Reedy Creek Wmp 2006 Large

Reedy Creek Wetland MANAGEMENT PLAN 2006

LAPS Lower Murray Local Action Planning Groups Kjartan Tumi Bjornsson

Mannum to Wellington Local Action Planning Inc.

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................... i LIST OF FIGURES...................................................................................................................... ii LIST OF MAPS ........................................................................................................................... ii LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ ii Chapter 1.

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 5

1.1

Environmental, Social and Cultural Significance of wetland ............................................. 5

1.2

Why does Reedy Creek wetland need a management plan? ........................................... 6

(a)

Mission Statement ....................................................................................................... 7

(b)

Vision Statement ......................................................................................................... 7

(c)

Broad Objectives ............................................................................................................. 7

(d)

Current Achievements ................................................................................................. 7

Chapter 2.

SITE DESCRIPTION OF REEDY CREEK WETLAND ............................................. 8

2.1

Wetland Location and Description ................................................................................... 8

2.2

Survey Sites, Dates & Locations...................................................................................... 8

2.3

Physical Features ............................................................................................................ 9

(a)

Reedy Creek wetland in Current State ......................................................................... 9

(b)

Geomorphology, Geology And Soils .......................................................................... 11

(c)

Climate .......................................................................................................................... 13

(d)

Wetland Volumes and Water Requirements for Various Filling Stages ...................... 13

(e)

Surface and Groundwater Features ........................................................................... 14

2.4

Ecological Features ....................................................................................................... 21

(a)

Flora .......................................................................................................................... 21

(b)

Fauna ........................................................................................................................ 22

2.5

Implications for Management ......................................................................................... 25

Chapter 3.

SOCIAL ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL VALUES .................................................. 28

Chapter 4.

LAND TENURE, JURISDICTION AND MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS ......... 29

Chapter 5.

THREATS AND POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS TO REEDY CREEK WETLAND ......... 32

Chapter 6.

MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES .............................................................................. 36

Chapter 7.

IMPLEMENTATION OF PLAN ............................................................................... 40

7.1

ON GROUND ACTION AND TIMETABLE ..................................................................... 41

7.2

WETLAND WATER OPERATIONAL PLAN ................................................................... 44

(a)

Water regime ............................................................................................................. 44

(b)

Volume calculations ................................................................................................... 45

Chapter 8.

MONITORING ....................................................................................................... 47

Chapter 9.

EVALUATION, REVIEW AND REPORTING .......................................................... 49

9.1

Evaluation and Review .................................................................................................. 49

9.2

Reporting ....................................................................................................................... 49

Chapter 10.

REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 50 i

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006 (a)

Flora of Reedy Creek Wetland ................................................................................... 59

(b)

Birds of Reedy Creek Wetland ................................................................................... 62

(c)

Fish ............................................................................................................................... 69

(d)

Macroinvertebrates .................................................................................................... 70

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Reedy Creek sheet piling structure 20/07/06 (TB) .......................................................... 10 Figure 2: Reedy Creek sheet piling structure 20/07/06 (TB) .......................................................... 10 Figure 3: Reedy Creek embankment January 2004 (AF) .............................................................. 11 Figure 4: Reedy Creek embankment revegetation January 2004 (AF) .......................................... 11 Figure 5: Reedy Creek embankment revegetation and turtle eggs January 2004 (AF) .................. 11 Figure 6: Reedy Creek embankment 20/07/06 (TB) ...................................................................... 11 Figure 7: Geology section of Reedy Creek between road and creek delta .................................... 12 Figure 8: Geology of Reedy Creek ................................................................................................ 12 Figure 9: River and wetland connection seen from wetland 09/03/06 (TB) .................................... 18 Figure 10: Reedy Creek delta on left of picture 09/03/06 (TB) ....................................................... 18 Figure 11: Years river water levels exceeded 1.3m between 1974 and 2006 ................................ 41 Figure 12: Water regime ‘normal’ managed drying event .............................................................. 44 Figure 13: Water regime 2007 extreme drying event ..................................................................... 45 Figure 14: Median monthly rainfall at Mt. Crawford Forest ............................................................ 45

LIST OF MAPS Map 1: Pre 1940 observations by Arthur Hein ................................................................................. 6 Map 2: Reedy Creek wetland location ............................................................................................. 8 Map 3: Area of Reedy Creek used for volume estimates............................................................... 14 Map 4: Current water movement into the wetland & wetland structure .......................................... 17 Map 5: FIM III flow volume to surpass sheet pile structure ............................................................ 19 Map 6: Cadastral boundaries covering Reedy Creek wetland and surrounds. ............................... 29 Map 7: Open water v’s hydrologically managed sections .............................................................. 40 Map 8: Vegetation map from 1975 ................................................................................................ 61

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Baseline survey monitoring parameters and dates ............................................................ 9 Table 2: Summary of wetland volumes within Reedy Creek wetland ............................................. 14 Table 3: Water quality Reedy Creek wetland ................................................................................ 15 Table 4: Water quality Reedy Creek.............................................................................................. 16 Table 5: Acid sulphate soil survey ................................................................................................. 16 Table 6: Recent surface water quality at site REEWQ01............................................................... 18 ii

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006 Table 7: Groundwater monitoring locations ................................................................................... 19 Table 8: Groundwater monitoring results ...................................................................................... 20 Table 9: Most significant habitat use at Reedy Creek wetland....................................................... 23 Table 10: Frogs recorded at Reedy Creek wetland ....................................................................... 24 Table 11: Reedy Creek wetland responsible positions contact details........................................... 31 Table 12: Existing and potential threats to Reedy Creek wetland .................................................. 33 Table 13: Management objectives for Reedy Creek wetland ......................................................... 37 Table 14: Implementation plan for Reedy Creek wetland .............................................................. 43 Table 15: Volume estimate for managed section of wetland ......................................................... 45 Table 16: Calculated water loss (evaporation – precipitation) ....................................................... 46 Table 17: Water use calculation .................................................................................................... 46 Table 18: Permanent photopoint ................................................................................................... 47 Table 19: Monitoring plan for Reedy Creek wetland. ..................................................................... 48 Table 20: Wetland Atlas Data ....................................................................................................... 53 Table 21: Plant Associations at Reedy Creek wetland .................................................................. 59 Table 22: Large and obvious native plants collected by R. I. Thomas (1973b) .............................. 60 Table 23: Vegetation communities in sand mining area of Reedy Creek 1974 .............................. 61 Table 24: Habitat features identified in Reedy Creek wetland ....................................................... 62 Table 25: Bird species observed at Reedy Creek wetland ............................................................ 62 Table 26: Habitat use by waterbird species at Reedy Creek wetland ............................................ 67 Table 27: Fish survey sites ........................................................................................................... 69 Table 28: Fish captured at Reedy Creek ....................................................................................... 70

iii

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

This management plan was written by Kjartan Tumi Bjornsson for the Mannum to Wellington Local Action Planning Committee Inc., and reviewed and endorsed by the SA River Murray Wetland Technical Group. Funding was provided by the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality, the Natural Heritage Trust, and the SA MBD NRM Board. The management plan has been prepared according to the Guidelines for developing wetland management plans for the River Murray in South Australia 2003 (River Murray Catchment Water Management Board and Department of Water Land and Biodiversity Conservation 2003) and as such fulfils obligations under the Water Allocation Plan for the River Murray Prescribed Watercourse. Disclaimer: The Mannum to Wellington Local Action Planning Committee Inc. do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore disclaim all liability for any error, loss or other consequences, which may arise from you relying on any information in this publication. Cite as: Bjornsson, K. T. (2006). Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan. Mannum to Wellington Local Action Planning Committee Inc., Murray Bridge. Acknowledgements: This wetland management plan has been developed with the support of a number of organisations, community groups and individuals. Special thanks go to Adrienne Frears for assistance with the draft. Thanks also go to those that contributed their knowledge including; the Caloote Landcare group, the South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board and the members of the South Australian River Murray Wetland Technical Group. For further details contact: Mannum to Wellington LAP PO Box 2056 Murray Bridge, SA 5253 Phone: (08) 8531 3222 Fax: (08) 8532 5300 Photographs: Cover photographs: Top, Reedy Creek wetland open water section with the River Murray in the background (TB) Bottom, Sheet pile structure and embankment (TB) Photographs in document (TB) Tumi Bjornsson; (AF) by Adrienne Frears © Mannum to Wellington Local Action Plan 2006

iv

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

Chapter 1.

INTRODUCTION

Since the adoption of the Water Allocation Plan for the River Murray in 2002 the wetlands of South Australia have an annual water allocation of 200GL. To access this water allocation for wetland management, a licence is now required. Reedy Creek wetland is listed in the Water Allocation Plan for the River Murray (River Murray Catchment Water Management Board 2002) and has therefore a right to access to the 200GL. This wetland management plan is structured in accordance with the criteria set out in the Guidelines for developing wetland management plans for the River Murray in South Australia (River Murray Catchment Water Management Board and Department of Water Land and Biodiversity Conservation 2003).

1.1

ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE OF WETLAND

The Wetland Atlas of the South Australian Murray Valley (Jensen et al. 1996) listed Reedy Creek wetland as a permanent wetland being of high conservation value and to be of basin and local importance (see Appendix A). The site is recognised for its importance to waterbirds both in a early 1970‟s report on the site and in the Australian Heritage Database and Australian Heritage Places Inventory (Thomas 1973a; DEH (Commonwealth) 2006a; DEH (Commonwealth) 2006b). Thompson (1986) described the wetland as being a permanent wetland with extensive reed beds Phragmites australis with the wetland providing habitat to an abundance of waterbirds. The wetland was classified with a high conservation value with recommendations for formal conservation status(Thompson 1986)., echoing reports from the 1970‟s such as Chandler et. al. (1979) It is only one of two wetlands along the South Australian River Murray with its own catchment (Frears 2001) and therefore a unique site. Upstream of the wetland is a heritage listed waterfall and conservation area, which attracts visitors to the area. The wetland when rehabilitated could be seen as an informal extension of the conservation area providing a wildlife corridor to the River Murray. The wetland borders on to the Caloote township and is therefore an aesthetic element to the residents. The wetland was described in a sand-mining report as a unique environment in the region based on the variety of habitats allowing a rich and abundant fauna population (Cox 1975). Cox‟s reports are quoted in a communication by (Lothian 1975) who summarises the significance of the area and discuses the consequences of sand mining. This communication describes some of the aspects of the area including the diversity of environments and habitats in the wetland, the potential educational significance in natural and earth sciences and the wetlands significance for fish, crustacean, and amphibian research. There is also a suggestion of a field studies centre (Lothian 1975). The draft management plan by Wetland Care Australia (Jensen et al. 1999) presents an extensive literature review of the environmental significance of Reedy Creek wetland. Some of the information has been reviewed for this management plan. However, most of the anecdotal information was not repeatedly researched. This information includes reports of a steady decline in long-necked turtles and water rats as well as a suggestion of a platypus sighting until the 1970‟s (Cox 1975; Jensen et al. 1999). Further, common wombats were said to have occurred in the area surrounding the wetland disappearing during the 1960‟s (Cox 1975). They were reportedly seen north of the wetlands in the late 1990‟s (Jensen et al. 1999). With minimal effort a significant achievement can be accomplished at this site. Management including hydrological manipulation, revegetation, weed control and feral animal control are expected to deliver a large return for a minimal investment. Based on the past efforts, the significance and uniqueness of the wetland echoed in many reports referenced in this plan the management of Reedy Creek should be of a high priority. A short timeline of management at Reedy Creek wetland (some data from local anecdotal evidence): 5

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

1870 Settlement (Thomas 1973b) Baseby levee completed 1920 – 1921 and feeder channel placed next to it between wetland and river, see Map 1 (Heine 1999) Until the 1940‟s the wetland area was fenced and grazed. This area was inundated following the completion of the barrages. The fence line could still be seen in the wetland in the 1970‟s (Thomas 1973a) Sand mining (intermittent) for past 25 years (Jensen et al. 1999) 1968 described as a permanent watercourse in McBriar and Milnes (1968), although an annual cycle of winter rain and mid summer dry is described in a 1975 report (Cox 1975). The creek is now regarded as ephemeral (described as lentic (non-flowing) tributary to the River Murray by Pressey (Pressey 1986)) 1968 – 1975 various reports on the importance of the catchment with regard to ecology (vegetation, waterbirds etc.) (McBriar and Milnes 1968; Cox 1973; Thomas 1973b; Thomas 1973a; Cox 1974; Douglas 1974; Cox 1975) 1999 Management brief (Draft Wetland Management Plan) Wetland Care Australia (Jensen et al. 1999) 2001 Honours (A. Frears) 2003 Ph.D. (L. Wen) 2003 Installation of sheet piling structure to manage a section of the wetland (the structure is yet to be tested) 2004-2005 included in River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey (SKM 2006b) 2005 Construction of rabbit proof fence in a revegetation area close to Caloote Ongoing water quality monitoring by community members

Map 1: Pre 1940 observations by Arthur Hein

1.2

WHY DOES REEDY CREEK WETLAND NEED A MANAGEMENT PLAN?

The wetland is currently impacted on by grazing pressure and habitat limitation due to current management restrictions such as permanent inundation (minimal germination of aquatic 6

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

vegetation). Reedy Creek is seen as a major carp recruiting area. The potential exists to manage carp access and the water regime of a part of the wetland due to a structure constructed by Wetland Care Australia. Through assessment of recently available data as well as historic data and anecdotal information, a better management strategy for the wetland is possible which will address the current ecological constraints on the wetland. (a) MISSION STATEMENT The rehabilitation of Reedy Creek wetland is aimed at maintaining and improving wetland ecological values, such as habitat (wetland fringing and aquatic vegetation) for the benefit of waterbirds, native fish, frogs and macroinvertebrates through native vegetation restoration. (b) VISION STATEMENT The vision for Reedy Creek wetland is a revitalised wetland fulfilling a diversity of habitat requirements for both water birds and other native fauna. The wetland will have regular visits by water birds, including migratory species. The riparian area will be revegetated with local native species, both through active involvement with the removal of weed species and through the encouragement of the growth/reestablishment of native fringing vegetation. Stock access to the wetland will focus on controlled grazing of currently grazed and high vegetation diversity areas (at certain times of the year) thereby minimising stock induced damage but maintaining the diversity of vegetation. (c) BROAD OBJECTIVES The broad objectives of the wetland restoration include: Restore native aquatic and fringing vegetation and therefore habitat for native fauna Restore habitat diversity for water birds and aquatic wildlife: o Birds maintain and improve habitat availability o Fish, increase abundance o Frogs, increase abundance and diversity Monitor the impact of restored hydrology regime for adaptive management (d) CURRENT ACHIEVEMENTS Some of the surrounding land is grazed. The wetland shoreline has partly been fenced off to exclude stock however, more fences are required to appropriately manage stock access to the wetland, in particular to the area to be dried. A sheet pile structure with carp screens has been installed at the wetland, which can be used for flow control. The structure remains untested and may be below the height required at peak spring river levels and therefore be ineffective in carp control. For the structure to be above the maximum peak river levels the structure must be at or above 1.3 m AHD, based on DWLBC surface water records for the past 10 years (DWLBC 2006b). For the structure to successfully dry the wetland during the month of February through to May, it and the surrounding wetland flats must be at above 1 m AHD, based on 10 year surface water records (DWLBC 2006b), see Chapter 7.

7

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

Chapter 2. WETLAND 2.1

SITE

DESCRIPTION

OF

REEDY

CREEK

WETLAND LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

Reedy Creek wetland is listed as wetland number S0052 in the Wetlands Atlas (Jensen et al. 1996). The wetland is located south of Mannum (Map 2). AMG coordinates 341197 E 6130141 N (Grid Zone 54). Reedy Creek can be found on the 1:50,000 Mannum map sheet number 6728-2 and Tepko map sheet number 6728-3. The wetland is found in the Hundred of Finniss. See Appendix A for more information. Thompson (1986) described the wetland as being a permanent wetland with extensive reed beds Phragmites australis with an abundance of waterbirds. The wetland was classified with a high conservation value with recommendations for formal conservation status (Thompson 1986). The wetland has an area of 101 ha with a catchment of 31,515 ha (315,145,259 m2) (DWLBC 2006a). A 14 ha lagoon was separated from the rest of the wetland when a control structure was constructed. This structure is yet to be tested for its water retention capacity. Reedy Creek reaches depths of approximately 1 m although it is to the most part between 0.5 m and 0.7 m deep (SKM 2006c). The connection to the River Murray is at the downstream end and consists of a wide opening (SKM 2006c). A second stream connection is at the far eastern end of the wetland where Reedy Creek connects to the wetland.

Map 2: Reedy Creek wetland location

The wetland sits on privately held land with multiple owners. The surrounding area is used mainly for grazing, with the very small town of Caloote along the eastern side of the wetland and irrigated agriculture (Baseby irrigation area).

