You are on page 1of 60

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

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
i
Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006
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

ii
Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

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

iii
Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006
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

iv
Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006
This management plan was written by Kjartan Tumi Bjornsson for the Mannum to Wellington
Local Action Planning Committee Inc., and reviewed and endorsed by the SA River Murray
Wetland Technical Group.
Funding was provided by the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality, the Natural
Heritage Trust, and the 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

v
Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

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)
1
Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006
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;
2
Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006
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

3
Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

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

4
Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

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 Date 2 Date 3 Date 4 Date 1 Date 2 See
(BLS) (BLS) (BLS) (BLS) (SARDI) (SARDI) page
SARDI
BLS

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)

5
Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006
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 Figure 4: Small open water area of north
13/02/06 (AF) lagoon 13/02/06 (AF)

6
Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

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)

7
Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006
(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
-1
DO mg/L 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

8
Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006
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.

9
Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

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 (21 st
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)

Elevation of Bore Ground Elevation Total Depth


NAME EASTING NORTHING Hole casing (m-AHD) (m-AHD) (m-bgl)
MOB031
04 346208.000 6109209.145 0.893 0.918
MOB031
05 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
10
Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006
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;

11
Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006
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.

12
Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006
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
Mix of tall Mix of tall Mix of tall Mix of tall Mix of tall Mix of tall
Fringing vegetation dense dense dense dense dense dense
vegetation vegetation vegetation vegetation vegetation 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
In/above In/above In/above In/above >100m from In/above
Water‟s edge veg veg veg veg veg 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.

13
Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

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
14
Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006
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

15
Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006
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.

16
Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

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.

17
Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

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.

18
Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

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

19
Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

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 Phone
Officers Organisation Mailing Address number
Mannum to Kathryn Mannum to PO Box 2056 Murray SA 5253 (08)
Wellington LAP Rothe Wellington LAP Bridge 8531 3222
Project Manager
Wetland Project Adrienne SA MDB NRM board PO Box 2056 Murray SA 5253 (08)
Officer, Lower Frears Bridge 8232 6753
Murray
Wetland Tumi Lower LAPS Mt. Lofty Ranges Mount SA 5251 (08)
Management Bjornsson Catchment Centre Barker 8391 7515
Planning Officer Upper Level, Cnr
Mann and Walker St's
Parks & Gardens Glenn Rural City of Murray PO Box 421 Murray SA 5253 (08)
Supervisor Dean Bridge Bridge 8539 1167
Senior Local D.V. (Dave) SA MDB NRM board PO Box 1570 Murray SA 5253 (08)
Authorised Clifford Bridge 8539 1165
Officer (pest
control)

20
Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

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.

21
Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006
Table 8: Existing and prospective threats to Swanport wetland
THREATS SYMPTOM CAUSE IMPACT CATEGORY EXTENT POTENTIAL SOLUTION
Altered hydrology in Permanently Constant river levels barge Copy from ML & SS Regional & Local Wetland proper and Addressed in this management plan
river system inundated wetland construction (Regional cause river Local management fringing low lying Introduce “natural” water regime
and lake regulation, Local cause response areas Lowering of sill level of overflow channels
Existing

man made structures) Instillation of flow control structures

Blockage of flow path Slow flow into Expansion of willows Increased sedimentation in wetland Local Wetland Addressed in this management plan
wetland Aggradation Removal of willows and replacement with
Spread of Typha native species (partially completed)

Saline groundwater Saltpan in Lack of wetland inundation Rising of saline groundwater Regional & Local Wetland area Don‟t dry wetland
Potential

lagoons Evapoconcentration Evaporation and increase in Local management


ABIOTIC

concentration of salinity of groundwater response

Poor water quality: Turbid wetland, Wind resuspension of Blocking of light penetration and Local Wetland body Restoration of open flow path to minimise the
Existing (minor threat)

