1

)

EB

u/s

FR

(E

B1

)

EB

u/s

FR

(E

B1

)

FR

u/s

MB

FR

u/s

MB

FR

u/s

MB

FR

d/s

MB

FR

d/s

MB

FR

d/s

MB

FR

@ G

S2

04

FR

@ G

S2

04

FR

@ G

S2

04

FR

3

FR

3

FR

3

FR

2

FR

2

FR

2

FR

1

FR

1

FR

1

FR

0

FR

0

FR

0

FC

@L

B

FC

@L

B

FC

@L

B

EB

@L

B

EB

@L

B

EB

@L

B

EB

@G

S2

00

EB

@G

S2

00

EB

@G

S2

00

EB

@G

S3

27

EB

@G

S3

27

EB

@G

S3

27

EB

dsR

B

EB

dsR

B

EB

dsR

B

EB

@G

S0

97

EB

@G

S0

97

EB

@G

S0

97

EB

usH

S

EB

usH

S

EB

usH

S

EB

dsH

S

EB

dsH

S

EB

dsH

S

EB

usF

R

EB

usF

R

EB

usF

R

FR

usM

B

FR

usM

B

FR

usM

B

FR

dsM

B

FR

dsM

B

FR

dsM

B

FR

@G

S2

04

FR

@G

S2

04

FR

@G

S2

04

FR

3

FR

3

FR

3

FR

2

FR

2

FR

2

FR

1

FR

1

FR

1

Phylum Class/Order Family 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 3 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 3 1 2 1 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3ARTHROPODA ARACHNIDA ACARINA 1 5 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 7 1MOLLUSCA GASTROPODA Ancylidae 1 1 5 1 4 1 2ARTHROPODA ODONATA Anisoptera/Epiproctophora 1 1 1 1 2 1 1ARTHROPODA DECAPODA Atyidae 1ARTHROPODA EPHEMEROPTERA Baetidae 11 11 8 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 6 6 6 7 2 2 3 9 2ARTHROPODA EPHEMEROPTERA Caenidae 85 38 28 1 33 16 1 55 46 65 1 3 1 1 62 20 8 47 208 88 89 41 72 39 5 1 86 68 105 95 84 157 184 104 92 60 62 5 4 27 4 2 4 2 8 15 29 86 34 12 24 7 6 28 95 69 41 6 20 29 51 17 121ARTHROPODA TRICHOPTERA Calamoceratidae 3 1ARTHROPODA DIPTERA Ceratopogonidae 12 8 10 2 6 3 3 1 3 5 5 5 1 1 1 3 1 4 2 1 3 1 3 3 7 43 82 30 35 16 18 16 4 5 4 2 5 6 7 1 5 8 8 8 13 2 3 4 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 8 1 9 2 2 7 16 8 21 7 7 8 12 2 3 4 2ARTHROPODA DIPTERA Chironomidae 6 2 6 2 4 3 8 10 10 1 2 1 1 1 11 4 4 15 2 15 7 4 3 6 3 5 1 9 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 4 2 2 2 2 1 4 1 1 1ARTHROPODA DIPTERA Chironomiinae 129 94 63 55 88 22 1 4 3 2 2 47 47 53 5 13 1 5 2 5 39 48 13 43 25 26 17 13 11 103 21 24 17 118 32 86 37 61 88 12 68 13 86 72 79 95 96 5 19 19 28 30 16 1 1 7 2 3 6 12 1 5 29 49 10 27 24 8 23 22 18 28 38 42 26 16 24 23 22 52 17 5 12 17 18 1 18 51 8ARTHROPODA CLADOCERA CLADOCERA 1 1 2 1 1 4 1 1 1 1ARTHROPODA Zygoptera Coenagrionidae 1ARTHROPODA COPEPODA COPEPODA 1 1 2 4 1 9 8 2 4 4 4 2 7 16 47 8 1 7 17 15 5 14 11 2 1 4 1 12 10 5 16 7 3 2 7ARTHROPODA HEMIPTERA Corixidae 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 5 1 1 3 1 1 3ARTHROPODA LEPIDOPTERA Crambidae 5 1 1ARTHROPODA DIPTERA Culicidae 1 2 1ARTHROPODA COLEOPTERA Dytiscidae 1 1 1 1ARTHROPODA TRICHOPTERA Ecnomidae 2 8 1 2 1 1 1 1 5 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 3 4 3 1 5 3 1 1 4 2 1 4 9 9 1 2 1 1 2 1 3 3 1 3 6 3 1 1 1 7 2 2 3 1 5 8ARTHROPODA COLEOPTERA Elmidae (A) 9 19 8 1 2 82 68 85 3 3 33 9 6 11 9 3 1 3 3 1ARTHROPODA COLEOPTERA Elmidae (L) 1 26 12 35 5 11 14 56 21 36 30 20 37 16 11 17 39 19 38 14 3 1 1 7 6 31 16 2 18 10 2 3ARTHROPODA HEMIPTERA Gerridae 1 1ARTHROPODA ODONATA Gomphidae 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 5 2 1 1 1 2 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 2 1 2 1 1 1 2ARTHROPODA COLEOPTERA Hydraenidae 1 1CNIDARIA HYDROZOA Hydridae 5 9 2ARTHROPODA COLEOPTERA Hydrophilidae (A) 1 1 1ARTHROPODA COLEOPTERA Hydrophilidae (L) 1ARTHROPODA TRICHOPTERA Hydroptilidae (L) 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1ARTHROPODA TRICHOPTERA Hydroptilidae (P) 1MOLLUSCA BIVALVIA Hyriidae 1 1 1ARTHROPODA TRICHOPTERA Leptoceridae 1 1 1 3 5 4 7 1 1 2 1 15 4 5 2 13 9 4 2 2 1 3 47 23 2 4 4 1 1 4 2 2 1 1 1 5 1 2 2 2 5 2 18 1 4 6 4 9 8 4 5ARTHROPODA EPHEMEROPTERA Leptophlebiidae 1 4ARTHROPODA ODONATA Libellulidae 1 4NEMATODA NEMATODA NEMATODA 1 4 2 2 2 4 1 1 3 5 2 2 3 2 3 4 1 6 14 7 1 2 4 11 2 2 1 2 6 1 3 1 1 1 13 1 2 1ARTHROPODA HEMIPTERA Notonectidae 1 1 1 1ANNELIDA OLIGOCHAETA OLIGOCHAETA 14 32 39 21 18 9 1 6 4 1 5 1 1 1 2 1 17 1 12 31 9 28 2 5 1 21 21 6 25 22 29 6 3 2 25 5 2 1 1 6 1 12 2 1 2 13 16 3 3 8 1 6 2 1 12 8 2 6 3 1ARTHROPODA ARACHNIDA ORIBATIDA 1 1 2 1ARTHROPODA DIPTERA Orthocladinae 1 1 2 11 23 42 1 1 1 55 8 3 39 146 36 142 45 82 22 2 1 6 4 7 5 2 1 2 8 4 33 9 2 1 16 6 17 11 3ARTHROPODA OSTRACODA OSTRACODA 2 2 2 2 1 2 20 1 3 6ARTHROPODA DECAPODA Palaemonidae 2 1 1 2 3ARTHROPODA HEMIPTERA Pleidae 1 1ARTHROPODA DIPTERA Simuliidae 1ARTHROPODA COLLEMBOLLA Symphypleona 1 5ARTHROPODA DIPTERA Tabanidae 2 1 1ARTHROPODA DIPTERA Tanypodinae 15 17 13 9 7 13 1 4 2 1 14 7 30 2 2 1 5 5 4 5 1 4 3 8 3 1 4 1 15 3 1 5 28 20 25 13 22 5 2 3 9 4 14 45 27 17 56 35 75 61 41 7 4 5 6 2 3 9 10 8 8 16 10 9 17 10 11 6 2 8 56 29 6 11 13 9 16 2 23 6 8 24 15 11 2 8 31 2ARTHROPODA DIPTERA Tipulidae 1 2 6 4 2 3 3 1 1 8 12 1 7 3 2 1 1 5 9 7 5 1 5 1 4 4 1 1 1PLATYHELMINTHES TURBELLARIA TURBELLARIA 1MOLLUSCA GASTROPODA Viviparidae 2

2014 2015

56

APPENDIX 3 2014 TISSUE METALS

57

Species Tissue TypeLength (mm)

Weight (g)

Dissected Length (mm)

Dissected Weight

(g)Sample

No. ReplicateDate

sampled

Aluminium

(mg/kg)Arsenic (mg/kg)

Cadmium (mg/kg)

Cobalt (mg/kg)

Copper (mg/kg)

Lead (mg/kg)

Manganese

(mg/kg)Nickel

(mg/kg)Thorium (mg/kg)

Uranium (mg/kg)

Zinc (mg/kg)

Nematalosa erebi Flesh 231.0 219.6 1 0 2/06/2014 <1.5 0.11 <0.02 <0.1 0.14 <0.1 4 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 2.8Nematalosa erebi Flesh 231.0 219.6 1 1 2/06/2014 <1.5 0.14 <0.02 <0.1 0.14 <0.1 4 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 2.8Nematalosa erebi Flesh 242.0 243.1 2 0 2/06/2014 <1.5 0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.14 <0.1 4.4 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 2.8Nematalosa erebi Flesh 255.0 292.2 3 0 2/06/2014 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.17 <0.1 1.4 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 2.9Nematalosa erebi Flesh 235.0 209.2 4 0 2/06/2014 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.19 <0.1 3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 2.9Nematalosa erebi Flesh 252.0 268.6 5 0 2/06/2014 <1.5 0.11 <0.02 <0.1 0.19 <0.1 17 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 4.8Nematalosa erebi Flesh 270.0 359.0 6 0 1/06/2014 <1.5 0.14 <0.02 <0.1 0.17 <0.1 3.6 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 3.6Nematalosa erebi Flesh 254.0 290.0 7 0 1/06/2014 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.19 <0.1 1.9 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 2.6Nematalosa erebi Flesh 260.0 334.0 8 0 1/06/2014 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.19 <0.1 2.8 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 3.5Nematalosa erebi Flesh 283.0 354.0 9 0 1/06/2014 <1.5 0.12 <0.02 <0.1 0.24 <0.1 2.6 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 2.8Nematalosa erebi Flesh 262.0 284.0 10 0 1/06/2014 <1.5 0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.13 <0.1 5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 3.2Nematalosa erebi Flesh 252.0 241.0 11 0 3/06/2014 <1.5 0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.17 <0.1 8.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 3.4Nematalosa erebi Flesh 252.0 241.0 11 1 3/06/2014 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.17 <0.1 8.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 3.5Nematalosa erebi Flesh 255.0 330.0 12 0 3/06/2014 <1.5 0.12 <0.02 <0.1 0.21 <0.1 5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 3.3Nematalosa erebi Flesh 252.0 312.0 13 0 3/06/2014 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.21 <0.1 6.9 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 3.3Nematalosa erebi Flesh 243.0 288.0 14 0 3/06/2014 <1.5 0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.15 <0.1 2.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 3.5Nematalosa erebi Flesh 265.0 318.0 15 0 3/06/2014 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.13 <0.1 4.9 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 3.1Nematalosa erebi Flesh 289.0 482.0 16 0 1/06/2014 <1.5 0.15 <0.02 <0.1 0.19 <0.1 1.8 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 3.5Nematalosa erebi Flesh 275.0 376.0 17 0 1/06/2014 <1.5 0.11 <0.02 <0.1 0.14 <0.1 3.6 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 3.4Nematalosa erebi Flesh 206.0 170.0 18 0 1/06/2014 <1.5 0.12 <0.02 <0.1 0.18 <0.1 1.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 3Nematalosa erebi Flesh 281.0 372.0 19 0 1/06/2014 <1.5 0.15 <0.02 <0.1 0.16 <0.1 3.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 4.2Nematalosa erebi Flesh 253.0 276.0 20 0 1/06/2014 <1.5 0.11 <0.02 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 2.6 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 3.2Nematalosa erebi Flesh 330.0 268.0 21 0 20/05/2014 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.15 <0.1 1.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 2.9Nematalosa erebi Flesh 330.0 268.0 21 1 20/05/2014 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.16 <0.1 1.6 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 3Nematalosa erebi Flesh 294.0 270.0 22 0 20/05/2014 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.15 <0.1 3.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 3.5Nematalosa erebi Flesh 172.0 221.0 23 0 20/05/2014 <1.5 0.13 <0.02 <0.1 0.21 <0.1 2.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 2.8Nematalosa erebi Flesh 274.0 256.0 24 0 20/05/2014 <1.5 0.14 <0.02 <0.1 0.23 <0.1 0.75 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 2.5Nematalosa erebi Flesh 300.0 266.0 25 0 20/05/2014 <1.5 0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.25 <0.1 2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 3.2Nematalosa erebi Flesh 210.0 162.0 26 0 22/05/2014 <1.5 0.14 <0.02 <0.1 0.17 <0.1 0.55 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 2.7Nematalosa erebi Flesh 191.0 136.0 27 0 22/05/2014 1.5 0.16 <0.02 <0.1 0.26 <0.1 1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 3.1Nematalosa erebi Flesh 179.0 98.0 28 0 22/05/2014 <1.5 0.13 <0.02 <0.1 0.19 <0.1 0.68 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 2.9Nematalosa erebi Flesh 146.0 58.0 29 0 22/05/2014 <1.5 0.14 <0.02 <0.1 0.19 <0.1 2.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 3.5Nematalosa erebi Flesh 611.0 128.0 30 0 22/05/2014 <1.5 0.17 <0.02 <0.1 0.18 <0.1 0.59 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 2.7Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 456.0 359.0 31 0 20/05/2014 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.15 <0.1 0.18 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 3.4Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 456.0 359.0 31 1 20/05/2014 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.15 <0.1 0.19 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 3.5Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 32 0 20/05/2014 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.086 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 3.6Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 304.0 320.0 33 0 20/05/2014 <1.5 0.13 <0.02 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 3.3Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 310.0 327.0 34 0 20/05/2014 <1.5 0.14 <0.02 <0.1 0.11 <0.1 0.12 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 3.1Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 170.0 280.0 35 0 20/05/2014 <1.5 0.12 <0.02 <0.1 0.13 <0.1 0.14 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 2.8Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 360.0 418.0 36 0 22/05/2014 <1.5 0.14 <0.02 <0.1 0.13 <0.1 0.12 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 5.9Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 320.0 312.0 37 0 22/05/2014 <1.5 0.14 <0.02 <0.1 0.12 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 4.2Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 332.0 376.0 38 0 22/05/2014 <1.5 0.13 <0.02 <0.1 0.084 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 4.2Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 334.0 406.0 39 0 22/05/2014 <1.5 0.11 <0.02 <0.1 0.09 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 3.5Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 301.0 298.0 40 0 22/05/2014 <1.5 0.12 <0.02 <0.1 0.093 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 4Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 183.0 43.8 41 0 3/06/2014 <1.5 0.13 <0.02 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.11 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 6Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 183.0 43.8 41 1 3/06/2014 <1.5 0.12 <0.02 <0.1 0.11 <0.1 0.11 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 6.2Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 255.0 125.3 42 0 2/06/2014 <1.5 0.13 <0.02 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 11Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 272.0 151.3 43 0 2/06/2014 <1.5 0.11 <0.02 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 8.7Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 243.0 117.3 44 0 2/06/2014 <1.5 0.12 <0.02 <0.1 0.11 <0.1 0.11 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 9.3Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 244.0 118.1 45 0 2/06/2014 <1.5 0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.098 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 7.5Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 251.0 119.7 46 0 2/06/2014 <1.5 0.13 <0.02 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 9.3Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 150.0 23.7 47 0 29/05/2014 <1.5 0.12 <0.02 <0.1 0.12 <0.1 0.13 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 6.9Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 116.0 11.7 48 0 29/05/2014 <1.5 <0.1 <0.05 0.16 0.17 <0.1 0.21 <0.1 <0.2 <0.2 6.5Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 117.0 11.8 49 0 29/05/2014 <1.5 <0.1 <0.05 0.16 0.18 <0.1 0.31 <0.1 <0.2 <0.2 6.8Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 110.0 10.0 50 0 29/05/2014 <1.5 <0.1 <0.05 0.31 0.16 <0.1 0.36 0.19 <0.2 <0.2 5.8Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 111.0 9.2 51 0 29/05/2014 <1.5 <0.1 <0.05 0.23 0.18 <0.1 0.26 <0.1 <0.2 <0.2 10Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 111.0 9.2 51 1 29/05/2014 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 0.25 0.19 <0.1 0.27 <0.1 <0.2 <0.2 10Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 145.0 21.9 52 0 29/05/2014 <1.5 0.13 <0.02 0.17 0.15 <0.1 0.2 0.17 <0.1 <0.1 11Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 150.0 27.4 53 0 29/05/2014 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 0.24 0.16 <0.1 0.27 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 8.7Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 136.0 15.7 54 0 29/05/2014 <1.5 0.15 <0.02 0.24 0.17 <0.1 0.24 0.14 <0.1 <0.1 9.7Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 149.0 24.7 55 0 29/05/2014 <1.5 0.14 <0.02 0.39 0.14 <0.1 0.28 0.14 <0.1 <0.1 11Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 148.0 25.5 56 0 29/05/2014 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 0.28 0.12 <0.1 0.25 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 10Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 222.0 82.1 57 0 31/05/2014 <1.5 0.16 <0.02 <0.1 0.081 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 7Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 239.0 106.4 58 0 31/05/2014 <1.5 0.12 <0.02 <0.1 0.11 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 7.9Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 263.0 123.6 59 0 31/05/2014 <1.5 0.12 <0.02 <0.1 0.13 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 9.6Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 189.0 45.9 60 0 31/05/2014 <1.5 0.11 <0.02 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.21 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 5Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 212.0 79.0 61 0 31/05/2014 <1.5 0.15 <0.02 <0.1 0.13 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 5.8Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 212.0 79.0 61 1 31/05/2014 <1.5 0.13 <0.02 <0.1 0.13 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 5.9

Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 122.0 12.7 62 0 28/05/2014 <1.5 <0.1 <0.05 0.16 0.18 <0.1 0.37 <0.1 <0.2 <0.2 9

Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 101.0 6.5 63 0 28/05/2014 <1.5 <0.1 <0.05 0.29 0.19 <0.1 0.29 0.14 <0.2 <0.2 8.9

Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 104.0 6.8 64 0 28/05/2014 <1.5 <0.1 <0.05 0.35 0.22 <0.1 0.39 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 12

Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 20.5 0.2 65 0 22/05/2014 2.9 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.33 0.12 75 <0.1 <0.4 <0.4 23

Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 20.0 0.3 66 0 22/05/2014 3.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.44 0.18 81 <0.1 <0.4 <0.4 28

Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 22.0 0.4 67 0 22/05/2014 <1.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.23 0.11 31 <0.1 <0.4 <0.4 18Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 24.0 0.4 68 0 22/05/2014 1.6 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.34 0.28 15 <0.1 <0.4 <0.4 22

Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 22.5 0.4 69 0 22/05/2014 1.7 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.28 <0.1 30 <0.1 <0.4 <0.4 19Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 12.7 1.3 70 0 2/06/2014 5.5 0.3 <0.05 1 80 0.12 37 0.31 <0.2 <0.2 60Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 13.3 1.6 71 0 2/06/2014 7.2 0.56 0.2 2.3 140 <0.1 100 0.4 <0.2 <0.2 70Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 13.3 1.6 71 1 2/06/2014 7.3 0.54 0.2 2.3 140 <0.1 110 0.57 <0.1 <0.1 70Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 10.8 0.7 72 0 2/06/2014 25 0.48 0.24 2.3 170 0.38 27 0.5 <0.4 <0.4 50Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 13.2 1.9 73 0 29/05/2014 6.3 0.57 0.33 3.8 130 0.31 70 0.87 <0.2 <0.2 66Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 10.9 1.0 74 0 29/05/2014 8.7 0.44 0.27 5.1 110 0.44 120 1.2 <0.4 <0.4 89Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 10.2 0.9 75 0 29/05/2014 9.2 0.49 0.49 2.6 130 0.53 65 0.97 <0.4 <0.4 88Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 9.6 0.8 76 0 29/05/2014 16 0.47 0.32 2.8 180 0.62 23 0.73 <0.4 <0.4 83Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 8.9 0.7 77 0 29/05/2014 5.1 0.5 0.3 3.4 170 0.22 52 0.73 <0.4 <0.4 73Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 13.3 1.9 78 0 31/05/2014 6.1 0.39 0.2 9.4 100 0.12 250 1.7 <0.2 <0.2 88Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 11.3 1.3 79 0 31/05/2014 6.9 0.63 0.53 6.1 140 0.14 210 1 <0.2 <0.2 86Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 11.2 1.0 80 0 31/05/2014 3.4 0.81 0.48 2.1 170 <0.1 64 0.22 <0.2 <0.2 64Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 11.2 1.1 81 0 31/05/2014 2.2 0.48 0.32 1.3 130 <0.1 56 0.19 <0.2 <0.2 66Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 11.2 1.1 81 1 31/05/2014 2.2 0.6 0.32 1.3 130 <0.1 56 0.18 <0.1 <0.1 67Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 11.4 1.0 82 0 31/05/2014 2.7 0.52 0.67 1.9 120 <0.1 66 0.26 <0.1 <0.1 93Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 12.0 1.5 83 0 28/05/2014 6.3 0.79 0.22 6.7 160 0.32 71 0.93 <0.1 <0.1 91Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 13.5 1.5 84 0 28/05/2014 8.1 0.35 0.2 13 130 0.24 120 2 <0.1 <0.1 100Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 10.2 0.7 85 0 28/05/2014 4.3 0.42 0.31 2.6 84 0.22 73 0.8 <0.4 <0.4 100Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 8.0 0.7 86 0 28/05/2014 11 0.62 0.25 4.8 120 0.31 120 1.1 <0.4 <0.4 88Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 12.4 1.4 87 0 28/05/2014 1.6 <0.1 0.13 1.5 94 <0.1 18 0.35 <0.2 <0.2 72Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 11.6 1.5 88 0 29/05/2014 6.1 0.43 0.39 2.8 110 0.15 22 0.83 <0.2 <0.2 100Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 13.6 2.0 89 0 29/05/2014 15 0.34 0.22 6 160 0.23 56 2.3 <0.1 <0.1 110Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 14.6 1.9 90 0 29/05/2014 30 0.8 0.5 4.8 130 0.58 33 1.7 <0.2 <0.2 150Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 13.4 1.8 91 0 29/05/2014 7 0.27 0.46 1.5 120 0.16 19 0.76 <0.1 <0.1 86Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 13.4 1.8 91 1 29/05/2014 7.1 0.27 0.46 1.5 120 0.15 20 0.76 <0.1 <0.1 87Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 12.7 1.5 92 0 29/05/2014 12 0.75 0.3 2.9 160 0.21 24 1.5 <0.2 <0.2 130Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 10.4 0.9 93 0 6/06/2014 6 0.5 0.21 1.4 120 <0.1 58 0.36 <0.4 <0.4 70Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 10.6 0.7 94 0 6/06/2014 7.3 0.63 0.24 0.69 62 <0.1 24 0.24 <0.1 <0.1 59Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 8.3 0.5 95 0 6/06/2014 13 0.51 0.12 0.91 140 0.31 35 0.25 <0.1 <0.1 65Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 11.9 1.4 96 0 6/06/2014 6.4 0.29 0.21 1 110 <0.1 53 0.24 <0.2 <0.2 73Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 13.5 1.9 97 0 3/06/2014 18 0.47 0.3 2.3 100 0.11 200 0.99 <0.2 <0.2 100Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 9.9 0.8 98 0 1/06/2014 5.6 0.42 0.16 1.6 120 0.11 20 0.33 <0.1 <0.1 67

58

Species Tissue TypeLength (mm)

Weight (g)

Dissected Length (mm)

Dissected Weight

(g)Sample

No. Replicate Date sampled

Aluminium

(mg/kg)Arsenic (mg/kg)

Cadmium (mg/kg)

Cobalt (mg/kg)

Copper (mg/kg)

Lead (mg/kg)

Manganese

(mg/kg)Nickel

(mg/kg)Thorium (mg/kg)

Uranium (mg/kg)

Zinc (mg/kg)

Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 53.5 5.9 99 0 25/05/2014 <1.5 0.17 <0.02 0.19 0.25 0.68 9 0.14 <0.1 <0.1 16Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 36.0 2.0 100 0 25/05/2014 <1.5 0.16 <0.02 0.22 0.26 0.14 7.5 0.14 <0.1 <0.1 22Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 40.5 4.7 101 0 25/05/2014 <1.5 0.12 <0.02 0.18 0.3 0.81 12 0.13 <0.1 <0.1 23Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 40.5 4.7 101 1 25/05/2014 <1.5 0.13 <0.02 0.18 0.29 0.81 12 0.12 <0.1 <0.1 23Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 36.0 2.1 102 0 25/05/2014 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 0.15 0.25 0.1 6.8 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 21Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 37.0 2.6 103 0 25/05/2014 <1.5 0.14 <0.02 0.19 0.25 0.32 9.2 0.12 <0.1 <0.1 25Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 97.0 10.9 44.0 3.0 104 0 2/06/2014 <1.5 0.15 <0.02 0.13 0.16 0.56 20 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 17Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 52.0 1.5 29.0 0.7 105 0 3/06/2014 <1.5 <0.1 <0.05 <0.1 0.17 0.19 11 <0.1 <0.2 <0.2 22Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 64.5 2.6 23.0 0.5 106 0 3/06/2014 <1.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.22 0.44 30 <0.1 <0.4 <0.4 25Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 29.0 0.9 107 0 26/05/2014 <1.5 <0.1 <0.05 <0.1 0.32 1.8 38 <0.1 <0.2 <0.2 22Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 37.0 2.3 108 0 26/05/2014 <1.5 0.13 <0.02 <0.1 0.17 0.23 24 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 20Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 45.0 2.8 109 0 26/05/2014 <1.5 0.14 <0.02 <0.1 0.18 0.12 21 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 18Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 35.0 1.7 110 0 26/05/2014 <1.5 0.13 <0.02 <0.1 0.17 0.61 28 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 19Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 45.0 2.9 111 0 26/05/2014 <1.5 0.13 <0.02 <0.1 0.17 0.29 23 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 19Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 45.0 2.9 111 1 26/05/2014 <1.5 0.13 <0.02 <0.1 0.17 0.31 23 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 20Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 35.0 1.5 112 0 23/05/2014 <1.5 0.12 <0.02 <0.1 0.22 0.46 25 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 21Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 38.0 2.1 113 0 23/05/2014 <1.5 0.16 <0.02 <0.1 0.5 0.32 26 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 27Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 43.0 2.4 114 0 23/05/2014 <1.5 0.11 <0.02 <0.1 0.19 0.32 19 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 21Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 39.0 2.3 115 0 23/05/2014 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.22 0.36 25 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 37.0 2.2 116 0 23/05/2014 <1.5 0.18 <0.02 <0.1 0.26 0.68 27 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 19Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 77.0 5.3 37.0 1.5 117 0 31/05/2014 <1.5 0.16 <0.02 0.3 0.36 0.35 15 0.18 <0.1 <0.1 19Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 75.0 4.8 36.0 1.6 118 0 31/05/2014 <1.5 0.12 <0.02 0.27 0.24 1.4 39 0.12 <0.1 <0.1 22Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 77.0 4.8 33.0 1.2 119 0 31/05/2014 <1.5 <0.1 <0.05 0.28 0.24 0.46 23 0.15 <0.2 <0.2 23Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 79.0 5.5 40.0 1.8 120 0 31/05/2014 <1.5 0.15 <0.02 0.25 0.21 0.59 33 0.13 <0.1 <0.1 21Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 72.0 3.9 36.0 1.3 121 0 31/05/2014 <1.5 0.13 <0.02 0.31 0.23 0.12 36 0.14 <0.1 <0.1 26Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 72.0 3.9 36.0 1.3 121 1 31/05/2014 <1.5 0.16 <0.02 0.31 0.23 0.14 37 0.14 <0.1 <0.1 26Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 87.0 7.5 40.0 2.1 122 0 29/05/2014 <1.5 0.16 <0.02 0.2 0.26 <0.1 18 0.15 <0.1 <0.1 19Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 82.5 6.6 39.0 1.5 123 0 29/05/2014 <1.5 0.17 <0.02 0.32 0.42 0.13 22 0.21 <0.1 <0.1 29Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 78.0 6.2 124 0 29/05/2014 <1.5 0.1 <0.02 0.2 0.24 1 30 0.11 <0.1 <0.1 20Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 92.0 9.1 125 0 29/05/2014 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 0.22 0.3 0.95 18 0.19 <0.1 <0.1 25Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 76.0 5.7 126 0 29/05/2014 <1.5 0.12 <0.02 0.37 0.46 0.13 25 0.26 <0.1 <0.1 24Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 87.0 9.0 127 0 29/05/2014 <1.5 0.13 <0.02 0.14 0.25 0.68 17 0.11 <0.1 <0.1 25Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 99.5 0.3 128 0 28/05/2014 <1.5 0.13 <0.02 <0.1 0.18 1.9 34 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 19Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 93.0 9.1 129 0 28/05/2014 <1.5 0.11 <0.02 0.13 0.27 0.31 21 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 22Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 84.5 7.2 130 0 28/05/2014 <1.5 0.14 <0.02 <0.1 0.23 0.16 31 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 76.0 5.0 131 0 28/05/2014 <1.5 0.13 <0.02 0.12 0.24 0.15 18 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 25Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 76.0 5.0 131 1 28/05/2014 <1.5 0.19 <0.02 0.12 0.24 0.15 18 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 25Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 66.5 3.4 132 0 28/05/2014 <1.5 <0.1 <0.05 0.2 0.3 0.43 28 0.15 <0.2 <0.2 26Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 53.0 1.8 133 0 1/06/2014 <1.5 0.11 <0.1 0.2 0.26 0.41 89 <0.1 <0.4 <0.4 29Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 72.0 4.2 134 0 1/06/2014 <1.5 0.16 <0.02 0.13 0.2 1.1 32 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 28Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 68.0 2.8 135 0 1/06/2014 2.1 0.56 <0.1 0.54 0.73 2.6 190 0.21 <0.4 <0.4 71Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 41.0 0.5 136 0 3/06/2014 3.5 <0.1 <0.05 0.11 0.55 <0.1 10 <0.1 <0.2 <0.2 68Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 36.0 0.4 137 0 2/06/2014 3.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.56 <0.1 20 <0.1 <0.4 <0.4 73Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 37.5 0.4 138 0 31/05/2014 5.6 <0.1 <0.1 0.53 2.2 <0.1 19 0.19 <0.4 <0.4 49Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 43.0 0.6 139 0 31/05/2014 8.5 <0.1 <0.05 0.69 6.3 0.22 28 0.3 <0.2 <0.2 70Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 38.0 0.6 140 0 31/05/2014 3.7 <0.1 <0.1 0.49 5 0.16 29 0.15 <0.4 <0.4 57Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 33.0 0.3 141 0 31/05/2014 10 0.17 <0.1 0.72 2.8 0.72 20 0.31 <0.4 <0.4 54Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 33.0 0.3 141 1 31/05/2014 10 0.22 <0.1 0.72 2.8 0.76 20 0.32 <0.4 <0.4 54Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 36.0 0.4 142 0 31/05/2014 14 0.23 <0.1 0.96 5.5 0.38 33 0.37 <0.4 <0.4 62Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 42.0 0.9 143 0 29/05/2014 3.2 0.15 0.054 0.38 3.1 0.14 23 0.27 <0.2 <0.2 78Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 46.0 1.1 144 0 29/05/2014 2.2 0.17 <0.1 0.35 4.2 0.13 19 0.24 <0.4 <0.4 69Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 58.0 2.2 145 0 29/05/2014 2.6 0.15 0.046 0.44 6 <0.1 31 0.33 <0.1 <0.1 64Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 52.0 2.0 146 0 29/05/2014 1.9 0.13 0.056 0.34 2.5 <0.1 27 0.26 <0.1 <0.1 68Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 50.0 1.4 147 0 29/05/2014 1.5 0.16 0.032 0.5 6.1 <0.1 44 0.35 <0.1 <0.1 67Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 30.0 0.2 148 0 28/05/2014 13 <0.1 <0.1 1.3 7.7 0.25 61 0.51 <0.4 <0.4 54Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 44.0 0.8 149 0 28/05/2014 2.7 <0.1 <0.05 0.33 2.7 0.11 19 0.18 <0.2 <0.2 40Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 37.0 0.5 150 0 28/05/2014 3 <0.1 <0.1 0.34 2.9 <0.1 16 0.2 <0.4 <0.4 68Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 34.0 0.4 151 0 28/05/2014 3.7 <0.1 <0.1 0.25 1.9 0.12 11 0.2 <0.4 <0.4 58Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 34.0 0.4 151 1 28/05/2014 3.9 <0.1 <0.1 0.27 1.9 0.13 11 0.2 <0.4 <0.4 57Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 34.0 0.3 152 0 22/05/2014 3.8 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.92 0.2 6.2 <0.1 <0.4 <0.4 57Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 31.0 0.3 153 0 22/05/2014 2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 1 <0.1 7.6 <0.1 <0.4 <0.4 54Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 35.0 0.4 154 0 22/05/2014 2.4 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.55 0.15 21 <0.1 <0.4 <0.4 51Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 35.0 0.4 155 0 22/05/2014 2.4 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.82 <0.1 5.7 <0.1 <0.4 <0.4 49Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 28.0 0.2 156 0 22/05/2014 3.1 0.11 <0.1 <0.1 0.68 <0.1 7.9 <0.1 <0.4 <0.4 60Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 25.0 0.2 157 0 23/05/2014 6.6 0.13 <0.1 <0.1 0.61 <0.1 33 <0.1 <0.4 <0.4 64Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 26.0 0.2 158 0 23/05/2014 4 0.12 <0.1 <0.1 0.53 <0.1 23 <0.1 <0.4 <0.4 63Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 31.0 0.3 159 0 23/05/2014 2.6 0.11 <0.1 <0.1 0.71 <0.1 25 <0.1 <0.4 <0.4 69Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 40.0 0.6 160 0 23/05/2014 1.8 <0.1 <0.05 <0.1 2.1 <0.1 17 <0.1 <0.2 <0.2 42Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 28.0 0.3 161 0 23/05/2014 2.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 1.4 <0.1 26 <0.1 <0.4 <0.4 59Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 28.0 0.3 161 1 23/05/2014 2.8 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 1.4 <0.1 26 <0.1 <0.4 <0.4 60Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 38.0 0.4 162 0 25/05/2014 6.8 <0.1 <0.1 0.92 7.8 <0.1 14 0.37 <0.4 <0.4 89Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 35.0 0.4 163 0 25/05/2014 3.6 <0.1 <0.1 0.57 7.6 0.19 8.8 0.2 <0.4 <0.4 72Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 34.0 0.3 164 0 25/05/2014 2.7 <0.1 0.1 0.71 14 <0.1 15 0.27 <0.4 <0.4 110Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 34.0 0.4 165 0 25/05/2014 2.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.69 6.3 <0.1 14 0.19 <0.4 <0.4 98Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 31.0 0.3 166 0 25/05/2014 13 0.17 <0.1 0.71 9.2 0.13 18 0.25 <0.4 <0.4 110Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 40.0 0.6 167 0 26/05/2014 2.2 <0.1 <0.05 0.65 3.5 0.18 17 0.38 <0.2 <0.2 52Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 35.0 0.3 168 0 26/05/2014 2.1 0.11 <0.1 0.23 3.2 <0.1 25 0.13 <0.4 <0.4 57Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 35.0 0.3 169 0 26/05/2014 2.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 1.8 0.29 20 0.17 <0.4 <0.4 64Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 24.0 0.2 170 0 26/05/2014 3.6 <0.1 <0.1 0.19 1.2 <0.1 18 <0.1 <0.4 <0.4 54Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 33.0 0.2 171 0 26/05/2014 6.3 0.15 <0.1 0.87 4.8 0.13 40 0.43 <0.4 <0.4 67Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 33.0 0.2 171 1 26/05/2014 6.2 0.14 <0.1 0.83 4.7 0.12 39 0.39 <0.4 <0.4 66Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 37.0 0.4 172 0 26/05/2014 2 <0.1 <0.1 0.28 4.3 <0.1 20 0.17 <0.4 <0.4 57Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 34.0 0.4 173 0 26/05/2014 2.5 0.12 <0.1 0.32 4.1 <0.1 37 0.16 <0.4 <0.4 79Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 38.0 0.5 174 0 26/05/2014 2.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 1.1 <0.1 24 0.12 <0.4 <0.4 62Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 39.0 0.4 175 0 26/05/2014 1.7 <0.1 <0.1 0.18 2.6 <0.1 23 0.1 <0.4 <0.4 65Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 41.0 0.5 176 0 26/05/2014 2 <0.1 <0.1 0.21 1.4 <0.1 26 0.13 <0.4 <0.4 59Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 30.0 0.9 177 0 26/05/2014 <1.5 <0.1 <0.05 0.66 0.83 0.46 51 0.33 <0.2 <0.2 23Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 36.0 2.2 178 0 26/05/2014 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 0.18 0.32 0.39 29 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 21Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 35.0 1.3 179 0 26/05/2014 <1.5 0.13 <0.02 0.25 0.29 0.63 15 0.13 <0.1 <0.1 27Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 30.0 0.9 180 0 26/05/2014 <1.5 <0.1 <0.05 0.51 0.44 0.45 70 0.25 <0.2 <0.2 30Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 49.0 4.0 181 0 26/05/2014 <1.5 0.11 <0.02 0.13 0.21 0.32 38 0.12 <0.1 <0.1 22Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 49.0 4.0 181 1 26/05/2014 <1.5 0.14 <0.02 0.13 0.22 0.34 39 0.12 <0.1 <0.1 22

59

APPENDIX 4 2015 TISSUE METALS

60

Site Location Date Species Tissue Type

Length

(mm) Weight (g)

Aluminiu

m (mg/kg)

Arsenic

(mg/kg)

Cadmium

(mg/kg)

Cobalt

(mg/kg)

Copper

(mg/kg)

Lead

(mg/kg)

Manganes

e (mg/kg)

Nickel

(mg/kg)

Thorium

(mg/kg)

Uranium

(mg/kg)

Zinc

(mg/kg)

FRusMB U/S of East Branch 20/05/2015 Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 11.3 1.3 1.6 0.28 0.037 <0.1 43 <0.1 4.4 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 45

FRusMB U/S of East Branch 20/05/2015 Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 11.3 1.3 1.6 0.28 0.034 <0.1 43 <0.1 4.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 44

FRusMB U/S of East Branch 20/05/2015 Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 10.9 1.2 5.8 0.36 0.035 <0.1 17 <0.1 11 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 41

FRdsMB U/S of East Branch 19/05/2015 Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 11.4 1.2 17 0.3 0.04 1.2 43 0.18 79 0.28 <0.1 <0.1 47

