Sugar Shack Final Large

SUGAR SHACK WETLAND MANAGEMENT PLAN 2006

LAPS Lower Murray Local Action Planning Groups Kjartan Tumi Bjornsson

This management plan was written by Kjartan Tumi Bjornsson for the Mid Murray Local Action Planning Committee Inc. and the Landholders of Swan Reach Complex, 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 (now SA MDB NRM board). The management plan has been prepared according to the Guidelines for developing wetland management plans for the River Murray in South Australia 2003 (River Murray Catchment Water Management Board and Department of Water Land and Biodiversity Conservation 2003) and as such fulfils obligations under the Water Allocation Plan for the River Murray Prescribed Watercourse. Disclaimer: The Mid Murray Local Action Planning Committee Inc. do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore disclaim all liability for any error, loss or other consequences which may arise from you relying on any information in this publication. Cite as: Bjornsson, K. T. (2006). Sugar Shack Lagoon Wetland Management Plan. Mid Murray Local Action Planning Committee Inc., Cambrai. Acknowledgements: This wetland management plan has been developed with the support of a number of organisations, community groups and individuals. Special thanks go to Judy Pfeiffer, Adrienne Frears and Jem Tesoriero for assistance with the draft. Thanks also go to those that contributed their knowledge including, Cynthia and Richard Hunter and the River Murray Catchment Water Management Board and the members of the South Australian River Murray Wetland Technical Group. For further details contact: The Mid Murray LAP PO Box 10 Cambrai SA 5353 Phone: (08) 8564 6034 Fax: (08) 8564 5003 Photographs: Cover photograph: Top, Sugar Shack looking west, Bottom, Inlet channel All photographs in document by Tumi Bjornsson.

Wetland Management Plan

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................... I LIST OF FIGURES..................................................................................................................... III LIST OF MAPS .......................................................................................................................... III LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... IV Chapter 1.

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1

Section 1.01 (a)

Environmental, Social and Cultural Significance of wetland ............................. 1

History of Sugar Shack Lagoon ................................................................................... 2

Section 1.02

Why does Sugar Shack Lagoon need a management plan? ............................ 2

(a)

Mission Statement ....................................................................................................... 2

(b)

Vision Statement ......................................................................................................... 2

(c)

Broad Objectives ......................................................................................................... 2

(d)

Current Achievements ................................................................................................. 3

Chapter 2.

SITE DESCRIPTION OF SUGAR SHACK LAGOON ............................................... 4

Section 2.01

Wetland Location ............................................................................................. 4

Section 2.02

Survey Sites, Dates & Locations ...................................................................... 4

Section 2.03

PHYSICAL FEATURES ................................................................................. 10

(a)

Geomorphology, Geology and Soils .......................................................................... 10

(b)

Climate ...................................................................................................................... 10

(c)

Surface and Groundwater Features ........................................................................... 10

Section 2.04

ECOLOGICAL FEATURES ............................................................................ 17

(a)

Flora .......................................................................................................................... 17

(b)

Fauna ........................................................................................................................ 19

Chapter 3.

LAND TENURE, JURISDICTION AND MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS ..... 25

Section 3.01

LAND TENURE .............................................................................................. 25

Section 3.02

LAND AND WATER USE ............................................................................... 25

Section 3.03

JURISDICTION AND MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY ...................................... 25

Chapter 4.

THREATS AND POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS TO SUGAR SHACK LAGOON ........... 27

Chapter 5.

MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES .............................................................................. 30

Chapter 6.

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ..................................................................................... 33

Section 6.01

ON GROUND ACTION AND TIMETABLE ..................................................... 33

Section 6.02

WETLAND WATER OPERATIONAL PLAN ................................................... 36

(a)

Hydrology Regime ..................................................................................................... 36

Chapter 7.

MONITORING ....................................................................................................... 41

Chapter 8.

EVALUATION, REVIEW AND REPORTING .......................................................... 43

Section 8.01

Evaluation and Review ................................................................................... 43

Section 8.02

Reporting ....................................................................................................... 43

Chapter 9.

REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 44

Appendix A.

Wetlands Atlas Data for Wetland Main Body .......................................................... 46 I

Wetland Management Plan Appendix B.

Surface Water Archive Graph ................................................................................ 47

Appendix C.

Baseline Survey Locations ..................................................................................... 48

Appendix D.

Baseline Survey Vegetation Zones ........................................................................ 51

Appendix E.

Sugar Shack Inlet Channel .................................................................................... 52

Appendix F.

Species List for Sugar Shack Lagoon .................................................................... 53

Section F.01 (a)

Riparian and floodplain species ................................................................................. 53

Section F.02 (a)

FLORA ........................................................................................................... 53 WETLAND AND FLOODPLAIN FAUNA ......................................................... 56

Birds of Sugar Shack Lagoon .................................................................................... 56

Appendix G.

Evaporation and precipitation obtained using the Wetland Loss Calculator. ....... 59

II

Wetland Management Plan

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: SS 1 Looking WSW at Sugar Shack ................................................................................ 6 Figure 2: SS 1 Looking SSW at Sugar Shack ................................................................................. 6 Figure 3: SS 1 Looking SE at Sugar Shack ..................................................................................... 7 Figure 4: Goats close to SS3 at the SE end of Sugar Shack ........................................................... 7 Figure 5: SS 2 Looking W towards the Yactko creek connection from Sugar Shack ....................... 7 Figure 6: SS2 landholders, LAP and RMCWMB officers, Sugar Shack Lagoon in the background . 7 Figure 7: SS 2 Looking E towards at Sugar Shack the Yactko creek connection ............................ 8 Figure 8: SS 2 Looking S along Yactko creek ................................................................................. 8 Figure 9: SS3 Looking N along Yactko creek .................................................................................. 8 Figure 10: SS 3 Yactko creek (relatively clear) ................................................................................ 8 Figure 11: SS 4 Looking W at a wetland close to Sugar Shack ....................................................... 8 Figure 12: SS4 Looking W at a wetland close to Sugar Shack ........................................................ 8 Figure 13: SS 5 Looking S at a wetland close to Sugar Shack ........................................................ 9 Figure 14: SS 6 Looking SE at a wetland close to Sugar Shack...................................................... 9 Figure 15: SS 6 Looking S along creek at a wetland close to Sugar Shack ..................................... 9 Figure 16: SS 12 Looking N along creek at a wetland close to Sugar Shack................................... 9 Figure 17: SS 11 Looking S onto River Murray ............................................................................. 10 Figure 18: SS 12 snags located in creek close to River Murray..................................................... 10 Figure 19: Groundwater salinity .................................................................................................... 16 Figure 20: Groundwater levels ...................................................................................................... 16 Figure 21: 5 year water regime scenario for Sugar Shack Lagoon (benefit description) ................ 38 Figure 22: 5 year water regime scenario for Sugar Shack Lagoon (volume description) ............... 38 Figure 23: Downstream water level at Lock 1................................................................................ 47 Figure 24: Ground water and gauge board locations ..................................................................... 48 Figure 25: Photopoint and water level monitoring sites ................................................................. 49 Figure 26: Sugar Shack Lagoon fish survey sites.......................................................................... 50 Figure 27: Sugar Shack Lagoon vegetation monitoring sites ......................................................... 50 Figure 28: Sugar Shack Lagoon ecological zones......................................................................... 51

LIST OF MAPS Map 1: Sugar Shack Lagoon ........................................................................................................... 4 Map 2: Map of wetland complex (Photographic locations)............................................................... 6 Map 3: Expected water movement within Swan Reach Complex .................................................. 13 Map 4: Flood Inundation Model III; Sugar Shack Scenarios .......................................................... 14 Map 5: Cadastral boundaries covering Sugar Shack Lagoon and surrounds. ............................... 26 Map 6: On ground works at Sugar Shack Lagoon. ........................................................................ 34

III

Wetland Management Plan

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Baseline survey monitoring of following parameters .......................................................... 5 Table 2: Photo locations.................................................................................................................. 5 Table 3: Water quality (Australian Water Environments 2005) ...................................................... 10 Table 4: Groundwater monitoring locations ................................................................................... 15 Table 5: Ecological zones around Sugar Shack Lagoon ............................................................... 17 Table 6: Habitat features identified in Sugar Shack Lagoon; Table adapted from (Australian Water Environments 2005). ............................................................................................................. 20 Table 7: Frogs at Sugar Shack Lagoon, habitat and significant aspects. ....................................... 21 Table 8: Native fish; Table adapted from (Australian Water Environments 2005) .......................... 23 Table 9: Introduced fish; Table adapted from (Australian Water Environments 2005) ................... 23 Table 10: Sugar Shack Lagoon responsible positions contact details ........................................... 25 Table 11: Existing and potential threats to Sugar Shack wetland .................................................. 28 Table 12: Management objectives for Sugar Shack Lagoon wetland. ........................................... 31 Table 13: Implementation plan for Sugar Shack Lagoon land based activities. ............................. 35 Table 14: 5 year hydrological operational plan (HOP) for Sugar Shack Lagoon ............................ 39 Table 15: Water use calculation .................................................................................................... 40 Table 16: Water allocation requirements ....................................................................................... 40 Table 17: Monitoring plan for Sugar Shack Lagoon....................................................................... 42 Table 18: Swan Reach Complex, Wetland atlas data (Jensen, Paton et al. 1996) ........................ 46 Table 19: Plant species at Sugar Shack Lagoon ........................................................................... 53 Table 20: Waterbird species observed in at Sugar Shack Lagoon, adapted from (Australian Water Environments 2005) .............................................................................................................. 56 Table 21: Non-waterbird species observed at Sugar Shack Lagoon, adapted from (Australian Water Environments 2005) .................................................................................................... 57 Table 22: Calculated water loss (evaporation – precipitation) from the Wetland Loss Calculator .. 59

IV

Sugar Shack Wetland Management Plan

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. The allocation of water required for Sugar Shack Lagoon is mainly in response to the Section 5.1. Objectives of the Water Allocation Plan for the River Murray (River Murray Catchment Water Management Board 2002) Principle; 2 “Provide for the water needs of water-dependent ecosystems” and 6(e) “Provide for the allocation and use of water to prevent adverse impacts on the health, biodiversity status of habitat value of floodplains, or wetlands of conservation significance” 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).

SECTION 1.01 ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE OF WETLAND The Wetland Atlas of the South Australian Murray Valley (Jensen, Paton et al. 1996) listed Sugar Shack as being part of the Swan Reach Complex and having a high conservation value and to be of national, basin and local importance (see Appendix A on page 46). As part of the Management of Wetlands of the River Murray Valley Draft Action Plan 1996-1999 (South Australian River Murray Wetlands Management Committee 1996), Swan Reach complex was listed as the eleventh highest rank priority for maintenance or rehabilitation of 250 wetlands of the South Australian River Murray Valley. The Floodplain Wetlands Management Strategy (Murray-Darling Ministerial Council 1998) lists the Swan Reach wetlands complex as a large and significant floodplain wetland complex in the Murray Darling Basin. Thompson (1986) classified the complex as having a high conservation value due to the variability of wetland types (Class 1 and Class 2 see box) and the two creeks, the ease of management of the complex, its inhabitation by many bird species including water and forest birds. At the time of Thompson‟s survey there was a significant regeneration of red gums at Sugar Shack Lagoon (Thompson 1986), however most of this regeneration does not remain (Australian Water Environments 2005). “Class 1 directly connected to the Murray at normal pool level; Class 2 connection with the Murray is above normal pool level;” (Thompson 1986) The wetland complex is a culturally important indigenous site with at least 38 scar trees, traditional campsites, middens, tool scatters and burial sites. More recent history includes indigenous fishing shacks at the northern end of the lagoon. The name Sugar Shack stems from these shacks. The complex is registered in the Australian Heritage Database (List: Register of the National Estate) as an Indigenous site (21/10/1980) (Anonymous).

