Swanport WMP Final Large

Swanport wetland

MANAGEMENT PLAN 2006

LAPS

Lower Murray Local Action Planning Groups

Kjartan Tumi Bjornsson

Mannum to Wellington Local Action Planning Association

Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................... i

LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... iii

LIST OF MAPS ........................................................................................................................... iii

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ iii

Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1

Section 1.01 Environmental, Social and Cultural Significance of wetland ............................. 1

(a) History of Swanport wetland ........................................................................................ 1

Section 1.02 Why does Swanport wetland need a management plan? ................................. 2

(a) Mission Statement ....................................................................................................... 2

(b) Vision Statement ......................................................................................................... 2

(c) Broad Objectives ......................................................................................................... 2

(d) Current Achievements ................................................................................................. 2

Chapter 2. SITE DESCRIPTION OF SWANPORT WETLAND .................................................. 4

Section 2.01 Wetland Location and description .................................................................... 4

Section 2.02 Survey Sites, Dates & Locations ...................................................................... 5

Section 2.03 PHYSICAL FEATURES ................................................................................... 6

(a) Swanport wetland in Current State .............................................................................. 6

(b) Geomorphology, Geology And Soils ............................................................................ 8

(c) Climate ........................................................................................................................ 8

(d) Wetland Volumes and Water Requirements for various filling stages .......................... 8

(e) Surface and Groundwater Features ............................................................................. 8

Section 2.04 ECOLOGICAL FEATURES ............................................................................ 11

(a) Flora .......................................................................................................................... 11

(b) Fauna ........................................................................................................................ 12

Chapter 3. SOCIAL ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL VALUES .................................................. 17

Chapter 4. LAND TENURE, JURISDICTION AND MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS ......... 18

Section 4.01 LAND TENURE .............................................................................................. 18

Section 4.02 LAND AND WATER USE ............................................................................... 19

Section 4.03 JURISDICTION AND MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY ...................................... 20

Chapter 5. THREATS AND POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS TO SWANPORT WETLAND .............. 21

Chapter 6. MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES .............................................................................. 24

Chapter 7. IMPLEMENTATION OF PLAN (ON GROUND ACTION AND TIMETABLE) .......... 28

Chapter 8. MONITORING ....................................................................................................... 31

Chapter 9. EVALUATION, REVIEW AND REPORTING .......................................................... 33

Section 9.01 Evaluation and Review ................................................................................... 33

Section 9.02 Reporting ....................................................................................................... 33

Chapter 10. REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 34

Appendix A. Wetlands Atlas Data for Wetland Main Body .......................................................... 35


ii

Appendix B. Surface Water Archive Graph ................................................................................ 36

Appendix C. Baseline Survey Locations (Source SKM (2004)) .................................................. 37

Appendix D. Baseline Survey DEM (Source SKM (2004)) .......................................................... 38

Appendix E. Baseline Survey Groundwater (Source SKM (2004)) ............................................. 39

Appendix F. Baseline Survey Vegetation Zones (Source SKM (2004)) ...................................... 44

Appendix G. Species List for Swanport wetland ..................................................................... 45

Section G.01 FLORA ........................................................................................................... 45

Section G.02 WETLAND AND FLOODPLAIN FAUNA ......................................................... 49

(a) Birds of Swanport Surrounds and Lower Lakes ......................................................... 49

(b) Frogs ......................................................................................................................... 51

(c) Fish ........................................................................................................................... 52

(d) Macroinvertebrates .................................................................................................... 53


iii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Open water 17/03/06 (TB) ................................................................................................ 6

Figure 2: Herbland 17/03/06 (TB) .................................................................................................... 6

Figure 3: North channel into north lagoon 13/02/06 (AF) ................................................................. 6

Figure 4: Small open water area of north lagoon 13/02/06 (AF) ...................................................... 6

Figure 5: Bird hide 17/03/06 (TB) .................................................................................................... 7

Figure 6: Boardwalk 17/03/06 (TB) ................................................................................................. 7

Figure 7: Jetty 17/03/06 (TB) .......................................................................................................... 7

Figure 8: Old boardwalk through herbland 17/03/06 (TB) ................................................................ 7

Figure 9: Broadshell tortoise (JH) .................................................................................................. 15

Figure 10: Broadshell tortoise (JH) ................................................................................................ 15

Figure 11: Murray Bridge No.1 Pump Station Daily Read (5 year period) (Department of Water Land and Biodiversity Conservation 2005) ............................................................................ 36

LIST OF MAPS

Map 1: Swanport wetland location .................................................................................................. 4

Map 2: Map of Wetland (map courtesy of Barbara Martin, hetta designs) ....................................... 5

Map 3: Current water movement within Swanport wetland ............................................................ 10

Map 4: Fish sampling locations ..................................................................................................... 14

Map 5: Cadastral boundaries covering Swanport wetland and surrounds. .................................... 18

Map 6: Swanport wetland existing fences ..................................................................................... 19

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Baseline survey monitoring of following parameters .......................................................... 5

Table 2: Water quality (SKM 2004) ................................................................................................. 8

Table 3: Groundwater monitoring locations (SKM 2004) ............................................................... 10

Table 4: Groundwater salinity EC (mS/cm) ................................................................................... 11

Table 5: Habitat features identified in Swanport wetland table adapted from (SKM 2004). ............ 13

Table 6: Dominant macroinvertebrates at Swanport wetland (table adapted from (SKM 2004)) .... 15

Table 7: Swanport wetland responsible positions contact details .................................................. 20

Table 8: Existing and prospective threats to Swanport wetland ..................................................... 22

Table 9: Benefit and threats of willow removal .............................................................................. 24

Table 10: Management objectives for Swanport wetland. ............................................................. 25

Table 11: Implementation plan for Swanport wetland land based activities. .................................. 29

Table 12: Monitoring plan for Swanport wetland. .......................................................................... 32

Table 13: Swanport wetland, Wetland atlas data (Jensen et al. 1996) .......................................... 35

Table 14: Plant Associations at Swanport wetland (adapted from River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey (SKM 2004)) .............................................................................................................. 45


iv

Table 15: Swanport wetland plant ID list from ‟99 (obtained from community group) ..................... 46

Table 16: Bird species identified at Swanport wetland .................................................................. 49

Table 17: Birds identified at Swanport wetland by community member Peter Koch ....................... 49

Table 18: Frogs at Morgan‟s Lagoon, date identified and significant aspects. ............................... 51

Table 19: Native fisha ................................................................................................................... 52

Table 20: Introduced fish ............................................................................................................... 52

Table 21: Macroinvertebrate taxa and abundance (SKM 2004) ..................................................... 53


v

This management plan was written by Kjartan Tumi Bjornsson for the Mannum to Wellington

Local Action Planning Committee Inc., and reviewed and endorsed by the SA River Murray

Wetland Technical Group.

Funding was provided by the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality, the Natural

Heritage Trust, and the River Murray Catchment Water Management Board.

The management plan has been prepared according to the Guidelines for developing wetland

management plans for the River Murray in South Australia 2003 (River Murray Catchment Water

Management Board and Department of Water Land and Biodiversity Conservation 2003) and as

such fulfils obligations under the Water Allocation Plan for the River Murray Prescribed

Watercourse.

Disclaimer:

The Mannum to Wellington Local Action Planning Committee Inc. do not guarantee that the

publication is without flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and

therefore disclaim all liability for any error, loss or other consequences, which may arise from you

relying on any information in this publication.

Cite as:

Bjornsson, K. T. (2006). Swanport Wetland Management Plan. Mannum to Wellington Local

Action Planning Committee Inc., Murray Bridge.

Acknowledgements:

This wetland management plan has been developed with the support of a number of organisations,

community groups and individuals. Special thanks go to Kathryn Rothe, Adrienne Frears and Jem

Tesoriero for assistance with the draft.

Thanks also go to those that contributed their knowledge including; Marshall F. Carter and Steven

Walker of the Ngarrindjeri nation (traditional landowner cultural values), Peter Koch (birds), the

Swanport wetland community group the South Australian Murray Darling Basin Natural Resources

Management Board and the members of the South Australian River Murray Wetland Technical

Group.

For further details contact:

Mannum to Wellington LAP

PO Box 2056

Murray Bridge, SA 5253

Phone: (08) 8531 3222

Fax: (08) 8532 5300

Photographs:

Cover photograph: South lagoon, open water (TB),

Bottom: North lagoon, herbland (TB)

Photographs in document by Tumi Bjornsson (TB), Adrienne Frears (AF), or Jason Higham (JH).

© Mannum to Wellington Local Action Plan 2006


1

Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION

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 et al. 1996) listed Swanport

wetland as having a high conservation value and to be of national importance (see Appendix A).

Thompson (1986) considered the wetland to be of very high conservation value due to its location

on the river Murray and its ecological features including aquatic fauna and waterbird refuge, his

recommendations were to consider the wetland for formal conservation by the National Parks and

Wildlife Service. Swanport wetland has been managed and cared for by the local community for an

extended period of time with a management brief was written in 2000 (Jensen et al. 2000).

On a local level the condition of the wetland is an aesthetics issue. The continued management of

this wetland through weed management will assist to maintain its current ecological, educational

and aesthetic value. The continued use of the wetland for education and eco-tourism is encouraged.

This will assist in enhancing the awareness of wetlands in the region of their ecological, aesthetic

and functional value.

(a) HISTORY OF SWANPORT WETLAND

A short timeline of management at Swanport wetland (some data from local anecdotal evidence):

1839 Cattle swum across the River Murray landing at Swanport wetland

1850‟s Construction of levee bank

1856 Landing chute and large barge for ferrying sheep constructed on wetland site

1866 to 1878 Historic ferry across the Murray (construction of causeway bisecting the

wetland)

Historical Jetty

Until 1990 Cattle grazing and waterfowl hunting

1991 Revegetation with local native species on higher ground

Early 1990‟s bird hides

Throughout the 1990‟s various parts of the paths and board walk was constructed with a

substantial upgrade and extension over the open water in 2003

1995 to 2000 used for educational purposes by Aquatic Centre (located directly across river)

2000 Onwards used for recreational purposes by Aquatic Centre

2000 Management brief (WCA)

2003 Education structure and board walk (funding/organisation by MW LAP, constructed

by work for the Dole)

2003 Revegetation

2003 Lizard, bird and bat boxes

2003 Willow poisoning

2003 - 2004 Included in River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey (SKM 2004)


2

2004 Willow poisoning

2005 Eco-tourism by the “Dragon Fly”

2006 Clearing of inlets

Ongoing community effort, new board walk, willow removal, photopoint installation etc

SECTION 1.02 WHY DOES SWANPORT WETLAND NEED A MANAGEMENT PLAN?