FRdsMB U/S of East Branch 19/05/2015 Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 9.9 0.7 4.4 0.3 <0.02 0.15 84 0.12 10 0.24 <0.1 <0.1 35

FRdsMB U/S of East Branch 19/05/2015 Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 9.1 0.5 9.1 0.12 0.029 0.15 38 <0.1 17 0.18 <0.1 <0.1 37

FRdsMB U/S of East Branch 19/05/2015 Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 9.2 0.4 15 0.16 0.13 0.15 130 0.25 19 0.24 <0.1 <0.1 61

EB@LB U/S of East Branch 21/05/2015 Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 13.0 2.0 2.4 0.13 0.3 0.14 44 <0.1 5.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 66

EB@LB U/S of East Branch 21/05/2015 Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 12.2 1.7 2.7 0.14 0.25 0.25 73 0.1 17 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 86

FC@LB U/S of East Branch 21/05/2015 Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 11.6 1.1 <1.5 <0.1 0.088 <0.1 77 <0.1 1.9 <0.1 <0.1 <0.2 68

FC@LB U/S of East Branch 21/05/2015 Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 12.5 1.7 1.7 0.16 0.075 0.19 63 <0.1 7.8 0.14 <0.1 <0.1 46

FC@LB U/S of East Branch 21/05/2015 Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 13.3 1.8 <1.5 0.18 0.24 0.3 91 <0.1 1.8 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 44

FC@LB U/S of East Branch 21/05/2015 Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 13.3 1.8 <1.5 0.17 0.23 0.31 90 <0.1 1.8 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 43

FC@LB U/S of East Branch 21/05/2015 Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 10.8 1.1 <1.5 0.21 0.12 0.29 130 <0.1 4.5 0.16 <0.1 <0.1 57

FC@LB U/S of East Branch 21/05/2015 Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 14.9 1.8 1.5 0.11 0.22 <0.1 120 <0.1 1.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 50

EB@GS327 East Branch 24/05/2015 Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 11.4 1.2 2.6 0.35 0.68 2.2 40 <0.1 19 0.54 <0.1 <0.1 55





EB@RB East Branch 22/05/2015 Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 12.4 0.6 100 0.27 0.16 1.4 59 1.8 260 0.42 <0.1 <0.1 100




EB@RB East Branch 22/05/2015 Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 9.9 1.0 4.5 0.35 0.34 4.2 110 0.16 31 0.48 <0.1 <0.1 64

EB@RB East Branch 22/05/2015 Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 13.6 2.1 48 0.24 0.29 18 80 0.57 130 2.8 <0.1 <0.3 130

EBusHS East Branch 25/05/2015 Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 9.4 0.8 1.7 0.23 0.13 2.4 84 <0.1 28 0.25 <0.1 <0.1 35

EBusHS East Branch 25/05/2015 Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 10.8 1.0 9.9 0.24 0.13 18 84 0.11 310 1.7 <0.1 <0.1 70


EBusHS East Branch 25/05/2015 Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 10.7 1.0 <1.5 0.24 0.13 4 91 <0.1 59 0.47 <0.1 <0.1 79


EBdsHS East Branch 23/05/2015 Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 17.1 3.5 11 0.52 0.21 22 150 0.31 590 3.5 <0.1 <0.1 81

EBdsHS East Branch 23/05/2015 Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 10.2 0.9 12 0.31 0.16 4.7 87 0.39 51 0.7 <0.1 <0.1 58



EBdsHS East Branch 23/05/2015 Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 9.2 0.8 8.6 0.25 0.1 2.8 82 0.54 32 0.51 <0.1 <0.1 47

EBdsHS East Branch 23/05/2015 Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 8.9 0.7 9.3 0.33 0.09 21 120 0.26 460 3.2 <0.1 <0.1 70

EBusFR East Branch 26/05/2015 Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 10.4 1.2 13 0.26 0.2 5 120 0.2 180 0.97 <0.1 <0.1 69

EBusFR East Branch 26/05/2015 Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 9.6 1.0 6.6 0.35 0.23 11 140 0.12 360 1.8 <0.1 <0.1 58

EBusFR East Branch 26/05/2015 Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 13.6 1.8 3.5 0.23 0.17 1.4 130 <0.1 38 0.29 <0.1 <0.1 38

EBusFR East Branch 26/05/2015 Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 9.7 0.9 4.9 0.32 0.23 2.5 96 <0.1 57 0.49 <0.1 <0.1 53

EBusFR East Branch 26/05/2015 Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 10.9 1.0 33 0.28 0.34 32 140 0.49 870 4.5 <0.1 <0.1 100

FR@GS204 D/S of East Branch 27/05/2015 Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 9.6 0.7 4.9 0.28 0.19 3.1 120 0.15 84 0.69 <0.1 <0.1 57




FR@GS204 D/S of East Branch 27/05/2015 Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 7.3 0.4 4 0.29 0.24 1.7 120 <0.1 48 0.43 <0.1 <0.1 53


FR3 D/S of East Branch 29/05/2015 Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 10.9 1.1 7.5 0.39 0.19 0.5 160 <0.1 13 0.16 <0.1 <0.1 55


FR3 D/S of East Branch 29/05/2015 Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 9.9 1.2 8.2 0.45 0.16 3.1 98 0.13 160 0.74 <0.1 <0.1 57


FR3 D/S of East Branch 29/05/2015 Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 9.6 0.9 4 0.39 0.35 1.1 100 0.13 58 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 48

FRusFC D/S of East Branch 30/05/2015 Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 11.2 1.4 2.8 0.41 0.27 0.42 150 <0.1 10 0.31 <0.1 <0.1 41




FRusFC D/S of East Branch 30/05/2015 Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 9.3 0.8 15 0.38 0.1 2.5 110 <0.1 220 1.3 <0.1 <0.1 62


FRdsFC D/S of East Branch 29/05/2015 Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 13.2 1.9 3 0.33 0.11 0.29 110 <0.1 7.3 0.12 <0.1 <0.1 52

FRdsFC D/S of East Branch 29/05/2015 Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 11.9 1.6 5.8 0.46 0.2 3.6 72 <0.1 160 1.3 <0.1 <0.1 72



FRdsFC D/S of East Branch 29/05/2015 Macrobrachium bullatum Cephalothorax 10.4 0.8 <1.5 0.27 0.32 0.34 130 <0.1 7.4 0.19 <0.1 <0.1 41

FRusMB U/S of East Branch 20/05/2015 Nematalosa erebi Flesh 113.0 22.8 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.39 <0.1 0.63 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 3.3


FRusMB U/S of East Branch 20/05/2015 Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 192.0 50.2 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.15 <0.1 0.16 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 7.9



FRusMB U/S of East Branch 20/05/2015 Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 192.0 54.2 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.12 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 11



FRusMB U/S of East Branch 20/05/2015 Nematalosa erebi Flesh 119.0 35.6 <1.5 0.19 <0.02 <0.1 0.4 <0.1 1.4 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 4

FRusMB U/S of East Branch 20/05/2015 Nematalosa erebi Flesh 117.0 31.6 <1.5 0.13 <0.02 <0.1 0.36 <0.1 0.92 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 3.6

FRdsMB U/S of East Branch 19/05/2015 Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 205.0 57.5 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.14 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 8.9

FRdsMB U/S of East Branch 19/05/2015 Nematalosa erebi Flesh 254.0 304.9 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.22 <0.1 1.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 3.9

FRdsMB U/S of East Branch 19/05/2015 Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 251.0 104.2 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.15 <0.1 0.17 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 11

FRdsMB U/S of East Branch 19/05/2015 Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 167.0 34.8 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.16 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 10

FRdsMB U/S of East Branch 19/05/2015 Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 167.0 34.8 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.14 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 10

FRdsMB U/S of East Branch 19/05/2015 Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 234.0 102.2 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.12 <0.1 0.16 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 8.6

FRdsMB U/S of East Branch 19/05/2015 Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 186.0 48.9 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.12 <0.1 0.39 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 7.4


FRdsMB U/S of East Branch 19/05/2015 Nematalosa erebi Flesh 251.0 242.3 <1.5 0.14 <0.02 <0.1 0.15 <0.1 3.9 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 4.7



61


Length

(mm) Weight (g)

Aluminiu

m (mg/kg)

Arsenic

(mg/kg)

Cadmium

(mg/kg)

Cobalt

(mg/kg)

Copper

(mg/kg)

Lead

(mg/kg)

Manganes

e (mg/kg)

Nickel

(mg/kg)

Thorium

(mg/kg)

Uranium

(mg/kg)

Zinc

(mg/kg)

EB@GS327 East Branch 24/05/2015 Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 200.0 64.2 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.34 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 10

EB@GS327 East Branch 24/05/2015 Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 192.0 52.1 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 0.13 0.16 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 14

EB@GS327 East Branch 24/05/2015 Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 226.0 102.1 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.13 <0.1 0.11 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 11

EB@GS327 East Branch 24/05/2015 Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 201.0 61.5 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 0.11 0.11 <0.1 0.14 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 7.6

EB@GS327 East Branch 24/05/2015 Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 201.0 61.5 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 0.12 0.093 <0.1 0.15 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 7.8

EB@GS327 East Branch 24/05/2015 Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 236.5 121.8 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.12 <0.1 0.12 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 8.7

EB@RB East Branch 22/05/2015 Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 106.0 8.3 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 0.63 0.35 <0.1 0.46 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 12

EB@RB East Branch 22/05/2015 Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 95.5 6.5 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 0.56 0.36 <0.1 0.26 0.27 <0.1 <0.1 12

EB@GS097 East Branch 23/05/2015 Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 107.0 9.8 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 0.19 0.29 <0.1 0.35 0.16 <0.1 <0.1 14

EB@GS097 East Branch 23/05/2015 Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 99.0 6.7 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 0.22 0.61 <0.1 0.74 0.19 <0.1 <0.1 9.7

EB@GS097 East Branch 23/05/2015 Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 100.0 5.1 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 0.31 0.63 <0.1 0.75 0.21 <0.1 <0.1 13

EBusHS East Branch 25/05/2015 Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 210.0 72.4 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 0.11 0.16 <0.1 0.11 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 10

EBusHS East Branch 25/05/2015 Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 193.0 61.5 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.15 <0.1 0.13 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 10

EBusHS East Branch 25/05/2015 Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 200.0 60.2 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.17 <0.1 0.21 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 11



EBusHS East Branch 25/05/2015 Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 121.5 13.2 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.17 <0.1 0.34 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 7.4

EBdsHS East Branch 23/05/2015 Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 104.5 8.0 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 0.16 0.23 <0.1 0.24 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 8

EBdsHS East Branch 23/05/2015 Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 104.0 7.7 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 0.19 0.26 <0.1 0.43 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 8.2

EBusFR East Branch 26/05/2015 Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 227.0 104.4 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.14 <0.1 0.19 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 7.2

EBusFR East Branch 26/05/2015 Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 249.0 118.0 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.12 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 8.1

EBusFR East Branch 26/05/2015 Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 222.0 95.2 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.15 <0.1 0.12 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 8.8

EBusFR East Branch 26/05/2015 Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 249.0 125.1 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.12 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 9.1

EBusFR East Branch 26/05/2015 Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 224.0 91.5 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 0.11 0.15 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 12

EBusFR East Branch 26/05/2015 Nematalosa erebi Flesh 152.0 69.3 <1.5 0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.59 <0.1 1.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 4.7

EBusFR East Branch 26/05/2015 Nematalosa erebi Flesh 145.0 64.9 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.45 <0.1 1.4 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 5

EBusFR East Branch 26/05/2015 Nematalosa erebi Flesh 145.0 64.9 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.43 <0.1 1.4 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 5

EBusFR East Branch 26/05/2015 Nematalosa erebi Flesh 145.0 64.4 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.37 <0.1 1.4 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 3.8

EBusFR East Branch 26/05/2015 Nematalosa erebi Flesh 148.0 63.0 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.35 <0.1 1.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 4.3

EBusFR East Branch 26/05/2015 Nematalosa erebi Flesh 173.0 109.0 <1.5 0.12 <0.02 <0.1 0.45 <0.1 1.6 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 4.6

FR@GS204 D/S of East Branch 27/05/2015 Nematalosa erebi Flesh 128.0 38.1 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.34 <0.1 0.98 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 3.1




FR@GS204 D/S of East Branch 27/05/2015 Nematalosa erebi Flesh 136.0 40.9 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.22 <0.1 1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 3.7

FR3 D/S of East Branch 29/05/2015 Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 282.0 491.0 <1.5 0.12 <0.02 <0.1 0.18 <0.1 5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.2 3.6

FR3 D/S of East Branch 29/05/2015 Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 267.0 399.8 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 2.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 3.2




FR3 D/S of East Branch 29/05/2015 Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 232.0 256.6 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 3.1

FRusFC D/S of East Branch 30/05/2015 Nematalosa erebi Flesh 268.0 299.6 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.16 <0.1 6.4 <0.1 <0.1 <0.2 3.8




FRusFC D/S of East Branch 30/05/2015 Nematalosa erebi Flesh 270.0 333.2 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.21 <0.1 4 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 3.4

FRdsFC D/S of East Branch 29/05/2015 Nematalosa erebi Flesh 226.0 238.2 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.26 <0.1 5.4 <0.1 <0.1 <0.2 3.3




FRdsFC D/S of East Branch 29/05/2015 Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 244.0 117.0 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.089 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 8

FRdsFC D/S of East Branch 29/05/2015 Neosilurus hyrtlii Flesh 224.0 90.9 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 9.8



FRusMB U/S of East Branch 20/05/2015 Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 45.0 1.0 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.77 <0.1 6.7 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 22

FRdsMB U/S of East Branch 19/05/2015 Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 39.0 0.5 <1.5 0.13 <0.02 <0.1 11 0.17 22 0.26 <0.1 <0.1 23

EB@LB U/S of East Branch 21/05/2015 Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 34.0 0.4 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 1.9 <0.1 31 0.29 <0.1 <0.1 23

EB@LB U/S of East Branch 21/05/2015 Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 43.0 0.9 <1.5 0.16 <0.02 1.7 4.7 <0.1 56 110 <0.1 <0.1 61

EB@LB U/S of East Branch 21/05/2015 Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 35.0 0.4 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.48 <0.1 25 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 22

EB@LB U/S of East Branch 21/05/2015 Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 35.0 0.4 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.49 <0.1 25 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 22

EB@LB U/S of East Branch 21/05/2015 Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 33.0 0.4 <1.5 0.12 <0.02 <0.1 0.74 <0.1 36 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 28

FC@LB U/S of East Branch 21/05/2015 Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 63.0 4.7 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 0.12 0.4 <0.1 10 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 19



FC@LB U/S of East Branch 21/05/2015 Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 49.5 1.9 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.43 <0.1 48 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 18


EB@GS200 East Branch 22/05/2015 Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 113.0 21.5 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 0.45 0.75 0.14 13 0.35 <0.1 <0.1 43



EB@GS200 East Branch 22/05/2015 Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 99.0 11.2 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 0.24 0.41 <0.1 6.5 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 14


EB@GS200 East Branch 22/05/2015 Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 41.0 0.5 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 1.1 2.9 <0.1 27 0.47 <0.1 <0.1 43






EB@RB East Branch 22/05/2015 Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 64.5 3.1 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 0.24 0.44 0.17 27 0.16 <0.1 <0.1 22


62


Length

(mm) Weight (g)

Aluminiu

m (mg/kg)

Arsenic

(mg/kg)

Cadmium

(mg/kg)

Cobalt

(mg/kg)

Copper

(mg/kg)

Lead

(mg/kg)

Manganes

e (mg/kg)

Nickel

(mg/kg)

Thorium

(mg/kg)

Uranium

(mg/kg)

Zinc

(mg/kg)





EB@GS097 East Branch 23/05/2015 Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 109.0 18.1 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 0.12 0.3 0.29 23 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 19

EB@GS097 East Branch 23/05/2015 Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 103.0 16.0 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.26 <0.1 31 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 19



EB@GS097 East Branch 23/05/2015 Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 56.5 3.0 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.36 0.22 36 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 25

EBusHS East Branch 25/05/2015 Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 48.0 1.3 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 0.22 0.46 <0.1 36 0.16 <0.1 <0.1 21


EBusHS East Branch 25/05/2015 Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 56.0 2.3 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 0.26 0.51 0.2 20 0.11 <0.1 <0.1 18



EBusHS East Branch 25/05/2015 Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 52.0 2.0 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 0.37 0.62 0.5 40 0.16 <0.1 <0.1 22

EBdsHS East Branch 23/05/2015 Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 94.0 11.2 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 0.17 0.55 0.31 29 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 15

EBdsHS East Branch 23/05/2015 Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 93.0 9.9 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 0.16 0.44 1.1 58 0.11 <0.1 <0.1 17




EBusFR East Branch 26/05/2015 Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 43.0 1.2 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 0.16 0.31 0.25 65 0.12 <0.1 <0.1 23

EBusFR East Branch 26/05/2015 Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 69.0 4.8 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 0.22 0.32 0.12 29 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 21




EBusFR East Branch 26/05/2015 Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 46.0 1.3 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 0.19 0.3 0.23 31 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 27

FR@GS204 D/S of East Branch 27/05/2015 Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 72.0 4.1 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 0.15 0.21 <0.1 18 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 17

FR@GS204 D/S of East Branch 27/05/2015 Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 72.0 3.7 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 0.14 0.25 0.13 48 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 28

FRusFC D/S of East Branch 30/05/2015 Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 76.0 5.6 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.21 0.14 24 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 19

FRusFC D/S of East Branch 30/05/2015 Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 42.5 1.0 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.23 <0.1 14 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 20

FRusFC D/S of East Branch 30/05/2015 Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 47.5 1.2 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.21 <0.1 12 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 19

FRusFC D/S of East Branch 30/05/2015 Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 41.5 0.7 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 0.14 0.27 <0.1 12 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 15

FRusFC D/S of East Branch 30/05/2015 Mogurnda mogurnda Hind Body 44.5 0.9 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 0.1 0.23 <0.1 16 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 16

FRusMB U/S of East Branch 20/05/2015 Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 36.0 0.5 8.3 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 5.4 <0.1 8.4 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 47

EB@LB U/S of East Branch 21/05/2015 Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 26.5 0.1 2.3 0.14 <0.02 <0.1 1.4 <0.1 11 0.28 <0.1 <0.1 62

EB@LB U/S of East Branch 21/05/2015 Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 26.5 0.1 2.4 0.13 <0.02 <0.1 1.1 <0.1 11 0.22 <0.1 <0.1 62

FC@LB U/S of East Branch 21/05/2015 Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 40.0 0.7 1.6 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 1 0.21 4.4 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 50

FC@LB U/S of East Branch 21/05/2015 Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 29.0 0.2 1.8 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 1.1 <0.1 5.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 52

FC@LB U/S of East Branch 21/05/2015 Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 33.0 0.4 4.2 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 1.6 0.2 9.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 48

FC@LB U/S of East Branch 21/05/2015 Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 30.5 0.3 5 <0.1 <0.02 0.21 2.8 0.69 7.2 0.21 <0.1 <0.1 55

EB@GS200 East Branch 22/05/2015 Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 25.5 0.1 5.5 0.12 <0.02 1.5 15 <0.1 22 1.1 <0.1 <0.5 110

EB@GS200 East Branch 22/05/2015 Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 49.0 1.1 <1.5 <0.1 0.098 0.96 16 0.16 16 0.84 <0.1 <0.1 110

EB@GS200 East Branch 22/05/2015 Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 39.5 0.7 <1.5 <0.1 0.022 0.74 3.5 <0.1 10 0.64 <0.1 <0.1 53

EB@GS327 East Branch 24/05/2015 Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 41.0 0.6 2.1 <0.1 0.024 2 4.4 <0.1 60 0.53 <0.1 <0.2 45

