Rocky Gully Wmp 2007 Small

Rocky Gully Wetland MANAGEMENT PLAN 2007

LAPS Lower Murray Local Action Planning Groups Kjartan Tumi Bjornsson

Mannum to Wellington Local Action Planning Inc.

Disclaimer This plan was written on behalf of the Rural City of Murray Bridge by the Mannum to Wellington Local Action Planning group. The wetland management plan was developed 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). The focus is on the management of the wetland for an ecological benefit based on data available from the 2005 River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey (SKM 2006b). As an adaptable management plan future data should feed into the management of the wetland, these data not being limited to monitoring data, but to include present and future studies and reports, focusing on the Rocky Gully Creek and Preamimma Creek catchments. Present stormwater management and volumes used in the calculations of water inflow to the wetland are rudimentary only. Future development of the catchments and the impacts on stormwater runoff has also not been included in wetland management planning. Consequently stormwater management is an issue that will need to be addressed separately. Stormwater issues to be addressed include the present volume, present pollution, pollution events, and increases in volume and load following future development. The adjoining levee bank stability is a structural issue mentioned in the plan. The stability issues were raised by the Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation (DWLBC) during the development of this plan. It is however an issue that will need to be resolved between council and relevant state government agencies and is outside of the scope of this management plan. Repairing the flow control structure, although not used for management of the wetland, is desired by the Environment Protection Authority and the DWLBC for future pollution prevention should spills occur in the wetland. Due to the current drought experienced in the Murray Darling Basin, Rocky Gully wetland along with many other wetlands is disconnected from the River Murray. Management and particularly water access for this wetland is therefore not anticipated in the near future. It is hence recommended that advantage should be taken of this time to resolve the issues described above. Tumi Bjornsson Wetland Management Planning Officer, Mannum to Wellington Local Action Plan Kathryn Rothe Project Manager, Mannum to Wellington Local Action Plan Adrienne Frears Wetland Project Officer Lower Murray, SAMDBNRM Board

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007

TABLE OF CONTENTS Disclaimer ........................................................................................................................................ i 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 Rocky Gully need a management plan? .......................................................... 6

(a)

Mission Statement ....................................................................................................... 6

(b)

Vision Statement.......................................................................................................... 6

(c)

Broad Objectives ............................................................................................................. 6

(d)

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

Chapter 2.

SITE DESCRIPTION OF ROCKY GULLY ............................................................... 8

2.1

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

2.2

Survey Sites, Dates & Locations...................................................................................... 9

2.3

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

(a)

Rocky Gully in Current State ........................................................................................ 9

(b)

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

(c)

Climate .......................................................................................................................... 11

(d)

Wetland Volumes and Water Requirements for Various Filling Stages ...................... 11

(e)

Surface and Groundwater Features ........................................................................... 12

2.4

Ecological Features ....................................................................................................... 16

(a)

Flora .......................................................................................................................... 16

(b)

Fauna ........................................................................................................................ 17

2.5

Implications for Management ......................................................................................... 21

Chapter 3.

SOCIAL ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL VALUES .................................................. 23

Chapter 4.

LAND TENURE, JURISDICTION AND MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS ......... 24

Chapter 5.

THREATS AND POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS TO ROCKY GULLY ............................ 26

Chapter 6.

MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES .............................................................................. 31

Chapter 7.

IMPLEMENTATION OF PLAN ............................................................................... 35

7.1

ON GROUND ACTION AND TIMETABLE ..................................................................... 35

7.2

WETLAND WATER OPERATIONAL PLAN ................................................................... 37

(a)

Volume calculations ................................................................................................... 37

Chapter 8.

MONITORING ....................................................................................................... 38

Chapter 9.

EVALUATION, REVIEW AND REPORTING .......................................................... 40

9.1

Evaluation and Review .................................................................................................. 40

9.2

Reporting ....................................................................................................................... 40

Chapter 10.

REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 41 i

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007 (a)

Flora .......................................................................................................................... 57

(b)

Birds .......................................................................................................................... 58

(c)

Frogs ............................................................................................................................. 61

(d)

Fish ........................................................................................................................... 61

(e)

Macroinvertebrates .................................................................................................... 63

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Rocky Gully 08/11/06 (TB) ............................................................................................... 9 Figure 2: Rocky Gully fish screen structure 09/03/06 (TB) .............................................................. 9 Figure 3: Rocky Gully Information board, revegetation and pedestrian path to meatworks 08/11/06 (TB) ....................................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 4: Rocky Gully inlet from detention basin (catchment 3,4 & 5) 08/11/06 (TB) ..................... 10 Figure 5: Rocky Gully inlet from detention basin (catchment 3,4 & 5) 08/11/06 (TB) ..................... 10 Figure 6: Rocky Gully wetland inflow from Rocky Gully Creek 20/12/06 (TB) ................................ 10 Figure 7: Rocky Gully wetland inflow Preamimma Creek 20/07/06 (TB)........................................ 10 Figure 8: Rocky Gully inflow channel (River Murray) 08/11/06 (TB) .............................................. 11 Figure 9: Rocky Gully inflow channel (River Murray) 20/07/06 (TB) .............................................. 11 Figure 10: Rocky Gully pedestrian way from meatworks 20/07/06 (TB) ........................................ 11 Figure 11: Rocky Gully water bird habitat 20/12/06 (TB) ............................................................... 11

LIST OF MAPS Map 1: Rocky Gully location ............................................................................................................ 8 Map 2: Current water movement into the wetland & wetland structure .......................................... 13 Map 3: FIM III flow volume to surpass sheet pile structure ............................................................ 15 Map 4: Cadastral boundaries covering Rocky Gully and surrounds............................................... 24 Map 5: Urban Catchments (Source: Management Plan for the Mannum Road Stormwater Detention and Wetlands (Rural City of Murray Bridge 1998)) ................................................ 26

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Baseline survey monitoring parameters and dates ............................................................ 9 Table 2: Summary of wetland volumes within Rocky Gully ............................................................ 12 Table 3: Monitored water quality compared to ANZECC (2000) trigger values .............................. 14 Table 4: Groundwater monitoring locations ................................................................................... 15 Table 5: Groundwater monitoring results ...................................................................................... 16 Table 6: Most significant habitat use at Rocky Gully ..................................................................... 18 Table 7: Threatened Fish .............................................................................................................. 20 Table 8: Rocky Gully responsible positions contact details ........................................................... 25 Table 9: Existing and potential threats to Rocky Gully ................................................................... 28 ii

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007 Table 10: Management objectives for Rocky Gully ........................................................................ 32 Table 11: Implementation plan for Rocky Gully ............................................................................. 36 Table 12: Calculated water loss (evaporation – precipitation) ....................................................... 37 Table 13: Monitoring plan for Rocky Gully. .................................................................................... 39 Table 14: Wetland Atlas Data........................................................................................................ 44 Table 15: Water quality Rocky Gully ............................................................................................. 49 Table 16: Water quality (Nutrients) Rocky Gully ............................................................................ 50 Table 17: Water quality 18 March 1999 Rocky Gully ..................................................................... 51 Table 18: Water quality 31 July 2001 Rocky Gully ........................................................................ 51 Table 19: Plant Associations at Rocky Gully ................................................................................. 57 Table 20: Habitat features identified in Rocky Gully ...................................................................... 58 Table 21: Bird species observed at Rocky Gully ........................................................................... 59 Table 22: Habitat use by waterbird species at Rocky Gully ........................................................... 60 Table 23: Frogs recorded at Rocky Gully ...................................................................................... 61 Table 24: Fish survey sites ........................................................................................................... 61 Table 25: Fish captured at Rocky Gully ......................................................................................... 62

iii

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007

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 River Murray Catchment Water Management 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. (2007). Rocky Gully 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 Kathryn Rothe and Adrienne Frears for assistance with the draft. Thanks also go to those that contributed their knowledge including; Marshall Carter and Steven Walker both elders of the Ngarrindjeri nation (traditional landowner cultural values), Fred Sanders of the Rocky Gully Wetland volunteer group, Environment Protection Authority, Department for Environment and Heritage, 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 photograph Rocky Gully open water section (TB) Photographs in document (TB) Tumi Bjornsson © Mannum to Wellington Local Action Plan 2006

iv

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007

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. Rocky Gully is listed in the Water Allocation Plan for the River Murray (River Murray Catchment Water Management Board 2002) as Mobilong swamp 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 Rocky Gully as a temporary wetland (see Appendix A), this has changed since into a permanent wetland. Thompson (1986) does not describe the wetland. The Rocky Gully wetland community group led by Fred Sanders has been central to the wetland rehabilitations for the past decade. In cooperation with the Rural City of Murray Bridge Council, this group has been instrumental in obtaining funding for projects such as wetland on ground works, revegetation and water quality monitoring. Some of the ongoing projects undertaken by the group include large carp removal, revegetation, weed removal, and general maintenance of the wetland. This group deserves full recognition for achievements and ongoing involvement with the wetland. A short timeline of management at Rocky Gully (some data from local anecdotal evidence): 1947 Construction of Flow Regulator (currently not operational, stoper logs removed by council in 1998) Pre 1947-48 a wetland silted up following floods (anecdotal information) 1998 – current, ongoing work by community volunteers 1998 Management Plan for the Mannum Road Stormwater Detention and Wetlands (Rural City of Murray Bridge 1998) 1999 - 2000 existing wetland redeveloped according to the then management plan Clearing of main channel 1998 - ongoing revegetation and weed control 2004-2005 included in River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey (SKM 2006b) Revegetation plan by Catherine Miles Revegetation plan by Mat Rose Ongoing water quality monitoring by community members Included in the 105 km Federation trail, which starts at Sturt Reserve Gross pollutant Trap bid written by the MWLAP to the community water grants $50,000 Education workshops annually for local schools CVA and Greencorp. Work station organised by MWLAP Work for dole organised by MWLAP

5

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007

1.2

WHY DOES ROCKY GULLY NEED A MANAGEMENT PLAN?

Rocky Gully wetland has been extensively modified in the recent years. It was a samphire dominated community with a shallow wetlands most probably with higher salinity than the River Murray. In its current condition it offers variable depths and therefore shallow and deep habitat. It is now a significant wetland in the area in that it offers habitat for a number of protected species, including EPCB listed fish and migratory birds. Due to the rarity of wetland in the region, even a heavily modified wetland, providing habitat to native fauna and particularly protected species, needs to be protected. The 1998 management plan on which the modifications were based established detention basins to catch and temporarily retain runoff from urban catchments. Along with the normal function of wetlands in a riverine system the detention basin act to reduce the amount of nutrient/pollutant entering the River Murray from the urban catchments. Rehabilitating the wetland further to improve its sedimentation retention and macrophyte growth should enhance its function of water quality improvement. Revegetation and weed management was also addressed through the 1998 management plan. Excavation work to enlarge and deepen the wetland brought the base of the wetland below the groundwater level (AWE 2006). In drying the wetland, evapoconcentration of saline groundwater which now flow more freely into the wetland, may effectively turn it into a saline system. Any management of the wetland can therefore not include drying without having significant impact on the wetland ecology and the local flora and fauna. The wetland is also an asset to the local community. It forms part of a number of recreational activities as well as serving a role of public awareness of the importance and aesthetics of wetland and the riverine system. Through assessment of recently available data, historic data and anecdotal information, a management strategy for the wetland can be developed that will address the current constraints on the wetland. (a) MISSION STATEMENT The rehabilitation of Rocky Gully will maintain and improve wetland aesthetics, recreational value, improvement of water quality prior to water flowing to the River Murray as well as providing ecological values, such as habitat for the benefit of waterbirds, native fish, frogs and macroinvertebrates. (b) VISION STATEMENT The vision for Rocky Gully is an aesthetically pleasing permanent wetland fulfilling a diversity of habitat requirements for native fauna. It is envisaged that the wetland will have high diversity of vegetation providing habitat for native fish and birds. The riparian area will be revegetated with local native species, both through continued active involvement with the removal of weed species and through the encouragement of the growth/reestablishment of native fringing vegetation. The wetland will play a role in community wetland education by providing an aesthetic and accessible wetland close to the city centre, with an information booth and bicycle path. The detention ponds will contribute to the removal of suspended sediment and stormwater treatment prior to the inflow into the wetland and ultimately the River Murray. (c) BROAD OBJECTIVES The broad objectives of the wetland restoration include: Continued rehabilitation of the wetland, including revegetation, weed management and stormwater management Continued development of habitat diversity for water birds and aquatic wildlife: o Birds maintain and improve habitat availability o Fish, maintain abundance o Frogs, maintain abundance and diversity 6

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007

Develop and maintain the recreational amenity of the area, including aesthetics, boardwalk, bicycle/walking path and bird hide. (d) CURRENT ACHIEVEMENTS The wetland was extensively remodelled in late 1999 to early 2000 to deepen the wetland. The objective was to increase the variability of depths in the wetland. This variability was expected to provide a range of physical, chemical, and biological processes aimed at water quality improvement. The different depths were also aimed at providing a variety of habitats within the wetland (Rural City of Murray Bridge 1998). Construction of an information booth and footpath, as well as extensive weed control, and native vegetation planting have also been successfully undertaken around the wetland lagoon. A detention basin designed to intercept runoff from an urban catchment has also been developed with a trash rack fitted in February 2007 (another two detention basins were discussed in the original plan, and could still potentially contribute to the improvement of the wetland water quality). The existing structure has had carp screens fitted and installed however, the structure is unable to be used to control flow. The wetland community group sees itself as responsible for any ongoing maintenance issues (Sanders 2006) and has been instrumental in many of the achievements to date. The key community members include; Fred Sanders Trevor Norris Daphne Norris Steve Schumaker Vera Ward Dawn Wilks Alec Wohlschlager Terry Leyland Kathie Leyland. Jason Sanders.