1

Sugar Shack Wetland Management Plan

(a) HISTORY OF SUGAR SHACK LAGOON Indigenous camp grounds Indigenous burial grounds Sugar Shack fishing shacks on complex Trenches around the wetland were used to irrigate feed crops. Pipe culverts and flow control structures were constructed at the connection between the wetland and to Yactko creek. By controlling the flow of water into the wetland the trenches were filled prior to the wetland. The wetland could then be evenly flooded from all sides. This provided a form of irrigation for feed crops growth on the wetland basin proper. Removal of culverts and filling in of trenches 2002 Reduction in the stock numbers grazing the wetland 2003-2004 Baseline Survey (Australian Water Environments 2005) 2005 Planned stock exclusion fencing around wetland (Funding by Mid Murray LAP) 2005/2006 Planned installation of culverts (pending funding applications going to Community Grants 2005) 2005 wetland management plan (this document)

SECTION 1.02 WHY DOES SUGAR SHACK LAGOON NEED A MANAGEMENT PLAN? (a) MISSION STATEMENT Restore the wetland to a healthy state, with associated fish and birdlife. This focuses on the restoration of a fluctuating water regime (wet with dry periods) and therefore improves water quality within the wetland for the benefit of native vegetation and native fauna. (b) VISION STATEMENT The vision for Swan Reach Complex is a restored wetland complex with extensive native vegetation fulfilling a diversity of habitat requirements for water birds, tortoises, frogs and for native fish species. It is envisaged that Sugar Shack Lagoon will be a „healthy‟ shallow clear wetland with a high diversity of macrophytes (emergent and submerged) providing habitat for native fish, tortoises, frogs and birds. The wetland and the surrounding area would also, as a consequence of habitat provision, be expected to provide breeding sites to native fauna. (c) BROAD OBJECTIVES Once the wetland restoration has been achieved, through appropriate adaptive management of the water regime, the wetland condition would need to be maintained. The maintenance of a restored wetland, fulfilling the functions described above, includes future water regime manipulation, removal of weeds, potential active revegetation, and the exclusion of grazing from the aquatic and fringing zone. The management of the wetland, due to legislation, requires a water licence for which a detailed operational management plan needs to be structured. The objectives listed below, and in detail in Chapter 5 on page 30, fulfil a number of the water allocation criteria from Section 5.3 of the Water Allocation Plan for the River Murray (River Murray Catchment Water Management Board 2002). These objectives include: Restore wetland (hydrological regime and water quality) Introduce a drying regime to Sugar Shack Lagoon, which may: o Compact sediment, reduce turbidity 2

Sugar Shack Wetland Management Plan

o Remove large carp, reduce turbidity o Induce macrophyte germination Promote germination and growth of riparian vegetation Restore habitat diversity for native fish, water birds and other aquatic wildlife: o Fish, increase abundance and maintain diversity o Birds, provide habitat for foraging and breeding o Tortoises, provide safe breeding areas (where eggs remain safe from current predators e.g. foxes) o Frogs, increase abundance and maintain (or increase) diversity (d) CURRENT ACHIEVEMENTS The wetland currently has less invasive land management practices than experienced in the past. Grazing has been reduced in recent years. Currently the wetland aquatic zone and fringe is in the process of being fenced off to exclude stock. The Landholders are in the process of applying for funding for the design and construction of flow control structures, which are to include fish grills. Depending on access to funding it is hoped that the construction of the flow control structure will commence in early 2006. The Landholders are considering the following on ground actions: Re-excavate the channels, or part of the channels (see History of Sugar Shack Lagoon) to develop deep habitat for fish Deposit the spill in the wetland as a tortoise refuge (island) Actively remove carp Stock the wetland with native fish from Yactko creek (pending license)

3

Sugar Shack Wetland Management Plan

Chapter 2. SITE DESCRIPTION OF SUGAR SHACK LAGOON SECTION 2.01 WETLAND LOCATION Swan Reach Complex (including Sugar Shack Lagoon) is listed as wetland number S0090 in the Wetlands Atlas (Jensen, Paton et al. 1996) and M058B in Thompson (Thompson 1986). The current water regime is permanent with a connection through a narrow channel to Yactko Creek. The wetland is located approximately 4 km north of Swan Reach (Map 1 below). AMG coordinates 371622E 6177760N (Grid Zone 54). Sugar Shack Lagoon can be found on the 1:50,000 map, Swan Reach map sheet number 6828-4. The wetland is found in the Hundred of Nildottie Section E.

Map 1: Sugar Shack Lagoon

The depth of Sugar Shack Lagoon is shallow at below 1-meter depth (Australian Water Environments 2005). The wetland sits to a large degree on freehold land (see Chapter 3 on page 25). Grazing continues at a reduced rate to that of the previous owner of 3 years ago (Hunter 2005a). The current grazing includes approximately 100 goats (permanent number plus offspring of 2 kids twice per year), 30 cattle (lowline), one horse and two sheep. The current custodian is keen on the proper management and restoration of Sugar Shack Lagoon, with the reservation that the stock number remain at the density to cover the cost of maintaining the land (i.e. 100 goats).

SECTION 2.02 SURVEY SITES, DATES & LOCATIONS The Sugar Shack Wetlands Baseline Survey (Australian Water Environments 2005) monitored different wetland parameters on separate occasions which are listed in Table 1. The locations of the baseline survey sites can be seen in Appendix C.

4

Sugar Shack Wetland Management Plan Table 1: Baseline survey monitoring of following parameters

Parameter

Site

Surveyed Date 1

Date 2

Date 3

Date 4

28/02/04

19/09/04

24/11/03

23/02/04

28/02/04

Site physical

Y

Vegetation

Y

24/11/03

23/02/04

1

Y

27/11/03

15/04/04

2

Y

27/11/03

15/04/04

3

Y

27/11/03

15/04/04

4

Y

28/11/03

15/04/04

Y

1819/09/04

Fish

Birds (Main Survey 4hrs + night survey 1hr) (Opportunistic)

Y

Frogs and Reptiles

Y

24/11/03

23/02/04

28/02/04

18/09/04

Macroinvertebrates

Y

10/12/03

12/03/04

22/07/04

21/10/04

Water Quality

Y

10/12/03

12/03/04

22/07/04

21/10/04

Groundwater

Y

17/08/04

Jan 05

Date 5

19/09/04

NR = Not Recorded

Photographs of the wetland complex were taken on the 30th April 2005 at 12 locations throughout the complex, 8 are relevant to Sugar Shack Lagoon, see Table 2 below. These 8 photographic locations were at the following coordinates (and can be see in Map 2 on page 6). Table 2: Photo locations

Easting

Northing

SS 1

371614

6178049

SS 2

371184

6177846

SS 3

371813

6177261

SS 4

370412

6178646

SS 5

370295

6178593

SS 6

370250

6178504

SS 11

370189

6178240

SS 12

370226

6178301

5

Sugar Shack Wetland Management Plan

Map 2: Map of wetland complex (Photographic locations)

Figure 1, below, though to Figure 7, on page 8, show Sugar Shack Lagoon, including the connection between the wetland and Yactko creek.

Figure 1: SS 1 Looking WSW at Sugar Shack

Figure 2: SS 1 Looking SSW at Sugar Shack

6

Sugar Shack Wetland Management Plan

Figure 3: SS 1 Looking SE at Sugar Shack

Figure 4: Goats close to SS3 at the SE end of Sugar Shack

Figure 5: SS 2 Looking W towards the Yactko creek connection from Sugar Shack

Figure 6: SS2 landholders, LAP and RMCWMB officers, Sugar Shack Lagoon in the background

Yactko creek outside the connection to the wetland is depicted in Figure 8 on page 8. Figure 9 and Figure 10 on page 8 show Yactko creek close to the southern connection to the River Murray. Sugar Shack Lagoon still has remnants of the trenches dug for irrigation purposes. Whilst visiting this wetland at the start of the development of this management plan large carp were visible in the open water of the wetland. The wetland was shallow at the time and turbid. The landholders regularly see waders using the wetland (Hunter 2005a; Hunter 2005b).

7

Sugar Shack Wetland Management Plan

Figure 7: SS 2 Looking E towards at Sugar Shack the Yactko creek connection

Figure 8: SS 2 Looking S along Yactko creek

Figure 9: SS3 Looking N along Yactko creek

Figure 10: SS 3 Yactko creek (relatively clear)

Two years ago a neighbouring wetland, also within the Swan Reach wetland complex, became blocked for a period of 8 months (Hunter 2005a). This wetland went from a degraded permanently inundated state to an apparently restored wetland with healthy vegetation growth (monitoring of this area has not been undertaken, therefore the full impact of the dry period and the following grazing has not been assessed. The vegetation growth in this wetland can be seen in Figure 11 below through to Figure 14 on page 9.

Figure 11: SS 4 Looking W at a wetland close to Sugar Shack

Figure 12: SS4 Looking W at a wetland close to Sugar Shack

8

Sugar Shack Wetland Management Plan

Figure 13: SS 5 Looking S at a wetland close to Sugar Shack

Figure 14: SS 6 Looking SE at a wetland close to Sugar Shack

The connection between this „restored‟ wetland and the River Murray can be seen in Figure 15 below to Figure 18 on page 10. This wetland was not as intensely used in feed crop production, therefore the seed bank and consequent regeneration within this wetland may have occurred at a faster rate than can be anticipated at Sugar Shack Lagoon. As can be seen in the photographs there remains some open water within the wetland. This water has remained clear since refilling with few large carp present and abundant water birds (Hunter 2005a).

Figure 15: SS 6 Looking S along creek at a wetland close to Sugar Shack

Figure 16: SS 12 Looking N along creek at a wetland close to Sugar Shack

9

Sugar Shack Wetland Management Plan

Figure 17: SS 11 Looking S onto River Murray

Figure 18: SS 12 snags located in creek close to River Murray

SECTION 2.03 PHYSICAL FEATURES (a) GEOMORPHOLOGY, GEOLOGY AND SOILS The bottom of the lagoon consists of silty clay. During the installation of the groundwater monitoring wells the northern edge of the lagoon consisted of clay to a depth between 2 and 3 m followed by sands from the Monoman Formation. The southern side, between Yactko Creek and the river, consisted of grey sandy and silty clay of the Coonambidgal Formation to a depth of over 7m (Australian Water Environments 2005).The hydrological connection between the wetland and the river is assumed to be low. (b) CLIMATE The following climatic conditions are taken from the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) Waikerie station (number 024018) (Latitude (deg S): -34.1778; Longitude (deg E): 139.9806) (BOM 2005). The recording of data commenced at Waikerie in 1896; the latest records used in the assessment of the climatic condition of the area stemming from 2001. The area has Mediterranean climatic conditions with warm dry summers and cool wet winters. The median (5th decile) annual rainfall is 249 mm. The mean monthly maximum rainfall is in October (26.2 mm), the minimum in March (12.5). The expected mean daily maximum temperature is highest in January at 33 C, lowest in July at 16.5 C, and has an annual mean of 23.5 C. The minimum daily temperature is at its maximum in January at 15.2 C, and its minimum in July at 5.2 C. The annual mean daily minimum temperature is 9.5 C. (c) SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER FEATURES (i) Surfacewater Water quality monitoring was undertaken as part of the Baseline Survey (see Table 3 below). For a description of the implications of water quality in wetlands refer to Your Wetland: Supporting Information (Tucker, Dominelli et al. 2003). Table 3: Water quality (Australian Water Environments 2005)

Parameters TDS (by EC (mg/L))

Location

10/12/03

12/03/04

Sugar Shack East

370

600

Sugar Shack West

370

600

22/07/04 (Composite) 430

21/10/04 390 390

10

Sugar Shack Wetland Management Plan

EC μS/cm

Suspended Solids (mg/L)

Turbidity NTU

Filt. Reactive Phosphorus as P (mg/L)

Phosphorus as P (mg/L)

Sugar Shack East

678

1090

Sugar Shack West

675

1090

786

704 701

River 400 Murray above Lock 1*

380

508

502 (1st September „04)

Sugar Shack East

532

132

135

383

Sugar Shack West

570

236

Sugar Shack East

590

220

Sugar Shack West

700

250

630

Sugar Shack East

0.024

0.019

0.005

Sugar Shack West

0.029

0.018

0.007

Sugar Shack East

0.76

0.335

Sugar Shack West

0.998

0.365

627 190

0.189

530

0.449 0.621

* Obtained from the Surface Water Archive (Department of Water Land and Biodiversity Conservation 2005a)

The EC is well below that of seawater (~50,000 μS/cm), and is similar to that of the River Murray indicating a good connection between the two. As a comparison, the River Murray EC levels at Lock 1 (upstream which will be comparable with the downstream levels), obtained from the Surface Water Archive (Department of Water Land and Biodiversity Conservation 2005a), was 400 μS/cm on the 10th December 2003 compared to 678/675 μS/cm in the wetland, 380 μS/cm on the 12 March 2004 compared to 1090 μS/cm in the wetland, 508 μS/cm on the 22nd July 2004 compared to 786 μS/cm in the wetland and 502 μS/cm on the 1st September 2004 the last day on the record obtained and therefore closest to the wetland monitored date of 21st of October 2004, which was measured at 704/701 μS/cm. The consistent higher reading in the wetland may be as a result of evapoconcentration influenced by the shallow nature of the wetland, future monitoring should also monitor Yactko creek salinity levels. The high turbidity within the wetland may contribute to the lack of submerged macrophytes, although the cause for them not being present is probably more attributable to stock grazing and pugging, the rate of water level fluctuation and/or to bioturbation, causing sediment resuspension. The extreme turbidity of the 10/12/03 and the 21/10/04 could possibly have been an error. In future monitoring where turbidity in this range is detected an attempt should be made to establish the reason behind the extreme turbidity such as algal bloom. Macrophyte uprooting, caused by European carp feeding, may have lead to further reductions in submerged aquatic plant production. The factors affecting turbidity and therefore restricting submerged macrophyte germination, growth and survival is addressed in this wetland management plan through the alteration of the water regime and stock exclusion fencing. 11

Sugar Shack Wetland Management Plan

The surface water levels in the River Murray below Lock 1, obtained from the Surface Water Archive (Department of Water Land and Biodiversity Conservation 2005b) can be seen in Appendix B. This water level will have a direct impact on the water level in Sugar Shack Lagoon. The flow path for Sugar Shack Lagoon during normal regulated river flow is shown in Map 3 on page 13, whereby Yactko creek is connected to the River Murray at both ends (although currently the southern end is restricted due to reed blockage). The Flood Inundation Model (FIM III) was used to study the potential critical flow volumes of the River Murray for Sugar Shack Lagoon. Map 4 on page 14 shows the normal inundation level in September at a 5,000ML/day flow. At a flood level of 30,000 ML/day the side arm of the wetland is also inundated, significantly increasing the area of the wetland providing aquatic habitat for fish and water birds, including waders. At this flood level the wetland structure may be opened for free passage of native fish in and out of the wetland. At a flood level of 50,000 ML/day the banks of the wetlands are expected to overflow therefore well surpassing the flow control structure of the wetland. Prior to such a flow level the stop logs should be removed to allow free passage of fish and water between the wetland and the river.