EB@GS327 East Branch 24/05/2015 Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 32.0 0.4 1.5 <0.1 <0.02 0.35 1.4 0.13 27 0.21 <0.1 <0.1 34

EB@GS327 East Branch 24/05/2015 Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 28.0 0.2 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 0.95 1.9 <0.1 27 0.45 <0.1 <0.1 57


EB@RB East Branch 23/05/2015 Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 39.0 0.6 1.8 <0.1 <0.02 0.37 1.5 <0.1 26 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 44

EB@RB East Branch 23/05/2015 Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 38.0 0.5 <1.5 <0.1 0.03 0.32 3 <0.1 22 0.17 <0.1 <0.1 57

EB@RB East Branch 23/05/2015 Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 56.0 1.7 <1.5 <0.1 0.031 0.28 3 <0.1 19 0.11 <0.1 <0.1 61

EB@RB East Branch 22/05/2015 Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 39.0 0.6 43 0.14 0.032 7.7 5.8 0.59 110 2 <0.1 <0.2 42

EB@RB East Branch 22/05/2015 Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 36.0 0.5 8.5 0.11 0.029 0.8 4.1 0.57 27 0.37 <0.1 <0.1 51





EBusHS East Branch 25/05/2015 Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 41.0 0.7 3.9 <0.1 <0.02 1.4 1.8 0.13 43 0.28 <0.1 <0.1 34

EBusHS East Branch 25/05/2015 Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 41.0 0.7 3.9 <0.1 <0.02 1.4 1.8 0.12 43 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 34

EBusHS East Branch 25/05/2015 Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 37.0 0.5 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 0.82 2.1 <0.1 62 0.24 <0.1 <0.2 48

EBusHS East Branch 25/05/2015 Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 37.0 0.6 3.2 0.4 0.024 2.1 1.8 <0.1 51 0.3 <0.1 <0.3 47

EBusHS East Branch 25/05/2015 Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 36.0 0.5 5.6 0.48 0.032 2.1 2.6 0.32 38 0.31 <0.1 <0.3 50

EBusHS East Branch 25/05/2015 Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 37.0 0.5 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 0.5 1.5 0.27 17 0.19 <0.1 <0.1 47

EBdsHS East Branch 23/05/2015 Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 34.0 0.5 2.4 <0.1 <0.02 0.3 2.1 <0.1 25 0.18 <0.1 <0.1 45

EBdsHS East Branch 23/05/2015 Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 53.5 1.6 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 0.28 2.8 0.31 12 0.13 <0.1 <0.1 53

EBdsHS East Branch 23/05/2015 Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 36.5 0.5 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 0.35 1.3 <0.1 27 0.16 <0.1 <0.1 51

EBdsHS East Branch 23/05/2015 Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 35.0 0.4 2.4 <0.1 <0.02 0.34 2 <0.1 17 0.16 <0.1 <0.1 49

EBdsHS East Branch 23/05/2015 Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 36.0 0.5 1.6 <0.1 <0.02 0.55 2.3 <0.1 21 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 47

FR@GS204 D/S of East Branch 27/05/2015 Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 34.0 0.3 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.7 <0.1 5.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 47

FR@GS204 D/S of East Branch 27/05/2015 Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 34.0 0.3 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.72 <0.1 5.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 48

FR@GS204 D/S of East Branch 27/05/2015 Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 29.0 0.1 2.9 <0.1 <0.02 0.2 1.9 <0.1 6.3 0.24 <0.1 <0.1 65

FR@GS204 D/S of East Branch 27/05/2015 Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 30.5 0.2 <1.5 0.11 <0.02 0.17 1.2 <0.1 16 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 69

FRusFC D/S of East Branch 30/05/2015 Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 31.0 0.3 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 0.13 0.65 <0.1 7.6 0.14 <0.1 <0.1 67

FRusFC D/S of East Branch 30/05/2015 Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 29.0 0.3 <1.5 0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.64 <0.1 8.9 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 59

FRusFC D/S of East Branch 30/05/2015 Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 38.0 0.6 2.9 <0.1 <0.02 0.11 0.64 <0.1 8.8 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 50

FRusFC D/S of East Branch 30/05/2015 Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 34.0 0.4 <1.5 <0.1 <0.02 <0.1 0.68 <0.1 5.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 71

FRusFC D/S of East Branch 30/05/2015 Melanotaenia nigrans Whole Body 26.0 0.2 5.4 0.14 <0.02 0.42 2.3 <0.1 47 0.21 <0.1 <0.1 47

63

APPENDIX 5 2015 FISH DATA

64

site Date methodmethod_rep

licate

scaling

factor

Total

AbundanceSp_name Sample.Remarks

EB@GS097 23‐May‐15 EL 1 481 13 Melanotaenia splendida inornata On‐time 481 sec (DC: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

EB@GS097 23‐May‐15 EL 1 481 310 Macrobrachium bullatum On‐time 481 sec (DC: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

EB@GS097 23‐May‐15 EL 1 481 54 Mogurnda mogurnda On‐time 481 sec (DC: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

EB@GS097 23‐May‐15 EL 1 481 5 Melanotaenia nigrans On‐time 481 sec (DC: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

EB@GS097 23‐May‐15 EL 1 481 3 Oxyeleotris selhemi On‐time 481 sec (DC: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

EB@GS097 23‐May‐15 EL 1 481 7 Neosilurus ater On‐time 481 sec (DC: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

EB@GS097 23‐May‐15 EL 1 481 1 Glossamia aprion On‐time 481 sec (DC: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

EB@GS097 23‐May‐15 EL 1 481 3 Leiopotherapon unicolor On‐time 481 sec (DC: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

EB@GS097 23‐May‐15 EL 1 481 1 Ambassis macleayi On‐time 481 sec (DC: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

EB@GS097 23‐May‐15 EL 1 481 1 Neosilurus hyrtlii On‐time 481 sec (DC: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

EB@GS097 23‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 12 Neosilurus ater Set from dawn to dusk.

EB@GS097 23‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 2 Melanotaenia nigrans Set from dawn to dusk.

EB@GS097 23‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 81 Ambassis macleayi Set from dawn to dusk.

EB@GS097 23‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 11 Glossamia aprion Set from dawn to dusk.

EB@GS097 23‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 1 Craterocephalus stercusmuscarum Set from dawn to dusk.

EB@GS097 23‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 3 Melanotaenia splendida inornata Set from dawn to dusk.

EB@GS097 23‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 3 Oxyeleotris selhemi Set from dawn to dusk.

EB@GS097 23‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 6 Neosilurus hyrtlii Set from dawn to dusk.

EB@GS097 23‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 1 Leiopotherapon unicolor Set from dawn to dusk.




EB@GS097 23‐May‐15 LFYK 2 1 1 Glossamia aprion Set from dawn to dusk.

EB@GS097 23‐May‐15 LFYK 2 1 1 Macrobrachium bullatum Set from dawn to dusk.

EB@GS097 23‐May‐15 CL 1 1 0 Set from dawn to dusk. NO CATCH.





EB@GS097 23‐May‐15 VIS 1 1 0 Megalops cyprinoides

EB@GS200 22‐May‐15 EL 1 5462Mogurnda mogurnda

On‐time 546 sec (Dc: 5 to 3 pulse grated, V: 200 + 250, Freq: 15 +

25).

EB@GS200 22‐May‐15 EL 1 5461Melanotaenia nigrans


25).

EB@GS200 22‐May‐15 EL 1 54614

Macrobrachium bullatumOn‐time 546 sec (Dc: 5 to 3 pulse grated, V: 200 + 250, Freq: 15 +

25).

EB@GS200 22‐May‐15 EL 1 5462Melanotaenia splendida inornata


25).



EB@GS200 22‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 26 Mogurnda mogurnda Set from dawn to dusk.




65


licate

scaling

factor

Total





EB@GS200 22‐May‐15 CL 1 1 1 Macrobrachium bullatum Set from dawn to dusk.





EB@GS327 24‐May‐15 EL 1 425 321 Macrobrachium bullatum On‐time 425 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

EB@GS327 24‐May‐15 EL 1 425 34 Mogurnda mogurnda On‐time 425 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

EB@GS327 24‐May‐15 EL 1 425 6 Melanotaenia nigrans On‐time 425 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

EB@GS327 24‐May‐15 EL 1 425 2 Melanotaenia splendida inornata On‐time 425 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

EB@GS327 24‐May‐15 1 1 4 3 Megalops cyprinoides Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

EB@GS327 24‐May‐15 1 1 4 43 Melanotaenia splendida inornata Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

EB@GS327 24‐May‐15 1 1 4 2 Leiopotherapon unicolor Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

EB@GS327 24‐May‐15 1 1 4 10 Neosilurus hyrtlii Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

EB@GS327 24‐May‐15 1 1 4 3 Neosilurus ater Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

EB@GS327 24‐May‐15 1.5 1 4 6 Melanotaenia splendida inornata Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

EB@GS327 24‐May‐15 1.5 1 4 13 Neosilurus hyrtlii Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

EB@GS327 24‐May‐15 1.5 1 4 2 Neosilurus ater Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

EB@GS327 24‐May‐15 1.5 1 4 26 Megalops cyprinoides Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

EB@GS327 24‐May‐15 1.5 1 4 10 Leiopotherapon unicolor Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

EB@GS327 24‐May‐15 1.5 1 4 2 Amniataba percoides Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

EB@GS327 24‐May‐15 2L(A) 1 4 1 Oxyeleotris selhemi Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

EB@GS327 24‐May‐15 2L(A) 1 4 2 Neosilurus hyrtlii Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

EB@GS327 24‐May‐15 3L(A) 1 4 2 Megalops cyprinoides Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

EB@GS327 24‐May‐15 PN(A) 1 4 1 Megalops cyprinoides Set 4:30‐8:30pm.



EB@GS327 24‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 2 Neosilurus ater Set from dawn to dusk.











EB@LB 21‐May‐15 EL 1 356 20 Mogurnda mogurnda On‐time 356 sec (Dc: 35, V: 300, Freq: 15).

EB@LB 21‐May‐15 EL 1 356 2 Austrothelphusa transversa On‐time 356 sec (Dc: 35, V: 300, Freq: 15).

EB@LB 21‐May‐15 SFYK 1 1 1 Melanotaenia splendida inornata Set from dawn to dusk.

EB@LB 21‐May‐15 SFYK 1 1 113 Mogurnda mogurnda Set from dawn to dusk.

EB@LB 21‐May‐15 SFYK 1 1 4 Austrothelphusa transversa Set from dawn to dusk.

EB@LB 21‐May‐15 SFYK 1 1 1 Melanotaenia nigrans Set from dawn to dusk.

EB@LB 21‐May‐15 SFYK 1 1 3 Macrobrachium bullatum Set from dawn to dusk.

EB@LB 21‐May‐15 SFYK 2 1 4 Austrothelphusa transversa Set from dawn to dusk.

66


licate

scaling

factor

Total


EB@LB 21‐May‐15 SFYK 2 1 5 Melanotaenia splendida inornata Set from dawn to dusk.

EB@LB 21‐May‐15 SFYK 2 1 3 Mogurnda mogurnda Set from dawn to dusk.

EB@LB 21‐May‐15 SFYK 2 1 3 Macrobrachium bullatum Set from dawn to dusk.

EB@LB 21‐May‐15 CL 1 1 0 Set from dawn to dusk. NO CATCH.





EB@LB 21‐May‐15 VIS 1 1 0 Hydrilla‐like macrophyte present.

EBDSHS 23‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 2 Chelodina rugosa Set from dawn to dusk.

EBDSHS 23‐May‐15 LFYK 2 1 3 Chelodina rugosa Set from dawn to dusk.

EBDSHS 23‐May‐15 EL 1 478 277 Macrobrachium bullatum On‐time 478 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

EBDSHS 23‐May‐15 EL 1 478 10 Melanotaenia splendida inornata On‐time 478 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

EBDSHS 23‐May‐15 EL 1 478 55 Mogurnda mogurnda On‐time 478 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

EBDSHS 23‐May‐15 EL 1 478 7 Melanotaenia nigrans On‐time 478 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

EBDSHS 23‐May‐15 EL 1 478 1 Leiopotherapon unicolor On‐time 478 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

EBDSHS 23‐May‐15 EL 1 478 2 Ophisternon gutturale On‐time 478 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

EBDSHS 23‐May‐15 EL 1 478 2 Neosilurus hyrtlii On‐time 478 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

EBDSHS 23‐May‐15 EL 1 478 6 Neosilurus ater On‐time 478 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

EBDSHS 23‐May‐15 EL 1 478 1 Oxyeleotris selhemi On‐time 478 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

EBDSHS 23‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 1 Cherax quadricarinatus Set from dawn to dusk.

EBDSHS 23‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 8 Ambassis macleayi Set from dawn to dusk.

EBDSHS 23‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 1 Melanotaenia splendida inornata Set from dawn to dusk.

EBDSHS 23‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 5 Neosilurus hyrtlii Set from dawn to dusk.

EBDSHS 23‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 2 Glossamia aprion Set from dawn to dusk.

EBDSHS 23‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 1 Porochilus rendahli Set from dawn to dusk.

EBDSHS 23‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 7 Neosilurus ater Set from dawn to dusk.

EBDSHS 23‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 1 Mogurnda mogurnda Set from dawn to dusk.

EBDSHS 23‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 1 Macrobrachium bullatum Set from dawn to dusk.

EBDSHS 23‐May‐15 LFYK 2 1 28 Melanotaenia nigrans Set from dawn to dusk.

EBDSHS 23‐May‐15 LFYK 2 1 15 Ambassis macleayi Set from dawn to dusk.

EBDSHS 23‐May‐15 LFYK 2 1 18 Melanotaenia splendida inornata Set from dawn to dusk.

EBDSHS 23‐May‐15 LFYK 2 1 1 Megalops cyprinoides Set from dawn to dusk.

EBDSHS 23‐May‐15 LFYK 2 1 1 Neosilurus hyrtlii Set from dawn to dusk.

EBDSHS 23‐May‐15 LFYK 2 1 3 Macrobrachium bullatum Set from dawn to dusk.

EBDSHS 23‐May‐15 LFYK 2 1 1 Neosilurus ater Set from dawn to dusk.

EBDSHS 23‐May‐15 CL 1 1 1 Macrobrachium bullatum Set from dawn to dusk.

EBDSHS 23‐May‐15 CL 2 1 0 Set from dawn to dusk. NO CATCH.




EBDSRB 22‐May‐15 EL 1 363 26 Mogurnda mogurnda On‐time 363 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

EBDSRB 22‐May‐15 EL 1 363 10 Melanotaenia nigrans On‐time 363 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

EBDSRB 22‐May‐15 EL 1 363 157 Macrobrachium bullatum On‐time 363 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

EBDSRB 22‐May‐15 EL 1 363 1 Melanotaenia splendida inornata On‐time 363 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

EBDSRB 22‐May‐15 EL 1 363 2 Cherax quadricarinatus On‐time 363 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

EBDSRB 22‐May‐15 EL 1 363 5 Neosilurus hyrtlii On‐time 363 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

EBDSRB 22‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 5 Megalops cyprinoides Set from dusk to dawn.

EBDSRB 22‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 6 Melanotaenia splendida inornata Set from dusk to dawn.

EBDSRB 22‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 3 Melanotaenia nigrans Set from dusk to dawn.

67


licate

scaling

factor

Total


EBDSRB 22‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 2 Macrobrachium bullatum Set from dusk to dawn.

EBDSRB 22‐May‐15 LFYK 2 1 1 Megalops cyprinoides Set from dusk to dawn.

EBDSRB 22‐May‐15 LFYK 2 1 15 Melanotaenia splendida inornata Set from dusk to dawn.

EBDSRB 22‐May‐15 LFYK 2 1 22 Ambassis macleayi Set from dusk to dawn.

EBDSRB 22‐May‐15 LFYK 2 1 1 Glossamia aprion Set from dusk to dawn.

EBDSRB 22‐May‐15 LFYK 2 1 3 Melanotaenia nigrans Set from dusk to dawn.

EBDSRB 22‐May‐15 LFYK 2 1 6 Macrobrachium bullatum Set from dusk to dawn.

EBDSRB 22‐May‐15 LFYK 2 1 5 Mogurnda mogurnda Set from dusk to dawn.

EBDSRB 22‐May‐15 LFYK 2 1 1 Neosilurus hyrtlii Set from dusk to dawn.

EBDSRB 22‐May‐15 CL 1 1 1 Macrobrachium bullatum Set from dusk to dawn.


EBDSRB 22‐May‐15 CL 2 1 1 Mogurnda mogurnda Set from dusk to dawn.



EBDSRB 22‐May‐15 CL 5 1 0 Set from dusk to dawn. NO CATCH.

EBUSFR 26‐May‐15 VIS 1 1 1 Crocodylus johnsoni

EBUSFR 26‐May‐15 EL 1 558 5 Melanotaenia splendida inornata On‐time 558 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

EBUSFR 26‐May‐15 EL 1 558 410 Macrobrachium bullatum On‐time 558 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

EBUSFR 26‐May‐15 EL 1 558 47 Mogurnda mogurnda On‐time 558 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

EBUSFR 26‐May‐15 EL 1 558 5 Leiopotherapon unicolor On‐time 558 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

EBUSFR 26‐May‐15 EL 1 558 1 Cherax quadricarinatus On‐time 558 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

EBUSFR 26‐May‐15 EL 1 558 1 Neosilurus hyrtlii On‐time 558 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

EBUSFR 26‐May‐15 EL 1 558 1 Glossogobius species 2. On‐time 558 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

EBUSFR 26‐May‐15 1 1 4 1 Lates calcarifer Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

EBUSFR 26‐May‐15 1 1 4 5 Neosilurus hyrtlii Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

EBUSFR 26‐May‐15 1 1 4 2 Amniataba percoides Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

EBUSFR 26‐May‐15 1 1 4 1 Megalops cyprinoides Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

EBUSFR 26‐May‐15 1 1 4 7 Melanotaenia splendida inornata Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

EBUSFR 26‐May‐15 1 1 4 1 Strongylura krefftii Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

EBUSFR 26‐May‐15 1 1 4 2 Leiopotherapon unicolor Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

EBUSFR 26‐May‐15 1.5 1 4 17 Nematalosa erebi Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

EBUSFR 26‐May‐15 1.5 1 4 22 Megalops cyprinoides Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

EBUSFR 26‐May‐15 1.5 1 4 6 Neosilurus hyrtlii Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

EBUSFR 26‐May‐15 1.5 1 4 2 Amniataba percoides Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

EBUSFR 26‐May‐15 1.5 1 4 2 Leiopotherapon unicolor Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

EBUSFR 26‐May‐15 1.5 1 4 1 Glossamia aprion Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

EBUSFR 26‐May‐15 2L(A) 1 4 3 Neosilurus hyrtlii Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

EBUSFR 26‐May‐15 2L(A) 1 4 14 Nematalosa erebi Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

EBUSFR 26‐May‐15 2L(A) 1 4 1 Glossamia aprion Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

EBUSFR 26‐May‐15 3L(A) 1 4 1 Megalops cyprinoides Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

EBUSFR 26‐May‐15 3L(A) 1 4 1 Nematalosa erebi Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

EBUSFR 26‐May‐15 PN(A) 1 4 0 Set 4:30‐8:30pm. NO CATCH.

EBUSFR 26‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 1 Melanotaenia nigrans Set from dawn to dusk.

EBUSFR 26‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 11 Melanotaenia splendida inornata Set from dawn to dusk.

EBUSFR 26‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 10 Ambassis macleayi Set from dawn to dusk.