7

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007

Chapter 2. 2.1

SITE DESCRIPTION OF ROCKY GULLY

WETLAND LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

Rocky Gully is listed as wetland number S0052 in the Wetlands Atlas (Jensen et al. 1996). The wetland is located in the Rural city of Murray Bridge (Map 1). AMG coordinates 341197 E 6130141 N (Grid Zone 54). Rocky Gully can be found on the 1:50,000 Mobilong map sheet number 6727-1. The wetland is found in the Hundred of Mobilong. See Appendix A for more information. Thompson (1986) recommended all wetlands between Murray Bridge and Mannum be regarded as having a high conservation value as few remain. The wetland has an area of 6.2 ha with two contributing ephemeral creeks, Rocky Gully Creek (99,875,724 m2) and Preamimma Creek (75,337,863 m2), with a combined catchment of 17,521 ha (DWLBC 2006a). Both Rocky Gully Creek and Preamimma Creek, flow very rarely and only following substantial rainfall. When they do flow they enter the wetland at the back of the lagoon and through a channel flowing at the back of Mobilong Irrigation Area respectively. Rocky Gully wetland reaches depths of -1 m AHD with a bank full at 0.75 m AHD. The connection to the River Murray is through a narrow channel almost a kilometre in length. The culvert between the wetland and the river has an invert at 0.519 m AHD (SKM 2006c) its width is 15 m (reduced from ~37 m). The structure has a wide concrete base with hardwood pylons where stop logs used to be used to regulate water flow.

Map 1: Rocky Gully location

The wetland sits on a mix of state, local government and privately held land. The wetland is surrounded by suburbia and a railway on its western and southern sides, meatworks (abattoir) and retired Mobilong Irrigation Area (currently ELMA water only with opportunistic cropping (Copley 2007)) on its northern side, dairy grazing on its southern side was retired 3 years ago, see Chapter 4.

8

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007

2.2

SURVEY SITES, DATES & LOCATIONS

The River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey - 2005 (SKM 2006b) monitored different wetland parameters which are listed in Table 1. The locations of the baseline survey sites can be seen in Appendix D. Table 1: Baseline survey monitoring parameters and dates Parameter

Date 1 (BLS)

Date 2 (BLS)

Date 3 (BLS)

Date 4 (BLS)

Date other

See page

Site physical

N/A

8

Vegetation

2005

16

Fish

Autumn

Spring

Birds

08/04/05 4pm

28/10/05 12pm

Frogs

14/03/05

25/05/05

Macroinvertebrates

6/04/05

19/10/05

Water Quality

4/03/05

6/04/05

24/08/05

19/10/05

12

Groundwater

27/05/05

12/08/05

13/10/05

01/12/05

14

2.3

19 17 07/09/05

01/11/05

18 20

PHYSICAL FEATURES

(a) ROCKY GULLY IN CURRENT STATE Rocky Gully can be regarded as a largely constructed wetland where extensive earthworks and revegetation efforts have been undertaken although a shallow wetland and samphire flats were located in the region prior to the extensive works of 1999. The main part of the wetland can be seen in Figure 1, including a substantial area of revegetation, which has been an ongoing project since the mid 1990‟s. Weed removal is ongoing and has been conducted mainly by the council and community volunteers, assisted by CVA and green corp. groups; organised by the MWLAP. A structure exists at the start of the 1 km long channel between the wetland and the river. The structure currently includes fish grills with the intention to exclude large carp, see Figure 2. This structure is currently degraded and cannot be used for flow management.

Figure 1: Rocky Gully 08/11/06 (TB)

Figure 2: Rocky Gully fish screen structure 09/03/06 (TB)

9

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007

Community use has been considered in past planning and has included the instillation of information board, pedestrian path, and a footbridge between Murray Bridge and meatworks (T&R Pastoral). Examples can be seen in Figure 3 and Figure 10.

Figure 3: Rocky Gully Information board, revegetation and pedestrian path to meatworks 08/11/06 (TB)

A detention basin has been constructed according to a previous management plan for a number of the urban catchments contributing to Rocky Gully wetland. The detention basin and inlet to the wetland can be seen in Figure 4 and Figure 5. A gross pollutant trap is to be funded by a grant organised by MWLAP. Other catchments contributing periodically to the water in Rocky Gully wetland are Rocky Gully creek and Preamimma creek, see Figure 6 and Figure 7 respectively. The channel connecting the wetland to the River Murray can be seen in Figure 8 and Figure 9. Waterbird habitat such as fringing reeds, samphire island, dead tree and LWD (although scarce) can be seen in Figure 11.

Figure 4: Rocky Gully inlet from detention basin (catchment 3,4 & 5) 08/11/06 (TB)

Figure 5: Rocky Gully inlet from detention basin (catchment 3,4 & 5) 08/11/06 (TB)

Figure 6: Rocky Gully wetland inflow from Rocky Gully Creek 20/12/06 (TB)

Figure 7: Rocky Gully wetland inflow Preamimma Creek 20/07/06 (TB)

10

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007

Figure 8: Rocky Gully inflow channel (River Murray) 08/11/06 (TB)

Figure 9: Rocky Gully inflow channel (River Murray) 20/07/06 (TB)

Figure 10: Rocky Gully pedestrian way from meatworks 20/07/06 (TB)

Figure 11: Rocky Gully water bird habitat 20/12/06 (TB)

(b) GEOMORPHOLOGY, GEOLOGY AND SOILS The black clay found as part of the wetland soil is Coonambidgal Formation clay. This black/grey clay was found to a depth of 8m this being the depth of the deepest groundwater bore (AWE 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. Rocky Gully 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. The prevailing winds in both frequency and strength are from the south to the south west (BOM 2007). These winds sweep across the longest axis of the wetland starting in the shallows and pushing the waves across to the levee. (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 Rocky Gully. This volume was based on a DEM was developed for this area by the baseline survey (see Appendix E). The median River Murray level obtained from the DWLBC Surface Water Archive (DWLBC 2005), calculated from daily readings between 1986 and 11

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007

2004, is 0.74 m AHD. Rocky Gully can therefore be considered as reaching bank full for most of the time, water requirement calculations with 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). The water requirement, including evaporative loss, is covered in 7.2. Table 2: Summary of wetland volumes within Rocky Gully Filling Stage

2

Area (ha)

Area (m )

Observed river level

5.4

54462.23

Full

6.2

Three quarters full

3

RLm (AHD)*

Volume m (KL)

Volume ML

1.75

0.6

39259.6

39

61869.37

1.90

0.75

39617.9

40

3.5

34913.47

1.42

0.28

35669.9

36

Half full

2.1

20,878

0.95

-0.20

25793.3

26

Quarter full

0.4

3,827

0.47

-0.67

5766.1

6

0.002

18

0.10

30.2

0.03

10 cm

Depth m

-1.05

Source: Adapted from River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey - 2005 (SKM 2006c) Base of wetland is to the most part at less than -0.5 m AHD with the deepest point at -1.15.

(e) SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER FEATURES Surface water The current water flow into the wetland is mainly through a connection between Rocky Gully and the River Murray, with very infrequent flows through Rocky Gully creek catchment and Preamimma creek catchment and some contribution from urban subcatchments. The major catchments and water sources are shown in Map 2. The wetland is directly connected to the river, their levels are therefore linked. The median water levels within the River Murray for a 10-year period (1994 to 2004) is 0.774 m AHD (0.78 over the last 30 year period) (calculated from the daily mean water level obtained from the, DWLBC Surface Water Archive) (DWLBC 2005). It can therefore be assumed that the wetland is at most times full as indicated in Table 2. The wetland receives an estimated 160 ML storm water per year from surrounding catchments ((Nadaraja 2007).

12

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007

Map 2: Current water movement into the wetland & wetland structure

The monitored water quality for the wetland can be seen in Appendix C, which is adapted from the baseline survey report (MDFRC 2006) and from water quality reports conducted by the Australian Water Quality Centre on behalf of the City of Murray Bridge Council. The salinity of the wetland ranged from a minimum of 439 EC to a maximum of 19100 EC, the average being 5523. In comparison the monitored River Murray salinity obtained from the, DWLBC Surface Water Archive at Murray Bridge (DWLBC 2006b), has a median (calculated from daily readings between 1934 and 2006) EC of 555 μS/cm (394 in 2005). The lowest wetland recordings were measured near the connection of the channel to the River Murray. Maximum wetland recordings were measured at the irrigation channel at the northern end of the Mobilong Irrigation Area, close to the inflow from Preamimma Creek. The higher salinity in this area was attributed to evapoconcentration and potential groundwater intrusion (MDFRC 2006). This wetland was one of the most saline monitored during the 2005 baseline survey, exceeding levels regarded as being detrimental to freshwater aquatic biota (MDFRC 2006). The conductivity was however within the range of ANZECC (2000) trigger values for freshwater lakes and reservoirs, and slightly above those of lowland rivers, see Table 3 and Appendix C. It can be assumed that the wetland is a contributor of salt to the River Murray. The salinity of the wetland has however reduced substantially since the 1999 survey, which was undertaken shortly after the wetland remodelling, see Appendix C. 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 even was attributed to high primary productivity and potentially due to the late time of day (MDFRC 2006). The maximum pH was recorded at the west end of the wetland reaching 9.55, the mean ranged between 8.02 and 9.22. The majority of the pH levels were within the ANZECC (2000) trigger levels for lowland rivers (MDFRC 2006),see Table 3, and is therefore currently not a concern for 13

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007

management. The pH has however increased, reading consistently above the values observed in the 1999 survey, see Appendix C. The pH should therefore be included in future monitoring. The turbidity measurements of the wetland were high enough to have an impact on submerged macrophyte growth. The observed turbidity was often above the ANZECC trigger values for freshwater lakes and reservoirs, and consistently above those of lowland rivers, see Table 3. The higher turbidity was in the main basin and were related to inflows from the River Murray and wind strength and direction, indicating wind induced resuspension of sediment (MDFRC 2006). The temperatures of the wetland reflected the ambient summer air temperatures. The baseline survey included monitoring of some nutrient parameters. These included oxides of nitrogen (NOx), total nitrogen (Total N), filterable reactive phosphorus (FRP), total phosphorus (Total P) and dissolved organic carbon (DOC). These monitored water quality parameters and their comparison to ANZECC (2000) trigger values can be seen in Table 3. Some of these values exceeded the ANZECC trigger values particularly the total N and Total P. The earlier 1999 and 2001 water quality results exceeded these trigger values with a far greater concentration. These earlier results could have been influenced by the relatively recent soil disturbance of the wetland basin. With the aging of the wetland including sediment consolidation, macrophyte expansion, and development of a detention basin intercepting the urban catchment, the nutrient load may be reduced as seen in a trend between the years. The reduction trend is particularly evident in the E.coli present in the wetland where it has reduced from >24000/100mL to a median of 160/100mL, see Appendix C. Table 3: Monitored water quality compared to ANZECC (2000) trigger values Parameter

Survey* (Mean values) BLS (Average of mean seasonal values) 2005

ANZECC (2000) trigger values

AWQC (Median values) 1999

EC μS/cm

5523 ± 5461

26500

pH

8.57 ± 0.68

7.65

Turbidity NTU

100 ± 64

NOx μg/L

59 ± 28

9

Total N μg/L

1099 ± 232

7900

FRP μg/L

17 ± 5

Total P μg/L

138 ± 25

253

Lowland Rivers

Freshwater Lakes & reservoirs

2001

7.65

1600

229

100-5000

300-1000

6.5/9.00**

6.5/9.00**

1-50

1-100

100

100

1000

1000

40

10

100

25

* BSL: Baseline Survey monitored values (2005); AWQC: monitored values ** Lower limit/Upper limit

For a description of the implications of water quality in wetlands refer to Your Wetland: Supporting Information (Tucker et al. 2002). The Flood Inundation Model III (FIM III) does not include Rocky Gully wetland. It does however, show that starting at 52GL/day at the South Australian border Mobilong Irrigation Area will be partially inundated, see Map 3.

14

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007

Map 3: FIM III flow volume to surpass sheet pile structure

Groundwater The baseline survey installed three new groundwater wells around Rocky Gully. These were located in the Mobilong Irrigation Area. These wells were monitored 4 times during the survey period, see Table 1 (27th May, 12th August, 13th October and 30th November 2005). The locations of the wells are presented in Table 4 and a map of the groundwater flow direction in Appendix F. Table 4: Groundwater monitoring locations Name

Easting

Northing

Elevation of Bore Hole casing (m-AHD)

Ground Elevation (m-AHD)

ROC R-01

342,213

6,113,289

0.495

-0.501

ROC R-02

342,733

6,113,180

2.962

2.498

ROC R-03

342,800

6,115,003

1.666

0.874

1A

342,801

6,113,890

2A

342,237

6,114,093

0.09

Wetland Marker ROCS1 Wetland Marker ROCS2 Source: Adapted from River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005 (AWE 2006)

The groundwater salinity at the piezometer, closest to the river (ROC-GR-2), fluctuates between a conductivity of around 2,000 to 3,000 μS/cm decreasing over the winter period see Table 5. This pattern was also seen in the piezometer closest to the wetland main basin although the salinity of the groundwater at this location reached a high of 7,890 μS/cm. However, the highest salinity was recorded at the northern end of Mobilong Irrigation Area with a high of 24,100 μS/cm, this piezometer is upstream of the surface water monitoring site where the maximum surface water salinity of 19100 μS/cm was recorded. Minimising groundwater recharge through revegetation in the Preamimma catchment may help to minimise the saline groundwater contribution to the wetland and therefore River Murray. From the monitored data, the groundwater seems to flow from the river towards the Irrigation area, see Appendix F. Although some seasonal impact seems to be present there is a correlation between wetland and groundwater levels (AWE 2006). The groundwater was generally affected by the river and wetland levels (AWE 2006). With the maximal depth of the wetland at -1.15 m AHD it is below that of the groundwater of the closest piezometer (ROC R-01) only 350 m away with recorded groundwater levels of between 0.76 and -1.12 m AHD. Due to the wetland being lower than the surrounding saline groundwater level, a significant potential exists for excessive salt loads to concentrate in a drying wetland (AWE 2006). Drying of this wetland as suggested in the first 1998 management plan is therefore no longer a viable management option. This wetland is therefore comparable to Ramco wetland in the 15

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007

Riverland as an example of wetlands that should not be dried due to ground water intrusion. The measured depths of the ground water can be seen in Table 5. The baseline survey recommends continued monitoring and comparison to river and wetland levels, as well as the instillation of a data logger in one of the piezometers to provide a continual record of groundwater levels (AWE 2006). The piezometer closest to the wetland would be the most appropriate given its proximity and relevance to the wetland. No piezometers were installed at the south and west side of the wetland due the more complex issue of permit application and site clearance on this property. The information available from the installed piezometers clarified the groundwater threat to the wetland sufficiently to negate any further piezometer installation. Table 5: Groundwater monitoring results Name ROC R-01

ROC R-02

ROC R-03

1A

2A

Wetland Marker ROCS1

Wetland Marker ROCS2

Sampling Date

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

27/05/05

0.623

1.619

-1.124

6,950

12/08/05

0.63

1.626

-1.13

17,890

13/10/05

0.598

1.594

-1.099

5,350

01/12/05

0.267

1.263

-0.768

6,740

27/05/05

2.131

2.595

0.367

2,310

12/08/05

1.81

2.274

0.688

2,702

13/10/05

1.762

2.226

0.736

2,140

01/12/05

1.831

2.295

0.667

3,140

27/05/05

0.729

1.521

0.145

23,700

12/08/05

0.783

1.575

0.091

24,100

13/10/05

0.753

1.545

0.121

14,910

01/12/05

0.82

1.612

0.054

18,930

12/08/05

1.705

55,100

13/10/05

1.689

34,900

01/12/05

1.64

39,400

12/08/05

1.41

-1.32

13,350

13/10/05

1.28

-1.19

9,190

01/12/05

1.21

-1.12

11,360

12/08/05

2.52

13/10/05

2.4

01/12/05

2.455

12/08/05

1.49

13/10/05

1.34

01/12/05

1.49

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

2.4

ECOLOGICAL FEATURES

(a) FLORA Vegetation surveys were conducted by community member Jacqui Merckenschlager in October 1998 (Rural City of Murray Bridge 1998), the list generated, and the suggested revegetation of the 1998 Management Plan can be seen in Appendix B. This list contains 12 native species and 7 exotics. A more recent survey was conducted by the baseline survey in 2005. The baseline survey identified 29 native species within the survey area and 25 exotics (SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006b); see Appendix G.