turbidity restricting sediment therefore reducing macrophyte growth sedimentation within the wetland.
growth/loss of Lack of macrophytes – less nutrient
macrophytes and uptake which become available to algae
therefore potential which are not as impacted on by high
algal bloom turbidity
Algal blooms
Degradation of habitat quality for
fauna (e.g. macroinvertebrates, native
fish and birds)
Loss of submerged Their Lack of variable water Loss of habitat availability and Local Wetland Introduce alternate wetland hydrology - dry
aquatic vegetation absence/low regime with wet and dry phases diversity lagoons/regional then inundate wetland (potential gain does not
numbers Mismanagement of wetland (will impact on bird weigh up against the threat to existing herb and
hydrology habitat) wetland flora communities)
Permanent inundation and
therefore no regeneration
Woody weeds Large number of Clearing Loss of habitat/breeding hollows Local Surrounding area. Active removal and/or poisoning
willows Grazing (birds) Extensive Revegetate
Establishment of willows Loss of snags in water body
Weed infestation Competition with native vegetation
Past mismanagement of Loss of ecological function of native
wetland species lost
Weeds Their presence Degradation of native Exotic species Local Higher ground of Active removal – poisoning
BIOTIC

Existing

vegetation Competition with native vegetation wetland area


Ability to grow in saline & dry Loss of habitat (food source?)
environments (boxthorn)
Reed expansion loss of Expansion of Sedimentation Loss of open water area Local Wetland body Active removal
open water area Typha Loss of fauna (bird and fish) habitat Increase water flow into downstream lagoon
reducing sedimentation

Reed expansion into Expansion of Suitable environment for Loss of herb area Local Herb area Active removal
herb area Typha Typha Loss of vulnerable plants and
dependent species

Lack of habitat (birds) Low abundance Low habitat variability Low abundance of birds Local and Regional Wetland and Revegetate with native species
of bird species Loss of bird habitat wetland Increase habitat availability (instillation of bird
during survey surrounding area perches and boxes)

22
Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006
THREATS SYMPTOM CAUSE IMPACT CATEGORY EXTENT POTENTIAL SOLUTION
Invasive fish species Turbid wetlands Well known environmental Competition for habitat (domination Regional and local Wetland water Monitor abundance of invasive species with
(carp, gambusia, Reduction in problem in region (large pest of available habitat) body comparative monitoring of abundance of native
goldfish and redfin) native fish diversity population) Predation/aggressive interaction species consider management if future research
and abundance Rapid breeding cycles (carp on/with small and young native fish provides potential strategies.
~2/year), live bearing (redfin/gambusia)
(gambusia), unpalatable eggs Damage to aquatic vegetation
(redfin) Decrease in water quality (Turbidity
Existing

increase)
Predation on native fish (redfin)
Rabbits Warrens Rabbits Degradation of vegetation Regional and local Wetland area Baiting and shooting
BIOTIC

Damaged herbs Rabbit warrens Destruction of warrens

Foxes Dug up turtle Foxes Large detriment and threat to turtle Regional and local Wetland area Fox baiting and shooting
nest eggs breeding Destruction of fox holes
Fox holes Impact on native fauna

Undermining of bank Banks failure Loss of binding capacity of Opening up of wetland to main rive r Regional and local Wetland water Leave Willows in situ (poison only, do not
stability following willow existing vegetation channel body remove
Potential

removal Changing the wetland type and Planting of native species (red gums) to
significantly altering the ecology and replace function of maintaining bank stability as
habitat structure within the wetland willows are removed/decay
Remove no more than 10% of willows on
bank per year
Disturbance/ Noise Inappropriate recreational Disturbance to water birds and other Local Wetland area Educate all stakeholders and users
inappropriate use/ Unsettled birds use (canoeing during low water native animals Restrict access/ access type (ban houseboats
Low abundance levels, frequent use by canoes, Resuspending sediment increasing entering open water, ban jet skis, restrict access
overuse
and reduced potential inappropriate access turbidity leading to degradation of water by canoes to times when the water level is high
diversity of birds by other recreational craft) quality and associated impacts (entry during low water level causes undue
Turbid wetland Uncontrolled use (access to Access to sensitive areas/ disturbance))
Degradation of sensitive areas, access of the degradation of vegetation (new tracks) Complete circuit boardwalk to allow easy and
herbland (new tracks and bord walk) potential spread of weeds minimal impact access to the area
tracks) Poor control of visitors
Spread of weeds
Damage to herb area Obvious damage New boat access to herb Disturbance to water birds and other Regional and local Wetland area Installation of hardwood pylons blocking boat
Existing

