Commonwealth Long-Term Intervention Monitoring Project: Stage 1 Mid-Term Review and Evaluation

Lower Lachlan

Three environmental watering actions were delivered to the Lower Lachlan river system during 2015-16.

The primary expected outcomes of the watering actions were to (catchment scale) (Dyer et al. 2016):

• Provide habitat to support survival, maintain condition of, and provide reproduction opportunities for native fish;

• Maintain the extent and diversity of aquatic and riparian vegetation;

• Support waterbird habitat, and breeding and recruitment opportunities; and

• Maintain hydrological connectivity including end of system flows.

The secondary expected outcomes were to:

• Contribute to ecosystem function; and

• Deliver landscape vegetation diversity and resilience.

Individually, the watering actions were expected to maintain hydrological connectivity, contribute to vegetation condition and diversity, provide habitat and access to habitat for frogs, fish and birds, trigger breeding and recruitment in frogs and generate movement and spawning of golden perch

Findings: This is a very good, informative report. The project objectives (evaluation questions) are well identified, and adequate details provided on the monitoring, and outcomes. However, in the main report there was little detailed information provided on the results and how they were analysed, but this is available in the Appendices. The distinction between action-specific and area-scale questions was well done. Dyer et al. (2016) included reference to 2014-15 as representing baseline conditions. The summary table of evaluation questions and responses clearly indicate which were short and long term questions.
In a few places reference is made to change at the catchment scale but it’s not clear if this is distinct from area-scale. For example, “…indicates that the vegetation community within the catchment is responsive to watering” Dyer et al. (2016), p47.
A separate report on waterbirds was provided (Brandis & Lyons (2016), but this information was not incorporated into the Lower Lachlan Area report
Table . Assessment of progress towards expected outcomes and Area-scale LTIM KEQ for the Lower Lachlan.

Indicator	Expected outcomes – from Dyer et al. (2016) – (note source of outcomes not attributed in LTIM report)	Area-scale LTIM KEQ	Rating	Justification
Hydrology	Improve hydrological connectivity including end of system flows. Contribute to hydrological connectivity in the Booligal Wetlands. Provide habitat to support, maintain condition of, and provide reproduction opportunities for native fish, waterbirds and other aquatic vertebrate species. Contribute to hydrological connectivity.	What did CEW contribute to: maintaining hydrological connectivity including end of system flows? hydrological connectivity? What was the effect of Commonwealth environmental water on: hydrological connectivity to Murrumbidgil Swamp? providing access to habitat for fish?		CEW raised water levels by up to 1.5 m connecting in-channel habitats and providing additional habitat for fish. Increased water levels of more than 0.5 m were achieved and considered optimal for golden perch migration and spawning (Dyer et al. 2016). Connectivity to the Great Cumbung Swamp and Murrumbidgil Swamp was achieved and duration extended by about 55 days in Great Cuumbung Swamp (Dyer et al. 2016)
Stream metabolism and water quality	None at catchment scale.	What did CEW contribute to: patterns and rates of decomposition? patterns and rates of primary productivity. There were no LTIM KEQ listed relating to water quality, however results were presented. It is assumed that the same Cat I water quality KEQ apply in the Lower Lachlan.		Environmental flows did not result in any consistent responses in either GPP or ER (Dyer et al. 2016) There were no clear patterns in water chemistry associated with delivery of environmental flows.
Fish community	Provide habitat to support, maintain condition of, and provide reproduction opportunities for native fish, Trial the augmentation of flow to generate a golden and/or silver perch movement and spawning response.	What did Commonwealth environmental water contribute to: native fish community resilience? native fish survival? native fish populations? native fish diversity?		Both long and short term KEQ listed in Appendix, but only short term in the summary report. Overall, the fish community still in very poor condition. Results similar to previous year. Focus in dry years should be on maintaining not improving.
Spawning and larval fish	Watering Action 3 had specific objectives concerning native fish with 9378 ML of CEW delivered to: Provide habitat to support, maintain condition of, and provide reproduction opportunities for native fish, Trial the augmentation of flow to generate a golden and/or silver perch movement and spawning response.	What did CEW contribute to: native fish reproduction in the Lower Lachlan river system? native larval fish growth in the Lower Lachlan river system? native fish populations in the Lower Lachlan river system? native fish species diversity in the Lower Lachlan river system?		No eggs, larvae or new recruits, and only stocked juveniles of golden perch were collected. It is unlikely that spawning of golden perch occurred in response to the 2015-16 water delivery (Dyer et al. 2016). Expected outcomes only partially met in 2015-16. Non-flow cued spawning evident for Murray cod, flat headed gudgeon, Australian smelt and carp gudgeon (Dyer et al. 2016). Overall evidence of 6 species reproducing attributed to CEW. Not able to assess growth KEQ.
Frogs	Trigger breeding and recruitment in frogs	What did CEW contribute to: frog diversity and populations? breeding and recruitment of frog species? What was the effect of Commonwealth environmental water on refuge for frogs in the Great Cumbung Swamp and Booligal Wetlands?		Results suggest that frog diversity has been maintained to pre LTIM levels, except for one species which had been recorded in prior surveys. Calling increased during periods peak flow for both ewater and translucent flows (Dyer et al. 2016). Short and long term KEQ addressed. Some indication of breeding at Cumbung Swamp but further data required to say Booligal has potential to act as a refuge – dependent on watering conditions/duration (Dyer et al. 2016)
Vegetation	Maintain the extent and diversity of aquatic and riparian vegetation Contribute to vegetation condition and diversity	What did Commonwealth environmental water contribute to: vegetation species diversity? vegetation community diversity? the condition of floodplain and riparian trees? populations of long-lived organisms?		Unable to ‘disentangle’ effects of CEW and translucent flows. Changes in ground cover species between year 1 and 2 suggest vegetation community within the catchment is responsive to watering (Dyer et al. 2016). Tree condition improved in 2015-16 compared to the previous year and responded to CEW (Dyer et al. 2016).