2.2

SURVEY SITES, DATES & LOCATIONS

The River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey - 2005 (SKM 2006b) monitored different wetland parameters (Table 1). The locations of the baseline survey sites can be seen in Appendix B. 8

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006 Table 1: Baseline survey monitoring parameters and dates Parameter

Date 1 (BLS)

Site physical

2005

Vegetation

2005

Date 2 (BLS)

Date 3 (BLS)

Date 4 (BLS)

See page 8

1973

Fish

Autumn

Spring

Birds

Autumn

Spring

21 24

1969 to 1974

Frogs

14/03/05

25/05/05

Macroinvertebrates

06/04/05

19/10/05

Water Quality

04/03/05

06/04/05

24/08/05

19/10/05

Groundwater

27/05/05

12/08/05

13/10/05

30/11/05

2.3

Date other

31/08/05

02/11/05

22 24 25

See text

14 18

PHYSICAL FEATURES

(a) REEDY CREEK WETLAND IN CURRENT STATE Reedy Creek area has been grazed for an extended period, probably since 1870 (Thomas 1973b). As a result, a lot of the native vegetation has been cleared and weeds have been able to spread. Currently the main degradation issue facing Reedy Creek wetland, which is mentioned consistently throughout the baseline survey report as well as previous documents discussing the area (Thomas 1973b; Thomas 1973a; Jensen et al. 1999; Frears 2001), is stock access causing; grazing pressure, pugging, shore erosion and limiting vegetation recruitment. A Wetland Care Australia wetland management draft discussed the possibility of drying out the west end of the wetland. Based on the proposal a sheet pile structure was constructed which included fish grills to exclude carp, see Figure 1 through to Figure 6. Revegetation efforts have been underway to stabilise the embankment constructed as part of the sheet pile structure, see Figure 3 through to Figure 5 for the state of the embankment in 2004, and Figure 6 for the state of the revegetation on the embankment in 2006. The current management planning of this wetland considers the use of this structure for the best possible management approach, fulfilling the most desirable ecological benefits without causing significant environmental detriment. For this purpose past surveys including the recent baseline survey are discussed in the following chapters.

9

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

Figure 1: Reedy Creek sheet piling structure 20/07/06 (TB)

Figure 2: Reedy Creek sheet piling structure 20/07/06 (TB)

10

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

Figure 3: Reedy Creek embankment January 2004 (AF)

Figure 4: Reedy Creek embankment revegetation January 2004 (AF)

Figure 5: Reedy Creek embankment revegetation and turtle eggs January 2004 (AF)

Figure 6: Reedy Creek embankment 20/07/06 (TB)

(b) GEOMORPHOLOGY, GEOLOGY AND SOILS The soil in the wetland was found to be made up of Coonambidgal Formation clay which is grey, soft and plastic (AWE 2006). A very good description of the regional geology can be found in McBriar and Milnes (1968), most of the description of Reedy Creek focuses on the waterfall area of the conservation reserve. There are sand deposits along Reedy Creek in and above the delta into the wetland. These sand deposits were seen as a resource to development expected in the area in the 1970‟s (Cox 1975). Although this development did not proceed, some sand mining was undertaken despite recommendations to the contrary such as by Cox (Cox 1975). In the north and south, the floodplain and wetland is bordered by limestone with alluvial deposits of grey fluviatile silts (clay), sand and gravel with the creek beds composed almost exclusively of sand (Cox 1975; 1979), see Figure 7 and Figure 8. This sand makes up the majority of the creek delta into the wetland (Cox 1975).

11

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

Figure 7: Geology section of Reedy Creek between road and creek delta

Figure 8: Geology of Reedy Creek 12

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

(c) CLIMATE The following climatic conditions are taken from the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) Murray Bridge station (number 024521) (Latitude (deg S): -35.1234; Longitude (deg E): 139.2592) (BOM 2005). The recording of data commenced at Murray Bridge in 1885; the latest records used in the assessment of the climatic condition of the area stemming from 2004. Reedy Creek wetland has a Mediterranean climate with warm dry summers and cool wet winters. The median (5th decile) annual rainfall is 341.5 mm. The mean monthly maximum rainfall is in June and August (37.1 mm), the minimum in January (16.3 mm). The expected mean daily maximum temperature is highest in February at 29.2 C, lowest in July at 16.2 C, and has an annual mean of 22.7 C. The minimum daily temperature is at its maximum in February at 14.6 C and its minimum in July at 5.4 C. The annual mean daily minimum temperature is 9.8 C. (d) WETLAND VOLUMES AND WATER REQUIREMENTS FOR VARIOUS FILLING STAGES The wetland volume was calculated as part of the baseline survey. Table 2 summarises the wetland water requirement for Reedy Creek wetland as calculated for the area shown in Map 3. A DEM was developed for this area by the baseline survey (see Appendix C). The median River Murray level obtained from the DWLBC Surface Water Archive (DWLBC 2005), calculated from daily readings between 1986 and 2004, is 0.74 m AHD. Reedy Creek can therefore be considered as reaching bank full for most of the time, water requirement calculations will therefore be based the 0.75 m AHD level. The monitoring location, from which the DWLBC Surface Water Archive is derived, is at Murray Bridge Number 1 Pump Station (Zone 54, 344059 E and 6114654 N). Although the wetland has a wide connection with the River Murray a substantial seasonal inflow of water is obtained from the Reedy Creek Catchment. 1.7 GL can come from the Catchment (540mm multiplied by the area). The previous wetland management draft by Wetland Care Australia (Jensen et al. 1999) discussed the flow conditions and describes the impact of a large flood in 1992 where approximately 3.4 GL came down in 1992. According to Jensen (1999) the pattern of flows from Reedy Creek follows the seasonal rain pattern of the Mount Lofty Ranges with sporadic winter flows, drying in mid summer. The volume of the Catchment runoff has not been monitored therefore, calculating the volume of water that Reedy Creek actually draws from the River Murray becomes a complex issue. The water requirement, including evaporative loss, is covered in Chapter 77.2.

13

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

Map 3: Area of Reedy Creek used for volume estimates Table 2: Summary of wetland volumes within Reedy Creek wetland Area (ha)

Area (m2)

Depth m

RLm (AHD)*

Volume m3 (KL)

Volume ML

Observed river level

94

936581.8

~1.0

0.55

632686.7

633

Full

101

1009195.4

~1.2

0.75

639996.0

640

Three quarters full

90

901197.1

~0.9

0.45

623844.5

624

Half full

58

583240.7

~0.6

0.15

463765.9

464

Quarter full

8

82101

~0.3

-0.15

77735.6

8

Filling Stage

Source: Adapted from River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey - 2005 (SKM 2006c) Base of wetland is to the most par at ~ 0.3 m AHD with the deepest point at -0.45.

(e) SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER FEATURES Surface water The monitored water quality for the wetland can be seen in Table 3, which is adapted from the baseline survey report (MDFRC 2006). The salinity of the wetland ranged from a minimum of 373 EC to a maximum of 3390 EC, the median being 1387. In comparison the monitored River Murray salinity obtained from the DWLBC Surface Water Archive at Murray Bridge (DWLBC 2005), has a median (calculated from daily readings between 1934 and 2004) EC of 500 μS/cm. The maximum wetland recordings were measured at the western end close to the creek inlet. The higher salinity in this area was attributed to evapoconcentration and saline water inflow from Reedy creek (MDFRC 2006). This reflected similar observations to those made by Frears (2001). The dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations were not seen to be of concern to management of the wetland (MDFRC 2006). The high DO recorded during one sampling event (see Table 3) was attributed to the photosynthetic activity in a shallow region of the wetland (~ 0.1 m). 14

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

The maximum pH was recorded at the west end of the wetland reaching 9.60 which indicates that an algal bloom was potentially present (Goonan 2006), the mean ranged between 7.65 and 8.57. The majority of the pH levels were within the ANZECC (2000) trigger levels for lowland rivers (MDFRC 2006) and is therefore not a concern for management. The turbidity measurements of the wetland were high enough to have an impact on submerged macrophyte growth. Frears (2001) used a secchi disk for do turbidity measurements where the average secchi depth was 10cm, a secchi depth of 17cm was required for PAR light to reach the sediments (assuming an average depth of 60cm). The turbidity increases with an increasing distance from the wetland inlet (connection to River Murray). Therefore, the most likely source of turbidity in the wetland is wind induced resuspension of sediments (MDFRC 2006). The temperatures of the wetland reflected the ambient summer air temperatures (MDFRC 2006). For a description of the implications of water quality in wetlands refer to Your Wetland: Supporting Information (Tucker et al. 2002). Other water quality parameters monitored were not considered a significant management issue and are therefore not discussed in detail in this plan. The only management suggestions made by the baseline survey being to increase the flushing of the wetland, and to observe the impact of saline water inflows for Reedy Creek. Table 3: Water quality Reedy Creek wetland Parameters EC μS/cm

EC μS/cm at No. 1 Pump*

DO mg/L

-1

pH

Turbidity NTU

Water Temperature C

River height No. 1 Pump*

at

n (baseline survey)

Stage 1 04/03/05

Stage 2 06/04/05

Stage 3 24/08/05

Stage 4 19/10/05

Average over survey period

Mean

1101 ± 570

739 ± 295

1777 ± 629

1933 ± 512

1387 ± 1053

Min.

407

373

416

620

373

Max.

2800

1620

3390

3120

3390

Mean

401

393

466

351

398**

Min.

396

388

464

344

393**

Max.

406

400

468

360

403**

Mean

10.1 ± 1.5

8.9 ± 0.4

10.2 ± 0.2

8.0 ± 0.5

9.3 ± 1.7

Min.

8.1

7.9

9.7

6.7

6.7

Max.

14.4

9.6

10.6

8.9

14.4

Mean

8.48 ± 0.35

8.57 ± 0.45

7.84 ± 0.13

7.65 ± 0.18

8.13 ± 0.69

Min.

7.70

7.45

7.51

7.12

7.12

Max.

9.26

9.60

8.11

7.94

9.60

Mean

97 ± 23

142 ± 49

72 ± 34

198 ± 61

127 ± 93

Min.

48

37

22

45

22

Max.

155

273

172

336

336

Mean

20.9 ± 0.3

23.5 ± 0.6

16.2 ± 0.5

17.5 ± 0.1

19.5 ± 3.1

Min.

20.1

22.1

15.2

17.2

15.2

Max.

21.6

24.8

17.2

17.9

24.8

Mean

0.667

0.635

0.897

0.841

0.798**

Min.

0.629

0.603

0.877

0.801

0.74

Max.

0.709

0.681

0.924

0.881

0.85

4

4

4

4

16

Source: Adapted from River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005 (MDFRC 2006); * from DWLBC Surface Water Archive (Mannum No.1 Pump Station) (DWLBC 2006b); ** Average for 2005. Refer to Appendix B for the locations of the baseline survey monitoring sites.

Water quality of the Reedy Creek itself was also monitored during the baseline survey. The data can be seen in Table 4. Of the monitored data the only one of concern was the salinity of the creek, these being much higher compared to the wetland. The salinity of the March and April period can probably be associated with evapoconcentration and potential intrusion of saline groundwater (MDFRC 2006). The salinity, during the entire monitored period, was likely to have an adverse 15

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

impact on the freshwater biota (MDFRC 2006). The salinity from the creek could affect Reedy Creek wetland, for example the salt load of the creek may be having an impact on native fish recruitment in the wetland (SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006a), the management of the wetland should therefore consider this issue. One threat identified is the potential existence or future development of acid sulphate soils due to the observed salinity levels and the saline groundwater intrusion. A study by Lamontagne et. al. (2004) found long term inundated wetlands with high salinity in the lower River Murray to be at risk of having developed potential acid sulphate soils in the recent past (<75 years). Some of the consequences of disturbing potential acid sulphate soils include, deoxygenation of the water column following resuspension of sediment and rapid oxidation of sulfidic material, and acidification and increased toxic heavy metal concentration in the water column following rewetting of a managed dry period in a wetland (Lamontagne et al. 2004). To establish the potential of acid sulphate soils at Reedy Creek wetland a field based survey as described by Baldwin et al. (2006) was used. No evidence of acid sulphate soils were found during a soil sample collection on the 25th October 2006, see Table 5. However, the samples will be sent away for analysis prior to a managed commencement of a dry period. If acid sulphate soils are discovered in the future in the west end of Reedy Creek wetland, the water regime provided in this wetland management plan would need to be reviewed in cooperation with a soil scientist. Table 4: Water quality Reedy Creek Parameters EC μS/cm

DO mg/L

-1

Stage 1 04/03/05

Stage 2 06/04/05

Stage 3 24/08/05

Stage 4 19/10/05

15700

11600

2080

2740

7.3

pH

7.69

Turbidity NTU

Water Temperature C

n (baseline survey)

17

19.6

1

5.8

10.1

8.06

6.2

8.08

80

7.69

4

19.1

12

13.3

1

17.0

1

1

Average over survey period Mean

8030 ± 6707

Min.

2080

Max.

15700

Mean

7.3 ± 2.0

Min.

5.8

Max.

10.1

Mean

7.88 ± 0.22

Min.

7.69

Max.

8.08

Mean

28 ± 35

Min.

4

Max.

80

Mean

17.3 ± 2.9

Min.

13.3

Max.

19.6

n

4

Source: River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005 (MDFRC 2006)

Table 5: Acid sulphate soil survey Site

Description

Easting

Northing

EC

Comments

Photos

2400

Black anoxic muck but no sign of sulfidic sediments - no rust colour

1 and 2

3 and 4

Ruppia in next pond, myriophyllum in RC channel

5 - 12

Charaphytes in water, plus myriophyllum

Site 1

In front of Howies'

Site 2

Reedy Creek channel before it enters the wetland

339974

6131754

1407

Sandy substrate- no sulfidic sediments

Site 3

In gully near structure

340160

6131345

1033

Thick mud, sediments

339732

6131570

no

sulfidic

Notes

16

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

Past projects have included water quality sampling at Reedy Creek wetland. These include a Ph.D. project by Wen (2002), an honours project by Frears (2001), the Caloote Landcare Group and Waterwatch monitoring by Palmer Primary School (although their sampling point was located more upstream near Palmer). Frears (2001) found the conductivity at the west end of the wetland at 2.3 mS/cm to be more saline than closer to the river at 0.5 mS/cm. This corresponds to the data monitored by the baseline survey. Frears‟ recommendations at the time included the management by means of drying and wetting of the west end of the wetland only. The threats identified were that the fresher end of the wetland could be degraded by an increase in salinity through increased groundwater intrusion and higher salinity following rewetting. This threat was not as critical in the smaller western end of the wetland as this area is already dominated by more salt tolerant species. The recommendation for management was to dry this western end of the wetland followed by vegetation monitoring to establish the impact on germination in a salt impacted wetland. The drying regime recommended a short dry spell of between 2 and 3 months between February and May. This regime would allow for the peak invertebrate production in January and optimise the plant germination phase in autumn (Frears 2001). The current water flow into the wetland is mainly through a connection between Reedy Creek wetland and the River Murray, which is at the downstream end of the wetland. This wide opening between the wetland and the river can be seen in Map 4 and Figure 9. A second source of water into the wetland is from Reedy Creek at the west end of the wetland, the creek delta can be seen on the left of Figure 10 and Map 4.

Map 4: Current water movement into the wetland & wetland structure

17

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

Figure 9: River and wetland connection seen from wetland 09/03/06 (TB)

Figure 10: Reedy Creek delta on left of picture 09/03/06 (TB)

Surface water monitoring is now continued by the Caloote Landcare Group with assistance from the SA MDB NRM Board. The monitoring schedule is discussed in Chapter 8. The most current surface water quality is presented in Table 6. In comparison between the months of August 2005 & 2006 the temperature remained the same. The turbidity was slightly lower which reflected the lowest observed during the baseline survey during August. The conductivity was significantly lower at 833 versus a mean of 1777 uS/cm. Perhaps there was less flow form Reedy Creek in 2006? The pH was marginally less in 2006. This extra data adds to the current baseline information prior to the change in management of the wetland. Future significant changes should indicate the impacts of management. Table 6: Recent surface water quality at site REEWQ01 SiteName

Date

WaterSource

Parameter

Equipment

Measure

Units

REEWQ01

06-Aug-06

Surface Water

Conductivity

Waterwatch meter

833

uS/cm

REEWQ01

06-Aug-06

Surface Water

Turbidity

Turbidity Tube

50

NTU

REEWQ01

06-Aug-06

Surface Water

pH

Litmus strip

6.5

REEWQ01

06-Aug-06

Surface Water

Nitrate

Aquaspex-N Ned

>0.05

REEWQ01

06-Aug-06

Surface Water

Phosphate

Aquaspex-P MB

0.15

mg/L

REEWQ01

06-Aug-06

Surface Water

Temperature

Thermometer

16

degreesC

mg/L

The Flood Inundation Model III (FIIMIII) was used to study the potential critical flow volumes of the River Murray for Reedy Creek wetland. The wetland proved to be fairly well contained within its boundaries only establishing an overflow past the sheet pile structure when flow at the border surpassed approximately 58 GL/day at the South Australian border, see Map 5. Drying the west end of the wetland would at this flow level no longer be possible. 18

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

Map 5: FIM III flow volume to surpass sheet pile structure

Groundwater The baseline survey installed two groundwater wells within Reedy Creek wetland. These wells were monitored 4 times during the survey period, see Table 1 (27th May, 12th August, 13th October and 30th November 2005). A further 4 sites existed around Reedy Creek wetland, they were monitored once on the 13th of October 2005 (AWE 2006). The locations of the wells are presented in Table 7 and a map of the groundwater flow direction in Appendix D. Table 7: Groundwater monitoring locations Baseline Name

Easting

Northing

Elevation of Bore Hole casing (m AHD)

Ground Elevation (m AHD)

REE – GR 01

341828

6130953

1.202

0.44

REE – GR 02

341432

6131386

-0.22

-0.769

REEGW07

340033

6131108

4.049**

2.659 (2.5*)

1.39

near gauge board

Site B

REEGW03

338227

6132324

6.143**

4.843

1.3

near bridge

Site C

REEGW04

339079

6132942

6.326**

5.106

1.22

side road

Howie 2

REEGW06

340368

6132054

2.979**

1.809 (1.57*)

