Sweeney's Lagoon WMP 2006 Large

Sweeney’s Lagoon
MANAGEMENT PLAN 2006
LAPS
Lower Murray Local Action Planning Groups
Kjartan Tumi Bjornsson
This management plan was written by Kjartan Tumi Bjornsson for the Mid Murray Local Action
Planning Association 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 (RMCWMB and DWLBC 2003)
and as such fulfils obligations under the Water Allocation Plan for the River Murray Prescribed
Watercourse.
Disclaimer:
The Mid Murray Local Action Planning Association 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). Sweeney’s Lagoon Management Plan. Mid Murray Local Action Planning
Association 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 Wayne Bryce for his efforts Adrienne
Frears and for assistance with the draft.
Thanks also go to those that contributed their knowledge including 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:
Mid Murray LAP
PO Box 10
Cambrai, SA 5353
Phone: (08) 8564 6044
Fax: (08) 8564 5003
Photographs:
Cover photographs:
Top, Sweeney’s Lagoon and watered river red gums (TB)
Bottom, Sweeney’s Lagoon open water section (TB)
Photographs in document (TB) Tumi Bjornsson; (AF) by Adrienne Frears
© Mid Murray Local Action Plan 2006

Swan Reach & Districts Landcare Group
c/- 15 Arthur Street, Tranmere SA 5073
Phone (08) 8332-1929
Email -rivergum@chariot.net.au
20th March 2006
To Whom It May Concern,
The Swan Reach and Districts Landcare Group would like to confirm our involvement with the
Sweeney’s Lagoon Wetland Management Plan. Our group was very keen to have close
involvement to firstly ensure the Baseline survey was completed then have the management plan
written.
Our group previously received funding from the then NHT 1 & 2 funding periods to construct and
replace six water management flow paths under the name of the Moorundie Wetland complex. Of
these, two were constructed at Sweeney’s Lagoon
These sites were purposely built to provide water manipulation options together with carp control
gates. The goal is to ensure the lagoon is maintained at his current ecological health and then to
demonstrate to the local community ways to improve the overall health of the lagoon and
surrounding floodplains.
In summary the group is happy to submit the Management Plan and understands its contents,
together with applying for a long-term water licence.
If you require further information, please do not hesitate to contact.
Wayne Brice
Chairman, Swan Reach Landcare Group
Sweeney’s Lagoon Management Plan 2006
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................... i
LIST OF FIGURES...................................................................................................................... ii
LIST OF MAPS ........................................................................................................................... ii
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ ii
Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 4
1.1 Environmental, Social and Cultural Significance of wetland ............................................. 4
1.2 Why does Sweeney’s Lagoon need a management plan?............................................... 4
(a) Mission Statement ....................................................................................................... 5
(b) Vision Statement ......................................................................................................... 5
(c) Broad Objectives ......................................................................................................... 5
(d) Current Achievements ................................................................................................. 5
Chapter 2. SITE DESCRIPTION OF SWEENEY’S LAGOON .................................................... 7
2.1 Wetland Location and Description ................................................................................... 7
2.2 Survey Sites, Dates & Locations...................................................................................... 8
2.3 Physical Features ............................................................................................................ 8
(a) Sweeney’s Lagoon in Current State ............................................................................. 8
(b) Geomorphology, Geology And Soils .......................................................................... 11
(c) Climate ...................................................................................................................... 12
(d) Wetland Volumes and Water Requirements for Various Filling Stages ...................... 12
(e) Surface and Groundwater Features ........................................................................... 13
2.4 Ecological Features ....................................................................................................... 20
(a) Flora .......................................................................................................................... 20
(b) Fauna ........................................................................................................................ 21
2.5 Implications for Management ......................................................................................... 23
Chapter 3. SOCIAL ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL VALUES .................................................. 26
Chapter 4. LAND TENURE, JURISDICTION AND MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS ......... 27
Chapter 5. THREATS AND POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS TO SWEENEY’S LAGOON ................ 29
Chapter 6. MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES .............................................................................. 32
Chapter 7. IMPLEMENTATION OF PLAN ............................................................................... 35
7.1 ON GROUND ACTION AND TIMETABLE ..................................................................... 35
7.2 WETLAND WATER OPERATIONAL PLAN ................................................................... 37
(a) Water regime ............................................................................................................. 37
(b) Volume calculations ................................................................................................... 37
Chapter 8. MONITORING ....................................................................................................... 40
Chapter 9. EVALUATION, REVIEW AND REPORTING .......................................................... 42
9.1 Evaluation and Review .................................................................................................. 42
9.2 Reporting ....................................................................................................................... 42
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 43
i
(a) Flora of Sweeney’s Lagoon ....................................................................................... 52
(b) Birds .......................................................................................................................... 57
(c) Fish ........................................................................................................................... 58
(d) Macroinvertebrates .................................................................................................... 60
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Pumping in progress (AF) ................................................................................................ 6
Figure 2: Inlet looking to river (WB) ................................................................................................. 6
Figure 3: Middle causeway (WB) .................................................................................................... 6
Figure 4: Rear basing at far end of wetland (WB)............................................................................ 6
Figure 5: Sweeney’s main lagoon 28/07/06 (TB) ........................................................................... 10
Figure 6: Sweeney’s Lagoon dry red gums 28/07/06 (TB)............................................................. 10
Figure 7: Sweeney’s main lagoon and lignum 28/07/06 (TB) ........................................................ 10
Figure 8: Sweeney’s azolla and lignum 28/07/06 (TB) .................................................................. 10
Figure 9: Sweeney’s main lagoon 28/07/06 (TB) ........................................................................... 10
Figure 10: Sweeney’s Lagoon main structure 28/07/06 (TB) ......................................................... 11
Figure 11: Sweeney’s connecting creek 28/07/06 (TB) ................................................................. 11
Figure 12: Hydrogeology of the Moorundi Wetland Complex (Barnett 1989) ................................. 12
Figure 13: Median River Levels below Lock 1 ............................................................................... 14
Figure 14: Water regime ............................................................................................................... 37
LIST OF MAPS
Map 1: Sweeney’s Lagoon location ................................................................................................. 7
Map 2: Wetland Levels.................................................................................................................... 9
Map 3: Historical channels (Map courtesy of Wayne Bryce) .......................................................... 15
Map 4: Structures.......................................................................................................................... 16
Map 5: FIM III flow volumes that connect the wetland to the river ................................................. 17
Map 6: Cadastral boundaries covering Sweeney’s Lagoon and surrounds.................................... 27
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Baseline survey monitoring parameters and dates ............................................................ 8
Table 2: Summary of wetland volumes within Sweeney’s Lagoon................................................. 13
Table 3: Structures........................................................................................................................ 13
Table 4: Median River Levels below Lock 1 .................................................................................. 14
Table 5: Water quality Sweeney’s Lagoon .................................................................................... 18
Table 6: Groundwater monitoring locations ................................................................................... 18
Table 7: Groundwater monitoring results ...................................................................................... 19
Table 8: Tree health Eucalyptus camaldulensis ............................................................................ 20
ii
Table 9: Most significant habitat use at Sweeney’s Lagoon .......................................................... 21
Table 10: Frogs recorded at Sweeney’s Lagoon ........................................................................... 22
Table 11: Sweeney’s Lagoon responsible positions contact details .............................................. 28
Table 12: Existing and potential threats to Sweeney’s Lagoon ...................................................... 30
Table 13: Management objectives for Sweeney’s Lagoon............................................................. 33
Table 14: Implementation plan for Sweeney’s Lagoon .................................................................. 36
Table 15: Water required over fill period of Sweeney’s Lagoon ..................................................... 38
Table 16: Calculated water loss (evaporation – precipitation) ....................................................... 38
Table 17: Water use calculation .................................................................................................... 38
Table 18: Monitoring plan for Sweeney’s Lagoon. ......................................................................... 41
Table 19: Wetland Atlas Data ....................................................................................................... 45
Table 20: Plant Associations at Sweeney’s Lagoon ...................................................................... 52
Table 21: Ongoing vegetation surveys .......................................................................................... 54
Table 22: Habitat features identified in Sweeney’s Lagoon ........................................................... 57
Table 23: Bird species observed at Sweeney’s Lagoon ................................................................ 57
Table 24: Habitat use by waterbird species at Sweeney’s Lagoon ................................................ 58
Table 25: Fish survey sites ........................................................................................................... 58
Table 26: Fish captured at Sweeney’s Lagoon.............................................................................. 59
Table 27: Habitat at sample location ............................................................................................. 60
Table 28: Macroinvertebrates captured at Sweeney’s Lagoon ...................................................... 60
iii
Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION
Since the adoption of the Water Allocation Plan for the River Murray in 2002, the wetlands of
South Australia have an annual water allocation of 200GL. To access this water allocation for
wetland management, a licence is now required.
Sweeney’s Lagoon is listed in Appendix A of the Water Allocation Plan for the River Murray
(RMCWMB 2002) and has therefore a right to access to the 200GL. This wetland management plan
is structured in accordance with the criteria set out in the Guidelines for developing wetland
management plans for the River Murray in South Australia (RMCWMB and DWLBC 2003).
1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE OF WETLAND

The Wetland Atlas of the South Australian Murray Valley (Jensen et al. 1996) listed Sweeney’s
Lagoon (wetland name used in Wetland Atlas is Blanchetown Flat) as having a high-moderate
conservation value and to be of basin and local importance (see Appendix A on page 45). As part of
the Management of Wetlands of the River Murray Valley Draft Action Plan 1996-1999 (South
Australian River Murray Wetlands Management Committee (SARMWMC) 1996), Portee complex
was listed as having a high priority (first in the High rankings) for maintenance or rehabilitation.
The Floodplain Wetlands Management Strategy (Murray-Darling Ministerial Council 1998) lists
the Portee Creek wetlands as a large and significant floodplain wetland complex in the Murray
Darling Basin.
With minimal effort, the maintenance and improvement of a healthy wetland environment can be
expected at this site. This management would be a significant achievement for wetland management
in the region. Management including the maintenance of the ephemeral nature of the wetland, weed
control, and feral animal control are expected to deliver a large return for a minimal investment.
Based on the past efforts, the significance and uniqueness of the wetland management of Sweeney’s
Lagoon is a high priority.
A short timeline of management at Sweeney’s Lagoon (some data from local anecdotal evidence):
1841 Area settled including irrigation development (see Moorundi Wetland Complex
Management Plan 2002 (Jensen and Turner 2002))
1986 Included in Thompson’s report (Thompson 1986)
1999 Included in Wetland Management Study (Jensen et al. 1999)
2002 Wetland Management Plan (Jensen and Turner 2002)
2002 Installation of two culverts, with carp screens and sluice gates at the culvert connecting
the wetland to the River Murray
2004-2005 included in River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey (SKM 2006b)
2006 January river red gum rescue watering trial
Ongoing water quality monitoring by community members
Ongoing tree health monitoring by community members &SAMDB NRM Board staff
1.2 WHY DOES SWEENEY’S LAGOON NEED A MANAGEMENT PLAN?

A plan for the management of the entire Moorundi wetland complex was developed in 2002 for the
Mid Murray Local Action Planning Association by Wetland Care Australia (Jensen and Turner
2002). This plan did not comply with the Guidelines for developing wetland management plans for
the River Murray in South Australia (RMCWMB and DWLBC 2003). However, following on-
ground works initiated as part of this early plan a potential exists to manage some of the water
regime of the wetland and the exclusion of carp through carp screens. Based on assessment of
4
recently available data from the baseline survey The River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey - 2005
(SKM 2006b), as well as ongoing monitoring, historic data and anecdotal information, a better
management strategy for the wetland is possible, which will address the current ecological
constraints on the wetland.
(a) MISSION STATEMENT
The rehabilitation of Sweeney’s Lagoon is aimed at maintaining and improving wetland ecological
values, such as maintaining habitat for the benefit of frogs, fish and waterbirds and the
improvement of vegetation such as preserving the health of river red gums and lignum.
(b) VISION STATEMENT
The vision for Sweeney’s Lagoon is a healthy clear water temporary wetland fulfilling a diversity of
habitat requirements for native fauna. It is envisaged that the wetland will maintain its diversity of
macrophytes providing habitat for native fish and birds. The fish barriers will be improved
(reduced) based on the most recent research. The wetland will have regular visits by water birds,
including migratory species. The riparian area will be maintained in its current condition of mostly
local native species, both through active involvement with the removal of weed species and through
the watering of river red gums. The current land management will remain contributing to the
maintenance of the vegetation diversity.
(c) BROAD OBJECTIVES
The broad objectives of the wetland restoration include:
Reduce fish barriers
Maintain ephemeral nature of wetland
Maintain current ecological heath of wetland
Monitor the impact of hydrology regime for adaptive management and avoidance of
potential salinisation threat
(d) CURRENT ACHIEVEMENTS
A plan for the management of the entire Moorundi wetland complex was developed in 2002 for the
Mid Murray Local Action Planning Association by Wetland Care Australia (Jensen and Turner
2002). Due to this plan, box culverts were constructed to replace the inadequate pipe culverts.
Sweeney’s was part of the floodplain watering project run by DWLBC, where 136 ML were
pumped onto the wetland and allowed to dry by evaporation, some water was already present due to
above entitlement flows (Rover 2006). The pumping commenced on the 12th of January 2006. The
wetland was filled reaching a level of 1.9 m AHD. Figure 1 through to Figure 4 show the wetland
during pumping and 8 days later. As can be seen in Figure 3 the wetland was filled to capacity with
the water almost reaching to the top of the culvert, the top of the culvert is at approximately 2 m
AHD. The rear basin seen in Figure 4 reportedly reached a depth of 1 m. A gauge board was not
installed until the 6th of April at which time the water level was still sitting at 1.23 m AHD whereas
by 1st September the level was down to 0.76 m AHD (Frears 2006).
5
Figure 1: Pumping in progress (AF) Figure 2: Inlet looking to river (WB)
Figure 3: Middle causeway (WB) Figure 4: Rear basing at far end of wetland
(WB)
6
Chapter 2. SITE DESCRIPTION OF SWEENEY’S LAGOON