EBUSFR 26‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 115 Macrobrachium bullatum Set from dawn to dusk.

EBUSFR 26‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 4 Mogurnda mogurnda Set from dawn to dusk.

EBUSFR 26‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 1 Neosilurus ater Set from dawn to dusk.

EBUSFR 26‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 2 Oxyeleotris selhemi Set from dawn to dusk.

68


licate

scaling

factor

Total


EBUSFR 26‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 1 Glossogobius species 2. Set from dawn to dusk.

EBUSFR 26‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 2 Neosilurus hyrtlii Set from dawn to dusk.

EBUSFR 26‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 2 Leiopotherapon unicolor Set from dawn to dusk.

EBUSFR 26‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 2 Cherax quadricarinatus Set from dawn to dusk.

EBUSFR 26‐May‐15 LFYK 2 1 5 Mogurnda mogurnda Set from dawn to dusk.

EBUSFR 26‐May‐15 LFYK 2 1 6 Melanotaenia splendida inornata Set from dawn to dusk.

EBUSFR 26‐May‐15 LFYK 2 1 304 Macrobrachium bullatum Set from dawn to dusk.

EBUSFR 26‐May‐15 LFYK 2 1 3 Leiopotherapon unicolor Set from dawn to dusk.

EBUSFR 26‐May‐15 LFYK 2 1 3 Ambassis macleayi Set from dawn to dusk.

EBUSFR 26‐May‐15 LFYK 2 1 3 Glossogobius species 2. Set from dawn to dusk.

EBUSFR 26‐May‐15 LFYK 2 1 6 Neosilurus hyrtlii Set from dawn to dusk.

EBUSFR 26‐May‐15 CL 1 1 2 Macrobrachium bullatum Set from dawn to dusk.

EBUSFR 26‐May‐15 CL 2 1 2 Macrobrachium bullatum Set from dawn to dusk.

EBUSFR 26‐May‐15 CL 3 1 0 Set from dawn to dusk. NO CATCH.



EBUSHS 25‐May‐15 1.5 1 4 1 Crocodylus johnsoni Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

EBUSHS 25‐May‐15 EL 1 403 21 Melanotaenia splendida inornata On‐time 403 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

EBUSHS 25‐May‐15 EL 1 403 44 Melanotaenia nigrans On‐time 403 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

EBUSHS 25‐May‐15 EL 1 403 72 Mogurnda mogurnda On‐time 403 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

EBUSHS 25‐May‐15 EL 1 403 170 Macrobrachium bullatum On‐time 403 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

EBUSHS 25‐May‐15 EL 1 403 3 Ambassis macleayi On‐time 403 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

EBUSHS 25‐May‐15 EL 1 403 1 Neosilurus hyrtlii On‐time 403 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

EBUSHS 25‐May‐15 1 1 4 6 Neosilurus hyrtlii Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

EBUSHS 25‐May‐15 1 1 4 3 Melanotaenia splendida inornata Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

EBUSHS 25‐May‐15 1 1 4 2 Neosilurus ater Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

EBUSHS 25‐May‐15 1 1 4 1 Glossogobius species 2. Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

EBUSHS 25‐May‐15 1.5 1 4 2 Megalops cyprinoides Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

EBUSHS 25‐May‐15 1.5 1 4 1 Oxyeleotris selhemi Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

EBUSHS 25‐May‐15 1.5 1 4 1 Glossamia aprion Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

EBUSHS 25‐May‐15 1.5 1 4 1 Neosilurus ater Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

EBUSHS 25‐May‐15 1.5 1 4 3 Neosilurus hyrtlii Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

EBUSHS 25‐May‐15 2L(A) 1 4 1 Megalops cyprinoides Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

EBUSHS 25‐May‐15 2L(A) 1 4 1 Glossamia aprion Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

EBUSHS 25‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 12 Ambassis macleayi Set from dusk to dawn.

EBUSHS 25‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 2 Melanotaenia splendida inornata Set from dusk to dawn.

EBUSHS 25‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 16 Macrobrachium bullatum Set from dusk to dawn.

EBUSHS 25‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 1 Neosilurus hyrtlii Set from dusk to dawn.

EBUSHS 25‐May‐15 LFYK 2 1 42 Ambassis macleayi Set from dusk to dawn.

EBUSHS 25‐May‐15 LFYK 2 1 6 Melanotaenia splendida inornata Set from dusk to dawn.

EBUSHS 25‐May‐15 LFYK 2 1 1 Macrobrachium bullatum Set from dusk to dawn.

EBUSHS 25‐May‐15 LFYK 2 1 1 Mogurnda mogurnda Set from dusk to dawn.

EBUSHS 25‐May‐15 LFYK 2 1 3 Neosilurus hyrtlii Set from dusk to dawn.

EBUSHS 25‐May‐15 CL 1 1 2 Macrobrachium bullatum Set from dusk to dawn.


EBUSHS 25‐May‐15 CL 2 1 1 Austrothelphusa transversa Set from dusk to dawn.



69


licate

scaling

factor

Total



FC@LB 21‐May‐15 EL 1 450 6 Mogurnda mogurnda On‐time 450 sec (Dc: 35, V:350, Freq: 15).

FC@LB 21‐May‐15 EL 1 450 26 Macrobrachium bullatum On‐time 450 sec (Dc: 35, V:350, Freq: 15).

FC@LB 21‐May‐15 EL 1 450 4 Melanotaenia splendida inornata On‐time 450 sec (Dc: 35, V:350, Freq: 15).

FC@LB 21‐May‐15 EL 1 450 3 Melanotaenia nigrans On‐time 450 sec (Dc: 35, V:350, Freq: 15).

FC@LB 21‐May‐15 SFYK 1 1 1 Austrothelphusa transversa Set from dusk to dawn.

FC@LB 21‐May‐15 SFYK 1 1 71 Melanotaenia nigrans Set from dusk to dawn.

FC@LB 21‐May‐15 SFYK 1 1 62 Melanotaenia splendida inornata Set from dusk to dawn.

FC@LB 21‐May‐15 SFYK 1 1 12 Ambassis macleayi Set from dusk to dawn.

FC@LB 21‐May‐15 SFYK 1 1 31 Macrobrachium bullatum Set from dusk to dawn.

FC@LB 21‐May‐15 SFYK 1 1 27 Mogurnda mogurnda Set from dusk to dawn.

FC@LB 21‐May‐15 SFYK 2 1 22 Melanotaenia splendida inornata Set from dusk to dawn.

FC@LB 21‐May‐15 SFYK 2 1 8 Macrobrachium bullatum Set from dusk to dawn.

FC@LB 21‐May‐15 SFYK 2 1 60 Melanotaenia nigrans Set from dusk to dawn.

FC@LB 21‐May‐15 SFYK 2 1 25 Mogurnda mogurnda Set from dusk to dawn.

FC@LB 21‐May‐15 SFYK 2 1 13 Austrothelphusa transversa Set from dusk to dawn.

FC@LB 21‐May‐15 CL 1 1 1 Austrothelphusa transversa Set from dusk to dawn.


FC@LB 21‐May‐15 CL 2 1 6 Melanotaenia nigrans Set from dusk to dawn.

FC@LB 21‐May‐15 CL 2 1 1 Melanotaenia splendida inornata Set from dusk to dawn.

FC@LB 21‐May‐15 CL 3 1 0 Set from dusk to dawn. NO CATCH.



FR@GS204 27‐May‐15 VIS 1 1 1 Crocodylus porosus

FR@GS204 27‐May‐15 3L(A) 1 4 1 Crocodylus johnsoni Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FR@GS204 27‐May‐15 EL 1 524 172 Caridina gracilirostris On‐time 524 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

FR@GS204 27‐May‐15 EL 1 524 96 Macrobrachium bullatum On‐time 524 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

FR@GS204 27‐May‐15 EL 1 524 48 Caridina typus On‐time 524 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

FR@GS204 27‐May‐15 EL 1 524 3 Melanotaenia nigrans On‐time 524 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

FR@GS204 27‐May‐15 EL 1 524 1 Craterocephalus stramineus On‐time 524 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

FR@GS204 27‐May‐15 EL 1 524 4 Melanotaenia splendida inornata On‐time 524 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

FR@GS204 27‐May‐15 EL 1 524 135 Macrobrachium handschini On‐time 524 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

FR@GS204 27‐May‐15 EL 1 524 3 Macrobrachium spinipes On‐time 524 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

FR@GS204 27‐May‐15 EL 1 524 1 Neosilurus hyrtlii On‐time 524 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

FR@GS204 27‐May‐15 EL 1 524 9 Glossogobius species 2. On‐time 524 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

FR@GS204 27‐May‐15 EL 1 524 3 Oxyeleotris selhemi On‐time 524 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

FR@GS204 27‐May‐15 EL 1 524 1 Neosilurus ater On‐time 524 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

FR@GS204 27‐May‐15 EL 1 524 3 Mogurnda mogurnda On‐time 524 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

FR@GS204 27‐May‐15 1 1 4 1 Neosilurus ater Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FR@GS204 27‐May‐15 1 1 4 2 Syncomistes butleri Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FR@GS204 27‐May‐15 1 1 4 2 Strongylura krefftii Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FR@GS204 27‐May‐15 1 1 4 19 Amniataba percoides Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FR@GS204 27‐May‐15 1 1 4 2 Nematalosa erebi Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FR@GS204 27‐May‐15 1 1 4 3 Ambassis macleayi Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FR@GS204 27‐May‐15 1.5 1 4 16 Nematalosa erebi Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FR@GS204 27‐May‐15 1.5 1 4 4 Toxotes chatareus Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FR@GS204 27‐May‐15 1.5 1 4 1 Megalops cyprinoides Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FR@GS204 27‐May‐15 1.5 1 4 2 Syncomistes butleri Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

70


licate

scaling

factor

Total


FR@GS204 27‐May‐15 1.5 1 4 1 Amniataba percoides Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FR@GS204 27‐May‐15 2L(A) 1 4 3 Nematalosa erebi Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FR@GS204 27‐May‐15 2L(A) 1 4 5 Neosilurus ater Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FR@GS204 27‐May‐15 2L(A) 1 4 2 Syncomistes butleri Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FR@GS204 27‐May‐15 2L(A) 1 4 1 Toxotes chatareus Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FR@GS204 27‐May‐15 3L(A) 1 4 1 Neosilurus ater Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FR@GS204 27‐May‐15 3L(A) 1 4 1 Nematalosa erebi Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FR@GS204 27‐May‐15 3L(A) 1 4 3 Syncomistes butleri Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FR@GS204 27‐May‐15 PN(A) 1 4 0 Set 4:30‐8:30pm. NO CATCH.

FR@GS204 27‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 37 Craterocephalus stramineus Set from dusk to dawn.

FR@GS204 27‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 1 Lates calcarifer Set from dusk to dawn.

FR@GS204 27‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 2 Macrobrachium spinipes Set from dusk to dawn.

FR@GS204 27‐May‐15 LFYK 2 1 4 Craterocephalus stramineus Set from dusk to dawn.

FR@GS204 27‐May‐15 CL 1 1 1 Macrobrachium bullatum Set from dusk to dawn.

FR@GS204 27‐May‐15 CL 2 1 0 Set from dusk to dawn. NO CATCH.



FR@GS204 27‐May‐15 CL 5 1 1 Macrobrachium bullatum Set from dusk to dawn.

FR@GS204 27‐May‐15 VIS 1 1 1 Oxyeleotris selhemi

FR@GS204 27‐May‐15 LFYK 2 1 1 Crocodylus johnsoni Set from dusk to dawn.

FR3 28‐May‐15 1.5 1 4 1 Crocodylus johnsoni Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FR3 28‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 1 Crocodylus johnsoni Set from dawn to dusk.

FR3 28‐May‐15 1 1 4 1 Amniataba percoides Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FR3 28‐May‐15 1 2 4 2 Amniataba percoides Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FR3 28‐May‐15 1 2 4 1 Toxotes chatareus Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FR3 28‐May‐15 1 2 4 1 Strongylura krefftii Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FR3 28‐May‐15 1.5 1 4 2 Strongylura krefftii Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FR3 28‐May‐15 1.5 1 4 25 Nematalosa erebi Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FR3 28‐May‐15 1.5 1 4 5 Toxotes chatareus Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FR3 28‐May‐15 1.5 1 4 2 Syncomistes butleri Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FR3 28‐May‐15 1.5 1 4 1 Neosilurus hyrtlii Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FR3 28‐May‐15 1.5 1 4 3 Megalops cyprinoides Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FR3 28‐May‐15 1.5 1 4 2 Amniataba percoides Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FR3 28‐May‐15 1.5 2 4 16 Amniataba percoides Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FR3 28‐May‐15 1.5 2 4 7 Neosilurus ater Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FR3 28‐May‐15 1.5 2 4 3 Toxotes chatareus Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FR3 28‐May‐15 1.5 2 4 2 Syncomistes butleri Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FR3 28‐May‐15 1.5 2 4 1 Hephaestus fuliginosus Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FR3 28‐May‐15 1.5 2 4 1 Glossamia aprion Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FR3 28‐May‐15 2L(A) 1 4 1 Neosilurus ater Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FR3 28‐May‐15 2L(A) 1 4 1 Neosilurus hyrtlii Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FR3 28‐May‐15 2L(A) 1 4 20 Nematalosa erebi Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FR3 28‐May‐15 2L(A) 1 4 1 Megalops cyprinoides Set 4:30‐8:30pm.





FR3 28‐May‐15 3L(A) 1 4 1 Arius graeffei Set 4:30‐8:30pm.


71


licate

scaling

factor

Total


FR3 28‐May‐15 3L(A) 1 4 2 Toxotes chatareus Set 4:30‐8:30pm.


FR3 28‐May‐15 3L(A) 2 4 1 Syncomistes butleri Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FR3 28‐May‐15 3L(A) 2 4 1 Lates calcarifer Set 4:30‐8:30pm.




FR3 28‐May‐15 PN(A) 1 4 3 Nematalosa erebi Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FR3 28‐May‐15 PN(A) 2 4 0 Set 4:30‐8:30pm. NO CATCH.

FR3 28‐May‐15 EL 1 378 6 Mogurnda mogurnda On‐time 378 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

FR3 28‐May‐15 EL 1 378 109 Caridina gracilirostris On‐time 378 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

FR3 28‐May‐15 EL 1 378 30 Macrobrachium handschini On‐time 378 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

FR3 28‐May‐15 EL 1 378 1 Melanotaenia splendida inornata On‐time 378 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

FR3 28‐May‐15 EL 1 378 148 Macrobrachium bullatum On‐time 378 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

FR3 28‐May‐15 EL 1 378 12 Caridina typus On‐time 378 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

FR3 28‐May‐15 EL 1 378 3 Macrobrachium spinipes On‐time 378 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

FR3 28‐May‐15 EL 1 378 3 Hephaestus fuliginosus On‐time 378 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

FR3 28‐May‐15 EL 1 378 5 Glossogobius species 2. On‐time 378 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

FR3 28‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 1 Strongylura krefftii Set from dawn to dusk.

FR3 28‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 1 Ambassis macleayi Set from dawn to dusk.

FR3 28‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 1 Macrobrachium spinipes Set from dawn to dusk.

FR3 28‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 1 Macrobrachium handschini Set from dawn to dusk.

FR3 28‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 13 Craterocephalus stramineus Set from dawn to dusk.

FR3 28‐May‐15 LFYK 2 10

Set from dawn to dusk. NO CATCH. Water level dropped

overnight so fyke was no longer underwater.

FR3 28‐May‐15 CL 1 1 1 Glossamia aprion Set from dawn to dusk.

FR3 28‐May‐15 CL 2 1 1 Macrobrachium handschini Set from dawn to dusk.

FR3 28‐May‐15 CL 3 1 0 Set from dawn to dusk. NO CATCH.

FR3 28‐May‐15 CL 4 1 0 Set from dawn to dusk. NO CATCH.

FR3 28‐May‐15 CL 5 1 1 Cherax quadricarinatus Set from dawn to dusk.

FRDSFC 29‐May‐15 VIS 1 1 1 Crocodylus porosus

FRDSFC 29‐May‐15 EL 1 198 109 Macrobrachium bullatum On‐time 198 sec (Dc:15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

FRDSFC 29‐May‐15 EL 1 198 8 Caridina gracilirostris On‐time 198 sec (Dc:15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

FRDSFC 29‐May‐15 EL 1 198 3 Glossogobius species 2. On‐time 198 sec (Dc:15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

FRDSFC 29‐May‐15 EL 1 198 23 Macrobrachium handschini On‐time 198 sec (Dc:15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

FRDSFC 29‐May‐15 EL 1 198 1 Caridina typus On‐time 198 sec (Dc:15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

FRDSFC 29‐May‐15 1 1 4 2 Syncomistes butleri Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRDSFC 29‐May‐15 1 1 4 2 Amniataba percoides Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRDSFC 29‐May‐15 1 1 4 1 Megalops cyprinoides Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRDSFC 29‐May‐15 1 1 4 3 Toxotes chatareus Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRDSFC 29‐May‐15 1 2 4 2 Strongylura krefftii Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRDSFC 29‐May‐15 1 2 4 18 Amniataba percoides Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRDSFC 29‐May‐15 1 2 4 2 Neosilurus ater Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRDSFC 29‐May‐15 1 2 4 2 Hephaestus fuliginosus Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRDSFC 29‐May‐15 1.5 1 4 1 Neosilurus ater Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRDSFC 29‐May‐15 1.5 1 4 1 Neosilurus hyrtlii Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRDSFC 29‐May‐15 1.5 1 4 2 Leiopotherapon unicolor Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRDSFC 29‐May‐15 1.5 1 4 4 Megalops cyprinoides Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRDSFC 29‐May‐15 1.5 1 4 1 Toxotes chatareus Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRDSFC 29‐May‐15 1.5 1 4 2 Amniataba percoides Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRDSFC 29‐May‐15 1.5 1 4 1 Melanotaenia splendida inornata Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRDSFC 29‐May‐15 1 5 2 4 1 Pingalla sp A Set 4:30‐8:30pm

72


licate

scaling

factor

Total


FRDSFC 29‐May‐15 1.5 2 4 6 Megalops cyprinoides Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRDSFC 29‐May‐15 1.5 2 4 1 Neosilurus ater Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRDSFC 29‐May‐15 1.5 2 4 1 Syncomistes butleri Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRDSFC 29‐May‐15 1.5 2 4 1 Leiopotherapon unicolor Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRDSFC 29‐May‐15 1.5 2 4 2 Toxotes chatareus Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRDSFC 29‐May‐15 2L(A) 1 4 1 Neosilurus ater Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRDSFC 29‐May‐15 2L(A) 1 4 9 Nematalosa erebi Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRDSFC 29‐May‐15 2L(A) 2 4 1 Neosilurus hyrtlii Set 4:30‐8:30pm.


FRDSFC 29‐May‐15 2L(A) 2 4 1 Syncomistes butleri Set 4:30‐8:30pm.



FRDSFC 29‐May‐15 3L(A) 1 4 1 Megalops cyprinoides Set 4:30‐8:30pm.





FRDSFC 29‐May‐15 PN(A) 1 4 0 Set 4:30‐8:30pm. NO CATCH.

FRDSFC 29‐May‐15 PN(A) 2 4 0 Set 4:30‐8:30pm. NO CATCH.

FRDSFC 29‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 0 Not Set.

FRDSFC 29‐May‐15 LFYK 2 1 0 Not set.

FRDSFC 29‐May‐15 CL 1 1 2 Macrobrachium bullatum Set from dusk to dawn.

FRDSFC 29‐May‐15 CL 2 1 0 Set from dusk to dawn. NO CATCH.




