Swanport wetland MANAGEMENT PLAN 2006

LAPS
Lower Murray Local Action Planning Groups Kjartan Tumi Bjornsson

Mannum to Wellington Local Action Planning Association

Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................... i LIST OF FIGURES...................................................................................................................... iii LIST OF MAPS ........................................................................................................................... iii LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ iii Chapter 1. (a) (a) (b) (c) (d) Chapter 2. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1 Environmental, Social and Cultural Significance of wetland ............................. 1 Why does Swanport wetland need a management plan? ................................. 2 History of Swanport wetland ........................................................................................ 1 Mission Statement ....................................................................................................... 2 Vision Statement ......................................................................................................... 2 Broad Objectives ......................................................................................................... 2 Current Achievements ................................................................................................. 2 SITE DESCRIPTION OF SWANPORT WETLAND .................................................. 4 Wetland Location and description .................................................................... 4 Survey Sites, Dates & Locations ...................................................................... 5 PHYSICAL FEATURES ................................................................................... 6 Section 1.01 Section 1.02

Section 2.01 Section 2.02 Section 2.03 (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (a) (b) Chapter 3. Chapter 4.

Swanport wetland in Current State .............................................................................. 6 Geomorphology, Geology And Soils ............................................................................ 8 Climate ........................................................................................................................ 8 Wetland Volumes and Water Requirements for various filling stages .......................... 8 Surface and Groundwater Features ............................................................................. 8 ECOLOGICAL FEATURES ............................................................................ 11 Flora .......................................................................................................................... 11 Fauna ........................................................................................................................ 12 SOCIAL ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL VALUES .................................................. 17 LAND TENURE, JURISDICTION AND MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS ......... 18 LAND TENURE .............................................................................................. 18 LAND AND WATER USE ............................................................................... 19 JURISDICTION AND MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY ...................................... 20

Section 2.04

Section 4.01 Section 4.02 Section 4.03 Chapter 5. Chapter 6. Chapter 7. Chapter 8. Chapter 9.

THREATS AND POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS TO SWANPORT WETLAND .............. 21 MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES .............................................................................. 24 IMPLEMENTATION OF PLAN (ON GROUND ACTION AND TIMETABLE) .......... 28 MONITORING ....................................................................................................... 31 EVALUATION, REVIEW AND REPORTING .......................................................... 33 Evaluation and Review ................................................................................... 33 Reporting ....................................................................................................... 33

Section 9.01 Section 9.02 Chapter 10. Appendix A.

REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 34 Wetlands Atlas Data for Wetland Main Body .......................................................... 35 i

Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006 Appendix B. Appendix C. Appendix D. Appendix E. Appendix F. Appendix G. Section G.01 Section G.02 (a) (b) (c) (d) Surface Water Archive Graph ................................................................................ 36 Baseline Survey Locations (Source SKM (2004)) .................................................. 37 Baseline Survey DEM (Source SKM (2004)) .......................................................... 38 Baseline Survey Groundwater (Source SKM (2004)) ............................................. 39 Baseline Survey Vegetation Zones (Source SKM (2004)) ...................................... 44 Species List for Swanport wetland ..................................................................... 45 FLORA ........................................................................................................... 45 WETLAND AND FLOODPLAIN FAUNA ......................................................... 49

Birds of Swanport Surrounds and Lower Lakes ......................................................... 49 Frogs ......................................................................................................................... 51 Fish ........................................................................................................................... 52 Macroinvertebrates .................................................................................................... 53

ii

Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Open water 17/03/06 (TB) ................................................................................................ 6 Figure 2: Herbland 17/03/06 (TB) .................................................................................................... 6 Figure 3: North channel into north lagoon 13/02/06 (AF) ................................................................. 6 Figure 4: Small open water area of north lagoon 13/02/06 (AF) ...................................................... 6 Figure 5: Bird hide 17/03/06 (TB) .................................................................................................... 7 Figure 6: Boardwalk 17/03/06 (TB) ................................................................................................. 7 Figure 7: Jetty 17/03/06 (TB) .......................................................................................................... 7 Figure 8: Old boardwalk through herbland 17/03/06 (TB) ................................................................ 7 Figure 9: Broadshell tortoise (JH) .................................................................................................. 15 Figure 10: Broadshell tortoise (JH) ................................................................................................ 15 Figure 11: Murray Bridge No.1 Pump Station Daily Read (5 year period) (Department of Water Land and Biodiversity Conservation 2005) ............................................................................ 36

LIST OF MAPS
Map 1: Swanport wetland location .................................................................................................. 4 Map 2: Map of Wetland (map courtesy of Barbara Martin, hetta designs) ....................................... 5 Map 3: Current water movement within Swanport wetland ............................................................ 10 Map 4: Fish sampling locations ..................................................................................................... 14 Map 5: Cadastral boundaries covering Swanport wetland and surrounds. .................................... 18 Map 6: Swanport wetland existing fences ..................................................................................... 19

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Baseline survey monitoring of following parameters .......................................................... 5 Table 2: Water quality (SKM 2004) ................................................................................................. 8 Table 3: Groundwater monitoring locations (SKM 2004) ............................................................... 10 Table 4: Groundwater salinity EC (mS/cm) ................................................................................... 11 Table 5: Habitat features identified in Swanport wetland table adapted from (SKM 2004). ............ 13 Table 6: Dominant macroinvertebrates at Swanport wetland (table adapted from (SKM 2004)) .... 15 Table 7: Swanport wetland responsible positions contact details .................................................. 20 Table 8: Existing and prospective threats to Swanport wetland ..................................................... 22 Table 9: Benefit and threats of willow removal .............................................................................. 24 Table 10: Management objectives for Swanport wetland. ............................................................. 25 Table 11: Implementation plan for Swanport wetland land based activities. .................................. 29 Table 12: Monitoring plan for Swanport wetland. .......................................................................... 32 Table 13: Swanport wetland, Wetland atlas data (Jensen et al. 1996) .......................................... 35 Table 14: Plant Associations at Swanport wetland (adapted from River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey (SKM 2004)) .............................................................................................................. 45 iii

Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006 Table 15: Swanport wetland plant ID list from ‟99 (obtained from community group) ..................... 46 Table 16: Bird species identified at Swanport wetland .................................................................. 49 Table 17: Birds identified at Swanport wetland by community member Peter Koch....................... 49 Table 18: Frogs at Morgan‟s Lagoon, date identified and significant aspects. ............................... 51 Table 19: Native fisha ................................................................................................................... 52 Table 20: Introduced fish............................................................................................................... 52 Table 21: Macroinvertebrate taxa and abundance (SKM 2004)..................................................... 53

iv

Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

This management plan was written by Kjartan Tumi Bjornsson for the Mannum to Wellington Local Action Planning Committee Inc., and reviewed and endorsed by the SA River Murray Wetland Technical Group. Funding was provided by the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality, the Natural Heritage Trust, and the River Murray Catchment Water Management Board. The management plan has been prepared according to the Guidelines for developing wetland management plans for the River Murray in South Australia 2003 (River Murray Catchment Water Management Board and Department of Water Land and Biodiversity Conservation 2003) and as such fulfils obligations under the Water Allocation Plan for the River Murray Prescribed Watercourse. Disclaimer: The Mannum to Wellington Local Action Planning Committee Inc. do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore disclaim all liability for any error, loss or other consequences, which may arise from you relying on any information in this publication. Cite as: Bjornsson, K. T. (2006). Swanport Wetland Management Plan. Mannum to Wellington Local Action Planning Committee Inc., Murray Bridge. Acknowledgements: This wetland management plan has been developed with the support of a number of organisations, community groups and individuals. Special thanks go to Kathryn Rothe, Adrienne Frears and Jem Tesoriero for assistance with the draft. Thanks also go to those that contributed their knowledge including; Marshall F. Carter and Steven Walker of the Ngarrindjeri nation (traditional landowner cultural values), Peter Koch (birds), the Swanport wetland community group the South Australian Murray Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board and the members of the South Australian River Murray Wetland Technical Group. For further details contact: Mannum to Wellington LAP PO Box 2056 Murray Bridge, SA 5253 Phone: (08) 8531 3222 Fax: (08) 8532 5300 Photographs: Cover photograph: South lagoon, open water (TB), Bottom: North lagoon, herbland (TB) Photographs in document by Tumi Bjornsson (TB), Adrienne Frears (AF), or Jason Higham (JH). © Mannum to Wellington Local Action Plan 2006

v

Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION
This wetland management plan is structured in accordance with the criteria set out in the Guidelines for developing wetland management plans for the River Murray in South Australia (River Murray Catchment Water Management Board and Department of Water Land and Biodiversity Conservation 2003).

SECTION 1.01 ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE OF WETLAND
The Wetland Atlas of the South Australian Murray Valley (Jensen et al. 1996) listed Swanport wetland as having a high conservation value and to be of national importance (see Appendix A). Thompson (1986) considered the wetland to be of very high conservation value due to its location on the river Murray and its ecological features including aquatic fauna and waterbird refuge, his recommendations were to consider the wetland for formal conservation by the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Swanport wetland has been managed and cared for by the local community for an extended period of time with a management brief was written in 2000 (Jensen et al. 2000). On a local level the condition of the wetland is an aesthetics issue. The continued management of this wetland through weed management will assist to maintain its current ecological, educational and aesthetic value. The continued use of the wetland for education and eco-tourism is encouraged. This will assist in enhancing the awareness of wetlands in the region of their ecological, aesthetic and functional value. (a) HISTORY OF SWANPORT WETLAND A short timeline of management at Swanport wetland (some data from local anecdotal evidence): 1839 Cattle swum across the River Murray landing at Swanport wetland 1850‟s Construction of levee bank 1856 Landing chute and large barge for ferrying sheep constructed on wetland site 1866 to 1878 Historic ferry across the Murray (construction of causeway bisecting the wetland) Historical Jetty Until 1990 Cattle grazing and waterfowl hunting 1991 Revegetation with local native species on higher ground Early 1990‟s bird hides Throughout the 1990‟s various parts of the paths and board walk was constructed with a substantial upgrade and extension over the open water in 2003 1995 to 2000 used for educational purposes by Aquatic Centre (located directly across river) 2000 Onwards used for recreational purposes by Aquatic Centre 2000 Management brief (WCA) 2003 Education structure and board walk (funding/organisation by MW LAP, constructed by work for the Dole) 2003 Revegetation 2003 Lizard, bird and bat boxes 2003 Willow poisoning 2003 - 2004 Included in River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey (SKM 2004)
1

Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

2004 Willow poisoning 2005 Eco-tourism by the “Dragon Fly” 2006 Clearing of inlets Ongoing community effort, new board walk, willow removal, photopoint installation etc

SECTION 1.02 WHY DOES SWANPORT WETLAND NEED A MANAGEMENT PLAN?
The Swanport wetland is close to a regional centre (Murray Bridge) therefore the pressures on the wetland include community use, the degradation of the river, past land use and weed infestation. To maintain a healthy wetland it is therefore imperative that continued guided management address these and other threats to the ecosystem where and as possible. (a) MISSION STATEMENT To maintain and enhance the wetland condition for cultural values as well as for ecological values, such as native vegetation and habitat for the benefit of waterbirds and other native fauna. Further, to provide an educational resource for the regions schools, TAFE and interested public. (b) VISION STATEMENT The vision for Swanport wetland is a better and healthier wetland ecosystem with fewer problems, such as weeds, through better management and greater community involvement. The vision is to maintain a wetland fulfilling a diversity of habitat requirements for both waterbirds and for native fish and frog species. The wetland will be maintained as a healthy wetland with a high diversity of macrophytes and herblands providing habitat for native fish and birds. The wetland will as a consequence, be expected, to be regularly visited by water birds including migratory species. The riparian area will be maintained, both through active involvement with the removal of weed species and through the management of native fringing vegetation (i.e. limit river club-rush Schoenoplectus validus encroaching onto the open water of the wetland). The restoration of the riverbanks through the removal of willows Salix babylonica and planting of river red gums and other suitable native species would also be envisaged. The healthy wetland ecosystem will be used to showcase Lower Murray wetlands as part of ecotourism as well as serving educational purposes. (c) BROAD OBJECTIVES The introduction of dry periods to Swanport wetland, as discussed in previous management recommendations of the management brief, (Jensen et al. 2000) is not considered to be a viable option. The main reason being the negative impact drying could have on vegetation diversity, groundwater salinity and loss of the freshwater lens under the wetland. The wetland is seen to be in a relatively healthy state, weed infestation being the main degradation to the wetland area, where 28% of plants identified in the baseline survey vegetation associations were introduced as well as 46% in a plant list provided by the wetland community group (see Appendix G). Based on the identification of the major degradation to the wetland, the main quantifiable objectives identified are: Removal of introduced vegetation surrounding the wetland (monitoring would be needed to identify the level of infestation, both currently and in the future) Active Typha removal (monitoring would be needed to map the current open water and herb community, and continued monitoring to observe any impacts by the spread of Typha) The objectives are discussed in more detail in Chapter 6. (d) CURRENT ACHIEVEMENTS The current community group has been managing Swanport wetland since 2004. In that time the wetland has been promoted for educational purposes due to its relative ecological integrity. In that time the following on-ground works have been achieved at the wetland;
2

Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

Boardwalks with information brochures Bird hide maintenance Educational station/lookout Educational tours for schools and interested public Interpretive signs/booklets/flyers Maintained paths Fencing around wetland area Complete removal of box thorn Installation of turtle egg protection (turtle homes) Installation of lizard habitat (lizard homes) Poisoning and removal of willows Baited fox holes & rabbits Bird boxes & perches Bat boxes Frog boxes

3

Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

Chapter 2. SITE DESCRIPTION OF SWANPORT WETLAND
SECTION 2.01 WETLAND LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
Swanport wetland is listed as wetland number S0038 in the Wetlands Atlas (Jensen et al. 1996) and is part of the Lower Murray River wetlands. The wetland is located adjacent to the South East Freeway beneath Swanport Bridge on the outskirts of Murray Bridge (Map 1below). AMG coordinates 346268E 6109024N (Grid Zone 54). Swanport can be found on the 1:50,000 Mobilong map sheet number 6727-1 and is located in the Hundred of Burdett. See Appendix A for more information. Swanport wetland is listed as having a permanent water regimes and considered to cover an area of 13.5 ha (Jensen et al. 1996). Based on the baseline survey DEM 5 of these hectares encompasses the south lagoon when the river level is at 0.75m AHD, and 1 ha a part of the herbland (north lagoon). The depth of the wetland lagoon is approximately 0.5 m (SKM 2004). The wetland is in the ownership of the Rural City of Murray Bridge council. The area to the south, downstream of the wetland area is used is used for dairy cattle grazing, while residential developments are found on the northern end of the wetland.

Map 1: Swanport wetland location

4

Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

SECTION 2.02 SURVEY SITES, DATES & LOCATIONS
The River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey (SKM 2004) monitored different wetland parameters (Table 1). The fish survey was not included in the baseline survey this was completed by the South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI). The locations of their sampling points are shown in Section 2.04(b)(iii). The locations of the baseline survey sites can be seen in Appendix B. Map 2 shows the wetland with locations of walking tracks, board walk, bird hides, jetty, educational structure and general vegetation.
Table 1: Baseline survey monitoring of following parameters

Parameter

Surveyed
SARDI BLS

Date 1 (BLS)

Date 2 (BLS)

Date 3 (BLS)

Date 4 (BLS)

Date 1 (SARDI)

Date 2 (SARDI)

See page

Site physical Vegetation Fish Birds Frogs Macroinvertebrates Water Quality Groundwater

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Spring 3/12/03 4/12/03 4/12/03 Summer 29/1/04 10/3/04 30/1/04 10/3/04 9/6/04 12/3/04 2/9/04 16/11/03 23/3/04

4 11 13 12 13 14 8 10

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

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

Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

SECTION 2.03 PHYSICAL FEATURES
(a) SWANPORT WETLAND IN CURRENT STATE Swanport was grazed for a prolonged period ending in 1990. The past land use would account for the degradation of the vegetation in the wetland and therefore weed infestation. In the recent past revegetation of the area has restored a large part of the vegetation community, although many weeds remain including willows. Figure 1 through to Figure 8, show the wetland and its fringing vegetation in its current state. Figure 1 shows the relatively large area of open water in the wetland, the channel connecting to the River Murray being slightly to the left of the centre of the photograph (not clearly seen). This open water section is used both by water birds and recreational boating. Both these uses can under circumstances clash. One possible solution in resolving the conflict between the impact on birds and the uses by recreational craft is discussed in this wetland management plan (see Chapter 5). Figure 2 shows a significant section of the north lagoon of Swanport wetland, which contains important herbland communities. Figure 3 and Figure 4 show the north channel and the small open water section of the north lagoon identified in Map 3. Figure 5 shows one of the bird hides available at the wetland. Figure 6 shows the boardwalk over the open water section of the south lagoon. Figure 7 shows the historic jetty on the River Murray and Figure 8 shows the old timber boardwalk along the riverside of the herb community of the north lagoon. Below the boardwalk is the seeping south channel into the wetland identified in Map 3.

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

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

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

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

6

Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

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

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

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

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

7

Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

(b) GEOMORPHOLOGY, GEOLOGY AND SOILS The soil for most of the wetland was sand with some silt present, the area to the east close to the upland area was made up of clay. The soil salinity (determined as EC 1:5) were below 1 mS/cm. The sandy areas had a decreasing salinity with depth and the clay area increasing salinity with depth (SKM 2004). Copies of the soil logs from the baseline survey can be found in Appendix E. Locations are presented in Section 2.03(e)(ii). (c) CLIMATE The following climatic conditions are taken from the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) Murray Bridge station (number 024521) (Latitude (deg S): -35.1234; Longitude (deg E): 139.2592) (BOM 2005). The recording of data commenced at Murray Bridge in 1885; the latest records used in the assessment of the climatic condition of the area stemming from 2004. Swanport wetland has a Mediterranean climate with warm dry summers and cool wet winters. The median (5th decile) annual rainfall is 341.5 mm. The mean monthly maximum rainfall is in June and August (37.1 mm), the minimum in January (16.3 mm). The expected mean daily maximum temperature is highest in February at 29.2 C, lowest in July at 16.2 C, and has an annual mean of 22.7 C. The minimum daily temperature is at its maximum in February at 14.6 C and its minimum in July at 5.4 C. The annual mean daily minimum temperature is 9.8 C. (d) WETLAND VOLUMES AND WATER REQUIREMENTS FOR VARIOUS FILLING STAGES The wetland volume was not calculated in the baseline survey, although a DEM was developed for this area by the baseline survey (see Appendix D). As the wetland will not have hydrological management and will therefore not be seeking a water allocation this lack of data will not be a detriment to this wetland management plan. (e) SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER FEATURES (i) Surface water Water quality monitoring was undertaken as part of the baseline survey and is summarised in Table 2. The surface water levels in the River Murray at Murray Bridge, obtained from the Surface Water Archive (Department of Water Land and Biodiversity Conservation 2005) can bee seen in Appendix B. This water level will have a direct impact on the water level in Swanport wetland. The median water level between 1986 and 2004, also obtained from the Surface Water Archive, is 0.74 m AHD, the median in the last 5 years of record available (between 1999 and 2004) is slightly less at 0.71 m AHD.
Table 2: Water quality (SKM 2004)

Parameters
EC μS/cm Mean Min. Max. DO mg/L
-1

4/12/03
483 ± 34 445 584 2.1 ± 1.0 0.5 4.7 6.730 ± 0.07 6.61 6.92 48 ± 21 14

30/1/04
542 ± 18 490 569 10.8 ± 2.0 7.2 16.4 7.90 ± 0.43 7.22 9.14 73 ± 12 51

10/3/04
704 ± 27 642 751 9.4 ± 0.3 9.0 10.2 10.43 ± 0.38 9.49 11.08 369 ± 43 302

9/6/04
528 ± 8 509 545 8.6 ± 0.3 7.9 9.1 7.40 ± 0.05 7.28 7.52 120 ± 14 83

Mean Min. Max.

pH

Mean Min. Max.

Turbidity NTU

Mean Min.