1.17

neck of wetland

TEP 2504

REEGW01

338925

6132154

4.87

3.53

1.34

Site A

Site D

Bore Name (Obswell)

Howie 1

New Name

REEGW02 TEP 2506

REEGW05

Casing Height (m) 0.762** 0.549**

1.09 340195

6132078

3.17

1.99

Description

near Julie's

1.18

Wetland Marker REES 1 Source: Adapted from Frears (2001) and River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005 (AWE 2006) * Ground Elevation in Obswell ** calculated

19

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

From the two piezometers monitored regularly by the baseline survey team, the groundwater seems to flow from the river and wetland towards the Basby floodplain, see Appendix D, although some seasonal impact may be present. More thorough groundwater monitoring is required to get a clear picture of the groundwater flow around Reedy Creek wetland. The groundwater was generally one meter below the river and wetland levels. The piezometer closest to the river seemed to follow the increase in river level in winter, the second piezometer less so. During spring the groundwater levels at both baseline survey installed piezometers declined although the river remained the same suggesting some seasonal impact (AWE 2006). The measured depths of the ground water can be seen in Table 8. More recent groundwater monitoring has show the groundwater to be lower than seen in during the baseline survey with increased salinity, this could indicate a reduced recharge due to the low rainfall seen in 2006 leading to increased salinity in the remaining groundwater. Table 8: Groundwater monitoring results Baseline Name

New Name

REE – GR - 01

Site B

Site C

Site D

Wetland Marker REES 1

Groundwater Depth Groundwater Depth Groundwater (mbgl) (mBTOC) elevation (mAHD) Conductivity μS/cm

27/05/05

1.076

1.838

-0.636

5,050

12/08/05

0.533

1.295

-0.093

5,130

13/10/05

0.518

1.280

-0.078

3,190

30/11/05

0.753

1.515

-0.313

4,050

27/05/05

0.487

1.036

-1.256

18,500

12/08/05

0.451

1.000

-1.220

18,610

13/10/05

0.332

0.881

-1.101

11,220

30/11/05

0.466

1.015

-1.235

14,580

13/10/05

1.31

2.700

1.349

12,240

06/08/06

1.56

2.95

0.94

30,800

13/10/05

0.75

2.050

4.093

8,610

06/08/06

1.2

2.5

3.643

14,760

13/10/05

1.611

2.831

3.495

5,750

06/08/06

2.78

4

2.326

10,990

13/10/05

0.022

1.192

1.787

9,580

06/08/06

0.53

1.7

1.04

16,950

REEGW01

06/08/06

1.8

3.14

1.73

9,690

REEGW02

06/08/06

0.74

1.83

REEGW05

06/08/06

1.05

2.23

REE – GR - 02

Site A

Sampling Date

REEGW07

REEGW03

REEGW04

REEGW06

12/08/05

0.74

13/10/05

0.745

30/11/05

0.795

40,200 0.94

27,500

Source: River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005 (AWE 2006)

The groundwater salinity at the piezometer close to the river reach a conductivity of around 5000 μS/cm decreasing over the winter period when the groundwater flow seemed to come from the river and wetland see Table 8. This pattern was also seen in the second piezometer although the salinity of the groundwater at this location reached a high of 18,610. The baseline survey does not assume a great risk of groundwater salininisation due to the permanence and size of the wetland. It does however recommend continued monitoring and comparison to river and wetland levels as well as climatic data (AWE 2006). Groundwater monitoring by Frears (2001) was based at the western end of the wetland using the „existing‟ piezometers. Observations by Frears (2001) indicate that the groundwater flows from the surrounding area towards the wetland. Further, the salinity of the groundwater increased with the proximity to the wetland. 20

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

2.4

ECOLOGICAL FEATURES

(a) FLORA Vegetation surveys were conducted to some extent as part of sand mining data collection and can be found in reports by Thomas (Thomas 1973b), Douglas (Douglas 1974) and Cox (Cox 1975). A significant and aesthetic river red gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis stand close to the sand mining area is described in these historical records. Areas of lignum and samphire are described with the samphire covering the claypans and frequently flooded areas (Cox 1975). Cox (Cox 1975) also describes the abundance of reeds around the creek and backwater areas. A more recent survey was conducted by the baseline survey in 2005. The baseline survey identified 31 native species within the survey area and 22 exotics (SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006b); see Appendix E. Although the western edge of the wetland was grazed by cattle a species rich assemblage of native grasses was found. This area had the highest species richness but also showed some damage through pugging. Fencing off this area should be monitored for exotic species that may have been suppressed during grazing (SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006b). The baseline survey suggested the use of this area for crash grazing control trials. Of significant interest is the low abundance of submerged macrophytes. As Reedy Creek wetland is a shallow wetland a greater abundance were expected. There was however, one area in the northeastern corner of the wetland where submerged species were recorded by the baseline survey. These submerged species included Potamogeton crispus and Vallisinera spiralis (SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006b). Consequently, this area should be protected to maintain some of the submerged species in the wetland (SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006b). Ruppia and myriophyllum were found in a pool in the Reedy Creek delta into the wetland and charaphytes were found close to the structure; see Table 5 for GPS locations. The red gum Eucalyptus camadulensis var. camadulensis health was found to be excellent to good. Most of these red gums were to be found along the levees the one between the river and the wetland and other between the wetland and the irrigated pastures (SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006b). The red gum locations and health score can be seen in Appendix E. Large woody debris (LWD) covered less than 5% of the wetland and its shore (SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006b).This could be of some significance to fish habitat availability in the wetland. However, perhaps some habitat is provided through the Typha sp. and Schoenoplectus validus dominated areas found in the central and eastern end of the wetland, which extends into the connecting channel between the wetland and the River Murray. Lignum Muehlenbeckia florulenta was found on the northern and southern shorelines of the wetland in areas where there were no levees. The majority of exotic species were recorded on the levee between the wetland and irrigated pasture (SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006b). These species included; Brome spp. Ward's Weed Carrichtera annua Salvation Jane Echium plantagineum False Caper Euphorbia terracina Bastard's Fumitory Fumaria bastardii Wild Lettuce Lactuca saligna Rye grass Lolium sp. Lippia Phyla canescens (which has a potential to spread and become a serious weed) The baseline survey monitoring team surveyed eight plant associations at Reedy Creek wetland (SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006b). These associations are listed below and their location can be seen in Appendix B. 21

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

1. Diverse grazed shoreline at western edge of wetland 2. Muehlenbeckia florulenta shrubland 3. Typha sp. sedgeland in central part of wetland 4. Schoenoplectus validus sedgeland in central part of wetland 5. Phragmites australis grassland in eastern part of wetland 6. Typha sp. sedgeland in eastern part of wetland 7. Salix babylonica woodland in eastern part of wetland, 8. Schoenoplectus validus sedgeland in eastern part of wetland. A detailed list of species found within the plant associations can be found in Appendix F. A long history of vegetation clearing exists for the Reedy Creek area. Thomas (Thomas 1973b) discusses the clearing of vegetation for grazing and cultivation following settlement in 1870. At the time of his survey there was little remnant vegetation remaining in the Reedy Creek area with only a few pines and mallee (Thomas 1973b). Further clearing mentioned included cutting down of trees for feed during drought, logging and for use in mine smelting fires. The report includes a flora list of “large and obvious” native species. This list included an extended area outside the wetland zone considered in this plan. This list is therefore not considered in this plan but may be of interest to conservationists working in the area and is therefore included in Appendix F. A second list that covers the red gum flats, creek bank, and streambed where sand mining occurred is also included in Appendix F. These lists may be relevant for future vegetation surveys and revegetation efforts. Frears (2001) conducted seed and egg bank experiments, where sediments taken from different areas of the wetland depending on the salinity gradient (fresher closer to the river), were dried out and re-flooded. The sediments from the western end of the wetland (i.e. the area which is to be dried-out) had a greater abundance of seedlings that germinated during the experiment, yet slightly less diversity (11 diff species, compared to 15 further up the wetland, and 14 near the river). Many of the species that germinated were not recorded in the veg surveys undertaken at the same sites. Ostracods, chironomids and collembolla were some of the many invertebrates that hatched out of the sediments after re-flooding. There was no difference between sites. (b) FAUNA Historical records exist listing a number of species that were found in and around the wetland. Some of these records have been used in the individual sections below. However, other species that are of interest and were not covered by any aspect of the recent baseline survey include, longnecked tortoises (common around most areas of water and creek), shingle backed lizards, common brown snake, tiger snake, platypus, native water-rat and historical reports of the common wombat. These wombats were reportedly found in burrows in the surrounding limestone (Cox 1975). The most recent fauna survey was undertaken as part of the River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey - 2005 (SKM 2006b). Individual teams with appropriate expertise conducted a number of surveys on fauna in the wetland environment. These surveys are described below. Birds There is a long history of bird monitoring at Reedy Creek wetland. From 1969 through to 1975 Cox (Cox 1973; Cox 1974; Cox 1975) recorded sightings at Reedy Creek both at the wetland and the waterfall area further upstream. Cox (1975) gives a description of the habitat use by different birds and updates the bird count from the previous year. Some of the requirements include still-water and reeds for breeding by grebes, shallow clear backwater for herons and egrets and muddy shallow areas for ibis and spoonbills for foraging, waders the shallow mud of the western end of the wetland, and duck, swans, crakes and moorhens require the shelter of fringing vegetation for breeding (Cox 1975). Most of the birds of prey require red gums for breeding however, the swamp 22

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

harrier requires reeds to breed in (Cox 1975). These birds of prey hunt over the floodplain and may even have a significant impact on the rabbit population (Cox 1975). Terrestrial and perching birds were also found to use the area in great abundances due to the varied habitat available, including trees, lignum, samphire and reeds (Cox 1975). Further monitoring was conducted at the conservation park through the 1990‟s. The baseline survey also included bird monitoring at the wetland, which was undertaken by the consultants EBS & HydroTas (2006). The wetland itself therefore has baseline data almost 4 decades apart allowing for a long-term assessment of birds using the area. The wetland is recognised as an important waterbird habitat with Thomas (1973a) describing it as the most valuable aspect of the wetland. Cox (Cox 1975) echoes this sentiment describing the implications of the loss of this central „nucleus‟ to birds in the entire region. Thomas describes large clumps of common reed Phragmites australias in the wetland which provides shelter for ducks and waterhens. Thomas‟s report recommended the declaration of Reedy Creek wetland as a conservation park. The site was also mentioned for its importance for JAMBA (Japan Australia Migratory Birds Agreement) and CAMBA (China Australia Migratory Bird Agreement), protected migratory species in the Australian Heritage Database and Australian Heritage Places Inventory (2006a; 2006b). As part of the Heritage listing the area around the wetland is described as offering breeding and foraging habitat for numerous terrestrial birds and waterbirds, with clumps of reeds described as providing shelter for ducks and water hens, this information was probably obtained from the report by Thomas (1973a) mentioned previously. The bird assessment of the baseline survey was located at four fixed area search sites and one transect (EBS & HydroTas 2006). The surveys were undertaken twice in the baseline survey period, once in autumn and once in spring. All sites were at the western end of the wetland around the samphire area of the creek delta and were considered simple (see Table 24 in Appendix F and Appendix B). The water level increased for the second survey minimising the availability of wet mud and covering some of the low vegetation (EBS & HydroTas 2006). The baseline survey observed a total of 37 waterbird species with a total of 42 species. All the species observed by the baseline survey has been observed by J. B. Cox who recorded a total of 158 species with 51 seen to be breeding (to 1975) (Cox 1975). Of the 148 birds recorded by 1974 (Cox 1974), 15 species are listed in JAMBA and 14 species in CAMBA, of these the baseline survey observed only 3 species, see Appendix F. Ten of the observed species are regarded as threatened or vulnerable species in South Australia with 21 recommended for protection (DEH 2003). The baseline survey found the abundance of birds using the wetland to remain relatively constant at 346 birds in autumn and 341 in spring. The difference in the habitat availability was a reduction in wet mud and an increase in water level for the spring survey. The most significant habitat use by birds at the wetland is shown in Table 9 a list with the habitat use of all baseline survey recorded birds at the wetland and the observed activity can be seen in Appendix F. Table 9: Most significant habitat use at Reedy Creek wetland Habitat

Individuals

Number of Species

Open water

262

14

Samphire

140

Mud

108

10

Lignum

8

Shallow water

8

The three most abundant birds observed were the Grey Teal with 206 individuals, the Australian Pelican with 73 individuals and the Straw Necked Ibis with 58 individuals only observed in the spring monitoring period (EBS & HydroTas 2006). The baseline survey observed 15 species that were roosting and 30 foraging, see Appendix F. The baseline survey noted the Australasian Shoveler as a species of state conservation significance, classified as rare. From its habitat 23

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

requirements their recommendations suggested maintaining an open water habitat during the dryer months, i.e. Autumn, as that was the season the bird was observed at the wetland. Frogs A frog survey was included in the baseline survey with four separate monitoring dates, these frog surveys were conducted by SA MDB NRM Board staff (SA MDB NRMB 2006). There were two sites one at the western end of the wetland and the other at a permanent pool of Reedy Creek near the waterfalls, the locations of which can be seen in Appendix B. Site 1 consisted of damp samphire and lignum close to open water, site 2 consisted of a deep creek habitat with mature red gums and common reed. Four frog species were recorded at Reedy Creek during the survey, which are listed in Table 10. Most species were recorded in the late winter and spring sampling periods. Of the recorded species the Eastern banjo frog Limnodynastes dumerilii and the spotted grass frog L. tasmaniensis were the most abundant, they were also recorded at another 19 wetlands out of the 22 surveyed (SA MDB NRMB 2006). All of the recorded frogs are common throughout South Australia and have been continuously the four most significantly recorded species in the frog census run by the South Australian EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) (Walker et al. 1999; Walker et al. 2000; Walker and Goonan 2001; Walker 2002; Walker 2003). The brown tree frog was probably absent from the western end of the wetland due to the absence of mature red gums, the remaining three frogs are highly adaptable using strategies such as burrowing (L. dumerilii) and being highly mobile and therefore a colonising species (L. tasmaniensis). Table 10: Frogs recorded at Reedy Creek wetland Date

Site 1 (western end of wetland)

Site 2 (Permanent pool of Reedy Creek near waterfalls)

Common froglet

Spotted grass frog

Eastern frog

Crinia signifera

Limnodynastes tasmaniensis

Limnodynastes dumerili

14/03/05

One

25/05/05

Few

31/08/05

Lots

Few

02/11/05

Few

Few

banjo

Common froglet

Spotted grass frog

Eastern frog

banjo

Brown tree frog

Crinia signifera

Limnodynastes tasmaniensis

Limnodynastes dumerili

Litoria ewingi

Few

Few

Few

Few

Many

One Lots Few

Few

Abundance: One = 1, Few = 2 - 9, Many = 10 - 50, lots = >50 Source: River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005 (SA MDB NRMB 2006)

Site 2 had a greater abundance and diversity. The pugged ground and the lack of suitable habitat around the samphire region of the western end could account for some of the lower numbers of frogs. The baseline survey recommends fencing of the wetland to restrict stock access and thereby allow an increase in fringing vegetation such as sedges and rushes. This would increase habitat availability and therefore potentially frog abundance (SA MDB NRMB 2006). Fish The baseline survey included a fish survey at Reedy Creek wetland by SARDI Aquatic Sciences (2006a), once in autumn and once in spring. The species collected are shown in Appendix F. Overall the native to exotic species ratio was 3.7:1. However, the abundance of exotic fish brings the ratio of the number of native fish to exotic to 1.8:1 (839 native and 448 exotic). Most of the exotics (326) were eastern gambusia Gambusia holbrooki caught in the autumn survey. There were 104 carp Cyprinus carpio caught with many seen migrating upstream to the waterfall area of the wetland where they spawned (SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006a). Preventing carp access in spring might have an impact on this migration, however the carp screens and sheet pile structure are currently believed to be too low allowing water overflow and carp migration in spring. The most abundant native species were the bony herring Nematalosa erebi with 230 individuals, flathead 24

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

gudgeon Philypnodon grandiceps with 194 and Australian smelt Retropina semoni with 141 (SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006a). Of the native fish the dwarf-flathead gudgeon Philypnodon sp. and Murray rainbowfish Melanotaenia fluviatilis are a significant catch in that they are both proposed to be listed as threatened (rare) under the revised National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 (DEH 2003). There was an indication of seasonal fish movement in ant out of the wetland along with some fish recruitment in or close to the wetland (SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006a). Flow control structures can have an impact on the movement of fish in and out of wetland environments, due to changes in water quality and/or water flow (velocities, turbulence) (see Your Wetland: Supporting Information (Tucker et al. 2002)), however the sheet pile structure may not have the full impact that the traditional culverts have. In the case of Reedy Creek the reduction of movement of large fish may be of a minor consequence as only a few native fish can tolerate the salinity (>10,000 EC) of the refuge pools of the creek. The fish that can tolerate this level are flathead gudgeons P. grandiceps and carp gudgeons Hypseleotris spp. which were found in large numbers. Macroinvertebrates The River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey - 2005 (SKM 2006a) monitored macroinvertebrates at Reedy Creek wetland in autumn and spring. Reedy Creek wetland had an above average taxa richness with 43 in Reedy Creek, 37.3 the average for the geographical zone and 34.3 the average for the baseline survey 2005 surveyed wetlands (SKM 2006a). However, the abundance at Reedy Creek wetland was seen to be low, the full list of taxa and abundance can be seen in Appendix F. The baseline survey related the low abundance to the low availability of habitat such as submerged and emergent vegetation. Of the taxa found at the wetland the most abundant were those that were most widely distributed and may not have been impacted on as much by the lack of habitat (SKM 2006a). The argument for the lack of habitat is supported by the baseline survey findings of an increased abundance following the increased water levels in the wetland in spring, which flooded surrounding fringing vegetation increasing submerged habitat diversity and availability. The most pollution sensitive taxa were dependent on or prefer slow flowing or still waters, these taxa being, Eusiridae (order Amphipoda), class Acarina (freshwater mites) and Leptoceridae (stick caddis) (SKM 2006a). For a description of the function of macroinvertebrates in wetlands refer to Your Wetland: Supporting Information (Tucker et al. 2002).