and reduction of area following willow removal native animals access


vegetation in Degradation of vegetation
previously well
vegetated herb
MISCELLANEOUS

area
Lack of regeneration No regeneration Possibly rabbits Long term viability of revegetation in Local Wetland area Deal with Rabbits
of vegetation Possibly competition by question Remove weeds
weeds Research for cause
Toileting in wetland Faeces and toilet Poor access to toilets in a Unhygienic wetland environment Local Wetland area Installation of good quality composting toilet
area (bush) by paper found in heavily used recreational area Damage to revegetation (access to
surrounding sheltered spot)
visitors vegetation
(unhygienic)
Strength of bird hides Old and Age Safety concerns Local Wetland area Rebuild bird hides
degrading Rot
structures
Vandalism Damaged Vandalism Degradation of wetland Local Wetland area Education of public
infrastructure Lack of „ownership‟ by wider Damage to infrastructure leading to
Potential

Damage to community increased cost


vegetation
Aggradation of Increased silt Open flow path Slow reduction in wetland depth Local Wetland body Monitor sedimentation
wetland (turbidity) entering Slow flow and increased Entire wetland becomes a herb zone Remove excessive reeds in wetland body
wetland sedimentation Wetland becomes a long term
Reeds/macrophytes transition zone
encourage sedimentation

23
Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

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 Bank stability undermined
exchange with river
Potential decrease in sedimentation due to a higher Changing the wetland into a through flow wetland
turnover rate of water significantly impacting on the established wetland
ecology
Maintenance of open water due to a decrease in Loss of bird perches (solution is to leave standing
sedimentation 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

24
Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006
Table 10: Management objectives for Swanport wetland.
MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES SOLUTIONS ACTIONS (Management (M) or QUANTIFIABLE MONITOR LEGISLATION PRIORITY
Engineering or structural (ES)) /MEASURE OF ACHIEVEMENT (TIMING)*
Maintain diverse plant Maintain plant diversity including Map the vegetation in more detail No loss of species diversity Photo point (Q) High
community with seven the seven threatened species of (need expert input) Vegetation
species with regional regional significance. Monitor and map vegetation survey (Y)
conservation status Maintain (and probably enhance) changes over 2 to 5 years
Native

the area of small aquatic and Do not install connection between


amphibious herbs. Through the the wetland sections
protection of the swampy/damp
vegetated areas below the old
causeway (i.e. leave this section as
is)
Removal of willows Targeted control of willows along Removing 10% of willows per year, Removal/dieback of 20% of Photo point (Q) High
the levee bank and the gradual not more so as not to impact on levee willows/year Vegetation
Invasive

introduction of native species such bank Survival of more than 50% of survey (Y)
as river red gums, lignum and river Poison another 10% leave standing revegetation
coobah Revegetate with native species
such as river red gums, lignum and
VEGETATION

river coobah
Removal of weeds from Establish weed removal projects Weed control as per revegetation Reduction of 50% of identified Vegetation High
wetland area in the wetland area plan weeds/year and no net increase survey (Y)
Invasive

Removal of weed vegetation Implement eradication program of


surrounding the wetland (monitor identified weeds once per year
level of infestation)
Prevent further spread of weeds
Maintain open water in Maintain existing area of open Increase water exchange by No change in open water area Photo point (Q) May need approval High
larger lagoon and water removing 10% of willows per year, not under the Native
herbland in smaller Reduction in the rate of sediment more so as not to impact on levee vegetation Act
lagoon (sedimentation accumulation in the open water bank. This should increase the water 1991 (possibly
and reed encroachment section exchange, leading to „scouring of the exempt 5 (1) (zi)
into open water and wet sediment or the minimisation of the
Invasive