8

Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006
Max. Water Temperature C Mean Min. Max. n n = sample size 109 19.3 ± 0.2 18.7 19.7 4 108 23.8 ± 0.7 22.0 25.1 4 485 28.4 ± 1.0 26.7 31.2 4 145 18.7 ±0.1 18.6 18.9 4

The slightly higher salinity within the wetland compared to the river can be attributed to evapoconcentration partly driven by the shallow nature of the wetland (SKM 2004). However, the EC is well below that of seawater (which is at ~50 mS/cm), and is simular to that of the River Murray indicating a good connection between the two. As a comparison the River Murray EC, obtained from the DWLBC Surface Water Archive (Department of Water Land and Biodiversity Conservation 2005), was 378 μS/cm on the 4th December 2003 compared to a mean of 483 μS/cm in the wetland, 479 μS/cm on the 30th January 2004 compared to 542 μS/cm in the wetland, 484 μS/cm on the 10th March 2004 compared to 704 μS/cm in the wetland and 446 μS/cm on the 9th June 2004 compared to the wetland monitored at 528 μS/cm. The monitoring location from which the DWLBC Surface Water Archive is derived is at the Murray Bridge Number 1 Pump station on the River Murray (Zone 54, 344059 E and 6114654 N). The dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations were variable throughout the wetland, SKM (2004) attributed this to time of day the measurements were taken, DO consumed during night time, and the season, high DO content during warm seasons increases plant growth. Other factors influencing the DO content could be wind direction and exposure leading to surface mixing (SKM 2004). SKM (2004) associated the high monitored pH levels during the March monitoring date to the abundance of algae within the wetland. The high temperatures may have stimulated the photosynthesis of algae to the extent that the CO2 levels within the wetland dropped significantly. CO2 can act as carbonic acid in water, its removal would therefore raise the pH within the wetland (SKM 2004). The turbidity of the wetland was variable both between monitoring dates as well as from site to site, this can potentially be contributed to the shallow nature of the wetland and therefore the likelihood of resuspension of sediment as a consequence of wind action. The clarity of the wetland was at its best during the December and January survey dates, with the mean turbidity values likely to have a minimum impact of light penetration into the water column. The highest turbidity was recorded during the March monitoring date. The water temperature of the wetland reflected the seasonal air temperatures (SKM 2004). For a description of the implications of water quality in wetlands refer to Your Wetland: Supporting Information (Tucker et al. 2003). The Flood Inundation Model (FIM III) does not extend downstream beyond Mannum and is therefore unavailable for this region. No simulations were therefore performed for Swanport wetland based on the Flood Inundation Model. However, to provide some understanding of the current flow within Swanport wetland Map 3 shows the flow direction of water currently at the wetland.

9

Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

Map 3: Current water movement within Swanport wetland

(ii) Groundwater The baseline survey installed 4 groundwater wells within Swanport wetland; two existing wells were within the wetland area. These wells were monitored 4 times during the survey period (21 st January, 10th March, 9th June and 2nd September 2004). The locations of the wells are presented in Table 3 and a map of the groundwater flow direction in Appendix E.
Table 3: Groundwater monitoring locations (SKM 2004)

NAME EASTING
MOB031 04 346208.000 MOB031 05 346417.940 SW1 SW2 SW4 SW5 346623.572 346392.158 346803.270 346665.908

Elevation of Bore Ground Elevation NORTHING Hole casing (m-AHD) (m-AHD)
6109209.145 6109184.282 6109206.623 6109226.236 6109127.641 6109091.178 0.893 0.775 2.861 2.211 1.555 2.993 0.918 1.134 1.934 2.2 0.563 1.813

Total Depth (m-bgl)

4.8 5.4 3.6 4.7

As seen in Appendix E groundwater seems to flow from the river through the wetland as well as from the higher land in the north of the wetland area. The groundwater flowed from the wetland to
10

Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

depression basins in the west and east of the wetland (SKM 2004). These depression basins probably have a high water loss through evaporation due to the shallow water table (0.21 and 0.61 m bgl). The groundwater salinity was found to be relatively high in the depression basin and otherwise low in all other areas, see Table 4. The high groundwater salinity of both wells within the depression basins supports the assessment of groundwater flow to these areas. SW2 was excluded from analysis as it was believed to have been vandalised (SKM 2004). The ground water levels were found to fluctuate with the seasonal climatic fluctuation, with the depth increasing towards March and then decreasing with the onset of winter (SKM 2004) (see Appendix E). The salinity in the wetland was more comparable to River Murray levels indicating that the main influence stems from the Murray (SKM 2004).
Table 4: Groundwater salinity EC (mS/cm)

NAME
MOB03104 MOB03105 SW1 SW2 SW4 SW5

21/1/04
43.30 4.46 3.89 7.53 9.94 1.78

9/6/04

7.51 12.50 2.01

(iii) Implications for management The surface water quality does not present a problem to the wetland. The turbidity within the wetland may become more dependent on the river turbidity following the removal of willows presently blocking the flow channel. However the increased flow would potentially reduce the sedimentation experienced within the wetland and therefore slow the invasion of emergent macrophytes into the open water of the wetland.

SECTION 2.04 ECOLOGICAL FEATURES
(a) FLORA The baseline survey of the wetland complex found the main body of the wetland, which includes the main body of open water, to have large stand of river club-rush Schoenoplectus validus with some Typha sp. sedgelands on eastern and northern shore. Some S. validus and Typha sp. were also found in the smaller wetland basin to the west of the causeway. There were no submerged macrophytes identified in the open water section by the baseline survey although Thompson (1986) did record black swans Cygnus atratus grazing on submerged macrophytes Myriophyllum sp. In the smaller basin there were areas of water ribbon Triglochin procerum herblands and common spikerush Eleocharis acuta sedgelands, which were also found on the north western shore of the main basin, as well as samphire Halosarcia pergranulata ssp. pergranulata shrubland and lignum Muehlenbeckia florulenta shrubland. Less common sedges were also found in the western basin, including the native tassel sedge Carex fascicularis and tall sedge Carex appressa and the exotic jointed rush jointed rush Juncus articulatus. The sedgeland understorey was made up of the herbs Australian gypsywort Lycopus australis, twin-leaf bedstraw Asperula gemella, water ribbons T. procerum, river buttercup Ranunculus amphitrichus, shield pennywort Hydrocotyle verticillata and the exotics waterbuttons Cotula coronopifolia and water parsnip Berula erecta. The levee bank was found to have a mix of red gums Eucalyptus camaldulensis var. camaldulensis, willows Salix ?babylonica, M. florulenta and exotic Paspalum sp. (SKM 2004). Four plant associations were surveyed by the baseline survey, these being: Typha domingensis Sedgeland over Triglochin procerum;
11

Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

Eleocharis acuta and Triglochin procerum Sedgeland over *Paspalum distichum; Eleocharis sphacelate Closed Sedgeland; and Halosarcia pergranulata ssp. pergranulata Low Open Shrubland The vegetation survey found seven species of conservation significance; these are included in the detailed list of species found within the plant associations that can be found in Appendix G. For a description of the function of vegetation in wetlands refer to Your Wetland: Supporting Information (Tucker et al. 2003). (i) Implications for management Due to the abundance of species of conservation significance the River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey (SKM 2004) recommends a weed control program to address the infestation of the herbland community. Exotic species particularly mentioned in the baseline survey include the water parsnip Berula erecta and Paspalum sp. (b) FAUNA The River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey (SKM 2004) conducted a number of surveys on fauna in the wetland environment. These surveys are described below. (i) Birds The bird assessment of the River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey (SKM 2004) was conducted at three locations around the wetland (see Appendix C). One site (site 1) overlooked the open water, one (site 3) the herbland and one (site 2) was a transect through the centre of the wetland. Eleven species of waterbird were observed in the wetland with only 26 individuals in total (SKM 2004). Two of these species were EPBC (Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999) listed, the black-winged stilt and the great egret both migratory species (SKM 2004). Table 16 in Appendix G Section G.02(a) contains a list of the birds observed at the Swanport wetland. Thompson (1986) identified the wetland as being a habitat for waterbirds, he recorded black swans Cygnus atratus on the wetland and Australian pelicans Pelecanus conspicillatus. There were also 100 bird species identified at Swanport wetland by community member Peter Koch, a keen and well-recognised amateur ornithologist, with 10 of them breeding at the wetland. The species can be seen in Appendix G Section G.02(a). The survey by Peter Koch commenced in 1993 and is ongoing. The habitat availability was considered to have influenced the abundance of bird populations in Swanport wetland. The habitat availability identified by the baseline survey (SKM 2004) are listed in Table 5. However, according to community group members the frequent use of the open water through recreational boating is causing disturbance to birds using the wetland. This may account for the low numbers of birds observed at the wetland during the baseline survey.

12

Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006 Table 5: Habitat features identified in Swanport wetland table adapted from (SKM 2004).

Habitat features Site 1
Shoreline Fringing vegetation Reeds Sedges Herbs Wet mud Dry mud Hollow bearing trees Perching trees Water‟s edge Fringing River Red Gums Water depth (m) Water level
Complex Mix of tall dense vegetation Occasional Extensive Occasional Absent Absent Occasional Occasional In/above veg Occasional 0.5 Stable

Spring Site 2
Complex Mix of tall dense vegetation Occasional Extensive Occasional Absent Absent Occasional Occasional In/above veg Occasional 0.2 Stable

Summer Site 3
Complex Mix of tall dense vegetation Absent Extensive Occasional Absent Absent Occasional Occasional In/above veg Occasional 0.5 Stable

Site 1
Complex Mix of tall dense vegetation Occasional Extensive Occasional Absent Absent Occasional Occasional In/above veg Occasional 0.1 Stable

Site 2
Complex Mix of tall dense vegetation Absent Extensive Occasional Absent Occasional Occasional Occasional >100m from veg Occasional 0.1 Falling

Site 3
Complex Mix of tall dense vegetation Absent Extensive Extensive Occasional Absent Occasional Occasional In/above veg Occasional 0.3 Stable

(ii) Frogs Five frog species were recorded at Swanport. The brown tree frog Litoria ewingi, common froglet Crinia signifera eastern banjo frog Limnodynastes dumerilii, long thumbed frog Limnodynastes fletcheri and Peron‟s tree frog Litoria peroni. The survey sites of the frog survey were based at the western end of the lagoon. Further monitoring is recommended to identify the habitat used by frogs in Swanport wetland so that this habitat can be maintained as part of adaptive management. Table 18 lists the frogs identified during the baseline survey as well as some breeding information. Some boxes have been installed to improve the shelter available for frogs. (iii) Fish The South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI) conducted the fish survey at Swanport wetland. The fish species and relative abundance are presented in Table 19 and Table 20 in Section G.02(c) (tables were adapted from Leigh, Ye et al. (2004)). The sampling points for Swanport wetland can be seen in Map 4, with the sampling dates being November 2003 and March 2004.