16

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007

Of significant interest is the low abundance of submerged macrophytes these only found in the main basin. Only a salt tolerant species Ruppia megacarpa and Potamogeton crispus managed to survive at the far western side of the wetland and closer to the bridge. (SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006b). Consequently, this area should be protected to maintain some of the submerged species in the wetland (SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006b). The red gum Eucalyptus camadulensis var. camadulensis health was found to be excellent (4 trees) to good (4 trees). Habitat normally provided by LWD is virtually non-existent in Rocky Gully, the few examples can be seen in Figure 11. Submerging appropriate large tree species would provide this habitat in the wetland. The baseline survey monitoring team surveyed eight plant associations at Rocky Gully (SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006b). These associations are listed below and their location can be seen in Appendix G. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Bolboschoenus caldwellii sedgeland on edge of main lagoon Phragmites australis grassland on edge of main lagoon Typha sp. sedgeland on edge of main lagoon Paspalum distichum grassland on edge of main lagoon Ruppia megacarpa herbland in main lagoon Suaeda australis shrubland on edge of main lagoon Phragmites australis grassland on edge of northern channel Phragmites australis / Bolboschoenus caldwellii sedgeland on edge of channel to river (southern channel)

A detailed list of species found within the plant associations can be found in Appendix H. The community members, Council and LAP have been very active in the last decade in rehabilitating and revegetating the area. The council has a weed control strategy implemented for the area and have effectively removed species such as sharp (spiny) rush Juncus acutus. A number of revegetation plans exist, these being the 1998 management plan, a revegetation plan by Natural State on behalf of Mannum to Wellington LAP and a revegetation assessment and recommendation by Catherine Miles of Rural Solutions. (b) FAUNA A 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 The bird assessment of the baseline survey consisted of a circumnavigation of the wetland (EBS & HydroTas 2006). The surveys were undertaken twice in the baseline survey period, once in autumn and once in spring. The habitat was described as simple with patchy low cover only, including reeds, sedges and herbs, the few red gums close to the wetland were not considered as fringing, a wetland site description can be seen in Appendix H. The water level increased for the spring survey covering some of the low vegetation (EBS & HydroTas 2006). The baseline survey observed 26 waterbird species with a total of 350 individuals. Eighteen species were observed in autumn and nineteen in spring. The abundance of birds using the wetland was found to vary between the monitoring dates, where 200 individuals were observed in autumn and 150 in spring see Appendix H. The time of survey was however different with the autumn survey undertaken in the late afternoon and the spring survey in the early morning. The difference in the habitat availability was an increase 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 6. A list with the habitat use of all baseline survey recorded birds at the wetland and the observed activity can be seen in Appendix H. Other lists of observed birds at Rocky Gully can be seen in the bird hide at the northern side of the wetland. One of the birds listed by Dawn Borchard (a community member 17

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007

involved with Bird Australia) includes the Golden-headed Cisticola Cisticola exilis. The presence of this species, at the wetland and Mobilong, is the only know population in the Murray Bridge region (Koch 2007). This bird is listed as rare ("South Australia: National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972" 1972), its habitat should therefore be protected. This species is dependent on reeds and tall grasses as habitat, feeding from insects and grass seeds (Waanders 2007). Table 6: Most significant habitat use at Rocky Gully Habitat

Individuals

Number of Species

Open water

44

7

Samphire

26

6

Mud

217

18

Reed beds

10

4

Shallow water

44

8

The three most abundant birds observed were the Grey Teal with 61 individuals, the Silver Gull with 50 individuals and the Australian Pelican with 42 individuals (EBS & HydroTas 2006). The baseline survey observed 16 species that were roosting and 17 foraging, see Appendix H. No species of conservation significance were observed. There were 11 listed as migratory species under the EPBC act 1999 (EBS & HydroTas 2006). The most frequented habitat was the wet mud with almost 5 times the individuals as observed on the open water or in the shallows. The open water and shallows were each used by 44 individuals (12 species). Rocky Gully wetland therefore provides habitat in an off channel wetland for species requiring open water, shallows and/or wet mud. Reed beds, sedges and grass also provided habitat for six species with a total of 12 individuals. Only three individuals were observed using dead logs, probably indicating the scarcity of this habitat in the wetland. The lack of this habitat further supports the requirement for LWD that stand clear of the water. Another option would be the installation of perches as can be seen at Paiwalla wetland. Further habitat availability should develop with the future developing vegetation following past and current revegetation efforts. Ideas from bird observers on providing suitable temporary and permanent habitat should be entertained and could expand on this management plan. 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 three sites, one at the footbridge near the information display, one near the structure close to the River Murray, and one near the drainage channels of Mobilong near the River Murray, the locations of which can be seen in Appendix D. The site description included bare ground close to open water and fringing three corner rush, a deep channel habitat with steep banks with grass and reeds, the third site being a small channel with mature river red gums and willows. Five frog species were recorded at Rocky Gully during the survey, these and their locations are listed in Appendix H. Most species were recorded in the late winter and spring sampling periods. Of the recorded species the eastern banjo frog Limnodynastes dumerilii was one of the most recorded frogs during the survey. This could be related to its effective drought survival technique of burrowing, emerging following rain, thereby enhancing its survival rate. L. dumerilii calls for almost the whole year round with breeding between August and April (Amphibian Research Centre; Robinson 1998). The brown tree frog was not recorded at the site with mature red gums as expected. However, one was recorded near the footbridge and a few at the structure. The males call all year round with breeding continuing all year (Amphibian Research Centre; Robinson 1998). It is consistently one of the top four species recorded during the frog census South Australian EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) (Walker et al. 1999; Walker et al. 2000; Walker and Goonan 2001; Walker 2002; Walker 2003; SA MDB NRMB 2006). It seems to be a generalist species as it can be found in 18

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007

a variety of habitats breeding in a range of available stillwater habitat (Amphibian Research Centre; Robinson 1998). Another species that can breed in a range of available stillwater habitat is the Peron‟s tree frog Litoria peroni, this species calls between September and January with the breeding season between September to December (Amphibian Research Centre; Robinson 1998). L. peroni was recorded at two sites (site 2 and 3) during its calling season. The common froglet as it s name implies is the most common frog recorded in the annual frog survey (Walker et al. 1999; Walker et al. 2000; Walker and Goonan 2001; Walker 2002; Walker 2003; SA MDB NRMB 2006). It calls all day and all year round and its breeding season extends all year round (Amphibian Research Centre; Robinson 1998). It its found in a very diverse range of habitat including disturbed areas, it does however prefer moist or wet areas (Amphibian Research Centre; Robinson 1998). The long thumbed frog Limnodynastes fletcheri was only recorded below Blanchetown during this survey. It was recorded during its breeding period between October and March (Robinson 1998). Their habitat is usually found along river floodplains in water covered grassy areas (Amphibian Research Centre; Robinson 1998). The spotted grass frog Limnodynastes tasmaniensis was absent at this wetland although it was recorded at all other wetlands in the local area. It is not very demanding in its habitat being found in in a rage of habitat including open and disturbed areas. It seems to be a pioneering species in recently flooded areas (Amphibian Research Centre; Robinson 1998). Its absence from Rocky Gully was therefore unexpected (SA MDB NRMB 2006). Based on the habitat requirements of the recorded frogs the current available habitat will improve and extend due to the past and current revegetation efforts. The highly saline nature of the main basin was not a deterrent to all frogs as some were recorded in this area. This saline site (site 1, see Appendix H.) did however record the least amount of frogs (SA MDB NRMB 2006). Whether this is due to the high salinity or the habitat availability such as current lack of mature vegetation will become apparent in future surveys as the vegetation and therefore habitat develops. The baseline survey recommends the maintenance of the channels in the Mobilong Irrigation Area as these channels provide a permanent habitat/refuge for frogs (SA MDB NRMB 2006). Fish The baseline survey included a fish survey at Rocky Gully by SARDI Aquatic Sciences (2006a), once in autumn and once in spring. The 17 species collected are shown in Appendix H. Overall, the native to exotic species ratio was 4.7:1 the ratio of the abundance of native fish to exotic was 6.3:1 (1661 native and 263 exotic). Most of the exotics (208) were eastern gambusia Gambusia holbroki all but one caught in the autumn survey. There were 52 carp Cyprinus carpio caught none of them juvenile indicating that there is no carp recruitment at Rocky Gully (SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006a). Although there were almost equal abundance of fish caught during both sampling events, the distribution of abundances of each species for the two sampling events was significant (SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006a). No definite cause for this could be identified. The most abundant native species were the bony herring Nematalosa erebi with 230 individuals, flathead gudgeon Philypnodon grandiceps with 194 and Australian smelt Retropina semoni with 141 (SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006a). Of greatest significance to the management of the wetland is the number of threatened species caught at this wetland. There were four threatened species caught at the wetland, which strongly supports the maintenance of this wetland in its current condition. These four species are listed in Table 7. Of these fish the dwarf-flatehead 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). The Murray hardyhead Craterocephalus fluviatilis is a EPBC listed species ("EPBC Act" 1999; SARDI Aquatic 19

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007

Sciences 2006a). Any future change in hydrology would significantly impact on this species therefore activating the EPBC Act. That is, any significant impact on a matter of National Environmental Significance, i.e. EPBC listed species, are subject to a rigorous assessment and approval process (Sustainable Focus Pty Ltd. 2006). Drying or altering the wetland hydrology would signify as a significant impact A short description of how this legislation impacts on proposed management can be seen in Your Wetland: Guidelines for on-ground works DRAFT (Sustainable Focus Pty Ltd. 2006). The freshwater catfish Tandanus tandanus is also listed as vulnerable (SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006a). One wholly-estuarine species (sandy sprat) was caught in the autumn survey (SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006a). A number of small individuals for six species were caught indicating potential recruitment activity in or adjacent to the wetland (SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006a). These species were bony herring, golden perch, flathead gudgeon, carp gudgeon, unspecked hardyhead and gambusia (SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006a). Table 7: Threatened Fish Fish

Legislation/proposed schedules

Category

Notes

DEH 2003

Endangered

Tolerate high salinities

Murray hardyhead

Craterocephalus fluviatilis

EPBC 1999

Vulnerable

Murray rainbowfish

Melanotaenia fluviatilis

NWPA 1972

Rare

Freshwater catfish

Tandanus tandanus

DEH 2003

Vulnerable

Fisheries Act 1982

Protected

DEH 2003

Rare

Dwarf-flathead gudgeon

Philypnodon sp.

Caught in autumn only. Juveniles caught. The only wetland during this survey where juvenile catfish were caught.