2.1 WETLAND LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
Sweeney’s Lagoon is found in the Hundred of Skurray and listed as being part of Portee Complex
with the wetland number S0100 in the Wetlands Atlas (Jensen et al. 1996) and numbered M066 by
Thompson (1986). The wetland is located adjacent to Blanchetown (Map 1) between river marker
271 & 273 km. AMG coordinates 482885 E 6231080 N (Grid Zone 54). Sweeney’s Lagoon can be
found on the 1:50,000 Blanchetown map sheet number 6829-3. The wetland was classified with a
moderate-high conservation value with recommendations to avoid disturbance by regulating further
shack development (Thompson 1986). See Appendix A for more information.
The wetland covers an area of approximately 14.6 ha. There is a main wetland lagoon and a
separate lagoon. There are a number of lentic channels, which present potential connections to the
river, most of which need high river levels to connect the two. The main connection to the river is
however through the only remaining creek, which is located in the south east of the main lagoon
(downstream end).
Map 1: Sweeney’s Lagoon location
7
2.2 SURVEY SITES, DATES & LOCATIONS

The River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey - 2005 (SKM 2006b) monitored different wetland
parameters (Table 1). The locations of the baseline survey sites can be seen in Appendix B.
Table 1: Baseline survey monitoring parameters and dates
Parameter Date 1 (BLS) Date 2 (BLS) Date 3 (BLS) Date 4 (BLS) Date other See page
Site physical N/A 7
Vegetation 2005 20
Fish Autumn Spring 22
Birds 13/04/05 1pm 21/10/05 12:30pm 21
Frogs 24/05/05 31/08/05 02/11/05 21
Macroinvertebrates 18/10/05 23
Water Quality 18/10/05 13
Groundwater 26/05/05 11/08/05 25/10/05 30/11/05 18
2.3 PHYSICAL FEATURES

(a) SWEENEY’S LAGOON IN CURRENT STATE
Map 2 shows the two separate sections of Sweeney’s Lagoon. The main section referred to as main
lagoon is the only one that can be managed based on the current river flow volumes.
Floodplain/river red gum rescue pumping will still be required to inundate the full extent of the
wetland.
8
Map 2: Wetland Levels
9
Figure 5 through to Figure 11 show the wetland in its current state with some inundation and
healthy growing azolla and lignum as well as recently watered red gums. Figure 6 shows both live
and dead red gums, which provide habitat for a number of species.
Figure 5: Sweeney’s main lagoon 28/07/06 (TB)
Figure 6: Sweeney’s Lagoon dry red gums 28/07/06 (TB)
Figure 7: Sweeney’s main lagoon and lignum 28/07/06 (TB)
Figure 8: Sweeney’s azolla and lignum Figure 9: Sweeney’s main lagoon 28/07/06
28/07/06 (TB) (TB)
10
Figure 10: Sweeney’s Lagoon main Figure 11: Sweeney’s connecting creek
structure 28/07/06 (TB) 28/07/06 (TB)
The structure installed following a Wetland Care Australia management brief, which included flow
control, and fish grills to exclude carp. Other structures have been in stalled to in crease the
potential flow through the complex during high river flows. For the most part these connections
remain dormant, however the size of the culverts has increased the capability of management to
allow large volumes of water to flow trough the complex when high river levels allow. The current
management planning of this wetland considers the use of these structures for the best possible
management approach, fulfilling the most desirable ecological benefits without causing significant
environmental detriment. For this purpose past surveys including the recent baseline survey are
discussed in the following chapters.
(b) GEOMORPHOLOGY, GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The wetland is sitting on alluvial/fluvial sediments from the Holocene. The bore profiles show the
geology to consist of mainly dark brown clay characteristic of the Coonabidgal Formation with one
bore intersecting the Monoman Formation (AWE 2006), a diagram is presented in Figure 12
(adapted from Smitt, Jolly et al. (2003)). For a detailed account for all bore profiles, refer to the
baseline survey data.
11
Figure 12: Hydrogeology of the Moorundi Wetland Complex (Barnett 1989)

(c) CLIMATE
The following climatic conditions are taken from the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) Waikerie
station (number 024018) (Latitude (deg S): -34.1778; Longitude (deg E): 139.9806) (BOM 2005).
The recording of data commenced at Waikerie in 1896; the latest records used in the assessment of
the climatic condition of the area stemming from 2001.
The area has Mediterranean climatic conditions with warm dry summers and cool wet winters. The
median (5th decile) annual rainfall is 249 mm. The mean monthly maximum rainfall is in October
(26.2 mm), the minimum in March (12.5). The expected mean daily maximum temperature is
highest in January at 33 C, lowest in July at 16.5 C, and has an annual mean of 23.5 C. The
minimum daily temperature is at its maximum in January at 15.2 C, and its minimum in July at
5.2 C. The annual mean daily minimum temperature is 9.5 C.
(d) WETLAND VOLUMES AND WATER REQUIREMENTS FOR VARIOUS FILLING STAGES
A DEM was developed for this area by the baseline survey (see Appendix C). Table 2 summarises
the wetland water volumes for Sweeney’s Lagoon. Despite a large part of the main lagoon being at
or below the level of the river, the wetland connection at 0.854 m AHD can retard water exchange.
Getting water flow into this wetland therefore only occurs when river levels reach above 0.854 m
AHD. The water requirement, including evaporative loss, is covered in 7.2.
12
Table 2: Summary of wetland volumes within Sweeney’s Lagoon
Filling Stage Area (ha) Area (m2) Depth m RLm (AHD)* Volume m3 (KL) Volume ML
Observed river level 0.13 1259.6 0.18 0.61 1623.7 1.6
Full 14.8 147649.6 1.47 1.90 77281.1 77.3
Three quarters full 5.1 50666.8 1.10 1.53 68731.4 68.7
Half full 3.9 38947.7 0.73 1.16 41453.2 41.5
Quarter full 1.9 19,201 0.36 0.79 23244.3 23.2
10 cm depth 0.002 22.8 0.10 0.53 31.1 0.03

Wetland basin invert 0.43 m AHD
Source: Adapted from River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey - 2005 (SKM 2006c)
Base of wetland is to the most par at ~ 0.3 m AHD with the deepest point at -0.45.
(e) SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER FEATURES
Surface water
The main structure that connects the wetland with the River Murray has an invert at 0.854 m AHD,
see Table 3. For the structure to allow water into the wetland, the river levels would need to exceed
this level. The median water level in the river immediately downstream of Lock 1 fluctuates rapidly
depending on wind direction and flow over Lock 1. As can be seen in Figure 13 and Table 4 the
river level exceeds the annual median levels of 1.09 m AHD (0.81 in the past 10 years) regularly.
Based on the long-term median river levels Sweeney’s lagoon, with the current invert at 0.854 m
AHD, would have been a permanent wetland with a drawdown in autumn. This would have been a
longer drawdown in the past 10 years, based on the median water levels. In the very dry past 5 years
Sweeney’s Lagoon could still be operated as a temporary wetland filling over the summer months.
Other structures have also been constructed to regulate flows through lentic channels, see Map 3,
which have the potential of connecting the wetland and the river at high flows. Information on these
structures can be seen in Table 3 and their locations in Map 4.
Table 3: Structures
Structure Type Description Diameter Easting Northing Regulator/culvert Crest Regulator/culvert
(m) Invert RL (m AHD) invert length (m)
RL (m
AHD)
Southern Outlet 2 X Box
Main channel Culverts 1.2 x 1.2 373624.55 6195759 0.854 2.958 5
Pipe under
Levee / Road on
creek connection 1 X Box
to wet land. Culvert 1.2 x 1.2 373322.93 6195808.9 0.705 2.708 8
Pipe under 1X
access road on Reinforced
creek. Concrete Pipe 1.050 372957.56 6197524.1 3.139 5.35 6
Pipe under 1X
creek. Concrete Pipe 1.050 373033.6 6197419.8 3.435 5.2 5.5
Pipe under 1X
creek. Concrete Pipe 0.90r 373127.58 6197342.9 3.076 5.2 7.2
Culvert not
included in
Baseline survey
Source: Adapted from River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005 (SKM 2006b)
13
2.50
2.00
1.50
m AHD
1.00
0.50
0.00
r
ry
ne
ry
ch
ly
r
ril
er
r
t
ay
be
be
be
s
Ju
Ap
ua
a
gu
ob
Ju
ar
m
nu
m
em
M
br
Au
ct
ve
ce
Ja
Fe
O
pt
No
De
Se
Month
Monthly Median 1921-2006 Monthly Median 1996-2006 Monthly Median 2001-2006
Figure 13: Median River Levels below Lock 1
Table 4: Median River Levels below Lock 1

Monthly Median 1921- Monthly Median 1996- Monthly Median 2001-
2006 2006 2006
January 0.94 0.81 0.78
February 0.86 0.76 0.74
March 0.82 0.7 0.66
April 0.85 0.69 0.56
May 0.88 0.71 0.52
June 1.04 0.71 0.61
July 1.18 0.76 0.72
August 1.68 0.8 0.78
September 2.03 0.94 0.87
October 2.03 0.97 0.9
November 1.86 0.97 0.87
December 1.32 0.9 0.85
Annual 1.09 0.81 0.75
14
Creek 1
Creek 2
Creek 3
Creek 4
Map 3: Historical channels (Map courtesy of Wayne Bryce)
15
Map 4: Structures
The river flood volumes as simulated in the Flood Inundation Model III can be seen in Map 5. The
Flood Inundation Model III was used to study the potential critical flow volumes of the River
Murray for Sweeney’s Lagoon. Map 5 shows that at a flow level of 27 GL/day the wetland will fill.
With a flow level of 57 GL/day, connection will establish between the wetland lagoons and extend
through the floodplain to other wetlands. At 77 GL/day, the golf course between the wetland and
Blanchetown will start to flood. As can be seen in Map 4 the wetland has had more connection to
the river, many of these old connections still remain and have their own flow control structures.
16
These channels may connect with the wetland at high river levels, which may not be picked up with
the course FIM model.
Map 5: FIM III flow volumes that connect the wetland to the river
Water was found in the wetland only following high river levels in the final stage of monitoring
during the baseline survey, the river having risen above the flow threshold more than a month prior
to the monitoring date. The monitored water quality for the wetland can be seen in Table 5, which is
adapted from the baseline survey report (MDFRC 2006), this table includes a summary of the river
water levels in the month prior to monitoring.
The salinity of the wetland ranged from a minimum of 603 EC to a maximum of 790 EC, the
median being 720. In comparison, the monitored River Murray salinity obtained from the, DWLBC
Surface Water Archive at Lock 1 (DWLBC 2006), which was 302 μS/cm (up stream of Lock 1).
The maximum wetland recordings were furthest from the regulator/inlet with the minimum near the
regulator. These values were all below trigger levels established for lowland rivers, lakes,
reservoirs, and wetlands (DWLBC 2006).
The dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations were not seen to be of concern to management of the
wetland (MDFRC 2006). The high DO recorded during one sampling even was attributed to the
photosynthetic activity in a region of the wetland where there were abundant filamentous and
benthic algae.
The maximum pH was recorded in the terminal basin of the wetland reaching 9.12 and was
attributed to high levels of primary production. The majority of the pH levels were within the
ANZECC (2000) trigger levels for lowland rivers (MDFRC 2006), pH is therefore not a concern for
management.
The turbidity measurements of the wetland were exceptionally low with a mean of 8 NTU (6-12
NTU’s) this could be related to the ephemeral nature of the wetland and the high number of
macrophytes. Turbidity is therefore not a concern for management at this wetland.
For a description of the implications of water quality in wetlands refer to Your Wetland: Supporting
Information (Tucker et al. 2002). Other water quality parameters monitored, nitrogen, phosphorus,
and dissolved organic carbon were not considered a significant management issue. With only a
single monitoring event the high levels of nitrogen and phosphorus were assumed to be as a
consequence of a ‘nutrient-pulse’ following a dry period or the abundance of zooplankton (MDFRC
2006).
17
Table 5: Water quality Sweeney’s Lagoon
Parameters Stage 4 19/10/05 Parameters Stage 4 19/10/05
EC wetland μS/cm Mean 720 ± 42 NOx μgN/L Mean 9±9
Min. 603 Min. 9
Max. 790 Max. 9
EC Lock 1 Reading 302 Total N μgN/L Mean 1138 ± 433
Upstream* μS/cm
DO mg/L-1 Mean 10.0 ± 1.1 Min. 705
Min. 6.9 Max. 1570
Max. 12.1 FRP μgP/L Mean 128 ± 73
pH Mean 8.44 ± 0.35 Min. 55
Min. 7.47 Max. 200
Max. 9.12 Total P μgP/L Mean 230 ± 120
Turbidity NTU Mean 8±1 Min. 110
Min. 6 Max. 350
Max. 12 DOC mgC/L Mean 12.85 ± 4.45
Water Mean 21.0 ± 0.4 Min. 8.40
Temperature C
Min. 20.2 Max. 17.30
Max. 21.7
River height at Reading 1.00
Lock 1
Downstream *
River height at Mean 0.93
Lock 1
Downstream ** Min. 0.84
Max. 1.14
n (baseline survey) 4 2
Source: Adapted from River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005 (MDFRC 2006);
* from DWLBC Surface Water Archive (Lock 1) (DWLBC 2006);
** Calculated for the month prior to the monitoring date
Refer to 0 for the locations of the baseline survey monitoring sites.
Groundwater
The baseline survey installed four new groundwater wells within Sweeney’s Lagoon. These wells
were monitored 4 times during the survey period; see Table 1 (26th May, 11th August, 25th October,
and 30th November 2005). One more 1 site existed at Sweeney’s Lagoon, which was included in the
monitoring schedule on the 11th August, 25th October and 30th November 2005 (AWE 2006). The
locations of the wells are presented in Table 6 and a map of the groundwater flow direction in
Appendix D.
Table 6: Groundwater monitoring locations
Elevation of Bore Hole
casing Ground Elevation
Name Easting Northing (m-AHD) (m-AHD)
SWE R-01 373,481 6,195,912 4.302 3.387