13

Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

Map 4: Fish sampling locations

The wetland had a diverse range of species (12) and, based on the abundance (533) of fish collected, is believed to be a significant habitat for fish communities. The abundance of fish reduced from the November sampling date, with a total of 80 per net per night, to the March sampling date of 44 per net per night. This drop in abundance was particularly evident in the number of carp gudgeons Hypseleotris spp. caught. Only the Murray River rainbow fish Melanotaenia fluviatilis and gambusia Gambusia holbrooki increased in abundance. There are various causes for the fluctuation in fish numbers including recruitment, mortality and food availability. The autumn drop in water levels and increase in water temperature may drive many fish species out of the wetland into a more favourable environment. The number of juvenile fish caught indicates the habitat suitability as a refuge and food source at an early life stage (Leigh et al. 2004). Further monitoring of fish numbers would give a more accurate account of the fish present as well as the reason for the fluctuation in numbers. No carp Cyprinus carpio were collected during the survey although adult carp were seen in the wetland (SKM 2004). Thompson (1986) noted the presence of carp, gambusia and rainbow fish. (iv) Macroinvertebrates The River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey (SKM 2004) monitored macroinvertebrates at Swanport on two dates (4 December 2003 and 10 March 2004). There was a high diversity of macroinvertebrates with 34 taxa amounting to a total of 5,757 macroinvertebrates collected at Swanport wetland. Table 6 lists the most abundant macroinvertebrates and Table 21 in Appendix G Section G.02(d) lists all the macroinvertebrates collected at Swanport wetland. The dominant macroinvertebrates are tolerant to pollution and disturbance. There was an increase in the more dominant tolerant species on the second sampling date. (SKM 2004). Thompson (1986) noted the
14

Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

wetland as having diverse macroinvertebrate fauna with the presence of chironomids, copepods, odonates, notonectids and prawns. For a description of the function of macroinvertebrates in wetlands refer to Your Wetland: Supporting Information (Tucker et al. 2003).
Table 6: Dominant macroinvertebrates at Swanport wetland (table adapted from (SKM 2004))

Taxa (family level unless indicated otherwise)
Nematoda (Phylum) Oligochaeta (Class) Chironominae (Subfamily) Corixidae

Abundance
2124 1226 1137 372

Tolerance Pollution, disturbance Pollution, disturbance Pollution, disturbance, some species saline tolerant Pollution, disturbance, ubiquitous in still and slow flowing water Pollution, disturbance, some species saline tolerant

Tanypodinae (Subfamily)

264

Total abundance Total number of taxa (v) Tortoise

5757 34

A broad-shell turtle Chelodina expansa was caught during the fish survey (Jason Higham pers. com.) and shows the wetland to provide some habitat for these tortoises (see Figure 9 and Figure 10). Records should be kept of future tortoise sightings and possible nest locations to identify any habitat provided by Swanport wetland for this species.

Figure 9: Broadshell tortoise (JH)

Figure 10: Broadshell tortoise (JH)

(vi) Implications for management The SKM (2004) bird survey found the abundance of birds at Swanport wetland to be below the mean of all wetlands included in the survey. Their recommendations aimed at waterbirds of the wetland were the development of more diverse habitat. Based on the data available from Peter Koch (pers. com.) more birds use the habitat currently available in the wetland although waders have lost some mud flats due to reed encroachment into the open water section of the wetland. Peter Koch supports the recommendation in the improvement of the habitat value of the wetland for birds, such as through the provision of bird perches. More information is required on the frog habitat preference in Swanport wetland. Frog monitoring will be included in the monitoring schedule of this management plan (see Chapter 8). The fish in Swanport wetland were dominantly native with some introduced species. Without major structural
15

Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

works at the wetland and control of the wetland hydrology it will not be possible to manage the exotic species. The wetland is an important habitat for the local native fish, it is therefore important that the connection and passage between the wetland and the river should be kept open (Leigh et al. 2004). The increase in the number of snags (large woody debris) may provide some of the habitat missing due to the lack of submerged macrophytes. The high dominance of tolerant macroinvertebrates species suggests either high levels of pollution of the wetland or a disturbance. This information is however not conclusive as information on macroinvertebrates and the SIGNAL2 score is not sufficient for the Lower River Murray. However, the reduction in fish may perhaps have influenced the increase in macroinvertebrates from the first to the second sampling dates. Based on the information collected the bird habitat should be maintained and in the long term increased. The revegetation with suitable native tree species along the levee bank will assist in future provision of hollow bearing trees and perching trees. In the mean time alternate options could be explored such as instillation of bird boxes and perching stands. The control of access or access times to the open water could also contribute to the habitat quality for the water birds using the wetland. This option should be explored with all stakeholders using the wetland. Fish not impacted on through any current management of the wetland; the only avenue to having control of fish access to the wetland is through the construction of screened culverts. Future monitoring of frogs should assist in monitoring any impacts that the management or current use of the wetland may have.

16

Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

Chapter 3. SOCIAL ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL VALUES
The Murray Bridge community and local residents extensively use the wetland. The uses include recreation, education, tourism, and bird watching. Therefore, the current users and therefore stakeholders in the wetland include: Community group MW LAP/ Schools for educational purposes Boating school/club Bird watchers Ecotourism (Dragon Fly) Local residents Swanport wetland is a culturally significant area for the Ngarrindjeri community with burial sites within the wetland area. The summary of the cultural significance as described by Ngarrindjeri elder Marshall F. Carter (pers. com.), which is detailed below, discusses some of the significant cultural aspects of the Swanport wetland area. Marshall F. Carter described the recognition, by the Ngarrindjeri, of the importance of wetlands, their role as the beginning of life for many species contributing to the life cycle of the ecosystem. His desire therefore is for the wetlands to be referred to as nurseries rather than by terms such as swamp, marsh and bog, which can have negative connotations. Very significantly for the Ngarrindjeri is the inclusion of Swanport wetland in their Ngurundri creation stories, giving the wetland a significant status in the Ngarrindjeri culture. Ngurundri is in cultural beliefs the creator of life, among the creations named is the Pondi (Murray cod). Other significant cultural icons, which should not be disturbed and can be found within the wetland region, are the granite boulders seen to rise from the ground. One large example can be seen from the Swanport Bridge diagonally across the river on the opposite bank to the wetland. The wetland hosts a number of Middens. These Middens served as campgrounds and burial sites, the sites also showing evidence of fireplaces. Unfortunately, some of these middens show evidence of disturbance. Vigilance should therefore be shown to avoid any further disturbance of these significant sites. Indigenous consultation should therefore always be sought where ground disturbance is likely. If human remains are found all work should cease and the local Ngarrindjeri consulted, either through Native Title or the Heritage committee. Red gums in the area could be scar trees used to make canoes or food dishes. These scar trees are also significant. Any red gums which may be scar trees should therefore not be disturbed until they have been cleared through Indigenous consultation. Lignum, known as watchi bushes, are also seen as significant vegetation. This significance is partly due to their role in the provision of refuge from predators for the watchi birds, wrens. The rushes found throughout the wetlands of the Lower River Murray, served a purpose in the traditional basket weaving of the Ngarrindjery women. Therefore the reeds served and still serve as a valuable cultural resource. These reeds were also traditionally used in the weaving of fishing nets. As a food resource Swanport wetland can be regarded as a traditional, bush, food „supermarket‟. Some of the foods traditionally collected at Swanport wetland would have included duck, swan and turtle eggs, fish such as callop, shellfish as is evident by the Middens, muntries, ruby saltbush as well as other vegetation and roots. More recently Marshall F. Carter remembers as a boy fishing, collecting wild foods and hunting rabbits in the wetland area. In conclusion, Swanport wetland is a highly significant area for the Ngarrindjeri community and they are very supportive of its restoration.
17

Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

Chapter 4. LAND TENURE, MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS
SECTION 4.01 LAND TENURE

JURISDICTION

AND

Swanport wetland is owned by the Rural City of Murray Bridge. The property boundaries and the ownership details can be seen in Map 5.

Map 5: Cadastral boundaries covering Swanport wetland and surrounds.

18

Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

SECTION 4.02 LAND AND WATER USE
The main land use in the surrounding area is dairy grazing to the east and north east and residential to the north of the highway. In the past Swanport wetland was open to stock access until 1990. Most of the wetland is now fenced off to exclude all stock. See Map 6 for fence locations.

Map 6: Swanport wetland existing fences

19

Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

SECTION 4.03 JURISDICTION AND MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
The wetland community group with support from the Mannum to Wellington LAP will be responsible for the management of the wetland in consultation with the landholder the Murray Bridge Rural City Council. Contact persons for Swanport wetland management will be Mannum to Wellington LAP Officer, Wetland Management Planning Officer or SA MDB NRM board Wetland Project Officer, see Table 7 for contact details.
Table 7: Swanport wetland responsible positions contact details

Position

Present Officers

Organisation
Mannum to Wellington LAP

Mailing Address
PO Box 2056 Murray Bridge Murray Bridge SA 5253

Phone number
(08) 8531 3222 (08) 8232 6753 (08) 8391 7515

Mannum to Kathryn Wellington LAP Rothe Project Manager Wetland Project Adrienne Officer, Lower Frears Murray

SA MDB NRM board PO Box 2056

SA 5253

Wetland Tumi Lower LAPS Management Bjornsson Planning Officer Parks & Gardens Glenn Supervisor Dean Senior Local Authorised Officer (pest control) Rural City of Murray Bridge

Mt. Lofty Ranges Mount Catchment Centre Barker Upper Level, Cnr Mann and Walker St's PO Box 421 Murray Bridge Murray Bridge

SA 5251

SA 5253 SA 5253

(08) 8539 1167 (08) 8539 1165

D.V. (Dave) SA MDB NRM board PO Box 1570 Clifford

20

Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

Chapter 5. THREATS AND SWANPORT WETLAND

POTENTIAL

SOLUTIONS

TO

There are a number of existing and potential threats to Swanport wetland, some of which have become apparent in the description of the wetland and available data in the chapters above. The identification of these threats is essential for appropriate adaptive management of the wetland. Their early recognition allows for an appropriate monitoring strategy for early identification of adverse impacts of management and therefore rapid response through altered management. However, the altered management of a wetland will in itself bring with it potential threats that need to be identified, these and other threats identified so far have been listed in Table 8. The most immediate threat to the wetland includes weed infestation including woody weeds, i.e. Willows, and over use by tourism/community. This WMP recommends controlled access times for recreation and the education of all users of the impacts caused by their access to the wetland.