2.5

IMPLICATIONS FOR MANAGEMENT

The River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey - 2005 (SKM 2006b) had a number of recommendations to make for improved management of the wetland. The recommendations were based on each survey team‟s assessment of their collected data and have been summarised below. The turbidity of the wetland seems to be localised in the western end as the creek itself is clear and the wetland has an increasing turbidity the further it is from the connection to the River Murray. This turbidity is probably due to the wind resuspension of sediment facilitated by the lack of vegetation (both terrestrial and aquatic) and the shallow nature of the wetland at the western end. Focusing on revegetation and inducing germination in this area would potentially provide the greatest benefit for water quality and fauna habitat. Drying this wetland section and thereby compacting the sediment may also contribute to reducing the sediment resuspension thereby reducing the turbidity at this end of the wetland. The only management suggestions made by the baseline survey regarding freshwater was to increase the flushing of the wetland, and to observe the impact of saline water inflows for Reedy Creek. The groundwater team recommend continued monitoring and comparison to river and wetland levels as well as climatic data, this monitoring can be assisted with the use of a data logger (AWE 2006). 25

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

From the physical features of this wetland the following management recommendation, from Frears (2001), and considerations can be adopted; Introduce a dry period in the saline west end of the wetland (not the open water for fear of salinisation of this freshwater area) by closing the sheet pile structure. Introduction of managed dry periods in the west end of the wetland needs to consider the feasibility of actually achieving a dry state, given the ephemeral nature of Reedy Creek that flows into this end of the wetland. Due to the Mount Lofty Ranges winter rainfall pattern, a dry period extending into winter would therefore not be possible. Monitor groundwater inflows into the hydrologically managed section of the wetland to observe the impact of groundwater prior to, during and following a drying event Monitor impact of the altered hydrology regime on wetland salinity, water quality, vegetation germination, fish and macroinvertebrate population and water pH. From the ecological features of the wetland observed during monitoring, both baseline and from previous records, understanding could be elucidated as to the current degradation of the wetland as well as potential restoration actions, existing and potential threats. Each team of the baseline survey made recommendations to management based on their data and expertise, these are presented and discussed below. The recommendations from the vegetation team of the baseline survey (SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006b) included; Protection of submerged macrophytes Grazing trials to be considered in the future for currently grazed area, i.e. fencing to control/manage stock access Willow control is recommended on the levee between the wetland and the river Agricultural weed removal recommended for the levee between the wetland and irrigated pasture The recommendations made by the baseline survey bird team (EBS & HydroTas 2006) include; For birds maintain open water habitat in autumn to provide refuge when other wetlands would be dry. Described as being of particular significance to the Australasian Shoveler. Further research would be needed to validate the claim. Need to promote submerged aquatic vegetation that will be beneficial to waterbird species, increase in abundance of observed species. Ephemeral lagoons should be maintained as such to make sure wet mud, shallow water and open water is maintained. Removal of stock should increase the habitat quality for water birds. Fix sheet-piling structure to allow water level fluctuations to increase abundance and diversity of wader species utilising wetland. The recommendation from frog team of the baseline survey (SA MDB NRMB 2006) include; Fence off western wetland area to restrict stock access and thereby improve fringing vegetation. Site to be included in the annual South Australian Frog Census (LAP, community group or landholders) Frogs to be monitored at least twice a year (assistance from local Wetland Project Officer) more sites to be included particularly close to the River Murray 26

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

The recommendation from the fish team of the baseline survey (SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006a) include; Removal of stock to minimise riparian and littoral zone degradation Revegetation of streamside vegetation Limit carp migration upstream to Reedy Creek waterfall area in spring No concrete recommendations were made by the macroinvertebrate team (SKM 2006a). However, a number of issues were recognised by the team that affected the habitat availability for macroinvertebrates. Based on the information contained in the macroinvertebrate chapter of the baseline survey the following management considerations seem prudent; Increase the reeds in an attempt to increase the aquatic vegetation (historical anecdotes point to there having been more reeds in the wetland) Increased structural woody habitat (SWH) could possibly also add to the habitat availability in the wetland Reedy Creek wetland seems to be recognised for its importance in providing water bird habitat. This fact and the recommendations made by the baseline survey teams suggest the key management considerations for Reedy Creek wetland should focus on maintaining the habitat availability for water birds. As waterbirds are at the top of the wetland food chain, the lower food chain must be in tact and be capable to supporting the number of waterbirds expected. Therefore, to help the waterbirds the wetland ecosystem must be in a healthy stable and productive state. Restoration of this wetland must therefore focus on the establishment of habitat, the lack of which has been identified as a major degradation, as well as protecting that habitat. Habitat must therefore be developed and maintained for macroinvertebrates, fish and frogs through the protection of the samphire and herbland, and the establishment or expansion of reed beds. With the development of more habitat (submerged, emergent, woody debris, variable depths) the identified macroinvertebrates indicate the potential for an increase in diversity and abundance at this wetland, particularly given the freshwater status at present (Goonan 2006). The approach normally undertaken to reinvigorate seed germination, i.e. drying and then rewetting a wetland, is in the case of Reedy Creek wetland not an option for the complete wetland as there is a potential of salinising the wetland. There is however, the option of drying the Reedy Creek delta during the late summer months prior to winter rains. This structure could then also be used to restrict carp movement in the following spring. Other management options for the wetland include the control of stock, management of weeds, and the replanting of fringing vegetation. The management of stock was repeatedly mentioned in the baseline survey as well as other historical reports (Thomas 1973a; Jensen et al. 1999; Frears 2001). As the currently grazed area has a high diversity of vegetation, potentially facilitated through disturbance caused by stock, a crash grazing regime will need to be trialled (SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006b). The replanting of reed clumps as in the historical anecdotal records could increase the macrophyte, fish and bird habitat availability at the western end of the wetland where no reeds currently exists. These reeds may assist in reducing the turbidity of the wetland and promote some submerged macrophyte expansion.

27

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

Chapter 3.

SOCIAL ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL VALUES

The area surrounding Reedy Creek was the traditional lands of the Peramangk. The area offered good water supply, food and the granitic rock provided shelter. Therefore, permanent camps were established in the area. Evidence exists in the form of rock paintings and extensive middens (McBriar and Milnes 1968; Thomas 1973b). Thomas (1973b) discusses anecdotal information from a Mr Kowald, who grew up in the area, of remembering an Aboriginal camp in the granite borders above Reedy Creek. Aboriginal consultation on management issues was conducted by Wetland Care Australia. No specific concerns were raised although there was general concern over the decline in vegetation, birds, yabbies and fish (Jensen et al. 1999). In a questionnaire to landholders, organised by Wetland Care Australia for their Reedy Creek management plan, Arthur Hein recorded observations of the area prior to the 1940‟s permanent inundation of the wetland. This anecdotal information mentions lignum of 2 to 3 m tall, saltbush in the samphire clay pans, dense reed beds areas up to 3 m tall with some approx 2 hectares in size (see Map 1), no reeds in the creek and interestingly water grasses and duck weed in most areas, something which is not found today (Heine 1999). Heine also recorded prolific water birds many nesting in tall reed beds and some of the fish seen in the wetland included, callop, silver perch and small native species. He further observes that the cumbungi is all but gone following the raising of the river level as well as a reduction in waterfowl as a consequence.

28

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

Chapter 4. LAND TENURE, MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS

JURISDICTION

AND

There are multiple properties, which encompass Reedy Creek wetland and the surrounding land. The wetland lagoon itself covers thirteen of these properties, eleven in private ownership, and two, covering the wide opening between the wetland and the river, in Mid Murray Council ownership. Some of the surrounding properties are residential (shacks) although most of the area is still in primary production including animal husbandry. The property boundaries and the key ownership details can be seen in Map 6.

Map 6: Cadastral boundaries covering Reedy Creek wetland and surrounds.

The Reedy Creek community members i.e. the Caloote Landcare Group, with support from the Mannum to Wellington LAP and the SA MDB NRM BOARD will be responsible for the management of the wetland in consultation with the neighbouring landholders. Contact persons for Reedy Creek wetland management will be Mannum to Wellington LAP Officers, Wetland Management Planning Officer or SA MDB NRM BOARD Wetland Project Officer, see

29

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

Table 11 for contact details. Access to the wetland will need to be arranged through consultation with the relevant landowner, contact with whom should be established through the Mannum to Wellington LAP.

30

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006 Table 11: Reedy Creek wetland responsible positions contact details Position

Present Officers

Organisation

Mailing Address

Mannum to Wellington LAP Project Manager

Kathryn Rothe

Mannum to Wellington LAP PO Box 2056

Wetland Project Officer, Lower Murray

Adrienne Frears SA MDB NRM BOARD

PO Box 2056

Wetland Management Planning Officer

Tumi Bjornsson Lower LAPS

Phone number Murray Bridge

SA 5253

(08) 8531 3222

Murray Bridge

SA 5253

(08) 8232 6753

Mt. Lofty Ranges Mount Catchment Centre Barker Upper Level Cnr. Mann and Walker St's

SA 5251

(08) 8391 7515

31

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

Chapter 5. THREATS AND POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS TO REEDY CREEK WETLAND There are a number of existing and potential threats to Reedy Creek wetland, some of which have become apparent in the description of the wetland and available data in the chapters above. The identification of these threats is essential for appropriate adaptive management of the wetland. Their early recognition allows for an appropriate monitoring strategy for early identification of adverse impacts of management and therefore rapid response through altered management. The major threats include stock access to sensitive wetland fringing vegetation, lack of aquatic habitat such as submerged and emergent vegetation, pest species such as carp and rabbits and potential groundwater salinity from upland areas. The past clearing of the wetland area has degraded the native habitat throughout the area and willows cover a large section of the causeway between the wetland and the river. Some management interventions may be able to address some of these threats however, the altered management of a wetland will in itself bring with it potential threats that need to be identified, these and other threats identified so far have been listed in Table 12.

32

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006 Table 12: Existing and potential threats to Reedy Creek wetland CAUSE

IMPACT

CATEGOR Y

EXTENT (IF KNOWN)

POTENTIAL SOLUTION

Needs to be tested for

Saline water and groundwater

Sulfuric acid release following drying event Severe ecological degradation, including fish kills and degradation of vegetation

Local

Wetland and Reedy Creek

Saline wetland

Mainly salt tolerant fish species caught in wetland

Saline water from Reedy Creek Saline groundwater intrusion

Reduction in potential native fish diversity

Local/ Regional

Wetland and Reedy Creek

Only possible to minimise future increase by minimising the drying events at the wetland

Salinisation of the wetland if extensive and frequent dry periods are introduced

Increasing EC of wetland water body Increasing salinity in wetland base/soil

Wetland

Use minimal dry events to induce germination of water plants Monitor groundwater flow around wetland to assess the impact and respond adaptively Do not allow wetland to remain dry more than 6 months

Local/ Regional

Levee bank

Follow expert recommendation on willow control Revegetate with appropriate native species

Water bypasses the structure at lower ground near levee (embankment)

Loss of bank stability Undercutting Slumping Loss of levee sections Greater link between wetland and river West end of wetland does not dry

Degradation of wetland water quality (long term degradation of wetland) Degradation of wetland environment Reduced biodiversity Degradation of habitat quality for native fish Degradation of bird habitat (increased fish and macroinivertebrates may improve habitat for water birds) Only salt tolerant species present Salt inflow into river Loss of levee Greater exchange between river and wetland Unknown consequences to wetland ecosystem Potential reduction of still waters Dry management regime not possible

Local

Erosion of levee bank between wetland and river

Drying of main part of wetland Saline seepage from groundwater Frequent drying of western end allowing excessive inflow of saline groundwater into wetland Wetland maintained at a dry phase for too long allowing groundwater seepage into the wetland Inappropriate willow control

Local

Land surrounding embankmen t & structure

Survey Prop up with fill (extend embankment) and re revegetate to prevent erosion

Potential

Existing

Potential

Potential Acid Sulphate Soils

Potential

ABIOTIC

SYMPTOM

Potential

THREATS

Ground too low for water levels expected

Not to introduce dry periods

33

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006 THREATS

CATEGOR Y

Loss of habitat diversity and abundance (vegetation etc.) Loss of structural woody habitat (snags) in water body Loss of windbreak

Local

Rabbits

Less diverse vegetation to what could be expected in area Destruction of current vegetation Destruction of revegetation efforts Pugging Grazing pressure (destruction of existing revegetation) Prevention of vegetation growth

Rabbits eat vegetation

Destruction of riparian vegetation Loss of habitat

Local

Unrestricted stock access to wetland fringe

Grazing pressure destruction of existing revegetation Pugging of drying wetland base Grazing of germinating plants in wetland bed Their presence

Drying of the wetland allowing access to revegetated areas and wetland base

Pugging Erosion Grazing of vegetation (lack of regeneration) Lack of riparian and fringing vegetation Lack of fauna habitat Same as above Destruction of revegetation efforts Compromise of management efforts (undermining drying event)

Degradation of native vegetation

Gradual loss of abundance of birds visiting and breeding in wetland

Degradation of wetland ecosystem Lack of fish and macroinvertebrates as food source Lack of floodplain vegetation (habitat)

Existing

Existing

Clearing Grazing Weed infestation Mismanagement of wetland hydrology

Existing Potential Existing

IMPACT

Less than potential native vegetation species in the area Invasive species present Impact on native fauna species diversity and abundance

Stock (Cattle and sheep)

Existing

CAUSE

Loss of native riparian vegetation

Stock (Cattle and sheep) BIOTIC

SYMPTOM

Weeds

Lack of waterbird habitat

EXTENT (IF KNOWN)

POTENTIAL SOLUTION

Surrounding area. Extensive. Revegetatio n option for riparian area and potentially into the wetland water. Surrounding area

Revegetate with local native species Protect from rabbits

Local

Unfenced surrounding area

Fence off stock Introduce appropriate grazing regime

Local

Embankmen t linking to sheet pile structure

Exotic species Competition with native vegetation Loss of habitat

Local

Floodplain

Active removal poisoning

Loss of bird habitat Reduced numbers of birds using wetland than the potential of the wetland allows

Local/ Regional

Wetland and wetland surrounding area

Monitor bird numbers regularly Restore wetland ecology Increase habitat availability Revegetate

Fence off wetland with rabbit proof fence Baiting Shooting Ripping of burrows

Fence of stock and restrict access while wetland is dry (no point in attempting to dry the wetland if stock has full access to the management area during this period)

34

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006 SYMPTOM

Lack of specialist frogs

Lack of specialist frogs

Lack of native fish habitat

Mainly generalist fish in wetland

Potential

Existing

Existing

THREATS

Invasive fish species (carp, gambusia, goldfish and redfin)

Turbid wetlands

CAUSE

IMPACT

CATEGOR Y

Possibly due to lack of suitable habitat Degradation of wetland ecosystem Saline wetland Lack of structural woody habitat

Loss/reduction of frogs in ecosystem

Local

Reduction in available habitat including breeding areas (nurseries)

Local/ Regional

Well known environmental problem in region (large pest population) Rapid breeding cycles (carp ~2/year), live bearing (gambusia), unpalatable eggs (redfin)

Competition for habitat. (domination of available habitat) Predation/aggressive interaction on/with small and young native fish (redfin/gambusia) Damage to aquatic vegetation Decrease in water quality (Turbidity increase) Predation on native fish (redfin)

Local/ Regional (Managed locally)

EXTENT (IF KNOWN) Wetland and wetland surrounding area Wetland and river

Wetland and Reedy Creek

POTENTIAL SOLUTION

Restore wetland ecology/habitat availability Increase habitat availability Revegetate Restore wetland ecology/habitat availability Revegetate riparian vegetation (provide shade and snags) Revegetate reeds (Typha) clumps in areas where anecdotal evidence points to their presence Minimise any potential adverse saline groundwater inflow into the wetland following management Establish height/capacity of structure, improve if necessary and possible Provide habitat to favour native species Restrict carp movement into Reedy Creek in spring using carp (large fish) screens Allow movement of carp out of wetland in late summer to autumn by removing screens Monitor abundance of invasive verses native species Removal of carp following drawdown Removal of carp and juveniles in Reedy Creek pools when levels fall in the ephemeral creek

35

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

Chapter 6.

MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES

The main management objective is the restoration of the ecology of Reedy Creek wetland. Based on the objectives, presented in Chapter 1, the baseline data presented in Chapter 2 and the threats to the wetland, discussed in Chapter 5, more detailed management objectives can now be developed. The objectives, including solutions, actions needed, and priorities are detailed in Table 13. Adaptive management will drive the actions undertaken to achieve the objectives. Due to the complexity of the habitat requirements of waders, water birds, native fish, macroinvertebrates and frogs and identified potential threats to the wetland the management and therefore detailed objectives will need to be flexible. A minor review of the objectives and the wetland management plan is recommended at the end of each year, community groups can achieve this, with the support of the local wetland officers listed in Chapter 4, by reviewing their monitored data. A major review should follow 5 years after the commencement of the management.