FRDSMB 19‐May‐15 EL 1 328 1 Amniataba percoides On‐time 328 sec (Dc:35, V:300, Freq: 10).

FRDSMB 19‐May‐15 EL 1 328 2 Glossamia aprion On‐time 328 sec (Dc:35, V:300, Freq: 10).

FRDSMB 19‐May‐15 EL 1 328 79 Macrobrachium bullatum On‐time 328 sec (Dc:35, V:300, Freq: 10).

FRDSMB 19‐May‐15 EL 1 328 3 Macrobrachium spinipes On‐time 328 sec (Dc:35, V:300, Freq: 10).

FRDSMB 19‐May‐15 EL 1 328 8 Macrobrachium handschini On‐time 328 sec (Dc:35, V:300, Freq: 10).

FRDSMB 19‐May‐15 EL 1 328 1 Hephaestus fuliginosus On‐time 328 sec (Dc:35, V:300, Freq: 10).

FRDSMB 19‐May‐15 EL 1 328 2 Melanotaenia splendida inornata On‐time 328 sec (Dc:35, V:300, Freq: 10).

FRDSMB 19‐May‐15 EL 1 328 1 Melanotaenia nigrans On‐time 328 sec (Dc:35, V:300, Freq: 10).

FRDSMB 19‐May‐15 EL 1 328 2 Mogurnda mogurnda On‐time 328 sec (Dc:35, V:300, Freq: 10).

FRDSMB 19‐May‐15 EL 1 328 44 Caridina gracilirostris On‐time 328 sec (Dc:35, V:300, Freq: 10).

FRDSMB 19‐May‐15 EL 1 328 16 Caridina typus On‐time 328 sec (Dc:35, V:300, Freq: 10).

FRDSMB 19‐May‐15 1 1 4 1 Nematalosa erebi Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRDSMB 19‐May‐15 1 1 4 1 Megalops cyprinoides Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRDSMB 19‐May‐15 1 2 4 1 Megalops cyprinoides Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRDSMB 19‐May‐15 1 2 4 1 Strongylura krefftii Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

73


licate

scaling

factor

Total


FRDSMB 19‐May‐15 1 2 4 11 Amniataba percoides Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRDSMB 19‐May‐15 1.5 1 4 3 Neosilurus hyrtlii Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRDSMB 19‐May‐15 1.5 1 4 3 Nematalosa erebi Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRDSMB 19‐May‐15 1.5 1 4 4 Megalops cyprinoides Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRDSMB 19‐May‐15 1.5 1 4 5 Amniataba percoides Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRDSMB 19‐May‐15 1.5 1 4 1 Syncomistes butleri Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRDSMB 19‐May‐15 1.5 2 4 11 Megalops cyprinoides Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRDSMB 19‐May‐15 1.5 2 4 19 Nematalosa erebi Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRDSMB 19‐May‐15 1.5 2 4 15 Amniataba percoides Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRDSMB 19‐May‐15 1.5 2 4 2 Toxotes chatareus Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRDSMB 19‐May‐15 1.5 2 4 1 Strongylura krefftii Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRDSMB 19‐May‐15 1.5 2 4 2 Neosilurus ater Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRDSMB 19‐May‐15 2L(A) 1 4 28 Nematalosa erebi Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRDSMB 19‐May‐15 2L(A) 1 4 2 Megalops cyprinoides Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRDSMB 19‐May‐15 2L(A) 1 4 2 Lates calcarifer Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRDSMB 19‐May‐15 2L(A) 1 4 1 Toxotes chatareus Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRDSMB 19‐May‐15 2L(A) 1 4 1 Amniataba percoides Set 4:30‐8:30pm.



FRDSMB 19‐May‐15 2L(A) 2 4 1 Lates calcarifer Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRDSMB 19‐May‐15 2L(A) 2 4 3 Neosilurus ater Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRDSMB 19‐May‐15 2L(A) 2 4 2 Neosilurus hyrtlii Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRDSMB 19‐May‐15 3L(A) 1 4 2 Arius graeffei Set 4:30‐8:30pm.






FRDSMB 19‐May‐15 3L(A) 2 4 1 Syncomistes butleri Set 4:30‐8:30pm.



FRDSMB 19‐May‐15 3L(A) 2 4 2 Arius graeffei Set 4:30‐8:30pm.


FRDSMB 19‐May‐15 PN(A) 1 4 3 Nematalosa erebi Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRDSMB 19‐May‐15 PN(A) 2 4 1 Lates calcarifer Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRDSMB 19‐May‐15 PN(A) 2 4 6 Nematalosa erebi Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRDSMB 19‐May‐15 PN(A) 2 4 1 Megalops cyprinoides Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRDSMB 19‐May‐15 PN(A) 2 4 1 Arius graeffei Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRDSMB 19‐May‐15 CL 1 1 0 Set from dawn to dusk. NO CATCH.





74


licate

scaling

factor

Total


FRDSMB 19‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 2 Ambassis macleayi Set from dawn to dusk.

FRDSMB 19‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 1 Neosilurus ater Set from dawn to dusk.

FRDSMB 19‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 2 Macrobrachium bullatum Set from dawn to dusk.

FRDSMB 19‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 1 Macrobrachium spinipes Set from dawn to dusk.

FRDSMB 19‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 1 Cherax quadricarinatus Set from dawn to dusk.

FRDSMB 19‐May‐15 LFYK 2 1 1 Macrobrachium bullatum Set from dawn to dusk.

FRDSMB 19‐May‐15 LFYK 2 1 2 Glossamia aprion Set from dawn to dusk.

FRDSMB 19‐May‐15 VIS 1 1 1 Crocodylus porosus

FRDSMB 19‐May‐15 LFYK 2 1 1 Emydura tanybaraga Set from dawn to dusk.

FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 VIS 1 1 1 Crocodylus porosus

FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 3L(A) 1 4 1 Crocodylus johnsoni Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 VIS 1 1 1 Crocodylus johnsoni

FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 EL 1 462 14 Mogurnda mogurnda On‐time 462 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 EL 1 462 6 Melanotaenia nigrans On‐time 462 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 EL 1 462 2 Oxyeleotris selhemi On‐time 462 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 EL 1 462 48 Caridina gracilirostris On‐time 462 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 EL 1 462 117 Caridina typus On‐time 462 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 EL 1 462 166 Macrobrachium bullatum On‐time 462 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 EL 1 462 5 Leiopotherapon unicolor On‐time 462 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 EL 1 462 97 Macrobrachium handschini On‐time 462 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 EL 1 462 6 Glossogobius species 2. On‐time 462 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 EL 1 462 2 Craterocephalus stramineus On‐time 462 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 EL 1 462 1 Macrobrachium spinipes On‐time 462 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 EL 1 462 1 Cherax quadricarinatus On‐time 462 sec (Dc: 15, V: 250, Freq: 25).

FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 1 1 4 1 Megalops cyprinoides Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 1 1 4 2 Strongylura krefftii Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 1 1 4 1 Pingalla sp. A Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 1 1 4 2 Syncomistes butleri Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 1 1 4 4 Nematalosa erebi Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 1 1 4 37 Amniataba percoides Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 1 1 4 1 Hephaestus fuliginosus Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 1 2 4 1 Megalops cyprinoides Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 1 2 4 1 Toxotes chatareus Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 1 2 4 1 Strongylura krefftii Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 1 2 4 2 Nematalosa erebi Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 1 2 4 12 Amniataba percoides Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 1.5 1 4 4 Strongylura krefftii Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 1.5 1 4 11 Nematalosa erebi Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 1.5 1 4 5 Megalops cyprinoides Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 1.5 1 4 13 Amniataba percoides Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 1.5 1 4 8 Syncomistes butleri Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 1.5 1 4 2 Toxotes chatareus Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 1.5 2 4 10 Megalops cyprinoides Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 1.5 2 4 7 Syncomistes butleri Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 1.5 2 4 1 Strongylura krefftii Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 1.5 2 4 4 Toxotes chatareus Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 1.5 2 4 7 Nematalosa erebi Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

75


licate

scaling

factor

Total


FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 1.5 2 4 1 Amniataba percoides Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 2L(A) 1 4 30 Nematalosa erebi Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 2L(A) 1 4 1 Neosilurus hyrtlii Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 2L(A) 1 4 1 Syncomistes butleri Set 4:30‐8:30pm.



FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 2L(A) 2 4 1 Megalops cyprinoides Set 4:30‐8:30pm.


FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 3L(A) 1 4 4 Toxotes chatareus Set 4:30‐8:30pm.


FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 3L(A) 1 4 1 Amniataba percoides Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 3L(A) 2 4 3 Toxotes chatareus Set 4:30‐8:30pm.


FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 3L(A) 2 4 1 Neosilurus ater Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 3L(A) 2 4 2 Megalops cyprinoides Set 4:30‐8:30pm.


FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 PN(A) 1 4 6 Nematalosa erebi Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 PN(A) 2 4 1 Nematalosa erebi Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 16 Craterocephalus stramineus Set from dawn to dusk.

FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 1 Melanotaenia nigrans Set from dawn to dusk.

FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 6 Melanotaenia splendida inornata Set from dawn to dusk.

FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 2 Mogurnda mogurnda Set from dawn to dusk.

FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 2 Macrobrachium bullatum Set from dawn to dusk.

FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 8 Caridina gracilirostris Set from dawn to dusk.

FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 1 Ambassis macleayi Set from dawn to dusk.

FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 2 Glossamia aprion Set from dawn to dusk.

FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 LFYK 1 1 1 Glossogobius species 2. Set from dawn to dusk.

FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 LFYK 2 1 2 Megalops cyprinoides Set from dawn to dusk.

FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 LFYK 2 1 1 Oxyeleotris selhemi Set from dawn to dusk.

FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 LFYK 2 1 9 Craterocephalus stramineus Set from dawn to dusk.

FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 LFYK 2 1 1 Macrobrachium spinipes Set from dawn to dusk.

FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 LFYK 2 1 1 Caridina gracilirostris Set from dawn to dusk.

FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 CL 1 1 0 Set from dawn to dusk. NO CATCH.




FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 CL 5 1 3 Macrobrachium bullatum Set from dawn to dusk.

FRUSFC 30‐May‐15 3L(A) 2 4 1 Crocodylus sp Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRUSMB 20‐May‐15 EL 1 302 1 Oxyeleotris selhemi On‐time 302 sec (Dc:35, V:300, Freq: 10).

FRUSMB 20‐May‐15 EL 1 302 74 Macrobrachium handschini On‐time 302 sec (Dc:35, V:300, Freq: 10).

FRUSMB 20‐May‐15 EL 1 302 1 Melanotaenia nigrans On‐time 302 sec (Dc:35, V:300, Freq: 10).

FRUSMB 20‐May‐15 EL 1 302 1 Melanotaenia splendida inornata On‐time 302 sec (Dc:35, V:300, Freq: 10).

FRUSMB 20‐May‐15 EL 1 302 110 Macrobrachium bullatum On‐time 302 sec (Dc:35, V:300, Freq: 10).

FRUSMB 20‐May‐15 EL 1 302 22 Caridina gracilirostris On‐time 302 sec (Dc:35, V:300, Freq: 10).

FRUSMB 20‐May‐15 EL 1 302 11 Caridina typus On‐time 302 sec (Dc:35, V:300, Freq: 10).

FRUSMB 20‐May‐15 EL 1 302 5 Hephaestus fuliginosus On‐time 302 sec (Dc:35, V:300, Freq: 10).

76


licate

scaling

factor

Total


FRUSMB 20‐May‐15 EL 1 302 5 Glossogobius giurus On‐time 302 sec (Dc:35, V:300, Freq: 10).

FRUSMB 20‐May‐15 EL 1 302 4 Amniataba percoides On‐time 302 sec (Dc:35, V:300, Freq: 10).

FRUSMB 20‐May‐15 EL 1 302 3 Macrobrachium spinipes On‐time 302 sec (Dc:35, V:300, Freq: 10).

FRUSMB 20‐May‐15 EL 1 302 2 Mogurnda mogurnda On‐time 302 sec (Dc:35, V:300, Freq: 10).

FRUSMB 20‐May‐15 EL 1 302 2 Leiopotherapon unicolor On‐time 302 sec (Dc:35, V:300, Freq: 10).

FRUSMB 20‐May‐15 EL 1 302 5 Neosilurus hyrtlii On‐time 302 sec (Dc:35, V:300, Freq: 10).

FRUSMB 20‐May‐15 EL 1 302 1 Neosilurus ater On‐time 302 sec (Dc:35, V:300, Freq: 10).

FRUSMB 20‐May‐15 EL 1 302 1 Cherax quadricarinatus On‐time 302 sec (Dc:35, V:300, Freq: 10).

FRUSMB 20‐May‐15 1 1 4 1 Strongylura krefftii Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRUSMB 20‐May‐15 1 2 4 1 Lates calcarifer Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRUSMB 20‐May‐15 1 2 4 16 Amniataba percoides Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRUSMB 20‐May‐15 1.5 1 4 58 Nematalosa erebi Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRUSMB 20‐May‐15 1.5 1 4 4 Megalops cyprinoides Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRUSMB 20‐May‐15 1.5 1 4 1 Syncomistes butleri Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRUSMB 20‐May‐15 1.5 1 4 2 Amniataba percoides Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRUSMB 20‐May‐15 1.5 1 4 1 Leiopotherapon unicolor Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRUSMB 20‐May‐15 1.5 1 4 1 Strongylura krefftii Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRUSMB 20‐May‐15 1.5 1 4 3 Neosilurus hyrtlii Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRUSMB 20‐May‐15 1.5 2 4 41 Nematalosa erebi Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRUSMB 20‐May‐15 1.5 2 4 3 Megalops cyprinoides Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRUSMB 20‐May‐15 1.5 2 4 1 Amniataba percoides Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRUSMB 20‐May‐15 1.5 2 4 1 Syncomistes butleri Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRUSMB 20‐May‐15 1.5 2 4 1 Toxotes chatareus Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRUSMB 20‐May‐15 1.5 2 4 1 Neosilurus hyrtlii Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRUSMB 20‐May‐15 2L(A) 1 4 4 Nematalosa erebi Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRUSMB 20‐May‐15 2L(A) 1 4 3 Neosilurus ater Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRUSMB 20‐May‐15 2L(A) 1 4 1 Lates calcarifer Set 4:30‐8:30pm.


FRUSMB 20‐May‐15 2L(A) 2 4 3 Nematalosa erebi Set 4:30‐8:30pm.



FRUSMB 20‐May‐15 3L(A) 2 4 3 Syncomistes butleri Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRUSMB 20‐May‐15 PN(A) 1 4 1 Lates calcarifer Set 4:30‐8:30pm.

FRUSMB 20‐May‐15 PN(A) 2 4 0 Set 4:30‐8:30pm. NO CATCH.

FRUSMB 20‐May‐15 CL 1 1 0 Set from dusk to dawn. NO CATCH.





77


licate

scaling

factor

Total


FRUSMB 20‐May‐15 SFYK 1 1 1 Lates calcarifer Set from dusk to dawn.

FRUSMB 20‐May‐15 SFYK 1 1 2 Oxyeleotris selhemi Set from dusk to dawn.

FRUSMB 20‐May‐15 SFYK 1 1 2 Melanotaenia splendida inornata Set from dusk to dawn.

FRUSMB 20‐May‐15 SFYK 1 1 9 Macrobrachium spinipes Set from dusk to dawn.

FRUSMB 20‐May‐15 SFYK 1 1 2 Macrobrachium bullatum Set from dusk to dawn.

FRUSMB 20‐May‐15 SFYK 1 1 4 Craterocephalus stramineus Set from dusk to dawn.

FRUSMB 20‐May‐15 SFYK 1 1 2 Macrobrachium handschini Set from dusk to dawn.

FRUSMB 20‐May‐15 SFYK 1 1 1 Caridina gracilirostris Set from dusk to dawn.

FRUSMB 20‐May‐15 SFYK 2 1 2 Macrobrachium spinipes Set from dusk to dawn.

FRUSMB 20‐May‐15 SFYK 2 1 2 Craterocephalus stramineus Set from dusk to dawn.

FRUSMB 20‐May‐15 SFYK 1 1 1 Chelodina rugosa Set from dusk to dawn.