SWE R-02 373,214 6,196,067 2.419 1.624
SWE R-03 373,769 6,196,678 5.66 4.82
SWE R-04 373,208 6,196,658 2.918 1.969
Bla 1802 373,432 6,196,774 4.13
Wetland marker SWES1
Wetland marker SWES2
Source: River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005 (AWE 2006)
18
The groundwater levels were found to be lower than river levels. It can therefore be assumed that
due to an evaporative low on the floodplain a flow exists from the river and towards the floodplain,
see Appendix D. The groundwater levels seemed to follow the increase in river level and show the
same seasonal trend (AWE 2006). The measured depths of the ground water can be seen in Table 7.
The groundwater salinity ranged from 5,650 EC to 25,200 EC. The bore salinities are believed to be
impacted on by wetland inundation as the salinity monitored reduced following an increase in
wetland water levels (AWE 2006). The wetland base is lower that some of the observed
groundwater levels, indicating a potential for groundwater induced salinisation through
evapoconcentration when the wetland is dry (AWE 2006). Future monitoring is required to confirm
the baseline survey findings.
More recent groundwater data seems to indicate that groundwater levels are influenced by wetland
water levels, therefore when the wetland is dry monitoring indicates groundwater levels are also
low. The baseline survey report conclusion that saline groundwater evapoconcentration could occur
during draw-down is based on data when little water was in the wetland. More recent data shows
that it is more likely that groundwater elevations will simply drop as the wetland water levels drop.
The last community surface water quality monitoring in July ‘06 showed a conductivity reading of
1008 EC, still relatively fresh considering the water was pumped in back in Dec ’05 to January ‘06.
Further recommendations are summarised in Chapter 2.5.
Table 7: Groundwater monitoring results
Groundwater Depth Groundwater Depth Groundwater

Name Sampling Date (mbgl) (mBTOC) elevation (mAHD) Conductivity μS/cm
SWE R-01 26/05/05 3.09 4.005 0.297 8,520

11/08/05 2.812 3.727 0.575 7,500
25/10/05 2.622 3.537 0.765 5,650
30/11/05 2.625 3.54 0.762 6,090
SWE R-02 26/05/05 1.658 2.453 -0.034 24,900
11/08/05 1.435 2.23 0.189 25,200
25/10/05 0.981 1.776 0.643 20,140
30/11/05 1.023 1.818 0.601 23,350

SWE R-03 26/05/05 4.495 5.335 0.325 20,620
11/08/05 4.431 5.271 0.389 24,300
25/10/05 4.354 5.194 0.466 20,350
30/11/05 4.328 5.168 0.492 21,850
SWE R-04 26/05/05 1.791 2.74 0.178 19,640
11/08/05 1.546 2.495 0.423 20,440
25/10/05 1.376 2.325 0.593 17,200
30/11/05 1.37 2.319 0.599 20,430
Bla 1802 11/08/05 3.872 0.258 12,040
25/10/05 3.72 0.41 10,340
30/11/05 3.723 0.407 11,140
Wetland marker SWES1 11/08/05 0.68
25/10/05 0.46
30/11/05 0.532
Wetland marker SWES2 25/10/05 1.05
30/11/05 1.12
19
2.4 ECOLOGICAL FEATURES
(a) FLORA
A vegetation survey was conducted by the baseline survey in 2005. The baseline survey identified
34 native species within the survey area and 14 exotics (SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006b); see
Appendix E,. A great diversity of vegetation associations seems to be focused around the
southwestern part of the wetland area. The vegetation associations located in this part include
Eleocharis acuta (common spike-rush) sedgeland, Myriophyllum verrucosum (red milfoil)
submerged herbland and Muehlenbeckia florulenta (lignum) shrubland (SARDI Aquatic Sciences
2006b).
The baseline survey monitoring team surveyed six plant associations at Sweeney’s Lagoon (SARDI
Aquatic Sciences 2006b). These associations are listed below and their location can be seen in
Appendix B. The rare species coccid emubush Eremophila gibbifolia was found in the
Chenopodiaceae shrubland association in the Eucalyptus largiflorens (river box) open woodland
area (SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006b). A detailed list of species found within the plant associations
can be found in Appendix F. An ongoing vegetation survey has been initiated by the SA MDB
NRM Board as part of monitoring of management change within the wetland, including floodplain
inundation (pumping) and this management plan. The species recorded in the quadrats of this
ongoing survey can also be seen in Appendix F. Further mapping of the listed species Eremophila
gibbifolia and Muehlenbeckia horrida throughout the wetland complex is recommended.
1. Chenopodiaceae shrubland in dry central lagoon

2. Sporobolus mitchellii grassland on dry lagoon bed
3. Chenopodiaceae shrubland in depression on Blanchetown golf course
4. Eleocharis acuta sedgeland on edge of main lagoon
5. Myriophyllum verrucosum submerged herbland in main lagoon
6. Muehlenbeckia florulenta shrubland in main lagoon
River box Eucalyptus largiflorens were, with the exception of three individuals, found to be mainly
in excellent or good condition (SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006b). The river red gum Eucalyptus
camadulensis var. camadulensis health was found to be highly variable due to the lack of floods in
recent time with only just over 10% in excellent condition (SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006b). The
most stressed red gums were to be found on the upper banks of the lagoon and the surrounding
floodplain although the poor red gums were also interspersed with healthier ones (SARDI Aquatic
Sciences 2006b). The red gum locations and health score can be seen in Appendix E.
Large woody debris (LWD) covered less than 5% of the wetland with most of it in one of the higher
flow channels (SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006b).
Since the inundation of the wetland through the pumping project described previously there has
been some response by red gums. The response has been largely positive as can be seen in Table 8.
Table 8: Tree health Eucalyptus camaldulensis
Ranking / Description Number of Trees
(Your Wetland method)
Pre-Watering (Oct 2005) Post-Watering (Sept 2006)
1- All epicormic growth, no original canopy 11 5
2- <25% of original canopy remaining, many
dead branches 6 8
3- 25-50% of original canopy present 10 12
4- 50-75% of original canopy present 11 11
5- >75% of original canopy present- healthy tree 4 6
TOTAL 42 42
Source: Adrienne Frears SA MDB NRM Board (2006)
20
Weeds known to be present around Sweeney’s Lagoon include Californian burr Xanthium
californicum (orientale) and African boxthorn Lycium ferocissimum. Golden dodder Cuscuta
campestris a category 1 weed may also be present. Floodplain inundation could have implications
with regard to their dispersal.
(b) FAUNA
Fauna surveys were undertaken as part of the River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey - 2005 (SKM
2006b). Individual teams with appropriate expertise conducted a number of surveys on fauna in the
wetland environment. These surveys are described below.
Birds
The bird assessment of the baseline survey was located at two sites, one a fixed area search the
other a transect (EBS & HydroTas 2006). The surveys were undertaken twice in the baseline survey
period, once in autumn and once in spring. Both sites had simple shorelines with patchy low cover,
occasional hollow bearing trees and perching trees such as red gums (EBS & HydroTas 2006). One
site was dry during the autumn survey the second very shallow. With an increase in water levels the
shoreline complexity changed somewhat, see Table 22 in Appendix F. With the water level increase
for the second survey the availability of dry mud reduced increasing wet mud and covering some of
the low vegetation (EBS & HydroTas 2006).
The baseline survey observed 16 waterbird species in the spring survey with 207 individuals. No
waterbird species were observed during in autumn although four terrestrial species (9 individuals)
were observed during this sampling period. The three most abundant birds observed were the Grey
Teal Anas gracilis with 101 individuals, the Australian Pelican Pelicanus conspicillatus with 60
individuals and the Straw Necked Ibis Threskiornis spinicollis with 15 individuals (EBS &
HydroTas 2006). Nine species were listed as migratory including the most abundant observed
waterbird the grey teal (EBS & HydroTas 2006). The baseline survey observed nine species that
were roosting and nine foraging, see Appendix F.
The difference in the habitat availability was mainly the increase in wet mud and an increase in
water level for the spring survey. The most significant habitat use by birds at the wetland is shown
in Table 9, a list with the habitat use of all baseline survey recorded birds at the wetland and the
observed activity can be seen in Table 24 in Appendix F. Based on the number of birds the open
water is an important habitat, based on the abundance of species utilising a habitat the wet mud and
sedges are the most utilised habitats.
Table 9: Most significant habitat use at Sweeney’s Lagoon
Habitat Individuals Number of Species
Open water 72 4
Mud 85 5
Dead logs 33 3
Sedges 8 5
Lignum 8 2
Reed beds 1 1
Frogs
A frog survey was included in the baseline survey with three separate monitoring dates, these frog
surveys were conducted by SA MDB NRM Board staff (SA MDB NRMB 2006). Four frog species
were recorded at Sweeney’s Lagoon during the survey, which are listed in Table 10. No frog
species were heard during the May sampling period and all four species were heard during the
November sampling period.
Of the recorded species the Eastern banjo frog Limnodynastes dumerilii and the spotted grass frog
L. tasmaniensis were the most commonly recorded species during this baseline survey, they were
21
also recorded at another 19 wetlands out of the 22 surveyed (SA MDB NRMB 2006). Both of these
species are highly adaptable using strategies such as burrowing (L. dumerilii) and being highly
mobile and therefore a colonising species (L. tasmaniensis).
Of significance is the number of Eastern sign bearing froglets Crinia parinsignifera recorded at this
site. This species was otherwise only recorded in the Riverland sites. The habitat associated with
this species is water couch Paspalum distichum which was available near site 2 (SA MDB NRMB
2006).
The Peron’s tree frog Litoria peroni was the most abundant species recorded during the November
sampling period. The habitat associated with this species is mature red gums. Consistent with the
finding of the baseline survey is the know calling period between September and January and the
preference of this species to breed in temporary pools (SA MDB NRMB 2006).
Table 10: Frogs recorded at Sweeney’s Lagoon
Date Site 1 (Inlet channel near river) Site 2 (Wetland near dense lignum)
Eastern banjo Eastern sign Peron's Spotted grass Eastern sign Spotted grass Eastern banjo Peron's
frog bearing froglet tree frog frog bearing froglet frog frog tree frog
Limnodynastes Crinia Litoria Limnodynastes Crinia Limnodynastes Limnodynastes Litoria

dumerili parisignifera peronii tasmaniensis parisignifera tasmaniensis dumerili peronii
24/05/05
31/08/05 one few many few
02/11/05 few many many few few few many
Abundance: One = 1, Few = 2 - 9, Many = 10 - 50, lots = >50
Source: River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005 (SA MDB NRMB 2006)
Fish
The baseline survey included a fish survey at Sweeney’s Lagoon by SARDI Aquatic Sciences
(2006a), once in autumn and once in spring. Due to a lack of water in the wetland, the autumn
survey only focused on two refuge pools in the inlet channel. The species collected are shown in
Appendix F. The composition of species caught varied between the seasons although the number of
species caught remained the same. Fish mobility due to environmental factors would have
contributed to the difference in species and fish abundances (SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006a).
Overall, the native to exotic species ratio was 1.8:1. However, the abundance of exotic fish brings
the ratio of the number of native fish to exotic to 3.9:1 (597 native and 152 exotic). Most of the
exotics were eastern gambusia Gambusia holbroki with 108 caught in the autumn survey. The most
abundant native species were the carp gudgeons with 562 individuals. The dwarf-flathead gudgeon
Philypnodon sp. and Murray rainbowfish Melanotaenia fluviatilis were both caught in Sweeney’s
Lagoon and both are proposed to be listed as threatened (rare) under the revised National Parks and
Wildlife Act 1972 (DEH 2003; SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006a). The refuge pools could therefore
be an important resource for these species and therefore a significant aspect of consideration for
wetland management.
The concentration of fish in the refuge pools may have skewed the results to indicate only a
marginal increase in numbers following wetland inundation. It must however be considered that
during the spring sampling the fish would have been more widely dispersed. In all likelihood, more
fish were to be found in the wetland during the spring sampling. The number of small fish
suggested recent reproduction either within or adjacent to the wetland (SARDI Aquatic Sciences
2006a).
Flow control structures can have an impact on the movement of fish in and out of wetland
environments, due to changes in water flow (velocities, turbulence) (see Your Wetland: Supporting
Information (Tucker et al. 2002)). In the case of Sweeney’s Lagoon the reduction of movement of
fish is possibly evidenced by the low abundances of fish despite the good water quality and
abundance of food (zooplankton) (SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006a).
22
Macroinvertebrates
The River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey - 2005 (SKM 2006a) monitored macroinvertebrates at
Sweeney’s Lagoon in spring only. A total of 21 distinct taxa with 5,500 individuals were collected
(SKM 2006a). The diversity at Sweeney’s Lagoon was seen to be low; the full list of taxa and
abundance can be seen in Appendix F. The baseline survey related the low diversity to the
ephemeral nature of the wetland.
Of the taxa found at the wetland the most abundant ones were either highly mobile or have short life
cycles making them prime rapid colonisers. Some pollution sensitive taxa were present, suggesting
relatively good water quality in the wetland, although a higher proportion was found close to the
connection to the River Murray. The most abundant non-insect taxa were the Planorbidae (order
Gastropoda). The species of this family generally require low saline water with submerged
macrophytes. The presence of this species would suggest that the salinity issue discussed in the
groundwater section may not be an acute problem and may therefore only become a problem
following long term dry periods.
For a description of the function of macroinvertebrates in wetlands refer to Your Wetland:
Supporting Information (Tucker et al. 2002).
2.5 IMPLICATIONS FOR MANAGEMENT