Control/remove reeds/willows
herb meadow habitats) around flow path (as part of the first sedimentation
10%) Identify source of sediment and
Maintain existing area of wet method of reducing it.
herb meadow habitats Active removal of Typha from herb
Control or stop the spread of areas (need expert recommendation).
Typha into herb areas and open
water
Ease movement of fish Clear flow channels between Clear willows blocking channel as Visible migration during flow Opportunistic Medium
Nativ

between wetland and wetland and the river part of 10% per annum Monitoring of fish
e

River Murray No net decrease in fish abundance or


in wetland
Maintain native:exotic fish Active removal of exotic species Monitor fish populations No net decrease in fish abundance or Opportunistic Medium
ratio of 3:1 for species Maintenance of habitat and a Identify the areas they inhabit diversity Monitoring of fish
richness and abundance healthy wetland, which gives native Avoid/minimise impact on identified in wetland
(7 - 9 native species, 66 fish an advantage. This is possibly habitat
Native

goldfish in Nov-03) the best option given the wetland is Increase snags in wetland
FISH

already in a healthy state


Reduce turbidity. With less
turbidity the native fish have better
habitat conditions from which to
compete
Reduce threat of invasive Active removal of exotic fish Volunteers, active removal with Low abundance of invasive fish Fish survey (Y) Low
Invasive

fish species seine net species in wetland Observation


(Carp come to
surface)

25
Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006
MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES SOLUTIONS ACTIONS (Management (M) or QUANTIFIABLE MONITOR LEGISLATION PRIORITY
Engineering or structural (ES)) /MEASURE OF ACHIEVEMENT (TIMING)*
Maintain > 5 breeding Improved frog habitat through Restore riparian vegetation No net decrease in frog diversity and Frog survey (Q) Low
frog species in summer improved and more diverse Monitor frog populations abundance
(interim target) ecological niches (habitat) Identify the areas they inhabit.
Maintain native frog Revegetate with native riparian
FROGS

Native

habitat species
Maintain herb area
Fish and frogs, need to identify
the area they occupy. Include in
monitoring.
Improved habitat for Provide bird perches and Revegetate with native riparian Increase in bird abundance using Bird survey Medium
water birds (waterfowl, breeding boxes species. wetland (At least double current levels) (1/2Y)
Native/Migratory

waders and shorebirds, Revegetate surrounding area Build bird perches and breeding Increase in habitat diversity in long Vegetation
etc.) with native vegetation (long term boxes term survey (Y)
BIRDS

production of tree hollows) Restoration of wetland habitat and Existence of perches and hollows Observation
Leave 50% of dead willows conditions for native fish species, (boxes)
standing (act as perches) migratory water birds, native water
birds and fringing species, and
aquatic and riparian plant species

Reduce groundwater Maintain freshwater lens under Maintain current inundation Monitor wetland salinity (no net Monitor water Low
impact on wetland wetland increase over time) quality (M)
Monitor soil salinity (no net increase Monitor soil
GW

in soil salinity) salinity

Salinity (Reasonable Maintain surface water salinity at Increase water exchange by Long term decrease of water salinity Monitor water Medium
surface water EC but <1000 EC 100% of the time removing 10% of willows per year, not quality (M)
WQ

potential groundwater Maintain flow into (and out of) more otherwise we may impact on
gradient from the north wetland in the upper (open water) levee bank stability. Start with willows
towards the wetland) section above the causeway in flow channel.
Turbidity (Turbidity 369 Open/improve connection with Identify sources of turbidity (take Visibly clear water Monitor water High
WQ

NTU in Mar-04) river appropriate response). Maintain turbidity at <150 NTU 100% quality (M)
of the time Observation
Improve connectivity of Restore/maintain flow paths into Increase water exchange by Clear distinct channel Photopoint (Q) High
MANAGEMENT