The Swanport wetland is close to a regional centre (Murray Bridge) therefore the pressures on the

wetland include community use, the degradation of the river, past land use and weed infestation. To

maintain a healthy wetland it is therefore imperative that continued guided management address

these and other threats to the ecosystem where and as possible.

(a) MISSION STATEMENT

To maintain and enhance the wetland condition for cultural values as well as for ecological values,

such as native vegetation and habitat for the benefit of waterbirds and other native fauna. Further, to

provide an educational resource for the regions schools, TAFE and interested public.

(b) VISION STATEMENT

The vision for Swanport wetland is a better and healthier wetland ecosystem with fewer problems,

such as weeds, through better management and greater community involvement. The vision is to

maintain a wetland fulfilling a diversity of habitat requirements for both waterbirds and for native

fish and frog species. The wetland will be maintained as a healthy wetland with a high diversity of

macrophytes and herblands providing habitat for native fish and birds. The wetland will as a

consequence, be expected, to be regularly visited by water birds including migratory species. The

riparian area will be maintained, both through active involvement with the removal of weed species

and through the management of native fringing vegetation (i.e. limit river club-rush Schoenoplectus

validus encroaching onto the open water of the wetland). The restoration of the riverbanks through

the removal of willows Salix babylonica and planting of river red gums and other suitable native

species would also be envisaged. The healthy wetland ecosystem will be used to showcase Lower

Murray wetlands as part of ecotourism as well as serving educational purposes.

(c) BROAD OBJECTIVES

The introduction of dry periods to Swanport wetland, as discussed in previous management

recommendations of the management brief, (Jensen et al. 2000) is not considered to be a viable

option. The main reason being the negative impact drying could have on vegetation diversity,

groundwater salinity and loss of the freshwater lens under the wetland. The wetland is seen to be in

a relatively healthy state, weed infestation being the main degradation to the wetland area, where

28% of plants identified in the baseline survey vegetation associations were introduced as well as

46% in a plant list provided by the wetland community group (see Appendix G).

Based on the identification of the major degradation to the wetland, the main quantifiable objectives

identified are:

Removal of introduced vegetation surrounding the wetland (monitoring would be needed to

identify the level of infestation, both currently and in the future)

Active Typha removal (monitoring would be needed to map the current open water and herb

community, and continued monitoring to observe any impacts by the spread of Typha)

The objectives are discussed in more detail in Chapter 6.

(d) CURRENT ACHIEVEMENTS

The current community group has been managing Swanport wetland since 2004. In that time the

wetland has been promoted for educational purposes due to its relative ecological integrity. In that

time the following on-ground works have been achieved at the wetland;


3

Boardwalks with information brochures

Bird hide maintenance

Educational station/lookout

Educational tours for schools and interested public

Interpretive signs/booklets/flyers

Maintained paths

Fencing around wetland area

Complete removal of box thorn

Installation of turtle egg protection (turtle homes)

Installation of lizard habitat (lizard homes)

Poisoning and removal of willows

Baited fox holes & rabbits

Bird boxes & perches

Bat boxes

Frog boxes


4

Chapter 2. SITE DESCRIPTION OF SWANPORT WETLAND

SECTION 2.01 WETLAND LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

Swanport wetland is listed as wetland number S0038 in the Wetlands Atlas (Jensen et al. 1996) and

is part of the Lower Murray River wetlands. The wetland is located adjacent to the South East

Freeway beneath Swanport Bridge on the outskirts of Murray Bridge (Map 1below). AMG

coordinates 346268E 6109024N (Grid Zone 54). Swanport can be found on the 1:50,000 Mobilong

map sheet number 6727-1 and is located in the Hundred of Burdett. See Appendix A for more

information.

Swanport wetland is listed as having a permanent water regimes and considered to cover an area of

13.5 ha (Jensen et al. 1996). Based on the baseline survey DEM 5 of these hectares encompasses

the south lagoon when the river level is at 0.75m AHD, and 1 ha a part of the herbland (north

lagoon). The depth of the wetland lagoon is approximately 0.5 m (SKM 2004).

The wetland is in the ownership of the Rural City of Murray Bridge council. The area to the south,

downstream of the wetland area is used is used for dairy cattle grazing, while residential

developments are found on the northern end of the wetland.

Map 1: Swanport wetland location


5

SECTION 2.02 SURVEY SITES, DATES & LOCATIONS

The River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey (SKM 2004) monitored different wetland parameters

(Table 1). The fish survey was not included in the baseline survey this was completed by the South

Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI). The locations of their sampling points are

shown in Section 2.04(b)(iii). The locations of the baseline survey sites can be seen in Appendix B.

Map 2 shows the wetland with locations of walking tracks, board walk, bird hides, jetty, educational

structure and general vegetation.

Table 1: Baseline survey monitoring of following parameters

Parameter Surveyed Date 1

(BLS)

Date 2

(BLS)

Date 3

(BLS)

Date 4

(BLS)

Date 1

(SARDI)

Date 2

(SARDI)

See

page

BL

S

SA

RD

I

Site physical Y 4

Vegetation Y 11

Fish Y 16/11/03 23/3/04 13

Birds Y Spring Summer 12

Frogs Y 3/12/03 29/1/04 12/3/04 2/9/04 13

Macroinvertebrates Y 4/12/03 10/3/04 14

Water Quality Y 4/12/03 30/1/04 10/3/04 9/6/04 8

Groundwater Y 10

NR = Not Recorded; BLS = baseline survey (SKM 2004); SARDI = South Australian Research and Development Institute

Map 2: Map of Wetland (map courtesy of Barbara Martin, hetta designs)


6

SECTION 2.03 PHYSICAL FEATURES

(a) SWANPORT WETLAND IN CURRENT STATE

Swanport was grazed for a prolonged period ending in 1990. The past land use would account for

the degradation of the vegetation in the wetland and therefore weed infestation. In the recent past

revegetation of the area has restored a large part of the vegetation community, although many

weeds remain including willows. Figure 1 through to Figure 8, show the wetland and its fringing

vegetation in its current state. Figure 1 shows the relatively large area of open water in the wetland,

the channel connecting to the River Murray being slightly to the left of the centre of the photograph

(not clearly seen). This open water section is used both by water birds and recreational boating.

Both these uses can under circumstances clash. One possible solution in resolving the conflict

between the impact on birds and the uses by recreational craft is discussed in this wetland

management plan (see Chapter 5). Figure 2 shows a significant section of the north lagoon of

Swanport wetland, which contains important herbland communities. Figure 3 and Figure 4 show the

north channel and the small open water section of the north lagoon identified in Map 3. Figure 5

shows one of the bird hides available at the wetland. Figure 6 shows the boardwalk over the open

water section of the south lagoon. Figure 7 shows the historic jetty on the River Murray and Figure

8 shows the old timber boardwalk along the riverside of the herb community of the north lagoon.

Below the boardwalk is the seeping south channel into the wetland identified in Map 3.

Figure 1: Open water 17/03/06 (TB) Figure 2: Herbland 17/03/06 (TB)

Figure 3: North channel into north lagoon 13/02/06 (AF)

Figure 4: Small open water area of north lagoon 13/02/06 (AF)


7

Figure 5: Bird hide 17/03/06 (TB) Figure 6: Boardwalk 17/03/06 (TB)

Figure 7: Jetty 17/03/06 (TB) Figure 8: Old boardwalk through herbland 17/03/06 (TB)


8

(b) GEOMORPHOLOGY, GEOLOGY AND SOILS

The soil for most of the wetland was sand with some silt present, the area to the east close to the

upland area was made up of clay. The soil salinity (determined as EC 1:5) were below 1 mS/cm.

The sandy areas had a decreasing salinity with depth and the clay area increasing salinity with depth

(SKM 2004). Copies of the soil logs from the baseline survey can be found in Appendix E.

Locations are presented in Section 2.03(e)(ii).

(c) CLIMATE

The following climatic conditions are taken from the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) Murray

Bridge station (number 024521) (Latitude (deg S): -35.1234; Longitude (deg E): 139.2592) (BOM

2005). The recording of data commenced at Murray Bridge in 1885; the latest records used in the

assessment of the climatic condition of the area stemming from 2004.

Swanport wetland has a Mediterranean climate with warm dry summers and cool wet winters. The

median (5th

decile) annual rainfall is 341.5 mm. The mean monthly maximum rainfall is in June and

August (37.1 mm), the minimum in January (16.3 mm). The expected mean daily maximum

temperature is highest in February at 29.2 C, lowest in July at 16.2 C, and has an annual mean of

22.7 C. The minimum daily temperature is at its maximum in February at 14.6 C and its minimum

in July at 5.4 C. The annual mean daily minimum temperature is 9.8 C.

(d) WETLAND VOLUMES AND WATER REQUIREMENTS FOR VARIOUS FILLING STAGES

The wetland volume was not calculated in the baseline survey, although a DEM was developed for

this area by the baseline survey (see Appendix D). As the wetland will not have hydrological

management and will therefore not be seeking a water allocation this lack of data will not be a

detriment to this wetland management plan.

(e) SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER FEATURES

(i) Surface water

Water quality monitoring was undertaken as part of the baseline survey and is summarised in Table

2. The surface water levels in the River Murray at Murray Bridge, obtained from the Surface Water

Archive (Department of Water Land and Biodiversity Conservation 2005) can bee seen in Appendix

B. This water level will have a direct impact on the water level in Swanport wetland. The median

water level between 1986 and 2004, also obtained from the Surface Water Archive, is 0.74 m AHD,

the median in the last 5 years of record available (between 1999 and 2004) is slightly less at 0.71 m

AHD.