The River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey - 2005 (SKM 2006b) had a number of
recommendations to make for improved management of the wetland. The recommendations were
based on each survey team’s assessment of their collected data and have been summarised below.
The groundwater survey (AWE 2006) had a number of recommendations for further monitoring in
order to verify their findings and guide future management. The minimum recommended
groundwater monitoring made by the groundwater team was the continuation of the quarterly
frequency. The main concern was the threat posed through evapoconcentration during dry spells
being flushed into the river when the wetland became inundated. Therefore, the following
recommendations were made by the baseline survey team to improve the data obtained and its
applicability to wetland management and to estimate the salinity impact of the wetland management
on the river:
Intensive monitoring during river level change
Permanent river and wetland markers installed
Data logger installed to provide a continual record of groundwater levels
Install two new piezometers in the centre of the wetland to monitor the recharge from the
wetland to the watertable and to monitoring the groundwater salinity to obtain an estimate of
the potential salt loads to the river. The methodology of instillation and the monitoring
employed for the best use of this strategy is described in detail in the baseline survey
document (AWE 2006).
The wetland does not show a significant increase in salinity, the evapoconcentration is therefore not
as significant an issue as the groundwater team at first hypothesised. New piezometers will
therefore not be installed. However, the data logger will provide information to clarify the
groundwater flow pattern. One will be used at the wetland if funding can provide for its acquisition.
The water quality team found the water at the wetland to be of good quality with the non-nutrient
parameters falling within or close to the expected range for this wetland (MDFRC 2006). The water
quality is seen as supporting diverse and abundant communities. Therefore, the water quality team
had the following recommendations:
Maintain the ephemeral nature of the wetland through the wetting and drying cycle
Examine the cause of high nutrient levels through regular monitoring of nutrients.
23
The native submergent, emergent, and riparian species were found to be in good condition in the
main lagoon and the inlet to the wetland. River box Eucalyptus largiflorens were seen to be in a
good condition with a rare listed species present but river red gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis var.
camaldulensis were stressed due to a lack of flooding. Based on these findings the
recommendations from the vegetation team of the baseline survey (SARDI Aquatic Sciences
2006b) were;
Maintenance of current land management practices
Address lack of flooding (floodplain pumping project, to water river red gums, was
undertaken after the baseline survey vegetation assessment, the response has been positive
and should be included in regional management strategies in the future)
The recommendation made by the baseline survey bird team (EBS & HydroTas 2006) was;
Maintain the ephemeral nature of the wetland through the wetting and drying cycle as the
submerged vegetation found currently in the wetland, due to the current management
regime, provided a valuable food resource for the waterbird species
The ephemeral nature of the wetland has provided a favoured frog breeding habitat and promotes
frog calling (SA MDB NRMB 2006). Based on the monitoring results the recommendations from
frog team of the baseline survey (SA MDB NRMB 2006) included;
Maintain the ephemeral nature of the wetland through the wetting and drying cycle as it has
been linked to frog breeding
Hold flood waters in wetland for extended periods using flow control structure to prolong
the frog breeding period
The increasing fringing vegetation (sedges/rushes) to be encouraged as it provides habitat
(site 2 grassy area to be maintained as a great abundance of frogs were recorded at this site)
Frogs to be monitored two to three times a year at the same sites (assistance from local
Wetland Project Officer), link monitoring to the annual South Australian Frog Census in
September
Frog monitoring to coincide with red gum watering
The wetland is seen as a good habitat for small fish species, where ample food is available and good
water quality is present with evidence of recent breeding activity. However, some issues exist that
can improve the conditions of the wetland for native fish species. The recommendation from the
fish team of the baseline survey (SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006a) therefore are:
Improve fish passage. Carp screens, stop logs, and closed-top box culverts all act to deter
movement of some small native species. Depending on research, future improvements could
include the alteration of the mesh and/or a change to open top culverts. The shallow entrance
to the lagoon is also seen as a barrier and should be considered if funding allows.
Carp screens to remain as carp were seen attempting to migrate into the wetland. Carp
separation case could be considered depending on research results.
Secure locking of screens to combat vandalism of operation is required (rocks were used to
prop open the carp screens)
Deep pools in inlet to be maintained as refuge
Invasive species management in refuge pools until carp screens secured
No concrete recommendations were made by the macroinvertebrate team (SKM 2006a). However,
some significant outcomes that relate to the habitat availability for macroinvertebrates were
identified. Based on the information contained in the macroinvertebrate chapter of the baseline
survey the following management considerations seem prudent:
24
Salinity does currently not seem to be as great an issue as anticipated by the groundwater
team
From these recommendations and the data from the baseline survey strategies for the management
of the wetland can be made. The following chapters discuss other aspects influencing management
including: land tenure, values, and threats. The developed management strategy for the wetland
including hydrology regime and monitoring strategy is detailed in the following chapters.
25
Chapter 3. SOCIAL ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL VALUES

Most wetlands of the River Murray are of cultural value to the local indigenous population. In
recognition, aboriginal input is sought on any projects having a significant impact on the River
Murray wetlands, such as the construction of sluice gates. Indigenous consultation was obtained for
the Wetland Management Plan written in 2000 (Jensen and Turner 2002) for the structures planed
for the wetland complex. Sweeney’s Lagoon is adjacent to a number of shacks along the River
Murray in Blanchetown. This wetland and its surrounding floodplain would therefore have an
inherent value to the local residents and shack owners. A healthy wetland would also be of value to
Blanchetown residents due to its proximity to the town.
26
Chapter 4. LAND TENURE, JURISDICTION AND

MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS
There are multiple properties, which encompass Sweeney’s Lagoon and the surrounding land. The
wetland lagoon itself covers three in private ownership. Some of the surrounding properties are
residential (shacks) with the town of Blanchetown immediately north of the wetland floodplain. The
property boundaries and the key ownership details can be seen in Map 6.
Map 6: Cadastral boundaries covering Sweeney’s Lagoon and surrounds.
27
The Sweeney’s Lagoon community members i.e. the Swan Reach and Districts Landcare group,
with support from the Mid Murray LAP and the SA MDB NRM BOARD, will be responsible for
the management of the wetland in consultation with the landholders.
Contact persons for Sweeney’s Lagoon management will be Mid Murray LAP Officers, Wetland
Management Planning Officer or SA MDB NRM BOARD Wetland Project Officer, see Table 11
for contact details. Access to the wetland will need to be arranged through consultation with the
relevant landowner, contact with whom should be established through the Mid Murray LAP or
Swan Reach and Districts Landcare group.
Table 11: Sweeney’s Lagoon responsible positions contact details
Position Present Organisation Mailing Address Phone number
Officers
Chairman of the Wayne Brice Swan Reach and Districts 15 Arthur Street Tranmere SA 5073 (08)
Swan Reach and Landcare Group 8332 1929
Districts Landcare 0409 102 814
Group
Mid Murray LAP Aimee Linke Mid Murray LAP PO Box 10 Cambrai SA 5353 (08)
Implementation 8564 5003
Officer
Wetland Project Adrienne Frears SA MDB NRM BOARD PO Box 2056 Murray SA 5253 (08)
Officer, Lower Bridge 8232 6753
Murray
Wetland Tumi Bjornsson Lower LAPS Mt. Lofty Ranges Mount SA 5251 (08)
Management Catchment Centre Barker 8391 7515
Planning Officer Upper Level
Cnr. Mann and Walker St's
28
Chapter 5. THREATS AND POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS TO

SWEENEY’S LAGOON
There are a number of existing and potential threats to Sweeney’s Lagoon, some of which have
become apparent in the description of the wetland and available data in the chapters above. The
identification of these threats is essential for appropriate adaptive management of the wetland. Their
early recognition allows for an appropriate monitoring strategy for early identification of adverse
impacts of management and therefore rapid response through altered management. The major threat
is the lack of frequent flooding which is affecting river red gum health. Due to the wetland base
being lower than the surrounding groundwater levels, a threat identified by the groundwater team is
the flow of groundwater towards the wetland depression when wetland is low or dry. Therefore,
evapoconcentration can lead to salt accumulation at or near the floodplain surface. There is the
potential of increasing the salinity in the wetland (particularly at low wetland water levels). This
interaction between the wetland and aquifer is a major parameter where wetland management can
influence groundwater levels and therefore salt flow to river at high wetland levels. These and other
threats identified so far have been listed in Table 12.
29
Table 12: Existing and potential threats to Sweeney’s Lagoon
THREATS SYMPTOM CAUSE IMPACT CATEGORY EXTENT POTENTIAL SOLUTION
(IF KNOWN)
Fish Less than Stop logs Only partial use of habitat by Local Wetland and Improve fish passage by;
barriers expected Carp screens may native fish population adjacent Upgrading the carp screens based on latest
abundance of restrict passage reaches of research (seek expert advice)
native fish Dark passage river Installing carp separation cages if research
Existing
through culvert proves successful

Increase light penetration in culvert (open
up culvert?)
Lower culvert at inlet to deepen the
currently shallow passage (only to be
considered as part of future
upgrades/maintenance of culvert)
Vandalism Structure Vandalism Inappropriate management Local Wetland Install secure locking mechanisms to
of carp and damaged or of wetland with associated structures
flow control altered (rocks adverse impact (e.g. loss of
structures have been used to extended flood phase)
Existing
prop open carp No knowledge of recent

screens) management and therefore
unable to fully appreciate impact
of management and respond
accordingly
Carp access to wetland
Salinisation Increasing EC of Wetland Degradation of wetland Local Wetland Use only annual dry events to induce
ABIOTIC
of the wetland water maintained at a dry water quality (long term May not be a germination of water plants
wetland if body phase for to long degradation of wetland) serious issue Monitor groundwater flow around wetland to
long term Increasing salinity allowing groundwater Degradation of wetland if drying is assess the impact and respond adaptively
dry periods in wetland seepage into the environment only a short- Do not allow wetland to remain dry more
are base/soil wetland Degradation of habitat term event. than 6 to 8 months
introduced Salinity increase quality for native fish Both water
through groundwater Reduced biodiversity (loss of quality
Potential
evapoconcentration some macroinvertebrates, monitoring

native fish, vegetation) and flow and Macro-
on impacts invertebrate
Mainly salt tolerant species taxa indicate
present the wetland to
Salt inflow into river be in a
relatively fresh
state with a
minor sat
load.
Loss of Dry wetland – loss Inappropriate Loss of wetland along with Basin Wetland/river/ No further avoidable loss of water from the
wetland of wetland operation of locks and species dependent on the Regional catchment River Murray
Potential
inundation barrages ephemeral condition of the Operate locks and barrages with ecological
Operation without wetland awareness, e.g. re-establish seasonal
ecological awareness Salinisation of the wetland fluctuation in water levels
Loss of water in ‘depression’
the river
30
THREATS SYMPTOM CAUSE IMPACT CATEGORY EXTENT POTENTIAL SOLUTION
(IF KNOWN)
Existin Loss of Stressed river red Lack of frequent Loss of habitat provided by Regional Basin Red gum watering (flooding or individual
g river red gums flooding red gums watering)
gums Loss of ecosystem function Maintain water in wetland for extended
of red gum period (benefits fringing red gums)
Rabbits Less diversity of Rabbits eat Destruction of riparian Local Surrounding Fence of wetland with rabbit proof fence
vegetation to what vegetation vegetation area Baiting
could be expected Loss of habitat Shooting
Existing
in area
Destruction of
current vegetation
Destruction of
revegetation
efforts
African Their presence Potentially through Exotic species Local Floodplain Active removal
boxthorn spreading by birds Competition with native Poisoning
Existing
vegetation Contact Authorised Officer from NRM Board

Loss of habitat for control information for weed species
Provide shelter for rabbits
and foxes
Golden Their presence Potentially Parasitism of crop Local unknown Active removal
Potential
dodder spreading through Financial loss Poisoning

flooding Contact Authorised Officer from NRM Board
for control information for weed species
BIOTIC
Californian Their presence Impact on wool (can render Regional Wetland Active removal
burr wool unmarketable) Poisoning
Physical damage to Contact Authorised Officer from NRM Board
Existing
stock/wildlife for control information for weed species