Structural

wetland with River Murray wetland removing 10% of willows per year, not Observation
more otherwise we may impact on
levee bank stability. Start with willows
in flow channel.
Control access to wetland Complete present ring loop trail Construction of boardwalk Presence of boardwalk. Photopoint (Q) Medium
Miscellane

areas over herb area. Construction of Indigenous clearance No new paths in wetland area Observation
boardwalk. Boardwalk needs to
ous

have a minimum impact on herb


area which contains threatened
plants.
Remove visitor toileting in Instillation of composting toilet Construction of boardwalk No toilet paper and foreign material Photopoint (Q) Council approval Medium
lla

ou
ne
ce
M
is

wetland vegetation above 56 flood level. Indigenous clearance in wetland vegetation Observation River Murray Act
No further trails/ Maintain and maximise use of Improve educational signage Medium
laneou
Miscel

boardwalks or structures current boardwalks (and those around current boardwalk


s

(besides those mentioned mentioned above)


above)
Restrict boat access to Install hardwood pylons across Install pylons Reduced damage by recreational Photopoint (Q) High
Miscellan

wetland (particularly herb wetland entrance (flow paths) that boats Observation
eous

community) block access by boats by not water.

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

26
Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

27
Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

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.

28
Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006
Table 11: Implementation plan for Swanport wetland land based activities.
ACTIVITY PRIORITY RESOURCES TIMETABLE RESPONSIBILITY
Remove Typha from herb area at 346133 E High Volunteers As soon as possible LAP, Community group
6109213 N GDA 94 zone 54
Install barriers to boat access across lagoon High Funding (Hardwood As soon as possible LAP, Community group
inlets (both lagoons) (Subject to council pylons)
approval)
Install signs explaining boat access restriction High Funding As soon as possible LAP, Community group

Install Gauge Board Low 2 persons 1 hrs Ongoing LAP, SA MDB NRM
AS SOON AS POSSIBLE

Materials and tools Board


(available)
Willow removal from levee bank (10% per High Funding Ongoing LAP, Community group
year) Volunteers
Clearing of channels (willow removal from High Funding Ongoing LAP, Community group
channels) Volunteers
Poisoning willows on levee bank (10% per High Funding Ongoing LAP, Community group
year, leave standing for bird perches) Volunteers
Revegetation (understorey) Medium Funding (seedlings) Ongoing LAP, Community group
Volunteers
Construction of bird perches Medium Funding Ongoing LAP, Community group
Volunteers
Construction of bird nest boxes Low Funding Ongoing LAP, Community group
Volunteers
Construction of bat nest boxes Low Funding Ongoing LAP, Community group
Volunteers
Removal of excessive Typha growth in open High Sheers As required based on LAP, Community group
water wetland (maintenance of open water Waders photo point monitoring
FUTURE

Maintain clear flow path (no new willow Medium As appropriate As required LAP, Community group
growth, no future blocking of channel by Funding
Typha)
Remove exotic fish Low Volunteers As appropriate LAP, Community group
APPROPRIA

Seine net
Identify sources of turbidity Medium Monitoring As appropriate LAP, SA MDB NRM
(research)/funding Board
Identify frog habitat Medium Monitoring frogs Ongoing/future LAP, Community group
AS

TE

Research/funding

29
Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006
ACTIVITY PRIORITY RESOURCES TIMETABLE RESPONSIBILITY
Identify weeds and locations for weed Medium Monitoring As appropriate LAP, SA MDB NRM
management (research)/funding Board
Botanist
Install additional permanent photopoints Low 2 persons 1 hrs If necessary LAP, SA MDB NRM
Materials and tools Board
(available)
Weed removal Medium Funding As appropriate following LAP, Community group
Volunteers weed identification
Increase snags in wetland for native fish Medium Funding As appropriate LAP, Community group
habitat Volunteers
Construction of frog shelter (homes) Low Volunteers As appropriate LAP, Community group

Fox baiting Medium Funding As appropriate LAP, Community group


Volunteers
Recreate/replace bird hides High Funding As soon as possible LAP, Community group
Volunteers
Construction/completion of board walk Medium Funding As soon as possible LAP, Community group
Volunteers

Construction of composting toilet Medium Funding Funding Volunteers


Need approvals from River Murray Act. Toilet Volunteers
must be above 1956 flood levels.
Install pylons or poles to block boat access to High Funding Funding Volunteers
herb area Volunteers
SA MDB NRM Board = South Australian Murray Darling Basin Natural Resource Management Board, LAP = Mannum to Wellington Local Action Planing

30
Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

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.