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

Any flow control structure or carp screen 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 through increased velocities or change in turbulence (see Your Wetland: Supporting Information (Tucker et al. 2002)). Therefore, any alteration of this structure may also have an impact on the fish species and their movement in and out of the wetland. This should be taken into consideration if any future structural upgrades are considered. Macroinvertebrates The River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey - 2005 (SKM 2006a) monitored macroinvertebrates at Rocky Gully in autumn and spring where 2,967 macroinvertebrates were recorded. Rocky Gully had an average taxa richness with 37 in Rocky Gully, 37.3 the average for the geographical zone and 34.3 the average for the baseline survey 2005 surveyed wetlands (SKM 2006a). The full list of taxa and abundance can be seen in Appendix H. Of the taxa found at the wetland the least pollution tolerant were Eusiridae (order Amphipoda) (1/3 of which were caught in the wetland main basin), all other taxa were pollution tolerant (SKM 2006a). The Eusiridae were the third most abundant taxa caught during the survey. Both Eusiridae and the most abundant taxa the Micronecta are generally associated with slow moving or still waters. Approximately 20% of macroinvertebrates were caught in the main basin. This could be related to the better water quality and more diverse habitat at the survey site close to the River Murray (SKM 2006a). The most abundant taxa were Micronecta and Chironominae which are both pollution tolerant however, the most pollution sensitive taxa Eusiridae were the second most abundant in the main basin. More than half the taxa (21) were recorded in only one season (SKM 2006a). To observe the impact of stormwater runoff future monitoring of macroinvertebrates would be beneficial for this wetland. For a description of the function of macroinvertebrates in wetlands refer to Your Wetland: Supporting Information (Tucker et al. 2002). 20

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007

2.5

IMPLICATIONS FOR MANAGEMENT

Summary of results and recommendations 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. The relevant recommendations have been summarised below. The groundwater team of the baseline survey (AWE 2006) recommended the; Instillation of gauge boards in the wetland and the river, which are levelled to AHD Instillation of a data logger in one of the piezometers to provide a continual record of groundwater levels at the wetland Wetland turbidity was highest in the main basin of the wetland. This turbidity is due to the wind resuspension of sediment facilitated by the lack of vegetation (both terrestrial and aquatic) and dependent on wind speed and the direction. Focusing on revegetation to reduce wind would potentially provide the greatest benefit for reducing the resuspension of sediment, which would have a positive impact on water quality, as well as providing fauna habitat. Recommendations from the vegetation team of the baseline survey (SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006b) focused on the protection of submerged macrophytes. These species were not expected in areas that receive stormwater runoff; therefore, the protection of the habitat they provide is all the more important. The gross pollutant trap should contribute to the protection of this habitat by improving the stormwater water quality. A Golden-headed Cisticola, a rare and protected bird, has been observed at the wetland its range extending into Mobilong Irrigation Area. It is believed to be the only population in the region, making it all the more important to protect. This species is dependent on reeds as habitat, the reed beds of Mobilong and the wetland will therefore need to be protected and potentially expanded. The recommendation from frog team of the baseline survey (SA MDB NRMB 2006) include; Protection of the channels in Mobilong Irrigation area to maintain the permanent frog habitat Site to be included in the annual South Australian Frog Census (LAP, community group or landholders) The recommendation from fish team of the baseline survey (SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006a) include; Maintain the status quo. The wetland was seen as having a diverse assemblage of fish species in abundant numbers, this included the four protected species one of them being EPBC listed (any significant alteration to habitat would therefore need rigorous assessment and approval by the Commonwealth Environment Minister) The current and past revegetation efforts will have a positive impact on fish habitat Remove carp screens. Carp that is present in the wetland does not seem to be using this wetland for recruitment. The removal of the screens will therefore have the positive aspect of allowing golden perch access to the wetland for breeding. Golden Perch were found to be breeding in the wetland during the survey period. No concrete recommendations were made by the macroinvertebrate team (SKM 2006a). However, there was an obvious difference in the abundance of macroinvertebrates between the monitoring sites (although the number of taxa was similar) and between monitoring seasons. Based on the information contained in the macroinvertebrate chapter of the baseline survey the following management considerations seem prudent; 21

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007

Increase the reeds in an attempt to increase the aquatic vegetation Increased structural woody habitat (SWH) could possibly also add to the habitat availability in the wetland Continue monitoring of macroinvertebrates and water quality to clarify any cause and effect to abundance and species variability. Conclusion Rocky Gully seems to be recognised for its importance in providing native fish habitat. This fact and the recommendations made by the baseline survey teams suggest the key management considerations for Rocky Gully should focus on maintaining the habitat availability, particularly for native fish given the high number of protected species. Maintaining the wetland with its current water level is therefore imperative for the protection of these species. As carp are not seen to be recruiting in this wetland the carp screens should be removed to allow migration of larger native fish, such as golden perch, in and out of the wetland. Further salinisation of the wetland by intrusive saline groundwater will be avoided by maintaining the current water levels, as further salinisation would reduce the habitat quality for both fish and frogs. As part of a regional strategy the revegetatation of Preamimma Creek and Salt Creek catchment is recommended in order to reduce groundwater recharge in the region. Fringing vegetation species probably provide the key habitat in Rocky Gully as few submerged species were recorded. The reeds found in the channels of Mobilong Irrigation Area were found to provide frog habitat. Frogs from this area may in future find habitat in the expanding reed areas of the wetland. Water birds would also take advantage of this expanded habitat and food source. Reed expansion in the wetland will therefore be encouraged and the past burn off practices employed in the adjacent Mobilong Irrigation Area strongly discouraged. With the abundance of fish in the wetland and the macroinvertebrates the waterbirds should have an ample food source. The expansion of the available habitat through revegetation projects currently underway should assist in increasing the abundance of birds using the wetland. The development of temporary and permanent birds habitat will assist in promoting this aspect faster than waiting for vegetation to mature. Bird perches, and nest boxes will therefore be included in the wetland rehabilitation program. Increasing LWD in the wetland should increase the habitat availability for both fish and macroinvertebrates. Allowing the LWD to extend out of the wetland main basin should also increase the bird perches available, as can be seen in Figure 11. The protection and enhancement of the reeds to maintain habitat for the rare and protected Golden-headed Cisticola is a priority. Other bird related management objectives will include maintenance of open water habitat in autumn to provide refuge when other wetlands may be dry, promote submerged aquatic vegetation that will be beneficial to waterbird species, ensure wet mud, shallow water and samphire flats are maintained. The importance of samphire in Lower River Murray ecology will become an aspect of community education through plaques/information posters placed at the information booth. As the wetland cannot be dried, a strategy to reduce the turbidity of the wetland includes further revegetation to protect the wetland from the prevailing winds, south to the south west, effectively establishing a windbreak to reduce sediment resuspension. The Melaleuca halomatorum ssp. halomatorum revegetation area (see vegetation map in Appendix G) may therefore need follow up planting to establish the windbreak. As suspended particles bind nutrients, their sedimentation removes the nutrient from the water column. Once healthy vegetation growth is established and sedimentation encouraged, i.e. reduction in wind induced resuspension of sediment, the wetland function in the landscape in nutrient removal should be reinstated. This restored wetland function would contribute along with the detention basins and gross pollutant trap, in reducing the stormwater pollution load to the River Murray otherwise unavoidable from an urban environment. 22

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007

Chapter 3.

SOCIAL ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL VALUES

The wetland and surrounding area provides a number of community assets including recreational use such as walking, bird watching, and bicycling. The wetland has now become an aesthetic part of Murray Bridge. It has also been included in the MWLAP‟s „school wetland education days‟ with St. Josephs primary school. MWLAP organises further school wetland educational days sometimes in conjunction with CVA and green corp. Mobilong Irrigation Area to the north east of the wetland basin is not only ecologically „connected‟ (providing habitat for fauna such as rare birds, frogs and reptiles) but is also of an economic value to SA Water. This includes the meatworks directly to the north of the wetland. All this has been taken into consideration in the development of this management plan. Hume reserve, which could be included as an extended part of the wetland area, is of value socially through recreational boating and waterskiing. This reserve is also a highly significant area for the local indigenous community, as it was the site of the last “camp” in Murray Bridge. The Mobilong area with its large wetland would have provided and abundance of resources enabling virtually permanent settlements as evidenced by the middens in the vicinity. There is interest by the Ngarrindjeri to manage or be involved in the management of the reserve (Carter 2007). Marshall Carter expressed interest in the hill to be fenced off to prevent the access of vehicles that have started to cause damage to the vegetation and aesthetic value of the reserve. Other suggestions included the removal of rubble, concrete platform and potentially the disused toilet block. Information on the history of the Ngarrindjeri in reference to the wetland could be considered as part of signage throughout the wetland and the information board (Carter 2007). Any future consultation on aboriginal involvement and approvals should be directed at camp Coorong (Carter 2007).

23

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007

Chapter 4. LAND TENURE, MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS

JURISDICTION

AND

There are multiple properties, which encompass Rocky Gully and the surrounding land. The land use includes residential, industry, such as T&R Pastoral (meatworks) and railway (close by), irrigation and commercial (SA MDB NRM Board offices), and recreation use. The property boundaries and the key ownership details can be seen in Map 4 (Mobilong is currently owned by SA water). Individual information on the residential properties, which are concentrated in the south west of the wetland area, is not shown on the map. These residential properties are all freehold properties.

Map 4: Cadastral boundaries covering Rocky Gully and surrounds.

The Rocky Gully community group, with support from the Mannum to Wellington LAP, The Rural City of Murray Bridge (Council) and the SA MDB NRM Board, will be responsible for the management of the wetland in consultation with the neighbouring industry, landholders and indigenous community including the stakeholders listed below. The following organisations have an interest in the wetland and/or its surroundings and should be kept informed about all major undertakings; Rural City of Murray Bridge (Council) Mannum to Wellington LAP Rocky Gully Community Group SA Water EPA 24

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007

DWLBC Local land holders Indigenous community T&R Pastoral (meatworks) The principal contact persons for Rocky Gully management will be The Rural City of Murray Bridge (Council) the wetland project coordinator for the community volunteer group on groundwork, Mannum to Wellington LAP Project Manager, Wetland Management Planning Officer, or SA MDB NRM BOARD Wetland Project Officer for monitoring and management support, see Table 8 for contact details. Table 8: Rocky Gully responsible positions contact details Position

Present Officers

Organisation

Mailing Address

Parks and Gardens Glen Dean Supervisor

The Rural City of Murray Bridge

PO Box 421

Wetland Project Coordinator

Fred Sanders

Rocky Gully Community Group

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

Wetland Planning Tumi Bjornsson Lower LAPS Officer

Phone number Murray Bridge

SA 5253

(08) 85391167 (08) 8532 1427

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

PO Box 2056

The degraded wetland structure is on council land and therefore managed by the Rural City of Murray Bridge. As there will not be a scheduled drying event and the fish screens removed, there will be no scheduled operation of the structure. The structure should however be restored to enable control of water exchange between the river and the wetland. The closing of the structure will however, only occur when excessive pollutants are believed to have entered the wetland, whether through a spill or excessive urban pollution runoff. The EPA is to be involved in the assessment of the danger of pollutants to the river. The time in which the wetland is closed off from the river is to be minimised as disconnecting it for an extended period may have significant detrimental impacts on the wetland and the resident fauna. Such a significant impact would evoke the EPBC Act for the listed species. Consequently, depending on the pollutants, the wetland should be reconnected as soon as possible.

25

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007

Chapter 5. THREATS AND POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS TO ROCKY GULLY There are a number of existing and potential threats to Rocky Gully, some of which have become apparent in the description of the wetland and available data in the chapters above, other threats are described below. The identification of these threats is essential for appropriate adaptive management of the wetland. One of the threats to both the wetland and the River Murray is the amount of potential stormwater runoff from urban areas around the wetland. The previous management plan for the wetland discussed the impacts and described the urban catchments in detail. The urban catchments as identified by Management Plan for the Mannum Road Stormwater Detention and Wetlands (Rural City of Murray Bridge 1998) can be seen in Map 5. The management plan included the development of stormwater detention basins, the main function being the retention of suspended sediments and adsorbed nutrients. One of the detention basins is to be completed in 2007 with the final stage being the instillation of the gross pollutant trap. This almost complete detention basin takes in catchments 3, 4 and 5, see Figure 4, Figure 5 and Map 5. The detention basins for catchments 2, an urban catchment, and 6 which includes a retired dairy and railway yard, have however not yet been addressed. As both of these catchments still pose a threat, through stormwater pollutants to the wetland, the detention basins should be included in future development. The channels connecting these two catchments to Rocky Gully Creek are both on private land. Any development plans for the detention basins would need to consider this.

Map 5: Urban Catchments (Source: Management Plan for the Mannum Road Stormwater Detention and Wetlands (Rural City of Murray Bridge 1998))

Stormwater runoff from the meatworks T&R is an issue that still needs to be addressed. The runoff will inherently bring with it pollution as the catchment includes the site car park, factory and antiquated sewage system (Sanders 2006). A detention basin for the interception and treatment of runoff from T&R is strongly recommended by this plan. This detention basin could double up as an emergency spill retention basin, protecting the wetland and River Murray from accidental spills at T&R Pastoral (meatworks). This is an issue that the Rural City of Murray Bride, EPA and T&R 26

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007

Pastoral will need to resolve as it is out of the scope of this management plan. As mentioned in the chapter above a last resort detention mechanism the structure at the end of the wetland channel can be restored. This structure should however not be used for drying the wetland, as part of any future management or water savings, as the wetland is under severe threat of salinisation through groundwater intrusion. Anthropogenic threats include the recent (September 2006) reed reduction measures at Mobilong Irrigation Area. The method of burning off is one of the least preferred options of clearing reeds (Sustainable Focus Pty Ltd. 2006). Further, the Mobilong Irrigation Area channels provide a significant frog habitat not to mention a protected bird species the Golden-headed Cisticola. Any future clearing in the vicinity whether within the wetland or in surrounding areas should be referred to Native Vegetation Council, see Your Wetland: Guidelines for on-ground works DRAFT (Sustainable Focus Pty Ltd. 2006), and discussed with the Local LAP and/or council. SA Water and CFS should be informed of these guidelines, and how Native Vegetation Act relates to their burn off activities. Some concern exists regarding the structural integrity to the levee bank between the main Basin and Mobilong Irrigation Area. Environmental engineering (structural) advice should be sought in resolving the issue as to whether the levee bank is under threat, and if so to establish what the preferred stabilisation options are. Cooperation between the concerned parties (DWLBC, SA Water and Council) is necessary to resolve this issue. The early recognition of threats allows for an appropriate management intervention, such as the development of detention basins, as well as the development of and appropriate monitoring strategy for early identification of adverse impacts of management allowing rapid response or intervention if necessary. 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 9.

27

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007 Table 9: Existing and potential threats to Rocky Gully

Existing Existing Existing

ABIOTIC

Potential

Existing

THREATS

SYMPTOM

CAUSE

IMPACT

CATEGORY

EXTENT (IF KNOWN)

POTENTIAL SOLUTION Construct detention basins for remaining urban catchments Improve wetland health/productivity Assist local industry to improve their pollution prevention Educate public (ongoing) Construct detention basins for remaining urban catchments Improve wetland health/productivity Assist local industry to improve their pollution prevention Educate public (ongoing)

Nutrients and pollutants in stormwater from urban catchments

Pollutants in wetland (high nutrient and hydrocarbon loads)

Stormwater runoff from urban catchment surrounding the wetland

Wetland may become eutrophic leading to excessive algal growth Pollution of the River Murray Degradation of water quality

Local/ Regional

Wetland/River Murray

Increase in Nutrients and pollutants in stormwater from urban catchments with future development of Rocky Gully catchment Nutrients and pollutants in stormwater from T&R

Pollutants in wetland (high nutrient and hydrocarbon loads)

Stormwater runoff from urban catchment surrounding the wetland

Wetland may become eutrophic leading to excessive algal growth Pollution of the River Murray Degradation of water quality

Local/ Regional

Wetland/River Murray

Pollutants in wetland (high nutrient and hydrocarbon loads)

No runoff prevention/interception

Wetland may become eutrophic leading to excessive algal growth Pollution of the River Murray Degradation of water quality

Local/ Regional

Wetland/River Murray

Lack of coordination between surrounding land owners and wetland managers/ council

Burning/destruction of reeds

Lack of knowledge (of ecosystem and law)

Local/ Regional

Wetland and Mobilong Irrigation Area

Saline wetland

High surface water salinities

Saline groundwater intrusion

Destruction of prime frog habitat and refuge areas Loss of native vegetation Loss of bird habitat (particularly threatened is the Golden-headed Cisticola) Loss of reptile habitat Health implications for surrounding residents Reduction in submergent aquatic vegetation

Local/ Regional

Wetland

Assist to improve their pollution prevention e.g. construct detention basin Improve wetland health/productivity Educate industry/staff Inform all parties of importance of reeds in the ecosystem Inform all parties of the legal obligations in clearing native vegetation Ensure all parties of all stakeholders vested interests.