Out compete other
vegetation
Seedlings poisonous to
stock
Weeds Their presence Degradation of Exotic species Local Floodplain Active removal
Existing
native vegetation Competition with native Poisoning

vegetation Contact Authorised Officer from NRM Board
Loss of habitat for control information for weed species
Invasive Turbid wetlands Well known Competition for habitat Local/ Wetland and Improve structure if possible
fish species environmental (domination of available habitat) Regional Sweeney’s Restrict carp movement into Sweeney’s
(carp, problem in region Predation/aggressive (Managed Lagoon Lagoon
gambusia, (large pest population) interaction on/with small and locally) Removal of exotic species from refuge
goldfish and Rapid breeding young native fish pools following drawdown
Potential
redfin) cycles (carp ~2/year), (redfin/gambusia) Monitor abundance of invasive verses

live bearing Damage to aquatic native species
(gambusia), vegetation
unpalatable eggs Decrease in water quality
(redfin) (Turbidity increase)
Predation on native fish
(redfin)
31
Chapter 6. MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES

The main management objective is the maintenance of the current ecology of Sweeney’s Lagoon.
The Lagoon is an ephemeral wetland with a diverse and healthy species composition with
vegetation providing habitat for a diverse range of native fauna. The main degradation related to the
management of the wetland is the poor river red gum health, which is an issue that is currently
being addressed by the floodplain pumping trials. Management of the wetland will aim to enhance
the water retention in the wetland providing longer term wetting of the ringing red gums as well as
providing an extended frog and fish-breeding period. The current land management practices are
encouraged to remain the same to maintain the current vegetation community. Based on the
objectives, presented in Chapter 1, the baseline data presented in Chapter 2 and the threats to the
wetland, discussed in Chapter 5, more detailed management objectives can now be developed. The
objectives, including solutions, actions needed, and priorities are detailed in Table 13.
Subject to funding and council interest, the currently disconnected creeks should be connected to
the wetland to allow for flooding of a greater area including these historical channels. As the
channels are on crown lands, any on ground work would need to be referred to the crown lands
branch of DEH, see "Your Wetland On Ground Works Document” (Sustainable Focus Pty Ltd.
2006).
Adaptive management will drive the actions undertaken to achieve the objectives. Due to the
complexity of the habitat requirements of water birds, native fish, macroinvertebrates and frogs and
identified potential threats to the wetland, the management will need to be flexible. A minor review
of the objectives and the wetland management impact is recommended at the end of each year,
community groups can achieve this by reviewing their monitored data, with the support of the local
wetland officers listed in Chapter 4. A major review should follow 5 years after the commencement
of the management.
32
Table 13: Management objectives for Sweeney’s Lagoon
MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES SOLUTIONS ACTIONS (Management (M) QUANTIFIABLE MONITOR (TIMING)* LEGISLATION PRIORITY
or Engineering or structural /MEASURE OF
(ES)) ACHIEVEMENT
Maintain current Maintain current land Inform landholder of Maintained species Vegetation survey Medium
Native
vegetation management practises this aspect diversity (Y)
Assist regeneration of Work on rabbit control Use rabbit control Expansion and survival Photo point (Q) Low
Native
riparian vegetation measures as appropriate of native species Vegetation survey

(Y)
Maintain wetland aquatic Maintain ephemeral nature Manage hydrology Diversity of aquatic Photo point (Q) WAP (water High
VEGETATION
species (maintain of wetland Acquire wetland water species (no reduction in Vegetation survey license)
Native
abundance of license diversity) (Y)

submerged Monitor water
macrophytes) quality (M)
Removal of weeds from Establish weed removal Weed control as per Reduction of weeds (as Vegetation survey N/A Low
floodplain projects in the wetland area expert recommendation per expert (Y)
Invasive
recommendation)
Improve fish passage Improve carp screen design Upgrade carp structure Increase in abundance Fish survey (1/2Y) High
and habitat based on expert as per expert of native species
recommendation recommendation (carp Native fish survival in
Remove stop logs when not separation cages if refuge pools
required for hydrological successful at other Observation
management wetlands)
Improve light availability in Install stop logs only as
culvert stated in WMP – to extend
Maintain deep pool refuge inundation period
areas Depending on budged
Lower (deepen) flow path improve culvert design to
Native
FISH
through culvert (only when allow light penetration

upgrade/maintenance allows) (open up top of culvert)
Ensure deep pool
refuge areas are available
for native fish (remove
exotics, dredge if it
becomes necessary)
In future
upgrade/maintenance of
main culvert lower
structure to deepen flow
path
33
Minimise impact of carp Improve carp screens Discuss screen Minimal carp Fish survey (1/2Y) High
Install carp separation cages improvement with expert recruitment
Invasive depending on successful trial at Install screens prior to Less carp (no large
other wetlands inundation of wetland carp) in wetland and refuge
Secure carp screens Install locking areas
mechanism
Minimise presence of Remove exotics from refuge Remove exotics during Reduced presence of Fish survey (1/2Y) Medium
Invasiv
exotics pools fish survey in refuge pools exotic fish abundance

e
(native to exotic ration)

Maintain native frog Improved frog breeding by Install stop logs near Maintained presence of Frog survey (1/3 WAP (water High
habitat extending inundation period the end of expected high specialist native frog Y) license)
Maintain hydrology regime river levels species in wetland (no loss
FROGS
Native
Increase fringing vegetation Manage hydrology over 5 year management

(sedges/rushes) to provided Increase reed period)
habitat growth/plant
Maintain grass habitat at frog
monitoring site 2
Maintained habitat for Maintain all habitat including Maintain hydrology Maintain bird Bird survey (1/2Y) WAP (water Medium
Native/Migratory
water birds (waterfowl, open water, shallow water, wet regime abundance and diversity Observation license)
waders and shorebirds) and dry mud using wetland
BIRDS
Minimise groundwater Do not dry out wetland for Maintain current Monitor wetland salinity Monitor water High
impact on wetland more than a 6 to 8 month period hydrology regime following drying event (no quality (M)
Monitor impact of dry net increase) Monitor ground
period on wetland salinity No increase in water (Q)
groundwater discharge Monitor one
piezometer with data
GW
logger to assess
interaction between
river levels and
MANAGEMENT
groundwater levels (1
year/during high river
level fluctuation)
Establish cause of high Monitor nutrient levels in Monitor nutrient levels Assessment of Monitor wetland Low
WQ
nutrient levels wetland during inundated phase in wetland during monitored time series of nutrient levels
inundated phase nutrient levels
Secure structure from Install locking mechanisms Install locking Structure secure with Observation High
vandalism/inappropriate mechanisms no vandalism
Structural
operation (carp screen

and flow control
structure)
* WQ, Water Quality; W, Weekly; M, Monthly; Y, Yearly; Q, Quarterly
34
Chapter 7. IMPLEMENTATION OF PLAN

The wetland was found to be in a healthy state with a diverse range of flora and fauna. The
maintenance and minor enhancement of this condition is the best way to ensure the maintenance of
this richness. Therefore, the River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005 vegetation, fish, frog
and bird teams (EBS & HydroTas 2006; SA MDB NRMB 2006; SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006b;
SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006a) recommended the maintenance of the ephemeral nature of the
wetland. This recommendation has been accepted as a central part of this management plan.
Should the river return to the more fluctuation water levels as seen in Figure 13, where the river
exceeded the flow threshold of the wetland every moth of the year, a new management strategy may
need to be devised to maintain the ephemeral nature of the wetland! Such a situation would allow a
greater range of manipulations to be explored and can only be of benefit to the region.
7.1 ON GROUND ACTION AND TIMETABLE

From the objectives described above, a number of required actions have been identified. Table 14,
provides a timetable and prioritisation for the actions to be undertaken as part of the management of
Sweeney’s Lagoon. The table does not address monitoring which is discussed in Chapter 8. A log of
all activities undertaken at the wetland should be maintained. This log would assist in the review
process of the wetland management plan discussed in Chapter 9.
35
Table 14: Implementation plan for Sweeney’s Lagoon
ACTIVITY PRIORITY RESOURCES TIMETABLE RESPONSIBILITY
Improve structure as necessary (install secure High Finance ASAP LAP (Aimee Linke)
AS SOON AS
locking mechanisms)
POSSIBLE
Install fish screens High Fish screens ASAP Community group
Weed control as per expert recommendation Low Funding As per expert recommendation LAP/Community group
Improve structure as necessary (convert culvert Medium/Low Finance As appropriate LAP (Aimee Linke)
to open tope to allow light penetration)
Improve structure as necessary (lower flow Low Finance With structure upgrade LAP (Aimee Linke)
barrier)
Improve structure as necessary (improve carp Medium Finance As appropriate LAP (Aimee Linke) consult with Ben
screens) Smith
Improve structure as necessary (install carp Low Finance As appropriate LAP (Aimee Linke) consult with Ben
separation cages is successful at other wetlands) Smith
AS APPROPRIATE
Ensure deep pool refuge areas remain available High Monitoring fish (nets, license etc.) Ongoing Community group with assistance
for native fish Dredge if necessary from LAP and SA MDB NRM BOARD
Remove exotic fish during monitoring of deep High During monitoring Ongoing Community group with assistance
pool refuge areas from LAP and SA MDB NRM BOARD
Study nutrient over time in wetland (1 season) Medium Funding ASAP Community group with assistance
from SA MDB NRM BOARD
Rabbit control Low Funding (fence, poison, shooting etc.) As appropriate Community group with assistance
from LAP and SA MDB NRM BOARD
Install groundwater salinity data logger High Funding ASAP LAP and SA MDB NRM BOARD
Monitor impact of dry period on salinity (1 season Medium Funding As appropriate LAP and SA MDB NRM BOARD
when river levels fluctuate)
Annual review of monitored data High Monitored data End of each inundation year Community group with assistance
(End of summer) from LAP and SA MDB NRM BOARD
Install stop logs when required High 2 persons 3 hrs When the wetland is high and Community group
ANNUAL
the river level is expected to fall

Remove stop logs when not required High 2 persons 3 hrs When wetland levels are just Community group
above the flow path restriction
36
7.2 WETLAND WATER OPERATIONAL PLAN

One of the strongest tools in managing a wetland is the control of the wetland hydrology.
Hydrology controls the germination and growth of aquatic and riparian vegetation. The healthy
vegetation and appropriate inundation leads to the growth of biofilms, the vegetation, and biofilms
being a food source for macroinvertebrates and small native fish. The vegetation and appropriate
water regime also provide a more diverse habitat for waterbirds and fish. In Sweeney’s the
ephemeral nature of the wetland is to be maintained. Hydrological management in this case is
therefore aimed at maintaining this ephemeral nature and enhancing the inundation period to
promote frog breeding.
(a) WATER REGIME
The water regime at Sweeney’s wetland is dependent on the seasonal fluctuations below Lock 1.
That is, based on the height of the flow path of 0.854 m AHD it is anticipated that the wetland will
receive water for 4 month of the year when the connection is left open as the river is expected to
rise above this restriction as observed in the past below Lock 1. The connection is then closed off
from the river in order to hold water at a slightly higher level than anticipated if the wetland is left
to follow the expected change in river level. The wetland then enters a slow drying phase followed
by a fully dry phase until the cycle is repeated the following September, see Figure 14.
In s ta ll s to p lo g s
R e m o v e s to p lo g s
~ 0 .9 7 m A H D
~ 0 .9 4 m A H D ~ 0 .9 0 m A H D
N o te : C a rp s c re e n s in s ta lle d a n d s e c u re d
S e p te m b e r O c to b e r Novem ber Decem ber J a n u a ry F e b ru a ry M a rc h A p ril M ay June J u ly A ugust
O p e n c o n n e c tio n to riv e r - in u n d a tio n o f w e tla n d S to p lo g s in s ta lle d - w e tla n d d ryin g D ry w e tla n d – F is h m a in ta in e d in re fu g e p o o ls
Figure 14: Water regime

(b) VOLUME CALCULATIONS
The volume calculations are based on the median monthly anticipated wetland levels following
inundation of the wetland, the fill volume (Table 15) and the expected monthly evaporation based
on the median monthly surface area (Table 16). The base of the wetland is at 0.43 m AHD, inflow
commences at 0.854 m AHD (SKM 2006c). Stop logs are installed at the end of December to
extend the period that the wetland has water
The baseline survey provided estimates of the volume within the wetland at five different depths.
These depths did not include all the depths required for this wetland. Therefore, to obtain the water
volume required at the depths expected each month, a polynomial relationship was established
between the depth of the water in the wetland and the volume (both given in the SKM baseline
survey data). Equation 1, established to calculate the volume at a given depth for the main lagoon,
where volume is in m3 and depth in metres, had an R2 of 1.
Equation 1: Volume 122551 Depth
2
289308 Depth 129253
The evaporation rates were attained using the Wetland Loss Calculator obtained from RMCWMB.
Equation 2 with an R2 of 1 was used to estimate the surface area (m2) of the wetland exposed to
evaporation in each month when the wetland was inundated based on the expected wetland depth
(the used wetland depth is directly dependent on the calculated median river levels for each month).
The details of the estimated volume of evaporation used for the calculation of water requirements
can be seen in Table 16 along with the calculated surface area based on Equation 2.
37
Equation 2: Area 29560 Depth
2
111453 Depth 50689
Table 15: Water required over fill period of Sweeney’s Lagoon