12

Sugar Shack Wetland Management Plan

Map 3: Expected water movement within Swan Reach Complex

5,000 ML/day flow

30,000 ML/day flow 13

Sugar Shack Wetland Management Plan

50,000 ML/day flow

102,000 ML/day flow

Map 4: Flood Inundation Model III; Sugar Shack Scenarios

(ii) Groundwater The baseline survey installed 6 groundwater wells within Sugar Shack Lagoon. These wells were monitored twice during the survey period, one on the day of their installation (17th August 2004), and the second in January 2005, follow up monitoring by LAP and RMCWMB staff was made on the 24th November 2005. The locations of the piezometers and gauge boards are presented in Table 4 and in Appendix C. The ground water is relatively saline at between 10 and 38 mS/cm, see Table 4 and Figure 19 on page 16, at a depth between 1.25 and 2.85, see Table 4 and Figure 20 on page 16. The salinity of the groundwater may therefore be a contributing factor to the stress of the floodplain vegetation. Future groundwater monitoring data may be able to clarify whether the saline groundwater does in fact approach the surface. Current measurements show this to be a minor threat as t he groundwater levels and salinity appear to be stable based on the monitoring from 2005, see Figure 19 and Figure 20.

14

Sugar Shack Wetland Management Plan

BH1a

371571

6178135

BH1b

371571

6178135

BH2

371923

BH3

Conductivity (mS/cm) Aug 2004* Jan 2005 Nov 2005**

Jan 2005 Nov 2005**

Water level m AHD

Aug 2004*

Ground Elevation (m AHD)

Elevation of Bore Hole casing (m AHD)

Name Easting Northing

To obtain water level in m AHD

Table 4: Groundwater monitoring locations

2.14

1.67

-0.22

-0.2 10.1 10.2

11.03

6177846

2.62

2.07

0.82

0.85 17.08 NR

20.1

371186

6177578

3.00

2.44

0.42

0.43 11.5

NR

3.02

BH4

371519

6177378

3.77

3.24

0.39

38.4

38

BH5

371342

6177484

3.05

2.53

0.30

0.28 35

34.7

36.6

BH6

371745

6178047

2.93

2.32

0.72

0.98 17.45 17.3

17.84

GB 1 (SSG1)

371377

6177825

Sugar Shack Lagoon GB +0.15

GB 2 (SSG3)

371747

6177641

Yactko Creek GB +0.4

SSG3

371818

6177273

GB = Gauge Board *Unfortunately the data from the first date of monitoring was obtained on the same day as the installation of the piezometers. It is recommended that piezometers are allowed to rest for a number of days following installation to allow the possible slow flowing groundwater to come to and equilibrium and the conductivity to give a more accurate reading. ** Follow up monitoring by Adrienne Frears and Tumi Bjornsson

45 40

E C m S /c m

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 B H1a

B H2

B H3

B H4

B H5

B H6

B o re ID C o nd uctivity m S /cm 0 1 /0 8 /2 0 0 4

C o nd uctivity m S /cm 0 1 /0 1 /2 0 0 5

C o nd uctivity m S /cm 2 4 /1 1 /2 0 0 5

15

Sugar Shack Wetland Management Plan Figure 19: Groundwater salinity

G ro u n d w a te r L e v e l m A H D

3 .5 0 3 .0 0 2 .5 0 2 .0 0 1 .5 0 1 .0 0 0 .5 0 0 .0 0 -0 .5 0

B H1a

B H2

B H3

B H4

B H5

B H6

B o re ID G ro und le ve l (m A H D )

W a te r L e ve l (m A H D ) 0 1 /0 1 /2 0 0 5

W a te r L e ve l (m A H D ) 2 4 /1 1 /2 0 0 5

Figure 20: Groundwater levels

16

Sugar Shack Wetland Management Plan

SECTION 2.04 ECOLOGICAL FEATURES (a) FLORA Flora was surveyed by Thompson (1986) who identified hundreds of young red gums (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) which were recorded at this time as being approximately 6m high. The baseline survey divided the Lagoon surrounds into five „Ecological Zones‟ for which the vegetation was assessed (see Appendix D for survey sites). These ecological zones are described in Table 5 below. Table 5: Ecological zones around Sugar Shack Lagoon

Zone

Description

Near Shore Zone

Permanent or prolonged inundation

Very little vegetation

Sedge and Rush Community

Shallow water at edge of lagoon

Low diversity

Condition ratings very poor to poor Most vegetation occurred in patches and showed signs of heavy grazing. Also pugging by cattle evident. During the survey some areas were degraded between monitoring dates.

Summary

Low regeneration of annual species Heavy hoof damage Heavy grazing (splendid flatsedge) Southern condition

Rising Ground Sedge Herbaceous species gums)

and (red

shore

Measured from the edge of the high water mark in an average season this zone was 5 to 10 metres wide, up to 20 metres wide.

Poor condition

Seasonally inundated – spring flows

Low diversity

Direct influence from lagoon/creek water Conditions rated very poor through to moderate Zone in poor condition with, grazing and pugging due to stock and weed infestation. There are some red gums, in excellent health, present in two age categories (approx. 10 & 30 years) at two locations and mature in one. In one area the red gums may receive more inundation than other „Rising Ground area,‟ due to a low channel passing between the gums. Here the understorey is degraded, red gums juvenile and seedlings were heavily grazed.

in

best

Very little vegetation

Low regeneration of annual species Few red gums Grazing Heavy hoof damage

Some areas contain lignum as the most prominent shrub. Lignum is in good condition but area generally degraded, heavy grazing pressure, weed infestation. Generally the understorey was degraded due to grazing and pugging (hoof) damage. Some areas contained more native vegetation, these areas seemed to have less grazing. Floodplain Lowland Flats Red Gum Forest and Woodlands

Flat land

Low diversity

Seasonal/sporadic inundation

High proportion bare ground

Some spring flood Inundated during high floods Condition poor to moderate Some red gums in moderate health, limited regeneration, and in other areas dead red gums. Few native species with lignum understorey in

Lacking annual and perennial regeneration Some healthy red gums, although most are in poor health Lignum degraded (grazed) in most places, moderately healthy

17

Sugar Shack Wetland Management Plan poor health in most areas, moderate health in other areas. Weed infestation. Red gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis Woodlands, lignum Muehlenbeckia florulenta Shrublands and black box Eucaluptus largiflorens Woodland severely degraded (went from moderate condition to severely degraded during the Basline Survey). Upper Floodplain

Flat land

Lignum Shrubland

Inundated only during high floods Condition very poor Lignum poor health. Mainly bare ground, few native species, diversity low. Grazing seen as a contributor to the removal of native ground cover.

in others Vegetation in poor health, stress, grazing pressure, ground compaction, lack of flooding and possible salinity issues

Rarely inundated Mainly bare ground with few degraded native species Grazing pressure

Site 1 (small depression coming of the wetland) with increased inundation and fencing off from grazing, would be a good site for regeneration of sedge, rush and lignum. Rises on Floodplain

Upper

Black Woodland

Box

Rises on floodplain

Rarely inundated

Inundated sporadically during high floods

Some native species present

Condition rating very poor to poor with some Moderate.

Generally poor condition

Some red gums in moderate health and black box in good health although in to few numbers (possibly lack of regeneration) Some lignum up to 50% ground cover however native species abundance low. Severe grazing became evident during monitoring. In other areas the red gum and lignum were more degraded. Weeds (burr medic) abundant.

Grazing pressure

Some native vegetation present, although these species indicated stress to other natives (see Australian Water Environments (2005))

The largest probable past and present pressure on the wetland vegetation, which can be controlled, is stock grazing, this was identified by the baseline survey (Australian Water Environments 2005) as well as Thompson (Thompson 1986). The stocking levels within the complex are currently at lower levels than previously, which can only be of benefit to the wetland environment. However there remains the contentious issue of the impact of grazing on weed removal, i.e. grazing may actually be keeping the weed population in check, and if removed, other methods may be required. Other significant factors, which are contributing to the decline in the vegetation health, include the change in hydrological regime, in particular the lack of flooding of the floodplain with rising ground water salinity was also identified as a potential detrimental impact on the vegetation health (Australian Water Environments 2005). That said, the most prominent degradation that can be addressed by this wetland management plan is grazing impacts these being pugging, grazing, ring barking, native ground cover removal and soil compaction. Another cause for loss of red gums is seen to be the lack of frequent flooding with salinity also seen as a potential contributor. The main restoration options for Sugar Shack Lagoon are either to increase flooding (Regional Issue), and/or fence off areas where regeneration has/does occur. That is, whenever there is a significant flood an assessment should be made as to where areas could be fenced off where red gum (and other native) regeneration does occur, this would however only be a very localised solution and would need full cooperation of the landholder. In the past juvenile red gums have died off probably due to a lack of water i.e. no flooding (Hunter 2005b). To significantly address this problem a regional strategy needs to be developed where increased flooding and therefore the regeneration and maintenance of juvenile and mature red gums is the aim. In general, fencing off of 18

Sugar Shack Wetland Management Plan

areas of vegetation will assist in removing grazing pressures and assist in future regeneration as well as the long-term survival of native vegetation. The baseline survey (Australian Water Environments 2005) predicts the complete degradation and loss of significant plant communities within the wetland complex over the next 50 years due to the current hydrological regime. To address this issue a regional approach to floodplain wetland restoration is therefore required. That is, the complete restoration of this wetland complex would therefore require the increase in flood frequency and extent. A detailed list of species found within the plant associations can be found in Appendix F Section F.01 on page 53. For a description of the function of vegetation in wetlands refer to (Tucker, Dominelli et al. 2003). (i) Implications for management To restore the wetland increased control of stock grazing is required. A buffer zone around the wetland would assist Ecological zones 1 and 2 to re-establish. This however would only solve the immediate and locally solvable degradation issues facing the wetland environment. Regionally increased flooding and frequency should be aimed for, without this locally invested effort could be of minimal consequence. (b) FAUNA (i) Birds Wetlands provide birds with habitat, food and breeding sites. The condition of a wetland plays a significant role as to whether habitat conditions are available or suitable for a variety of birds. For example, the water regime directly influences the availability of food, from macroinvertebrates through to fish. Further, healthy vegetation, around wetlands, presents breeding opportunities for many waterbirds, particularly following flood events (Scott 1997). Permanently inundated wetlands provide waterbirds with refuge areas during times of drought and can therefore be important in a regional context, if not national or international, particularly as river regulation throughout Australia is reducing the availability of flooded habitat (Scott 1997). The restoration of wetlands should attempt to provide waterbird habitat and at the very least maintain the habitats available. A good summary of the role wetlands play for waterbirds is presented in Relationships between waterbird ecology and river flows in the Murray-Darling Basin (Scott 1997). During the survey of South Australia‟s River Murray Wetlands by Thompson (1986) many birds were recognised as using Sugar Shack Lagoon, possibly for breeding, including: Yellow-billed Spoonbill Platalea regia Grey Teal Anas gracilis Sulphur-crested cockatoo Cacatua galerita Laughing Kookaburra Dacelo novaeguineae Peaceful doves Geopelia striata Willie wagtail Rhipidura leucophrys Superb Fairy-wrens Malurus cyaneus Whistling kites Haliastrus sphenurus Australian magpies Gymnorhina tibicen Galah Cacatua roseicapilla (Eolophus roseicapilla) Magpie-lark Grallina cyanoleuca 19