No drying events at the wetland, i.e. wetland remains full/filled

28

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007 THREATS

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

CAUSE

Potential Existing Existing Existing Existing

Weeds (including Juncus acutus) Lack of waterbird habitat

Lack of specialist frogs Lack of native fish habitat

Existing

BIOTIC

Erosion of levee bank between wetland and Mobilong Irrigation Area Loss of native riparian vegetation

Loss of bank stability Undercutting Slumping Less than potential native vegetation species coverage in the area Invasive species present Impact on native fauna species diversity and abundance Their presence

Gradual loss of abundance of birds visiting and breeding in wetland

Lack of specialist frogs

Less fish than full potential

IMPACT

CATEGORY

EXTENT (IF KNOWN)

POTENTIAL SOLUTION

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 Only salt tolerant species present Salt inflow into river Loss of levee Flooding of Mobilong

Local

Wetland

Monitor groundwater flow around wetland to assess the impact and respond adaptively Do not dry wetland

Local/ Regional

Levee bank

Issue to be resolved by concerned parties

Weed infestation Past land use/historical miss management of wetland

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

Local

Surrounding area.

Revegetate with local native species (ongoing) Weed control (ongoing) Protect from feral fauna (e.g. rabbits)

Degradation of native vegetation

Exotic species Competition with native vegetation Loss of habitat (food source?)

Local

Floodplain

Lack of adequate floodplain vegetation (habitat) Lack of perches and hollow bearing trees

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

Local/ Regional

Wetland and wetland surrounding area

Possibly due to lack of suitable habitat Saline wetland

Less than potential number of frog species in ecosystem

Local

Saline wetland Lack of structural woody habitat

Reduction in available habitat including breeding areas (nurseries)

Local/ Regional

Wetland and wetland surrounding area Wetland and river

Drying of wetland Saline seepage from groundwater

Potential

Salinisation of the wetland if dry periods are introduced

SYMPTOM

Contended

Active removal poisoning

Restore wetland ecology (ongoing) Increase habitat availability (e.g. perches, nest boxes and LWD) Revegetate (ongoing) Increase habitat availability Revegetate Restore habitat availability Revegetate riparian vegetation (provide shade) Provide snags (LWD) Extend reeds (Typha) Minimise as possible any potential adverse saline groundwater inflow into the wetland following management

29

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007

Potential

Potential

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

Turbid wetlands Their presence

Loss of fish habitat

Dry wetland

Loss of reeds (extending in to Mobilong)

Potential

SYMPTOM

Lost and/or damaged reed beds

CAUSE

IMPACT

Well known environmental problem in region (large pest population)

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) Loss of fish species currently in wetland including protected species Degradation of ecosystem

No water in wetland

Clearing

Loss of habitat o Birds (particularly Goldenheaded Cisticola) o Frogs o Reptiles

CATEGORY

EXTENT (IF KNOWN)

Local/ Regional (Managed locally)

Wetland and Rocky Gully

Local/ Regional/ State

Wetland

Local/ Regional

Wetland and Mobilong Irrigation Area

POTENTIAL SOLUTION Monitor abundance of invasive verses native species Removal of carp when caught Consider encouraging recreational fishing of carp in wetland (annual competition?) Maintain brackish water quality

Maintain water in wetland

Do not clear reeds in wetland and Mobilong as long as no other threats are identified If clearing becomes a necessity do so in cooperation with all stakeholder input, based on professional ecological assessment (Wetland Ecologist) and following Your wetland on ground works (Sustainable Focus Pty Ltd. 2006) guidelines Educate landholders, CFS and community of importance of reeds*, the ramifications of clearing reeds and the legal issues (supply all with a copy of Your wetland on ground works (Sustainable Focus Pty Ltd. 2006)

* Reeds have an important function in wetlands including nutrient uptake (an important function in a wetland with urban catchments), promotion of sedimentation, wind break minimising resuspension of sediment as well as providing habitat for many fauna species both in and above the water.

30

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007

Chapter 6.

MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES

The main management aim is the restoration of the ecology of Rocky Gully wetland, through revegetation using local native flora and habitat development for native fauna. 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 10. Adaptive management will drive the actions undertaken to achieve the objectives. Due to the complexity of the habitat requirements of 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. The carp are already in the wetland and will continue to be there, as fingerlings will always make it in. Effectively it si necessary to weigh up the potential adverse impacts of allowing free passage of large carp into the wetland with the benefit of allowing the free passage of native fish facilitating their breeding. Based on the current information on breeding behaviour, the carp are not to keen to breed in saline wetlands such as Rocky Gully. The lack of juveniles shows that this wetland is currently not used for breeding. 23 large carp were recently caught in the wetland despite the carp control screens. These large carp therefore either chose not to breed or were not successful. By removing the screens, native fish will be allowed to breed. Removing the screens may potentially also facilitate carp to breed; the likelihood is however that the carp will not be successful in breeding in the wetland. To answer these unknowns and to be able to adapt to changing conditions it is important to monitor the fish in the wetland, the monitoring strategy therefore reflects this management action.

31

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007 Table 10: Management objectives for Rocky Gully

Native Invasive

VEGETATION

MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES

SOLUTIONS

ACTIONS (Management (M) or Engineering or structural (ES))

QUANTIFIABLE /MEASURE OF ACHIEVEMENT

Regeneration of riparian vegetation (surrounding wetland and channels)

Ongoing native re-vegetation projects

Actively revegetate using locally collected seeds

Expansion and survival of native species (numbers based on expert recommendation)

Photo point (Y) Vegetation survey (1 in 2Y)

Medium

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

Maintain open water Minimise wave action (create wind break) Assist dispersal of reeds

Revegetate with reeds in shallow areas Revegetate riparian zone in South and south west of the wetland

Diversity of aquatic species, continued presence of submerged species Expansion of fringing reeds

Photo point (Y) Vegetation survey (1 in 2Y) Monitor water quality (M)

Medium

Maintain ongoing weed removal projects in the wetland area

Weed control as per expert recommendation

Reduction of weeds (as per expert recommendation)

Medium

Restore riparian vegetation Increase structural woody habitat Maintain water in wetland Leave structure open Remove carp screens to allow large native fish passage Restore riparian vegetation (revegetate) ongoing Increase reed growth/plant 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 plan review Actively spread Typha

Increase in abundance of specialist native species Increase in macroinvertebrate abundance (food for fish) Continued protected species presence

Vegetation survey (1 in 2Y) Weed mapping (1 in 2Y) Fish survey (1/2Y) Macroinvertebrate survey (Y)

FISH FROGS

Improved fish habitat

Maintain protected species habitat

Maintain water in wetland Maintain open connection with River

Restore native frog habitat

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

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 Develop more bird perches (constructed and LWD), and nest boxes Do not alter hydrology of wetland basin

Native Native/Migratory

BIRDS

Native

Improve native fish habitat **

Maintain open water habitat in autumn as refuge

Protection of rare bird (Golden-headed Cisticola) habitat

Protect/Maintain/Expand reed beds in wetland and Mobilong

Presence of specialist native frog species in wetland

MONITOR (TIMING)*

LEGISLATION

Discuss with Jason Higham

PRIORITY

High

Fish survey (Y)

High

Frog survey (1/2Y)

Medium

High

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

Bird survey (Y) Vegetation survey (1 in 2Y) Observation

Monitor for presence of waterbirds

Bird survey (Y) Observation of water levels (gauge board)

Native veg. act clearance

Medium

Continued presence of Golden-headed Cisticola

Bird survey (Y) Vegetation survey (1 in 2Y)

Native veg. act clearance

High

32

GW

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007 Minimise groundwater impact on wetland

Structural

Develop potential to close of wetland if severe pollution is recorded

Reduce stormwater pollutants Structural

MANAGEMENT

WQ

Turbidity

Keep wetland inundated

Expand reeds in wetland to minimise resuspension of sediment Establish vegetation as wind break from prevailing direction (south and south west) Restore structure

Construct detention basins on remaining urban catchments Construct gross pollutant traps

Monitor effect of groundwater

Monitor wetland salinity (no net increase)

Monitor water quality (1/2Y)

Revegetate riparian vegetation Revegetate reeds

Visibly more clear water Turbidity of wetland water below 100 NTU for 50% of time

Monitor water quality (M) Observation

Source funding Obtain engineering advice and appropriate design Restore structure Secure structure to prevent vandalism/miss management Install sign (see Appendix I) Construct detention basin on remaining urban catchments o Gain landholder approval o Obtain funding o Seek professional design o Construct basin and gross pollutant traps

High

Native veg. act clearance

Low

Functioning structure (control to be retained by Council)

Two more detention basins and gross pollutant traps

Low

Development approvals etc

Medium

33

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007 Improve recreational amenities

Encourage local industry to improve standards of pollution prevention

Offer T&R to sponsor and advertise their sponsorship of their involvement***

Continue environmental education

Maintain MWLAP education projects

Other

Structural

Increase public awareness of wetland ecosystems

Improve footpath (trail) based on council plan Rehabilitate Hume reserve Educate community of wetland; o Fragile nature o Stormwater threats/impacts o Benefits (ecological, aestethics, multiple recreational opportunities, etc.) Make better use of information booth for wetland ecological information including; o Include copy of birds list form Basline survey and community members o Importance of reeds, and other vegetation o Other fauna species (fish, frogs, etc.) found at wetland and why dogs are excluded o Importance of samphire o Wind break impact on turbidity o Role of detention basins and gross pollutant traps o Map of wetland showing ecological zones (upland vegetation, reeds, samphire, islands, shallow water deep water etc) Council and LAP to discuss with T&R Encourage industry to construct a site based detention basin Maintain MWLAP education project funding

More focused information booth with wetland specific information (restrict commercial use to one part only) Improved recreational use/access including footbridges Rehabilitated Hume reserve

Medium

T&R Pastoral involvement T&R Pastoral based detention basin

High

Medium

Education days

* 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. *** Note this has neither been discussed with T&R nor with council

34

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007

Chapter 7.

IMPLEMENTATION OF PLAN

To achieve the objectives listed in the previous chapter action needs to focus on the expansion of fringing vegetation, the revegetation of the wetland including the development of a wind break, maintain open water habitat, maintain samphire/floodplain habitat and introduce structural woody habitat. Other actions that are required to improve habitat include weed management, and some structural projects to alleviate the potential threats discussed in Chapter 5. The wetland is linked to the river along a 1 km channel. A path and pedestrian bridges, to improve the Federation Trail, have been planned and budgeted for by the council. An opportunity exists to extend the rehabilitation work along the Federation Trail including Hume reserve, which is located on the bank of the River Murray. This would enhance the utility of the Federation Trail that guides the public from the river along the channel and through the wetland. Hume reserve is a historically significant reserve, for both the City of Murray Bridge and the local indigenous community, which has unfortunately long been neglected. It is currently used as a parking area and access for recreational boating on the river. The potential for this area as public land is considerable and include the development of a recreational area with appropriate car parking, use as short term houseboat wharf (which could take in the levee bank between Mobilong and the River), or revegetation to enhance biodiversity. Any work including maintenance of the current gravel parking area and boat ramp on the Hume reserve, should be referred for indigenous clearance and their involvement sought. Attempts to initiate partnership projects between indigenous representatives and MWLAP have been made in the past (Rothe 2007), it is hoped that this WMP will assist with this process. The local LAP (Mannum to Wellington LAP) can assist with any further enquires (see contact details Chapter 4).

7.1

ON GROUND ACTION AND TIMETABLE

A timetable and prioritisation for the major on ground works at Rocky Gully wetland is provided in Table 11. The table does not address monitoring which is discussed in Chapter 8. A log of all 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.

35

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007 Table 11: Implementation plan for Rocky Gully

ASAP

ACTIVITY

RESOURCES

Remove fish screens

High

Manpower

Construct gross pollutant trap at main detention basin (ongoing)

High

Funding through MWLAP)

Construct remaining two detention basins as described in 1998 plan

Medium

Invite indigenous partnership in wetland management Install permanent photo points

Weed removal (ongoing) as per revegetation plans

AS APPROPRIATE

PRIORITY

High Medium

Medium

TIMETABLE

SUGGESTED RESPONSIBILITY

ASAP

Council/Community group

ASAP (Completed February 2007)

LAP/Council

Funding

ASAP

Council

Manpower

Now

LAP/Community group

As appropriate

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

Ongoing As per expert recommendation

LAP/Community group/Council

(available

2 persons 3 hrs Materials and (available) Funding

tools

Revegetation (terrestrial) (ongoing) as per revegetation plans

High

Funding Seed collection

Ongoing As per expert recommendation

LAP/Community group

Revegetate (aquatic) plants, reeds, in wetland. Potential locations include shallow areas in the wetland bed

High

Funding Seed collection

As appropriate, seed collection & revegetation As per expert recommendation

LAP/Community group

As appropriate, seed collection & revegetation As per expert recommendation

LAP/Community group

Community group/LAP

As appropriate

LAP/Community group

Revegetate to establish wind break

Medium

Bird Perches, boxes

Medium

Community group/LAP

LWD

High

Funding

As appropriate

LAP/Council

Annual review of monitored data

High

Monitored data

Annually

Community group with assistance from LAP and SA MDB NRM BOARD

Improve Federation Trail

Low

Council responsibility

As appropriate

Council/LAP/Community group

Rehabilitate Hume reserve

Low

Multiple

As appropriate

Council/LAP/Community group

Discuss with T&R options discussed above

Medium

Multiple

As appropriate

LAP/Council/DWLBC/EPA

Look at erosion issues at structure

Medium

Funding

As appropriate

Council

Update information board as described above

Medium

Community group/LAP

As appropriate

LAP/Community group

36

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007

7.2

WETLAND WATER OPERATIONAL PLAN

(a) VOLUME CALCULATIONS The baseline survey provided estimates of the volume within the wetland based on a DEM. The DEM also provided a surface area for the wetland. Using the surface area the expected water loss for Rocky Gully can be calculated using the Wetland Loss Calculator, see Table 12. The total annual water use by Rocky Gully wetland is therefore 73 ML (73, 090 kL). The Murray Bridge Council calculated an expected volume of 160 ML/year from the Rocky Gully Catchment (3, 4 & 5) (Sundra 2007). Effectively more water is sourced from the wetland than lost through evaporation. As the wetland has not been dried nor is there any intention of drying the wetland, the fill volume is irrelevant. A more detailed water balance may be calculated using the rational runoff method (Copley 2007). However based on the small volume calculated for this wetland the effort would be focusing on very small amounts of water. The effort for gain is therefore questionable. Table 12: Calculated water loss (evaporation – precipitation) JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

NOV

DEC

Area used in calculation (ha)

6.2

6.2

6.2

6.2

6.2

6.2

6.2

6.2

6.2

6.2

6.2

6.2

Net Loss (ML) Year 1

10.16

9.15

8.60

6.32

3.35

1.43

1.30

3.16

5.02

4.71

9.16

10.74

TOTAL (ML)

73.09

Water loss obtained using the Wetland Loss Calculator

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 Rocky Gully 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.