Month Median Depth Wetland Volume in Fill volume Volume required Notes
River Level aimed for surface area wetland ML(2) required per month (ML)
m AHD(1) (ha) at a given per month Including
depth (ML) evaporation
Jan. 0.81 ~0.47 ~2.6 32 0 0 (5.1) Drying (5.1 ML
evaporation)
Feb. 0.76 N/A Drying
Mar. 0.7 N/A Drying
Apr. 0.69 N/A Drying
May 0.71 0 Dry
June 0.71 0 Dry
July 0.76 0 Dry
Aug. 0.8 0 Dry
Sep. 0.94 0.51 2.8 34 34 36.9 (34+2.9) Filling
Oct. 0.97 0.54 3 36 2 4.8 (2+2.8) Extra filling
Nov. 0.97 0.54 3 36 0 5.2 Evaporative
maintenance
only
Dec. 0.9 0.47 2.6 32 -4 (3) 1.2 (-4+5.2) Evaporative
maintenance
offset by flow
back to river
Total 48.1
1. Monthly median calculated from the daily water level obtained from the, DWLBC Surface Water Archive (DWLBC 2006) for 1996
through to 2006 (if the river returns to a more wet state as can be seen in Figure 13 then the wetland operation and water use
will have to be reviewed)
2. Based on the median river level
3. This is where the river level is expected to drop, therefore flows are expected to return to the river (evaporation is still relevant)
Table 16: Calculated water loss (evaporation – precipitation)
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC TOTAL
(ML)
Area used in calculation 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.0 2.6
(ha)
Net Loss (ML) 5.1* 2.9 2.8 5.2 5.2 16.1
Water loss obtained using the Wetland Loss Calculator and based on anticipated water levels (surface area) each month
* Not relevant to total as this is during the draw down phase
This water use calculation can be seen in Table 15 and is summarised Table 17. The total annual
allocation requirement for Sweeney’s Lagoon annually amounts to 50 ML (or 50,000 kL). At the
end of each inundation season a review of monitored data is required to assess the impact of the
hydrology, this would be as part of an annual review of the wetland management plan. An annual
review of the WMP is essential for best practice management to guide efforts according to the
vision and therefore objectives. This will assist to assess whether the current management of is an
effective hydrology management strategy or whether a revision of the wetland management plan is
required.
Table 17: Water use calculation
Total Fill Volume (ML) Flow back to river (ML) Total Potential Evaporation (ML)(1) Total Annual Water Requirement (ML)(2)
36 4 16.1 50
1. Obtained using Wetland Loss Calculator (Oct., Nov., Dec. & Jan. only)
2. Rounded to nearest 10 ML
The area used for volume estimates within the wetland can be seen in Map 2. This shows that
through this management only the main lagoon receives water. The second lagoon is therefore still
dependent on flood periods, which have reduced substantially in frequency. Floodplain/river red
gum watering is therefore still required at Sweeney’s Lagoon for river red gum health and for the
38
simulation of flooding in the higher wetland areas. Pumping should attempt to be undertaken
following a similar pattern as shown in Figure 14 with a gradual increase in water levels over two to
three months followed by a slow drying event. As the wetland will not be connected to the river
during pumping projects as scheduled in this management plan fish migration will be retarded. This
impact should be taken into consideration for repeat watering trials weighing up the needs of the red
gums, frogs, and fish. As floodplain pumping projects cannot be scheduled into this management
plan, and their full impacts are currently not known, future scheduling should be made with
consideration of this management plan and in consultation with the relevant wetland management
planner or wetland officer.
The salinity impact of wetland management was to be estimated using the SIWM model. However,
the Department of Water Land and Biodiversity Conservation (DWLBC) has withdrawn the use of
the SIWM model. Some inherent difficulties were found in developing and finalising this model for
general use leading to a new modelling approach to be undertaken. DWLBC is presently developing
a new model for the simulation of the impact wetland management will have on salt accumulation
within wetlands, as well as, the potential impacts to the river. A salinity assessment will be
conducted on Sweeney’s Lagoon once a model is available for use; a brief report outlining the
results of this modelling will be included in the plan in the future.
39
Chapter 8. MONITORING
For the development of a wetland management plan, Sweeney’s Lagoon was included in the River
Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey - 2005 (SKM 2006b). The data collected during this survey
provided a basis by which objectives for the wetland management could be refined, hydrology
guidelines could be developed, and review procedures scheduled. However, this data did not cover
all the issues related to managing the Sweeney’s Lagoon. Partly as a consequence, but also as part
of adaptive management and best practise wetland management, monitoring of the wetland has been
devised to answer some of the unknowns, the monitoring schedule can be seen in Table 18.
Ongoing monitoring during wetland management plays a role in adaptive management by providing
managers with information on how the wetland is responding to management strategies, whether the
objectives are being met, whether there are off-target implications (wetland in regional context) or
(as per Your Wetland: Monitoring Manual (Tucker 2004)) whether the Golden Rules are being
broken. The Golden Rules being:
Don’t salinise your wetland
Don’t kill long lived vegetation
Don’t destroy threatened communities or habitats of threatened species
To ensure that monitored data is available for evaluation, review and reporting, a log of all
activities, monitoring and site description should be maintained at an accessible and convenient
location. The purpose of such a log is to maintain a record of management steps undertaken, their
justification, and observed impacts/implications. The maintenance of a log is both good
management practice, allowing future reference to potential impacts of management, and a
requirement of the Wetland Water License. The data will ultimately be stored in appropriate
databases. Refer to Your Wetland: Monitoring Manual (Tucker 2004) for examples of data log
sheets and further description of monitoring methods.
40
Table 18: Monitoring plan for Sweeney’s Lagoon.
Parameter Method Priority SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG Time Required Responsible
Level and conductivity Medium/High 1 monitoring day Community Group/

Groundwater
(1 piezo. data logger) (data logger) Q Q Q Q event Wetland Officer
Water quality Medium

monitoring (cond., 1 monitoring day Community Group/
Surface Water turb., & temp.) Q Q Q Q event Wetland Officer
Surface level (using Low Community Group

gauge boards)     0.5 hour
Seine net, dip net (and

Fish High
fyke nets if deep 1 monitoring day Community Group/
enough) Q  event Wetland Officer
Medium Community Group/

Photopoint monitoring Q Q Q Q 2 hours Wetland Officer
Vegetation 1 monitoring day Community Group/
Medium
Quadrat/line intercept  event Wetland Officer
1 monitoring day Community Group/

High
Tree health  Q event Wetland Officer
Frogs High Community Group/

Recording Calls   0.5 hour Wetland Officer
Birds Low
Fixed area search Q Q 0.5 day To be resolved
1 monitoring day
Macro- event (not
Dip net survey Low
invertebrates including Community Group/
Q  identification) Wetland Officer
Q = at some time in the quarter
41
Chapter 9. EVALUATION, REVIEW AND REPORTING

9.1 EVALUATION AND REVIEW
The full impact of a wetland management cannot be fully predicted. Therefore, the data obtained through
monitoring need to be regularly reviewed to respond to impacts of the management strategy. A review, of the
implications of management of Sweeney’s Lagoon therefore needs to be an ongoing process. For the wetland
management plan to be an adaptive and complete document, periodic reviews need to be scheduled in
following monitoring and evaluation of the impact of management.
An annual review of the monitored data and the condition of the wetland should be conducted by the
community group with assistance from the LAP and the SA MDB NRM Board. This first review should be
scheduled following the drying and wetting cycle of the wetland. A full review of the wetland management
plan should be scheduled in 5 years.
For the annual review to be effective it needs to include an upgrade of the;
Hydrological regime based on new knowledge and understanding, e.g. whether the inundation of the
wetland has occurred and its implications wetland water quality and habitat development (see
management objectives Chapter 6)
Monitoring schedule to reflect changes in the wetland management plan
9.2 REPORTING
The wetland management plan for Sweeney’s Lagoon is comprehensive and includes an estimation of the water
requirements over the period covered in this plan. Should the volume used deviate substantially from the plan,
and therefore the water license, the Department of Water Land and Biodiversity Conservation (DWLBC) will
need to be notified. The records noted in the activity and monitoring logs will assist in reporting to DWLBC.
Further, as part of the requirements of the water license, any substantial change in the wetland management
plan, e.g. objectives, monitoring timetable or hydrology regime change, also needs to be reported to DWLBC.
42
REFERENCES
AWE (2006). Groundwater Surveys. River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005, South Australian Murray
Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board.
Barnett, S. R. (1989). The Hydrogeology of the Murray Basin in South Australia with Special Reference to the
Alluvium of the River Murray Floodplain. Moorundi Wetlands Groundwater Monitoring Network: Case Study
- Morgan's Lagoon. K. Holland, CSIRO Land and Water.
BOM (2005). Climate Averages. Accessed 27 June 2005,

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_024018.shtml.
DEH (2003). 2003 Review of the Status of Threatened Species in South Australia: Proposed Schedules under
the South Australian National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972. National Parks and Wildlife Council in partnership
with the Department for Environment and
Heritage: 61. Discussion Paper, Adelaide
DWLBC (2006). Unpublished Data. Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation.
EBS & HydroTas (2006). Bird Surveys. River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005, South Australian
Murray Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board.
Frears, A. P. (2006). Personal Communication. Wetland Project Officer, Lower Murray South Australian
Murray-Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board.
Jensen, A., F. Marsh, et al. (1999). Wetland Managment Study: Moorundi Wetland Complex. Wetland Care
Australia. 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
Jensen, A. and R. Turner (2002). Moorundi Wetland Complex Management Plan. Wetland Care Australia.
Berri
MDFRC (2006). Water Quality Surveys. River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005, South Australian
Murray-Darling Ministerial Council (1998). Floodplain Wetlands Management Strategy: For the Murray-
Darling Basin. Murray-Darling Basin Commission. A component of the Natural Resources Management
Strategy, Canberra
RMCWMB (2002). Water Allocation Plan for the River Murray Prescribed Watercourse (as Amended 12th
January, 2004). River Murray Catchment Water Management Board, Government of South Australia. Berri,
South Australia
RMCWMB and DWLBC (2003). Guidelines for Development of Wetland Management Plans for the River
Murray in South Australia. River Murray Catchment Water Management Board,
Department of Water Land and Biodiversity Conservation,.
Rover, C. (2006). Personal Communication. Project Manager - Remediation and Infrastructure, Infrastructure
& Business, Dwlbc.
43
SA MDB NRMB (2006). Frog Surveys. River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005, South Australian
SARDI Aquatic Sciences (2006a). Fish Surveys. River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005, South
Australian Murray Darling Basin Natural Resources
Management Board.
SARDI Aquatic Sciences (2006b). Vegetation Surveys. River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005, South
Australian Murray Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board.
SKM (2006a). Macroinvertebrate Surveys. River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005, South Australian
SKM (2006b). River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey - 2005. South Australian Murray Darling Basin Natural
Resources Management Board.
SKM (2006c). Site Physical Survey. River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005, South Australian Murray
Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board.
Smitt, C., I. Jolly, et al. (2003). Moorundi Wetlands Groundwater Monitoring Network: Case Study - Morgan's
Lagoon. CSIRO Land and Water.
South Australian River Murray Wetlands Management Committee (SARMWMC) (1996). Management of
Wetlands of the River Murray Valley: Draft Action Plan 1996-1999. Wetlands Management Program:
Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Adelaide
Sustainable Focus Pty Ltd. (2006). Your Wetland: Guidelines for on-Ground Works: Draft. SA MDB NRM
Board.
Thompson, M. B. (1986). River Murray Wetlands, Their Characteristics, Significance and Management.
Department of Environment and Planning and Nature Conservation Society of S.A. Adelaide
Tucker, P. (2004). Your Wetland: Monitoring Manual - Data Collection. River Murray Catchment Water
Management Board, Australian Landscape Trust. Renmark SA
Tucker, P., M. Harper, et al. (2002). Your Wetland: Hydrology Guidelines. Australian Landscape Trust.
Renmark SA
44
Appendix A. Wetlands Atlas Data