Table 2: Water quality (SKM 2004)

Parameters 4/12/03 30/1/04 10/3/04 9/6/04

EC μS/cm Mean 483 ± 34 542 ± 18 704 ± 27 528 ± 8

Min. 445 490 642 509

Max. 584 569 751 545

DO mg/L-1

Mean 2.1 ± 1.0 10.8 ± 2.0 9.4 ± 0.3 8.6 ± 0.3

Min. 0.5 7.2 9.0 7.9

Max. 4.7 16.4 10.2 9.1

pH Mean 6.730 ± 0.07 7.90 ± 0.43 10.43 ± 0.38 7.40 ± 0.05

Min. 6.61 7.22 9.49 7.28

Max. 6.92 9.14 11.08 7.52

Turbidity NTU Mean 48 ± 21 73 ± 12 369 ± 43 120 ± 14

Min. 14 51 302 83


9

Max. 109 108 485 145

Water Temperature C Mean 19.3 ± 0.2 23.8 ± 0.7 28.4 ± 1.0 18.7 ±0.1

Min. 18.7 22.0 26.7 18.6

Max. 19.7 25.1 31.2 18.9

n 4 4 4 4

n = sample size

The slightly higher salinity within the wetland compared to the river can be attributed to

evapoconcentration partly driven by the shallow nature of the wetland (SKM 2004). However, the

EC is well below that of seawater (which is at ~50 mS/cm), and is simular to that of the River

Murray indicating a good connection between the two. As a comparison the River Murray EC,

obtained from the DWLBC Surface Water Archive (Department of Water Land and Biodiversity

Conservation 2005), was 378 μS/cm on the 4th

December 2003 compared to a mean of 483 μS/cm

in the wetland, 479 μS/cm on the 30th

January 2004 compared to 542 μS/cm in the wetland, 484

μS/cm on the 10th

March 2004 compared to 704 μS/cm in the wetland and 446 μS/cm on the 9th

June 2004 compared to the wetland monitored at 528 μS/cm. The monitoring location from which

the DWLBC Surface Water Archive is derived is at the Murray Bridge Number 1 Pump station on

the River Murray (Zone 54, 344059 E and 6114654 N).

The dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations were variable throughout the wetland, SKM (2004)

attributed this to time of day the measurements were taken, DO consumed during night time, and

the season, high DO content during warm seasons increases plant growth. Other factors influencing

the DO content could be wind direction and exposure leading to surface mixing (SKM 2004). SKM

(2004) associated the high monitored pH levels during the March monitoring date to the abundance

of algae within the wetland. The high temperatures may have stimulated the photosynthesis of algae

to the extent that the CO2 levels within the wetland dropped significantly. CO2 can act as carbonic

acid in water, its removal would therefore raise the pH within the wetland (SKM 2004).

The turbidity of the wetland was variable both between monitoring dates as well as from site to site,

this can potentially be contributed to the shallow nature of the wetland and therefore the likelihood

of resuspension of sediment as a consequence of wind action. The clarity of the wetland was at its

best during the December and January survey dates, with the mean turbidity values likely to have a

minimum impact of light penetration into the water column. The highest turbidity was recorded

during the March monitoring date. The water temperature of the wetland reflected the seasonal air

temperatures (SKM 2004). For a description of the implications of water quality in wetlands refer to

Your Wetland: Supporting Information (Tucker et al. 2003).

The Flood Inundation Model (FIM III) does not extend downstream beyond Mannum and is

therefore unavailable for this region. No simulations were therefore performed for Swanport

wetland based on the Flood Inundation Model. However, to provide some understanding of the

current flow within Swanport wetland Map 3 shows the flow direction of water currently at the

wetland.


10

Map 3: Current water movement within Swanport wetland

(ii) Groundwater

The baseline survey installed 4 groundwater wells within Swanport wetland; two existing wells

were within the wetland area. These wells were monitored 4 times during the survey period (21st

January, 10th

March, 9th

June and 2nd

September 2004). The locations of the wells are presented in

Table 3 and a map of the groundwater flow direction in Appendix E.

Table 3: Groundwater monitoring locations (SKM 2004)

NAME EASTING NORTHING

Elevation of Bore

Hole casing (m-AHD)

Ground Elevation

(m-AHD)

Total Depth

(m-bgl)

MOB03104 346208.000 6109209.145 0.893 0.918

MOB03105 346417.940 6109184.282 0.775 1.134

SW1 346623.572 6109206.623 2.861 1.934 4.8

SW2 346392.158 6109226.236 2.211 2.2 5.4

SW4 346803.270 6109127.641 1.555 0.563 3.6

SW5 346665.908 6109091.178 2.993 1.813 4.7

As seen in Appendix E groundwater seems to flow from the river through the wetland as well as

from the higher land in the north of the wetland area. The groundwater flowed from the wetland to


11

depression basins in the west and east of the wetland (SKM 2004). These depression basins

probably have a high water loss through evaporation due to the shallow water table (0.21 and 0.61

m bgl). The groundwater salinity was found to be relatively high in the depression basin and

otherwise low in all other areas, see Table 4. The high groundwater salinity of both wells within the

depression basins supports the assessment of groundwater flow to these areas. SW2 was excluded

from analysis as it was believed to have been vandalised (SKM 2004). The ground water levels

were found to fluctuate with the seasonal climatic fluctuation, with the depth increasing towards

March and then decreasing with the onset of winter (SKM 2004) (see Appendix E). The salinity in

the wetland was more comparable to River Murray levels indicating that the main influence stems

from the Murray (SKM 2004).

Table 4: Groundwater salinity EC (mS/cm)

NAME 21/1/04 9/6/04

MOB03104 43.30

MOB03105 4.46

SW1 3.89 7.51

SW2 7.53

SW4 9.94 12.50

SW5 1.78 2.01

(iii) Implications for management

The surface water quality does not present a problem to the wetland. The turbidity within the

wetland may become more dependent on the river turbidity following the removal of willows

presently blocking the flow channel. However the increased flow would potentially reduce the

sedimentation experienced within the wetland and therefore slow the invasion of emergent

macrophytes into the open water of the wetland.

SECTION 2.04 ECOLOGICAL FEATURES

(a) FLORA

The baseline survey of the wetland complex found the main body of the wetland, which includes

the main body of open water, to have large stand of river club-rush Schoenoplectus validus with

some Typha sp. sedgelands on eastern and northern shore. Some S. validus and Typha sp. were also

found in the smaller wetland basin to the west of the causeway. There were no submerged

macrophytes identified in the open water section by the baseline survey although Thompson (1986)

did record black swans Cygnus atratus grazing on submerged macrophytes Myriophyllum sp. In the

smaller basin there were areas of water ribbon Triglochin procerum herblands and common spike-

rush Eleocharis acuta sedgelands, which were also found on the north western shore of the main

basin, as well as samphire Halosarcia pergranulata ssp. pergranulata shrubland and lignum

Muehlenbeckia florulenta shrubland. Less common sedges were also found in the western basin,

including the native tassel sedge Carex fascicularis and tall sedge Carex appressa and the exotic

jointed rush jointed rush Juncus articulatus. The sedgeland understorey was made up of the herbs

Australian gypsywort Lycopus australis, twin-leaf bedstraw Asperula gemella, water ribbons T.

procerum, river buttercup Ranunculus amphitrichus, shield pennywort Hydrocotyle verticillata and

the exotics waterbuttons Cotula coronopifolia and water parsnip Berula erecta. The levee bank was

found to have a mix of red gums Eucalyptus camaldulensis var. camaldulensis, willows Salix

?babylonica, M. florulenta and exotic Paspalum sp. (SKM 2004).

Four plant associations were surveyed by the baseline survey, these being:

Typha domingensis Sedgeland over Triglochin procerum;


12

Eleocharis acuta and Triglochin procerum Sedgeland over *Paspalum distichum;

Eleocharis sphacelate Closed Sedgeland; and

Halosarcia pergranulata ssp. pergranulata Low Open Shrubland

The vegetation survey found seven species of conservation significance; these are included in the

detailed list of species found within the plant associations that can be found in Appendix G. For a

description of the function of vegetation in wetlands refer to Your Wetland: Supporting Information

(Tucker et al. 2003).

(i) Implications for management

Due to the abundance of species of conservation significance the River Murray Wetlands Baseline

Survey (SKM 2004) recommends a weed control program to address the infestation of the herbland

community. Exotic species particularly mentioned in the baseline survey include the water parsnip

Berula erecta and Paspalum sp.

(b) FAUNA

The River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey (SKM 2004) conducted a number of surveys on fauna

in the wetland environment. These surveys are described below.

(i) Birds

The bird assessment of the River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey (SKM 2004) was conducted at

three locations around the wetland (see Appendix C). One site (site 1) overlooked the open water,

one (site 3) the herbland and one (site 2) was a transect through the centre of the wetland. Eleven

species of waterbird were observed in the wetland with only 26 individuals in total (SKM 2004).

Two of these species were EPBC (Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999)

listed, the black-winged stilt and the great egret both migratory species (SKM 2004). Table 16 in

Appendix G Section G.02(a) contains a list of the birds observed at the Swanport wetland.

Thompson (1986) identified the wetland as being a habitat for waterbirds, he recorded black swans

Cygnus atratus on the wetland and Australian pelicans Pelecanus conspicillatus. There were also

100 bird species identified at Swanport wetland by community member Peter Koch, a keen and

well-recognised amateur ornithologist, with 10 of them breeding at the wetland. The species can be

seen in Appendix G Section G.02(a). The survey by Peter Koch commenced in 1993 and is

ongoing.

The habitat availability was considered to have influenced the abundance of bird populations in

Swanport wetland. The habitat availability identified by the baseline survey (SKM 2004) are listed

in Table 5. However, according to community group members the frequent use of the open water

through recreational boating is causing disturbance to birds using the wetland. This may account for

the low numbers of birds observed at the wetland during the baseline survey.


13

Table 5: Habitat features identified in Swanport wetland table adapted from (SKM 2004).

Habitat features Spring Summer

Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 1 Site 2 Site 3

Shoreline Complex Complex Complex Complex Complex Complex

Fringing vegetation Mix of tall

dense vegetation

Mix of tall dense

vegetation

Mix of tall dense

vegetation

Mix of tall dense

vegetation

Mix of tall dense

vegetation

Mix of tall dense

vegetation

Reeds Occasional Occasional Absent Occasional Absent Absent

Sedges Extensive Extensive Extensive Extensive Extensive Extensive

Herbs Occasional Occasional Occasional Occasional Occasional Extensive

Wet mud Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent Occasional

Dry mud Absent Absent Absent Absent Occasional Absent

Hollow bearing trees Occasional Occasional Occasional Occasional Occasional Occasional

Perching trees Occasional Occasional Occasional Occasional Occasional Occasional

Water‟s edge In/above

veg In/above

veg In/above

veg In/above

veg >100m from

veg In/above

veg

Fringing River Red Gums Occasional Occasional Occasional Occasional Occasional Occasional

Water depth (m) 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.3

Water level Stable Stable Stable Stable Falling Stable

(ii) Frogs

Five frog species were recorded at Swanport. The brown tree frog Litoria ewingi, common froglet

Crinia signifera eastern banjo frog Limnodynastes dumerilii, long thumbed frog Limnodynastes

fletcheri and Peron‟s tree frog Litoria peroni. The survey sites of the frog survey were based at the

western end of the lagoon. Further monitoring is recommended to identify the habitat used by frogs

in Swanport wetland so that this habitat can be maintained as part of adaptive management. Table

18 lists the frogs identified during the baseline survey as well as some breeding information. Some

boxes have been installed to improve the shelter available for frogs.