31
Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006
Table 12: Monitoring plan for Swanport wetland.
Time
Parameter Method Priority SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG Required Responsible
SA MDB NRM
Groundwater Level and MODERATE Board/community
Conductivity Quarterly half day group
Water quality SA MDB NRM
Surface Water monitoring (cond, MODERATE Board/community
turb, temp) Quarterly half day group

Seine net, dip net SA MDB NRM


Fish (and fyke nets if LOW Board/community
deep enough) Annually 1 day group

Photopoint LOW Only if current photopoints deemed inadequate for monitoring reed encroachment LAP/SA MDB NRM
Installation into open water 1 hour Board

Photopoint HIGH SA MDB NRM


monitoring Quarterly 2 hours Board
Vegetation
Mapping GPS
MODERATE
(weeds) Annually to guide community members work on weed control 1 day LAP
SA MDB NRM
Quadrat/line LOW Set up- 2 Board/community
intercept Permanent quadrats in herb area monitored annually/biannually days, group
SA MDB NRM
Recording Calls
Frogs MODERATE Board/community
Id habitat Annually 0.5 hour group
half day LAP/community
Birds MODERATE
Fixed area search Ongoing (Quarterly) (from dawn) group
Dip net survey 1 day (not SA MDB NRM
Macro-
LOW including Board/community
invertebrates
Annually identification) group
Recording Calls LAP/community
Bats LOW
Ongoing group

32
Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

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.

33
Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

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

34
Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

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

35
Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

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)

36
Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

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

37
Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

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

38
Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

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

39
Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

40
Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

41
Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

42
Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

43
Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

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

44
Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

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 Conservati Plant
on Rating* Association**

Introduced
1 2 3 4

AUS

MU
SA
Apium prostratum ssp. Native celery X
K
prostratum var.
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. Black-seed Samphire X
pergranulata
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. X X
glaucescens

45
Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006
*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

AUS

MU
SA
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. Swamp Daisy
R R
gracilis
*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

46
Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006
Crassula sieberiana ssp. Australian stonecrop
tetramera
*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. Ruby salt bush
tomentosa
*Erodium moschatum X
Eucalyptus camaldulensis var. River red gum
camaldulensis
*Euphorbia terracina X
*Festuca arundinacea X
*Galenia secunda X
*Gynandriris setifolia X
Halosarcia pergranulata ssp. Black-seed Samphire
pergranulata
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. X
polymorpha
*Mesembryanthemum X
crystallinum
Montia australasica
Muehlenbeckia florulenta Lignum
*Myriophyllum aquaticum Parrots feather (milfoil) X
Myriophyllum papillosum Common watermilfoil K R

47
Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006
*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- Watercress X
aquaticum
*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. Rough sow thistle X
glaucescens
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

48
Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

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 Scientific Name Spring Summer Total Conservation
Name abundance status

Site 1

Site 2

Site 3

Site 1

Site 2

Site 3
Black-winged Himantopus 2 2 EPBC
stilt himantopus Migratory
Clamorous reed- Acrocephalus 3 2 2 7
warbler stentoreus
Dusky Moorhen Gallinula 1 1 2
tenebrosa
Great egret Ardea alba 1 0 EPBC
Migratory
Hoary-headed Poliocephalus 1 0
grebe poliocephalus
Little black Phalacrocorax 1 1 2
cormorant sulcirostris
Little grassbird Megalurus 2 2
gramineus
Purple swamp- Porphyrio 2 2 4
hen porphyrio
Royal spoonbill Platalea regia 1 1
Spotless crake Porzana 3 3
tabuensis
White-faced Egretta 1 1
heron novaehollandiae
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 Sacred kingfisher
crake
Australian shelduck Purple swamphen Y Superb fairy-wren
Australian wood Dusky moorhen Spotted Pardalote
duck
Pacific black duck Y Black-tailed native- Striated pardalote
hen
Grey teal Eurasian coot Weebill