Table 19: Wetland Atlas Data
Side Lagoon Main Lagoon
656 657
FID
62451.64 83321.73
AREA
948.2673 2015.97
PERIMETER
656 657
WETLANDS#
655 656
WETLANDS-ID
44190 44190
AS2482
S0100 S0100
AUS_WETLANDNR
THOM_WETLANDNR
Y Y
THOM_CHANGE
BLANCHETOWN FLAT BLANCHETOWN FLAT
WETLAND_NAME
PORTEE COMPLEX PORTEE COMPLEX
COMPLEX_NAME
2 2
CONS_VALUENR
4 4
MDBC_DISTNR
TEMPORARY TEMPORARY
WATER_REGIME
0 0
INTERNATIONAL
0 0
NATIONAL
1 1
BASIN
1 1
VALLEY
1 1
HIGH_CONSERVATIO
1 1
MODERATE_CONSERV
0 0
LOW_CONSERVATION
1 1
SHOULD_REASSESS
0 0
SHOULD_ASSESS
Source: Wetlands Atlas of the South Australian Murray Valley (Jensen et al. 1996)
45
Appendix B. Baseline Survey Locations
Source: River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005 (SKM 2006b)
46
Appendix C. Baseline Survey DTM
Source: River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005 (SKM 2006c)
47
Appendix D. Baseline Survey Groundwater
48
Appendix E. Baseline Survey Vegetation
372750 .0 0 0 0 0 0 373000 .0 0 0 0 0 0 373250 .0 0 0 0 0 0 373500 .0 0 0 0 0 0 373750 .0 0 0 0 0 0 374000 .0 0 0 0 0 0 374250 .0 0 0 0 0 0
5
.0 0 0 0 0 0
.0 0 0 0 0 0
6197500
6197500
.0 0 0 0 0 0
.0 0 0 0 0 0
6197250
6197250
.0 0 0 0 0 0
.0 0 0 0 0 0
6197000
6197000
3
.0 0 0 0 0 0
.0 0 0 0 0 0
3
6196750
6196750
3
1
.0 0 0 0 0 0
.0 0 0 0 0 0
1
1
6196500
6196500
.000000 .000000 .000000 .000000 .000000
402250 402500 402750 403000 403250
2
.000000
.000000
2
.0 0 0 0 0 0
.0 0 0 0 0 0
2
6228500
6228500
6196250
6196250
3 3
3
54
44
.0 0 0 0 0 0
.0 0 0 0 0 0
4 45 5 4
3 5
3 3 5 5
.000000
.000000
4 5
5
6196000
6196000
1 6
6228250
6228250
4
4 5 4
3
4
43
6 45 2 2 5
4 6 3
3 3 5
5
.0 0 0 0 0 0
.0 0 0 0 0 0
3 3 1
5 3
5 5
5 5
6195750
6195750
.000000
.000000
6228000
6228000
.0 0 0 0 0 0
.0 0 0 0 0 0
6195500
6195500
372750 .0 0 0 0 0 0 373000 .0 0 0 0 0 0 373250 .0 0 0 0 0 0 373500 .0 0 0 0 0 0 373750 .0 0 0 0 0 0 374000 .0 0 0 0 0 0 374250 .0 0 0 0 0 0
.000000 .000000 .000000 .000000 .000000

402250 402500 402750 403000 403250
R IV E R M U R R A Y
RIVER MURRAY L a rg e -s c a le V e g e ta tio n C o m m u n itie s
S u rv e y e d Q u a d ra ts
W EBASELINE
W ETLANDS TL A N D S B A S E L IN E E u c a ly p tu s c a m a ld u le n s is v ar. c a m a ld u le n s is /
C he no p o d shrub la nd E u c a ly p tu s la rg iflore n s w o o dlan d*
SURVEY S U R V E Y M y riop h y llu m v e rru c os u m h er blan d
S p o ro b o lu s m itch e llii g ra ssla nd
Eucalyptus camaldulensis E le oc h a ris a c u ta s e d g elan d
C he no p o d shrub la nd S w e e n e y's L a g o o n M u e h le n b e c k ia floru le n ta s h ru blan d o v er
Boggy Flat M y riop h y llu m v e rru c os u m
E le o ch a ris a cu ta se d g e la nd
1:5,500
M yrio p h yllu m ve rru co su m sub m e rg e d he rb la nd 1 :1 0 ,0 0 0 S p or ob olu s m itc h e llii gr as s lan d
E u c a ly p tu s c a m a ld u le n s is v ar. c a m a ld u le n s is o v er
M u e h le n b e ckia flo ru le n ta shrub0 20 40 80 120 160 M u e h le n b e c k ia floru le n ta #

la nd 0 35 70 140 210 280
Metres Area of interest shown in red box
M e tre s M u e h le n b e c k ia floru le n ta s h ru blan d
* D e n o te s co m m u n ity n o t q u a n tita tiv e ly su rv e ye d C h en o p o d s h ru blan d

* D e n o te s co m m u n ity n o t q u a n tita tiv e ly su rv e ye d
# D e n o te s a re a to o sm a ll to m a p A g ros tis a v e n a c e a gr as s lan d + /- E u c a ly p tu s la rg iflore n s # *
# D e n o te s a re a to o sm a ll to m a p
Q u a d ra t n u m b e rs re fe r to v e g e ta tio n a sso cia tio n s in w e tla n d su m m a ry
Source: River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005 (SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006b)
49
.0 0 0 0 00
.0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 00 0 .0 0 0 00 0 .0 0 0 00 0 .0 0 0 0 00
3 7250 0 3 7275 0 3 7300 0 3 7325 0 3735 00 3737 50 3740 00 3742 50
6198 000
5
.0 0 0 0 0 0
.0 0 0 0 00
6197 750
6 1977 50
.0 0 0 0 0 0
.0 0 0 0 00
6197 500
6 1975 00
.0 0 0 0 0 0
.0 0 0 0 00
6197 250
6 1972 50
.0 0 0 0 0 0
.0 0 0 0 00
6197 000
6 1970 00
3
1 1
.0 0 0 0 0 0
.0 0 0 0 00
4
3 2 1 5
6196 750
6 1967 50
4 1 2 4 3
3
3 1
4 4
5
.0 0 0 0 0 0
.0 0 0 0 00
1
5
6196 500
6 1965 00
.0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0
402250 402500 402750 403000 403250
4
6 2 2 8 5 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0
6 2 2 8 5 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0
1
.0 0 0 0 0 0
.0 0 0 0 00
1
3
6196 250
6 1962 50
2 3
3 3
3
2 1 4
445 4 4
5
3 5 2 5
6 2 2 8 2 5 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0
6 2 2 8 2 5 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0
4 3 3
.0 0 0 0 0 0
.0 0 0 0 00
5 5
4 1
3 6196 000
6 1960 00
1 4 5 4 4
3 4 3
2 3 4 5 2
3 5
4 2 3 3 5
4 4 33 1
5
5 5 4 4
3 5
.0 0 0 0 0 0
5
.0 0 0 0 00
5 3 5
1 5
6195 750
6 1957 50
1
6 2 2 8 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0
6 2 2 8 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0
4
.0 0 0 0 00
6195 500
.0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 00 0 .0 0 0 00 0 .0 0 0 00 0 .0 0 0 0 00
3 7250 0 3 7275 0 3 7300 0 3 7325 0 3735 00 3737 50 3740 00 3742 50
.0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0
402250 402500 402750 403000 403250
R IVER R M IV
U RERRA YM U R R A Y
W E T LAWN E
DTS LBAANSEDLSINBEA S E L IN E
S U R V E YS U R V E Y
E u ca ly ptu
E su c a
amly ap ldule
tu s cns
a is
m a ld u le n s is
S w ee ne y's L B o gon
ago g y F la t
1 :1 1,0 001 :5 ,5 0 0
0 40 8 0 0 21 0
6040 2 84 0 1 32200 1 6 0
M e tr es
M e tr e s A re a o f i n t e re s t sh o A
wnr eian re
o fd in
b ot ex r e s t s h o w n in r e d b o x
50
.0 00 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 00 0 .0 0 0 00 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0
3725 00 372 750 373 000 3 7325 0 3735 00 3737 50 37 4000 37 4250
5
.0 0 0 0 0 0
.0 0 0 0 00
6197 750
6 1977 50
.0 0 0 0 0 0
.0 0 0 0 00
6197 500
6 1975 00
.0 0 0 0 0 0
.0 0 0 0 00
6197 250
6 1972 50
.0 0 0 0 0 0
.0 0 0 0 00
6197 000
6 1970 00
.0 0 0 0 0 0
.0 0 0 0 00
4 5 5
6196 750
6 1967 50
1 5
4 4
4 4
.0 0 0 0 0 0
.0 0 0 0 00
4 4 5
5
6196 500
6 1965 00
402250 .0 0 0 0 0 0
402500 .0 0 0 0 0 0
402750 .0 0 0 0 0 0
5
403000 .0 0 0 0 0 0
403250 .0 0 0 0 0 0
4
.0 0 0 0 0 0
.0 0 0 0 0 0
6228500
6228500
.0 0 0 0 0 0
.0 0 0 0 00
6196 250
6 1962 50
5
3 5
3 4 4 4
3 44 44 5 4
5 445
3 5 55 5
5 24
.0 0 0 0 0 0
.0 0 0 0 00
3
.0 0 0 0 0 0
.0 0 0 0 0 0
4 3
4 5
5 4
4
6228250
8250
1
6 2 2000
6 1960 00
4
5 5 5 45 43
4
4 6196
5 2 3 5
4 25 33 3 5
4 5 5
353 1
55
5 5 5
.0 0 0 0 0 0
.0 0 0 0 00
3
5 5 5
5
0 0 0 .0 0 0750
6 1957 50
.0 0 0 0 0 0
000
6 2 2 86195
6228000
.0 0 0 0 00
6195 500
.0 00 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 00 0 .0 0 0 00 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0
3725 00 372 750 373 000 3 7325 0 3735 00 3737 50 37 4000 37 4250
.0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0
402250 402500 402750 403000 403250
RRI V
IVEERRMMUURRRR
AYAY
WEETTLA
W L ANNDDSSBBAASS
ELE IN
L IN
EE
SSUURR
VVEEYY
E
E uu cc aly
a lypt
p tu
uss lac rgi
a mflo
a ld u le
ren s n s is
S w ee B
neoy's
g g yL ago
F la ton
11:1:51,0
,5 000
0
0 4 00 28004 0 8 00 1 2 24
16 0 01 6 0 32 0
M e tre
M es tr e s A re A
a re
o f ai no
t ef re
inste
t re s twsnh ionwren dinb ore
sh o x d box
51
Appendix F. Species List for Sweeney’s Lagoon