37

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007

Chapter 8.

MONITORING

For the development of a wetland management plan, Rocky Gully 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 and review procedures scheduled. However, this data did not, nor could not; cover all the issues related to managing the Rocky Gully 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. The planned monitoring schedule can be seen in Table 13. 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. This includes 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.

38

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007 Table 13: Monitoring plan for Rocky Gully.

Parameter

Surface Water

Fish*

Vegetation

Frogs Birds

Method

Priority

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

MEDIUM

Quadrat/line intercept

LOW

Recording Calls Fixed area search

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

1/2Y

Q

HIGH MEDIUM

Q

Q

Community Group/ Wetland Officer

0.5 hour

Community Group

1/2Y

1 monitoring day event

Community Group/ Wetland Officer

1/2Y

1/2Y

2 hours

Community Group/ Wetland Officer

1 monitoring day event

Community Group/ Wetland Officer

0.5 hour

Community Group/ Wetland Officer

0.5 hour

Community Group

1 monitoring day event (not including identification)

Community Group/ Wetland Officer

 Y

Dip net survey Macroinvertebrates

Q

1 monitoring day event

1/2Y

Once in 2 years 

1/2Y

Responsible

HIGH Y

Q = at some time in the quarter, Y = yearly

39

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007

Chapter 9. 9.1

EVALUATION, REVIEW AND REPORTING

EVALUATION AND REVIEW

The full impact of a changed system on the water quality and the effectiveness of the current management cannot be fully predicted. Therefore, the data obtained through monitoring need to be regularly reviewed to respond to impacts of the management strategy and past intervention. A review, of the implications of changed management of Rocky Gully 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 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. A full review of the wetland management plan should be scheduled in 5 years. For the annual review to be effective it needs to; Assess the impact of groundwater salinity Assess the impact of stormwater pollutants and the effectiveness of the detention basins Assess the impact on/state of native species (i.e. macroinvertebrates, frogs, fish and birds increasing or decreasing in diversity and abundance) Impact of other major objectives e.g. revegetation or recreation Monitoring schedule to reflect changes in the wetland management plan

9.2

REPORTING

The wetland management plan for Rocky Gully 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.

40

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007

Chapter 10.

REFERENCES

Amphibian Research Centre Frogs of Australia. Accessed 19 December 2006, http://frogs.org.au/frogs/index.html. ANZECC (2000). National Water Quality Management Strategy. Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality. Australia and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council and Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand. Canberra AWE (2006). Groundwater Surveys. River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005, South Australian Murray Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board. BOM (2005). Climate Averages. Accessed 18 March 2005, www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_024518.shtml. BOM (2007). Unpublished Data. Carter, M. F. (2007). Ngarrindjeri Elder. Copley, G. (2007). Senior Project Officer: Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation. 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. National Parks and Wildlife Council in partnership with the Department for Environment and Heritage: 61. Discussion Paper, Adelaide 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). South Australian Surface Water Archive. Accessed 12 December 2006, http://enrims.dwlbc.sa.gov.au/swa/. EBS & HydroTas (2006). Bird Surveys. River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005, South Australian Murray Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999). Jensen, A., P. Paton, et al. (1996). Wetlands Atlas of the South Australian Murray Valley. South Australian River Murray Wetlands Management Committee. South Australian Department of Environment and Natural Resources. ADELAIDE Koch, P. (2007). Pers. Com. MDFRC (2006). Water Quality Surveys. River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005, South Australian Murray Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board. Nadaraja, S. (2007). Personal Communication. Rural City of Murray Bridge.

41

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007

River Murray Catchment Water Management Board (2002). Water Allocation Plan for the River Murray Prescribed Watercourse. Government of South Australia. Berri, 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. Robinson, M. (1998). A Field Guide to Frogs of Australia: From Port Augusta to Fraser Island Including Tasmania. Sydney, Australian Museum and Reed New Holland. Rothe, K. (2007). Pers. Com. Rural City of Murray Bridge (1998). Management Plan for the Mannum Road Stormwater Detention and Wetlands. Rural City of Murray Bridge. Management Plan, Rural City of Murray Bridge SA MDB NRMB (2006). Frog Surveys. River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005, South Australian Murray Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board. Sanders, F. (2006). Wetland Project Coordinator (Community Group). 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. SKM (2006c). Site Physical Survey. River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005, South Australian Murray Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board. South Australia: National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 (1972). Accessed July 25 2005, http://www.parliament.sa.gov.au/Catalog/legislation/Acts/N/1972.56.un.htm. Sundra, N. (2007). Personal Communication. Sustainable Focus Pty Ltd. (2006). Your Wetland: Guidelines for on-Ground Works: Draft. SA MDB NRM Board. Thompson, M. B. (1986). River Murray Wetlands, Their Characteristics, Significance and Management. Department of Environment and Planning and Nature Conservation Society of S.A. Adelaide Tucker, P. (2004). Your Wetland: Monitoring Manual - Data Collection. River Murray Catchment Water Management Board, Australian Landscape Trust. Renmark SA Tucker, P., M. Harper, et al. (2002). Your Wetland: Hydrology Guidelines. Australian Landscape Trust. Renmark SA 42

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007

Waanders, P. (2007). Pers. Com. Samdbnrm Board. Walker, S. (2002). Frog Census 2001: Community Monitoring of Water Quality and Habitat Condition in South Australia Using Frogs as Indicators. Environment Protection Agency. Adelaide Walker, S. (2003). Frog Census 2002: Community Monitoring of Water Quality and Habitat Condition in South Australia Using Frogs as Indicators. Environment Protection Agency. Adelaide 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. Environment Protection Agency. Adelaide 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. Environment Protection Agency. Adelaide 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. Environment Protection Agency. Adelaide

43

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007

Appendix A.

Wetlands Atlas Data

Table 14: Wetland Atlas Data AREA

231293.4

PERIMETER

7257.31

WETLANDS_

762

WETLANDS_ID

761

AS2482 AUS_WETLANDNR

44190 S0039

THOM_WETLANDNR THOM_CHANGE

N

WETLAND_NAME

MOBILONG SWAMP

COMPLEX_NAME

Self-contained hydrological complex

CONS_VALUENR

6

MDBC_DISTNR

3

WATER_REGIME

TEMPORARY

INTERNATIONAL

0

NATIONAL_

0

BASIN

0

VALLEY

0

HIGH_CONSERVATIO

0

MODERATE_CONSERV

0

LOW_CONSERVATION

0

SHOULD_REASSESS

0

SHOULD_ASSESS

1

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

44

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007

Appendix B. Vegetation Management Chapter from 1998 plan (Rural City of Murray Bridge 1998) EXISTING NATIVE VEGETATION A survey was conducted by Jacqui Merckenschlager on 9/10/98 and listed below are plant species she identified.

Native species: Bolboschoenus caldwellii (sea clubrush) Distichlis distichophylla (salt water couch) Triglochin Striatum (streaked arrow grass) Enchylaena tomentosa (ruby saltbush) Frankenia pauciflora (?)(common sea heath) Halosarcia species (samphire) Maireana brevifolia (black bluebush) Phragmites australis (bamboo reed) Poa 2 species, possibly fordeana & poiformis (swamp grass or tussock grass) Sarcornia quinquiflora (samphire) Senecia lautus (variable groundsel) Suaeda australis (samphire)

Introduced species: Avena sativa (wild oats) Cotula coronopifolia (button weed) Galenia secunda Hordeum leporinum barley grass) Iberis crenulata (ice plant) Juncus acutis (rush) Puccinella species (?)(tall wheat grass)

Some areas of existing vegetation found on the mudflats will be retained for the following reasons. The first, is that it is all that will survive anyway, so leaving areas undisturbed will aid in revegetating adjoining areas. Secondly it provides habitat for the existing wildlife. T hese mudflat habitat areas are not common in the remaining wetlands of the lower Murray. Existing vegetation found in the drainage channels will be left undisturbed because they have been identified as significant species.

3.1. LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT PLAN Refer to Figure 2

DRAINAGE CHANNEL Predominant Species:

Bolboschoenus caldwellii (sea clubrush) Triglochin Striatum (streaked arrow-grass) Distichlis distichophylla (salt water couch) Juncus acutis (rush) Phragmites australis (bamboo reed)

Actions:-

45

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007    

Channels are to remain undisturbed. Juncus acutis to be removed to prevent species domination. Phragmites to be removed as required to prevent species domination Salt water couch to be left undisturbed.

SAMPHIRE MUDFLATS Predominant Species:

Enchylaena tomentosa (ruby saltbush) Sarcocornia quinquiflora (samphire) Halosarcia species (samphire) Suaeda australis (samphire) Poa fordeana (swamp grass) Poa poiformis (tussock grass) Maireana brevifolia (black blue bush)

Actions:     

Approximately 40% will be excavated up to 1 m to allow a maximum depth of water of 500-750mm . Stands of Frankenia Pauciflora (common sea heath) to be propagated by cuttings and also transplanted to increase species numb er. The litoral zone (shoreline) will be increased creating more habitat One island will be left untouched providing safe bird habitat. Remaining areas left untouched as this is important for wild life habitat

BOARDWALK This follows the sewer line and will be situated on a small peninsula 500-750mm above the water level.

The litoral zone will consist of the existing species found in the samphire mudflats. On the higher ground, Frankenia pauciflora (common sea heath) will be established and this will come from stands located east of the gas line in the middle of the weed infest ed area. This will be propagated and some actually transplanted.

LAGOON ISLANDS Two islands will be created in the existing inundated area to a height of 2m above water level.

Proposed plantings: A few Melaleuca Halmaturorum Frankenia Pauciflora (struck by State Flora)

DENSE SAMPHIRE Predominant species:

Sarcornia quinqueflora (samphire) Halosarcia species (samphire) Suaeda australis (samphire)

Actions:

These areas will be left undisturbed, apart from where Detention Pond 5 will be constructed.

PHRAGMITES Actions:These areas will be left undisturbed however future removal may be required where this species has invaded other areas. Ongoing removal for routine maintenance is expected along the drainage channel to the river.

PROPOSED HIGHLAND REVEGETATION Actions:  

An area 10m wide and 1200mm - 1800mm above the water level will be created along Mannum Rd. The perimeter of the existing 1996 Highland Vegetation will also be increased by covering previously discarded concrete block s with soil to approximately 1800mm above the water level. Existing box thorns to be removed

46

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007 *N.B. A rock breaker will be required to break up the concrete blocks prior to the earth fill process. Proposed plantings:Towards Lagoon from the 1996 Highland Revegetation Number Eucalyptus camaldulensis

120

Boxes 2

Atriplex semibaccata60

1

Carpobrotus rossii

0.5

30

Myoporum parvifolium Closer to the edge of this area, above the samphire Wahlenbergia fluminalis Acacia microcarpa (salt tolerant Brinkley form)

120

2

30 Number

0.5 Boxes

120 30

2 0.5

Eremophila divaricarta Atriplex rhagodiodes 30 0.5 Threlkeldia diffusa 30 0.5 Along the 10m wide strip beside Mannum Rd and possibly around the detention ponds (in which increase number of plants) Melaleuca halmaturorum Acacia microcarpa Eremophila divaricarta Myoporum parvifolium Calistemon rugulosus !nlahienbergia fluminalis

Number

Boxes

60 60 60 60 60 30

1 1 1 1 1 0.5

1996 HIGHLAND REVEGETATION Actions:

This area needs maintenance due to weed infestations such as Iboris crenulata (ice plant), Avena sativa (wild oats), Hordeum leporinum (barley grass), couch and Puccinella species. Spot spraying with "Roundup Bioactive" is needed.  The thick stands of Distichlis distichophylla (salt water couch) will be left undisturbed.  Some boxthorns have been found and must be removed. The Casuarinas planted in 1996 will be removed as they are unsuitable and will eventually take over the area. Proposed plantings.

Eucalyptus largiflorens Acacia ligulata Acacia calamifolia Atriplex semibaccata Atriplex Suberecta Dianella revoluta Dodonaea viscosa spatulata Enchylaena tomentosa Melaleuca lanceolata Pittosporum phylliraeoides

Number

Boxes

60 60 60 120 30 60 60 60 60 30

1 1 1 2 0.5 1 1 1 1 0.5

LAND DISTURBED AND WEED INFESTED Predominant species:

Distichlis distchophylla (salt water couch) Enchylaena tomentosa (ruby salt bush) Frankenia pauciflora (common sea heath) Halosarcia species (samphire) Maireana brevifolia (black blue bush) Avensativa (wild oats)

47

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007 Mordeum leporinum (barley grass) Puccinella species Pea fordeana (swamp grass) Pea poiformis (tussock grass) Actions:  

This area lies between the two proposed highland revegetation sites east of the boardwalk. It currently has low lying areas of samphire and higher plateaus and ridges of weeds. The existing samphire areas will be left untouched and the higher areas will be removed to create a flat area approximately 5 00 - 700mm above the water level. This will be established with samphire species, maireana brevifolia, Enchylaena tomentosa and will also act as a sediment trap during flooding of the Rocky Gully Creek. Stands of Distichlis distchophylla (salt water couch) will be transplanted to the detention ponds.