(iii) Fish

The South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI) conducted the fish survey at

Swanport wetland. The fish species and relative abundance are presented in Table 19 and Table 20

in Section G.02(c) (tables were adapted from Leigh, Ye et al. (2004)). The sampling points for

Swanport wetland can be seen in Map 4, with the sampling dates being November 2003 and March

2004.


14

Map 4: Fish sampling locations

The wetland had a diverse range of species (12) and, based on the abundance (533) of fish

collected, is believed to be a significant habitat for fish communities. The abundance of fish

reduced from the November sampling date, with a total of 80 per net per night, to the March

sampling date of 44 per net per night. This drop in abundance was particularly evident in the

number of carp gudgeons Hypseleotris spp. caught. Only the Murray River rainbow fish

Melanotaenia fluviatilis and gambusia Gambusia holbrooki increased in abundance. There are

various causes for the fluctuation in fish numbers including recruitment, mortality and food

availability. The autumn drop in water levels and increase in water temperature may drive many

fish species out of the wetland into a more favourable environment. The number of juvenile fish

caught indicates the habitat suitability as a refuge and food source at an early life stage (Leigh et al.

2004).

Further monitoring of fish numbers would give a more accurate account of the fish present as well

as the reason for the fluctuation in numbers. No carp Cyprinus carpio were collected during the

survey although adult carp were seen in the wetland (SKM 2004). Thompson (1986) noted the

presence of carp, gambusia and rainbow fish.

(iv) Macroinvertebrates

The River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey (SKM 2004) monitored macroinvertebrates at

Swanport on two dates (4 December 2003 and 10 March 2004). There was a high diversity of

macroinvertebrates with 34 taxa amounting to a total of 5,757 macroinvertebrates collected at

Swanport wetland. Table 6 lists the most abundant macroinvertebrates and Table 21 in Appendix G

Section G.02(d) lists all the macroinvertebrates collected at Swanport wetland. The dominant

macroinvertebrates are tolerant to pollution and disturbance. There was an increase in the more

dominant tolerant species on the second sampling date. (SKM 2004). Thompson (1986) noted the


15

wetland as having diverse macroinvertebrate fauna with the presence of chironomids, copepods,

odonates, notonectids and prawns. For a description of the function of macroinvertebrates in

wetlands refer to Your Wetland: Supporting Information (Tucker et al. 2003).

Table 6: Dominant macroinvertebrates at Swanport wetland (table adapted from (SKM 2004))

Taxa (family level unless indicated otherwise) Abundance Tolerance

Nematoda (Phylum) 2124 Pollution, disturbance

Oligochaeta (Class) 1226 Pollution, disturbance

Chironominae (Subfamily) 1137 Pollution, disturbance, some species saline tolerant

Corixidae 372 Pollution, disturbance, ubiquitous in still and slow

flowing water

Tanypodinae (Subfamily) 264 Pollution, disturbance, some species saline tolerant

Total abundance 5757

Total number of taxa 34

(v) Tortoise

A broad-shell turtle Chelodina expansa was caught during the fish survey (Jason Higham pers.

com.) and shows the wetland to provide some habitat for these tortoises (see Figure 9 and Figure

10). Records should be kept of future tortoise sightings and possible nest locations to identify any

habitat provided by Swanport wetland for this species.

Figure 9: Broadshell tortoise (JH) Figure 10: Broadshell tortoise (JH)

(vi) Implications for management

The SKM (2004) bird survey found the abundance of birds at Swanport wetland to be below the

mean of all wetlands included in the survey. Their recommendations aimed at waterbirds of the

wetland were the development of more diverse habitat. Based on the data available from Peter Koch

(pers. com.) more birds use the habitat currently available in the wetland although waders have lost

some mud flats due to reed encroachment into the open water section of the wetland. Peter Koch

supports the recommendation in the improvement of the habitat value of the wetland for birds, such

as through the provision of bird perches.

More information is required on the frog habitat preference in Swanport wetland. Frog monitoring

will be included in the monitoring schedule of this management plan (see Chapter 8). The fish in

Swanport wetland were dominantly native with some introduced species. Without major structural


16

works at the wetland and control of the wetland hydrology it will not be possible to manage the

exotic species. The wetland is an important habitat for the local native fish, it is therefore important

that the connection and passage between the wetland and the river should be kept open (Leigh et al.

2004). The increase in the number of snags (large woody debris) may provide some of the habitat

missing due to the lack of submerged macrophytes. The high dominance of tolerant

macroinvertebrates species suggests either high levels of pollution of the wetland or a disturbance.

This information is however not conclusive as information on macroinvertebrates and the

SIGNAL2 score is not sufficient for the Lower River Murray. However, the reduction in fish may

perhaps have influenced the increase in macroinvertebrates from the first to the second sampling

dates.

Based on the information collected the bird habitat should be maintained and in the long term

increased. The revegetation with suitable native tree species along the levee bank will assist in

future provision of hollow bearing trees and perching trees. In the mean time alternate options could

be explored such as instillation of bird boxes and perching stands. The control of access or access

times to the open water could also contribute to the habitat quality for the water birds using the

wetland. This option should be explored with all stakeholders using the wetland. Fish not impacted

on through any current management of the wetland; the only avenue to having control of fish access

to the wetland is through the construction of screened culverts. Future monitoring of frogs should

assist in monitoring any impacts that the management or current use of the wetland may have.


17

Chapter 3. SOCIAL ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL VALUES

The Murray Bridge community and local residents extensively use the wetland. The uses include

recreation, education, tourism, and bird watching. Therefore, the current users and therefore

stakeholders in the wetland include:

Community group

MW LAP/ Schools for educational purposes

Boating school/club

Bird watchers

Ecotourism (Dragon Fly)

Local residents

Swanport wetland is a culturally significant area for the Ngarrindjeri community with burial sites

within the wetland area. The summary of the cultural significance as described by Ngarrindjeri

elder Marshall F. Carter (pers. com.), which is detailed below, discusses some of the significant

cultural aspects of the Swanport wetland area.

Marshall F. Carter described the recognition, by the Ngarrindjeri, of the importance of wetlands,

their role as the beginning of life for many species contributing to the life cycle of the ecosystem.

His desire therefore is for the wetlands to be referred to as nurseries rather than by terms such as

swamp, marsh and bog, which can have negative connotations.

Very significantly for the Ngarrindjeri is the inclusion of Swanport wetland in their Ngurundri

creation stories, giving the wetland a significant status in the Ngarrindjeri culture. Ngurundri is in

cultural beliefs the creator of life, among the creations named is the Pondi (Murray cod). Other

significant cultural icons, which should not be disturbed and can be found within the wetland

region, are the granite boulders seen to rise from the ground. One large example can be seen from

the Swanport Bridge diagonally across the river on the opposite bank to the wetland.

The wetland hosts a number of Middens. These Middens served as campgrounds and burial sites,

the sites also showing evidence of fireplaces. Unfortunately, some of these middens show evidence

of disturbance. Vigilance should therefore be shown to avoid any further disturbance of these

significant sites. Indigenous consultation should therefore always be sought where ground

disturbance is likely. If human remains are found all work should cease and the local Ngarrindjeri

consulted, either through Native Title or the Heritage committee.

Red gums in the area could be scar trees used to make canoes or food dishes. These scar trees are

also significant. Any red gums which may be scar trees should therefore not be disturbed until they

have been cleared through Indigenous consultation. Lignum, known as watchi bushes, are also seen

as significant vegetation. This significance is partly due to their role in the provision of refuge from

predators for the watchi birds, wrens. The rushes found throughout the wetlands of the Lower River

Murray, served a purpose in the traditional basket weaving of the Ngarrindjery women. Therefore

the reeds served and still serve as a valuable cultural resource. These reeds were also traditionally

used in the weaving of fishing nets.

As a food resource Swanport wetland can be regarded as a traditional, bush, food „supermarket‟.

Some of the foods traditionally collected at Swanport wetland would have included duck, swan and

turtle eggs, fish such as callop, shellfish as is evident by the Middens, muntries, ruby saltbush as

well as other vegetation and roots. More recently Marshall F. Carter remembers as a boy fishing,

collecting wild foods and hunting rabbits in the wetland area. In conclusion, Swanport wetland is a

highly significant area for the Ngarrindjeri community and they are very supportive of its

restoration.


18

Chapter 4. LAND TENURE, JURISDICTION AND MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS

SECTION 4.01 LAND TENURE

Swanport wetland is owned by the Rural City of Murray Bridge. The property boundaries and the

ownership details can be seen in Map 5.

Map 5: Cadastral boundaries covering Swanport wetland and surrounds.


19

SECTION 4.02 LAND AND WATER USE

The main land use in the surrounding area is dairy grazing to the east and north east and residential

to the north of the highway. In the past Swanport wetland was open to stock access until 1990. Most

of the wetland is now fenced off to exclude all stock. See Map 6 for fence locations.

Map 6: Swanport wetland existing fences


20

SECTION 4.03 JURISDICTION AND MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY

The wetland community group with support from the Mannum to Wellington LAP will be

responsible for the management of the wetland in consultation with the landholder the Murray

Bridge Rural City Council.

Contact persons for Swanport wetland management will be Mannum to Wellington LAP Officer,

Wetland Management Planning Officer or SA MDB NRM board Wetland Project Officer, see Table

7 for contact details.

Table 7: Swanport wetland responsible positions contact details

Position Present

Officers Organisation Mailing Address

Phone

number

Mannum to Wellington LAP Project Manager

Kathryn Rothe

Mannum to Wellington LAP

PO Box 2056 Murray Bridge

SA 5253 (08) 8531 3222

Wetland Project Officer, Lower Murray

Adrienne Frears

SA MDB NRM board PO Box 2056 Murray Bridge

SA 5253 (08) 8232 6753

Wetland Management Planning Officer

Tumi Bjornsson

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

Mount Barker

SA 5251 (08) 8391 7515

Parks & Gardens Supervisor

Glenn Dean

Rural City of Murray Bridge

PO Box 421 Murray Bridge

SA 5253 (08) 8539 1167

Senior Local Authorised Officer (pest control)

D.V. (Dave) Clifford

SA MDB NRM board PO Box 1570 Murray Bridge

SA 5253 (08) 8539 1165


21

Chapter 5. THREATS AND POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS TO SWANPORT WETLAND

There are a number of existing and potential threats to Swanport wetland, some of which have

become apparent in the description of the wetland and available data in the chapters above. The

identification of these threats is essential for appropriate adaptive management of the wetland. Their

early recognition allows for an appropriate monitoring strategy for early identification of adverse

impacts of management and therefore rapid response through altered management. However, the

altered management of a wetland will in itself bring with it potential threats that need to be

identified, these and other threats identified so far have been listed in Table 8. The most immediate

threat to the wetland includes weed infestation including woody weeds, i.e. Willows, and over use

by tourism/community. This WMP recommends controlled access times for recreation and the

education of all users of the impacts caused by their access to the wetland.