(a) FLORA OF SWEENEY’S LAGOON
Table 20: Plant Associations at Sweeney’s Lagoon
Association number **
Species Common name
1 2 3 4 5 6
Acacia stenophylla River cooba
Agrostis avenacea* Common blown-grass x
Aster subulatus* Aster-weed x
Atriplex prostrata Creeping Saltbush x x
Atriplex semibaccata Berry Saltbush x x x
Atriplex stipitata Bitter saltbush x
Avena barbata* Bearded Oat
Azolla filiculoides Pacific Azolla x
Bromus unioloides* Prairie grass x
Carpobrotus rossii Angular Pigface
Carrichtera annua* Ward's Weed x x
Chenopodium pumilio Small Crumbweed x x
Chloris truncata Windmill grass x
Craspedia sp. Billybuttons
Cyperus gymnocaulos Spiny Flat-sedge x
Eleocharis acuta Common Spike-rush x
Enchylaena tomentosa Ruby Saltbush x
Eremophila gibbifolia Coccid Emubush
Eremophila scoparia Scotia Bush
Eucalyptus camaldulensis var. camaldulensis River Red Gum
Eucalyptus largiflorens River Box
Euphorbia terracina* False Caper
Graminae sp. Grass x
Helichrysum scorpoides Button Everlasting x
Helichrysum sp. Everlasting
Juncus usitatus Common Rush x
Lycium ferocissimum* African Boxthorn
Maireana enchylaenoides Wingless Bluebush
Maireana microcarpa Swamp Bluebush x
Marrubium vulgare* Horehound
Marsilea drummondii Nardoo x
52
Medicago sp.* Medic
Mesembryanthemum crystallinum* Common Iceplant
Muehlenbeckia florulenta Lignum x x x x
Myriophyllum verrucosum Red Milfoil x x x
Osteocarpum acropterum var. acropterum Water Weed x
Persicaria lapathifolium Pale Knotweed
Phragmites australis Common reed
Rorippa palustris* Yellow Marsh-cress x x
Schismus barbatus* Arabian Grass x
Sclerolaena divaricata Tangled Bindyi x
Sonchus oleraceus* Common Sow-thistle x
Sporobolus mitchellii Rat-tail couch x x
Stipa sp. Spear grass
Typha sp. Bulrush x
Vulpia sp.* Fescue x x
Wahlenbergia fluminalis River Bluebell
TOTAL 9 8 12 7 1 4
The above list includes opportunistic observations not surveyed in quadrats
*denotes exotic species
** Association numbers;
1. Chenopodiaceae shrubland in dry central lagoon
2. Sporobolus mitchellii grassland on dry lagoon bed
3. Chenopodiaceae shrubland in depression on Blanchetown golf course
4. Eleocharis acuta sedgeland on edge of main lagoon
5. Myriophyllum verrucosum submerged herbland in main lagoon
6. Muehlenbeckia florulenta shrubland in main lagoon
53
Table 21: Ongoing vegetation surveys
Voucher Common Name Species name Herbarium ID SWEVG01 SWEVG02
Atriplex semibaccata
VEG01 Creeping saltbush Atriplex semibaccata * *
Eucalyptus camaldulensis
Red gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis *
Xerochrysum bractiatum
VEG02 Yellow button Craspedia sp? * *
Lachnagrostis filiformis
VEG03 Dead grass Agrostis avenaceae? *
Sonchus olenaceus
VEG04 Round-leaf thistle Sonchus sp * *
?Chenopod sp.
VEG05 Tube leave * *
Sporobolus mitchellii
VEG06 Long thin grass Sporobulus mitchelli? * *
Medicago polymorpha
VEG07 Burr Medic Medicago polymorpha *
Muehlenbeckia florulenta
Lignum Muehlenbeckia florulenta * *
Atriplex ?prostrata
VEG08 Spade leaf * *
Cyperus gymnocaulos
VEG09 Spiny Sedge Cyperus gymnocaulos * *
Carrichtera annua
VEG10 Fly traps * *
Phyla nodiflora
VEG11 Clover *
Chomaecyse drummondii
VEG12 Small purple *
Vulpia myuros
VEG13 Sock grass * *
Muehlenbeckia horrida
VEG14 Spiny Lignum Muehlenbeckia horrida *
Lepidium sp.
VEG15 White leaf *
Typha orientalis
VEG17 Typha Typha sp * *
Eleocharis acuta
VEG18 Common spike rush Eleocharis acuta *
Juncus subsecundus
VEG19 Juncus sp1 Juncus sp * *
Azolla filiculoides
Azolla Azolla filiculoides *
Myriophyllum verrucosa
VEG20 Water-milfoil Myriophyllum verrucosum? * *
Paspalum distichum
Water couch Paspalum distichum * *
Cyperus exaltus
VEG22 Giant Sedge Cyperus exaltus *
Bassia sp?
VEG29 Spiky Plant Bassia sp? *
Atriplex suberecta
VEG28 Green leafy saltbush Atriplex sp *
Amphibromus nervosus
VEG23 Tall water grass Glycenia maxima? *
Aster subulatus
VEG24 Aster Aster subulatus *
Marsilea drummondi
VEG25 Common nardoo Marsilea drummondi? *
Alteranthera denticulata
VEG27 Lesser joyweed Alteranthera denticulata? *
Liliocomes acuta *
Lachnagrostis filiformis
VEG26 Thick water grass Glyceria sp? *
Source: Adrienne Frears SA MDB NRM Board (2006)
54
Photographs on left by Adrienne Frears on 5th Dec 2005. Photographs on right by Wayne Brice on 24th June 2006.
55
56
(b) BIRDS
Table 22: Habitat features identified in Sweeney’s Lagoon
Habitat Feature Autumn 13/04/05 1pm 1 fixed location, 1 transect Spring 21/10/05 12:30pm 1 fixed location, 1 transect
SweBi01 SweBi02 SweBi01 SweBi02
Shoreline simple simple simple complex
Fringing Vegetation patchy low cover patchy low cover patchy low cover patchy low cover
Reeds absent occasional absent occasional
Sedges occasional occasional occasional occasional
Herbs extensive occasional occasional extensive
Wet mud absent absent occasional occasional
Dry mud extensive occasional occasional occasional
Hollow-bearing trees occasional occasional occasional occasional
Perching trees occasional occasional occasional occasional
Fringing River Red Gums occasional occasional occasional occasional
Water’s edge dry 1-10m from vegetation in or above vegetation in or above vegetation
Water Depth (m) dry 0.5 1-Feb <0.5
Water Level rising same
Source: River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005 (EBS & HydroTas 2006).
Table 23: Bird species observed at Sweeney’s Lagoon
Common Name Scientific Name Autumn Spring Total abundance Conservation status
Waterbirds
Australian Shelduck Tadorna tadornoides 2 2 M
Australian Wood Duck Chenonetta jubata 2 2 M
Pacific Black Duck Anas superciliosa 2 2 M
Grey Teal Anas gracilis 101 101 M
Little Pied Cormorant Phalacrocorax melanoleucos 1 1
Australian Pelican Pelecanus conspicillatus 60 60
White-faced Heron Egretta novaehollandiae 1 1
Intermediate Egret Ardea intermedia 1 1 State R
Great Egret Ardea alba 1 1 M
Australian White Ibis Threskiornis molucca 5 5
Straw-necked Ibis Threskiornis spinicollis 15 15
Yellow-billed Spoonbill Platalea flavipes 2 2
Black-fronted Dotterel Elseyornis melanops 1 1 M
Masked Lapwing Vanellus miles 4 4 M
Clamorous Reed-warbler Acrocephalus australis 3 3 M
Little Grassbird Megalurus gramineus 6 6 M
Total Individuals 0 207 207
Species 0 16 16
Terrestrial species
Nankeen Kestrel Falco cenchroides 1 1
Chestnut-rumped Thornbill Acanthiza uropygialis 4 4
Southern Whiteface Aphelocephala leucopsis 2 2
Mistletoebird Dicaeum hirundinaceum 2 2
Total Individuals 9 0 9
Species 4 0 4
Conservation Status: M = Migratory
Source: Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005 (EBS & HydroTas 2006).
57
Table 24: Habitat use by waterbird species at Sweeney’s Lagoon
Common Name Scientific Name
Dead logs
Reed beds
Reg gums
Samphire
Shallow
Willows
Lignum
Activity
Sedges
Grass
water
water
Open
Total
logs
Mud
Australian Tadorna tadornoides R 2 2
Shelduck
Australian Wood Chenonetta jubata R 2 2
Duck
Pacific Black Duck Anas superciliosa R 2 2
Grey Teal Anas gracilis R 8 30 38
Grey Teal Anas gracilis F 60 3 63
Little Pied Phalacrocorax R 1 1
Cormorant melanoleucos
Australian Pelican Pelecanus R 60 60
conspicillatus
White-faced Heron Egretta F 1 1
novaehollandiae
Intermediate Egret Ardea intermedia F 1 1
Great Egret Ardea alba F 1 1
Australian White Threskiornis molucca R 5 5
Ibis
Straw-necked Ibis Threskiornis spinicollis R 15 15
Yellow-billed Platalea flavipes F 2 2
Spoonbill
Black-fronted Elseyornis melanops F 1 1
Dotterel
Masked Lapwing Vanellus miles F 2 2
Masked Lapwing Vanellus miles R 2 2
Clamorous Reed- Acrocephalus australis F 1 2 3
warbler
Little Grassbird Megalurus gramineus F 6 6
Total 72 1 8 85 0 8 0 33 0 0 0 207
Activity: F = Feeding, R = Roosting/resting
Source: River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005 (EBS & HydroTas 2006).
(c) FISH
Table 25: Fish survey sites
Site # Habitat description Method Autumn Spring
1 Lignum stand, firm substrate, submerged grases, relatively clear water, 40 cm deep Bait Trap X X
Inlet channel, drying pool, sparse Azola and emergent reeds in riparian zone, 50 cm
2 deep FykeNet X X
3 Inlet channel, sparse vegetation on edge, 1.2 m deep Gil Net X
4 Open clear water, firm substrate with dense submerged gras and algae, 30 cm deep Seine X
5 Dense Lignum patches, clear water in main lagoon, 40 cm deep FykeNet X
6 Inlet channel,drying pool, sparse Azola andemergent reeds in riparian zone, 50 cm deep Backpack E-Fishing X
7 Flooded terrestrial riparian grasses, relatively clear water, 40 cm depth Backpack E-Fishing X
Inlet channel, 10cm.s-1 flow, submerged and emergent grasses, some rocks, 10-60 cm
Backpack E-Fishing
8 deep X
Source: River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005 (SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006a)
58
Table 26: Fish captured at Sweeney’s Lagoon
Autumn Spring Total
Common Potential Length (TL, mm) Length (TL, mm)

Name Species Name reproduction*
Count Ave Min Max Count Ave Min Max
Native Fishes
bony hering Nematalosa erebi X 3 107 57 140 3
Philypnodon
13 46 35 56 1 55 55 55 14
flathead gudgeon grandiceps
carp gudgeon
178 36 22 48 384 36 18 51 562
complex Hypseleotri ssp. X
Australian smelt Retropina semoni 12 55 51 64 12
Threatened Native Fishes

unspecked
4 37 31 42 4
hardyhead C.s. fulvus
dwarf-flathead
1 38 38 38 1
gudgeon Philypnodon sp.
Melanotaenia
1 38 38 38 1
Murray rainbowfish fluviatilis
Exotic/Invasive Fish
common carp Cyprinus carpio X 6 419 84 610 3 44 35 60 9
gold fish Carasius auratus X** 29 76 46 109 1 180 180 180 30
red fin Perca fluviatilis 3 162 145 182 3
eastern gambusia Gambusia holbroki X** 108 25 17 34 2 43 37 48 110
341 408 749
Number of fish
Number of native 195 402 597
fish
Number of exotic 146 6 152
fish
8 8 11
Count of species
Native to Invasive 1.8
ratio (Species)
Native to Invasive
ratio (number of 3.9
fish)
Source: Adapted from River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey - 2005 (SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006a)
* Believed to have reproduced within or adjacent to the wetland (SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006a)
** autumn only
59
(d) MACROINVERTEBRATES
Table 27: Habitat at sample location
Site Habitat a Habitat a length Habitat b Habitat b length Habitat c Habitat c length
(%) (%) (%)
1 Emergent 60 Detritis 40
macrophytes
2 Emergent 60 Submerged 30 Detritis 10
macrophytes macrophytes
Source: River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey - 2005 (SKM 2006a)
Table 28: Macroinvertebrates captured at Sweeney’s Lagoon

Spring
Higher taxa Family Subfamily/Genus Total abundance
Site 1 Site 2
Turbellaria Dugesiidae 130 130
Nematoda 50 40 90
Gastropoda Ancylidae Ferrissia 30 30
Planorbidae 140 140
Physidae Physa 130 130
Acariformes: Hydracarina Eylaidae 10 10
Decapoda Atyidae Paratya 20 20
Collembola Sminthuridae Katianna 10 20 30
Coleoptera Dytiscidae larvae 30 30
Hydrophilidae Berosus 20 20 40
Diptera Ceratopogonidae Ceratopogoninae 30 30
Tanypodinae 50 50
Orthocladinae 20 20
Chironomidae Chironominae 120 230 350
Ephemeroptera Baetidae immature 30 30
Hemiptera Corixidae immature 190 50 240
Micronecta 10 10
Notonectidae immature 1170 2850 4020
Odonata Lestidae immature 40 40
Trichoptera Hydroptilidae Hellyethira 30 10 40
Leptoceridae Triplectides 20 20
Total abundance 2100 3400 5500
Total number of taxa 17 11 21
Source: River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey - 2005 (SKM 2006a)
60

Sweeney&#39;s Lagoon WMP 2006 Large

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sweeney&#39;s Lagoon WMP 2006 Large

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sweeney’s Lagoon

MANAGEMENT PLAN 2006

© Mid Murray Local Action Plan 2006

20th March 2006

To Whom It May Concern,

If you require further information, please do not hesitate to contact.

1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE OF WETLAND

1.2 WHY DOES SWEENEY’S LAGOON NEED A MANAGEMENT PLAN?

Figure 1: Pumping in progress (AF) Figure 2: Inlet looking to river (WB)

Chapter 2. SITE DESCRIPTION OF SWEENEY’S LAGOON

Map 1: Sweeney’s Lagoon location

2.2 SURVEY SITES, DATES & LOCATIONS

2.3 PHYSICAL FEATURES

Map 2: Wetland Levels

Figure 5: Sweeney’s main lagoon 28/07/06 (TB)

Figure 6: Sweeney’s Lagoon dry red gums 28/07/06 (TB)

Figure 7: Sweeney’s main lagoon and lignum 28/07/06 (TB)

Figure 12: Hydrogeology of the Moorundi Wetland Complex (Barnett 1989)

Observed river level 0.13 1259.6 0.18 0.61 1623.7 1.6

Full 14.8 147649.6 1.47 1.90 77281.1 77.3

Three quarters full 5.1 50666.8 1.10 1.53 68731.4 68.7

Half full 3.9 38947.7 0.73 1.16 41453.2 41.5

Quarter full 1.9 19,201 0.36 0.79 23244.3 23.2

10 cm depth 0.002 22.8 0.10 0.53 31.1 0.03

(e) SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER FEATURES

Monthly Median 1921-2006 Monthly Median 1996-2006 Monthly Median 2001-2006

Figure 13: Median River Levels below Lock 1

Table 4: Median River Levels below Lock 1

Map 3: Historical channels (Map courtesy of Wayne Bryce)

SWE R-01 373,481 6,195,912 4.302 3.387

Groundwater Depth Groundwater Depth Groundwater

SWE R-01 26/05/05 3.09 4.005 0.297 8,520

30/11/05 1.023 1.818 0.601 23,350

1. Chenopodiaceae shrubland in dry central lagoon

Limnodynastes Crinia Litoria Limnodynastes Crinia Limnodynastes Limnodynastes Litoria

2.5 IMPLICATIONS FOR MANAGEMENT

Chapter 3. SOCIAL ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL VALUES

Chapter 4. LAND TENURE, JURISDICTION AND

Map 6: Cadastral boundaries covering Sweeney’s Lagoon and surrounds.

Chapter 5. THREATS AND POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS TO

through culvert proves successful

prop open carp No knowledge of recent

evapoconcentration some macroinvertebrates, monitoring

vegetation Contact Authorised Officer from NRM Board

dodder spreading through Financial loss Poisoning

stock/wildlife for control information for weed species

native vegetation Competition with native Poisoning

redfin) cycles (carp ~2/year), (redfin/gambusia) Monitor abundance of invasive verses

Chapter 6. MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES

vegetation management practises this aspect diversity (Y)

riparian vegetation measures as appropriate of native species Vegetation survey

abundance of license diversity) (Y)

through culvert (only when allow light penetration

exotics pools fish survey in refuge pools exotic fish abundance

(native to exotic ration)

Increase fringing vegetation Manage hydrology over 5 year management

operation (carp screen

* WQ, Water Quality; W, Weekly; M, Monthly; Y, Yearly; Q, Quarterly

Chapter 7. IMPLEMENTATION OF PLAN

7.1 ON GROUND ACTION AND TIMETABLE

ACTIVITY PRIORITY RESOURCES TIMETABLE RESPONSIBILITY

Install fish screens High Fish screens ASAP Community group

the river level is expected to fall

7.2 WETLAND WATER OPERATIONAL PLAN

Sweeney's Lagoon WMP 2006 Large

Sweeney's Lagoon WMP 2006 Large