36

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006 Table 13: Management objectives for Reedy Creek wetland

VEGETATION

Native

Invasive

Invasive

Native

Native

Native

MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES

Regeneration of riparian vegetation (surrounding wetland and creek)

FISH

Establish native revegetation projects Work on rabbit control Work on stock control

Regeneration/ maintain wetland aquatic species (maintain/increase abundance of submerged macrophytes)

Maintain open water Minimise wave action Revegetate reeds

Regeneration/maintain wetland aquatic species (maintain water plant communities) in creek delta

Introduce dry period followed by inundation to initiate germination

Control of willows from levee between wetland and river

Establish willow removal projects in the wetland area

Removal of weeds from levee between the wetland and irrigated pasture

Establish weed removal projects in the wetland area

Restore native fish habitat **

Minimise impact of carp

Invasive

SOLUTIONS

ACTIONS (Management (M) or Engineering or structural (ES)) Actively revegetate using locally collected seed Fence of stock from wetland/ establish grazing regime Use rabbit control measures as appropriate Revegetate with reeds in shallow areas Revegetate riparian zone

Slow drying of wetland Monitor water levels and salinity and respond adaptively to maintain shallow water and mud flats and EC of around 5000 Willow control as per expert recommendation (Natural State have extensive experience in willow control in wetland of the area) Weed control as per expert recommendation

Improved fish habitat

Restore riparian vegetation Increase structural woody habitat

Improve capacity of structure Operate carp grills at sheet pile structure based on expert recommendation

Make sure structure is high enough (See chapter 7.2) Extend carp screens Dry west part of wetland Install screens in mid Aug remove in mid Dec. (Smith 2006)

QUANTIFIABLE /MEASURE OF ACHIEVEMENT Expansion and survival of native species (numbers based on expert recommendation) Minimisation of stock induced vegetation degradation Diversity of aquatic species, continued presence of submerged species (Potamogeton crispus and Vallisinera spiralis) Expansion of fringing reeds Diversity of aquatic species, continued presence of submerged species (Ruppia in pond, myriophyllum in Reedy Creek channel) Control of willows (as per expert recommendation) Willow control to be cautious of erosion issues Reduction of weeds (as per expert recommendation)

Increase in abundance of specialist native species Increase in macroinvertebrate abundance (food for fish) Minimal carp recruitment Far less carp in western end of wetland and in creek

MONITOR (TIMING)*

LEGISLATION

PRIORITY

Photo point (Q) Vegetation survey

Medium

Photo point (Q) Vegetation survey

Medium

(Y)

(Y) Monitor water quality (M)

Photo point (Q) Vegetation survey

WAP (water license)

High

(Y) Monitor water quality (M) Vegetation survey

High

Vegetation survey

High

(Y)

(Y)

Fish survey (Y) Macroinvertebrate survey (1/2Y)

Medium

Fish survey (spring/summer)

High

37

Native Native/Migratory

Restore native frog habitat

Improved frog habitat through improved and more diverse ecological niches (habitat)

Restore riparian vegetation (revegetate) Increase reed growth/plant

Presence of specialist native frog species in wetland

Frog survey (1/2Y)

Low

Maintained/Improved habitat for water birds (waterfowl, waders and shorebirds)

Maintain all habitat including open water, shallow water, wet and dry mud Revegetate surrounding area with native vegetation

Maintain/Increase bird abundance and diversity using wetland Increase in habitat diversity (fringing vegetation)

Bird survey (1/2Y) Vegetation survey

High

(Y)

Maintain open water habitat in autumn as refuge

Do not alter hydrology of (dry) larger wetland basin

Monitor for presence of waterbirds (particularly Australasian shoveler)

Bird survey (1/2Y) Observation of water levels

Low

Minimise groundwater impact on wetland

Keep wetland inundated Only dry out western part occasionally (1 in 5 years)

Restoration of wetland habitat for native fish species and macroinvertebrates through revegetation of aquatic and riparian plant species Revegetate as per expert recommendation Avoid impacting on open water regime (no action needed) Review waterbirds requirements at 5 year review (particularly Australasian shoveler) Monitor effect of restored hydrology and adapt management accordingly

Monitor water quality (M) Monitor ground water (Q)

High

Turbidity

Expand reeds in wetland to minimise resuspension of sediment

Revegetate riparian vegetation Revegetate reeds

Monitor water quality (M) Observation

Low

Manage stock access

Fence off wetland Control stock access (trial crash grazing to maintain vegetation diversity in currently grazed area)

Construct fence (ES) Develop grazing management plan (M)

Test effectiveness of structure

Install ‘logs’ Dry wetland and observe capacity of structure

Install ‘logs’ with assistance of engineer

Monitor wetland salinity following drying event (no net increase) No increase in groundwater discharge Visibly more clear water Turbidity of wetland water below 100 NTU for 50% of time No loss of diversity in currently grazed areas Less grazing impact (more regeneration, less pugging, less shore erosion and less sediment entering wetland) Increased bird use Increased frog abundance Structure effectively holds water

Find AHD of structure and surrounding lowland to establish potential flow paths

Level in structure and surrounding samphire (lowland) more accurately than baseline survey

Contract in team with differential GPS

Structural Structural

Structural

MANAGEMENT

WQ

GW

BIRDS

FROGS

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

Missing information i.e. structure height in m AHD and surrounding samphire m AHD for potential flow paths

Observation

High

Vegetation survey (Y) Frog monitoring (1/2Y) Bird Monitoring (1/2Y)

Observation

1 time contractor

WAP (water license)

High

High

* WQ, Water Quality; W, Weekly; M, Monthly; Y, Yearly; Q, Quarterly ** Improved and more diverse ecological niches, such as macrophytes (emergent and submerged), snags (therefore need riparian vegetation) and maintenance of open water, as well as more food sources, biofilms, etc. would lead to an increased diversity and abundance of macroinvertebrates and small native fish. These small native fish are prayed upon by larger native fish, both are in turn prayed upon by waterbirds, who also obtain a more diverse habitat though the development of snags, aquatic and riparian vegetation.

38

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

39

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

Chapter 7.

IMPLEMENTATION OF PLAN

The primary focus of the management of Reedy creek is the establishment of habitat for birds, fish, frogs and macroinvertebrates. To achieve this, action needs to focus on the protection of fringing vegetation, i.e. manage stock access to the wetland, the revegetation of the wetland (this could include expanding the reeds), maintain open water habitat, maintain samphire/floodplain habitat and introduce structural woody habitat. To improve habitat weed management, including willows, also needs to be included in the management schedule. Other significant management considerations include the maintenance/management of the sheet pile structure to enable a change in hydraulic regime at the western end of the wetland and the exclusion of carp in spring. Map 7 shows the open water section of Reedy Creek wetland as well as the western end of the wetland that can be dried using the sheet pile structure, this area includes the Reedy Creek delta. This map should provide some understanding of the management potential of Reedy Creek wetland.

Map 7: Open water v’s hydrologically managed sections

The main land use in the surrounding area is grazing, both cattle and sheep. In the past Reedy Creek wetland was fully open to stock access. Some parts of the wetland is now fenced off to exclude stock however, in areas where stock still has full access to the wetland evidence of stock grazing impact was evident during the baseline survey. Therefore, the River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005 vegetation, fish, frog and bird teams (EBS & HydroTas 2006; SA MDB NRMB 2006; SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006b; SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006a) recommend the exclusion of stock from sensitive areas to promote the value and diversity of natural habitats. As discussed in chapter 2.4 the grazed area has some of the highest vegetation diversity at the wetland potentially due to the grazing of otherwise dominating plans. The vegetation survey therefore recommends a crash grazing trial to maintain the diversity found in the grazed areas (SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006b) The complete fencing off of stock should be accomplished before the wetland is dried. 40

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

Otherwise, access will be provided for stock onto revegetated and fenced off areas thereby undermining past revegetation efforts. For the structure to be able to function as required in drying the wetland during February to May it must be above the February to May expected highest river levels of 1 m AHD, based on the past 10 years of data obtained from DWLBC (DWLBC 2006b). For the structure to function from December to May it must be above 1.2 m AHD. Otherwise, it will not have the capability to dry out the western end of the wetland during the chosen dry period. The structure or at least the carp screens must also be higher than the August to December expected highest river levels of 1.3 m AHD, based on data obtained from DWLBC (DWLBC 2006b), for it to fulfil the function of excluding carp from the Reedy creek following a drying event. To allow the structure to fulfil the functions described, the surrounding land must also be higher than either of these elevations of 1 m and 1.3 m. If the surrounding land is above 1.3 m AHD the structure can be upgraded as necessary to allow for carp control by mounting screen extensions above the structure. These screen extensions should extend a minimum of 30 cm above the anticipated maximum water level with 50 cm to 1m preferable (Smith 2006). Should the river return to the more fluctuating water levels as seen in Figure 11, where the river exceeded 1 m AHD 4 times during the planed drying period of February to May between 1974 and 2006, the structure and surrounding land may well not be able to effectively block water flow into the western end of the wetland. In such a scenario, management of the wetland and water licensing would have to be adaptive to be able to postpone planed drying and carp restriction to the following year.

River Level at Mannum Feb to May m AHD

1.4 1.35 1.3 1.25 1.2 1.15 1.1 1.05

2010

2005

2000

1995

1990

1985

1980

1975

1970

1

Year Figure 11: Years river water levels exceeded 1.3m between 1974 and 2006

7.1

ON GROUND ACTION AND TIMETABLE

Table 14, provides a timetable and prioritisation for the on ground works in the Reedy Creek wetland. The table does not address monitoring which is discussed in Chapter 8. A log of all 41

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

activities undertaken at the wetland should be maintained. This log would assist in the review process of the wetland management plan discussed in Chapter 9. The revegetation of reeds could be attempted at shallow areas in the wetland. This may reintroduce the extensive reed beds mentioned in historical (pre 1940‟s) accounts.

42

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006 Table 14: Implementation plan for Reedy Creek wetland

PRIOR TO WETLAND DRYING

ACTIVITY

PRIORITY

Finance

ASAP Prior to any drying event

SA MDB NRM BOARD/LAP (Adrienne Frears, Kathryn Rothe)

Establish elevation of sheet pile structure

High

Finance (differential GPS)

ASAP Prior to any drying event

SA MDB Frears)

NRM

BOARD

(Adrienne

Establish elevation of land surrounding sheet pile structure

High

Finance (differential GPS)

ASAP Prior to any drying event

SA MDB Frears)

NRM

BOARD

(Adrienne

Improve structure as necessary (install screen extenders)

High

Finance

ASAP

LAP (Kathryn Rothe)

Improve structure as necessary (increase height)

High

Finance

ASAP Prior to any drying event

LAP (Kathryn Rothe)

Improve levee bank as necessary (increase height)

High

Finance

ASAP Prior to any drying event

LAP (Kathryn Rothe)

Install Groundwater data logger in piezometer (which piezometer based on expert recommendation)

High

Finance

ASAP Prior to any drying event

SA MDB Frears)

NRM

BOARD

(Adrienne

Install river gauge board

Medium

Finance

ASAP

SA MDB Frears)

NRM

BOARD

(Adrienne

Install permanent photo point

Medium

2 persons 3 hrs Materials and tools (available)

Prior to management actions

SA MDB NRM BOARD/LAP (Adrienne Frears, Kathryn Rothe)

Finance Fencing materials Volunteers Funding

ASAP Prior to any drying event

LAP (Kathryn Rothe)

As appropriate As per expert recommendation

LAP/Community group

Revegetation extensions

OPERATION

RESPONSIBILITY

High

High

Weed removal see chapter 2.4(a)

AS APPROPRIATE

TIMETABLE

Establish acid sulphate soils threat

Fence off stock access to west end of wetland

ANNUAL SCREEN

RESOURCES

(terrestrial)

including

Medium any

levee

bank

High

Funding Seed collection

As appropriate for seed collection and revegetation works As per expert recommendation

LAP/Community group

Revegetation (aquatic) plant reeds in mid and western end of wetland potential locations include shallow areas in the wetland bed

High

Funding Seed collection

As appropriate for seed collection and revegetation works As per expert recommendation

LAP/Community group

Medium

When possible (discuss with relevant expert)

LAP/Community group

ASAP

LAP/landowner

End of each inundation year (End of summer)

Community group with assistance from LAP and SA MDB NRM BOARD

Introduce structural woody habitat (SWH)

Medium

Develop appropriate grazing regime in currently grazed wetland area (area which is to be fenced off)

Medium

Funding Agreement/cooperation by landowner Monitored data

Annual review of monitored data

High

Install fish screens and extenders

High

Fish screens and extenders

Mid August to mid December

Community group with assistance from LAP and SA MDB NRM BOARD

Remove fish screens and extenders

High

Manpower

Mid December to mid August

Community group with assistance from LAP and SA MDB NRM BOARD

43

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

7.2

WETLAND WATER OPERATIONAL PLAN

One of the strongest tool in managing a wetland is the control of the wetland hydrology. Hydrology controls the germination and growth of aquatic and riparian vegetation. The healthy vegetation and appropriate inundation leads to the growth of biofilms, the vegetation and biofilms being a food source for macroinvertebrates and small native fish. The vegetation and appropriate water regime also provide a more diverse habitat for waterbirds and fish. Changing a wetlands‟ hydrology must however take into account potential threats such as saline groundwater inflow. The restoration of the western end of Reedy Creek wetland and the Reedy Creek delta therefore includes the establishment of an infrequent drying regime to induce germination of aquatic and fringing vegetation whilst minimising potential salinisation of the wetland. (a) WATER REGIME Establish a 1 in 5 year drying event. The surrounding groundwater must be monitored frequently at selected piezometers during this time to establish the impact of wetland drying on saline groundwater intrusion to the wetland. Carp screens should be used following this drying event. The wetland cannot dry in winter as winter rain in the Mt. Lofty Ranges feeds Reedy Creek and ultimately the wetland. As discussed above the most appropriate dry periods of the wetland is from February through to May, see Figure 12. However, scheduled dry periods could be washed out with summer flooding as seen in 1992 or through overtopping of the structure. In such a case the drying will be reviewed and reinitiated or postponed as necessary, potentially until the following year.

In s ta ll s to p lo g s

R e m o v e s to p lo g s

~ 0 .7 5 m A H D

S e p te m b e r

O c to b e r

N ovem ber

N o te : C a rp s c re e n s in s ta lle d a n d s e c u re d

D ecem ber

O p e n c o n n e c tio n to riv e r - in u n d a tio n o f w e tla n d

J a n u a ry

F e b ru a ry

S to p lo g s in s ta lle d - w e tla n d d ryin g

M a rc h

D ry w e tla n d

A p ril

M ay

June

~ 0 .7 5 m A H D

J u ly

A ugust

O p e n c o n n e c tio n to riv e r - in u n d a tio n o f w e tla n d

Figure 12: Water regime ‘normal’ managed drying event

Due to the current water shortage and the expected drying of Reedy Creek wetland through this management plan the drying event will be brought forward to assist in minimising water loss in the river. It is not anticipated that extending the dry period for Reedy Creek by two months will have an adverse impact. It is further utilising the opportunity to test the sheet pile structure at the wetland prior to the wetland drying due to an anticipated drop in river levels. Management through drying of Reedy Creek wetland will therefore commence in December of 2006. A fully dry wetland would be expected by March. Drying of the wetland will not be seen as a failure during this management season unless overtopping of the structure extends through to March. The dry period should extend until water from Reedy Creek fills the west end of the wetland. Based on the expected rainfall in the Reedy Creek Catchment area, see Figure 14, the creek would be expected to be flowing by late April to May. Maintaining a dry wetland following this inundation would not be possible. Future drying events should return to the February to May schedule as described above, although a fully dry period may not be possible in such a short time frame achieving only a partial drying of the fringing regions. Volume calculations have been made for 2007 with the extreme dry period, A February to May „normal‟ managed drying event and a wet year. Water license applications will be relevant to the 2007 and wet year calculations. 44

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

In s ta ll s to p lo g s

~ 0 .7 5 m A H D

S e p te m b e r

O c to b e r

R e m o v e s to p lo g s fo llo w in g in u n d a tio n fro m R e e d y C re e k

~ 0 .7 5 m A H D

N o te : C a rp s c re e n s in s ta lle d a n d s e c u re d

Novem ber

Decem ber

O p e n c o n n e c tio n to riv e r - in u n d a tio n o f w e tla n d

J a n u a ry

F e b ru a ry

S to p lo g s in s ta lle d - w e tla n d d ryin g

M a rc h

A p ril

D ry w e tla n d

M ay

June

J u ly

A ugust

O p e n c o n n e c tio n to riv e r - in u n d a tio n o f w e tla n d

Figure 13: Water regime 2007 extreme drying event 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Median (5th decile) monthly rainfall - mm

Figure 14: Median monthly rainfall at Mt. Crawford Forest

(b) VOLUME CALCULATIONS Only the western end of the wetland can be manipulated using the sheet pile structure. Therefore, to estimate the volume required for the wetland license only this section will be taken into account. As discussed in Chapter 2.3(d) the median River Murray level were calculated at 0.74 m AHD based on DWLBC Surface Water Archive data at Pump station 1 Murray Bridge (DWLBC 2005). Reedy Creek wetland water requirements are therefore based on the 0.75 m AHD level. The baseline survey provided estimates of the volume within the wetland at different depths. However, the volumes were estimated for the full wetland and not the manageable area only. Therefore, a simple average depth multiplied by surface area would give the best approximation of volume in the west end of the wetland. The average depth of the western end of the wetland was found to be at 0.25 m AHD based on the data collected by the baseline survey. At 0.75 m AHD the depth of the wetland would be 0.5 m. The calculated volume can be seen in Table 15, the anticipated evaporative loss based on the wetland loss calculator can be seen in Table 16. The total annual water requirements were calculated based on the wetland fill volume and the potential evaporation and can be seen in Table 17. Table 15: Volume estimate for managed section of wetland Parameter