22

Table 8: Existing and prospective threats to Swanport wetland

THREATS SYMPTOM CAUSE IMPACT CATEGORY EXTENT POTENTIAL SOLUTION

AB

IOT

IC

Exis

tin

g

Altered hydrology in river system

Permanently inundated wetland

Constant river levels barge construction (Regional cause river

and lake regulation, Local cause

man made structures)

Copy from ML & SS Regional & Local Local management response

Wetland proper and fringing low lying areas

Addressed in this management plan

Introduce “natural” water regime

Lowering of sill level of overflow channels

Instillation of flow control structures

Blockage of flow path Slow flow into wetland

Expansion of willows Increased sedimentation in wetland

Aggradation

Spread of Typha

Local Wetland Addressed in this management plan

Removal of willows and replacement with native species (partially completed)

Pote

nti

al Saline groundwater Saltpan in

lagoons Lack of wetland inundation

Evapoconcentration

Rising of saline groundwater

Evaporation and increase in concentration of salinity of groundwater

Regional & Local Local management response

Wetland area Don‟t dry wetland

Exi

stin

g (

min

or

thre

at)

Poor water quality: turbidity

Turbid wetland, restricting growth/loss of macrophytes and therefore potential algal bloom

Wind resuspension of sediment

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. macroinvertebrates, native fish and birds)

Local Wetland body Restoration of open flow path to minimise the sedimentation within the wetland.

BIO

TIC

Exis

tin

g

Loss of submerged aquatic vegetation

Their absence/low numbers

Lack of variable water regime with wet and dry phases

Mismanagement of wetland hydrology

Permanent inundation and therefore no regeneration

Loss of habitat availability and diversity

Local Wetland lagoons/regional (will impact on bird habitat)

Introduce alternate wetland hydrology - dry then inundate wetland (potential gain does not weigh up against the threat to existing herb and wetland flora communities)

Woody weeds Large number of willows

Clearing

Grazing

Establishment of willows

Weed infestation

Past mismanagement of wetland

Loss of habitat/breeding hollows (birds)

Loss of snags in water body

Competition with native vegetation

Loss of ecological function of native species lost

Local Surrounding area. Extensive

Active removal and/or poisoning

Revegetate

Weeds Their presence Degradation of native vegetation

Ability to grow in saline & dry environments (boxthorn)

Exotic species

Competition with native vegetation

Loss of habitat (food source?)

Local Higher ground of wetland area

Active removal – poisoning

Reed expansion loss of open water area

Expansion of Typha

Sedimentation Loss of open water area

Loss of fauna (bird and fish) habitat

Local Wetland body Active removal

Increase water flow into downstream lagoon reducing sedimentation

Reed expansion into herb area

Expansion of Typha

Suitable environment for Typha

Loss of herb area

Loss of vulnerable plants and dependent species

Local Herb area Active removal

Lack of habitat (birds) Low abundance of bird species during survey

Low habitat variability Low abundance of birds

Loss of bird habitat

Local and Regional Wetland and wetland surrounding area

Revegetate with native species

Increase habitat availability (instillation of bird perches and boxes)


23

THREATS SYMPTOM CAUSE IMPACT CATEGORY EXTENT POTENTIAL SOLUTION B

IOT

IC

Exis

tin

g

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)

Rapid breeding cycles (carp ~2/year), live bearing (gambusia), unpalatable eggs (redfin)

Competition for habitat (domination of available habitat)

Predation/aggressive interaction on/with small and young native fish (redfin/gambusia)

Damage to aquatic vegetation

Decrease in water quality (Turbidity increase)

Predation on native fish (redfin)

Regional and local Wetland water body

Monitor abundance of invasive species with comparative monitoring of abundance of native species consider management if future research provides potential strategies.

Rabbits Warrens

Damaged herbs

Rabbits Degradation of vegetation

Rabbit warrens

Regional and local Wetland area Baiting and shooting

Destruction of warrens

Foxes Dug up turtle nest eggs

Fox holes

Foxes Large detriment and threat to turtle breeding

Impact on native fauna

Regional and local Wetland area Fox baiting and shooting

Destruction of fox holes

Pote

ntial

Undermining of bank stability following willow removal

Banks failure Loss of binding capacity of existing vegetation

Opening up of wetland to main rive r channel

Changing the wetland type and significantly altering the ecology and habitat structure within the wetland

Regional and local Wetland water body

Leave Willows in situ (poison only, do not remove

Planting of native species (red gums) to replace function of maintaining bank stability as willows are removed/decay

Remove no more than 10% of willows on bank per year

MIS

CE

LL

AN

EO

US

Exis

ting

Disturbance/

inappropriate use/

overuse

Noise

Unsettled birds

Low abundance and reduced diversity of birds

Turbid wetland

Degradation of herbland (new tracks)

Spread of weeds

Inappropriate recreational use (canoeing during low water levels, frequent use by canoes, potential inappropriate access by other recreational craft)

Uncontrolled use (access to sensitive areas, access of the tracks and bord walk)

Poor control of visitors

Disturbance to water birds and other native animals

Resuspending sediment increasing turbidity leading to degradation of water quality and associated impacts

Access to sensitive areas/ degradation of vegetation (new tracks) potential spread of weeds

Local Wetland area Educate all stakeholders and users

Restrict access/ access type (ban houseboats entering open water, ban jet skis, restrict access by canoes to times when the water level is high (entry during low water level causes undue disturbance))

Complete circuit boardwalk to allow easy and minimal impact access to the area

Damage to herb area Obvious damage and reduction of vegetation in previously well vegetated herb area

New boat access to herb area following willow removal

Disturbance to water birds and other native animals

Degradation of vegetation

Regional and local Wetland area Installation of hardwood pylons blocking boat access

Lack of regeneration

of vegetation

No regeneration Possibly rabbits

Possibly competition by weeds

Long term viability of revegetation in question

Local Wetland area Deal with Rabbits

Remove weeds

Research for cause

Toileting in wetland

area (bush) by

visitors

Faeces and toilet paper found in surrounding vegetation (unhygienic)

Poor access to toilets in a heavily used recreational area

Unhygienic wetland environment

Damage to revegetation (access to sheltered spot)

Local Wetland area Installation of good quality composting toilet

Pote

nti

al

Strength of bird hides Old and degrading structures

Age

Rot

Safety concerns Local Wetland area Rebuild bird hides

Vandalism Damaged infrastructure

Damage to vegetation

Vandalism

Lack of „ownership‟ by wider community

Degradation of wetland

Damage to infrastructure leading to increased cost

Local Wetland area Education of public

Aggradation of

wetland

Increased silt (turbidity) entering wetland

Open flow path

Slow flow and increased sedimentation

Reeds/macrophytes encourage sedimentation

Slow reduction in wetland depth

Entire wetland becomes a herb zone

Wetland becomes a long term transition zone

Local Wetland body Monitor sedimentation

Remove excessive reeds in wetland body


24

Chapter 6. MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES

Based on the objectives presented in Section 1.02(c) and the threats to the wetland discussed in

Chapter 5, more detailed ecology based management objectives can now be developed. Derived

from the identification of the major degradation to the wetland, the objectives identified are:

Removal of weed vegetation surrounding the wetland including woody weeds (monitoring

would be needed to identify the level of infestation, both currently and in the future)

Active Typha removal (monitoring would be needed to map the current open water and herb

community, and continued monitoring to observe any impacts by the spread of Typha)

At the same time future wetland management has to:

Minimise any adverse impact on water quality

Avoid salinisation

Not interfere with diversity of:

o Vegetation

o Native fish (diversity and habitat preference)

o Macroinvertebrates or

o Frogs (monitoring would be needed to identify the habitat preference) and

Maintain and increase bird habitat diversity (monitoring would be needed to identify the

birds regularly using the open water and the fringing vegetation)

The objectives, including solutions, actions needed and priorities are detailed in Table 10. The

largest task would be the controlled removal of willows particularly from the channel inlets into the

wetland. The benefits and threats of the removal of willows are summarised in Table 9. A minor

review of the objectives and the wetland management plan is recommended at the end of each year,

community groups can achieve this by reviewing their monitored data. A major review should

follow after 5 years.

Table 9: Benefit and threats of willow removal

Benefits Threats

Increase exchange of water with river Increased turbidity from river

Decrease salinity in wetland due to increased water exchange with river

Bank stability undermined

Potential decrease in sedimentation due to a higher turnover rate of water

Changing the wetland into a through flow wetland significantly impacting on the established wetland ecology

Maintenance of open water due to a decrease in sedimentation

Loss of bird perches (solution is to leave standing poisoned trees and/or instillation of alternate perches)

Maintenance of connection with the river allowing free passage of native fish

Replacement with native species providing more appropriate ecological function

Educate public on the most appropriate methodology and reasoning for willow removal

Long term provision of a more suitable bird habitat such as hollows in trees


25

Table 10: Management objectives for Swanport wetland.

MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES SOLUTIONS ACTIONS (Management (M) or

Engineering or structural (ES))

QUANTIFIABLE

/MEASURE OF ACHIEVEMENT

MONITOR

(TIMING)*

LEGISLATION PRIORITY

VE

GE

TA

TIO

N

Nati

ve

Maintain diverse plant community with seven species with regional conservation status

Maintain plant diversity including the seven threatened species of regional significance.

Maintain (and probably enhance) the area of small aquatic and amphibious herbs. Through the protection of the swampy/damp vegetated areas below the old causeway (i.e. leave this section as is)

Map the vegetation in more detail (need expert input)

Monitor and map vegetation changes over 2 to 5 years

Do not install connection between the wetland sections

No loss of species diversity Photo point (Q)

Vegetation survey (Y)

High

Inva

sive

Removal of willows Targeted control of willows along the levee bank and the gradual introduction of native species such as river red gums, lignum and river coobah

Removing 10% of willows per year, not more so as not to impact on levee bank

Poison another 10% leave standing

Revegetate with native species such as river red gums, lignum and river coobah

Removal/dieback of 20% of willows/year

Survival of more than 50% of revegetation

Photo point (Q)


High

Inva

sive

Removal of weeds from wetland area

Establish weed removal projects in the wetland area

Removal of weed vegetation surrounding the wetland (monitor level of infestation)

Prevent further spread of weeds

Weed control as per revegetation plan

Implement eradication program of identified weeds once per year

Reduction of 50% of identified weeds/year and no net increase


High

Inva

sive

Maintain open water in larger lagoon and herbland in smaller lagoon (sedimentation and reed encroachment into open water and wet herb meadow habitats)

Maintain existing area of open water

Reduction in the rate of sediment accumulation in the open water section

Control/remove reeds/willows around flow path (as part of the first 10%)

Maintain existing area of wet herb meadow habitats

Control or stop the spread of Typha into herb areas and open water

Increase water exchange by removing 10% of willows per year, not more so as not to impact on levee bank. This should increase the water exchange, leading to „scouring of the sediment or the minimisation of the sedimentation

Identify source of sediment and method of reducing it.