49
Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006
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 Noisy Miner
dotterel
Darter Clamorous reed- Singing honeyeater
warbler
Little pied cormorant Little grassbird White –eared
honeyeater
Pied cormorant Silvereye White-plumed
honeyeater
Little black Common blackbird Brown-headed
cormorant 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 Spotted turtle-dove Australian magpie
spoonbill
Black-shouldered Crested pigeon Y Australian raven
kite
Black kite Peaceful dove Y Little raven
Whistling kite Y Galah Richard‟s pipit
Swamp harrier Y Little corella House sparrow
Collared Purple crowned Zebra finch
sparrowhawk lorikeet
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- Fairy martin
cuckoo
Peregrine falcon Barn owl
Nankeen kestrel Y Laughing
kookaburra

50
Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006
(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 Date and numbers identified Significance/Breeding* Date
Name 3/12/03 2/11/04
identified
29/1/04 12/3/04

Brown Litoria ewingi 1 >50 Breeding throughout the year.


tree frog Eggs in small clumps attached to
submerged vegetation.
Eastern L. dumerili 2-9 10-50 Breed throughout year. Large
Banjo foam nest with 1000-4000 eggs,
Frog attached to vegetation. Three
months in tadpole stage
Common Crinia signifera 2-9 Lay eggs on underside of grass
Froglet and reeds. Tadpoles need still
shallow water for 5 to 6 weeks.
Long Limnodynastes 2-9 Breeding following rain. Eggs in
thumbed fletcheri large foam nests.
frog
Peron‟s Litoria peroni 2-9 Sighting in this section of the
Tree River Murray valley significant.
Frog
Breeding between Oct. and Jan.
* Adapted from an information sheet from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

51
Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006
(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 November 2003 March 2004 Status

of
fisha SA**

fish caught
Common Name Scientific Name CPUE* CPUE*

number
Total
Australian smelt Retropinna semoni 13 2.6 10 3.3 23
Bony herring Nematalosa erebi 57 11.4 16 5.3 73
Golden perch Macquaria ambiqua 7 1.4 0 0 7
(Callop)
Carp gudgeon Hypseleotris spp. 170 34 6 2 176
Common galaxias Galaxias maculatus 5 1 1 0.3 6
Dwarf flathead Philypnodon sp. 5 1 0 0 5 R (C)
gudgeon
Flathead gudgeon Philypnodon 9 1.8 2 0.7 11
grandiceps
Flyspecked Craterocephalus 44 8.8 9 3 53 R
hardyhead stercusmuscarum
fulvus
Murray River Melanotaenia 4 0.8 72 24 76 C
rainbow fish fluviatilis
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
number of
fish caught

Common Name Scientific Name CPUE* CPUE*


Total

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 Seen but
not not
caught caught
Number of Species 4 2
* Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) fish/net/night

52
Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006
(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 Spring Autumn
level unless

Abundance
indicated
otherwise) 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 2 18 1 7 182 1640 240 34 2124
(Phylum)
Oligochaeta 39 50 144 46 109 410 180 248 1226
(Class)
Gastropoda 13 8 21 42
(Order)
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 77 83 4 45 139 240 433 116 1137
(Subfamily)
Culicidae 6 6
Ephydridae 4 4
Orthocladiinae 35 11 1 2 1 10 60
(Subfamily)

53
Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006
Tanypodinae 1 5 233 25 264
(Subfamily)
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 23 18 17 20 12 8 7 8 34
taxa
Signal2 2.9 2

54

You might also like