48

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007

Appendix C.

Water Quality Data

Table 15: Water quality Rocky Gully Parameters

EC μS/cm

EC μS/cm at No. 1 Pump*

Stage 1 04/03/05

Stage 2 06/04/05

Stage 3 24/08/05

Stage 4 19/10/05

Mean

7753 ± 3816

6210 ± 3157

3046 ± 1198

5083 ± 2719

5523 ± 5461

Min.

2600

439

482

1650

439

Max.

19100

15100

6250

13200

19100

379

369

429

400

394

Min.

DO mg/L

pH

Turbidity NTU

Water Temperature C

River height at No. 1 Pump*

n (baseline survey)

ANZECC (2000) Trigger Values Lowland Rivers

Freshwater Lakes & reservoirs

100-5000

300-1000

6.5/9.0***

6.5/9.0***

1-50

1-100

537

Max. -1

Average over survey period**

297

Mean

12.0 ± 0.8

11.3 ± 1.6

10.5 ± 0.5

8.2 ± 0.5

10.5 ± 2.3

Min.

10.6

7.2

9.6

7.3

7.2

Max.

14.3

14.7

12

9.1

14.7

Mean

9.22 ± 0.19

8.82 ± 0.43

8.24 ± 0.21

8.02 ± 0.13

8.57 ± 0.68

Min.

8.66

7.6

7.63

7.75

7.6

Max.

9.55

9.49

8.56

8.26

9.55

Mean

114 ± 28

117 ± 49

73 ± 23

95 ± 32

100 ± 64

Min.

52

23

18

45

18

Max.

177

232

121

185

232

Mean

20.5 ± 0.2

21.4 ± 0.5

15.3 ± 0.8

18.0 ± 0.1

18.8 ± 2.6

Min.

20.1

20.6

13.5

17.9

13.5

Max.

21.1

22.8

17.5

18.2

22.8

0.61

0.56

0.85

0.88

0.72

Min.

1.07

Max.

0.48 4

4

4

4

16

Source: Adapted from River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005 (MDFRC 2006); * from DWLBC Surface Water Archive (DWLBC 2006b); ** Average for 2005 DWLBC data. *** Lower limit/Upper limit Refer to Appendix D for the locations of the baseline survey monitoring sites.

49

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007 Table 16: Water quality (Nutrients) Rocky Gully Parameters

NOx µgN/L

Total N µgN/L

FRP µgP/L

Total P µgP/L

DOC mgC/L

Stage 1 04/03/05

Stage 2 06/04/05

Stage 3 24/08/05

Stage 4 19/10/06

Average over survey period

Mean

5±2

53 ± 46

44 ± 2

135 ± 105

59 ± 28

Min.

3

7

42

30

3

Max.

7

98

45

240

240

n

2

2

2

2

8

Mean

1340 ± 450

1343 ± 898

768 ± 323

948 ± 373

1099 ± 232

Min.

890

445

445

575

445

Max.

1790

2240

1090

1320

2240

n

2

2

2

2

8

Mean

< 5*

19 ± 13

12 ± 1

31 ± 15

17 ± 5*

Min.

<5

6

11

16

5

Max.

<5

32

12

45

45

n

2

2

2

2

8

Mean

163 ± 38

160 ± 91

89 ± 37

140 ± 50

138 ± 25

Min.

125

69

52

90

52

Max.

200

250

125

190

250

n

2

2

2

2

8

Mean

n/a

n/a

4.25 ± 0.75

4.55 ± 1.65

4.40 ± 0.74

Min.

3.5

2.9

2.9

Max

5

6.2

6.2

n

2

2

4

ANZECC (2000) Trigger Values Lowland Rivers

Freshwater Lakes & reservoirs

100

100

1000

1000

40

10

100

25

Source: Adapted from River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005 (MDFRC 2006); * Mean and S.E. calculated using and approximate value; Refer to Appendix D for the locations of the baseline survey monitoring sites.

50

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007 Table 17: Water quality 18 March 1999 Rocky Gully Parameters

Unit

Site 1

Site 2

Site 3

Site 4

Site 5

Site 6

Median

Average

WQ pH

pH

7.4

8

7.9

7.8

7.3

7.5

7.65

7.65

Temperature

Celsius

20

20

22

20

22

22

21

21

Total dissolved solids (by EC)

mg/L

20000

3300

28000

18000

220

14000

16000

13920

Conductivity

µS/cm

31800

5870

43500

30100

400

22900

26500

22428

Grease and Oil

mg/L

5

9

8

4

5

5

6.2

Ammonia as N

mg/L

0.009

0.013

10.1

2.44

0.017

6.16

1.229

3.123

Phosphorus total as P

mg/L

0.235

0.136

0.277

0.155

0.270

0.781

0.253

0.309

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen as N

mg/L

8.8

4.3

21.7

7.0

1.9

17.7

7.9

10.2

Nitrate + Nitrite as N

mg/L

0.006

0.007

0.013

0.009

0.009

0.069

0.009

0.019

Aluminium Total

mg/L

0.427

0.14

3.46

0.361

1.43

0.427

1.164

Boron

mg/L

1.80

1.465

1.566

Chromium Total

mg/L

<0.030

<0.030

<0.030

<0.030

<0.030

<0.030

Copper Total

mg/L

<0.030

<0.030

<0.030

<0.030

<0.030

<0.030

Iron Total

mg/L

1.33

0.183

7.10

2.25

0.671

3.70

1.79

2.539

Manganese Total

mg/L

0.969

0.124

0.501

0.535

0.132

1.02

0.518

0.547

Zinc Total

mg/L

0.187

0.091

0.187

0.138

0.192

0.156

0.172

0.159

Barium Total

mg/L

1.24

0.095

1.43

0.946

0.010

0.678

0.812

0.733

<1

NUTRIENTS

METALS

2.19

0.818

<0.020

1.13

3.15

0.309

MICROBIOLOGICAL E.coli

/100mL

>2400

650

>2400

>2400

>2400*

>2400

*Typo was written as >240000 Source: Adapted from Water Quality Report at Rocky Gully conducted by Australian Water Quality Centre for Rural City of Murray Bridge Council

0.225

0.394

3.3

1.6

1.6

1.6

1.5

4.8

11.2

Average

0.229

Median

0.220

Pump Road -Riverside outlet of pump*

0.228

Pump Road -Channel in front of pump to river

M/Works Creeks

mg/L

CHN 4

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen as N

CHN-DUMP

mg/L

CHN 2

Phosphorus total as P

CHN 1 NUTRIENTS

Lagoon Rd Motor w/shop to Lagoon

Table 18: Water quality 31 July 2001 Rocky Gully

0.229

0.766

1.6

3.7

160

172

MICROBIOLOGICAL E.coli

/100mL

39

89

190

46

520

160

160

GENERAL ORGANICS # Hydrocarbons C06-C09

mg/L

<0.04

# Hydrocarbons C10-C14

mg/L

<0.10

# Hydrocarbons C15-C28

mg/L

<0.20

# Hydrocarbons C29-C40

mg/L

<0.20

* pump not working Source: Adapted from Water Quality Report at Rocky Gully conducted by Australian Water Quality Centre for Rural City of Murray Bridge Council

51

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007

Appendix D.

Baseline Survey Locations

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

52

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007

Appendix E. Baseline Survey DTM

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

53

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007

Appendix F. Baseline Survey Groundwater

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

54

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007

Appendix G. 3 4 0 7 5 0.0 0 0 0 0 0

Baseline Survey Vegetation

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 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

3 4 3 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

3 4 3 2 5 0.0 0 0 0 0 0

6 1 1 4 5 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0

6 1 1 4 5 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0

5

6 1 1 4 2 5 0.0 0 0 0 0 0

6 1 1 4 2 5 0.0 0 0 0 0 0

7

.0 0 0 0 0 0

402500

.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

3

0 05 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 2 53 0 4.000 07

5 5

.0 0 0 0 0 0 3440 1 2 5000 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0

1

5

3

2

1 5 3 4 4 5 3 3

3 4 1 2 5400.020705000 0.0 0 0 0 0 0

4

2

2

1

6 6

3 4 1 5 0 0.0 0 0 040003 0 0 0

8

6

3 4 1 7 5 0.0 0 0 0 0 0

R IV E R M U R R A Y RS u pE p ia m eEg a ca rp a sub m e rg e d B o lb o sch o e n u s ca ld w e llii la N ndD # S BA Wse EdTgLe A L IN S U R V ESYu a e d a a u stra lis shrub la nd P h ra g m ite s a u stra lis g ra ssla nd P hara itenssis a u stra lis E u ca lyp tu s ca m ldgumle

P a sp a lu m d istich u m g ra ssla nd #

8

3 4 2 2 5 0.0 0 0 0 0 0

L a rg e -s c a le V e g e ta tio n C o m m u nitie s

R IV E R M U R R A Y W E TL A N D S B A S E L IN E S U R V E Y

he rb la nd

P h ra g m ite s a u stra lis g ra ssla nd P h ra g m ite s a u stra lis / B o lb o sch o e n u s ca ld w e llii se d g e la n d

R ocky G u lly

O p e n W a te r*

g ra ssla nd

a u stra/lis/ B o lb o sch o e n u s ca ld w e llii se d g e la nd

h ra g m ite s B o g g y FP la t

8

0 00 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 3 2 53 0 4.020 00

.0 0 0 0 0 0

S ur ve y e d Q ua d ra ts

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

6 1 1 3 5 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0

4 5 4 3 4 2 3 5 5 3 2 53 5 33 1

1 :1 0 ,0 7 4 0

35

70

140

S u a e d a a u stra lis shrub la nd 210

280 M etr es

R u p p ia m e g a ca rp a sub m e rg e d he rb la nd

1 :5 ,5 0 0 8 0e ly1 2s0u rv 1e 60 * D e n o te s c o m m u n ity n o t 0q 2u 0a4n0tita tiv ye d M e tre s

# D e n o te s a re a to o s m a ll to m a p

6 1 1 3 2 5 0.0 0 0 0 0 0

5 5

6228250

5

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

3

3

1

4

6 1 1 3 2 5 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 1 3 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0

5

.0 0 0 0 0 0

4

7

4 5

44

4 45 5

6228000

6 1 1 3 5 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0

.0 0 0 0 0 0

6228250

4

5

.0 0 0 0 0 0

3

.0 0 0 0 0 0

3 3

6228000

6 1 1 3 7 5 0.0 0 0 0 0 0

6228500

6 1 1 3 7 5 0.0 0 0 0 0 0

6228500

.0 0 0 0 0 0

402250

6 1 1 4 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0

7

.0 0 0 0 0 0

6 1 1 4 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0

3 4 2 2 5 0.0 0 0 0 0 0

S ch o e n o p le ctu s va lid u s se d g e la nd * P a sp a lu m d istich u m g ra ssla nd B o lb o sch o e n u s ca ld w e llii se d g e la nd T yp h a sp . se d g e la nd M e la le u ca h a lm a tu ro ru m ssp . h a lm a tu ro ru m sa p lin g s/ C a lliste m o n sp . re ve g e ta te d a re a *

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

A re a o f in te re st sh o w n in re d b o x

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

55

.0 0 0 0 0 0

34 0500

.0 0 0 0 0 0

340 750

.0 0 0 0 0 0

3410 00

.0 00 0 0 0

3412 50

.0 0 0 00 0

3415 00

.00 0 0 0 0

3 4175 0

.0 0 0 0 0 0

34 2000

.0 0 0 0 0 0

342 250

.0 0 0 0 0 0

34 2500

.0 0 0 0 0 0

342 750

.0 0 0 0 0 0

3430 00

.0 00 0 0 0

3 4325 0

.0 0 0 0 0 0

61 1475 0

3 40250

.0 0 0 0 0 0

61 1425 0

6 11425 0

.0 0 0 0 00

.0 0 0 0 0 0

6 11450 0

61 1450 0

.0 0 0 0 00

5

61 1375 0

6 11375 0

.0 0 0 0 00

.0 0 0 0 0 0

6 11400 0

61 1400 0

.0 0 0 0 00

.0 0 0 0 0 0

4

.0 0 0 0 0 0

403000

.0 0 0 0 0 0

403250

5 5

5

3 5

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

5 5

5

3

5

3 40250

.0 0 0 0 0 0

6228000

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

5

61 1300 0

.0 0 0 0 00

4

.0 0 0 0 0 0

1

61 1325 0

4 5

4 4 3

.0 0 0 0 0 0

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

445 5

3

4

5

5

5

3

3 3

4

4

.0 0 0 0 0 0

4

61 1350 0

402750

.0 0 0 0 0 0

.0 0 0 0 0 0

.0 0 0 0 0 0

402500

6228500

.0 0 0 0 0 0

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

.0 0 0 0 00

402250

6228250

6 11350 0

.0 0 0 0 00

.0 0 0 0 0 0

4

6 11325 0 6 11300 0

.0 0 0 0 0 0

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007

.0 0 0 0 0 0

34 0500

402250

.0 0 0 0 0 0

.0 0 0 0 0 0

340 750 402500

.0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0

.0 00 0 0 0

3410 00 402750

3412 50

.0 0 0 0 0 0

.0 0 0 00 0 403000

.0 0 0 0 0 0

3415 00

.00 0 0 0 0 403250

3 4175 0

.0 0 0 0 0 0

34 2000

.0 0 0 0 0 0

.0 0 0 0 0 0

342 250

.0 0 0 0 0 0

34 2500

.0 0 0 0 0 0

342 750

.0 0 0 0 0 0

3430 00

.0 00 0 0 0

3 4325 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

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

SU R VE Y

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

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

B o g g y F la t

Ro ck y G u ll y

1 :5 ,5 0 0 0 2040

80

120

160 M e tre s

1 :1 2 , 0 00 A r e a o f in t e r e s t s h o w n in r e d b o x

0

40

80

160

240

3 20 M et res

Ar e a o f i n te r e st s h o w n in r e d b o x

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

56

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007

Appendix H.Species List for Rocky Gully (a) FLORA Table 19: Plant Associations at Rocky Gully Species

Common name

Apium graveolens*

Celery

Arctotheca calendula*

Cape Weed

Asphodelus fistulosus*

Onion Weed

Aster subulatus*

Aster-weed

Atriplex nummularia

Old Man Saltbush

Avena barbata*

Bearded Oat

Bolboschoenus caldwellii

Salt Club-rush

Brassicaceae sp.*

Brassica

Bromus rubens*

Red Brome

Bromus unioloides*

Prairie grass

Callistemon sp.