21

Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006 Table 8: Existing and prospective threats to Swanport wetland

THREATS
Altered hydrology in river system Existing

SYMPTOM
Permanently inundated wetland

CAUSE
Constant river levels barge construction (Regional cause river
and lake regulation, Local cause man made structures)

IMPACT
Copy from ML & SS

CATEGORY
Regional & Local Local management response Local

EXTENT
Wetland proper and fringing low lying areas Wetland

POTENTIAL SOLUTION
Addressed in this management plan Introduce “natural” water regime Lowering of sill level of overflow channels Instillation of flow control structures Addressed in this management plan Removal of willows and replacement with native species (partially completed) Don‟t dry wetland

Blockage of flow path

Slow flow into wetland Saltpan in lagoons

Expansion of willows

Increased sedimentation in wetland Aggradation Spread of Typha Rising of saline groundwater Evaporation and increase in concentration of salinity of groundwater Blocking of light penetration and therefore reducing macrophyte growth Lack of macrophytes – less nutrient uptake which become available to algae which are not as impacted on by high turbidity Algal blooms Degradation of habitat quality for fauna (e.g. macroinvertebrates, native fish and birds) Loss of habitat availability and diversity

ABIOTIC

Potential

Saline groundwater

Lack of wetland inundation Evapoconcentration

Regional & Local Local management response Local

Wetland area

Existing (minor threat)

Poor water quality: turbidity

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

Wind resuspension of sediment

Wetland body

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

Loss of submerged aquatic vegetation

Their absence/low numbers

Woody weeds

Large number of willows

BIOTIC

Existing

Weeds

Their presence

Reed expansion loss of open water area Reed expansion into herb area Lack of habitat (birds)

Expansion of Typha Expansion of Typha Low abundance of bird species during survey

Lack of variable water regime with wet and dry phases Mismanagement of wetland hydrology Permanent inundation and therefore no regeneration Clearing Grazing Establishment of willows Weed infestation Past mismanagement of wetland Degradation of native vegetation Ability to grow in saline & dry environments (boxthorn) Sedimentation

Local

Wetland lagoons/regional (will impact on bird habitat)

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

Loss of habitat/breeding hollows (birds) Loss of snags in water body Competition with native vegetation Loss of ecological function of native species lost Exotic species Competition with native vegetation Loss of habitat (food source?) Loss of open water area Loss of fauna (bird and fish) habitat Loss of herb area Loss of vulnerable plants and dependent species Low abundance of birds Loss of bird habitat

Local

Surrounding area. Extensive

Active removal and/or poisoning Revegetate

Local

Higher ground of wetland area

Active removal – poisoning

Local

Wetland body

Active removal Increase water flow into downstream lagoon reducing sedimentation Active removal

Suitable environment for Typha Low habitat variability

Local

Herb area

Local and Regional

Wetland and wetland surrounding area

Revegetate with native species Increase habitat availability (instillation of bird perches and boxes)

22

Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

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

SYMPTOM
Turbid wetlands Reduction in native fish diversity and abundance

CAUSE
Well known environmental problem in region (large pest population) Rapid breeding cycles (carp ~2/year), live bearing (gambusia), unpalatable eggs (redfin)

IMPACT
Competition for habitat (domination of available habitat) Predation/aggressive interaction on/with small and young native fish (redfin/gambusia) Damage to aquatic vegetation Decrease in water quality (Turbidity increase) Predation on native fish (redfin) Degradation of vegetation Rabbit warrens Large detriment and threat to turtle breeding Impact on native fauna Opening up of wetland to main rive r channel Changing the wetland type and significantly altering the ecology and habitat structure within the wetland

CATEGORY
Regional and local

EXTENT
Wetland water body

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

Existing

BIOTIC

Rabbits

Warrens Damaged herbs Dug up turtle nest eggs Fox holes Banks failure

Rabbits Foxes

Regional and local Regional and local

Wetland area Wetland area

Baiting and shooting Destruction of warrens Fox baiting and shooting Destruction of fox holes Leave Willows in situ (poison only, do not remove Planting of native species (red gums) to replace function of maintaining bank stability as willows are removed/decay Remove no more than 10% of willows on bank per year Educate all stakeholders and users Restrict access/ access type (ban houseboats entering open water, ban jet skis, restrict access by canoes to times when the water level is high (entry during low water level causes undue disturbance)) Complete circuit boardwalk to allow easy and minimal impact access to the area

Foxes

Potential

Undermining of bank stability following willow removal

Loss of binding capacity of existing vegetation

Regional and local

Wetland water body

Disturbance/ inappropriate use/ overuse

MISCELLANEOUS

Existing

Damage to herb area

Lack of regeneration of vegetation Toileting in wetland area (bush) by visitors Strength of bird hides Vandalism Potential

Noise Unsettled birds Low abundance and reduced diversity of birds Turbid wetland Degradation of herbland (new tracks) Spread of weeds Obvious damage and reduction of vegetation in previously well vegetated herb area No regeneration

Inappropriate recreational use (canoeing during low water levels, frequent use by canoes, potential inappropriate access by other recreational craft) Uncontrolled use (access to sensitive areas, access of the tracks and bord walk) Poor control of visitors New boat access to herb area following willow removal

Disturbance to water birds and other native animals Resuspending sediment increasing turbidity leading to degradation of water quality and associated impacts Access to sensitive areas/ degradation of vegetation (new tracks) potential spread of weeds

Local

Wetland area

Disturbance to water birds and other native animals Degradation of vegetation

Regional and local

Wetland area

Installation of hardwood pylons blocking boat access

Aggradation wetland

of

Faeces and toilet paper found in surrounding vegetation (unhygienic) Old and degrading structures Damaged infrastructure Damage to vegetation Increased silt (turbidity) entering wetland

Possibly rabbits Possibly competition by weeds Poor access to toilets in a heavily used recreational area

Long term viability of revegetation in question Unhygienic wetland environment Damage to revegetation (access to sheltered spot) Safety concerns Degradation of wetland Damage to infrastructure leading to increased cost Slow reduction in wetland depth Entire wetland becomes a herb zone Wetland becomes a long term transition zone

Local

Wetland area

Local

Wetland area

Deal with Rabbits Remove weeds Research for cause Installation of good quality composting toilet

Age Rot Vandalism Lack of „ownership‟ by wider community Open flow path Slow flow and increased sedimentation Reeds/macrophytes encourage sedimentation

Local Local

Wetland area Wetland area

Rebuild bird hides Education of public

Local

Wetland body

Monitor sedimentation Remove excessive reeds in wetland body

23

Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

Chapter 6. MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES
Based on the objectives presented in Section 1.02(c) and the threats to the wetland discussed in Chapter 5, more detailed ecology based management objectives can now be developed. Derived from the identification of the major degradation to the wetland, the objectives identified are: Removal of weed vegetation surrounding the wetland including woody weeds (monitoring would be needed to identify the level of infestation, both currently and in the future) Active Typha removal (monitoring would be needed to map the current open water and herb community, and continued monitoring to observe any impacts by the spread of Typha) At the same time future wetland management has to: Minimise any adverse impact on water quality Avoid salinisation Not interfere with diversity of: o Vegetation o Native fish (diversity and habitat preference) o Macroinvertebrates or o Frogs (monitoring would be needed to identify the habitat preference) and Maintain and increase bird habitat diversity (monitoring would be needed to identify the birds regularly using the open water and the fringing vegetation) The objectives, including solutions, actions needed and priorities are detailed in Table 10. The largest task would be the controlled removal of willows particularly from the channel inlets into the wetland. The benefits and threats of the removal of willows are summarised in Table 9. A minor review of the objectives and the wetland management plan is recommended at the end of each year, community groups can achieve this by reviewing their monitored data. A major review should follow after 5 years.
Table 9: Benefit and threats of willow removal

Benefits
Increase exchange of water with river Decrease salinity in wetland due to increased water exchange with river Potential decrease in sedimentation due to a higher turnover rate of water Maintenance of open water due to a decrease in sedimentation Maintenance of connection with the river allowing free passage of native fish Replacement with native species providing more appropriate ecological function Educate public on the most appropriate methodology and reasoning for willow removal Long term provision of a more suitable bird habitat such as hollows in trees

Threats
Increased turbidity from river Bank stability undermined Changing the wetland into a through flow wetland significantly impacting on the established wetland ecology Loss of bird perches (solution is to leave standing poisoned trees and/or instillation of alternate perches)

24

Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006 Table 10: Management objectives for Swanport wetland.

MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES
Maintain diverse plant community with seven species with regional conservation status

SOLUTIONS
Maintain plant diversity including the seven threatened species of regional significance. Maintain (and probably enhance) the area of small aquatic and amphibious herbs. Through the protection of the swampy/damp vegetated areas below the old causeway (i.e. leave this section as is) Targeted control of willows along the levee bank and the gradual introduction of native species such as river red gums, lignum and river coobah

ACTIONS (Management (M) or Engineering or structural (ES))
Map the vegetation in more detail (need expert input) Monitor and map vegetation changes over 2 to 5 years Do not install connection between the wetland sections

QUANTIFIABLE /MEASURE OF ACHIEVEMENT
No loss of species diversity

MONITOR (TIMING)*
Photo point (Q) Vegetation survey (Y)

LEGISLATION
High

PRIORITY

Native
Removal of willows

VEGETATION

Invasive

Removal of weeds from wetland area

Invasive

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

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

Nativ e

Establish weed removal projects in the wetland area Removal of weed vegetation surrounding the wetland (monitor level of infestation) Prevent further spread of weeds Maintain existing area of open water Reduction in the rate of sediment accumulation in the open water section Control/remove reeds/willows around flow path (as part of the first 10%) Maintain existing area of wet herb meadow habitats Control or stop the spread of Typha into herb areas and open water Clear flow channels between wetland and the river Active removal of exotic species Maintenance of habitat and a healthy wetland, which gives native fish an advantage. This is possibly the best option given the wetland is already in a healthy state Reduce turbidity. With less turbidity the native fish have better habitat conditions from which to compete Active removal of exotic fish

Removing 10% of willows per year, not more so as not to impact on levee bank Poison another 10% leave standing Revegetate with native species such as river red gums, lignum and river coobah Weed control as per revegetation plan Implement eradication program of identified weeds once per year

Invasive

Removal/dieback of 20% of willows/year Survival of more than 50% of revegetation

Photo point (Q) Vegetation survey (Y)

High

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

Vegetation survey (Y)

High

Increase water exchange by removing 10% of willows per year, not more so as not to impact on levee bank. This should increase the water exchange, leading to „scouring of the sediment or the minimisation of the sedimentation Identify source of sediment and method of reducing it. Active removal of Typha from herb areas (need expert recommendation).