Active removal of Typha from herb areas (need expert recommendation).

No change in open water area Photo point (Q) May need approval under the Native vegetation Act 1991 (possibly exempt 5 (1) (zi)

High

FIS

H

Nati

v

e

Ease movement of fish between wetland and River Murray

Clear flow channels between wetland and the river

Clear willows blocking channel as part of 10% per annum

Visible migration during flow

No net decrease in fish abundance or

Opportunistic

Monitoring of fish in wetland

Medium

Nati

ve

Maintain native:exotic fish ratio of 3:1 for species richness and abundance (7 - 9 native species, 66 goldfish in Nov-03)

Active removal of exotic species

Maintenance of habitat and a healthy wetland, which gives native fish an advantage. This is possibly the best option given the wetland is already in a healthy state

Reduce turbidity. With less turbidity the native fish have better habitat conditions from which to compete

Monitor fish populations

Identify the areas they inhabit

Avoid/minimise impact on identified habitat

Increase snags in wetland

No net decrease in fish abundance or diversity

Opportunistic

Monitoring of fish in wetland

Medium

Inva

sive

Reduce threat of invasive fish species

Active removal of exotic fish Volunteers, active removal with seine net

Low abundance of invasive fish species in wetland

Fish survey (Y)

Observation (Carp come to surface)

Low


26

MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES SOLUTIONS ACTIONS (Management (M) or

Engineering or structural (ES))

QUANTIFIABLE

/MEASURE OF ACHIEVEMENT

MONITOR

(TIMING)*

LEGISLATION PRIORITY F

RO

GS

Nati

ve

Maintain > 5 breeding frog species in summer (interim target) Maintain native frog habitat

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

Revegetate with native riparian species

Maintain herb area

Fish and frogs, need to identify the area they occupy. Include in monitoring.

Restore riparian vegetation

Monitor frog populations

Identify the areas they inhabit.

No net decrease in frog diversity and abundance

Frog survey (Q) Low

BIR

DS

Nati

ve/M

igra

tory

Improved habitat for water birds (waterfowl, waders and shorebirds, etc.)

Provide bird perches and breeding boxes

Revegetate surrounding area with native vegetation (long term production of tree hollows)

Leave 50% of dead willows standing (act as perches)

Revegetate with native riparian species.

Build bird perches and breeding boxes

Restoration of wetland habitat and conditions for native fish species, migratory water birds, native water birds and fringing species, and aquatic and riparian plant species

Increase in bird abundance using wetland (At least double current levels)

Increase in habitat diversity in long term

Existence of perches and hollows (boxes)

Bird survey (1/2Y)


Observation

Medium

MA

NA

GE

ME

NT

GW

Reduce groundwater impact on wetland

Maintain freshwater lens under wetland

Maintain current inundation Monitor wetland salinity (no net increase over time)

Monitor soil salinity (no net increase in soil salinity)

Monitor water quality (M)

Monitor soil salinity

Low

WQ

Salinity (Reasonable surface water EC but potential groundwater gradient from the north towards the wetland)

Maintain surface water salinity at <1000 EC 100% of the time

Maintain flow into (and out of) wetland in the upper (open water) section above the causeway

Increase water exchange by removing 10% of willows per year, not more otherwise we may impact on levee bank stability. Start with willows in flow channel.

Long term decrease of water salinity Monitor water quality (M)

Medium

WQ

Turbidity (Turbidity 369 NTU in Mar-04)

Open/improve connection with river

Identify sources of turbidity (take appropriate response).

Visibly clear water

Maintain turbidity at <150 NTU 100% of the time

Monitor water quality (M)

Observation

High

Str

uct

ura

l Improve connectivity of wetland with River Murray

Restore/maintain flow paths into wetland

Increase water exchange by removing 10% of willows per year, not more otherwise we may impact on levee bank stability. Start with willows in flow channel.

Clear distinct channel Photopoint (Q)

Observation

High

Mis

cell

ane

ous

Control access to wetland areas

Complete present ring loop trail over herb area. Construction of boardwalk. Boardwalk needs to have a minimum impact on herb area which contains threatened plants.

Construction of boardwalk

Indigenous clearance

Presence of boardwalk.

No new paths in wetland area

Photopoint (Q)

Observation

Medium

M is ce lla

ne

ou s Remove visitor toileting in

wetland vegetation Instillation of composting toilet above 56 flood level.

Construction of boardwalk

Indigenous clearance

No toilet paper and foreign material in wetland vegetation

Photopoint (Q)

Observation

Council approval River Murray Act

Medium

Mis

cel

laneo

u

s

No further trails/ boardwalks or structures (besides those mentioned above)

Maintain and maximise use of current boardwalks (and those mentioned above)

Improve educational signage around current boardwalk

Medium

Mis

cell

an

eous

Restrict boat access to wetland (particularly herb community)

Install hardwood pylons across wetland entrance (flow paths) that block access by boats by not water.

Install pylons Reduced damage by recreational boats

Photopoint (Q)

Observation

High

GW, Ground Water; WQ, Water Quality; W, Weekly; M, Monthly; Y, Yearly


27


28

Chapter 7. IMPLEMENTATION OF PLAN (ON GROUND ACTION AND TIMETABLE)

From the management objectives a number of on ground actions have been identified for Swanport

wetland. Some of these ongoing actions identified for Swanport wetland include:

Willow removal and poisoning (poisoning ongoing)

Revegetate levee bank with native species (ongoing)

Weed identification and removal (part of vegetation mapping). Weed removal should be seen

as an annual event. Declared weeds are council responsibility, Council should be contacted when

declared weeds are identified (see Section 4.03)

Typha removal from herb area (little wetland) and maintenance of open water (May need

approval under the Native vegetation Act 1991 (possibly exempt 5 (1) (zi))

Table 11, provides a timetable and prioritisation for the on ground works in the Swanport wetland.

The table does not address monitoring, which is discussed in Chapter 8. A log of all activities

should be maintained. This log would assist in the review process of the wetland management plan

discussed in Chapter 9.


29

Table 11: Implementation plan for Swanport wetland land based activities.

ACTIVITY PRIORITY RESOURCES TIMETABLE RESPONSIBILITY

AS

SO

ON

AS

PO

SS

IBL

E

Remove Typha from herb area at 346133 E 6109213 N GDA 94 zone 54

High Volunteers As soon as possible LAP, Community group

Install barriers to boat access across lagoon inlets (both lagoons) (Subject to council approval)

High Funding (Hardwood pylons)

As soon as possible LAP, Community group

Install signs explaining boat access restriction High Funding As soon as possible LAP, Community group

Install Gauge Board Low 2 persons 1 hrs

Materials and tools (available)

Ongoing LAP, SA MDB NRM Board

Willow removal from levee bank (10% per year)

High Funding

Volunteers

Ongoing LAP, Community group

Clearing of channels (willow removal from channels)

High Funding

Volunteers


Poisoning willows on levee bank (10% per year, leave standing for bird perches)

High Funding

Volunteers


Revegetation (understorey) Medium Funding (seedlings)

Volunteers


Construction of bird perches Medium Funding

Volunteers


Construction of bird nest boxes Low Funding

Volunteers


Construction of bat nest boxes Low Funding

Volunteers


FU

TU

RE

Removal of excessive Typha growth in open water wetland (maintenance of open water

High Sheers

Waders

As required based on photo point monitoring

LAP, Community group

Maintain clear flow path (no new willow growth, no future blocking of channel by Typha)

Medium As appropriate

Funding

As required LAP, Community group

AS

AP

PR

OP

RIA

TE

Remove exotic fish Low Volunteers

Seine net

As appropriate LAP, Community group

Identify sources of turbidity Medium Monitoring (research)/funding

As appropriate LAP, SA MDB NRM Board

Identify frog habitat Medium Monitoring frogs

Research/funding

Ongoing/future LAP, Community group


30

ACTIVITY PRIORITY RESOURCES TIMETABLE RESPONSIBILITY

Identify weeds and locations for weed management

Medium Monitoring (research)/funding

Botanist

As appropriate LAP, SA MDB NRM Board

Install additional permanent photopoints Low 2 persons 1 hrs

Materials and tools (available)

If necessary LAP, SA MDB NRM Board

Weed removal Medium Funding

Volunteers

As appropriate following weed identification

LAP, Community group

Increase snags in wetland for native fish habitat

Medium Funding

Volunteers


Construction of frog shelter (homes) Low Volunteers As appropriate LAP, Community group

Fox baiting Medium Funding

Volunteers


Recreate/replace bird hides High Funding

Volunteers


Construction/completion of board walk Medium Funding

Volunteers


Construction of composting toilet Need approvals from River Murray Act. Toilet must be above 1956 flood levels.

Medium Funding

Volunteers

Funding Volunteers

Install pylons or poles to block boat access to herb area

High Funding

Volunteers

Funding Volunteers

SA MDB NRM Board = South Australian Murray Darling Basin Natural Resource Management Board, LAP = Mannum to Wellington Local Action Planing


31

Chapter 8. MONITORING

For the development of a wetland management plan, Swanport wetland was included in the River

Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey (SKM 2004). The data collected during this survey provided a

basis by which objectives for the wetland management could be refined, initial hydrology

guidelines could be developed and review procedures scheduled. However this data did not cover

all the issues related to managing the Swanport wetland. Partly as a consequence, but also as part of

adaptive management and best practise wetland management, monitoring of the wetland has been

devised to answer some of the unknowns. 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.

The maintenance of a restored wetland, fulfilling the functions described above and without an

adverse impact on adjacent farming operations, wetland and lake salinity or fish habitat

requirements would involve regular monitoring and adequate timely response. This would include

the regular monitoring of water quality, bird life and aquatic dependent species (particular interest

to Swanport wetland is frog habitat) as well as aquatic and fringing vegetation. Identification of

weeds within the wetland area falls within the sphere of monitoring and will lead to the further

development of an appropriate weed management strategy.

To ensure that monitored data is available for evaluation, review and reporting, a log of all

activities, monitoring and site description should be maintained at an accessible and convenient

location. The data will ultimately be stored in the appropriate state government databases. See

report by Hydro Tasmania (2003).