Sugar Shack Wetland Management Plan

The Sugar Shack Lagoon Baseline Wetlands Survey (Australian Water Environments 2005) found 19 of the estimated 62 species of waterbirds that are likely to frequent the area and a further 39 nonwaterbirds. The main habitats used by the water birds include open water, sedgelands, fringing red gums and muddy verges, a summary of the habitats identified at Sugar Shack Lagoon can be found in Table 6 below. Four species of waterbird were reported breeding at Sugar Shack Lagoon these were the Australian Shelduck Tadorna tadornoides, Australian Wood Duck Chenonetta jubata, Grey Teal Anas gibberifrons and Pacific Black Duck Anas superciliosa. Most species that were expected at Sugar Shack Lagoon, given the habitat and time of year in which the surveys were conducted and the lack of flooding, were identified. Some of the bird species would use the wetland for seasonal breeding, however a flood that inundates wetlands, lignums and wets red gums would be required to initiate a larger breeding event. As for vegetation (see) the need for extensive flooding in a regional scale was identified. A large „regional‟ flood acts as a trigger for breeding by many bird species. This flooding would provide both additional food required for breeding as well as the habitat (flooding of lignums and red gums). The large diversity of non-waterbirds is also dependent on the health of the floodplain vegetation. Although not dependent on open water, the maintenance and restoration of this vegetation is therefore a benefit to the habitat requirements of non-waterbird species. Of particular interest identified during the survey was the regent parrot Polytelis anthopeplus listed as „Vulnerable‟ nationally and in south Australia. This species was recorded as breeding in hollows of red gums on Sugar Shack Lagoon (Australian Water Environments 2005). Sugar Shack provides habitat to water birds as part of the wetland complex around it with muddy verges and hollows in fringing red gums being the main features. This habitat is described in Table 6 below. Table 6: Habitat features identified in Sugar Shack Lagoon; Table adapted from (Australian Water Environments 2005).

Habitat features

Description

Open water (O)

Open water >30cm deep

Reedbeds (R)

Typha, Phragmites Schoenoplectus >1m tall

Sedges (S)

Eleocharis, Cyperus, Juncus in shallow water

Mud (M)

Bare mud, shallow water <10cm

or

Lignum (L) Red Gum (G) Dead Logs + Debris (D)

(ii) Frogs All the expected frog species were heard at Sugar Shack Lagoon. The frogs heard at Sugar Shack Lagoon included the spotted grass frog Limnodynastes tasmaniensis, eastern banjo frog L. dumerili, common froglet Crinia signifera, eastern sign bearing froglet C. parinsignifera, southern bell frog Litoria raniformis the southern bell frog is listed under the EPBC Act (Anonymous 1999). For a summary of the frogs identified at Sugar Shack Lagoon see Table 7 on page 21. Other reptiles identified during the baseline survey were the eastern water skink Eulamprus quoyii, common snake-eye Morethia boulengeri and shell remains of the murray river turtle Emydura macquarii.

20

Sugar Shack Wetland Management Plan Table 7: Frogs at Sugar Shack Lagoon, habitat and significant aspects.

Name Spotted Frog

Grass

Eastern Frog

Banjo

Scientific Name

Habitat

Significance

Limnodynastes tasmaniensis

Southern and western reed clumps in Sugar Shack Lagoon

2 Males, 1 Female

L. dumerili,

Southern end of Lagoon

>10

Breeding at wetland. Foam nests with 90-1300 eggs, floating attached to vegetation. Breed foam eggs, 12 to stage.

Common Froglet

Crinia signifera

Eastern Sign Bearing Froglet

C. parinsignifera

Southern Frog

Litoria raniformis

Bell

Both sides of channel at east end of Lagoon, near causeway gate. Good fringing rush in area heard. Anticipated that if rushes return to wetland, the habitat conditions will be suitable for this frog species.

>20

Several edge.

>20

sites

near

waters

At 2 sites (few, up to 5). Reed beds in southern section of Lagoon. Large permanent water bodies with abundant growth of vegetation near the bank.

throughout year. Large nest with 1000-4000 attached to vegetation. 15 months in tadpole

Lay eggs on underside of grass and reeds. Tadpoles need still shallow water for 5 to 6 weeks.

Eggs are scattered. Breeds in winter

Listed as Vulnerable in SA (may become “Endangered”). Eggs on floating rafts which later sink.

(iii) Fish Wetlands play an important part in the lifecycle of fish. Wetlands provide food, habitat for breeding and shelter from predators. Fish can therefore be used as bio-indicators of the long-term habitat availability, habitat conditions and water quality within individual wetlands. Fish are also important in the complex structure of the wetland ecosystem, for example providing a food source to birds, they can also impact the water quality through bioturbation (e.g. European carp feeding habits). The baseline survey (Australian Water Environments 2005) found Sugar Shack Lagoon to be an example of a Lower River Murray wetland degraded by river regulation. They found the low diversity of native fish throughout the wetland to include most of the expected species for a degraded Lower River Murray wetland. The shallow and turbid nature of the wetland with limited vegetation and therefore limited habitat provided suitable conditions for generalist species. The distribution within the wetland showed the tendency for generalist species, in abundant numbers, to occupy the open water of the wetland, these species included the Australian smelt with 515 individuals, bony herring with 662 individuals and carp gudgeon with 313 individuals (Australian Water Environments 2005). According to the baseline survey two species caught in Yactko Creek (just outside the wetland) are listed in the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 draft Threatened Species Schedules, the un-specked hardyhead being listed as vulnerable and the Murray rainbowfish as rare. Presently the wetland is degraded with few submerged habitats such as plant or physical cover (snags), and therefore lacks the habitat availability for specialist species such as the flathead gudgeon, hardyheads and large native species including Murray cod (Australian Water 21

Sugar Shack Wetland Management Plan

Environments 2005). As the community group is interested in providing habitat for native fish this is a significant obstacle, the restoration of fish habitat is therefore an objective of this management plan. However, the large fluctuations in water level observed by the baseline survey, including a 10m reduction of the water edge between sampling dates, would probably favour the generalist species (Australian Water Environments 2005). The baseline survey identified different sizes for most fish species. This size distribution indicates the presence of both juvenile and mature individuals within the wetland (Australian Water Environments 2005). A restored Sugar Shack Lagoon, with submerged and emergent macrophytes, may provide additional habitat for these species. That is, to increase the abundance of the more specialist species the submerged habitat in the wetland would have to be increased. This could be achieved through the encouragement of macrophyte growth. The fluctuations in water levels would have to be controlled to favour the desired habitat conditions for the more specialist species; this could involve a more gradual drawdown and refill of the Lagoon. The full native fish species list can be seen in Table 8 on page 23. Historical records identified by the baseline survey (Australian Water Environments 2005) list chanda perch, southern purple spotted gudgeon and Murray hardyhead as having been caught in wetlands close to Sugar Shack Lagoon. These species may still persist in the area (Australian Water Environments 2005). Providing suitable habitat through healthy wetlands would potentially assist in restoring their numbers. Four exotics were caught at Sugar Shack Lagoon see Table 9 on page 23. These were mainly Gambusia Gambusia holbrooki and the European carp Cyprinus carpio. Currently there are no effective management strategies for the control of Gambusia. The Baseline survey did not identify Gambusia as being a significant threat to Sugar Shack Lagoon. However large numbers of juvenile carp were caught indicating the wetland might be a recruitment area for carp. Very large carp were seen throughout the wetland on the 29th of April 2005 (personal observation). Carp control strategies available include fish screens, which restrict the movement of large fish between the wetland and the river, and fish separation cages for the removal of carp, however both have inherent restrictions in their use. The fish screens will exclude the entry of all large fish, including native species intending to breed. The intent of these screens is to exclude large carp from entering the wetland and therefore minimise bioturbation. Smaller carp are however able to pass through the barriers and then become trapped in the wetland once they grow large. The fish separation cages are still in the development stage and have not been trialed in South Australian wetlands, the effectiveness and limits to their use can therefore not be discussed. Identifying the carp breeding season and manipulating the wetland water levels accordingly to desiccate carp eggs is a management possibility currently under research. If Sugar Shack Lagoon is indeed a carp recruiting wetland the control of carp either through fish screens (which will be used for the present) or water level manipulation, depending on research findings, is or should become, respectively, an objective of the management of this wetland. The simplest identified option for adequate restoration of Sugar Shack Lagoon, according to the Baseline Survey, is the re-establishment of habitat (Australian Water Environments 2005). They suggest stock exclusion trials to encourage riparian regeneration.

22

Sugar Shack Wetland Management Plan Table 8: Native fish; Table adapted from (Australian Water Environments 2005)

Common Name

Scientific Name

Abundance November

Abundance April

Australian smelt

Retropinna semoni

388

127

Bony herring (bream)

Nematalosa erebi

408

254

Flathead gudgeon

Philypnodon grandiceps

17

24

Dwarf Flathead gudgeon

Philypnodon sp.

4

3

Un-specked hardyhead

Craterocephalus stercusmuscarum fulvus

4

0

Murray rainbowfish

Melanotaenia fluviatilis

0

1

Carp gudgeon (two species and hybrid form)

Hypseleotris spp 202

111

Murray Darling golden perch (callop)

Macquaria ambigua

4

0

7

6

Status SA

Australia

R

V

ambigua

Number of Species

R = Rare (taxon in decline or naturally limited presence), V = Vulnerable (high risk of extinction in wild), E = Endangered (very high risk of extinction in wild) (Anonymous 1999; National Parks and Wildlife Council and Department for Environment and Heritage 2003)

Table 9: Introduced fish; Table adapted from (Australian Water Environments 2005)

Common Name

Scientific Name

Common Carp

Cyprinus carpio

Goldfish

Abundance

Abundance

November 2003

April 2004 274

10

Carassius auratus

0

2

Redfin

Perca fluviatilis

1

0

Gambusia

Gambusia holbrooki

161

452

Number of Species

3

3

(iv) Implications for management Birds

The muddy areas surrounding the wetland provide feeding habitat for wadders. The red gum hollows provide nesting areas for both water birds and non-water birds. The management of Sugar Shack Lagoon, from the perspective of birds, again identifies the need for a regional flood. A regional flood would induce birds to take advantage of the vegetation present that would provide breeding habitat. Frogs

Most of the frog species identified require vegetation including reeds at or close to the waters edge. Therefore to assist the survival of the identified frog species the vegetation at the waters edge of Sugar Shack Lagoon needs to be restored. Fish

Further fish monitoring, conducted by the community group, to elicit a comprehensive list of fish species dependent on Sugar Shack Lagoon is recommended by the baseline survey (Australian Water Environments 2005). This list would assist in planning future management for the 23

Sugar Shack Wetland Management Plan

encouragement of the maintenance and development of appropriate fish habitat. In the mean time the removal of exotic species is encouraged. The best method for the removal of the exotic fish present in the wetland would be the construction of a flow control barrier, followed by the drying of the wetland. Active removal (rescue) of native fish species would be recommended at the start of the drying event, this could be used as a monitoring exercise. To enhance the habitat availability for native specialist species within Sugar Shack Lagoon more snags, such as dead red gum branches, could be introduced into the open water of the wetland. The germination and growth of emergent and submerged macrophytes needs to be encouraged throughout the wetland. The drying of the wetland would initiate this germination. To protect the growth of the germinated vegetation, both riparian and aquatic (submerged and emergent macrophytes) areas of the wetland edge needs to be fenced off, this fencing is also recommended by the baseline survey. The water level fluctuations within the wetland also need to be controlled to the advantage of the native specialist species. Further, the water level fluctuations could in the future also be used for carp control; this however depends on future research and should not adversely impact the native fish species. For the native specialist species the water level fluctuations should be more gradual coinciding with the „natural‟ seasonality. The installation of carp screens is recommended at this wetland given the very large carp seen. Summary

Based on the review of the fauna identified during the baseline survey some management strategies required could be identified. Hydrological management entails the drying of the wetland. This should stimulate the germination of macrophytes as well as compact some of the clay substrate. During this time native fish should be rescued. The reintroduction of snags through submerging red gum branches should be considered in order to provide increased habitat. On land in the riparian area, a management focus should be on stock exclusion from sensitive riparian area and into the waters edge. This should benefit the vegetation restoration and therefore stabilise some of the currently resuspending sediment. The increased vegetation growth would also provide habitat for the birds, frogs, fish and macroinvertebrates. The main regional management issue is the increase in regional flooding levels and frequency. This is needed to restore riparian vegetation germination and regrowth and survival as well as minimise the potential salinity impact, which may be occurring. This requirement has been identified for both Sugar Shack Lagoon and Morgan‟s Lagoon some 7 km upstream. Stock exclusion should also be considered when a regional flood event leads to the regeneration of floodplain vegetation including river red gums. This may assist the survival of the floodplain vegetation proving a more diverse riparian habitat in the wetland area.