FRUSMB 20‐May‐15 VIS 1 1 1 Crocodylus porosus

FRUSMB 20‐May‐15 VIS 1 1 1 Crocodylus johnsoni

78

APPENDIX 6 2014 FISH DATA

79

site date methodmethod_

replicateSp_name Abundance_raw Biomass_raw

EB@GS097 27‐May‐14 EL 1 Mogurnda mogurnda 57 0

EB@GS097 27‐May‐14 EL 1 Macrobrachium sp (unidentified) 44 0

EB@GS097 27‐May‐14 EL 1 Melanotaenia splendida inornata 15 0

EB@GS097 27‐May‐14 EL 1 Ambassis macleayi 7 0

EB@GS097 27‐May‐14 EL 1 Melanotaenia nigrans 3 0

EB@GS097 27‐May‐14 EL 1 Glossamia aprion 2 0

EB@GS097 27‐May‐14 EL 1 Leiopotherapon unicolor 1 0

EB@GS097 26‐May‐14 LFYK 1 Ambassis macleayi 76 61.6

EB@GS097 26‐May‐14 LFYK 1 Glossamia aprion 8 241.7

EB@GS097 26‐May‐14 LFYK 1 Melanotaenia splendida inornata 7 4.5

EB@GS097 26‐May‐14 LFYK 1 Craterocephalus stercusmuscarum 6 3.8

EB@GS097 26‐May‐14 LFYK 1 Neosilurus hyrtlii 3 43

EB@GS097 26‐May‐14 LFYK 1 Neosilurus ater 2 28.9

EB@GS097 26‐May‐14 LFYK 1 Melanotaenia nigrans 2 1.5

EB@GS097 26‐May‐14 LFYK 1 Oxyeleotris selhemi 1 123.3

EB@GS097 26‐May‐14 LFYK 1 Mogurnda mogurnda 1 2


EB@GS097 26‐May‐14 LFYK 2 Craterocephalus stercusmuscarum 16 9.6

EB@GS097 26‐May‐14 LFYK 2 Melanotaenia splendida inornata 11 18

EB@GS097 26‐May‐14 LFYK 2 Glossamia aprion 7 113.1

EB@GS097 26‐May‐14 LFYK 2 Macrobrachium bullatum 6 3.5

EB@GS097 26‐May‐14 LFYK 2 Oxyeleotris selhemi 4 870


EB@GS097 26‐May‐14 LFYK 2 Glossogobius species 2. 1 5.2

EB@GS097 26‐May‐14 LFYK 2 1 0

EB@GS097 28‐May‐14 SFYK 1 Melanotaenia splendida inornata 4 0

EB@GS097 28‐May‐14 SFYK 1 Glossamia aprion 3 0

EB@GS097 28‐May‐14 SFYK 1 Oxyeleotris selhemi 2 0

EB@GS097 28‐May‐14 SFYK 1 Neosilurus hyrtlii 1 0

EB@GS097 28‐May‐14 SFYK 1 Macrobrachium sp (unidentified) 1 0

EB@GS097 28‐May‐14 SFYK 2 Ambassis macleayi 16 0

EB@GS097 28‐May‐14 SFYK 2 Melanotaenia splendida inornata 5 0

EB@GS097 28‐May‐14 SFYK 2 Glossamia aprion 3 0

EB@GS097 28‐May‐14 SFYK 2 Craterocephalus stercusmuscarum 2 0

EB@GS097 28‐May‐14 SFYK 2 Macrobrachium bullatum 2 0

EB@GS097 28‐May‐14 SFYK 2 Neosilurus hyrtlii 1 0

EB@GS200 25‐May‐14 EL 1 Macrobrachium bullatum 3 2

EB@GS200 25‐May‐14 EL 1 Mogurnda mogurnda 2 9.4


80



EB@GS200 25‐May‐14 LFYK 1 Melanotaenia nigrans 18 10


EB@GS200 25‐May‐14 LFYK 1 Dytiscid sp 2 (Medium) 2 2.3

EB@GS200 25‐May‐14 LFYK 1 Macrobrachium bullatum 1 1

EB@GS200 25‐May‐14 LFYK 2 Melanotaenia nigrans 45 18


EB@GS200 25‐May‐14 LFYK 2 Macrobrachium bullatum 36 14


EB@GS200 25‐May‐14 LFYK 2 Holthuisana transversa 1 3

EB@GS200 25‐May‐14 LFYK 2 Dytiscid sp 2 (Medium) 1 2.9


EB@GS327 29‐May‐14 EL 1 Macrobrachium sp (unidentified) 140 0

EB@GS327 29‐May‐14 EL 1 Melanotaenia nigrans 9 0

EB@GS327 29‐May‐14 EL 1 Mogurnda mogurnda 4 0

EB@GS327 29‐May‐14 EL 1 Melanotaenia splendida inornata 3 0

EB@GS327 29‐May‐14 EL 1 Neosilurus hyrtlii 1 0

EB@GS327 29‐May‐14 LFYK 1 Ambassis macleayi 50 91

EB@GS327 29‐May‐14 LFYK 1 Macrobrachium sp (unidentified) 11 0.6

EB@GS327 29‐May‐14 LFYK 1 Neosilurus hyrtlii 2 40.4


EB@GS327 29‐May‐14 LFYK 1 Crocodylus johnsoni 2 0


EB@GS327 29‐May‐14 LFYK 2 Macrobrachium sp (unidentified) 55 24



EB@GS327 29‐May‐14 LFYK 2 Mogurnda mogurnda 7 24.6


EB@GS327 29‐May‐14 LFYK 2 Neosilurus hyrtlii 2 11.5

EB@LB 23‐May‐14 EL 1 Mogurnda mogurnda 131 150

EB@LB 23‐May‐14 EL 1 Macrobrachium bullatum 33 23

EB@LB 23‐May‐14 EL 1 Melanotaenia splendida inornata 4 2

EB@LB 23‐May‐14 EL 1 Melanotaenia nigrans 2 1

EB@LB 23‐May‐14 EL 1 Macrobrachium sp 3 1 1

EB@LB 23‐May‐14 SFYK 1 Mogurnda mogurnda 570 1338

EB@LB 23‐May‐14 SFYK 1 Neosilurus hyrtlii 264 450

EB@LB 23‐May‐14 SFYK 1 Macrobrachium bullatum 87 46

EB@LB 23‐May‐14 SFYK 1 Melanotaenia nigrans 56 18

EB@LB 23‐May‐14 SFYK 1 Melanotaenia splendida inornata 48 66

EB@LB 23‐May‐14 SFYK 1 Macrobrachium sp 3 13 2

EB@LB 23‐May‐14 SFYK 1 Ambassis macleayi 5 4

81



EB@LB 23‐May‐14 SFYK 1 Holthuisana transversa 1 0

EB@LB 23‐May‐14 SFYK 2 Macrobrachium bullatum 525 153

EB@LB 23‐May‐14 SFYK 2 Melanotaenia nigrans 394 156

EB@LB 23‐May‐14 SFYK 2 Mogurnda mogurnda 145 920

EB@LB 23‐May‐14 SFYK 2 Neosilurus hyrtlii 110 248

EB@LB 23‐May‐14 SFYK 2 Ambassis macleayi 96 62

EB@LB 23‐May‐14 SFYK 2 Melanotaenia splendida inornata 89 40

EB@LB 23‐May‐14 SFYK 2 Macrobrachium spinipes 84 49

EB@LB 23‐May‐14 SFYK 2 Macrobrachium sp 3 65 13

EB@LB 23‐May‐14 SFYK 2 Holthuisana transversa 6 44

EBDSHS 28‐May‐14 EL 1 Macrobrachium sp (unidentified) 169 0

EBDSHS 28‐May‐14 EL 1 Mogurnda mogurnda 14 0

EBDSHS 28‐May‐14 EL 1 Melanotaenia nigrans 4 0

EBDSHS 28‐May‐14 EL 1 Melanotaenia splendida inornata 3 0

EBDSHS 28‐May‐14 EL 1 Neosilurus hyrtlii 3 0

EBDSHS 28‐May‐14 EL 1 Glossogobius species 2. 2 0

EBDSHS 28‐May‐14 EL 1 Ambassis macleayi 1 0

EBDSHS 28‐May‐14 EL 1 Glossamia aprion 1 0

EBDSHS 28‐May‐14 EL 1 Neosilurus ater 1 0

EBDSHS 28‐May‐14 EL 1 Macrobrachium sp 2 1 0

EBDSHS 29‐May‐14 LFYK 1 Ambassis macleayi 9 9.8

EBDSHS 29‐May‐14 LFYK 1 Glossamia aprion 3 107.3

EBDSHS 29‐May‐14 LFYK 1 Neosilurus hyrtlii 3 32.8

EBDSHS 29‐May‐14 LFYK 1 Oxyeleotris selhemi 2 402

EBDSHS 29‐May‐14 LFYK 2 Melanotaenia splendida inornata 12 27.3

EBDSHS 29‐May‐14 LFYK 2 Ambassis macleayi 7 7.4

EBDSHS 29‐May‐14 LFYK 2 Glossamia aprion 4 99.2

EBDSHS 29‐May‐14 LFYK 2 Neosilurus hyrtlii 4 60

EBDSHS 29‐May‐14 LFYK 2 Neosilurus ater 3 44.1

EBDSHS 29‐May‐14 LFYK 2 Oxyeleotris selhemi 2 242

EBDSHS 29‐May‐14 LFYK 2 Mogurnda mogurnda 1 2.1

EBDSHS 29‐May‐14 LFYK 2 Macrobrachium bullatum 1 1.5

EBDSHS 29‐May‐14 LFYK 2 Craterocephalus stramineus 1 0.5

EBDSRB 26‐May‐14 EL 1 Macrobrachium sp 3 63 0

EBDSRB 26‐May‐14 EL 1 Macrobrachium spinipes 63 0

EBDSRB 26‐May‐14 EL 1 Mogurnda mogurnda 16 42

EBDSRB 26‐May‐14 EL 1 Macrobrachium bullatum 6 0

EBDSRB 26‐May‐14 EL 1 Melanotaenia nigrans 5 3

EBDSRB 26‐May‐14 EL 1 Melanotaenia splendida inornata 4 2

82



EBDSRB 26‐May‐14 EL 1 Glossamia aprion 2 114

EBDSRB 26‐May‐14 LFYK 1 Melanotaenia splendida inornata 21 24

EBDSRB 26‐May‐14 LFYK 1 Melanotaenia nigrans 18 18

EBDSRB 26‐May‐14 LFYK 1 Ambassis macleayi 6 12

EBDSRB 26‐May‐14 LFYK 1 Macrobrachium bullatum 4 2

EBDSRB 26‐May‐14 LFYK 1 Glossamia aprion 2 114

EBDSRB 26‐May‐14 LFYK 1 Mogurnda mogurnda 2 4

EBDSRB 26‐May‐14 LFYK 2 Melanotaenia nigrans 40 36

EBDSRB 26‐May‐14 LFYK 2 Melanotaenia splendida inornata 18 14.2

EBDSRB 26‐May‐14 LFYK 2 Glossamia aprion 3 196

EBDSRB 26‐May‐14 LFYK 2 Mogurnda mogurnda 2 6

EBDSRB 26‐May‐14 LFYK 2 Macrobrachium sp 3 1 1

EBDSRB 26‐May‐14 LFYK 2 Macrobrachium spinipes 1 1

EBDSRB 26‐May‐14 LFYK 2 Macrobrachium bullatum 1 1

EBUSFR 30‐May‐14 EL 1 Macrobrachium bullatum 164 0

EBUSFR 30‐May‐14 EL 1 Mogurnda mogurnda 17 0

EBUSFR 30‐May‐14 EL 1 Neosilurus hyrtlii 17 0

EBUSFR 30‐May‐14 EL 1 Glossogobius species 2. 2 0

EBUSFR 30‐May‐14 EL 1 Oxyeleotris selhemi 1 0

EBUSFR 30‐May‐14 EL 1 Melanotaenia nigrans 1 0

EBUSFR 30‐May‐14 EL 1 Macrobrachium sp 2 1 0

EBUSFR 31‐May‐14 LFYK 1 Macrobrachium bullatum 72 0

EBUSFR 31‐May‐14 LFYK 1 Melanotaenia splendida inornata 8 15.1

EBUSFR 31‐May‐14 LFYK 1 Mogurnda mogurnda 6 43

EBUSFR 31‐May‐14 LFYK 1 Hephaestus fuliginosus 6 43

EBUSFR 31‐May‐14 LFYK 1 Melanotaenia nigrans 5 3.4

EBUSFR 31‐May‐14 LFYK 1 Neosilurus hyrtlii 3 14.2

EBUSFR 31‐May‐14 LFYK 1 Macrobrachium sp 2 2 0

EBUSFR 31‐May‐14 LFYK 1 Neosilurus ater 1 3.6

EBUSFR 31‐May‐14 LFYK 1 Oxyeleotris selhemi 1 3.5

EBUSFR 31‐May‐14 LFYK 1 Ambassis macleayi 1 2.4

EBUSFR 31‐May‐14 LFYK 1 Craterocephalus stercusmuscarum 1 1.7

EBUSFR 31‐May‐14 LFYK 1 Cherax quadricarinatus 1 0

EBUSFR 31‐May‐14 LFYK 2 Macrobrachium bullatum 25 0

EBUSFR 31‐May‐14 LFYK 2 Melanotaenia splendida inornata 4 21.3

EBUSFR 31‐May‐14 LFYK 2 Glossamia aprion 3 75.6

EBUSFR 31‐May‐14 LFYK 2 Neosilurus hyrtlii 3 35.8

EBUSFR 31‐May‐14 LFYK 2 Craterocephalus stramineus 3 3.3

EBUSHS 27‐May‐14 EL 1 Macrobrachium sp (unidentified) 103 0

83



EBUSHS 27‐May‐14 EL 1 Mogurnda mogurnda 34 0

EBUSHS 27‐May‐14 EL 1 Glossamia aprion 4 0

EBUSHS 27‐May‐14 EL 1 Melanotaenia splendida inornata 4 0

EBUSHS 27‐May‐14 EL 1 Oxyeleotris lineolata 1 214

EBUSHS 27‐May‐14 EL 1 Melanotaenia nigrans 1 0

EBUSHS 27‐May‐14 LFYK 1 Oxyeleotris selhemi 3 868

EBUSHS 27‐May‐14 LFYK 1 Glossamia aprion 3 144

EBUSHS 27‐May‐14 LFYK 1 Neosilurus hyrtlii 1 14.9

EBUSHS 27‐May‐14 LFYK 1 Crocodylus johnsoni 1 0

EBUSHS 27‐May‐14 LFYK 2 Neosilurus ater 1 19.4

EBUSHS 27‐May‐14 LFYK 2 Neosilurus hyrtlii 1 8.8

EBUSHS 27‐May‐14 LFYK 2 Ambassis macleayi 1 1

EBUSHS 27‐May‐14 LFYK 2 Crocodylus johnsoni 1 0

FC@LB 23‐May‐14 EL 1 Macrobrachium bullatum 13 3

FC@LB 23‐May‐14 EL 1 Mogurnda mogurnda 7 4.7

FC@LB 23‐May‐14 EL 1 Macrobrachium sp 3 1 1

FC@LB 23‐May‐14 EL 1 Ambassis macleayi 1 0.8

FC@LB 23‐May‐14 EL 1 Melanotaenia splendida inornata 1 0.8

FC@LB 23‐May‐14 EL 1 Holthuisana transversa 1 0

FC@LB 23‐May‐14 SFYK 1 Mogurnda mogurnda 51 36.7

FC@LB 23‐May‐14 SFYK 1 Macrobrachium spinipes 26 11.1

FC@LB 23‐May‐14 SFYK 1 Melanotaenia nigrans 23 7.1

FC@LB 23‐May‐14 SFYK 1 Holthuisana transversa 9 44.2

FC@LB 23‐May‐14 SFYK 1 Dytiscid sp 2 (Medium) 4 0

FC@LB 23‐May‐14 SFYK 1 Ambassis macleayi 2 2.5

FC@LB 23‐May‐14 SFYK 2 Macrobrachium spinipes 53 18.7

FC@LB 23‐May‐14 SFYK 2 Mogurnda mogurnda 9 9.5

FC@LB 23‐May‐14 SFYK 2 Ambassis macleayi 6 2.2

FC@LB 23‐May‐14 SFYK 2 Dytiscid sp 2 (Medium) 3 0

FR@GS204 31‐May‐14 1.5F 1 Toxotes chatareus 1 26

FR@GS204 31‐May‐14 1.5F 1 Megalops cyprinoides 2 158

FR@GS204 31‐May‐14 1.5F 1 Nematalosa erebi 7 166

FR@GS204 31‐May‐14 1F L 1 Ambassis macleayi 1.6 7.5

FR@GS204 31‐May‐14 1F L 1 Megalops cyprinoides 1.6 464.8

FR@GS204 31‐May‐14 1F L 1 Syncomistes butleri 1.6 143.0

FR@GS204 31‐May‐14 1F L 1 Amniaataba percoides 3.3 45.5

FR@GS204 31‐May‐14 1F L 1 Hephaestus fuliginosus 4.9 201.5

FR@GS204 31‐May‐14 1F L 1 Melanotaenia splendida inornata 6.5 52.0

FR@GS204 31‐May‐14 1F L 1 Nematalosa erebi 6.5 78.5

84



FR@GS204 01‐Jun‐14 1S L 1 Ambassis macleayi 1.6 10.7

FR@GS204 31‐May‐14 2F L 1 Toxotes chatareus 2.6 78.1

FR@GS204 31‐May‐14 2F L 1 Lates calcarifer 7.8 1229.2

FR@GS204 31‐May‐14 2F L 1 Megalops cyprinoides 7.8 989.6

FR@GS204 31‐May‐14 2F L 1 Syncomistes butleri 10.4 1312.5

FR@GS204 01‐Jun‐14 2F L 1 Glossamia aprion 2.6 166.7

FR@GS204 31‐May‐14 3F 1 Sciades paucus 1 520

FR@GS204 31‐May‐14 3F 1 Syncomistes butleri 1 274

FR@GS204 31‐May‐14 3F 1 Toxotes chatareus 1 240

FR@GS204 31‐May‐14 3F 1 Neosilurus ater 3 1166

FR@GS204 31‐May‐14 3F 1 Megalops cyprinoides 4 1430

FR@GS204 31‐May‐14 3F 1 Nematalosa erebi 12 4496

FR@GS204 01‐Jun‐14 EL 1 Caradina grasiliorostrus 107 0

FR@GS204 01‐Jun‐14 EL 1 Macrobrachium bullatum 68 0

FR@GS204 01‐Jun‐14 EL 1 Macrobrachium sp 2 64 0

FR@GS204 01‐Jun‐14 EL 1 Caradina typus 20 0

FR@GS204 01‐Jun‐14 EL 1 Mogurnda mogurnda 7 0

FR@GS204 01‐Jun‐14 EL 1 Glossogobius species 2. 5 0

FR@GS204 01‐Jun‐14 EL 1 Glossamia aprion 2 0

FR@GS204 01‐Jun‐14 EL 1 Melanotaenia splendida inornata 2 0

FR@GS204 01‐Jun‐14 EL 1 Melanotaenia nigrans 1 0

FR@GS204 01‐Jun‐14 EL 1 Neosilurus ater 1 0

FR@GS204 01‐Jun‐14 EL 1 Ophisternon bengalense 1 0

FR@GS204 01‐Jun‐14 EL 1 Hephaestus fuliginosus 1 0

FR@GS204 01‐Jun‐14 LFYK 1 Melanotaenia splendida inornata 3 11.1

FR@GS204 01‐Jun‐14 LFYK 1 Lates calcarifer 1 184.5

FR@GS204 01‐Jun‐14 LFYK 1 Craterocephalus stramineus 1 1.6

FR@GS204 01‐Jun‐14 LFYK 2 Craterocephalus stramineus 8 5.3

FR@GS204 01‐Jun‐14 LFYK 2 Macrobrachium sp 2 2 1.2

FR@GS204 01‐Jun‐14 LFYK 2 Glossamia aprion 1 13.8

FR3 01‐Jun‐14 1.5F 1 Neosilurus ater 1 74

FR3 01‐Jun‐14 1.5F 1 Strongylura krefftii 1 148

FR3 01‐Jun‐14 1.5F 1 Amniaataba percoides 2 62.5

FR3 01‐Jun‐14 1.5F 1 Lates calcarifer 2 1836

FR3 01‐Jun‐14 1.5F 1 Nematalosa erebi 2 45.7

FR3 02‐Jun‐14 1.5F 1 Megalops cyprinoides 1 59

FR3 01‐Jun‐14 1.5S 1 Megalops cyprinoides 1 68.7

FR3 01‐Jun‐14 1.5S 1 Nematalosa erebi 10 226.7

85