Units

Complete Reedy Creek wetland

Managed section of Reedy Creek wetland only

Depth

m AHD

0.75

0.75

Max depth of wetland

m

1.2

0.5

Surface area

m2

1009195

147342

Volume

m3

639996

73666

Volume

ML

640

74

45

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006 Table 16: Calculated water loss (evaporation – precipitation)

Area used in calculation (ha)

TOTAL (ML)

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

NOV

DEC

14.7

14.7

14.7

14.7

14.7

14.7

14.7

14.7

14.7

14.7

14.7

14.7

8

3

3

7

12

11

22

25

91

8

3

3

7

12

11

22

25

115

8

3

3

7

12

11

22

25

173

Net Loss (ML) 1997 Extreme Dry Year Net Loss (ML) ‘Normal’ Managed Dry Year

24

Net Loss (ML) Wet Year

24

22

20

15

Water loss obtained using the Wetland Loss Calculator

Table 17: Water use calculation Lagoon

Surface area (ha)

Fill volume (ML)

Potential Evaporation (ML)

Total Annual Requirement (ML)

2007 ‘Extreme’ Managed Dry Year

14.6

74

91

165*

‘Normal’ Managed Dry Year

14.6

57 (17 ML remaining at end of ‘dry’ period)

115

172**

Wet Year

14.6

0

173

173

Water

* Assuming the wetland dries completely ** Assuming the wetland does not dry out completely in the time allowed

Using the above information an estimated water use calculation for Reedy Creek wetland, including evaporation loss was developed. This water use calculation can be seen in Table 17. The total annual allocation requirements for Reedy Creek wetland annually (managed area only considered) in a wet year amounts to 173 ML (or 173,000 kL), in 2007 the water requirement is 165 ML. The management of the wetland is planed on an ecological basis. Water savings that could be made by introducing the „Normal‟ managed dry year would only result in a 1 ML water savings. Even the current water savings through the „Extreme‟ managed dry year amounts to a mere 8 ML. Drying of this wetland for water savings would therefore be of no significant benefit to the River Murray water balance and may actually impact on the wetland adversely. This approach to future water savings is for this wetland strongly discouraged. The salinity impact of wetland management was to be estimated using the SIWM model. However, the Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation (DWLBC) has withdrawn the use of the SIWM model. Some inherent difficulties were found in developing and finalising this model for general use leading to a new modelling approach to be undertaken. DWLBC is presently developing a new model for the simulation of, the impact wetland management will have on salt accumulation within wetlands, as well as, the potential impacts to the river. A salinity assessment will be conducted on Reedy Creek wetland once a model is available for use, a brief report outlining the results of this modelling will be included in the plan in the future.

46

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

Chapter 8.

MONITORING

For the development of a wetland management plan, Reedy Creek wetland was included in the River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey - 2005 (SKM 2006b). The data collected during this survey provided a basis by which objectives for the wetland management could be refined, hydrology guidelines could be developed and review procedures scheduled. However, this data did not cover all the issues related to managing the Reedy Creek wetland. Partly as a consequence, but also as part of adaptive management and best practise wetland management, monitoring of the wetland has been devised to answer some of the unknowns to the changed hydrological regime and water quality, the monitoring schedule can be seen in Table 19. Ongoing monitoring during wetland management plays a role in adaptive management by providing managers with information on how the wetland is responding to management strategies, whether the objectives are being met, whether there are off-target implications (wetland in regional context) or (as per Your Wetland: Monitoring Manual (Tucker 2004)) whether the Golden Rules are being broken. The Golden Rules being: Don‟t salinise your wetland Don‟t kill long lived vegetation Don‟t destroy threatened communities or habitats of threatened species To ensure that monitored data is available for evaluation, review and reporting, a log of all activities, monitoring and site description should be maintained at an accessible and convenient location. The purpose of such a log is to maintain a record of management steps undertaken, their justification and observed impacts/implications. The maintenance of a log is both good management practice, allowing future reference to potential impacts of management, and a requirement of the Wetland Water License. The data will ultimately be stored in the appropriate databases. Refer to Your Wetland: Monitoring Manual (Tucker 2004) for examples of data log sheets and further description of monitoring methods. On-going fish monitoring should occur in the wetland and in the creek, to establish if the use of the carp screens is reducing numbers getting up the creek to spawn. A permanent photopoint has been installed at Reedy Creek wetland (see Table 18). A second photopoint will be installed at the western end of the wetland to show changes in wetland bed vegetation over the drying cycle. These photopoints will be monitored quarterly, and should show the impact of management of the wetland around the structure and surrounding vegetation. Water quality monitoring should include monitoring of Reedy creek particularly following rains in the creek catchment area. This water quality monitoring will assess the salinity trend of the creek discharge and establish if any significant fresh water inflows and therefore flushing effects can be expected from the creek. Table 18: Permanent photopoint Site Name REEPP01

Date Installed 6/08/2006

Property Pluckhans

Eastings 340297

Northings 6131338

Datum WGS 84

No. Directions

Description 3

Near structure

47

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006 Table 19: Monitoring plan for Reedy Creek wetland. Parameter

Method

Priority

Groundwater

Level and conductivity (all wetland piezos.)

Medium

Water quality monitoring (cond, turb, temp)

High

Surface level (using gauge boards)

Low

Seine net, dip net (and fyke nets if deep enough)

High

Photopoint monitoring

High

Quadrat/line intercept

Low

Surface Water

Fish*

Vegetation

Frogs Birds

Recording Calls Fixed area search

SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG

Q

Q

Q

1 monitoring day event

Community Group/ Wetland Officer

Q

Q

Q

Q

1 monitoring day event

Community Group/ Wetland Officer

0.5 hour

Community Group

1 monitoring day event

Community Group/ Wetland Officer

2 hours

Community Group/ Wetland Officer



1 monitoring day event

Community Group/ Wetland Officer



0.5 hour

Community Group/ Wetland Officer

0.5 day

To be resolved

1 monitoring day event (not including identification)

Community Group/ Wetland Officer



Q





Q

Q

Q

Q

Dip net survey Macroinvertebrates

Low Q



 Q

High

Responsible

Q



High

Time Required



Q

Q = at some time in the quarter

48

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

Chapter 9. 9.1

EVALUATION, REVIEW AND REPORTING

EVALUATION AND REVIEW

The full impact of a changed hydrology and water quality and the effectiveness of the new regime cannot be fully predicted. Therefore, the data obtained through monitoring need to be regularly reviewed to respond to impacts of the management strategy. A review, of the implications of changed management of Reedy Creek wetland therefore needs to be an ongoing process. For the wetland management plan to be an adaptive and complete document, periodic reviews need to be scheduled in following monitoring and evaluation of the impact of management. An annual review of the monitored data and the condition of the wetland should be conducted by the community group with assistance from the LAP and the SA MDB NRM Board. This first review should be scheduled following the drying and wetting cycle of the wetland. A full review of the wetland management plan should be scheduled in 5 years. For the annual review to be effective it needs to include an upgrade of the; Hydrological regime based on new knowledge and understanding, e.g. whether the drying of the wetland has occurred and its implications on wetland water quality and habitat development (see management objectives Chapter 6) Monitoring schedule to reflect changes in the wetland management plan This can occur via a presentation of the monitoring data collected in relation to the original objectives stated in this management plan to the community group. The group and wetland officers can then determine future courses of action (i.e. whether the wetland should be dried again) and any other issues which will need to be addressed.

9.2

REPORTING

The wetland management plan for Reedy Creek wetland is comprehensive and includes an estimation of the water requirements over the period covered in this plan. Should the volume used deviate substantially from the plan, and therefore the water license, the Department of Water Land and Biodiversity Conservation (DWLBC) will need to be notified. The records noted in the activity and monitoring logs will assist in reporting to DWLBC. Further, as part of the requirements of the water license, any substantial change in the wetland management plan, e.g. objectives, monitoring timetable or hydrology regime change, also needs to be reported to DWLBC.

49

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

Chapter 10.

REFERENCES

AWE (2006). Groundwater Surveys. River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005, South Australian Murray Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board. Baldwin, D. S., K. C. Hall, et al. (2006). Development of a Protocol for Recognising Sulfidic Sediments (Potential Acid Sulfate Soils) in Inland Wetlands. Wodonga Victoria, Murray-Darling Freshwater Research Centre. DRAFT BOM (2005). Climate Averages. Accessed 18 March 2005, www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_024518.shtml. Chandler, W. J., R. K. Sandercock, et al. (1979). Reedy Creek Conservation Zone Management Plan. Department of Housing, Urban and Regional Affairs,. Cox, J. B. (1973). "Birds of the Mannum Area." The S.A. Ornithologist 26(103). Cox, J. B. (1974). Systematic List of Birds Recorded from Reedy Creek: East of the Mannum-Murray Bridge Road. Unpublished. Cox, J. B. (1975). Sand-Mining on the Reedy Creek Flood-Plain. DEH (2003). 2003 Review of the Status of Threatened Species in South Australia: Proposed Schedules under the South Australian National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972. Adelaide, National Parks and Wildlife Council in partnership with the Department for Environment and Heritage: 61. Discussion Paper DEH (Commonwealth) (2006a). Australian Heritage Database. Accessed 24 January 2006, http://www.deh.gov.au/cgi-bin/ahdb/search.pl?mode=place_detail;place_id=7895. DEH (Commonwealth) (2006b). Australian Heritage Places Inventory. Accessed 24 January 2006, http://www.heritage.gov.au/cgi-bin/ahpi/record.pl?RNE7895. Douglas, J. S. (1974). A Report of the Effects of Sand Mining Operations on the Vegetation Communities of the Bed of Reedy Creek East of a Road and Bridge Below the Mannum Water Fall. Adelaide, Ecological Survey and Impact Section, South Australian Museum. Report DWLBC (2005). Surface Water Archive. Accessed 3 August 2005, http://www.dwlbc.sa.gov.au/subs/surface_water_archive/a1pgs/mapindex.htm. DWLBC (2006a). Data Download. Accessed 26 June 2006, http://www.dwlbc.sa.gov.au/subs/gis_data/data.htm. DWLBC (2006b). Unpublished Data. Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation. EBS & HydroTas (2006). Bird Surveys. River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005, South Australian Murray Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board. Frears, A. P. (2001). An Ecological Evaluation of the Proposal for Rehabilitation of Reedy Creek Lagoon, a Wetland of the River Murray, South Australia. Department of Environmental Biology. Adelaide, University of Adelaide: 70.

50

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

Goonan, P. (2006). Personal Communication. Senior Aquatic Biologist: Environment Protection Authority. Heine, A. (1999). Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan: Questionnaire for Reedy Creek Stakeholders, Wetland Care Australia. Jensen, A., F. Marsh, et al. (1999). Reedy Creek Wetland Complex Management Plan: Draft for Consultation. Wetland Care Australia, Mannum to Wellington Local Action Planning Committee Inc. Jensen, A., P. Paton, et al. (1996). Wetlands Atlas of the South Australian Murray Valley. ADELAIDE, South Australian River Murray Wetlands Management Committee. South Australian Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Lamontagne, S., W. Hicks, et al. (2004). Sulfidic Materials: An Emerging Environmental Issue for the Management of Salinity in the River Murray Floodplain. 9th Murray-Darling Basin Groundwater Workshop 2004. Lothian, J. A. (1975). Minutes Forming Enclosure to Dec No. 3300 1975. Reedy Creek Sand Extraction Guidelines from and Environmental Study. McBriar, E. M. and A. R. Milnes, Eds. (1968). The Palmer-Mannum-Reedy Creek District of South Australia: A Brief Guide to the History and Geology of the District. Publication No. 13. Adelaide, Department of Adult Education, The University of Adelaide. MDFRC (2006). Water Quality Surveys. River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005, South Australian Murray Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board. Pressey, R. L. (1986). Wetlands of the River Murray. River Murray Commission. River Murray Catchment Water Management Board (2002). Water Allocation Plan for the River Murray Prescribed Watercourse. Berri, South Australia, Government of South Australia. River Murray Catchment Water Management Board and Department of Water Land and Biodiversity Conservation (2003). Guidelines for Development of Wetland Management Plans for the River Murray in South Australia. SA MDB NRMB (2006). Frog Surveys. River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005, South Australian Murray Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board. SARDI Aquatic Sciences (2006a). Fish Surveys. River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005, South Australian Murray Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board. SARDI Aquatic Sciences (2006b). Vegetation Surveys. River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005, South Australian Murray Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board. SKM (2006a). Macroinvertebrate Surveys. River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005, South Australian Murray Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board. SKM (2006b). River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey - 2005. South Australian Murray Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board.

51

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

SKM (2006c). Site Physical Survey. River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005, South Australian Murray Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board. Smith, B. (2006). Personal Communication. Sub-Program Leader (Invasive Species): Sardi Aquatic Sciences Inland Waters. Thomas, R. I. (1973a). Report on the Proposed Caloote Reserve. South Australian Museum. Thomas, R. I. (1973b). Report on the Proposed Reedy Creek Reserve. South Australian Museum. Thompson, M. B. (1986). River Murray Wetlands, Their Characteristics, Significance and Management. Adelaide, Department of Environment and Planning and Nature Conservation Society of S.A. Tucker, P. (2004). Your Wetland: Monitoring Manual - Data Collection. Renmark SA, River Murray Catchment Water Management Board, Australian Landscape Trust. Tucker, P., M. Harper, et al. (2002). Your Wetland: Hydrology Guidelines. Renmark SA, Australian Landscape Trust. Walker, S. (2002). Frog Census 2001: Community Monitoring of Water Quality and Habitat Condition in South Australia Using Frogs as Indicators. Adelaide, Environment Protection Agency. Walker, S. (2003). Frog Census 2002: Community Monitoring of Water Quality and Habitat Condition in South Australia Using Frogs as Indicators. Adelaide, Environment Protection Agency. Walker, S. J. and P. M. Goonan (2001). Frog Census 2000: Community Monitoring of Water Quality and Habitat Condition in South Australia Using Frogs as Indicators. Adelaide, Environment Protection Agency. Walker, S. J., B. M. Hill, et al. (1999). Frog Census 1998: Community Monitoring of Water Quality and Habitat Condition in South Australia Using Frogs as Indicators. Adelaide, Environment Protection Agency. Walker, S. J., B. M. Hill, et al. (2000). Frog Census 1999: Community Monitoring of Water Quality and Habitat Condition in South Australia Using Frogs as Indicators. Adelaide, Environment Protection Agency. Wen, L. (2002). Mechanisms for Phosphorus Elimination in Constructed Wetlands: A Pilot Study for the Treatment of Agricultural Drainage Water from Dairy Farms at the Lower River Murray, South Australia. Department of Soil and Water. Adelaide, The University of Adelaide: 197.

52

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

Appendix A.

Wetlands Atlas Data

Table 20: Wetland Atlas Data

FID AREA PERIMETER WETLANDS# WETLANDS-ID AS2482 AUS_WETLANDNR THOM_WETLANDNR THOM_CHANGE WETLAND_NAME COMPLEX_NAME CONS_VALUENR MDBC_DISTNR WATER_REGIME INTERNATIONAL NATIONAL BASIN VALLEY HIGH_CONSERVATIO MODERATE_CONSERV LOW_CONSERVATION SHOULD_REASSESS SHOULD_ASSESS

1111 986332.1559 8956.747097 1111 1110 44040 S0052 REEDY CREEK Self-contained hydrological unit 1 3 PERMANENT 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0

Source: Wetlands Atlas of the South Australian Murray Valley (Jensen et al. 1996)

53

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

Appendix B. Baseline Survey Locations

Source: River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005 (SKM 2006b)

54

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

Appendix C.

Baseline Survey DTM

Source: River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005 (SKM 2006c)

55

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

Appendix D.