24

Sugar Shack Wetland Management Plan

Chapter 3. LAND TENURE, MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS

JURISDICTION

AND

SECTION 3.01 LAND TENURE Surrounding Area: Tenure Type in surrounding area is Crown Lease held mainly by Indigenous Land Corp, the custodian being Richard and Cynthia Hunter. A map covering the property borders across the wetland area is presented in Map 5 on page 26.

SECTION 3.02 LAND AND WATER USE There is some traditional use of the area. This impact is minimal throughout the complex and does not impact Sugar Shack Lagoon. The current land use in the complex is light grazing which includes approximately 100 goats (permanent number plus offspring of 2 kids twice per year), 30 cattle (lowline), one horse and two sheep. There is no other land use or irrigation present. The current land use is for cost recovery for land maintenance (lease etc.).

SECTION 3.03 JURISDICTION AND MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY The Indigenous Land Corp will be responsible for the management of the wetland. Access to the property must be arranged through the Landholder. The contact person is Cynthia Hunter, the current caretaker of the property. The wetland falls within the Mid Murray LAP area. See Table 10 below for contact details. Table 10: Sugar Shack Lagoon responsible positions contact details

Position Landholders/ Caretakers

Present Officers Cynthia & Richard Hunter

Mid Murray LAP Judy Project Officer Pfeiffer

Organisation

Mailing Address

Indigenous Land Corp

PO Box 58

Nildottie

SA 5238

(08) 8570-1048

Mid Murray LAP

PO Box 10

Cambrai SA 5353

(08) 8564 6034

Wetland Tumi Lower LAPS Management Bjornsson Planning Officer Wetland Project Adrienne Officer, Lower Frears Murray

Phone number

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

SA MDB NRM board PO Box 2056

Murray Bridge

SA 5251

(08) 8391 7515

SA 5253

(08) 8232 6753

25

Sugar Shack Wetland Management Plan

Map 5: Cadastral boundaries covering Sugar Shack Lagoon and surrounds.

26

Sugar Shack Wetland Management Plan

Chapter 4. THREATS AND SUGAR SHACK LAGOON

POTENTIAL

SOLUTIONS

TO

There are a number of existing and potential threats to Sugar Shack Lagoon, some of which have become apparent in the description of the wetland and available data in the chapters above. The identification of these threats is essential for appropriate adaptive management of the wetland. Their early recognition allows for an appropriate monitoring strategy for early identification of adverse impacts of management and therefore rapid response through management. The major current threats to the wetland are the lack of regular overbank flooding and stock grazing. Both of these lead to a loss of biodiversity such as riparian vegetation dieback and complete loss of aquatic vegetation. The Baseline Survey (Australian Water Environments 2005) state that as a result of the lack of flooding the condition of plant communities will continue to degrade, and that within 50 years may result in their complete degradation and/or disappearance. Other threats to the wetland identified so far have been listed in Table 11 on page 28. The most immediate threats which can be addressed by this plan is the exclusion of stock from the wetland and wetland fringing zone and the impact of rapid water level change on macrophyte germination and growth. The awareness of these threats is central to future management actions, onground work and monitoring set out in this wetland management plan.

27

Sugar Shack Wetland Management Plan Table 11: Existing and potential threats to Sugar Shack wetland

THREATS

Loss of submerged macrophytes

Lack of flooding

Dieback of floodplain vegetation

Existing

Existing

Rapid water level change

CAUSE

CATEGORY

EXTENT (IF KNOWN)

Regional & Local Local management response

Wetland

Locks and river flow management Lack of water supplies to the Lower River Murray

Dieback of floodplain vegetation Loss of large bird breeding events

River Murray

Evapo-concentration Hydrostatic pressure from river (now held at a constant level)

Salinisation of floodplain Stress and dieback of floodplain vegetation

Regional & Local through to International. Requires a regional response Regional & Local Local management response

Increasing EC of groundwater Increasing salinity in wetland base/soil Rising groundwater table Stressed and dying vegetation

Poor Water Quality: Turbidity

Turbid wetland, loss of macrophytes and potential algal bloom

Bioturbation (Carp & stock) Wind resuspension Algal bloom

Blocking of light penetration and therefore reducing macrophyte growth Lack of macrophytes – less nutrient uptake which become available to algae which are not as impacted on by high turbidity Algal blooms Degradation of habitat quality for fauna (e.g. macroinvertibrates, native fish and birds)

Local & potentially regional

Wetland

Loss of aquatic vegetation

Their absence Generalist fish species dominating Very few specialist fish species Macroinvertebrate population reflecting the lack of habitat Their absence Degraded/dying specimens Bare ground Invasive species present

Stock grazing and pugging Rapid water level fluctuation

Loss of aquatic and bird habitat availability and diversity Loss of seed bank

Local

Wetland

Lack of water (inundation) Weed infestation Grazing

Loss of habitat/breeding hollows (birds) Loss of snags in water body Loss of windbreak

Regional & Local

Lower River Murray

Potential

Saline groundwater

Existing Existing

BIOTIC

IMPACT Dieback of submerged macrophytes Loss of habitat variability for Fauna (Birds, Fish, Frogs, Turtles, Macroinvertebrates)

Shallow wetland River level fluctuation

Potential

ABIOTIC

SYMPTOM

Loss of native riparian vegetation Red Gums & groundcover species etc.

Floodplain

POTENTIAL SOLUTION Rigorous control of flow control structure (this will impact on the fish movement) Allow fluctuation except when very low river levels are anticipated Addressed in this Management Plan Increase regional flooding (not in the scope of this management plan) Greater environmental flows (National approach needed) To minimise potential impact on wetland, monitor groundwater salinity. Adaptively manage future wetland drying periods based on monitored results. Exclude large carp (this would minimise the impact of the feeding behaviour of carp) Exclude stock Restoration of macrophytes through appropriate hydrology (macrophytes have been shown to increase sedimentation within wetlands and therefore reduce turbidity) Restoration of fringing vegetation (the riparian vegetation will act as a windbreak and may therefore reduce wind induced resuspension, the maintenance of this vegetation through flooding is a regional issue) Addressed in this Management Plan Inundate wetland

Inundate floodplain (not in the scope of this management plan) Fence of successful regrowth (Some has been included in the stock exclusion fencing)

28

Sugar Shack Wetland Management Plan

SYMPTOM

IMPACT

EXTENT (IF KNOWN)

POTENTIAL SOLUTION

Lack of habitat Destruction of habitat (macrophytes) through carp and grazing

Threat to specialist species (2 species identified as vulnerable or rare)

Local and Regional

Wetland (SA)

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

Turbid wetlands Reduction in native fish diversity and abundance

Well known environmental problem in region (large pest population), introduced for various reasons including mosquito control, aquaculture and aquarium industry (discarded specimens) Rapid breeding cycles (Carp ~2/year), live bearing (gambusia), unpalatable eggs (Redfin) Predation on native fish (redfin) Degradation of native vegetation

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)

Regional and local (Managed locally)

Wetland

Fish grills to exclude large specimens. Removal of large carp during dry phase Monitor abundance of invasive species with comparative monitoring of abundance of native species Future consideration of water level manipulation to desiccate carp eggs

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

Local

Floodplain

Active removal as per expert recommendation

Loss of emergent vegetation and therefore habitat for fish, frogs and birds Degradation of groundcover in floodplain Damage of soil structure (pugging) Resuspension of sediment in wetland

Local

Floodplain

Local

Wetland

Consider the removal of carp screens when breeding not in progress

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

Local

Floodplain

Active removal as per expert recommendation

Causes decrease in water and increase in salinity

Local

Wetland

Ameliorated by installation of proper culvert/structure and Reed maintenance if needed

Existing

Their presence

Lack of ground cover vegetation Lack of emergent macrophytes

Grazing Hoof damage Pugging Compaction

No habitat development for larger native fish species

Reduction/low numbers of large native fish

Fish screens

Existing

Stock

Potential Potential Potential

CATEGORY

Low numbers in specialist species

Weeds

BIOTIC

CAUSE

Reduction of native fish and biodiversity

Existing

Existing

THREATS

Increase in Weeds

Increased presence

Blocking of inlet channel with reeds/sediment/lack of flows

Blocking of flow channel

Less grazing pressure No competition with native species

Low flow in channel Reed growth Sedimentation

Loss of recruitment and grow out habitat Loss of potential increase in abundance of large native fish

Restore wetland habitat

Stock exclusion fencing

29

Sugar Shack Wetland Management Plan

Chapter 5. MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES Based on the objectives presented in Section 1.02(c) on page 2 and the threats to the wetland discussed in Chapter 4 on page 27, management objectives can now be developed in detail. The objectives, including solutions, actions needed and priorities are detailed in Table 12 on page 31. Adaptive management will drive the actions undertaken to achieve the objectives. Due to the identified potential threats to the wetland, stock exclusion is underway through fencing around the wetland (see Chapter 6 on page 33). A minor review of the objectives based on the monitored data is recommended every year with a major review after 5 years.

30

Sugar Shack Wetland Management Plan Table 12: Management objectives for Sugar Shack Lagoon wetland.

Native

SOLUTIONS

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

QUANTIFIABLE /MEASURE OF ACHIEVEMENT

MONITOR (TIMING)

Regeneration of wetland aquatic species (Improved water plant communities)

Management of inundation/drying periods Manage water regime to trigger/induce aquatic and riparian vegetation regeneration (Aim for key wetland species)

Diversity of aquatic species (presence of emergent and submerged macrophytes) Maintain clear wetland (Turbidity NTU 80 for 75% of time)

Photo point (Y) Vegetation survey (Y) Monitor water quality (M)

WAP (water license)

High Covered by this plan

Regeneration of fringing vegetation

Manage water regime to restore fringing vegetation Exclude stock

Construct flow control structures (ES) Close flow control gates (dry wetland) (M) Open flow control gates (M) Establish a water regime which includes wetting and drying cycles to induce germination adaptively (see Section 6.02 on page 36) Allow flooding when possible

Photo point (Y) Vegetation survey (Y)

WAP (water license)

Medium

Removal of weeds from wetland area

Establish weed removal projects in the wetland area

Weed control as per expert recommendations

Reduction of weeds (as per expert assessment)

Vegetation survey (Y)

N/A

Low

Restore native fish habitat

Manage water regime to restore habitat values for native fish and therefore enhance their breeding. Improved fish habitat through improved and more diverse ecological niches, such as macrophytes (emergent and submerged), snags (therefore need riparian vegetation) and open water. With increased snags and aquatic vegetation more food sources, biofilms etc. would be available. This would lead to an increased diversity and abundance of small native fish, which 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 aquatic and riparian vegetation Allow free movement of small native fish between Yactko Creek and Sugar Shack lagoon

Dry wetland (M) Open flow control gates (ES) Control refilling speed to optimize for aquatic vegetation germination and growth (M) Maintenance of a stable still water environment (M) Increase snags in wetland (ES)

Maintenance or increase in fish diversity (No net loss) Increase abundance of specialist species (at least double) No more than 30% reduction in generalist species

WAP (water license) to control water within the wetland

High

N/A

High

FISH

Native

Invasive

VEGETATION

Native

MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES

Native

Minimize adverse impact on native fish entering wetland

Removal of flow control structures when river levels adequate to maintain water level in wetland (M)

Vegetation germination and growth No grazing damage of vegetation

Presence of native fish in wetland

Fish survey (Y)

Fish survey sites (Y)

LEGISLATION

PRIORITY

31

Sugar Shack Wetland Management Plan

Invasive

ACTIONS (MANAGEMENT (M) OR ENGINEERING OR STRUCTURAL (ES))

QUANTIFIABLE /MEASURE OF ACHIEVEMENT

MONITOR (TIMING)

Reduce threat of invasive fish species

Restrict invasion by large carp Manage water regime to desiccate carp eggs

Installation of fish grills (M) Manage wetland water regime to minimize turbidity and maintain aquatic vegetation (M)

Presence of invasive fish species in wetland (No large carp, reduced carp to native fish ration)

Fish survey (Y) Observation (Carp come to surface)

Medium

Maintain diversity of frogs

Not adversely impact on present habitat

Restoration of fringing vegetation (M)

Monitor frogs

Medium

Improved habitat for water birds

Manage water regime to restore habitat values for water birds Manage water regime to restore habitat values for migratory bird species

Restoration of wetland habitat and conditions for native fish species, migratory water birds, native water birds and fringing species, through the restoration of aquatic and riparian plant species (M) Restore hydrology regime (M)

Increase bird species reliant on fringing vegetation using wetland (3 more species) Increase in habitat diversity

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

Medium

Salinity

Manage water regime to minimise salinity impact of management strategy

Monitor water quality (adaptive management, i.e. alter the management of the wetland if a net increase in salinity is identified)

Monitor wetland salinity (no net increase over time after inundation)

Monitor water quality (Q)

Low

Turbidity

Manage water regime to minimise turbidity of wetland water, maximising the wetland restoration Remove large carp Remove stock access

Establish an wetland dry phase, every second year, to promote sediment compaction (to reduce resuspension) and macrophyte growth (and therefore induce sedimentation) (M) Remove large carp during drying phase Install fish screens Fence off wetland Engineering design Construction

Monitor water quality (M) Observation

Medium

Native/Migratory

Native

SOLUTIONS

WQ Structural

MANAGEMENT

WQ

BIRDS

FROGS

FISH

MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES

Construction of culvert with flow control structure and large fish screens

Apply for funding

Construction of stock exclusion fence

LAP funding

Construction

No reduction in frog diversity

Visibly clear water Turbidity of wetland water below 80 NTU for majority of time ( 75%)

Presence of culvert

Asap

Presence of fence

Asap

LEGISLATION

Mid Murray Council Planning approval

PRIORITY

High

High

WMP, Wetland Management Plan; GW, Ground Water; WQ, Water Quality; W, Weekly; M, Monthly; Q, Quarterly; Y, Yearly

32

Sugar Shack Wetland Management Plan

Chapter 6. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Management actions have been developed based on the threats to the wetland, the management objectives, the baseline survey data and the vision/mission statement. These management actions include on-groundwork as well as the alteration of the wetland hydrological regime. A monitoring plan, designed to assist in adaptive management of the wetland and therefore focus on the fulfilment of the vision statement, is discussed in the next chapter (Chapter 7 on page 41). The major on ground actions identified include: Fence off Sugar Shack Lagoon from stock grazing (see Map 6 on page 34) Design of flow control structures and carp grills (see Appendix E) Construction of flow control structures and carp grills (see Map 6 on page 34) Drying of wetland for 3 to 6 months Inundate wetland (see hydrology operational plan Section 6.02 on page 36) Monitoring (see monitoring plan Chapter 7 on page 41)

SECTION 6.01 ON GROUND ACTION AND TIMETABLE Table 13, on page 35, provides a timetable for the on ground works in Sugar Shack Lagoon area, prior to inundation, during inundation as well as post inundation. This table does not address monitoring, which is discussed in Chapter 7 on page 41. A log of all activities should be maintained. This log would assist in the review process of the wetland management plan discussed in Chapter 8 on page 43.

33

Sugar Shack Wetland Management Plan

Map 6: On ground works at Sugar Shack Lagoon.

34

Sugar Shack Wetland Management Plan Table 13: Implementation plan for Sugar Shack Lagoon land based activities.

AS APPROPRIATE

DURING INUNDATION

DURING WETLAND DRY PHASE

PRIOR TO WETLAND MANAGEMENT

ACTIVITY

PRIORITY

RESOURCES

Construct stock exclusion fence

High

Fencing material (Funding – Mid Murray LAP) Capable individuals

Spring - Summer 2005/6

Land holder

Design of culvert (see Appendix E for inlet channel morphology) Construction of culvert

High

Engineer Consultant

Summer 2005 – Autumn 2006

High

Funding Contractors etc.

Summer 2005 – Autumn 2006

Land holder with assistance from the LAP Land holder with assistance from the LAP

Fish nets (seine net)

Autumn

Land holder with assistance, if necessary, from the LAP or SA MDB NRM board

Tape measure Bailer Containers to collect water samples (SA MDB NRM board can measure salinity) 1 person 5 minutes

Monthly during dry phase (see monitoring schedule Chapter 7 on page 41)

Land holder with assistance from the SA MDB NRM board

September

Land holder

1 person 15 minutes/day for time that culvert is open

September

Land holder

While the deep flow channel is inundated – Fish survey (release native fish into Yactko creek, destroy exotic species)

Medium

Monitor Ground water (height and salinity). Follow schedule in Chapter 7 on page 41

High

Install fish exclusion grills

High

Inundate wetland Less than 1cm/day (needs to maintain flow path clear, i.e. remove debris from exclusion mesh) Maintain wetland volume. That could involve the reinsertion of flow control structures (Stop logs) if the river levels are expected to drop well below 0.8 m AHD. The wetland may otherwise dry out when the management intention is to maintain a wet phase. Monitor according to monitoring schedule Chapter 7 on page 41

High

TIMETABLE

RESPONSIBILITY

High

Stop Logs (Culvert needs to be in place) 1 person

As Appropriate

Land holder

High

See monitoring schedule Chapter 7 on page 41

See monitoring schedule Chapter 7 on page 41

Respond to issues identified during ongoing management (e.g. increase in weeds)

High

Annual review of monitoring data

Winter

Land holder with assistance, if necessary, from the LAP or SA MDB NRM board Land holder with assistance from the LAP or SA MDB NRM board

Insert snags (red gum branches) if available

Low

Branches Manpower

During dry phase

Land holder

Establish whether high turbidity is a result of suspended sediment or algae

Low

Sampling Funding

As necessary

Land holder with assistance from the LAP or SA MDB NRM board

35

Sugar Shack Wetland Management Plan

SECTION 6.02 WETLAND WATER OPERATIONAL PLAN The strongest tool in managing a wetland is the control of the wetland hydrology. The hydrology controls the germination and growth of aquatic and riparian vegetation. The healthy vegetation and appropriate inundation leads to the growth of biofilm, the vegetation and biofilm being a food source for macroinvertebrates and small native fish. The vegetation and appropriate water regime also provide a more diverse habitat for waterbirds and fish. The restoration of Sugar Shack Lagoon and fulfilment of the major objectives, the restoration of a complex wetland ecosystem, is therefore reliant upon the establishment of an appropriate water regime. Sugar Shack Lagoon has presently a highly and rapidly fluctuating water regime (Australian Water Environments 2005). The management of the wetland will attempt to minimise this rapid fluctuation and mimic more natural fluctuations expected to occur in Lower River Murray wetlands. This would include dry periods and therefore the re-establishment of wet and dry periods. When Sugar Shack Lagoon is filled to a depth of 0.8 meter, the water surface area covers approximately 26 ha, (the surface area identified by Thompson (Thompson 1986) and the Wetlands Atlas of the South Australian Murray Valley (Jensen, Paton et al. 1996) is 30 ha which includes a small side extension of the wetland). The volume of the wetland at 26 ha is 132 ML. By re-establishing an appropriate seasonal and slowly fluctuating water regime, adapted to the current conditions in the River Murray and Sugar Shack Lagoon, it is anticipated that the macrophyte germination and growth can be encouraged. The increased growth of macrophytes would provide increased habitat than currently available for macroinvertebrates, fish, amphibians and water birds. The management of the hydrology regime and the fill rate, volume and drying stage will be based on observed conditions and on monitored data. Adaptive management of Sugar Shack Lagoon is controlled through the 5-year hydrological operational plan (HOP), which is described in Table 14 on page 39. This intended hydrological regime is described below and shown in Figure 21 and Figure 22 on page 38. The HOP includes an assessment of the water volumes needed annually over the 5-year period (Table 16on page 40). At the end of each inundation season a decision should be made as to whether the hydrology regime intended is to be followed based on monitored data and past experiences, this would be as part of an annual review of the wetland management plan (WMP). An annual review of the WMP is essential for best practice management to guide efforts according to the vision and therefore objectives. This will assist to assess whether the submerged vegetation has set seed and if the wetland is due for a dry period. (a) HYDROLOGY REGIME The wetland hydrology regime (management) intended for Sugar Shack Lagoon is as follows: Stage 1. Dry the wetland following construction of flow control. Wetland should remain dry for at least 3 months and no more than 6. Drying should therefore commence at the end of February beginning of March. The first dry period will include drying the deep flow channel into the wetland. All following dry events will maintain the pool within the flow channel as a refuge for native fish. Stage 2. Refill the wetland. Refill can proceed rapidly between depth of - 0.8 m AHD and 0.4 m AHD. This depth is in the flow channel and should fill rapidly. No macrophyte growth is desired in the flow channel. The filling of the wetland following this initial fill stage should proceed slowly at maximally 2cm depth per day. The filling should take between 6 and 8 weeks. Stage 3. (Not part of water licence) If the water level is adequate (i.e. small scale flooding has occurred) the wetland should be brought to 1.4 m AHD, which includes the side wetland. If this is not possible during this time it will remain an option during spring to early summer if the river level should allow it. The 1.4 m AHD should be held for as long as possible up to 7 month in duration (4 minimum aimed for). 36

Sugar Shack Wetland Management Plan

Stage 4. The 0.8 m AHD water level should be strived for, for the wet part of a two-year wet dry cycle. This would allow the macrophytes to set seed (Tucker, Harper et al. 2002). Prior to redrying there needs to be a confirmation that the macrophytes have seeded. This would be achieved through monitoring. Stage 5. Return to stage 1. A representation of these stages is made in Figure 21 and Figure 22 on page 38. Water allocation (WA) required during year 1 (September to September) is expressed in Equation 1, see Figure 22 on page 38 for a description of the parameters. This initial year can include an overfill volume to simulate a flood in the side wetland. This would optimally be conducted in the first year but may be aimed for in consecutive years if the water levels do not allow the „flooding‟, the water allocation required for a „flood‟ is calculated using Equation 2. The water allocation required during a normal wet (September to August) is expressed in Equation 3. Only the evaporation is needed to calculate the water volume in dry years. In these „dry‟ years the deep flow channel is left inundated, the surface area during this time reduces and consequently the evaporation. The calculated water allocation requirements for Sugar Shack Lagoon over the period of the wetland management plan are calculated in Table 15 on page 40 and presented in Table 16 on page 40. Equation 1: WA 1

Rfv 1

Equation 2: WA 4

Xv

Equation 3: WA 1

Rfv 2

Ev

Ev Ev

The evaporation rates were obtained using the Wetland Loss Calculator obtained from RMWCMB. The details of the estimated volume of evaporation used for the calculation of water requirements can be seen in see Appendix G. 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 (Croucher 2005). A salinity assessment will be conducted on Sugar Shack Lagoon once the model is available for use, a brief report outlining the results of this modelling will be included in the plan in the future.

37

Sugar Shack Wetland Management Plan

Relative rapid refill in channel of wetland

Slow refill between 1 & 2 cm/day. Promote aquatic plant growth (emergent and submerged macrophytes). Monitor for success & adjust fill rate.

Allow seasonal variability

Compact sediment. Kill exotic fish. Rescue native fish. Develop habitat for fish, frogs and birds.

Revise Wetland Management Plan

Evaporation

Draw down, provide mudflat for wadders.

1.4

m AHD

0.8

Overfill wetland and into side wetland during spring (if conditions allow, excess water available) to provide a variable habitat, extra breeding areas for native fish and frogs as well as water riparian vegetation. Overfill can be attempted in any fill year during spring/summer.

0.4

-0.8

September

January

January

September

January

September

January

September

January

September

January

Figure 21: 5 year water regime scenario for Sugar Shack Lagoon (benefit description) Ev1 = Evaporation during refill (average surface area used for evaporation calculation) Ev2 = Evaporation during normal volume Ev3 = Evaporation during dry event

Revise Wetland Management Plan

Ev4 = Evaporation during „flood‟ Rfv1 = Required fill volume after complete dry Rfv2 = Required fill volume after wetland bed dry Xv = Extra volume (for side wetland, flood simulation)

Water Operational Year 2

Water Operational Year 1 Ev1

1.4

Ev4 Xv

Ev3

Water Operational Year 4

Water Operational Year 5 Ev2

Ev3

Ev2

m AHD

0.8

Ev2

Water Operational Year 3

Rfv2

Rfv2 0.4

Rfv1

-0.8

September

January Stage

1

2a&b

January 3

September

January

4

5

September 2b

January 4

September

January 5

September 2b

4

See next page for a description of each stage

Figure 22: 5 year water regime scenario for Sugar Shack Lagoon (volume description) 38

Sugar Shack Wetland Management Plan Table 14: 5 year hydrological operational plan (HOP) for Sugar Shack Lagoon

Stage

Stage description

Water Level Depth (m) Measured @ deepest point of wetland.

1 2a

2b

3a 3b 4

5

Wetland Depth (m AHD)

Timing

Triggers

-0.8 0.4

March to August September

Closing of „new‟ flow control structures. Opening of structure. The inundation of this area may proceed very quickly as the volume required is not great. The „channel‟ is filled and the inflowing water spreads onto wetland base. Maintain appropriate water inflow rate to induce macrophyte germination and support growth. Macrophyte healthy. Shallow sections used by wadders, fish etc.

Drying wetland Refill wetland inflow channel. Can be filled rapidly as macrophyte growth is not wanted in the flow channel. The flow is reduced to 1 to 2 cm/day to allow macrophyte germination and growth.

0 1.2

Centre (average) depth of wetland. Actual depth 0 0

1.6

0.4

0.8

September

The water level maintained at 1.4 m AHD for up to 7 months if possible * Slow draw down to 0.8 m AHD depth Maintenance of wetland volume with seasonal variation. Water regime change stabilised to occur slowly rather than the current rapid change. This could entail inserting the stop logs at 1 m AHD if the river level is expected to drop to ensure the wetland does not go below its pool volume during an intended wet year. Drying wetland Return to Stage 2b

2.2

1

1.4

Summer

1.8

0.4

0.8

1.6

0.4

0.8

Late Summer/Autumn Seasonal requirements. September „higher‟ reducing in late summer.

0.8

0

0.4

Drop in river levels. Maintenance of the „flood‟ no longer possible (Mudflats for wadders). Water levels in river, in wetland and the season.

Autumn

Submerged and emergent macrophytes have completed seeding cycle. Closing of flow control structures. Water retained in flow pool. * This length of inundation would be good for riparian vegetation and for fish and water birds breeding in the area. However, it is unlikely that it will be possible to maintain this level of inundation without a regional approach to hydrology management. Grey areas not relevant to current water license application.

39

Sugar Shack Wetland Management Plan Table 15: Water use calculation

Volume (ML) * Rfv1**

Rfv2**

Dry Year (Years 2 & 4) Wet Year (Years 3 & 5)

90 180

Overfill (not needed for license)

Total Annual Water Requirement (ML)

350

480 (see Equation 1)

260

260

350

440 (see Equation 3)

40

220 (see Equation 2)

Xv**

130

First Year

Potential Evaporation (ML) **

* Obtained from the baseline survey (Australian Water Environments 2005) ** Rounded to nearest 10 ML

Table 16: Water allocation requirements

Year 1

First Year

480 ML

Year 2

Dry Year

260 ML

Year 3

Wet Year

440 ML

Year 4

Dry Year

260 ML

Year 5

Wet Year

440 ML

40

Sugar Shack Wetland Management Plan

Chapter 7. MONITORING For the development of a wetland management plan for Sugar Shack Lagoon baseline monitoring was performed in the period 2004 to 2005. The data collected during this survey has been described and analysed in the previous chapters of this document and provided a basis by which objectives for the wetland management could be refined and the hydrological operational plan could be developed. As part of adaptive management and best practise wetland management, monitoring of the wetland has been devised to guide the future management of the changed hydrological regime. That is, ongoing monitoring during wetland management plays a role in adaptive management by providing managers with information on how the wetland is responding to management strategies, whether the objectives are being met, whether there are off-target implications (wetland in regional context) or (as per Your Wetland: Monitoring Manual (Tucker 2004)) whether the “Golden Rules” are being broken. The “Golden Rules” being: Don‟t salinise your wetland. Don‟t kill long lived vegetation. Don‟t destroy threatened communities or habitats of threatened species. Table 17 on page 42 sets out the intended monitoring schedule for the wetland based on the objectives and the ability of the community and supporting agencies. 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. A copy of the monitoring data should be regularly backed up (or copied) and stored at a separate location so as to minimise potential loss or destruction of the data. 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. Refer to Your Wetland: Monitoring Manual (Tucker 2004) for examples of data log sheets and further description of monitoring methods.

41

Sugar Shack Wetland Management Plan Table 17: Monitoring plan for Sugar Shack Lagoon.

Parameter

Method

Priority

Groundwater

Level and Conductivity

HIGH

Surface Water

Fish

HIGH

Surface level (using gauge boards)

HIGH

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

HIGH

Photopoint Installation Vegetation



Water quality monitoring (cond, turb, temp)



Macroinvertebrates



Half day

Land holder with assistance from SA MDB NRM board





Half day

Land holder









0.5 hour

Land holder

1 day

Land holder with assistance from SA MDB NRM board



1 day (prior to first drying event)

LAP & SA MDB NRM board



2 hours

LAP & SA MDB NRM board

Set up 2 days,

LAP & SA MDB NRM board

0.5 hour

Land holder with assistance from SA MDB NRM board





























HIGH HIGH

Quadrat/line intercept*

MODERATE



















MODERATE Recording Calls

Birds

Responsible





Photopoint monitoring

Frogs

Time Required

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

Fixed area search





Land holder with Half day (from assistance from SA dawn) MDB NRM board

MODERATE 

Dip net survey LOW 







1 day (not Land holder with including assistance from SA identification) MDB NRM board

42

Sugar Shack Wetland Management Plan

Chapter 8. EVALUATION, REVIEW AND REPORTING SECTION 8.01 EVALUATION AND REVIEW The review of the implications of changed management of Sugar Shack Lagoon needs to be an ongoing process. For the wetland management plan to be an adaptive and complete document, periodic reviews have been scheduled in the monitoring and evaluation framework. The full impact of a changed hydrology regime and the effectiveness of the new regime cannot be fully predicted, nor can the exact timing of a change in water regime. Therefore, the data obtained through monitoring need to be regularly reviewed to respond to impacts of the management strategy. An annual review of the monitored data and the condition of the wetland should be conducted by the Community group, if necessary assistance is be available from the Mid Murray 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 include an upgrade of the; Hydrological regime based on new knowledge and understanding, e.g. whether the submerged macrophytes have set seed and therefore if a planned dry period can continue as scheduled. Decision Support Framework based on experiences and monitoring, e.g. does this framework fulfil the requirements demanded of it or does it need a review. Monitoring schedule to reflect changes in the wetland management plan.

SECTION 8.02 REPORTING The wetland management plan for Sugar Shack lagoon 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 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 planed hydrology regime change, also need to be reported to DWLBC.

43

Sugar Shack Wetland Management Plan

Chapter 9. REFERENCES Anonymous Australian Heritage Database. Accessed 18 July 2005, http://www.deh.gov.au/cgibin/ahdb/search.pl?mode=place_detail;place_id=7883. Anonymous (1999). Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. Australian Water Environments (2005). Sugar Shack Wetlands Baseline Survey. Adelaide, Australian Water Environments. BOM (2005). Climate Averages. Accessed 27 June 2005, http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_024018.shtml. Croucher, D. (2005). Personal Communication. Department of Water Land and Biodiversity Conservation (2005a). AW426902: MURRAY RIVER @ Lock 1 Upstream (274.3km). Accessed 31 August 2005, http://www.dwlbc.sa.gov.au/subs/surface_water_archive/sites/aw426902/aw426902.htm. Department of Water Land and Biodiversity Conservation (2005b). AW426903: MURRAY RIVER @ Lock 1 Downstream (274.3km). Accessed 31 August 2005, http://www.dwlbc.sa.gov.au/subs/surface_water_archive/sites/aw426903/aw426903.htm. Hunter, C. (2005a). Personal Communication. Hunter, R. (2005b). Personal Communication. Jensen, A., P. Paton, et al. (1996). Wetlands Atlas of the South Australian Murray Valley. ADELAIDE, South Australian River Murray Wetlands Management Committee. South Australian Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Murray-Darling Ministerial Council (1998). Floodplain Wetlands Management Strategy: For the Murray-Darling Basin. Canberra, Murray-Darling Basin Commission. A component of the Natural Resources Management Strategy National Parks and Wildlife Council and Department for Environment and Heritage (2003). 2003 Review of the Status of Threatened Species in South Australia: Proposed Schedules under the South Australian National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972, Government of South Australia. Discussion Paper River Murray Catchment Water Management Board (2002). Water Allocation Plan for the River Murray Prescribed Watercourse. Berri, South Australia, Government of South Australia. River Murray Catchment Water Management Board and Department of Water Land and Biodiversity Conservation (2003). Guidelines for Development of Wetland Management Plans for the River Murray in South Australia. Scott, A. (1997). Relationships between waterbird ecology and river flows in the Murray-Darling Basin. Canberra, CSIRO Land and Water. Technical Report South Australian River Murray Wetlands Management Committee (1996). Management of Wetlands of the River Murray Valley: Draft Action Plan 1996-1999. Adelaide, Wetlands Management Program: Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 44

Sugar Shack Wetland Management Plan

Thompson, M. B. (1986). River Murray Wetlands, their Characteristics, Significance and Management. Adelaide, Department of Environment and Planning and Nature Conservation Society of S.A. Tucker, P. (2004). Your Wetland: Monitoring Manual - Data Collection. Renmark SA, River Murray Catchment Water Management Board Australian Landscape Trust. Tucker, P., S. Dominelli, et al. (2003). Your Wetland: Supporting Information. Renmark SA, Australian Landscape Trust. Tucker, P., M. Harper, et al. (2002). Your Wetland: Hydrology Guidelines. Renmark SA, Australian Landscape Trust.

45

Sugar Shack Wetland Management Plan

Appendix A. Wetlands Atlas Data for Wetland Main Body Table 18: Swan Reach Complex, Wetland atlas data (Jensen, Paton et al. 1996)

Wetland atlas data

Wetland atlas data

Sugar Shack Only

Area

732169.6

30ha

Perimeter

17220.57

Wetlands_

1104

Wetlands_i

1103

As2482 Aus_wetlan

44190 S0092

Thom_wetla Thom_chang Wetland_na

SWAN REACH COMPLEX

Complex_na

Self-contained unit

hydrological

Cons_value

1

Mdbc_distn

4

Water_regi

PERMANENT/TEMPORARY COMBINATION

Internatio

0

National

1

Basin

1

Valley

1

High_conse

1

Moderate_c

0

Low_conser

0

Should_rea

0

Should_ass

0

Permanent/temporary

46

Sugar Shack Wetland Management Plan

Appendix B. Surface Water Archive Graph DWLBC, Surface Water Archive Period

5 Year

Plot Start

00:00_01/01/2000

Interval

1 Day

Plot End

00:00_01/01/2005

AW426903

HYPLOT V128 Output 14/10/2004

2000-05

MURRAY RIVER @ Lock 1 Downstream (274.3km) 100.10

Line

Level (m)

Daily Read

3.2

2.7

2.2

1.7

1.2

0.7

0.2 2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Figure 23: Downstream water level at Lock 1

47

Sugar Shack Wetland Management Plan

Appendix C. Baseline Survey Locations Maps adapted from baseline survey report (Australian Water Environments 2005)

Figure 24: Ground water and gauge board locations

Ground water in red, gauge board in blue.

48

Sugar Shack Wetland Management Plan

Figure 25: Photopoint and water level monitoring sites

49

Sugar Shack Wetland Management Plan

Figure 26: Sugar Shack Lagoon fish survey sites

Figure 27: Sugar Shack Lagoon vegetation monitoring sites

50

Sugar Shack Wetland Management Plan

Appendix D. Baseline Survey Vegetation Zones

Figure 28: Sugar Shack Lagoon ecological zones

51

Sugar Shack Wetland Management Plan

Appendix E. Sugar Shack Inlet Channel

52

Sugar Shack Wetland Management Plan

Appendix F.

Species List for Sugar Shack Lagoon

SECTION F.01 FLORA (a) RIPARIAN AND FLOODPLAIN SPECIES Plant species at Sugar Shack are presented in Table 19 below (adapted from River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey (Australian Water Environments 2005). Conservation Rating

Plant Association 2

3a

*

*

3b 4

5

MU

1 SA

AUS

Common Name

Strata

Species

Introduced

Table 19: Plant species at Sugar Shack Lagoon

1

Eucalyptus camaldulensis

River Red Gum

1

Eucalyptus largiflorens

Black Box (River Box)

2

Acacia stenophylla

River Cooba

2

Muehlenbeckia florulenta

Lignum

3

Atriplex semibaccata

Berry Saltbush

3

Atriplex suberecta

Lagoon Saltbush

*

3

Enchylaena tomentosa

Ruby Saltbush

*

3

Eremophila divaricata

Spreading Emubush

3

Maireana rohrlachii

Rohrlach‟s Bluebush

3

Muehlenbeckia horrida

Spiny Lignum

3

Myoporum montanum

Native Myrtle

3

Salsola kali

Buckbush

3

Xanthium californicum

Californian Burr

4

Agrostis avenacea var. avenacea

Common Grass

4

Alternathera denticulata

Lesser Joyweed

4

Amyema miquelii

Box Mistletoe

4

Aster subulatus

Aster Weed

4

Brachycome basaltica gracilis

* *

* *

*

* *

U

R

*

*

*

*

*

* *

U

*

R

*

R

* *

*

* *

*

*

*

* *

Blown

* * *

* R

Swamp Daisy

R

*

var.

4

Bromus rubens

Red Brome

*

4

Carrichtera annua

Wards Weed

*

4

Centipeda minima

Spreading

* U

*

*

53

Sugar Shack Wetland Management Plan Sneezeweed 4

Cirsium vulgare

Spear Thistle

4

Clematis microphylla

Old Man‟s Beard

4

Conyza bonariensis

Flax-leaf Fleabane

4

Cotula vulgaris var. australasica

Slender Cotula

4

Crassula sp.

Crassula/Stonecrop

4

Cressa cretica

Rosinweed

U

4

Eclypta platyglossa

Yellow Twin-heads

U

4

Einadia nutans

Climbing Saltbush

4

Epaltes australis

Spreading heads

4

Eragrostis australasica

Cane-grass

4

Euphorbia drummondii

Caustic Weed

4

Euphorbia terracina

False Caper

4

Heliotropium curassavicum

Smooth Heliotrope

4

Lactuca serriola

Prickly Lettuce

*

4

Lepidium africanum

Common Peppercress

*

4

Maireana brevifolia

Short-leaf Bluebush

4

Medicago polymorpha

Burr Medic

4

Myoporum parvifolium

Creeping Boobialla

4

Oenothera stricta

Evening Primrose

*

*

4

Paspalum disticum

Water Couch

*

*

4

Phyla canescens

Lippia

*

*

4

Picris squarrosa

Squat Picris

4

Plantago cunninghamii

Clay Plantain

4

Pseudognaphalium luteoalbum

Jersey Cudweed

4

Reichardia tingitana

False Sow-thistle

*

*

*

4

Rostraria cristata

Annual Cat‟s Tail

*

*

*

4

Sclerolaena muricata muricata

Five-spine Bindyi var.

Sclerolaena muricata villosa

var.

4

*

*

*

*

* *

* * *

U

*

* *

Nut-

Five-spine Bindyi

*

*

*

* *

* *

*

* *

*

* * *

* *

*

* R

R

*

*

*

*

*

R

*

R

*

*

* * *

*

R

R

*

*

54

Sugar Shack Wetland Management Plan 4

Senecio lautus

Variable Groundsel

*

4

Senecio runcinifolius

Thistle-leaf Groundsel

*

4

Setaria jubiflora

Warrego Summergrass

*

4

Sisymbrium sp.

Wild Mustard

*

*

4

Stenotaphrum secundatum

Buffalo Grass

*

*

4

Teucrium racemosum

Grey Germander

4

Wahlenbergia fluminalis

River Bluebell

5

Bolboschoenus caldwellii

Salt Club-rush

5

Cyperus exaltatus

Splendid sedge

5

Cyperus gymnocaulos

Spiny Flat-sedge

5

Eleocharis acuta

Common rush

5

Juncus aridicola

Inland Rush

5

Ludwigia peploides spp. montevidensis

Water Primrose

5

Marsilea drummondii

Common Nardoo

5

Myriophyllum sp.

Milfoil

*

5

Phragmites australis

Common Reed

*

5

Potamogeton (tricarinatus?)

Floating Pondweed

*

5

Sporobolus mitchellii?

Rat-tail Couch

5

Typha domingensis

Narrow-leaf Bulrush

*

*

U

* Flat-

Spike-

* * *

* *

* *

* *

AUS = Australia, SA = South Australia, MU = Murray Region (R = Rare, U= Uncommon) Strata; 1 = Large tree, 2= Small tree & Tall Shrub, 3 = Small to Medium Shrub, 4 = Ground hugging shrubs, Groundcovers, Tussocks, Herbs, Grasses, Ferns, Annuals, 5 = Reeds, Sedges, Rushes & Aquatic plants Ecological Zone; 1 = Near Shore, 2 = Rising Ground, 3 = Lowland Floodplain (a = Lagoon, b = other), 4= Lignum Shrubland, 5 = Black Box Woodland

55

Sugar Shack Wetland Management Plan

SECTION F.02 WETLAND AND FLOODPLAIN FAUNA (a) BIRDS OF SUGAR SHACK LAGOON Table 20: Waterbird species observed in at Sugar Shack Lagoon, adapted from (Australian Water Environments 2005)

Common Name

Scientific Name

Feeding

Roosting

Status

Abundan ce

Count

Feed

Roost

Habitat Breeding

Species

Australian Shelduck

Tadorna tadornoides

G

S

M, D

Sum

UB

8

S

O

Chenonetta jubata

G

M, L

M, D

Res

CB

20

S

D

Pacific Black Duck

Anas superciliosa

G, L

S, O

O, D, M

Res

UB

18

S, O

O

Grey Teal

Anas gracilis

G

S, O

O, D, M

Res

UB

3

S, O

O, D

Chestnut Teal

Anas castanea

S, O

O, D

Irreg

U

30

S, O

O

Little Cormorant

Phalacrocorax sulcirostris

G

O

G, D

Irreg

U

2

O

D, M

Great Cormorant

Phalacrocorax carbo

G

O

G, D

Irreg

U

2

O

D, M

Australian Pelican

Pelecanus conspicillatus

M

O

O, D, M

Res

C

170

O

O, M

White-faced Heron

Egretta novaehollandiae

G

S, M

G, M

Res

UB

1

S

G

Australian Ibis

Threskiornis molucca

G, L

S, M

G, D, M

Res

U

3

S

M

Yellow-billed Spoonbill

Platalea flavipes

G

S, M

G, D, M

Res

UB

4

S

M

Black-tailed Native-hen

Gallinula ventralis

L

L, S, M

L

Irreg

U

30

L, S

L

Red-necked Avocet

Recurvirostra novaehollandiae

M

M

M

Irreg

R

16

S, M

M

Black-fronted Dotterel

Elseyornis melanops

M

M

M

Res

UB

1

M

M

Masked Lapwing

Vanellus miles

M

M

M

Res

UB

2

M, L

M, L

Silver Gull

Larus novaehollandiae

M

M, O

M, O

Res

U

1

O

O, M

Caspian Tern

Sterna caspia

M

O

M

Res

U

15

O

M

Whiskered Tern

Chlidonias hybridus

S, L

O

M

Irreg

Clamorous Reedwarbler

Acrocephalus stentoreus

R

R

R

Sum

UB

1

R

R

Little Grassbird

Megalurus gramineus

R

R, S

R

Res

UB

1

R, S

R

Australian Duck

Wood

Black

White

56

Sugar Shack Wetland Management Plan Total Count

328

Total Species

19

* Seen to Breed in Wetland Area Habitats: R = reedbeds, S = sedgelands, L = lignum, O = open water, M = muddy verges, G = gums, D = logs and other debris Status: Res = Resident, Irreg = Irregular visitor, Sum = spring/summer visitor, Win = autumn/winter visitor Abundance: c = common (likely to be seen in reasonable numbers on most visits), U = uncommon (likely to be seen in reasonable numbers on some visits), R = rare (recorded rarely and in small numbers), B = likely to breed regularly

Table 21: Non-waterbird species observed at Sugar Shack Lagoon, adapted from (Australian Water Environments 2005)

Species Common Name

Scientific Name

Count

Black Kite

Milvus migrans

1

Whistling Kite

Haliastur sphenurus

Several

Wedge-tailed Eagle

Aquila audax

1

Australian Hobby

Falco longipennis

2

*Spotted Turtle-Dove

Streptopelia chinensis

1

Common Bronzewing

Phaps chalcoptera

2

Crested Pigeon

Ocyphaps lophotes

2

Diamond Dove

Geopelia cuneata

1

Peaceful Dove

Geopelia striata

Several

Galah

Eolophus roseicapilla

Common

Sulphur-crested Cockatoo

Cacatua galerita

Several

Little Corella

Cacatua sanguinea

Several

Purple-crowned Lorikeet

Glossopsitta porphyrocephala

2

Regent Parrot

Polytelis anthopeplus

2-3 Pairs, breeding

Yellow Rosella

Platycercus elegans

Several

Mallee Ringneck

Barnardius barnardi

Several

Horsfield‟s Bronze-Cuckoo

Chrysococcyx basalis

1

Laughing Kookaburra

Dacelo novaeguineae

2

Sacred Kingfisher

Todiramphus sanctus

1

Brown Treecreeper

Climacteris picumnus

Several

Superb Fairy-wren

Malurus cyaneus

Few groups

Variegated Fairy-wren

Malurus lamberti

Few groups

Striated Pardalote

Pardalotus striatus

Several

Noisy Miner

Manorina melanocephala

Several

White-plumed Honeyeater

Lichenostomus penicillatus

Several

White-browed Babbler

Pomatostomus superciliosus

1 group

Rufous Whistler

Pachycephala rufiventris

1

Grey Shrike-thrush

Colluricincla harmonica

2

Magpie-Lark

Grallina cyanoleuca

2

flaveolus

57

Sugar Shack Wetland Management Plan Willie Wagtail

Rhipidura leucophrys

2

Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike

Artamus cyanopterus

1

Pied Butcherbird

Cracticus nigrogularis

2

Australian Magpie

Gymnorhina tibicen

Several

Australian Raven

Corvus coronoides

2

Richard‟s Pipit

Anthus novaeseelandiae

1

*House Sparrow

Passer domesticus

Several

Welcome Swallow

Hirundo neoxena

Several

Tree Martin

Hirundo nigricans

Several

Fairy Martin

Hirundo ariel

Several

*Common Starling

Sturnus vulgaris

Several

Total Species

39

* Introduced

58

Sugar Shack Wetland Management Plan

Appendix G. Evaporation and precipitation obtained using the Wetland Loss Calculator. The added water loss during inundation of the side arm of the wetland is calculated from parts C & D (231-207). This added water loss would occur if the wetland inundation can be increased to include the side arm of the wetland. This loss is 23ML when lasting over 5 months. Table 22: Calculated water loss (evaporation – precipitation) from the Wetland Loss Calculator

A: Evaporative loss based on surface area during a „wet‟ (inundated) year First, Third & Fifth Year

SEP

OCT

NOV

DEC

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

Ev1

Ev2

Ev2

Ev2

Ev2

Ev2

Ev2

Ev2

Ev2

Ev2

Ev2

Ev2

TOTAL (ML)

Area used in calculation (ha)

23

26

26

26

26

26

26

26

26

26

26

26

Net Loss (ML) Year 1 (No overfill)

22

22

44

50

48

44

41

30

17

8

6

16

348

B: Evaporative loss based on surface area during a „dry‟ (structures closed) year Second & Fourth Year

SEP

OCT

NOV

DEC

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

Ev2

Ev2

Ev2

Ev2

Ev2

Ev2

Drying event no refill

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

Ev3

Ev3

Ev3

Ev3

TOTAL (ML)

Area used in calculation (ha)

26

26

26

26

26

26

13

13

13

13

13

13

Net Loss (ML)

24

22

44

50

48

44

0

0

8

4

3

8

256

C: Evaporative loss based on surface area during the inundation of the wetland side arm Overfill

SEP

OCT

NOV

DEC

JAN

Ev4

Ev4

Ev4

Ev4

Ev4

TOTAL (ML)

Area used in calculation (ha)

23

33

33

33

33

Net Loss (ML)

22

28

55

63

61

228

D: Evaporative loss based on surface area at „normal‟ levels No overfill

SEP

OCT

NOV

DEC

JAN

Ev2

Ev2

Ev2

Ev2

Ev2

TOTAL (ML)

Area used in calculation (ha)

26

26

26

26

26

Net Loss (ML)

24

22

44

50

48

189

59