FR3 02‐Jun‐14 1.5S 1 Strongylura krefftii 1 114

FR3 01‐Jun‐14 1F L 1 Strongylura krefftii 1.6 79.0

FR3 01‐Jun‐14 1F L 1 Toxotes chatareus 1.6 300.6

FR3 01‐Jun‐14 1F L 1 Nematalosa erebi 3.3 237.7

FR3 02‐Jun‐14 1F L 1 NC NC

FR3 01‐Jun‐14 1S L 1 Nematalosa erebi 1.6 19.3

FR3 01‐Jun‐14 1S L 1 Neoarius bernyi 1.6 21.8

FR3 01‐Jun‐14 1S L 1 Syncomistes butleri 3.3 919.8

FR3 01‐Jun‐14 1S L 1 Melanotaenia splendida inornata 4.9 45.2

FR3 01‐Jun‐14 1S L 1 Strongylura krefftii 4.9 416.0

FR3 02‐Jun‐14 1S L 1 Megalops cyprinoides 1.6 503.8

FR3 01‐Jun‐14 2F L 1 Amniaataba percoides 2.6 132.8

FR3 01‐Jun‐14 2F L 1 Lates calcarifer 2.6 432.3

FR3 01‐Jun‐14 2F L 1 Nematalosa erebi 2.6 148.2

FR3 01‐Jun‐14 2F L 1 Neosilurus ater 5.2 1755.2

FR3 01‐Jun‐14 2F L 1 Toxotes chatareus 10.4 635.4

FR3 01‐Jun‐14 2F L 1 Megalops cyprinoides 26.0 5463.5

FR3 01‐Jun‐14 2S L 1 Amniaataba percoides 2.6 138.3

FR3 01‐Jun‐14 2S L 1 Neosilurus ater 2.6 1026.0

FR3 01‐Jun‐14 2S L 1 Hephaestus fuliginosus 7.8 593.8

FR3 01‐Jun‐14 2S L 1 Toxotes chatareus 10.4 635.4

FR3 01‐Jun‐14 2S L 1 Megalops cyprinoides 15.6 3828.1

FR3 01‐Jun‐14 2S L 1 Nematalosa erebi 31.3 6869.8

FR3 02‐Jun‐14 2S L 1 Lates calcarifer 2.6 791.7

FR3 01‐Jun‐14 3F 1 Megalops cyprinoides 2 678

FR3 01‐Jun‐14 3F 1 Toxotes chatareus 7 1916

FR3 01‐Jun‐14 3F 1 Neosilurus ater 10 4068

FR3 01‐Jun‐14 3F 1 Nematalosa erebi 34 9814

FR3 01‐Jun‐14 3S 1 Megalops cyprinoides 1 564

FR3 01‐Jun‐14 3S 1 Toxotes chatareus 2 446

FR3 01‐Jun‐14 3S 1 Syncomistes butleri 6 1738

FR3 01‐Jun‐14 3S 1 Neosilurus ater 10 3688

FR3 01‐Jun‐14 3S 1 Nematalosa erebi 28 7408

FR3 02‐Jun‐14 3S 1 NC

FR3 02‐Jun‐14 EL 1 Caradina grasiliorostrus 90 0

FR3 02‐Jun‐14 EL 1 Macrobrachium bullatum 43 0

FR3 02‐Jun‐14 EL 1 Macrobrachium sp 2 17 0

FR3 02‐Jun‐14 EL 1 Caradina typus 11 0

FR3 02‐Jun‐14 EL 1 Mogurnda mogurnda 4 0

86



FR3 02‐Jun‐14 EL 1 Oxyeleotris lineolata 2 0

FR3 02‐Jun‐14 EL 1 Glossamia aprion 1 0

FR3 02‐Jun‐14 EL 1 Melanotaenia nigrans 1 0

FR3 02‐Jun‐14 EL 1 Melanotaenia splendida inornata 1 0

FR3 02‐Jun‐14 EL 1 Neosilurus ater 1 0

FR3 02‐Jun‐14 EL 1 Glossogobius species 2. 1 0

FR3 02‐Jun‐14 LFYK 1 Craterocephalus stramineus 5 0.9

FR3 02‐Jun‐14 LFYK 1 Macrobrachium sp (unidentified) 4 0

FR3 02‐Jun‐14 LFYK 1 Megalops cyprinoides 1 374

FR3 02‐Jun‐14 LFYK 1 Melanotaenia splendida inornata 1 36

FR3 02‐Jun‐14 LFYK 1 Glossogobius species 2. 1 2.3

FR3 02‐Jun‐14 LFYK 2 Craterocephalus stramineus 15 4.9

FR3 02‐Jun‐14 LFYK 2 Glossamia aprion 1 46.8

FR3 02‐Jun‐14 LFYK 2 Ambassis macleayi 1 2.7

FR3 02‐Jun‐14 LFYK 2 Melanotaenia splendida inornata 1 0.3

FR3 02‐Jun‐14 LFYK 2 Macrobrachium sp (unidentified) 1 0

FRDSFC 02‐Jun‐14 1.5F 1 Strongylura krefftii 4 564

FRDSFC 02‐Jun‐14 1.5F 1 Nematalosa erebi 13 448

FRDSFC 03‐Jun‐14 1.5F 1 Megalops cyprinoides 2 133.5

FRDSFC 02‐Jun‐14 1.5S 1 Megalops cyprinoides 4 250.9

FRDSFC 02‐Jun‐14 1.5S 1 Nematalosa erebi 6 185.2

FRDSFC 02‐Jun‐14 1F L 1 Strongylura krefftii 1.6 94.7

FRDSFC 03‐Jun‐14 1F L 1 NC NC

FRDSFC 02‐Jun‐14 1S L 1 Nematalosa erebi 1.6 20.5

FRDSFC 02‐Jun‐14 1S L 1 Amniaataba percoides 6.5 95.7

FRDSFC 03‐Jun‐14 1S L 1 Strongylura krefftii 1.6 117.0

FRDSFC 02‐Jun‐14 2F L 1 Toxotes chatareus 5.2 942.7

FRDSFC 02‐Jun‐14 2F L 1 Nematalosa erebi 26.0 2645.8

FRDSFC 02‐Jun‐14 2F L 1 Megalops cyprinoides 33.9 6458.3

FRDSFC 02‐Jun‐14 2S L 1 Hephaestus fuliginosus 2.6 146.6

FRDSFC 02‐Jun‐14 2S L 1 Syncomistes butleri 2.6 854.2

FRDSFC 02‐Jun‐14 2S L 1 Neosilurus ater 5.2 1619.8

FRDSFC 02‐Jun‐14 2S L 1 Megalops cyprinoides 10.4 2229.2

FRDSFC 02‐Jun‐14 2S L 1 Neosilurus hyrtlii 13.0 1599.0

FRDSFC 02‐Jun‐14 2S L 1 Nematalosa erebi 31.3 2635.4

FRDSFC 02‐Jun‐14 3F 1 Megalops cyprinoides 1 636

FRDSFC 02‐Jun‐14 3F 1 Sciades paucus 1 1036

FRDSFC 02‐Jun‐14 3F 1 Neosilurus ater 2 294

FRDSFC 02‐Jun‐14 3F 1 Toxotes chatareus 2 674

87



FRDSFC 02‐Jun‐14 3F 1 Nematalosa erebi 43 9400

FRDSFC 02‐Jun‐14 3S 1 Hephaestus fuliginosus 1 810

FRDSFC 02‐Jun‐14 3S 1 Syncomistes butleri 2 702

FRDSFC 02‐Jun‐14 3S 1 Neosilurus ater 3 984

FRDSFC 02‐Jun‐14 3S 1 Sciades paucus 3 2832

FRDSFC 02‐Jun‐14 3S 1 Megalops cyprinoides 7 3750

FRDSFC 02‐Jun‐14 3S 1 Nematalosa erebi 62 15254

FRDSFC 03‐Jun‐14 3S 1 Lates calcarifer 1 1658

FRDSFC 03‐Jun‐14 EL 1 Macrobrachium bullatum 167 0

FRDSFC 03‐Jun‐14 EL 1 Macrobrachium sp 2 81 0

FRDSFC 03‐Jun‐14 EL 1 Caridina cf longirostris 22 0

FRDSFC 03‐Jun‐14 EL 1 Caradina typus 20 0

FRDSFC 03‐Jun‐14 EL 1 Caradina grasiliorostrus 18 0

FRDSFC 03‐Jun‐14 EL 1 Melanotaenia nigrans 2 0

FRDSFC 03‐Jun‐14 EL 1 Glossogobius species 2. 2 0

FRDSFC 03‐Jun‐14 EL 1 Glossamia aprion 1 0

FRDSFC 03‐Jun‐14 EL 1 Mogurnda mogurnda 1 0

FRDSFC 03‐Jun‐14 EL 1 Melanotaenia splendida inornata 1 0

FRDSFC 03‐Jun‐14 EL 1 Leiopotherapon unicolor 1 0

FRDSFC 03‐Jun‐14 EL 1 Cherax quadricarinatus 1 0

FRDSMB 19‐May‐14 1.5F 1 Toxotes chatareus 1 0.04

FRDSMB 19‐May‐14 1.5F 1 Megalops cyprinoides 2 0.15

FRDSMB 19‐May‐14 1.5F 1 Nematalosa erebi 5 0.24

FRDSMB 19‐May‐14 1.5S 1 Neosilurus ater 1 0.08

FRDSMB 19‐May‐14 1.5S 1 Strongylura krefftii 1 0.17

FRDSMB 19‐May‐14 1.5S 1 Syncomistes butleri 1 0.15

FRDSMB 19‐May‐14 1.5S 1 Nematalosa erebi 9 0.25

FRDSMB 19‐May‐14 1F L 1 Nematalosa erebi 1.6 0.3

FRDSMB 19‐May‐14 1S L 1 Neosilurus hyrtlii 1.6 0.3

FRDSMB 19‐May‐14 1S L 1 Strongylura krefftii 1.6 0.5

FRDSMB 19‐May‐14 1S L 1 Nematalosa erebi 21.1 0.8

FRDSMB 19‐May‐14 2F L 1 Neosilurus hyrtlii 2.6 0.6

FRDSMB 19‐May‐14 2F L 1 Toxotes chatareus 2.6 0.3

FRDSMB 19‐May‐14 2F L 1 Megalops cyprinoides 15.6 2.9

FRDSMB 19‐May‐14 2F L 1 Nematalosa erebi 44.3 4.4

FRDSMB 19‐May‐14 2S L 1 Toxotes chatareus 2.6 0.4

FRDSMB 19‐May‐14 2S L 1 Megalops cyprinoides 7.8 1.5

FRDSMB 19‐May‐14 2S L 1 Nematalosa erebi 31.3 3.6

FRDSMB 19‐May‐14 3F 1 Toxotes chatareus 3 540

88



FRDSMB 19‐May‐14 3F 1 Megalops cyprinoides 5 1940

FRDSMB 19‐May‐14 3F 1 Neosilurus hyrtlii 5 1760

FRDSMB 19‐May‐14 3F 1 Nematalosa erebi 45 16300

FRDSMB 19‐May‐14 3S 1 Megalops cyprinoides 4 1840

FRDSMB 19‐May‐14 3S 1 Syncomistes butleri 6 1700

FRDSMB 19‐May‐14 3S 1 Toxotes chatareus 7 1520

FRDSMB 19‐May‐14 3S 1 Neosilurus hyrtlii 9 2836

FRDSMB 19‐May‐14 3S 1 Nematalosa erebi 48 17003

FRDSMB 21‐May‐14 LFYK 1 Toxotes chatareus 1 254.8

FRDSMB 21‐May‐14 LFYK 1 Glossamia aprion 1 20.8

FRDSMB 21‐May‐14 LFYK 1 Ambassis macleayi 1 0.8

FRDSMB 21‐May‐14 LFYK 1 Craterocephalus stercusmuscarum 1 0.7

FRDSMB 21‐May‐14 LFYK 1 Melanotaenia splendida inornata 1 0.05

FRDSMB 21‐May‐14 LFYK 1 Unidentified sp. 1 0

FRDSMB 21‐May‐14 LFYK 2 Melanotaenia nigrans 5 4.1

FRDSMB 21‐May‐14 LFYK 2 Unidentified sp. 2 0

FRDSMB 21‐May‐14 LFYK 2 Glossamia aprion 1 37.7

FRDSMB 21‐May‐14 LFYK 2 Melanotaenia splendida inornata 1 0.4

FRUSFC 03‐Jun‐14 1.5F 1 Syncomistes butleri 1 80

FRUSFC 03‐Jun‐14 1.5F 1 Strongylura krefftii 6 856

FRUSFC 03‐Jun‐14 1.5F 1 Nematalosa erebi 9 344

FRUSFC 03‐Jun‐14 1.5F 1 Megalops cyprinoides 12 790

FRUSFC 03‐Jun‐14 1.5S 1 Syncomistes butleri 1 74.7

FRUSFC 03‐Jun‐14 1.5S 1 Megalops cyprinoides 2 102

FRUSFC 03‐Jun‐14 1.5S 1 Nematalosa erebi 17 489.8

FRUSFC 03‐Jun‐14 1F L 1 Strongylura krefftii 4.9 507.0

FRUSFC 03‐Jun‐14 1F L 1 Neoarius bernyi 6.5 110.5

FRUSFC 03‐Jun‐14 1F L 1 Nematalosa erebi 13.0 147.7

FRUSFC 03‐Jun‐14 1S L 1 Syncomistes butleri 1.6 585.0

FRUSFC 03‐Jun‐14 1S L 1 Nematalosa erebi 4.9 64.7

FRUSFC 03‐Jun‐14 1S L 1 Amniaataba percoides 37.4 406.3

FRUSFC 03‐Jun‐14 2F L 1 Toxotes chatareus 10.4 822.9

FRUSFC 03‐Jun‐14 2F L 1 Nematalosa erebi 13.0 3583.3

FRUSFC 03‐Jun‐14 2F L 1 Megalops cyprinoides 15.6 6229.2

FRUSFC 03‐Jun‐14 2F L 1 Syncomistes butleri 49.5 7692.7

FRUSFC 03‐Jun‐14 2S L 1 Strongylura krefftii 2.6 859.4

FRUSFC 03‐Jun‐14 2S L 1 Toxotes lorentzi 2.6 307.3

FRUSFC 03‐Jun‐14 2S L 1 Megalops cyprinoides 5.2 1072.9

FRUSFC 03‐Jun‐14 2S L 1 Syncomistes butleri 23.4 3119.8

89



FRUSFC 03‐Jun‐14 2S L 1 Nematalosa erebi 26.0 3291.7

FRUSFC 03‐Jun‐14 3F 1 Neoarius bernyi 1 570

FRUSFC 03‐Jun‐14 3F 1 Syncomistes butleri 1 180

FRUSFC 03‐Jun‐14 3F 1 Neosilurus ater 4 1282

FRUSFC 03‐Jun‐14 3F 1 Megalops cyprinoides 5 2708

FRUSFC 03‐Jun‐14 3F 1 Toxotes chatareus 19 1213

FRUSFC 03‐Jun‐14 3F 1 Nematalosa erebi 66 15896

FRUSFC 03‐Jun‐14 3S 1 Hephaestus fuliginosus 1 194

FRUSFC 03‐Jun‐14 3S 1 Neosilurus ater 1 200

FRUSFC 03‐Jun‐14 3S 1 Syncomistes butleri 1 270

FRUSFC 03‐Jun‐14 3S 1 Megalops cyprinoides 4 1854

FRUSFC 03‐Jun‐14 3S 1 Toxotes chatareus 4 908

FRUSFC 03‐Jun‐14 3S 1 Nematalosa erebi 56 15656

FRUSFC 04‐Jun‐14 3S 1 Nematalosa erebi 14 2654

FRUSFC 03‐Jun‐14 EL 1 Macrobrachium bullatum 210 0

FRUSFC 03‐Jun‐14 EL 1 Macrobrachium sp 3 133 0

FRUSFC 03‐Jun‐14 EL 1 Caradina grasiliorostrus 26 0

FRUSFC 03‐Jun‐14 EL 1 Caradina typus 21 0

FRUSFC 03‐Jun‐14 EL 1 Mogurnda mogurnda 16 0

FRUSFC 03‐Jun‐14 EL 1 Caridina cf longirostris 10 0

FRUSFC 03‐Jun‐14 EL 1 Craterocephalus stramineus 7 0

FRUSFC 03‐Jun‐14 EL 1 Glossogobius species 2. 5 0

FRUSFC 03‐Jun‐14 EL 1 Neosilurus ater 4 0

FRUSFC 03‐Jun‐14 EL 1 Leiopotherapon unicolor 3 0

FRUSFC 03‐Jun‐14 EL 1 Neosilurus hyrtlii 2 0

FRUSFC 03‐Jun‐14 EL 1 Lates calcarifer 1 0

FRUSFC 03‐Jun‐14 EL 1 Megalops cyprinoides 1 0

FRUSFC 03‐Jun‐14 EL 1 Melanotaenia nigrans 1 0

FRUSFC 03‐Jun‐14 EL 1 Melanotaenia splendida inornata 1 0

FRUSFC 03‐Jun‐14 EL 1 Hephaestus fuliginosus 1 0

FRUSFC 03‐Jun‐14 EL 1 Ophisternon gutturale 1 0

FRUSFC 04‐Jun‐14 LFYK 1 Craterocephalus stramineus 14 9.8

FRUSFC 04‐Jun‐14 LFYK 1 Macrobrachium bullatum 3 0

FRUSFC 04‐Jun‐14 LFYK 1 Megalops cyprinoides 2 235.6

FRUSFC 04‐Jun‐14 LFYK 1 Macrobrachium sp 3 1 0

FRUSFC 04‐Jun‐14 LFYK 2 Glossogobius species 2. 1 4.6

FRUSFC 04‐Jun‐14 LFYK 2 Melanotaenia splendida inornata 1 4.4

FRUSFC 04‐Jun‐14 LFYK 2 Craterocephalus stramineus 1 1.6

FRUSMB 21‐May‐14 1.5F 1 Nematalosa erebi 1 54

90



FRUSMB 21‐May‐14 1.5F 1 Lates calcarifer 2 428

FRUSMB 21‐May‐14 1.5F 1 Megalops cyprinoides 4 564

FRUSMB 21‐May‐14 1.5F 1 Amniaataba percoides 6 158

FRUSMB 21‐May‐14 1.5S 1 Amniaataba percoides 1 22

FRUSMB 21‐May‐14 1.5S 1 Megalops cyprinoides 2 70

FRUSMB 21‐May‐14 1.5S 1 Syncomistes butleri 2 100.4

FRUSMB 21‐May‐14 1.5S 1 Nematalosa erebi 3 128

FRUSMB 21‐May‐14 1F L 1 Ambassis macleayi 1.6 9.4

FRUSMB 21‐May‐14 1F L 1 Melanotaenia splendida inornata 1.6 11.9

FRUSMB 21‐May‐14 1F L 1 Amniaataba percoides 6.5 74.8

FRUSMB 21‐May‐14 1S L 1 Ambassis macleayi 1.6 9.3

FRUSMB 21‐May‐14 1S L 1 Nematalosa erebi 1.6 26.8

FRUSMB 21‐May‐14 1S L 1 Amniaataba percoides 19.5 190.9

FRUSMB 21‐May‐14 2F L 1 Megalops cyprinoides 2.6 302.9

FRUSMB 21‐May‐14 2S L 1 Megalops cyprinoides 2.6 334.1

FRUSMB 21‐May‐14 2S L 1 Sciades paucus 2.6 130.2

FRUSMB 21‐May‐14 2S L 1 Toxotes chatareus 2.6 118.8

FRUSMB 21‐May‐14 2S L 1 Neosilurus hyrtlii 7.8 203.1

FRUSMB 21‐May‐14 3F 1 Neosilurus hyrtlii 5 1868

FRUSMB 21‐May‐14 3F 1 Nematalosa erebi 8 1610

FRUSMB 21‐May‐14 3S 1 Lates calcarifer 1 108.6

FRUSMB 21‐May‐14 3S 1 Oxyeleotris selhemi 1 366

FRUSMB 21‐May‐14 3S 1 Megalops cyprinoides 2 684

FRUSMB 21‐May‐14 3S 1 Nematalosa erebi 2 200

FRUSMB 21‐May‐14 3S 1 Syncomistes butleri 2 590

FRUSMB 21‐May‐14 3S 1 Neosilurus hyrtlii 4 133.4

FRUSMB 21‐May‐14 EL 1 Macrobrachium spinipes 8 0

FRUSMB 21‐May‐14 EL 1 Unidentified sp. 5 0

FRUSMB 21‐May‐14 EL 1 Glossogobius giurus 2 11.2

FRUSMB 21‐May‐14 EL 1 Melanotaenia splendida inornata 0 1

FRUSMB 22‐May‐14 LFYK 1 Ambassis macleayi 4 14

FRUSMB 22‐May‐14 LFYK 1 Oxyeleotris selhemi 1 96

FRUSMB 22‐May‐14 LFYK 2 Melanotaenia splendida inornata 8 10

FRUSMB 22‐May‐14 LFYK 2 Craterocephalus stercusmuscarum 5 3

FRUSMB 22‐May‐14 LFYK 2 Ambassis macleayi 2 5

FRUSMB 22‐May‐14 LFYK 2 Melanotaenia nigrans 1 6

FRUSMB 22‐May‐14 LFYK 2 Glossogobius giurus 1 4

hydrobiology - ntepa.nt.gov.au

Documents