Baseline Survey Groundwater

Source: River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005 (AWE 2006)

56

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

Appendix E. Baseline Survey Vegetation

5 3

6 1 3 1 5 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0

1 1

42

3 2

2 6 1 3 1 2 5 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0

1

6 1 3 1 7 5 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0

6 1 3 2 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0

3 3 9 2 5 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 9 5 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 9 7 5 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 0 2 5 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 0 5 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 0 7 5 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 1 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 1 2 5 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 1 5 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 1 7 5 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 2 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 2 2 5 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 2 5 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 2 7 5 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 3 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0

4 4

3 6 1 3 1 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0

8

6 1 3 0 7 5 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0

6 1 3 0 5 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0

7

6

8

6 8

5 5 6 1 3 0 2 5 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0

5

6 1 3 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0

7

3 3 9 2 5 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 9 5 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 9 7 5 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 0 2 5 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 0 5 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 0 7 5 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 1 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 1 2 5 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 1 5 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 1 7 5 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 2 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 2 2 5 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 2 5 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 2 7 5 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 3 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 R IV E R M U R R A Y W E T L A N D S B A S E L IN E SURVEY

S u rv e y e d Q u a d ra ts D ive rse g ra ze d sho re line

P h ra g m ite s a u stra lis g ra ssla nd #

M u e h le n b e ckia flo ru le n ta shrub la nd #

T yp h a sp . se d g e la nd #

T yp h a sp . se d g e la nd #

S a lix b a b ylo n ica w o o d la nd

S ch o e n o p le ctu s va lid u s se d g e la nd #

S ch o e n o p le ctu s va lid u s se d g e la nd #

L a rg e -s c a le V e g e ta tio n C o m m u n itie s O p en W ater*

R e e d y C re e k - M a n n u m 1 :1 5 ,0 0 0 0

50

100

200

300

6 1 2 9 7 5 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0

7

D iv ers e G r a z e d H er blan d S a lix s p p . w o o dlan d + /- E u c a ly p tu s c a m a ld u le n s is v a r. c a m a ld u le n s is , P h ra g m ite s a u s tra lis , T y p h a s p ., S c h oe n op le c tu s v a lid u s E u c a ly p tu s c a m a ld u le n s is v a r. c a m a ld u le n s is w o o dlan d*

400 M etr es

c ou m m unnoity u ativ n tita ly esye u rv * D e n* oDteesn co otems m n ity t q nu oa tnqtita e lytiv s uerv d e ye d # oDteesn a o re te sa atoreo as m to a o llsto m amll atop m a p # D en

D iv ers e a qu atic h er blan d P e rs ic a ria la p a th ifoliu m , E le oc h a ris a c u ta , V a llis n e ria s p ira lis , T rig loc h in p r oc e ru m *

Q u a d ra t n u m b e rs re fe r to v e g e ta tio n a s s o c ia tio n s in w e tla n d s u m m a ry

Source: River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005 (SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006b)

57

339 750

.0 0 0 0 0 0

34025 0

.0 0 0 0 0 0

3407 50

.0 0 00 0 0

34 1250

.0 0 0 0 0 0

3 4175 0

.0 0 0 0 0 0

342 250

.0 0 0 0 0 0

34 2750

.0 0 0 0 0 0

3432 50

.0 00 0 0 0

6 1317 50

61 3175 0

.0 00 0 0 0

.0 0 0 0 0 0

5

.0 0 0 0 0 0

.0 0 0 0 00

61 3225 0

339 250

6 1322 50

.0 00 0 0 0

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

5

.0 0 0 0 0 0

.0 00 0 0 0

4

5

3 .0 0 0 0 0 0

402750

.0 0 0 0 0 0

403000

.0 0 0 0 0 0

403250

.0 0 0 0 0 0

5

5

3 5

1

4 5 4 3 4 2 3 5 5 3 2 3 5 3 3 1

5

5 3

5

.0 0 0 0 0 0

.0 0 0 0 0 0

5

6228000

.0 00 0 0 0

5 5

6 2 2 8 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0

5

339 250

.0 0 0 0 00

402250

339 750 .0 0 0 0 0 0

.0 0 0 0 0 0

402500

34025 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0

.0 0 0 0 0 0

402750

3407 50

.0 0 0 0 0 0

403000

.0 0 0 0 0 0

.0 0 00 0 0

34 1250 403250

R IV E R M U R R A Y W E T L A N D S B A S E L IN E SU R VEY

160 M e tre s

342 250

.0 0 0 0 0 0

34 2750

.0 0 0 0 0 0

3432 50

.0 00 0 0 0

SU R VE Y

Re e dy Cre e k - M an n u m

1 :5 ,5 0 0 120

.0 0 0 0 0 0

E uc a lyp t u s ca m al du l en s is

B o g g y F la t

80

3 4175 0

.0 0 0 0 0 0

R I V E R M U RR A Y W E T LA N D S B A S E L I N E

E u c a ly p tu s c a m a ld u le n s is

0 2040

.0 0 0 0 0 0

6 1297 50

4

5

4 5

4 4 3

5 5

.0 0 0 0 0 0

445 5

3

5 5

.0 0 0 0 0 0

3 4

5

6228250

.0 00 0 0 0

5 3

3

6 2 2 8 2 5 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0

61 3025 0

6228500

5

6 1302 50

402500

.0 0 0 0 0 0

.0 0 0 0 0 0

6 2 2 8 5 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0

402250

6 1307 50

.0 00 0 0 0

61 3075 0

5

.0 0 0 0 0 0

55 5 5 55 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5

5

4

61 2975 0

6 1312 50

61 3125 0

5

0

1: 1 6 , 00 0 t s h o w n i n3 r90 ed box 6 5A r e1a30o f i n t e r e s260

520 M et res

Ar e a o f i n te r e s t sh o w n in r e d b o x

Source: River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005 (SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006b)

58

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

Appendix F. Species List for Reedy Creek wetland (a) FLORA OF REEDY CREEK WETLAND Table 21: Plant Associations at Reedy Creek wetland Association number **

Aquatic species

1

2

X

x

x

X

x

Species

Common name

Atriplex prostrata

creeping saltbush

Avena barbata*

bearded oat

Bolboschoenus caldwellii

salt club-rush

Bromus diandrus*

great brome

Bromus rubens*

red brome

Bromus unioloides*

prairie grass

Carrichtera annua*

ward's weed

Chenopodium pumilio

small crumbweed

Cotula coronopifolia

water buttons

Critesion marinum*

barley grass

Cyperus gymnocaulos

spiny flat-sedge

Echium plantagineum*

Salvation Jane

Eleocharis acuta

common spike-rush

X

Eleocharis sphacelata

tall spike-rush

X

Enchylaena tomentosa

ruby saltbush

Eucalyptus camaldulensis var. camaldulensis

river red gum

Eucalyptus largiflorens

river box

Euphorbia terracina*

false caper

Fumaria bastardii*

bastard's fumitory

Halosarcia pergranulata ssp. pergranulata

black-seed samphire

Hydrocotyle verticillata

shield pennywort

Ipomoea indica*

morning glory

Isolepis fluitans

x

3

4

5

6

7

8

x

x

x

x

X

x

floating club-rush

X

x

Juncus usitatus

common rush

X

x

Lactuca saligna*

wild lettuce

Lolium sp.*

rye grass

Ludwigia peploides ssp. montevidensis

water primrose

Lycium ferocissimum*

African boxthorn

Maireana microcarpa

swamp bluebush

Malva parviflora*

small-flowered marshmallow

Mentha australis

native mint

Muehlenbeckia florulenta

lignum

Onopordum acanthium*

scotch thistle

Parahebe decorosa

parahebe

Paspalum distichum

water-couch

X

Persicaria lapathifolium

pale knotweed

X

Phragmites australis

common reed

X

Phyla canescens*

lippia

Potamogeton crispus

curly pondweed

X

Rumex bidens

mud dock

X

x

x

X

X

x

x

x

x x x

x

x

x

59

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006 Salix babylonica*

weeping willow

Salix fragilis*

crack willow

x

Schinus areira*

pepper tree

Schoenoplectus validus

river club-rush

Senecio sp.

groundsel

Solanum nigrum*

black nightshade

Sonchus oleraceus*

common sow-thistle

Suaeda australis

austral seablite

Tetragonia tetragonoides

New Zealand spinach

Trifolium sp.*

clover

Triglochin procerum

water ribbons

X

Typha sp.

bulrush

X

Vallisneria spiralis

ribbon weed

X

x x

X

x

x

x

x

x

x

TOTAL

10

x

x

x

x

9

1

3

x

4

2

5

2

The above list includes opportunistic observations not surveyed in quadrats *denotes exotic species ** Association numbers; 1. Diverse grazed shoreline at western edge of wetland 2. Muehlenbeckia florulenta shrubland 3. Typha sp. sedgeland in central part of wetland 4. Schoenoplectus validus sedgeland in central part of wetland 5. Phragmites australis grassland in eastern part of wetland 6. Typha sp. sedgeland in eastern part of wetland 7. Salix babylonica woodland in eastern part of wetland, 8. Schoenoplectus validus sedgeland in eastern part of wetland. Source: River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005 (SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006b)

Table 22: Large and obvious native plants collected by R. I. Thomas (1973b) Scientific name

Common Name

Scientific name

Eucalyptus camaldulensis

river red gum

Alectryon canescens

Eucalyptus porosa

whipstick peppermint (mallee box)

Dodonaea viscosa

sticky hop-bush

Eucalyptus fasciculosa

pink gum

Pittosporum phylliraeoides

native willow (native apricot)

Melaleuca lanceolata

black tea-tree (moonah)

Bursaria incana

native box

Lomandra effusa

scented mat-rush

Melaleuca orania

oleifolius

Common Name ssp. bulloack bush (rosewood)

Acacia oswaldii

Oswalds wattle

Xanthorrhoea quadrangulata

blackboy (mount lofty grass-tree)

Acacia armata

kangaroo thorn

Casuarina stricta

drooping sheoak

Rhagodia parabolica

oldman saltbush (fragrant saltbush)

Cassinia laevis

old man kangaroo bush

Rhagodia spinescens

spiny saltbush

Exocarpos aphyllus

leafless ballart

Maireana brevifolia

small-leafed bluebush

Muehlenbeckia florulenta

lignum

Maireana appressa

pale-fruit bluebush

Eremophila longifolia

native plum tree (weeping emubush)

Salsola kali

rolly polly (buckbush)

Cornea schlechtendalii

Suaeda australis

sea blight (austral seablite)

Goodenia vernicosa

wavy goodenia

Enchylaena tomentosa

ruby saltbush

Phragmites australis

common reed

Halosarcia halocnemoides

grey samphire

Callitris preissii

native pine (southern cypresspine)

Halosarcia indica ssp. leiostachya

brown-headed samphire

Source: Report on the Proposed Reedy Creek Reserve (Thomas 1973b) More recent common names are in brackets

60

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006 Table 23: Vegetation communities in sand mining area of Reedy Creek 1974 Scientific name

Common Name

Red gum flat

Scientific name

Common Name

Ehrharta longiflora*

annual veldt grass

Eucalyptus camaldulensis

river red gum

Lycium ferocissimum*

African boxthorn

Enchylaena tomentosa

ruby saltbush

Marrubium vulgare*

horehound

Threlkeldia diffusa

coast bonefruit

Senecio pterophorus*

African daisy

Suaeda australis

austral seablite

Fumaria sp.*

Sarcocornia quiqueflora

beaded samphire

Ricinus communis*

castor oil plant

Halosarcia pergranulata ssp. pergranulata

black-seed samphire

Cirsium vulgare*

spear thistle

Silybum marianum*

variegated thistle

Halosarcia sp. Creek bank

Foeniculum vulgare*

fennel

Muehlenbeckia florulenta

lignum

Arctotheca calendula*

capeweed

Euphorbia terracina*

false caper

Mesembryantheum crystallinum*

common ice-plant

Oxalis pes-caprae*

soursop

Sandy Stream Bed

Echium plantagineum*

Salvation Jane

Phragmites australis

common reed

Conium maculatum*

hemlock

Typha sp.

bulrush

Lythrum hyssopifolia

lesser loosestrife

Juncus kraussii

sea rush

Sonchus oleraceus*

common sow-thistle

Cynodon dactylon

couch

Salsola kali

buckbush

Sporobolus virginicus

sand couch

Solanum nigrum*

black (-berry) nightshade

Distichlis distichophylla

Australian salt grass

Nicotiana glauca*

tree tobacco

Rumex crispus

dock

Aster subulatus*

wild aster

Source: A Report of the effects of sand mining operations on the vegetation communities of the bed of Reedy Creek east of a road and bridge below the Mannum Water Fall (Douglas 1974)

Map 8: Vegetation map from 1975 61

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

(b) BIRDS OF REEDY CREEK WETLAND Table 24: Habitat features identified in Reedy Creek wetland Habitat Feature

Autumn

Spring

ReeBi01

ReeBi02

ReeBi03

ReeBi04

ReeBi05

ReeBi01

ReeBi02

ReeBi03

ReeBi04

ReeBi05

Shoreline

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

Simple

Fringing Vegetation

patchy low cover

continuous low cover

continuous low cover

patchy low cover

patchy low cover

patchy low cover

continuous low cover

continuous low cover

patchy low cover

patchy low cover

Reeds

absent

extensive

occasional

occasional

occasional

absent

extensive

occasional

occasional

occasional

Sedges

absent

occasional

occasional

occasional

occasional

absent

occasional

occasional

occasional

occasional

Herbs

extensive

absent

occasional

occasional

occasional

extensive

absent

occasional

occasional

occasional

Wet mud

occasional

occasional

occasional

occasional

extensive

occasional

absent

occasional

extensive

occasional

Dry mud

extensive

occasional

occasional

absent

occasional

occasional

absent

occasional

occasional

occasional

Hollowbearing trees

absent

absent

absent

absent

absent

absent

absent

absent

absent

absent

Perching trees

absent

occasional

absent

absent

absent

absent

occasional

absent

absent

absent

Fringing River Red Gums

absent

occasional

absent

absent

absent

absent

occasional

absent

absent

absent

Water’s edge

>100m from vegetation

>100m from vegetation

>100m from vegetation

in or above vegetation

1-10m from vegetation

in or above vegetation

in or above vegetation

in or above vegetation

in or above vegetation

in or above vegetation

Water Depth (m)

dry

dry

dry

0.5

0.1

1-2

0.5-1

>1

<1

<1

rising

rising

rising

rising

rising

Water Level

Source: River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005 (EBS & HydroTas 2006).

1

Accipiter cirrocephalus

Collared Sparrowhawk

1

1

Accipiter fasciatus

Brown Goshawk

1

Aquila audax

Wedge-tailed Eagle

1

Circus approximans

Swamp Harrier

1

Circus assimilis

Spotted Harrier Black-shouldered Kite

1

2

2

1 B

1

1

Elanus axillaris (Elanus notatus)

B

1

1

Haliastur (Milvus) sphenurus

Whistling Kite

B

1

2

2

1

Hieraaetus morphnoides

Little Eagle

1

2

2

B

1

Milvus migrans

Black Kite

1

1

Alauda arvensis

Skylark

1

1

Mirafra javanica

Horsfield’s (Singing) BushlarkI

1 1

180

2

2

M

1

Anas castanea

Chestnut Teal

26

206

M

1

Anas gracilis

Grey Teal

JAMBA

CAMBA

PROPOSED CRITERIA (3)

PROPOSED STATUS (3)

COMMON NAME

CURRENT STATUS (3)

Scientific name

1

1 B

Total species recorded

Conservation Status 2005 (2)

Total Abundance 2005 (2)

Spring 2005 (2)

Autumn 2005 (2)

List 1973 (1)

Breeding 1973 (1)

Table 25: Bird species observed at Reedy Creek wetland

62

1 B

1

Anas rhynchotis

Australasian Shoveler

M

1

Anas superciliosa

Pacific Black Duck

8

8

M

1

Aytha australis

Hardhead (Whiteeyed duck)

1

Biziura lobata

Musk Duck

2

M

1

Chenonetta jubata

Australian Wood Duck

17

M

1

Cygnus atratus

Black Swan

1

1

Malacorhynchus membranaceus

Pink-eared Duck

1

1

Stictonetta naevosa

Freckled Duck

1

Tadorna tadornoides

Australian Shelduck

1

Egretta (Ardea) novaehollandiae

White-faced Heron

1

1

Egretta alba

White Egret

1

1

Egretta garzetta

Little Egret

1

1

Artamus cyanopterus

Dusky Woodswallow

1

1

Cracticus torquatus

Grey Butcherbird

1

1

Gymnorhina tibicen

Australian Magpie

1

1

Cacatua galerita

Sulphur-crested Cockatoo

1

1

Cacatua sanguinea

Little Corella Galah

17

4

1

5 5

9

M

5

B

1

1

Eolophus (Cacatua) roseicapillus

B

1

1

Nymphicus hollandicus

Cockatiel

1

1

Coracina novaehollandiae

Black-faced Cuckooshrike

1

1

Lalage tricolor (sueurii)

White-winged Triller

1

Charadrius bicinctus

Double-Banded Plover

1

1

Charadrius leschenaultii

Large Sand-dotterel / Greater Sand Plover

B

1

1

Charadrius ruficapillus

Red-capped Plover

B

1

26

4

30

M

1

Elseyornis (Charadrius) melanops

Black-fronted Dotterel

B

1

30

1

31

M

1

Erythrogonys cinctus

Red-kneed Dotterel

1

1

Pluvialis fulva

Pacific Golden Plover

1

1

Pluvialis squatarola

Grey Plover

1

Vanellus miles

Masked Lapwing

1

1

Vanellus tricolor

Banded Lapwing

1

1

Climacteris picumnus

Brown Treecreeper

1

1

Columba livia

1

1

Geopelia cuneata

1

B

1

1

6

1

32

38

M

M

R

R

RA

a

R

R

RA

bc(i)

V

R

RA

d(ii)

R

RA

c(iv)

R

RA

c(ii)

R

RA

c(ii)

JAMBA

CAMBA

PROPOSED CRITERIA (3)

PROPOSED STATUS (3)

CURRENT STATUS (3)

COMMON NAME

23

2

1

1

B

Scientific name

14

1 1

B

Total species recorded

9

Conservation Status 2005 (2)

1

10

Stat e R; M

10

Total Abundance 2005 (2)

1

Spring 2005 (2)

Autumn 2005 (2)

B

List 1973 (1)

Breeding 1973 (1)

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

1

1

1

1

1

Rock DoveI (Feral Pigeon, Domestic PigeonIntorduced)

Diamond Dove

63

1

1

1

1

Ocyphaps (Geophaps) lophotes

Crested Pigeon

1

1

Corvus mellori

Little Raven

1

1

Cacomantis (Cuculus) flabelliformis

Fan-tailed Cuckoo

1

1

Chalcites (Chrysococcyx) basalis

Horsfield's BronzeCuckoo

1

1

Chalcites (Chrysococcyx) lucidus

Shining BronzeCuckoo

1

1

Chalcites (Chrysococcyx) osculans

Black-eared Cuckoo

1

1

Cuculus pallidus

Pallid Cuckoo

1

1

Dicaeum hirundinaceum

Mistletoebird

1

1

Grallina cyanoleuca

Magpie-lark (Australian, Murray Magpie)