No change in open water area

Photo point (Q)

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

High

Clear willows blocking channel as part of 10% per annum Monitor fish populations Identify the areas they inhabit Avoid/minimise impact on identified habitat Increase snags in wetland

Visible migration during flow No net decrease in fish abundance or No net decrease in fish abundance or diversity

Opportunistic Monitoring of fish in wetland Opportunistic Monitoring of fish in wetland

Medium

Medium

FISH

Native

Invasive

Reduce threat of invasive fish species

Volunteers, active removal with seine net

Low abundance of invasive fish species in wetland

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

Low

25

Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

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

SOLUTIONS
Improved frog habitat through improved and more diverse ecological niches (habitat) Revegetate with native riparian species Maintain herb area Fish and frogs, need to identify the area they occupy. Include in monitoring. Provide bird perches and breeding boxes Revegetate surrounding area with native vegetation (long term production of tree hollows) Leave 50% of dead willows standing (act as perches)

ACTIONS (Management (M) or Engineering or structural (ES))
Restore riparian vegetation Monitor frog populations Identify the areas they inhabit.

QUANTIFIABLE /MEASURE OF ACHIEVEMENT
No net decrease in frog diversity and abundance

MONITOR (TIMING)*
Frog survey (Q)

LEGISLATION
Low

PRIORITY

FROGS

Native

Native/Migratory

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

Revegetate with native riparian species. Build bird perches and breeding boxes Restoration of wetland habitat and conditions for native fish species, migratory water birds, native water birds and fringing species, and aquatic and riparian plant species Maintain current inundation

BIRDS

Increase in bird abundance using wetland (At least double current levels) Increase in habitat diversity in long term Existence of perches and hollows (boxes)

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

Medium

Reduce groundwater impact on wetland

Maintain freshwater lens under wetland

GW

Monitor wetland salinity (no net increase over time) Monitor soil salinity (no net increase in soil salinity)

Monitor water quality (M) Monitor soil salinity

Low

WQ

Salinity (Reasonable surface water EC but potential groundwater gradient from the north towards the wetland) Turbidity (Turbidity 369 NTU in Mar-04) Improve connectivity of wetland with River Murray

Maintain surface water salinity at <1000 EC 100% of the time Maintain flow into (and out of) wetland in the upper (open water) section above the causeway Open/improve connection with river Restore/maintain flow paths into wetland

Increase water exchange by removing 10% of willows per year, not more otherwise we may impact on levee bank stability. Start with willows in flow channel. Identify sources of turbidity (take appropriate response). Increase water exchange by removing 10% of willows per year, not more otherwise we may impact on levee bank stability. Start with willows in flow channel. Construction of boardwalk Indigenous clearance

Long term decrease of water salinity

WQ

Monitor water quality (M)

Medium

Visibly clear water Maintain turbidity at <150 NTU 100% of the time Clear distinct channel

Monitor water quality (M) Observation Photopoint (Q) Observation

High

MANAGEMENT

Structural

High

Miscellane ous

Control access to wetland areas

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

Miscellan eous

Remove visitor toileting in wetland vegetation No further trails/ boardwalks or structures (besides those mentioned above) Restrict boat access to wetland (particularly herb community)

Miscel laneou s

Complete present ring loop trail over herb area. Construction of boardwalk. Boardwalk needs to have a minimum impact on herb area which contains threatened plants. Instillation of composting toilet above 56 flood level. Maintain and maximise use of current boardwalks (and those mentioned above) Install hardwood pylons across wetland entrance (flow paths) that block access by boats by not water.

Presence of boardwalk. No new paths in wetland area

Photopoint (Q) Observation

Medium

Construction of boardwalk Indigenous clearance Improve educational signage around current boardwalk Install pylons

No toilet paper and foreign material in wetland vegetation

Photopoint (Q) Observation

Council approval River Murray Act

M is ce lla ne ou s

Medium Medium

Reduced damage by recreational boats

Photopoint (Q) Observation

High

26

Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

27

Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

Chapter 7. IMPLEMENTATION ACTION AND TIMETABLE)

OF

PLAN

(ON

GROUND

From the management objectives a number of on ground actions have been identified for Swanport wetland. Some of these ongoing actions identified for Swanport wetland include: Willow removal and poisoning (poisoning ongoing) Revegetate levee bank with native species (ongoing) Weed identification and removal (part of vegetation mapping). Weed removal should be seen as an annual event. Declared weeds are council responsibility, Council should be contacted when declared weeds are identified (see Section 4.03) Typha removal from herb area (little wetland) and maintenance of open water (May need approval under the Native vegetation Act 1991 (possibly exempt 5 (1) (zi)) Table 11, provides a timetable and prioritisation for the on ground works in the Swanport wetland. The table does not address monitoring, which is discussed in Chapter 8. A log of all activities should be maintained. This log would assist in the review process of the wetland management plan discussed in Chapter 9.

28

Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006 Table 11: Implementation plan for Swanport wetland land based activities.

ACTIVITY
Remove Typha from herb area at 346133 E 6109213 N GDA 94 zone 54 Install barriers to boat access across lagoon inlets (both lagoons) (Subject to council approval) Install signs explaining boat access restriction Install Gauge Board

PRIORITY
High High High Low

RESOURCES
Volunteers Funding (Hardwood pylons) Funding 2 persons 1 hrs Materials and tools (available) Funding Volunteers Funding Volunteers Funding Volunteers Funding (seedlings) Volunteers Funding Volunteers Funding Volunteers Funding Volunteers Sheers Waders As appropriate Funding Volunteers Seine net Monitoring (research)/funding Monitoring frogs Research/funding

TIMETABLE
As soon as possible As soon as possible As soon as possible Ongoing

RESPONSIBILITY
LAP, Community group LAP, Community group LAP, Community group LAP, SA MDB NRM Board LAP, Community group LAP, Community group LAP, Community group LAP, Community group LAP, Community group LAP, Community group LAP, Community group LAP, Community group LAP, Community group LAP, Community group LAP, SA MDB NRM Board LAP, Community group

AS SOON AS POSSIBLE

Willow removal from levee bank (10% per year) Clearing of channels (willow removal from channels) Poisoning willows on levee bank (10% per year, leave standing for bird perches) Revegetation (understorey) Construction of bird perches Construction of bird nest boxes Construction of bat nest boxes Removal of excessive Typha growth in open water wetland (maintenance of open water Maintain clear flow path (no new willow growth, no future blocking of channel by Typha) Remove exotic fish Identify sources of turbidity
TE

High High High Medium Medium Low Low High Medium Low Medium Medium

Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing As required based on photo point monitoring As required As appropriate As appropriate Ongoing/future

AS APPROPRIA

FUTURE

Identify frog habitat

29

Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

ACTIVITY
Identify weeds and locations for weed management Install additional permanent photopoints

PRIORITY
Medium

RESOURCES
Monitoring (research)/funding Botanist 2 persons 1 hrs Materials and tools (available) Funding Volunteers Funding Volunteers Volunteers Funding Volunteers Funding Volunteers Funding Volunteers

TIMETABLE
As appropriate

RESPONSIBILITY
LAP, SA MDB NRM Board LAP, SA MDB NRM Board LAP, Community group LAP, Community group LAP, Community group LAP, Community group LAP, Community group LAP, Community group

Low

If necessary

Weed removal Increase snags in wetland for native fish habitat Construction of frog shelter (homes) Fox baiting Recreate/replace bird hides Construction/completion of board walk

Medium Medium Low Medium High Medium

As appropriate following weed identification As appropriate As appropriate As appropriate As soon as possible As soon as possible

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

30

Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

Chapter 8. MONITORING
For the development of a wetland management plan, Swanport wetland was included in the River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey (SKM 2004). The data collected during this survey provided a basis by which objectives for the wetland management could be refined, initial hydrology guidelines could be developed and review procedures scheduled. However this data did not cover all the issues related to managing the Swanport wetland. Partly as a consequence, but also as part of adaptive management and best practise wetland management, monitoring of the wetland has been devised to answer some of the unknowns. That is, ongoing monitoring during wetland management plays a role in adaptive management by providing managers with information on how the wetland is responding to management strategies, whether the objectives are being met, whether there are offtarget implications (wetland in regional context) or (as per Your Wetland: Monitoring Manual (Tucker 2004)) whether the Golden Rules are being broken. The Golden Rules being: Don‟t salinise your wetland. Don‟t kill long lived vegetation. Don‟t destroy threatened communities or habitats of threatened species. The maintenance of a restored wetland, fulfilling the functions described above and without an adverse impact on adjacent farming operations, wetland and lake salinity or fish habitat requirements would involve regular monitoring and adequate timely response. This would include the regular monitoring of water quality, bird life and aquatic dependent species (particular interest to Swanport wetland is frog habitat) as well as aquatic and fringing vegetation. Identification of weeds within the wetland area falls within the sphere of monitoring and will lead to the further development of an appropriate weed management strategy. To ensure that monitored data is available for evaluation, review and reporting, a log of all activities, monitoring and site description should be maintained at an accessible and convenient location. The data will ultimately be stored in the appropriate state government databases. See report by Hydro Tasmania (2003). The purpose of such a log is to maintain a record of management steps undertaken, their justification and observed impacts/implications. The maintenance of a log is both good management practice allowing future reference to potential impacts of management and the assessment of the impact of past practices, Refer to Your Wetland: Monitoring Manual (Tucker 2004) for examples of data log sheets and further description of monitoring methods. Some of the ongoing monitoring necessary for Swanport wetland includes: Identification of turbidity source Map vegetation in more detail (weeds) Monitor and map vegetation change (2 – 5 years) Monitor fish populations and habitats Monitor frog populations and habitat Monitor macrophytes (spread) using photo points. Monitor bird populations using area and identify habitat. Continued monitoring of the groundwater is necessary for a potential timely response to potential increasing salinity levels.