Prairie grass

Carpobrotus rossii

Angular Pigface

Chenopodium pumilio

Small Crumbweed

Cotula coronopifolia

Water Buttons

Critesion marinum*

Barley Grass

Cynodon dactylon*

Couch grass

Dianella revolute

Black-anther flax lily

Distichlis distichophylla

Emu-grass

Echium plantagineum*

Salvation Jane

Enchylaena tomentosa

Ruby Saltbush

Eragrostis australasica

Cane grass

Eucalyptus camaldulensis

camaldulensis

var.

Association number ** 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

River Red Gum

Fumaria bastardii*

Bastard's Fumitory

Galenia secunda*

Galenia

Halosarcia pergranulata ssp. pergranulata

Black-seed samphire

Juncus usitatus

Common Rush

Lactuca saligna*

Wild Lettuce

Lolium sp.*

Rye grass

Lycium ferocissimum*

African Boxthorn

Maireana microcarpa

Swamp Bluebush

Malva parviflora*

Small-flowered Marshmallow

Medicago sp.*

Medic

Melaleuca halmaturorum

Swamp Paperbark

Mesembryanthemum crystallinum*

Common Iceplant

Mimulus repens

Creeping Monkey-flower

Nicotiana glauca*

Tree tobacco

Paspalum distichum

Water-couch

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x

x

x

57

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007 Phalaris minor*

Canary Grass

Phragmites australis

Common reed

Plantago lanceolata*

Ribgrass

x

Plantago coronopus*

Buck's-Horn Plantain

x

Plantago turrifera

Small sago weed

Polypogon monspeliensis*

Annual Beard-grass

Potamogeton crispus

Curly Pondweed

Rumex bidens

Mud Dock

Ruppia megacarpa

Widgeon grass

Sarcocormia quinqueflora

Beaded Samphire

Schoenoplectus validus

River Club-rush

Sonchus oleraceus*

Common Sow-thistle

Stipa sp.

Spear grass

Suaeda australis

Austral Seablite

Tetragonia tetragonoides

New Zealand Spinach

Triglochin striatum

Streaked Arrow-grass

Typha sp.

Bulrush

x

x

x

x

x x

x x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

9

TOTAL

x

x

x

5

1

8

1

10

x x

3

10

The above list includes opportunistic observations not surveyed in quadrats *denotes exotic species ** Association numbers; 1. Bolboschoenus caldwellii sedgeland on edge of main lagoon 2. Phragmites australis grassland on edge of main lagoon 3. Typha sp. sedgeland on edge of main lagoon 4. Paspalum distichum grassland on edge of main lagoon 5. Ruppia megacarpa herbland in main lagoon 6. Suaeda australis shrubland on edge of main lagoon 7. Phragmites australis grassland on edge of northern channel 8. Phragmites australis / Bolboschoenus caldwellii sedgeland on edge of channel to river (southern channel) Source: River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005 (SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006b)

(b) BIRDS Table 20: Habitat features identified in Rocky Gully Habitat Feature

Autumn 08/04/2005 4pm

Spring 28/10/2005 12pm

RocBi01 (Circumnavigation)

RocBi01 (Circumnavigation)

Shoreline

Simple

Simple

Fringing Vegetation

Patchy low cover

patchy low cover

Reeds

Occasional

Occasional

Sedges

Occasional

Occasional

Herbs

Occasional

Occasional

Wet mud

Occasional

Extensive

Dry mud

Occasional

Occasional

Hollow-bearing trees

Absent

Absent

Perching trees

Absent

Absent

Fringing River Red Gums

Absent

Absent

Water’s edge

1-10m from vegetation

in or above vegetation

Water Depth (m)

0.5-1

1-Feb

Water Level

Rising

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

58

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007

Total abundance

Spring (1)

Autumn (1)

Conservation status (1)

JAMBA

CAMBA

PROPOSED CRITERIA (2)

PROPOSED STATUS (2)

CURRENT STATUS (2)

Table 21: Bird species observed at Rocky Gully

SCIENTIFIC NAME

COMMON NAME

Anas superciliosa

Pacific Black Duck

M

6

17

23

Anas gracilis

Grey Teal

M

25

36

61

Anas castanea

Chestnut Teal

M

4

12

16

Anhinga melanogaster

Darter

2

3

5

Phalacrocorax melanoleucos

Little Pied Cormorant

1

1

Phalacrocorax sulcirostris

Little Black Cormorant

4

4

2

Phalacrocorax carbo

Great Cormorant (Black, Large)

Pelecanus conspicillatus

Australian Pelican

25

17

42

Egretta (Ardea) novaehollandiae

White-faced Heron

15

3

18

Ardea alba

Great Egret

Threskiornis molucca

1

1

Australian White Ibis

35

35

Threskiornis spinicollis

Straw-necked Ibis

6

6

Circus approximans

Swamp Harrier

1

1

Porzana tabuensis

Spotless Crake

2

2

Porphyrio porphyrio

Purple Swamphen

3

7

10

Fulica atra

Eurasian Coot

10

17

27

Actitis hypoleucos

Common Sandpiper

1

1

Himantopus himantopus

Black-winged Stilt

10

15

Recurvirostra novaehollandiae

Red-necked Avocet

Elseyornis (Charadrius) melanops

Black-fronted Dotterel

M

1

Erythrogonys cinctus

Red-kneed Dotterel

M

1

Vanellus miles

Masked Lapwing

M

8

Larus novaehollandiae

Silver Gull

Chlidonias hybridus

Whiskered (Marsh) Tern

Acrocephalus australis (A. stentoreus now considered Asian)

Australian (Clamorous) reed-warbler

Megalurus gramineus

Little Grassbird

Total

Individuals Species

M

2

R

RA

c(ii)

1

1

M M

5 1

1 9

10 1

2

50

10 50

1

1

M

4

4

M

3

3

200

150

350

18

19

26

Conservation Status: M = Migratory (1) Source: Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005 (EBS & HydroTas 2006). (2) 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)

59

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007

Pacific Duck

Black

4

4

Willows

Grass

Dead logs logs

Reg gums

Lignum

Shallow water

Mud

Sedges

Open water

R

Total

Black

Samphire

Pacific Duck

Scientific Name Activity

Common Name

Reed beds

Table 22: Habitat use by waterbird species at Rocky Gully

2

10

6

13

Anas superciliosa F

2

5

Anas superciliosa

Grey Teal

Anas gracilis

Grey Teal

Anas gracilis

F

Chestnut Teal

Anas castanea

R

12

Anthinga melanogaster

R

1

Darter

Anthinga melanogaster

F

Darter Little Pied Cormorant

Phalacrocorax melanoleucos

R

Little Black Cormorant

Phalacrocorax sulcirostris

R

2

Great Cormorant

Phalacrocorax carbo

R

2

2

Australian Pelican

Pelecanus conspicillatus

R

5

32

37

Australian Pelican

Pelecanus conspicillatus

F

5

White-faced Heron

Egretta novaehollandiae

R

White-faced Heron

Egretta novaehollandiae

F

10

Great Egret

Ardea alba

F

1

Australian White Ibis

Threskiornis molucca

R

35

35

Straw-necked Ibis

Threskiornis spinicollis

R

6

6

Swamp Harrier

Circus approximans

F

1

1

Spotless Crake

F

2

2

Porzana tabuensis

Purple Swamphen

F

3

Porphyrio porphyrio

Eurasian Coot

Fulica atra

R

5

Eurasian Coot

Fulica atra

F

9

Common Sandpiper

Actitis hypoleucos

Black-winged Stilt

R

39 15

39 2

5

4

22 16 1

4

4 1

1

2

4

5 5

5 3

1

7 5

13

10 10

8

17

F

1

1

Himantopus himantopus

R

6

6

Black-winged Stilt

Himantopus himantopus

F

Red-necked Avocet

Recurvirostra novaehollandiae

R

1

1

Black-fronted Dotterel

Elseyornis melanops

F

10

10

Red-kneed Dotterel

Erythrogonys cinctus

F

1

1

Vanellus miles

R

10

10

Masked

9

9

60

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007 Lapwing Silver Gull

Larus novaehollandiae

Whiskered Tern

Chlidonias hybridus

Clamorous Reed-warbler

Acrocephalus australis

F

Little Grassbird

Megalurus gramineus

F

R

45

F

5

50

1

1 4

44

Total

10

4

2

217

44

0

0

3

4

0

3

3

26

350

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

(c) FROGS Table 23: Frogs recorded at Rocky Gully

Peron’s tree frog Litoria peroni

Longthumbed frog Common froglet Lymnodynas tes fletcheri

Longthumbed frog

Peron's tree frog Litoria peronii

Lymnodynas tes fletcheri

Eastern banjo frog Limnodynast es dumerili

Eastern banjo frog

Common froglet Crinia signifera

Limnodynast es dumerili

Longthumbed frog Brown tree frog Lymnodynas tes fletcheri

Crinia signifera

Eastern banjo frog Limnodynast es dumerili

Litoria ewingi

Common froglet

Site 3 (Mobilong drainage channel)

Crinia signifera

Site 2 (Inlet channel near structure)

Brown tree frog

Site 1 (Foot bridge)

Litoria ewingi

Date

many

many

14/03/05 25/05/05 07/09/05

few one

few

01/11/05

few few

few

few

many

many

one

few

few

few

many

many few

few

few

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

(d) FISH Table 24: Fish survey sites Site #

Habitat description

Method

Autumn

Spring

1

Channel, barebank, firm substrate, veg on opposite bank, <50 cm deep

Seine

X

X

2

Grassy edge habitat, 20 cm deep

Dip Net

X

X

3

Inlet channel, dense emergent reeds on banks, 1.5 m deep

Gil Net

X

X

4

Inlet channel, grassy/low lying veg on banks, 1.5 m deep

Fyke Net

X

X

5

Shallow outlet channel, dense emergent reeds on both sides

Fyke Net

X

X

6

Rocky edge habitat, 60 cm deep

Bait Trap

X

X

7

Large woody debris near main island

Gil Net

X

X

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

61

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007 Table 25: Fish captured at Rocky Gully

Common Name

Species Name

Native Fishes small-mouthed hardyhead

Atherinosoma microstoma

bony hering

Autumn

Spring

Length (TL, mm)

Length (TL, mm)

Count

Ave

Min

Max

Count

1

50

50

50

3

Nematalosa erebi

163

181

54

351

42

273

38

362

205

flathead gudgeon

Philypnodon grandiceps

397

45

27

88

321

57

30

83

718

carp gudgeon complex

Hypseleotri ssp.

48

37

24

46

129

38

28

70

177

common galaxias

Galaxias maculatus

19

66

50

95

1

51

51

51

20

lagoon goby

Tasmanogobius lasti

1

41

41

41

2

46

41

50

3

golden perch

Macquaria ambigua ambigua

12

233

134

351

9

230

125

560

21

Australian smelt

Retropina semoni

40

54

40

74

342

62

48

81

382

Threatened Native Fishes unspecked hardyhead

C.s. fulvus

17

49

35

62

51

36

26

65

68

Muray hardyhead

Craterocephalus fluviatilis

7

52

45

60

32

56

45

66

39

dwarf-flathead gudgeon

Philypnodon sp.

2

33

31

35

12

49

39

74

14

Murray rainbow fish

Melanotaenia fluviatilis

6

49

43

70

2

53

50

55

8

freshwater catfish

Tandanus tandanus

1

57

57

57

1

Estuarine Native Fishes sandy sprat

Hyperlophus vitatus

1

80

80

80

1

Exotic/Invasive Fish common carp

Cyprinus carpio

28

331

173

504

24

417

327

605

52

gold fish

Carasius auratus

2

228

208

248

1

145

145

145

3

eastern gambusia

Gambusia holbroki

207

30

14

48

1

27

27

27

208

Number of fish Number of native fish Number of exotic fish

Ave

Total

Min

Max 4

952

972

1924

715

946

1661

237

26

263

Count of species Native to Invasive ratio (Species) Native to Invasive ratio (number of fish)

17 4.7 6.3

Source: Adapted from River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey - 2005 (SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006a)

62

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007

(e) MACROINVERTEBRATES Higher taxa

Family

Cnidaria

Clavidae

Turbellaria

Dugesiidae

Subfamily/Genus

Autumn Site 1

Site 2

Cordylophora

59

20

Nematoda Gastropoda

Ancylidae

Ferrissia

Physidae

Physa

Oligochaeta Amphipoda

Decapoda

Austrochiltonia

Eusiridae

Pseudomera

1

20

immature

3

200

Caridina

85

immature

20 35

170

Macrobrachium

35

Hymenosomatidae

Amarinus

5

Sminthuridae

Katianna

25

Coleoptera

Hydraenidae

larvae

5

Diptera

Ephydridae

Ephemeroptera

Hemiptera

Hypogastruridae

1

4

4 10

30

9 15

66

2 5

26

30

299 85

11

25

45

5

221

10

45 5

20

2

1

123 27 5

5 Tanypodinae

81

5 4

5

Orthocladinae

21

105

1

50

177

Chironomidae

Chironominae

47

250

8

80

385

Caenidae

Tasmanocoenis

20

20

Veliidae

immature

10

10

Nepidae

Ranatra

5

5

Corixidae

Agraptocorixa

Notonectidae

4

4

Micronecta

9

Anisops

10

50

immature

Trichoptera

99

1

103

immature

Odonata

20

2

Palaemonidae

Collembola

Total abundance

9 15

Hyalidae

Paratya

Site 2

10

21

Atyidae

Spring Site 1

Coenagrionidae

5

7

5

12

35

975

1069

1

11

3

3

10

Lestidae

immature

Hydroptilidae

Hellyethira

70

Orthotrichia

5

15 1

1 45

115 5

Ecnomidae

Ecnomus

Leptoceridae

immature

5

5

Triaenodes

5

5

Triplectides

2

2

1

25

26

Total abundance

224

1160

288

1295

2967

Total number of taxa

15

22

17

15

37

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

63

Rocky Gully Management Plan 2007

Appendix I. MWLAP Gross Pollutant Trap sign

64