1

1

Myiagra inquieta

Restless Flycatcher

1

1

Rhipidura albiscapa (fuliginosa)

Grey Fantail

1

1

Rhipidura leucophrys

Willie Wagtail

1

1

Falco berigora

Brown Falcon

1

1

Falco cenchroides

Nankeen (Australian) Kestrel

1

1

Falco longipennis

Australian Hobby (Little Falcon)

1

1

Falco peregrinus

Peregrine Falcon

1

1

Falco subniger

Black Falcon

1

1

Carduelis carduelis

European Goldfinch (Introduced)

1

1

Stiltia isabella

Australian Pratincole

1

1

Dacelo novaeguineae

Laughing Kookaburra

1

1

Todiramphus sanctus

Sacred Kingfisher

1

1

Cheramoeca leucosternus

White-backed Swallow

B

1

1

Hirundo neoxena

Welcome Swallow

B

1

1

Petrochelidon (Hirundo) ariel

Fairy Martin

1

1

Petrochelidon (Hirundo) nigricans

Tree Martin

1

1

Chlidonias hybridus

Whiskered (Marsh) Tern

1

Larus novaehollandiae

Silver Gull

1

1

Sterna caspia

Caspian Tern

1

1

Sterna nilotica

Gull-billed Tern

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

1

1

1

Peaceful dove

R

R

No long er liste d

LR

R

RA

b

R

RA

c(i)

JAMBA

CAMBA

PROPOSED CRITERIA (3)

COMMON NAME

PROPOSED STATUS (3)

Scientific name Geopelia placida (formerly striata)

CURRENT STATUS (3)

Total species recorded

Conservation Status 2005 (2)

Total Abundance 2005 (2)

Spring 2005 (2)

Autumn 2005 (2)

List 1973 (1)

Breeding 1973 (1)

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

1

64

1

1

Malurus cyaneus

1

1

Malurus lamberti

Variegated Fairy-wren

1

1

Acanthagenys rufogularis

Spiny-cheeked Honeyeater

1

1

Anthochaera carunculata

Red Wattle-bird

1

Epthianura albifrons

White-fronted Chat

1

1

Epthianura aurifrons

Orange Chat

1

1

Lichenostomus penicillatus

White-plumed Honeyeater

1

1

Lichenostomus virescens

Singing Honeyeater

1

1

Manorina flavigula

Yellow-throated Miner

1

1

Manorina melanocephala

Noisy Miner

1

1

Melithreptus brevirostris

Brown-headed Honeyeater

1

1

Melithreptus lunatus

White-naped Honeyeater

1

1

Plectorhyncha lanceolata

Striped Honeyeater

1

1

Merops ornatus

Rainbow Bee-eater

B

1

1

Anthus novaeseelandiae

Richard’s Pipit

B

1

1

Daphoneositta chrysoptera

Varied Sittella

1

1

Colluricincla harmonica

Grey Shrike-thrush

1

1

Pachycephala rufiventris

Rufous Whistler

1

1

Acanthiza chrysorrhoa

Yellow-rumped Thornbill

1

1

Acanthiza nana

Yellow Thornbill

1

1

Acanthiza uropygialis

Chestnut-rumped Thornbill

B

1

1

Aphelocephala leucopsis

Southern Whiteface

B

1

1

Pardalotus striatus substriatus

Striated pardalote

1

1

Smicrornis brevirostris

Weebill

B

1

1

Passer domesticus (Introduced)

House SparrowI

B

1

4

4

1

Taeniopygia guttata

Zebra Finch

1

8

73

1

Pelicanus conspicillatus

Australian Pelican

1

1

Melanodryas cucullata cucullata

1

1

1

1

B

B

B

B

1

100

100

65

R

R

RA

b

Hooded Robin (South East subspecies)

R

RA

b

Microeca fascinans fascinans

Jacky Winter (Mount Lofty Ranges and South East subspecies)

R

RA

b

Petroica goodenovii

Red-capped Robin

JAMBA

CAMBA

PROPOSED CRITERIA (3)

COMMON NAME Superb Fairy-wren (Blue Wren)

PROPOSED STATUS (3)

Scientific name

CURRENT STATUS (3)

Total species recorded

Conservation Status 2005 (2)

Total Abundance 2005 (2)

Spring 2005 (2)

Autumn 2005 (2)

List 1973 (1)

Breeding 1973 (1)

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

65

B

B

1

Phalacrocorax carbo

1

2

2

1

Phalacrocorax melanoleucos

Little Pied Cormorant

1

1

1

1

Phalacrocorax sulcirostris

Little Black Cormorant

1

1

1

1

Phalacrocorax varius

Pied Cormorant

1

1

Coturnix pectoralis

Stubble Quail

1

1

Podargus strigoides

Tawny Frogmouth

1

7

7

1

Poliocephalus poliocephalus

Hoary-headed Grebe

1

1

1

1

Tachybaptus novaehollandiae

Australasian Grebe

1

1

Pomatostomus superciliosus

White-browned Babbler

1

1

Barnardius zonarius barnardi

Mallee (Australian) Ringneck

1

1

Glossopsitta prophyrocephala

Purple-crowned Lorikeet

1

1

Melopsittacus undulatus

Budgerigar

1

Neophema chrysostoma

Blue-winged Parrot

1

Neophema elegans

Elegant Parrot

1

1

Platycercus elegans (adelaidae)

Adelaide Rosella

1

1

Psephotus haematonotus

Red-rumped (RedBacked) Parrot

1

1

1

B

JAMBA

CAMBA

PROPOSED CRITERIA (3)

PROPOSED STATUS (3)

CURRENT STATUS (3) V

V

VU

C2b

R

RA

c(i)

V

VU

A1b e

V

VU

A1b

1

R

RA

c(ii)

1

1

1

Psephotus varius

Mulga Parrot

1

1

1

Gallinula tenebrosa

Dusky Moorhen

1

23

1

Gallinula ventralis

Black-tailed Nativehen

1

4

4

1

Gallirallus philippensis

Buff-banded Rail

1

3

3

1

Porphyrio porphyrio

Purple Swamphen

1

1

Porzana fluminea

Australian Spotted Crake

1

1

Cladorhynchus leucocephalus

Banded Stilt

1

Himantopus himantopus

Black-winged Stilt

1

Recurvirostra novaehollandiae

Red-necked Avocet

1

Rostratula benghalensis

Painted Snipe

1

Actitis hypoleucos

Common Sandpiper

1

1

Calidris acuminata

Sharp-tailed Sandpiper

1

1

1

1

Calidris canutus

Red Knot

1

1

1

1

Calidris ferruginea

Curlew Sandpiper

1

1

1

Calidris ruficollis

Red-necked Stint

1

1

1 1

B

Total species recorded

Conservation Status 2005 (2)

Total Abundance 2005 (2)

Spring 2005 (2)

10

1 B

COMMON NAME

6

4

1 B

Scientific name

Great Cormorant (Black, Large)

1

B

Autumn 2005 (2)

List 1973 (1)

Breeding 1973 (1)

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

22

1

7

1

1

7

14

M

1

1 1

1

1

10

1

10

M

M

R

66

CAMBA

JAMBA

PROPOSED CRITERIA (3)

PROPOSED STATUS (3)

CURRENT STATUS (3)

Total species recorded

Conservation Status 2005 (2)

Total Abundance 2005 (2)

R

RA

c(ii)

1

1

Black-tailed Godwit

R

RA

c(ii)

1

1

Tringa glareola

Wood Sandpiper

R

RA

c(ii)

1

1

1

Tringa nebularia

Common Greenshank

1

1

1

1

Tringa stagnatilis

Marsh Sandpiper (Little Greenshank)

1

1

1

1

Sturnus vulgaris

1

Acrocephalus australis (A. stentoreus now considered Asian)

Australian (Clamorous) reedwarbler

1

1

Cincloramphus cruralis

Brown Songlark

1

1

Cincloramphus mathewsi

Rufous Songlark

1

Megalurus gramineus

Little Grassbird

1

1

15

14

Scientific name

COMMON NAME

1

1

Gallinago hardwickii

Latham's (Japanese) Snipe

1

1

Limosa limosa

1

1

1

B

Spring 2005 (2)

Autumn 2005 (2)

List 1973 (1)

Breeding 1973 (1)

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

1

1

1

11

1

11

11

11

M

M

M

Common StarlingI (Introduced)

1

9

2

11

1

Platalea flavipes

Yellow-billed Spoonbill

1

14

2

16

1

Platalea regia

Royal Spoonbill

1

Plegadis falcinellus

Glossy Ibis

1

V

R

1

42

42

1

Threskiornis molucca

Australian White Ibis

1

58

58

1

Threskiornis spinicollis

Straw-necked Ibis

1

1

Tyto alba

Barn Owl

1

1

Zosterops lateralis

Silvereye

R

RA

c(i)

Total 42

154

25

29

42

154

Conservation Status: M = Migratory (1) Source: J.B. Cox unpublished data (Cox 1974) (2) Source: Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005 (EBS & HydroTas 2006). (3) Source: 2003 Review of the Status of Threatened Species in South Australia: Proposed Schedules under the South Australian National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 (DEH 2003)

Table 26: Habitat use by waterbird species at Reedy Creek wetland

Aythya australis

R

6

Australian Wood Duck

Chenonetta jubata

R

2

Pacific

Anas superciliosa

R

8

Black

2

Total

Hardhead

Samphire

9

Willows

9

Grass

R

Dead logs logs

Tadorna tadornoides

2

Reg gums

7

Australian Shelduck

2

Lignum

7

Shallow water

6

R

Mud

F

Cygnus atratus

Sedges

Cygnus atratus

Black Swan

Reed beds

Black Swan

Open water

Scientific Name Activity

Common Name

10

8 2

6

4

18

67

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006 Duck Anas superciliosa

F

3

Australasian Shoveler

Anas rhynchotis

F

10

Grey Teal

Anas gracilis

R

22

Grey Teal

Anas gracilis

F

170

Chestnut Teal

Anas castanea

R

Australasian Grebe

Tachybaptus novaehollandiae

F

1

1

Hoary-headed Grebe

Poliocephalus poliocephalus

F

7

7

Little Pied Cormorant

Phalacrocorax melanoleucos

F

2

2

Pied Cormorant

Phalacrocorax varius

F

1

1

Little Black Cormorant

Phalacrocorax sulcirostris

F

1

1

Great Cormorant

Phalacrocorax carbo

R

Great Cormorant

Phalacrocorax carbo

F

Australian Pelican

Pelecanus conspicillatus

R

65

White-faced Heron

Egretta novaehollandiae

F

1

Australian White Ibis

Threskiornis molucca

Straw-necked Ibis

Pacific Duck

Black

2

5 10

4

10

36 170

2

2

4

4

6

6 8 2

73 1

1

5

F

42

42

Threskiornis spinicollis

F

58

58

Royal Spoonbill

Platalea regia

F

Yellow-billed Spoonbill

Platalea flavipes

R

Yellow-billed Spoonbill

Platalea flavipes

F

Swamp Harrier

Circus approximans

F

Buff-banded Rail

Gallirallus philippensis

F

Purple Swamphen

Porphyrio porphyrio

R

Purple Swamphen

Porphyrio porphyrio

F

Black-tailed Nativehen

Gallinula ventralis

F

Dusky Moorhen

Gallinula tenebrosa

F

Common Greenshank

Tringa nebularia

F

Common Sandpiper

Actitis hypoleucos

F

1

1

Red-necked Stint

Calidris ruficollis

F

10

10

Black-winged Stilt

Himantopus himantopus

F

7

Red-necked Avocet

Recurvirostra novaehollandiae

F

1

Doublebanded Plover

Charadrius bicinctus

F

1

1

Black-fronted Dotterel

Elseyornis melanops

F

23

23

Black-fronted Dotterel

Elseyornis melanops

R

7

7

16

16 1

1 1

1

9

10

1

2

4

4 1

1

2

2 20

2

1

23

1

1

1

1

7

14 1

68

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006 Red-kneed Dotterel

Erythrogonys cinctus

F

30

Masked Lapwing

Vanellus miles

R

4

Silver Gull

Larus novaehollandiae

R

Clamorous Reed-warbler

Acrocephalus australis

F

Clamorous Reed-warbler

Acrocephalus australis

R

8

Little Grassbird

Megalurus gramineus

F

3

Total

1

31 2

32

1

1 3

262

38

14

3 8

8 72

108

40

24

11 1

22

4

0

140

687

Activity: F = Feeding, R = Roosting/resting Source: River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005 (EBS & HydroTas 2006).

(c) FISH Table 27: Fish survey sites Site #

Habitat description

Method

1

Grazed emergent veg, gently sloping bank, firm substrate, some snags, 20 cm deep

Seine

2

Bare gently sloping bank, firm substrate, grazed, open water

Seine

3

Dense emergent reeds, firm substrate, 60 cm deep

Bait Trap

4

Rocky habitat below cliff, extending to muddy bottom, soft substrate, adjacent emergent reeds, 1 m deep

GilNet

5

Dense emergent reeds, adjacent boat landing, soft substrate, 50 cm deep

Fyke Net

6

Open water, centre of wetland, firm substrate, 50 cm depth

Seine

7

Upland gully, large granite boulders, permanent pool, soft substrate, high salinity, 1 – 2 m deep

Gil Net

8

Upland gully, large granite boulders, permanent pool, soft substrate, high salinity, 1 – 2 m deep

Bait Trap

9

Upland permanent pool, dense emergent reeds on opposite bank, 2 m deep

Fyke Net

Source: River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005 (SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006a)

69

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006 Table 28: Fish captured at Reedy Creek Autumn

Spring

Total

Length (TL, mm)

Length (TL, mm)

Common Name

Species Name

Native Fishes small-mouthed hardyhead

Atherinosoma microstoma

bony herring

Nematalosa erebi

145

137

50

305

85

164

47

430

230

flathead gudgeon carp gudgeon complex

Philypnodon grandiceps

160

54

26

114

34

58

34

80

194

85

41

32

56

22

40

32

58

107

common galaxias

Galaxias maculatus

7

63

54

75

1

lagoon goby

Count

Ave

Min

Max

Count

Ave

Min

Max

2

Hypseleotris spp.

golden perch

Tasmanogobius lastii Macquaria ambigua ambigua

Australian smelt

Retropina semoni

2

7 1

57

57

57

2

249

185

312

5

220

178

296

7

36

56

37

70

105

61

51

77

141

9

36

27

53

116

36

26

69

125

9

38

32

43

7

44

38

50

16

Threatened Native Fishes unspecked hardyhead dwarf-flathead gudgeon

C. s. fulvus

Murray rainbowfish

Melanotaenia fluviatilis

9

36

29

42

common carp

Cyprinus carpio

55

113

83

338

49

391

23

750

104

goldfish

Carassius auratus

10

104

78

120

8

137

104

191

18

eastern gambusia

Gambusia holbrooki

326

35

20

56

Philypnodon sp.

9

Exotic/Invasive Fish

326

853

Number of fish

1287

434

Number of native fish

839

Number of exotic fish

448 14

12 11 Count of species Native to Invasive ratio (Species) 3.7 Native to Invasive ratio (number of fish) 1.8 Source: River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey - 2005 (SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006a)

(d) MACROINVERTEBRATES Higher taxa

Family

Subfamily/Genus

Site 1

Autumn Site 2 Site 5

Site 1

Bryozoa Cnidaria

Turbellaria

Hydridae

Hydra

Clavidae

Cordylophora

Dugesiidae

Austropeplea

Acariformes: Oribatida Acariformes: Astigmata

Histiostomatidae

3

4

Peza

13

3

2

3 Pezidae

3

2

51

27 2

Physa

Oligochaeta Acariformes: Prostigmata

3

4

Planorbidae Physidae

Total abundance

3

2 7

Lymnaeidae

Site 5

4

Nematoda Gastropoda

Spring Site 2

1

7

3

9

1

20

3

24

3

30

5

93

7

7 10

10

3

3

70

Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006 Acariformes: Hydracarina

Hydromidae

Hydrodroma

Amphipoda

Hyalidae

Austrochiltonia

Eusiridae

Pseudomera

4

1

immature

3

41

Caridina

29

immature

5

Paratya

5

Decapoda

Collembola

Coleoptera

Diptera

Atyidae

26

Katianna

Dytiscidae

larvae

Hydraenidae

Octhebius

Culicidae

Anophelinae

Ceratopogonidae

Ceratopogoninae

Psychodidae

Hemiptera

10

8

26

13

3

32

12

263

275

20

1

1

1

1 1

Tanypodinae

5

Orthocladinae

4 1

32

immature

1

Caenidae

Tasmanocoenis

1

Mesoveliidae

Mesovelia

11

Corixidae

immature 510

1 2

112

1

3

28

39

31

17

368

419

6

110

13

274

3

4 1 11

9

10

7

30

47

76

120

23

738

10

10

3

11

8

12

15

15

Anisops 8

Coenagrionidae

3

Lestidae

Austrolestes

Hydroptilidae

Hellyethira

Leptoceridae

immature

21 1

1

3

1

2

17

22 3

7

Triplectides

Total number of taxa

49

13

Triaenodes

Total abundance

98

13

immature

Trichoptera

48

1

Micronecta

Odonata

10

1

1

Baetidae

Notonectidae

5

1

Chironominae Ephemeroptera

3 48

13

Ephydridae Chironomidae

7

3 15

20

Hypogastruridae Sminthuridae

7

3 7

23

23

515

182

140

226

710

625

2398

4

19

8

18

21

24

43

Source: River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey - 2005 (SKM 2006a)

71