31

Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006 Table 12: Monitoring plan for Swanport wetland.

Parameter
Groundwater

Method
Level and Conductivity

Priority
MODERATE

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

Responsible
SA MDB NRM Board/community group SA MDB NRM Board/community group SA MDB NRM Board/community group LAP/SA MDB NRM Board SA MDB NRM Board LAP SA MDB NRM Board/community group SA MDB NRM Board/community group LAP/community group

Quarterly

half day

Water quality Surface Water monitoring (cond, MODERATE turb, temp) Quarterly Fish Seine net, dip net (and fyke nets if deep enough) Photopoint Installation Photopoint monitoring Mapping GPS (weeds) Quadrat/line intercept Frogs Birds Macroinvertebrates Bats Recording Calls Id habitat Fixed area search Dip net survey LOW Annually Recording Calls LOW Ongoing MODERATE LOW Annually LOW Only if current photopoints deemed inadequate for monitoring reed encroachment into open water

half day

1 day 1 hour

HIGH Quarterly MODERATE LOW Permanent quadrats in herb area monitored annually/biannually MODERATE Annually Ongoing (Quarterly) 0.5 hour half day (from dawn) Annually to guide community members work on weed control 2 hours 1 day Set up- 2 days,

Vegetation

1 day (not SA MDB NRM including Board/community identification) group LAP/community group

32

Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

Chapter 9. EVALUATION, REVIEW AND REPORTING
SECTION 9.01 EVALUATION AND REVIEW
The full impact and effectiveness of the new management strategy cannot be fully predicted. Some data, for example the habitat requirements for frogs, still needs to be collected and appropriate management found to improve or maintain the habitat viability. Therefore, the data obtained through monitoring need to be regularly reviewed to respond to impacts of the management strategy and new knowledge. The community group should conduct an annual review of the monitored data and the condition of the wetland; assistance is available from the Mannum to Wellington LAP and the SA MDB NRM board. A full review of the wetland management plan should be scheduled in 5 years. For the annual review to be effective it needs to include an upgrade of the monitoring schedule to reflect changes in management and current knowledge as well as to ensure that the objectives are being met.

SECTION 9.02 REPORTING
Copies of all monitored data should be kept with both the Mannum to Wellington LAP and with the Wetland Project Officer of the SA MDB NRM Board, their contact details can be found in Section 4.03. A record of activities should also be kept with either Mannum to Wellington LAP and with the Wetland Project Officer of the SA MDB NRM Board. Both these officers will contribute to the adaptive management of the wetland and maintenance of relevant data for future wetland management decisions and plan upgrades. The Wetland Project Officer will coordinate the reporting to the South Australian Wetland Technical Group as necessary.

33

Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

Chapter 10. REFERENCES
BOM (2005). Climate Averages. Accessed 18 March 2005, www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_024518.shtml. Department of Water Land and Biodiversity Conservation (2005). Surface Water Archive. Accessed 3 August 2005, http://www.dwlbc.sa.gov.au/subs/surface_water_archive/a1pgs/mapindex.htm. EPA South Australian Frogs in the Murray Valley. Hydro Tasmania (2003). River Murray Wetlands Data Management Project Final Report. River Murray Catchment Water Management Board. Jensen, A., F. Marsh, et al. (2000). Moorundi Wetland Complex Management Plan. Swanport Wetland Management Plan. Berri Jensen, A., P. Paton, et al. (1996). Wetlands Atlas of the South Australian Murray Valley. South Australian River Murray Wetlands Management Committee. South Australian Department of Environment and Natural Resources. ADELAIDE Leigh, S., Q. Ye, et al. (2004). Swanport Wetland Fish Survey November 2003 and March 2004. SARDI Aquatic Sciences. River Murray Catchment Water Management Board and Department of Water Land and Biodiversity Conservation (2003). Guidelines for Development of Wetland Management Plans for the River Murray in South Australia. SKM (2004). River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey. South Australian Murray Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board. Thompson, M. B. (1986). River Murray Wetlands, Their Characteristics, Significance and Management. Department of Environment and Planning and Nature Conservation Society of S.A. Adelaide Tucker, P. (2004). Your Wetland: Monitoring Manual - Data Collection. River Murray Catchment Water Management Board, Australian Landscape Trust. Renmark SA Tucker, P., S. Dominelli, et al. (2003). Your Wetland: Supporting Information. Australian Landscape Trust. Renmark SA

34

Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

Appendix A. Wetlands Atlas Data for Wetland Main Body
Table 13: Swanport wetland, Wetland atlas data (Jensen et al. 1996)
AREA PERIMETER WETLANDS_ WETLANDS_I AS2482 AUS_WETNR AUSDIRNO_9 AUSDIR_NO THOM_WETNR NAME COMPLEX WATERCOURS MDBC_DISTN WATER_REGI INTERNATIO NATIONAL BASIN VALLEY VALLEY HIGH_CONSE MODERATE_C LOW_CONSER SHOULD_REA SHOULD_ASS DataSource 3 PERMANENT 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Murray SA Atlas M009 SWANPORT WETLAND Upstream end of Irrigation Area 135851.49352600000 2300.56524572000 764 763 44190 S0038

35

Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

Appendix B. Surface Water Archive Graph

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

36

Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

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

37

Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

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

38

Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

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

39

Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

40

Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

41

Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

42

Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

43

Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

Appendix F.

Baseline Survey Vegetation Zones (Source SKM (2004))

44

Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

Appendix G. Species List for Swanport wetland
SECTION G.01 FLORA
This species list (Table 14) has been derived from the River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey (SKM 2004).
Table 14: Plant Associations at Swanport wetland (adapted from River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey (SKM 2004))

Species

Common Name Introduced

Conservati on Rating*

Plant Association** 1 2 3 4

AUS

Apium prostratum prostratum var. Asperula gemella Atriplex semibaccata *Berula erecta Carex appressa Carex fascicularis Centella asiatica *Cotula coronopifolia Crassula helmsii

ssp.

Native celery Twin-leaf Bedstraw Berry Saltbush Water Parsnip Tall sedge Tassel Sedge Asian Centella Water Buttons Swamp Crassula Climbing saltbush Common spike-rush Tall spike-rush Black-seed Samphire Shield Pennywort Jointed Rush Austral Gypsywort (Peppermint) Water Couch Salt-water Couch Slender Knotweed Greater Plantain Small river buttercup X River Club-rush X X X X X X

MU

SA

K

X X X

K K Q

X

X X X X X X X X X

Einadia nutans ssp. nutans Eleocharis acuta Eleocharis sphacelata Halosarcia pergranulata ssp. pergranulata Hydrocotyle verticillata *Juncus articulatus Lycopus australis Mentha x piperita var. Myriophyllum ?simulans *Paspalum ?distichum *Paspalum vaginatum Persicaria decipiens *Plantago major Ranunculus amphitrichus *Rumex pulcher ssp. pulcher *Salix ?babylonica Schoenoplectus validus *Soncus ?asper ssp. glaucescens

X V X X R X

X X

X X X X

X

X X X X X R X X X X X X X X X

45

Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006
*Soncus oleraceus *Spergularia marina Suaeda australis Triglochin procerum Typha domingensis Common Sow-thistle Salt Sand-spurrey Austral Seablite Water-ribbons Narrow-leaf Bulrush X X X X X X X X X

Total species % introduced
** Plant association:

32

9 28

11 27

8 25

17 41

11 0

* R = rare conservation status, K uncertain conservation rating, V = vulnerable, 1. Typha domingensis Sedgeland over Triglochin procerum; 2. Eleocharis acuta and Triglochin procerum Sedgeland over *Paspalum distichum; 3. Eleocharis sphacelate Closed Sedgeland; and 4. Halosarcia pergranulata ssp. pergranulata Low Open Shrubland

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

Species

Common Name

Introduced

Conservation Rating AUS MU
K R K K Q

Alternanthera nodiflora Apium annuum *Arctotheca calendula Asperula gemella *Asphodelus fistulosus *Aster subulatus Atriplex semibaccata *Avena barbata Azolla filiculoides *Berula erecta Brachycome gracilis basaltica var.

Common joyweed Annual celery Capeweed Twin-leaf bedstraw Onion weed Bushy starwort (Asterweed) Berry saltbush (Creeping saltbush) Bearded Oat Pacific azolla Water Parsnip Swamp Daisy Wild turnip Prairie grass Red Brome Tall sedge Tassel Sedge Asian Centella Spear Thistle (Scotch Thistle) Common cotula Water Buttons Swamp crassula X X X X X R X X X

*Brassica tournefortii *Bromus catharticus *Bromus rubens Carex appressa Carex fascicularis Centella asiatica *Cirsium vulgare Cotula australis *Cotula coronopifolia Crassula helmsii

SA

46

Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006
Crassula tetramera sieberiana ssp. Australian stonecrop Sea Barley-grass Green couch Spiny flat-sedge Emu grass Paterson's curse (Salvation Jane) Yellow twin-heads Annual veldt-grass Climbing saltbush Common spike-rush Tall spike-rush Tall wheat grass var. Ruby salt bush X River red gum X X X X Black-seed Samphire Shield Pennywort Joint-leaf rush Common rush Australian hollyhock Duckweed X X African boxthorn Austral Gypsywort Horehound var. X X X X R X V X X U U X X

*Critesion marinum *Cynodon dactylon Cyperus gymnocaulos Distichlis distichophylla *Echium plantagineum Eclipta platyglossa *Ehrharta longiflora Einadia nutans ssp. nutans Eleocharis acuta Eleocharis sphacelata *Elymus elongatus Enchylaena tomentosa tomentosa