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 the assessment of the

impact of past practices, Refer to Your Wetland: Monitoring Manual (Tucker 2004) for examples of

data log sheets and further description of monitoring methods.

Some of the ongoing monitoring necessary for Swanport wetland includes:

Identification of turbidity source

Map vegetation in more detail (weeds)

Monitor and map vegetation change (2 – 5 years)

Monitor fish populations and habitats

Monitor frog populations and habitat

Monitor macrophytes (spread) using photo points.

Monitor bird populations using area and identify habitat.

Continued monitoring of the groundwater is necessary for a potential timely response to

potential increasing salinity levels.


32

Table 12: Monitoring plan for Swanport wetland.

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

Time

Required Responsible

Groundwater Level and Conductivity

MODERATE Quarterly half day

SA MDB NRM Board/community

group

Surface Water Water quality

monitoring (cond, turb, temp)

MODERATE Quarterly half day


group

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

LOW

Annually 1 day


group

Vegetation

Photopoint Installation

LOW Only if current photopoints deemed inadequate for monitoring reed encroachment into open water 1 hour

LAP/SA MDB NRM Board

Photopoint monitoring

HIGH

Quarterly 2 hours SA MDB NRM

Board

Mapping GPS (weeds)

MODERATE Annually to guide community members work on weed control 1 day LAP

Quadrat/line intercept

LOW Permanent quadrats in herb area monitored annually/biannually

Set up- 2 days,


group

Frogs Recording Calls

Id habitat MODERATE

Annually 0.5 hour


group

Birds Fixed area search

MODERATE Ongoing (Quarterly)

half day (from dawn)

LAP/community group

Macro- invertebrates

Dip net survey LOW

Annually

1 day (not including

identification)


group

Bats Recording Calls

LOW Ongoing

LAP/community group


33

Chapter 9. EVALUATION, REVIEW AND REPORTING

SECTION 9.01 EVALUATION AND REVIEW

The full impact and effectiveness of the new management strategy cannot be fully predicted. Some

data, for example the habitat requirements for frogs, still needs to be collected and appropriate

management found to improve or maintain the habitat viability. Therefore, the data obtained

through monitoring need to be regularly reviewed to respond to impacts of the management strategy

and new knowledge. The community group should conduct an annual review of the monitored data

and the condition of the wetland; assistance is available from the Mannum to Wellington 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 monitoring schedule to

reflect changes in management and current knowledge as well as to ensure that the objectives are

being met.

SECTION 9.02 REPORTING

Copies of all monitored data should be kept with both the Mannum to Wellington LAP and with the

Wetland Project Officer of the SA MDB NRM Board, their contact details can be found in Section

4.03. A record of activities should also be kept with either Mannum to Wellington LAP and with

the Wetland Project Officer of the SA MDB NRM Board. Both these officers will contribute to the

adaptive management of the wetland and maintenance of relevant data for future wetland

management decisions and plan upgrades. The Wetland Project Officer will coordinate the

reporting to the South Australian Wetland Technical Group as necessary.


34

Chapter 10. REFERENCES

BOM (2005). Climate Averages. Accessed 18 March 2005,

www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_024518.shtml.

Department of Water Land and Biodiversity Conservation (2005). Surface Water Archive.

Accessed 3 August 2005,

http://www.dwlbc.sa.gov.au/subs/surface_water_archive/a1pgs/mapindex.htm.

EPA South Australian Frogs in the Murray Valley.

Hydro Tasmania (2003). River Murray Wetlands Data Management Project Final Report. River

Murray Catchment Water Management Board.

Jensen, A., F. Marsh, et al. (2000). Moorundi Wetland Complex Management Plan. Swanport

Wetland Management Plan. Berri

Jensen, A., P. Paton, et al. (1996). Wetlands Atlas of the South Australian Murray Valley. South

Australian River Murray Wetlands Management Committee. South Australian Department of

Environment and Natural Resources. ADELAIDE

Leigh, S., Q. Ye, et al. (2004). Swanport Wetland Fish Survey November 2003 and March 2004.

SARDI Aquatic Sciences.

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.

SKM (2004). River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey. South Australian Murray Darling Basin

Natural Resources Management Board.

Thompson, M. B. (1986). River Murray Wetlands, Their Characteristics, Significance and

Management. Department of Environment and Planning and Nature Conservation Society of S.A.

Adelaide

Tucker, P. (2004). Your Wetland: Monitoring Manual - Data Collection. River Murray Catchment

Water Management Board, Australian Landscape Trust. Renmark SA

Tucker, P., S. Dominelli, et al. (2003). Your Wetland: Supporting Information. Australian

Landscape Trust. Renmark SA

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_024518.shtml

http://www.dwlbc.sa.gov.au/subs/surface_water_archive/a1pgs/mapindex.htm


35

Appendix A. Wetlands Atlas Data for Wetland Main Body

Table 13: Swanport wetland, Wetland atlas data (Jensen et al. 1996)

AREA 135851.49352600000

PERIMETER 2300.56524572000

WETLANDS_ 764

WETLANDS_I 763

AS2482 44190

AUS_WETNR S0038

AUSDIRNO_9

AUSDIR_NO

THOM_WETNR M009

NAME SWANPORT WETLAND

COMPLEX Upstream end of Irrigation Area

WATERCOURS

MDBC_DISTN 3

WATER_REGI PERMANENT

INTERNATIO 0

NATIONAL 1

BASIN 0

VALLEY 0

VALLEY 0

HIGH_CONSE 1

MODERATE_C 0

LOW_CONSER 0

SHOULD_REA 0

SHOULD_ASS 0

DataSource Murray SA Atlas


36

Appendix B. Surface Water Archive Graph

Figure 11: Murray Bridge No.1 Pump Station Daily Read (5 year period) (Department of Water Land and Biodiversity Conservation 2005)


37

Appendix C. Baseline Survey Locations (Source SKM (2004))


38

Appendix D. Baseline Survey DEM (Source SKM (2004))


39

Appendix E. Baseline Survey Groundwater (Source SKM (2004))


40


41


42


43


44

Appendix F. Baseline Survey Vegetation Zones (Source SKM (2004))


45

Appendix G. Species List for Swanport wetland

SECTION G.01 FLORA

This species list (Table 14) has been derived from the River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey (SKM

2004).

Table 14: Plant Associations at Swanport wetland (adapted from River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey (SKM 2004))

Species Common Name

Intr

od

uce

d

Conservati

on Rating*

Plant

Association**

AU

S

SA

MU

1 2 3 4

Apium prostratum ssp. prostratum var.

Native celery K

X

Asperula gemella Twin-leaf Bedstraw X

Atriplex semibaccata Berry Saltbush X

*Berula erecta Water Parsnip X

Carex appressa Tall sedge K X X

Carex fascicularis Tassel Sedge K X

Centella asiatica Asian Centella Q X X

*Cotula coronopifolia Water Buttons X

Crassula helmsii Swamp Crassula X X

Einadia nutans ssp. nutans Climbing saltbush X

Eleocharis acuta Common spike-rush X X X

Eleocharis sphacelata Tall spike-rush V X X

Halosarcia pergranulata ssp. pergranulata

Black-seed Samphire

X

Hydrocotyle verticillata Shield Pennywort X X X

*Juncus articulatus Jointed Rush X X

Lycopus australis Austral Gypsywort R X X

Mentha x piperita var. (Peppermint) X

Myriophyllum ?simulans X

*Paspalum ?distichum Water Couch X X

*Paspalum vaginatum Salt-water Couch X X

Persicaria decipiens Slender Knotweed X X

*Plantago major Greater Plantain X

Ranunculus amphitrichus Small river buttercup R X X X

*Rumex pulcher ssp. pulcher X X

*Salix ?babylonica X

Schoenoplectus validus River Club-rush X X

*Soncus ?asper ssp. glaucescens

X

X


46

*Soncus oleraceus Common Sow-thistle X X

*Spergularia marina Salt Sand-spurrey X X

Suaeda australis Austral Seablite X

Triglochin procerum Water-ribbons X X X

Typha domingensis Narrow-leaf Bulrush X

Total species 32 9 11 8 17 11

% introduced 28 27 25 41 0

* R = rare conservation status, K uncertain conservation rating, V = vulnerable,

** Plant association:

1. Typha domingensis Sedgeland over Triglochin procerum;

2. Eleocharis acuta and Triglochin procerum Sedgeland over *Paspalum distichum;

3. Eleocharis sphacelate Closed Sedgeland; and

4. Halosarcia pergranulata ssp. pergranulata Low Open Shrubland

Table 15: Swanport wetland plant ID list from ’99 (obtained from community group)

Species Common Name Introduced Conservation

Rating

AU

S

SA

MU

Alternanthera nodiflora Common joyweed

Apium annuum Annual celery K

*Arctotheca calendula Capeweed X

Asperula gemella Twin-leaf bedstraw

*Asphodelus fistulosus Onion weed X

*Aster subulatus Bushy starwort (Asterweed) X

Atriplex semibaccata Berry saltbush (Creeping saltbush)

*Avena barbata Bearded Oat

Azolla filiculoides Pacific azolla

*Berula erecta Water Parsnip X

Brachycome basaltica var. gracilis

Swamp Daisy R R

*Brassica tournefortii Wild turnip X

*Bromus catharticus Prairie grass X

*Bromus rubens Red Brome X

Carex appressa Tall sedge K

Carex fascicularis Tassel Sedge K

Centella asiatica Asian Centella Q

*Cirsium vulgare Spear Thistle (Scotch Thistle)

Cotula australis Common cotula

*Cotula coronopifolia Water Buttons X

Crassula helmsii Swamp crassula


47

Crassula sieberiana ssp. tetramera

Australian stonecrop

*Critesion marinum Sea Barley-grass X

*Cynodon dactylon Green couch X

Cyperus gymnocaulos Spiny flat-sedge

Distichlis distichophylla Emu grass U

*Echium plantagineum Paterson's curse (Salvation Jane) X

Eclipta platyglossa Yellow twin-heads U

*Ehrharta longiflora Annual veldt-grass X

Einadia nutans ssp. nutans Climbing saltbush

Eleocharis acuta Common spike-rush

Eleocharis sphacelata Tall spike-rush V

*Elymus elongatus Tall wheat grass X

Enchylaena tomentosa var. tomentosa

Ruby salt bush

*Erodium moschatum X

Eucalyptus camaldulensis var. camaldulensis

River red gum

*Euphorbia terracina X

*Festuca arundinacea X

*Galenia secunda X

*Gynandriris setifolia X

Halosarcia pergranulata ssp. pergranulata

Black-seed Samphire

Hydrocotyle verticillata Shield Pennywort

Juncus holoschoenus Joint-leaf rush

Juncus usitatus Common rush

Lavatera plebeia Australian hollyhock

Lemna disperma Duckweed

*Lepidium africanum X

*Lupinus cosentinii X

*Lycium ferocissimum African boxthorn X

Lycopus australis Austral Gypsywort R

Maireana brevifolia

*Marrubium vulgare Horehound X

*Medicago polymorpha var. polymorpha

X

*Mesembryanthemum crystallinum

X

Montia australasica

Muehlenbeckia florulenta Lignum

*Myriophyllum aquaticum Parrots feather (milfoil) X

Myriophyllum papillosum Common watermilfoil K R


48

*Oxalis pes-caprae Soursob

*Paspalum distichum Water couch X?

*Paspalum vaginatum Salt-water Couch X

*Pennisetum clandestinum Kikuyu X

Persicaria decipiens Slender Knotweed

Phragmites australis Common reed

Pratia concolor R

Ranunculus amphitrichus Small river buttercup R

*Ranunculus trilobus X

*Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum

Watercress X

*Rorippa palustris Watercress

Rumex bidens Mud dock

*Rumex conglomeratus Clustered dock X

Rumex sp.

*Salix babylonica Weeping willow X

Salsola kali

*Schinus areira Pepper tree X

Schoenoplectus validus River Club-rush

Senecio lautus Variable groundsel

*Sonchus asper ssp. glaucescens

Rough sow thistle X

Sonchus hydrophilus Native sow-thistle

*Sonchus oleraceus Common Sow-thistle X

Spirodela punctata Duckweed

*Stellaria media Chickweed X

Suaeda australis Austral Seablite

Triglochin procerum Water-ribbons

Triglochin striatum Streaked arrow-grass

Typha domingensis Narrow-leaf bulrush (cumbungi)

Typha orientalis Broad-leaf bulrush (cumbungi)

Urtica incisa Stinging Nettle U

*Vulpia muralis Fescue X

*Zantedeschia aethiopica Arum Lily X

Total species 90 42

% introduced 46


49

SECTION G.02 WETLAND AND FLOODPLAIN FAUNA

(a) BIRDS OF SWANPORT SURROUNDS AND LOWER LAKES

Bird species identified at Swanport as part of the River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey (SKM 2004)

(table adapted from River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey (SKM 2004)).

Table 16: Bird species identified at Swanport wetland

Common

Name

Scientific Name Spring Summer Total

abundance

Conservation

status

Sit

e 1

Sit

e 2

Sit

e 3

Sit

e 1

Sit

e 2

Sit

e 3

Black-winged stilt

Himantopus himantopus

2 2 EPBC Migratory

Clamorous reed-warbler

Acrocephalus stentoreus

3 2 2 7

Dusky Moorhen Gallinula tenebrosa

1 1 2

Great egret Ardea alba 1 0 EPBC Migratory

Hoary-headed grebe

Poliocephalus poliocephalus

1 0

Little black cormorant

Phalacrocorax sulcirostris

1 1 2

Little grassbird Megalurus gramineus

2 2

Purple swamp-hen

Porphyrio porphyrio

2 2 4

Royal spoonbill Platalea regia 1 1

Spotless crake Porzana tabuensis

3 3

White-faced heron

Egretta novaehollandiae

1 1

Total Individuals 5 9 6 6 0 0 26

Species 3 5 4 4 0 0 11

Table 17: Birds identified at Swanport wetland by community member Peter Koch

Common Name Breeding Common Name Breeding Common Name Breeding

Black swan Y Australian spotted crake

Sacred kingfisher

Australian shelduck Purple swamphen Y Superb fairy-wren

Australian wood duck

Dusky moorhen Spotted Pardalote

Pacific black duck Y Black-tailed native-hen

Striated pardalote

Grey teal Eurasian coot Weebill


50

Common Name Breeding Common Name Breeding Common Name Breeding

Chestnut teal Latham‟s snipe Yellow-rumped thornbill

Pink-eared duck Black-winged stilt Red wattlebird

Australasian grebe Red-necked Avocet Spiny-cheeked honeyeater

Hoary-headed grebe Black-fronted dotterel

Noisy Miner

Darter Clamorous reed-warbler

Singing honeyeater

Little pied cormorant Little grassbird White –eared honeyeater

Pied cormorant Silvereye White-plumed honeyeater

Little black cormorant

Common blackbird Brown-headed honeyeater

Great cormorant Common starling New Holland honeyeater

Australian pelican Spotless crake White-fronted chat

White-faced heron Y Baillon‟s crake Rufous whistler

White-necked heron Masked lapwing Grey shrike-thrush

Great egret Silver gull Magpie-lark Y

Nankeen night heron Caspian tern Grey fantail

Australian white ibis Crested tern Willie Wagtail

Straw-necked ibis Whiskered tern Black-faced cuckoo-shrike

Royal spoonbill Rock dove Dusky woodswallow

Yellow-billed spoonbill

Spotted turtle-dove Australian magpie

Black-shouldered kite

Crested pigeon Y Australian raven

Black kite Peaceful dove Y Little raven

Whistling kite Y Galah Richard‟s pipit

Swamp harrier Y Little corella House sparrow

Collared sparrowhawk

Purple crowned lorikeet

Zebra finch

Little eagle Red-rumped parrot European goldfinch

Brown falcon Pallid cuckoo Welcome swallow

Australian hobby Fan-tailed cuckoo Tree martin

Black falcon Horsfield‟s bronze-cuckoo

Fairy martin

Peregrine falcon Barn owl

Nankeen kestrel Y Laughing kookaburra


51

(b) FROGS

Frogs identified at Swanport as part of the River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey (SKM 2004) (table

adapted from River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey (SKM 2004)).

Table 18: Frogs at Morgan’s Lagoon, date identified and significant aspects.

Name Scientific

Name

Date and numbers identified Significance/Breeding* Date

identified 3/12/03 29/1/04 12/3/04 2/11/04

Brown

tree frog

Litoria ewingi 1 >50 Breeding throughout the year. Eggs in small clumps attached to submerged vegetation.

Eastern Banjo Frog

L. dumerili 2-9 10-50 Breed throughout year. Large foam nest with 1000-4000 eggs, attached to vegetation. Three months in tadpole stage

Common Froglet

Crinia signifera 2-9 Lay eggs on underside of grass and reeds. Tadpoles need still shallow water for 5 to 6 weeks.

Long

thumbed

frog

Limnodynastes

fletcheri

2-9 Breeding following rain. Eggs in large foam nests.

Peron‟s Tree Frog

Litoria peroni 2-9 Sighting in this section of the River Murray valley significant.

Breeding between Oct. and Jan.

* Adapted from an information sheet from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)


52

(c) FISH

Fish identified at Swanport as part of the River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey (SKM 2004) (tables

adapted from River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey (SKM 2004)). The number of fyke nets used

during the survey reduced from 5 to 3 due to a drop in the water depth. To be able to compare the fish

surveys from the two dates the representative numbers of fish caught were calculated to reflect the

number of fish for each net per night, i.e. catch per unit effort expressed as CPUE (SKM 2004).

Table 19: Native

fisha

November 2003 March 2004

Tota

l

nu

mb

er

of

fish

cau

gh

t

Status

SA**

Common Name Scientific Name CPUE* CPUE*

Australian smelt Retropinna semoni 13 2.6 10 3.3 23

Bony herring Nematalosa erebi 57 11.4 16 5.3 73

Golden perch (Callop)

Macquaria ambiqua 7 1.4 0 0 7

Carp gudgeon Hypseleotris spp. 170 34 6 2 176

Common galaxias Galaxias maculatus 5 1 1 0.3 6

Dwarf flathead gudgeon

Philypnodon sp. 5 1 0 0 5 R (C)

Flathead gudgeon Philypnodon grandiceps

9 1.8 2 0.7 11

Flyspecked hardyhead

Craterocephalus stercusmuscarum fulvus

44 8.8 9 3 53 R

Murray River rainbow fish

Melanotaenia fluviatilis

4 0.8 72 24 76 C

Number of Species 9 7

* Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) fish/net/night

** R = Rare (taxon in decline or naturally limited presence), C = provisional State conservation concern under the draft

Threatened Species Schedule NPWSA

Table 20: Introduced fish

November 2003 March 2004

Tota

l

nu

mb

er of

fish

cau

gh

t

Common Name Scientific Name CPUE* CPUE*

Gambusia Gambusia holbrooki 3 0.6 17 5.7 20

Goldfish Carassius auratus 66 13.2 0 0 66

Redfin perch Perca fluviatilis 1 0.2 0 0 1

Common Carp Cyprinus carpio Seen but

not

caught

Seen but

not

caught

Number of Species 4 2

* Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) fish/net/night


53

(d) MACROINVERTEBRATES

Macroinvertebrates collected at Swanport as part of the River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey (SKM

2004) (table adapted from River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey (SKM 2004))

Table 21: Macroinvertebrate taxa and abundance (SKM 2004)

Taxa (family

level unless

indicated

otherwise)

Spring Autumn

Ab

un

dan

ce

Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4

Hydridae 1 1 2 4

Turbellaria (Class) 8 11

Nematoda (Phylum)

2 18 1 7 182 1640 240 34 2124

Oligochaeta (Class)

39 50 144 46 109 410 180 248 1226

Gastropoda (Order)

13 8 21 42

Ancylidae 6 2 8 16

Lymnaeidae 13 13

Physidae 9 25 58 25 2 1 120

Planorbidae 2 38 40

Astigmata 1 1 5 3 10

Oribatida 1 2 3

Decapoda (Order) 8 7 15

Atydae 17 23 58 10 108

Parastacidae 1 1

Ceinidae 9 2 1 4 16

Sminthuridae 10 11

Baetidae 3 3

Odonata (Order) 3 6 2 11

Coenagrionidae 1 2 2 8 7 20

Lestidae 1 1 1 3

Ceratopogonidae 3 60 1 64

Corixidae 15 6 1 34 27 70 100 119 372

Mesoveliidae 2 2

Notonectidae 2 1 4 2 9

Veliidae 1 19 1 21

Chironominae (Subfamily)

77 83 4 45 139 240 433 116 1137

Culicidae 6 6

Ephydridae 4 4

Orthocladiinae (Subfamily)

35 11 1 2 1 10 60


54

Tanypodinae (Subfamily)

1 5 233 25 264

Hydroptilidae 1 3 4 1 9

Leptoceridae 7 7

Dytiscidae 4 4

Hydrophilidae 1 1

Total abundance 265 244 298 271 482 2450 1200 547 5757

Total number of

taxa

23 18 17 20 12 8 7 8 34

Signal2 2.9 2

Swanport WMP Final Large

Documents

Transcript of Swanport WMP Final Large