*Erodium moschatum Eucalyptus camaldulensis var. camaldulensis *Euphorbia terracina *Festuca arundinacea *Galenia secunda *Gynandriris setifolia Halosarcia pergranulata ssp. pergranulata Hydrocotyle verticillata Juncus holoschoenus Juncus usitatus Lavatera plebeia Lemna disperma *Lepidium africanum *Lupinus cosentinii *Lycium ferocissimum Lycopus australis Maireana brevifolia *Marrubium vulgare *Medicago polymorpha polymorpha *Mesembryanthemum crystallinum Montia australasica Muehlenbeckia florulenta *Myriophyllum aquaticum Myriophyllum papillosum Lignum Parrots feather (milfoil) Common watermilfoil

X K R

47

Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006
*Oxalis pes-caprae *Paspalum distichum *Paspalum vaginatum *Pennisetum clandestinum Persicaria decipiens Phragmites australis Pratia concolor Ranunculus amphitrichus *Ranunculus trilobus *Rorippa nasturtiumaquaticum *Rorippa palustris Rumex bidens *Rumex conglomeratus Rumex sp. *Salix babylonica Salsola kali *Schinus areira Schoenoplectus validus Senecio lautus *Sonchus asper ssp. glaucescens Sonchus hydrophilus *Sonchus oleraceus Spirodela punctata *Stellaria media Suaeda australis Triglochin procerum Triglochin striatum Typha domingensis Typha orientalis Urtica incisa *Vulpia muralis *Zantedeschia aethiopica Pepper tree River Club-rush Variable groundsel Rough sow thistle Native sow-thistle Common Sow-thistle Duckweed Chickweed Austral Seablite Water-ribbons Streaked arrow-grass Narrow-leaf bulrush (cumbungi) Broad-leaf bulrush (cumbungi) Stinging Nettle Fescue Arum Lily X X U X X X X Weeping willow X Watercress Watercress Mud dock Clustered dock X Small river buttercup X X Soursob Water couch Salt-water Couch Kikuyu Slender Knotweed Common reed R R X? X X

Total species % introduced

90

42 46

48

Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

SECTION G.02 WETLAND AND FLOODPLAIN FAUNA
(a) BIRDS OF SWANPORT SURROUNDS AND LOWER LAKES Bird species identified at Swanport as part of the River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey (SKM 2004) (table adapted from River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey (SKM 2004)).
Table 16: Bird species identified at Swanport wetland

Common Name

Scientific Name

Spring

Summer

Total Conservation abundance status Site 3
2 7 2

Site 1

Site 2

Site 3

Site 1
2

Black-winged stilt Clamorous reedwarbler Dusky Moorhen Great egret Hoary-headed grebe Little black cormorant Little grassbird Purple hen swamp-

Himantopus himantopus Acrocephalus stentoreus Gallinula tenebrosa Ardea alba Poliocephalus poliocephalus Phalacrocorax sulcirostris Megalurus gramineus Porphyrio porphyrio Platalea regia Porzana tabuensis Egretta novaehollandiae 3 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 1 2 2 1

Site 2

EPBC Migratory

1

0 0 2 2

EPBC Migratory

2 1

4 1 3 1

Royal spoonbill Spotless crake White-faced heron

Total

Individuals Species

5 3

9 5

6 4

6 4

0 0

0 0

26 11

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

Common Name
Black swan Australian shelduck Australian duck wood

Breeding
Y

Common Name
Australian crake spotted

Breeding

Common Name
Sacred kingfisher

Breeding

Purple swamphen Dusky moorhen Y Black-tailed hen Eurasian coot native-

Y

Superb fairy-wren Spotted Pardalote Striated pardalote Weebill

Pacific black duck Grey teal

49

Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

Common Name
Chestnut teal Pink-eared duck Australasian grebe Hoary-headed grebe Darter Little pied cormorant Pied cormorant Little cormorant black

Breeding

Common Name
Latham‟s snipe Black-winged stilt Red-necked Avocet Black-fronted dotterel Clamorous warbler Little grassbird Silvereye Common blackbird Common starling Spotless crake reed-

Breeding

Common Name
Yellow-rumped thornbill Red wattlebird Spiny-cheeked honeyeater Noisy Miner Singing honeyeater White –eared honeyeater White-plumed honeyeater Brown-headed honeyeater New Holland honeyeater White-fronted chat Rufous whistler Grey shrike-thrush Magpie-lark Grey fantail Willie Wagtail Black-faced cuckoo-shrike Dusky woodswallow Australian magpie

Breeding

Great cormorant Australian pelican White-faced heron White-necked heron Great egret Nankeen night heron Australian white ibis Straw-necked ibis Royal spoonbill Yellow-billed spoonbill Black-shouldered kite Black kite Whistling kite Swamp harrier Collared sparrowhawk Little eagle Brown falcon Australian hobby Black falcon Peregrine falcon Nankeen kestrel Y Y Y Y

Baillon‟s crake Masked lapwing Silver gull Caspian tern Crested tern Whiskered tern Rock dove Spotted turtle-dove Crested pigeon Peaceful dove Galah Little corella Purple lorikeet crowned Y Y

Y

Australian raven Little raven Richard‟s pipit House sparrow Zebra finch European goldfinch Welcome swallow Tree martin Fairy martin

Red-rumped parrot Pallid cuckoo Fan-tailed cuckoo Horsfield‟s cuckoo Barn owl Laughing kookaburra bronze-

50

Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

(b) FROGS Frogs identified at Swanport as part of the River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey (SKM 2004) (table adapted from River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey (SKM 2004)).
Table 18: Frogs at Morgan’s Lagoon, date identified and significant aspects.

Name

Scientific Name Litoria ewingi
L. dumerili

Date and numbers identified
3/12/03 29/1/04 12/3/04 2/11/04

Significance/Breeding* Date identified
Breeding throughout the year. Eggs in small clumps attached to submerged vegetation. Breed throughout year. Large foam nest with 1000-4000 eggs, attached to vegetation. Three months in tadpole stage Lay eggs on underside of grass and reeds. Tadpoles need still shallow water for 5 to 6 weeks. Breeding following rain. Eggs in large foam nests. Sighting in this section of the River Murray valley significant. Breeding between Oct. and Jan.

Brown tree frog
Eastern Banjo Frog Common Froglet

1

>50

2-9

10-50

Crinia signifera

2-9

Long thumbed frog
Peron‟s Tree Frog

Limnodynastes fletcheri
Litoria peroni

2-9

2-9

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

51

Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

(c) FISH Fish identified at Swanport as part of the River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey (SKM 2004) (tables adapted from River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey (SKM 2004)). The number of fyke nets used during the survey reduced from 5 to 3 due to a drop in the water depth. To be able to compare the fish surveys from the two dates the representative numbers of fish caught were calculated to reflect the number of fish for each net per night, i.e. catch per unit effort expressed as CPUE (SKM 2004). Total of number fish caught
23 73 7 176 6 5 11 53 R R (C) 76

Table 19: Native fisha Common Name Scientific Name

November 2003 CPUE*

March 2004 CPUE*

Status SA**

Australian smelt Bony herring Golden perch (Callop) Carp gudgeon Common galaxias Dwarf flathead gudgeon Flathead gudgeon Flyspecked hardyhead Murray River rainbow fish Number of Species

Retropinna semoni Nematalosa erebi Macquaria ambiqua Hypseleotris spp. Galaxias maculatus Philypnodon sp. Philypnodon grandiceps Craterocephalus stercusmuscarum fulvus Melanotaenia fluviatilis

13 57 7 170 5 5 9 44

2.6 11.4 1.4 34 1 1 1.8 8.8

10 16 0 6 1 0 2 9

3.3 5.3 0 2 0.3 0 0.7 3

4 9

0.8

72 7

24

C

* Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) fish/net/night ** R = Rare (taxon in decline or naturally limited presence), C = provisional State conservation concern under the draft Threatened Species Schedule NPWSA

Table 20: Introduced fish

Common Name

Scientific Name

CPUE*

CPUE*

Gambusia Goldfish Redfin perch Common Carp

Gambusia holbrooki Carassius auratus Perca fluviatilis Cyprinus carpio

3 66 1 Seen but not caught 4

0.6 13.2 0.2

17 0 0 Seen but not caught 2

5.7 0 0

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

Total number of fish caught
20 66 1

November 2003

March 2004

52

Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006

(d) MACROINVERTEBRATES Macroinvertebrates collected at Swanport as part of the River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey (SKM 2004) (table adapted from River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey (SKM 2004))
Table 21: Macroinvertebrate taxa and abundance (SKM 2004)
Abundance 4 11 18 50 1 144 8 2 25 1 1 8 17 9 7 23 2 1 58 1 4 10 3 3 1 1 6 2 1 2 2 1 3 15 2 2 1 77 83 1 19 4 6 4 35 11 1 2 1 10 4 1 45 139 240 433 116 2 6 1 34 27 60 70 100 1 119 8 7 10 58 38 5 2 3 7 46 21 8 25 2 1 182 109 1640 410 240 180 34 248 2124 1226 42 16 13 120 40 10 3 15 108 1 16 11 3 11 20 3 64 372 2 9 21 1137 6 4 60

Taxa (family level unless indicated otherwise)
Hydridae Turbellaria (Class) Nematoda (Phylum) Oligochaeta (Class) Gastropoda (Order) Ancylidae Lymnaeidae Physidae Planorbidae Astigmata Oribatida Decapoda (Order) Atydae Parastacidae Ceinidae Sminthuridae Baetidae Odonata (Order) Coenagrionidae Lestidae Ceratopogonidae Corixidae Mesoveliidae Notonectidae Veliidae Chironominae (Subfamily) Culicidae Ephydridae Orthocladiinae (Subfamily)

Spring

Autumn

Sample 1

Sample 2

Sample 3

Sample 4

Sample 1

Sample 2

Sample 3

Sample 4

1 8 2 39 13 6 13 9 2 1

1

2

53

Swanport Wetland Management Plan 2006
Tanypodinae (Subfamily) Hydroptilidae Leptoceridae Dytiscidae Hydrophilidae Total abundance Total number of taxa Signal2 265 23 244 18 4 1 298 17 2.9 271 20 482 12 2450 8 2 1200 7 547 8 1 1 3 4 5 1 7 233 25 264 9 7 4 1 5757 34

54

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful