You are on page 1of 72

Reedy Creek Wetland

MANAGEMENT PLAN 2006

LAPS
Lower Murray Local Action Planning Groups
Kjartan Tumi Bjornsson

Mannum to Wellington
Local Action Planning Inc.
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................... i
LIST OF FIGURES...................................................................................................................... ii
LIST OF MAPS ........................................................................................................................... ii
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ ii
Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 5
1.1 Environmental, Social and Cultural Significance of wetland ............................................. 5
1.2 Why does Reedy Creek wetland need a management plan? ........................................... 6
(a) Mission Statement ....................................................................................................... 7
(b) Vision Statement ......................................................................................................... 7
(c) Broad Objectives ............................................................................................................. 7
(d) Current Achievements ................................................................................................. 7
Chapter 2. SITE DESCRIPTION OF REEDY CREEK WETLAND ............................................. 8
2.1 Wetland Location and Description ................................................................................... 8
2.2 Survey Sites, Dates & Locations...................................................................................... 8
2.3 Physical Features ............................................................................................................ 9
(a) Reedy Creek wetland in Current State ......................................................................... 9
(b) Geomorphology, Geology And Soils .......................................................................... 11
(c) Climate .......................................................................................................................... 13
(d) Wetland Volumes and Water Requirements for Various Filling Stages ...................... 13
(e) Surface and Groundwater Features ........................................................................... 14
2.4 Ecological Features ....................................................................................................... 21
(a) Flora .......................................................................................................................... 21
(b) Fauna ........................................................................................................................ 22
2.5 Implications for Management ......................................................................................... 25
Chapter 3. SOCIAL ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL VALUES .................................................. 28
Chapter 4. LAND TENURE, JURISDICTION AND MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS ......... 29
Chapter 5. THREATS AND POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS TO REEDY CREEK WETLAND ......... 32
Chapter 6. MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES .............................................................................. 36
Chapter 7. IMPLEMENTATION OF PLAN ............................................................................... 40
7.1 ON GROUND ACTION AND TIMETABLE ..................................................................... 41
7.2 WETLAND WATER OPERATIONAL PLAN ................................................................... 44
(a) Water regime ............................................................................................................. 44
(b) Volume calculations ................................................................................................... 45
Chapter 8. MONITORING ....................................................................................................... 47
Chapter 9. EVALUATION, REVIEW AND REPORTING .......................................................... 49
9.1 Evaluation and Review .................................................................................................. 49
9.2 Reporting ....................................................................................................................... 49
Chapter 10. REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 50
i
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006
(a) Flora of Reedy Creek Wetland ................................................................................... 59
(b) Birds of Reedy Creek Wetland ................................................................................... 62
(c) Fish ............................................................................................................................... 69
(d) Macroinvertebrates .................................................................................................... 70

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Reedy Creek sheet piling structure 20/07/06 (TB) .......................................................... 10
Figure 2: Reedy Creek sheet piling structure 20/07/06 (TB) .......................................................... 10
Figure 3: Reedy Creek embankment January 2004 (AF) .............................................................. 11
Figure 4: Reedy Creek embankment revegetation January 2004 (AF) .......................................... 11
Figure 5: Reedy Creek embankment revegetation and turtle eggs January 2004 (AF) .................. 11
Figure 6: Reedy Creek embankment 20/07/06 (TB) ...................................................................... 11
Figure 7: Geology section of Reedy Creek between road and creek delta .................................... 12
Figure 8: Geology of Reedy Creek ................................................................................................ 12
Figure 9: River and wetland connection seen from wetland 09/03/06 (TB) .................................... 18
Figure 10: Reedy Creek delta on left of picture 09/03/06 (TB) ....................................................... 18
Figure 11: Years river water levels exceeded 1.3m between 1974 and 2006 ................................ 41
Figure 12: Water regime ‘normal’ managed drying event .............................................................. 44
Figure 13: Water regime 2007 extreme drying event ..................................................................... 45
Figure 14: Median monthly rainfall at Mt. Crawford Forest ............................................................ 45

LIST OF MAPS
Map 1: Pre 1940 observations by Arthur Hein ................................................................................. 6
Map 2: Reedy Creek wetland location ............................................................................................. 8
Map 3: Area of Reedy Creek used for volume estimates............................................................... 14
Map 4: Current water movement into the wetland & wetland structure .......................................... 17
Map 5: FIM III flow volume to surpass sheet pile structure ............................................................ 19
Map 6: Cadastral boundaries covering Reedy Creek wetland and surrounds. ............................... 29
Map 7: Open water v’s hydrologically managed sections .............................................................. 40
Map 8: Vegetation map from 1975 ................................................................................................ 61

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Baseline survey monitoring parameters and dates ............................................................ 9
Table 2: Summary of wetland volumes within Reedy Creek wetland ............................................. 14
Table 3: Water quality Reedy Creek wetland ................................................................................ 15
Table 4: Water quality Reedy Creek.............................................................................................. 16
Table 5: Acid sulphate soil survey ................................................................................................. 16
Table 6: Recent surface water quality at site REEWQ01............................................................... 18
ii
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006
Table 7: Groundwater monitoring locations ................................................................................... 19
Table 8: Groundwater monitoring results ...................................................................................... 20
Table 9: Most significant habitat use at Reedy Creek wetland....................................................... 23
Table 10: Frogs recorded at Reedy Creek wetland ....................................................................... 24
Table 11: Reedy Creek wetland responsible positions contact details........................................... 31
Table 12: Existing and potential threats to Reedy Creek wetland .................................................. 33
Table 13: Management objectives for Reedy Creek wetland ......................................................... 37
Table 14: Implementation plan for Reedy Creek wetland .............................................................. 43
Table 15: Volume estimate for managed section of wetland ......................................................... 45
Table 16: Calculated water loss (evaporation – precipitation) ....................................................... 46
Table 17: Water use calculation .................................................................................................... 46
Table 18: Permanent photopoint ................................................................................................... 47
Table 19: Monitoring plan for Reedy Creek wetland. ..................................................................... 48
Table 20: Wetland Atlas Data ....................................................................................................... 53
Table 21: Plant Associations at Reedy Creek wetland .................................................................. 59
Table 22: Large and obvious native plants collected by R. I. Thomas (1973b) .............................. 60
Table 23: Vegetation communities in sand mining area of Reedy Creek 1974 .............................. 61
Table 24: Habitat features identified in Reedy Creek wetland ....................................................... 62
Table 25: Bird species observed at Reedy Creek wetland ............................................................ 62
Table 26: Habitat use by waterbird species at Reedy Creek wetland ............................................ 67
Table 27: Fish survey sites ........................................................................................................... 69
Table 28: Fish captured at Reedy Creek ....................................................................................... 70

iii
Reedy Creek 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 SA MBD NRM Board.
The management plan has been prepared according to the Guidelines for developing wetland
management plans for the River Murray in South Australia 2003 (River Murray Catchment Water
Management Board and Department of Water Land and Biodiversity Conservation 2003) and as
such fulfils obligations under the Water Allocation Plan for the River Murray Prescribed
Watercourse.
Disclaimer:
The 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). Reedy Creek 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 Adrienne Frears for assistance with the
draft.
Thanks also go to those that contributed their knowledge including; the Caloote Landcare 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 photographs:
Top, Reedy Creek wetland open water section with the River Murray in the background (TB)
Bottom, Sheet pile structure and embankment (TB)
Photographs in document (TB) Tumi Bjornsson; (AF) by Adrienne Frears

© Mannum to Wellington Local Action Plan 2006

iv
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION
Since the adoption of the Water Allocation Plan for the River Murray in 2002 the wetlands of South
Australia have an annual water allocation of 200GL. To access this water allocation for wetland
management, a licence is now required.
Reedy Creek wetland is listed in the Water Allocation Plan for the River Murray (River Murray
Catchment Water Management Board 2002) and has therefore a right to access to the 200GL. This
wetland management plan is structured in accordance with the criteria set out in the Guidelines for
developing wetland management plans for the River Murray in South Australia (River Murray
Catchment Water Management Board and Department of Water Land and Biodiversity
Conservation 2003).

1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE OF WETLAND


The Wetland Atlas of the South Australian Murray Valley (Jensen et al. 1996) listed Reedy Creek
wetland as a permanent wetland being of high conservation value and to be of basin and local
importance (see Appendix A). The site is recognised for its importance to waterbirds both in a early
1970‟s report on the site and in the Australian Heritage Database and Australian Heritage Places
Inventory (Thomas 1973a; DEH (Commonwealth) 2006a; DEH (Commonwealth) 2006b).
Thompson (1986) described the wetland as being a permanent wetland with extensive reed beds
Phragmites australis with the wetland providing habitat to an abundance of waterbirds. The wetland
was classified with a high conservation value with recommendations for formal conservation
status(Thompson 1986)., echoing reports from the 1970‟s such as Chandler et. al. (1979)
It is only one of two wetlands along the South Australian River Murray with its own catchment
(Frears 2001) and therefore a unique site. Upstream of the wetland is a heritage listed waterfall and
conservation area, which attracts visitors to the area. The wetland when rehabilitated could be seen
as an informal extension of the conservation area providing a wildlife corridor to the River Murray.
The wetland borders on to the Caloote township and is therefore an aesthetic element to the
residents. The wetland was described in a sand-mining report as a unique environment in the region
based on the variety of habitats allowing a rich and abundant fauna population (Cox 1975). Cox‟s
reports are quoted in a communication by (Lothian 1975) who summarises the significance of the
area and discuses the consequences of sand mining. This communication describes some of the
aspects of the area including the diversity of environments and habitats in the wetland, the potential
educational significance in natural and earth sciences and the wetlands significance for fish,
crustacean, and amphibian research. There is also a suggestion of a field studies centre (Lothian
1975).
The draft management plan by Wetland Care Australia (Jensen et al. 1999) presents an extensive
literature review of the environmental significance of Reedy Creek wetland. Some of the
information has been reviewed for this management plan. However, most of the anecdotal
information was not repeatedly researched. This information includes reports of a steady decline in
long-necked turtles and water rats as well as a suggestion of a platypus sighting until the 1970‟s
(Cox 1975; Jensen et al. 1999). Further, common wombats were said to have occurred in the area
surrounding the wetland disappearing during the 1960‟s (Cox 1975). They were reportedly seen
north of the wetlands in the late 1990‟s (Jensen et al. 1999).
With minimal effort a significant achievement can be accomplished at this site. Management
including hydrological manipulation, revegetation, weed control and feral animal control are
expected to deliver a large return for a minimal investment. Based on the past efforts, the
significance and uniqueness of the wetland echoed in many reports referenced in this plan the
management of Reedy Creek should be of a high priority.
A short timeline of management at Reedy Creek wetland (some data from local anecdotal
evidence):
5
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006
1870 Settlement (Thomas 1973b)
Baseby levee completed 1920 – 1921 and feeder channel placed next to it between wetland
and river, see Map 1 (Heine 1999)
Until the 1940‟s the wetland area was fenced and grazed. This area was inundated following
the completion of the barrages. The fence line could still be seen in the wetland in the
1970‟s (Thomas 1973a)
Sand mining (intermittent) for past 25 years (Jensen et al. 1999)
1968 described as a permanent watercourse in McBriar and Milnes (1968), although an
annual cycle of winter rain and mid summer dry is described in a 1975 report (Cox 1975).
The creek is now regarded as ephemeral (described as lentic (non-flowing) tributary to the
River Murray by Pressey (Pressey 1986))
1968 – 1975 various reports on the importance of the catchment with regard to ecology
(vegetation, waterbirds etc.) (McBriar and Milnes 1968; Cox 1973; Thomas 1973b; Thomas
1973a; Cox 1974; Douglas 1974; Cox 1975)
1999 Management brief (Draft Wetland Management Plan) Wetland Care Australia (Jensen
et al. 1999)
2001 Honours (A. Frears)
2003 Ph.D. (L. Wen)
2003 Installation of sheet piling structure to manage a section of the wetland (the structure is
yet to be tested)
2004-2005 included in River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey (SKM 2006b)
2005 Construction of rabbit proof fence in a revegetation area close to Caloote
Ongoing water quality monitoring by community members

Map 1: Pre 1940 observations by Arthur Hein

1.2 WHY DOES REEDY CREEK WETLAND NEED A MANAGEMENT PLAN?


The wetland is currently impacted on by grazing pressure and habitat limitation due to current
management restrictions such as permanent inundation (minimal germination of aquatic
6
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006
vegetation). Reedy Creek is seen as a major carp recruiting area. The potential exists to manage
carp access and the water regime of a part of the wetland due to a structure constructed by Wetland
Care Australia. Through assessment of recently available data as well as historic data and anecdotal
information, a better management strategy for the wetland is possible which will address the current
ecological constraints on the wetland.
(a) MISSION STATEMENT
The rehabilitation of Reedy Creek wetland is aimed at maintaining and improving wetland
ecological values, such as habitat (wetland fringing and aquatic vegetation) for the benefit of
waterbirds, native fish, frogs and macroinvertebrates through native vegetation restoration.
(b) VISION STATEMENT
The vision for Reedy Creek wetland is a revitalised wetland fulfilling a diversity of habitat
requirements for both water birds and other native fauna. The wetland will have regular visits by
water birds, including migratory species. The riparian area will be revegetated with local native
species, both through active involvement with the removal of weed species and through the
encouragement of the growth/reestablishment of native fringing vegetation. Stock access to the
wetland will focus on controlled grazing of currently grazed and high vegetation diversity areas (at
certain times of the year) thereby minimising stock induced damage but maintaining the diversity of
vegetation.
(c) BROAD OBJECTIVES
The broad objectives of the wetland restoration include:
Restore native aquatic and fringing vegetation and therefore habitat for native fauna
Restore habitat diversity for water birds and aquatic wildlife:
o Birds maintain and improve habitat availability
o Fish, increase abundance
o Frogs, increase abundance and diversity
Monitor the impact of restored hydrology regime for adaptive management
(d) CURRENT ACHIEVEMENTS
Some of the surrounding land is grazed. The wetland shoreline has partly been fenced off to exclude
stock however, more fences are required to appropriately manage stock access to the wetland, in
particular to the area to be dried. A sheet pile structure with carp screens has been installed at the
wetland, which can be used for flow control. The structure remains untested and may be below the
height required at peak spring river levels and therefore be ineffective in carp control. For the
structure to be above the maximum peak river levels the structure must be at or above 1.3 m AHD,
based on DWLBC surface water records for the past 10 years (DWLBC 2006b). For the structure to
successfully dry the wetland during the month of February through to May, it and the surrounding
wetland flats must be at above 1 m AHD, based on 10 year surface water records (DWLBC 2006b),
see Chapter 7.

7
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

Chapter 2. SITE DESCRIPTION OF REEDY CREEK


WETLAND
2.1 WETLAND LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
Reedy Creek wetland is listed as wetland number S0052 in the Wetlands Atlas (Jensen et al. 1996).
The wetland is located south of Mannum (Map 2). AMG coordinates 341197 E 6130141 N (Grid
Zone 54). Reedy Creek can be found on the 1:50,000 Mannum map sheet number 6728-2 and
Tepko map sheet number 6728-3. The wetland is found in the Hundred of Finniss. See Appendix A
for more information. Thompson (1986) described the wetland as being a permanent wetland with
extensive reed beds Phragmites australis with an abundance of waterbirds. The wetland was
classified with a high conservation value with recommendations for formal conservation status
(Thompson 1986).
The wetland has an area of 101 ha with a catchment of 31,515 ha (315,145,259 m2) (DWLBC
2006a). A 14 ha lagoon was separated from the rest of the wetland when a control structure was
constructed. This structure is yet to be tested for its water retention capacity.
Reedy Creek reaches depths of approximately 1 m although it is to the most part between 0.5 m and
0.7 m deep (SKM 2006c). The connection to the River Murray is at the downstream end and
consists of a wide opening (SKM 2006c). A second stream connection is at the far eastern end of
the wetland where Reedy Creek connects to the wetland.

Map 2: Reedy Creek wetland location


The wetland sits on privately held land with multiple owners. The surrounding area is used mainly
for grazing, with the very small town of Caloote along the eastern side of the wetland and irrigated
agriculture (Baseby irrigation area).

2.2 SURVEY SITES, DATES & LOCATIONS


The River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey - 2005 (SKM 2006b) monitored different wetland
parameters (Table 1). The locations of the baseline survey sites can be seen in Appendix B.

8
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006
Table 1: Baseline survey monitoring parameters and dates
Parameter Date 1 (BLS) Date 2 (BLS) Date 3 (BLS) Date 4 (BLS) Date other See page
Site physical 2005 8
Vegetation 2005 1973 21
Fish Autumn Spring 24
Birds Autumn Spring 1969 to 1974 22
Frogs 14/03/05 25/05/05 31/08/05 02/11/05 24
Macroinvertebrates 06/04/05 19/10/05 25
Water Quality 04/03/05 06/04/05 24/08/05 19/10/05 See text 14
Groundwater 27/05/05 12/08/05 13/10/05 30/11/05 18

2.3 PHYSICAL FEATURES


(a) REEDY CREEK WETLAND IN CURRENT STATE
Reedy Creek area has been grazed for an extended period, probably since 1870 (Thomas 1973b). As
a result, a lot of the native vegetation has been cleared and weeds have been able to spread.
Currently the main degradation issue facing Reedy Creek wetland, which is mentioned consistently
throughout the baseline survey report as well as previous documents discussing the area (Thomas
1973b; Thomas 1973a; Jensen et al. 1999; Frears 2001), is stock access causing; grazing pressure,
pugging, shore erosion and limiting vegetation recruitment.
A Wetland Care Australia wetland management draft discussed the possibility of drying out the
west end of the wetland. Based on the proposal a sheet pile structure was constructed which
included fish grills to exclude carp, see Figure 1 through to Figure 6. Revegetation efforts have been
underway to stabilise the embankment constructed as part of the sheet pile structure, see Figure 3
through to Figure 5 for the state of the embankment in 2004, and Figure 6 for the state of the
revegetation on the embankment in 2006. The current management planning of this wetland
considers the use of this structure for the best possible management approach, fulfilling the most
desirable ecological benefits without causing significant environmental detriment. For this purpose
past surveys including the recent baseline survey are discussed in the following chapters.

9
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

Figure 1: Reedy Creek sheet piling structure 20/07/06 (TB)

Figure 2: Reedy Creek sheet piling structure 20/07/06 (TB)

10
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

Figure 3: Reedy Creek embankment Figure 4: Reedy Creek embankment


January 2004 (AF) revegetation January 2004 (AF)

Figure 5: Reedy Creek embankment Figure 6: Reedy Creek embankment


revegetation and turtle eggs January 2004 20/07/06 (TB)
(AF)

(b) GEOMORPHOLOGY, GEOLOGY AND SOILS


The soil in the wetland was found to be made up of Coonambidgal Formation clay which is grey,
soft and plastic (AWE 2006). A very good description of the regional geology can be found in
McBriar and Milnes (1968), most of the description of Reedy Creek focuses on the waterfall area of
the conservation reserve. There are sand deposits along Reedy Creek in and above the delta into the
wetland. These sand deposits were seen as a resource to development expected in the area in the
1970‟s (Cox 1975). Although this development did not proceed, some sand mining was undertaken
despite recommendations to the contrary such as by Cox (Cox 1975). In the north and south, the
floodplain and wetland is bordered by limestone with alluvial deposits of grey fluviatile silts (clay),
sand and gravel with the creek beds composed almost exclusively of sand (Cox 1975; 1979), see
Figure 7 and Figure 8. This sand makes up the majority of the creek delta into the wetland (Cox
1975).

11
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

Figure 7: Geology section of Reedy Creek between road and creek delta

Figure 8: Geology of Reedy Creek


12
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006
(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.
Reedy Creek 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 calculated as part of the baseline survey. Table 2 summarises the wetland
water requirement for Reedy Creek wetland as calculated for the area shown in Map 3. A DEM was
developed for this area by the baseline survey (see Appendix C).
The median River Murray level obtained from the DWLBC Surface Water Archive (DWLBC
2005), calculated from daily readings between 1986 and 2004, is 0.74 m AHD. Reedy Creek can
therefore be considered as reaching bank full for most of the time, water requirement calculations
will therefore be based the 0.75 m AHD level. The monitoring location, from which the DWLBC
Surface Water Archive is derived, is at Murray Bridge Number 1 Pump Station (Zone 54, 344059 E
and 6114654 N).
Although the wetland has a wide connection with the River Murray a substantial seasonal inflow of
water is obtained from the Reedy Creek Catchment. 1.7 GL can come from the Catchment (540mm
multiplied by the area). The previous wetland management draft by Wetland Care Australia (Jensen
et al. 1999) discussed the flow conditions and describes the impact of a large flood in 1992 where
approximately 3.4 GL came down in 1992. According to Jensen (1999) the pattern of flows from
Reedy Creek follows the seasonal rain pattern of the Mount Lofty Ranges with sporadic winter
flows, drying in mid summer. The volume of the Catchment runoff has not been monitored
therefore, calculating the volume of water that Reedy Creek actually draws from the River Murray
becomes a complex issue. The water requirement, including evaporative loss, is covered in Chapter
77.2.

13
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

Map 3: Area of Reedy Creek used for volume estimates


Table 2: Summary of wetland volumes within Reedy Creek wetland

Filling Stage Area (ha) Area (m2) Depth m RLm (AHD)* Volume m3 (KL) Volume ML

Observed river level 94 936581.8 ~1.0 0.55 632686.7 633

Full 101 1009195.4 ~1.2 0.75 639996.0 640

Three quarters full 90 901197.1 ~0.9 0.45 623844.5 624

Half full 58 583240.7 ~0.6 0.15 463765.9 464

Quarter full 8 82101 ~0.3 -0.15 77735.6 8


Source: Adapted from River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey - 2005 (SKM 2006c)
Base of wetland is to the most par at ~ 0.3 m AHD with the deepest point at -0.45.

(e) SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER FEATURES

Surface water
The monitored water quality for the wetland can be seen in Table 3, which is adapted from the
baseline survey report (MDFRC 2006). The salinity of the wetland ranged from a minimum of 373
EC to a maximum of 3390 EC, the median being 1387. In comparison the monitored River Murray
salinity obtained from the DWLBC Surface Water Archive at Murray Bridge (DWLBC 2005), has a
median (calculated from daily readings between 1934 and 2004) EC of 500 μS/cm. The maximum
wetland recordings were measured at the western end close to the creek inlet. The higher salinity in
this area was attributed to evapoconcentration and saline water inflow from Reedy creek (MDFRC
2006). This reflected similar observations to those made by Frears (2001).
The dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations were not seen to be of concern to management of the
wetland (MDFRC 2006). The high DO recorded during one sampling event (see Table 3) was
attributed to the photosynthetic activity in a shallow region of the wetland (~ 0.1 m).
14
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006
The maximum pH was recorded at the west end of the wetland reaching 9.60 which indicates that an
algal bloom was potentially present (Goonan 2006), the mean ranged between 7.65 and 8.57. The
majority of the pH levels were within the ANZECC (2000) trigger levels for lowland rivers
(MDFRC 2006) and is therefore not a concern for management.
The turbidity measurements of the wetland were high enough to have an impact on submerged
macrophyte growth. Frears (2001) used a secchi disk for do turbidity measurements where the
average secchi depth was 10cm, a secchi depth of 17cm was required for PAR light to reach the
sediments (assuming an average depth of 60cm). The turbidity increases with an increasing distance
from the wetland inlet (connection to River Murray). Therefore, the most likely source of turbidity
in the wetland is wind induced resuspension of sediments (MDFRC 2006).
The temperatures of the wetland reflected the ambient summer air temperatures (MDFRC 2006).
For a description of the implications of water quality in wetlands refer to Your Wetland: Supporting
Information (Tucker et al. 2002). Other water quality parameters monitored were not considered a
significant management issue and are therefore not discussed in detail in this plan. The only
management suggestions made by the baseline survey being to increase the flushing of the wetland,
and to observe the impact of saline water inflows for Reedy Creek.
Table 3: Water quality Reedy Creek wetland
Parameters Stage 1 04/03/05 Stage 2 06/04/05 Stage 3 24/08/05 Stage 4 19/10/05 Average over
survey period
EC μS/cm Mean 1101 ± 570 739 ± 295 1777 ± 629 1933 ± 512 1387 ± 1053
Min. 407 373 416 620 373
Max. 2800 1620 3390 3120 3390
EC μS/cm at No. Mean 401 393 466 351 398**
1 Pump*
Min. 396 388 464 344 393**

Max. 406 400 468 360 403**


-1
DO mg/L Mean 10.1 ± 1.5 8.9 ± 0.4 10.2 ± 0.2 8.0 ± 0.5 9.3 ± 1.7
Min. 8.1 7.9 9.7 6.7 6.7
Max. 14.4 9.6 10.6 8.9 14.4
pH Mean 8.48 ± 0.35 8.57 ± 0.45 7.84 ± 0.13 7.65 ± 0.18 8.13 ± 0.69
Min. 7.70 7.45 7.51 7.12 7.12
Max. 9.26 9.60 8.11 7.94 9.60
Turbidity NTU Mean 97 ± 23 142 ± 49 72 ± 34 198 ± 61 127 ± 93
Min. 48 37 22 45 22
Max. 155 273 172 336 336
Water Mean 20.9 ± 0.3 23.5 ± 0.6 16.2 ± 0.5 17.5 ± 0.1 19.5 ± 3.1
Temperature C
Min. 20.1 22.1 15.2 17.2 15.2
Max. 21.6 24.8 17.2 17.9 24.8
River height at Mean 0.667 0.635 0.897 0.841 0.798**
No. 1 Pump*
Min. 0.629 0.603 0.877 0.801 0.74
Max. 0.709 0.681 0.924 0.881 0.85
n (baseline survey) 4 4 4 4 16
Source: Adapted from River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005 (MDFRC 2006);
* from DWLBC Surface Water Archive (Mannum No.1 Pump Station) (DWLBC 2006b);
** Average for 2005.
Refer to Appendix B for the locations of the baseline survey monitoring sites.

Water quality of the Reedy Creek itself was also monitored during the baseline survey. The data can
be seen in Table 4. Of the monitored data the only one of concern was the salinity of the creek,
these being much higher compared to the wetland. The salinity of the March and April period can
probably be associated with evapoconcentration and potential intrusion of saline groundwater
(MDFRC 2006). The salinity, during the entire monitored period, was likely to have an adverse
15
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006
impact on the freshwater biota (MDFRC 2006). The salinity from the creek could affect Reedy
Creek wetland, for example the salt load of the creek may be having an impact on native fish
recruitment in the wetland (SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006a), the management of the wetland
should therefore consider this issue.
One threat identified is the potential existence or future development of acid sulphate soils due to
the observed salinity levels and the saline groundwater intrusion. A study by Lamontagne et. al.
(2004) found long term inundated wetlands with high salinity in the lower River Murray to be at
risk of having developed potential acid sulphate soils in the recent past (<75 years). Some of the
consequences of disturbing potential acid sulphate soils include, deoxygenation of the water column
following resuspension of sediment and rapid oxidation of sulfidic material, and acidification and
increased toxic heavy metal concentration in the water column following rewetting of a managed
dry period in a wetland (Lamontagne et al. 2004). To establish the potential of acid sulphate soils at
Reedy Creek wetland a field based survey as described by Baldwin et al. (2006) was used. No
evidence of acid sulphate soils were found during a soil sample collection on the 25th October 2006,
see Table 5. However, the samples will be sent away for analysis prior to a managed
commencement of a dry period. If acid sulphate soils are discovered in the future in the west end of
Reedy Creek wetland, the water regime provided in this wetland management plan would need to
be reviewed in cooperation with a soil scientist.
Table 4: Water quality Reedy Creek
Parameters Stage 1 04/03/05 Stage 2 06/04/05 Stage 3 24/08/05 Stage 4 19/10/05 Average over
survey period
EC μS/cm 15700 11600 2080 2740 Mean 8030 ± 6707
Min. 2080
Max. 15700
-1
DO mg/L 7.3 5.8 10.1 6.2 Mean 7.3 ± 2.0
Min. 5.8
Max. 10.1
pH 7.69 8.06 8.08 7.69 Mean 7.88 ± 0.22
Min. 7.69
Max. 8.08
Turbidity NTU 17 80 4 12 Mean 28 ± 35
Min. 4
Max. 80
Water 19.6 19.1 13.3 17.0 Mean 17.3 ± 2.9
Temperature C
Min. 13.3
Max. 19.6
n (baseline 1 1 1 1 n 4
survey)
Source: River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005 (MDFRC 2006)

Table 5: Acid sulphate soil survey


Site Description Easting Northing EC Comments Photos Notes
Black anoxic muck but no
Site sign of sulfidic sediments - no
1 In front of Howies' 339732 6131570 2400 rust colour 1 and 2
Reedy Creek channel Ruppia in next pond,
Site before it enters the Sandy substrate- no sulfidic myriophyllum in RC
2 wetland 339974 6131754 1407 sediments 3 and 4 channel
Site Thick mud, no sulfidic Charaphytes in water,
3 In gully near structure 340160 6131345 1033 sediments 5 - 12 plus myriophyllum

16
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006
Past projects have included water quality sampling at Reedy Creek wetland. These include a Ph.D.
project by Wen (2002), an honours project by Frears (2001), the Caloote Landcare Group and
Waterwatch monitoring by Palmer Primary School (although their sampling point was located more
upstream near Palmer). Frears (2001) found the conductivity at the west end of the wetland at 2.3
mS/cm to be more saline than closer to the river at 0.5 mS/cm. This corresponds to the data
monitored by the baseline survey. Frears‟ recommendations at the time included the management
by means of drying and wetting of the west end of the wetland only. The threats identified were that
the fresher end of the wetland could be degraded by an increase in salinity through increased
groundwater intrusion and higher salinity following rewetting. This threat was not as critical in the
smaller western end of the wetland as this area is already dominated by more salt tolerant species.
The recommendation for management was to dry this western end of the wetland followed by
vegetation monitoring to establish the impact on germination in a salt impacted wetland. The drying
regime recommended a short dry spell of between 2 and 3 months between February and May. This
regime would allow for the peak invertebrate production in January and optimise the plant
germination phase in autumn (Frears 2001).
The current water flow into the wetland is mainly through a connection between Reedy Creek
wetland and the River Murray, which is at the downstream end of the wetland. This wide opening
between the wetland and the river can be seen in Map 4 and Figure 9. A second source of water into
the wetland is from Reedy Creek at the west end of the wetland, the creek delta can be seen on the
left of Figure 10 and Map 4.

Map 4: Current water movement into the wetland & wetland structure

17
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

Figure 9: River and wetland connection seen from wetland 09/03/06 (TB)

Figure 10: Reedy Creek delta on left of picture 09/03/06 (TB)


Surface water monitoring is now continued by the Caloote Landcare Group with assistance from the
SA MDB NRM Board. The monitoring schedule is discussed in Chapter 8. The most current
surface water quality is presented in Table 6. In comparison between the months of August 2005 &
2006 the temperature remained the same. The turbidity was slightly lower which reflected the
lowest observed during the baseline survey during August. The conductivity was significantly lower
at 833 versus a mean of 1777 uS/cm. Perhaps there was less flow form Reedy Creek in 2006? The
pH was marginally less in 2006. This extra data adds to the current baseline information prior to the
change in management of the wetland. Future significant changes should indicate the impacts of
management.
Table 6: Recent surface water quality at site REEWQ01
SiteName Date WaterSource Parameter Equipment Measure Units
REEWQ01 06-Aug-06 Surface Water Conductivity Waterwatch meter 833 uS/cm
REEWQ01 06-Aug-06 Surface Water Turbidity Turbidity Tube 50 NTU
REEWQ01 06-Aug-06 Surface Water pH Litmus strip 6.5
REEWQ01 06-Aug-06 Surface Water Nitrate Aquaspex-N Ned >0.05 mg/L
REEWQ01 06-Aug-06 Surface Water Phosphate Aquaspex-P MB 0.15 mg/L
REEWQ01 06-Aug-06 Surface Water Temperature Thermometer 16 degreesC

The Flood Inundation Model III (FIIMIII) was used to study the potential critical flow volumes of
the River Murray for Reedy Creek wetland. The wetland proved to be fairly well contained within
its boundaries only establishing an overflow past the sheet pile structure when flow at the border
surpassed approximately 58 GL/day at the South Australian border, see Map 5. Drying the west end
of the wetland would at this flow level no longer be possible.

18
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

Map 5: FIM III flow volume to surpass sheet pile structure

Groundwater
The baseline survey installed two groundwater wells within Reedy Creek wetland. These wells were
monitored 4 times during the survey period, see Table 1 (27th May, 12th August, 13th October and
30th November 2005). A further 4 sites existed around Reedy Creek wetland, they were monitored
once on the 13th of October 2005 (AWE 2006). The locations of the wells are presented in Table 7
and a map of the groundwater flow direction in Appendix D.
Table 7: Groundwater monitoring locations
Baseline Bore Name New Easting Northing Elevation of Bore Ground Casing Description
Name (Obswell) Name Hole casing (m Elevation Height
AHD) (m AHD) (m)
REE – GR -
341828 6130953 1.202 0.44
01 0.762**
REE – GR -
341432 6131386 -0.22 -0.769
02 0.549**
near gauge
Site A Howie 1 REEGW07 340033 6131108 4.049** 2.659 (2.5*) 1.39
board
Site B REEGW03 338227 6132324 6.143** 4.843 1.3 near bridge
Site C REEGW04 339079 6132942 6.326** 5.106 1.22 side road
1.809 neck of
Site D Howie 2 REEGW06 340368 6132054 2.979** 1.17
(1.57*) wetland
TEP 2504 REEGW01 338925 6132154 4.87 3.53 1.34
REEGW02 1.09 near Julie's
TEP 2506 REEGW05 340195 6132078 3.17 1.99 1.18
Wetland
Marker
REES 1
Source: Adapted from Frears (2001) and River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005 (AWE 2006)
* Ground Elevation in Obswell
** calculated

19
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006
From the two piezometers monitored regularly by the baseline survey team, the groundwater seems
to flow from the river and wetland towards the Basby floodplain, see Appendix D, although some
seasonal impact may be present. More thorough groundwater monitoring is required to get a clear
picture of the groundwater flow around Reedy Creek wetland. The groundwater was generally one
meter below the river and wetland levels. The piezometer closest to the river seemed to follow the
increase in river level in winter, the second piezometer less so. During spring the groundwater
levels at both baseline survey installed piezometers declined although the river remained the same
suggesting some seasonal impact (AWE 2006). The measured depths of the ground water can be
seen in Table 8. More recent groundwater monitoring has show the groundwater to be lower than
seen in during the baseline survey with increased salinity, this could indicate a reduced recharge due
to the low rainfall seen in 2006 leading to increased salinity in the remaining groundwater.
Table 8: Groundwater monitoring results

Baseline Groundwater Depth Groundwater Depth Groundwater


Name New Name Sampling Date (mbgl) (mBTOC) elevation (mAHD) Conductivity μS/cm

REE – GR - 01 27/05/05 1.076 1.838 -0.636 5,050


12/08/05 0.533 1.295 -0.093 5,130
13/10/05 0.518 1.280 -0.078 3,190
30/11/05 0.753 1.515 -0.313 4,050
REE – GR - 02 27/05/05 0.487 1.036 -1.256 18,500

12/08/05 0.451 1.000 -1.220 18,610


13/10/05 0.332 0.881 -1.101 11,220

30/11/05 0.466 1.015 -1.235 14,580

Site A REEGW07 13/10/05 1.31 2.700 1.349 12,240


06/08/06 1.56 2.95 0.94 30,800
Site B REEGW03 13/10/05 0.75 2.050 4.093 8,610
06/08/06 1.2 2.5 3.643 14,760
Site C REEGW04 13/10/05 1.611 2.831 3.495 5,750
06/08/06 2.78 4 2.326 10,990
Site D REEGW06 13/10/05 0.022 1.192 1.787 9,580
06/08/06 0.53 1.7 1.04 16,950
REEGW01 06/08/06 1.8 3.14 1.73 9,690
REEGW02 06/08/06 0.74 1.83 40,200
REEGW05 06/08/06 1.05 2.23 0.94 27,500
12/08/05 0.74
Wetland 13/10/05 0.745
Marker REES
1 30/11/05 0.795
Source: River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005 (AWE 2006)

The groundwater salinity at the piezometer close to the river reach a conductivity of around 5000
μS/cm decreasing over the winter period when the groundwater flow seemed to come from the river
and wetland see Table 8. This pattern was also seen in the second piezometer although the salinity
of the groundwater at this location reached a high of 18,610. The baseline survey does not assume a
great risk of groundwater salininisation due to the permanence and size of the wetland. It does
however recommend continued monitoring and comparison to river and wetland levels as well as
climatic data (AWE 2006).
Groundwater monitoring by Frears (2001) was based at the western end of the wetland using the
„existing‟ piezometers. Observations by Frears (2001) indicate that the groundwater flows from the
surrounding area towards the wetland. Further, the salinity of the groundwater increased with the
proximity to the wetland.
20
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006
2.4 ECOLOGICAL FEATURES
(a) FLORA
Vegetation surveys were conducted to some extent as part of sand mining data collection and can be
found in reports by Thomas (Thomas 1973b), Douglas (Douglas 1974) and Cox (Cox 1975). A
significant and aesthetic river red gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis stand close to the sand mining
area is described in these historical records. Areas of lignum and samphire are described with the
samphire covering the claypans and frequently flooded areas (Cox 1975). Cox (Cox 1975) also
describes the abundance of reeds around the creek and backwater areas. A more recent survey was
conducted by the baseline survey in 2005. The baseline survey identified 31 native species within
the survey area and 22 exotics (SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006b); see Appendix E.
Although the western edge of the wetland was grazed by cattle a species rich assemblage of native
grasses was found. This area had the highest species richness but also showed some damage
through pugging. Fencing off this area should be monitored for exotic species that may have been
suppressed during grazing (SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006b). The baseline survey suggested the use
of this area for crash grazing control trials.
Of significant interest is the low abundance of submerged macrophytes. As Reedy Creek wetland is
a shallow wetland a greater abundance were expected. There was however, one area in the north-
eastern corner of the wetland where submerged species were recorded by the baseline survey. These
submerged species included Potamogeton crispus and Vallisinera spiralis (SARDI Aquatic
Sciences 2006b). Consequently, this area should be protected to maintain some of the submerged
species in the wetland (SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006b). Ruppia and myriophyllum were found in
a pool in the Reedy Creek delta into the wetland and charaphytes were found close to the structure;
see Table 5 for GPS locations.
The red gum Eucalyptus camadulensis var. camadulensis health was found to be excellent to good.
Most of these red gums were to be found along the levees the one between the river and the wetland
and other between the wetland and the irrigated pastures (SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006b). The red
gum locations and health score can be seen in Appendix E. Large woody debris (LWD) covered
less than 5% of the wetland and its shore (SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006b).This could be of some
significance to fish habitat availability in the wetland. However, perhaps some habitat is provided
through the Typha sp. and Schoenoplectus validus dominated areas found in the central and eastern
end of the wetland, which extends into the connecting channel between the wetland and the River
Murray. Lignum Muehlenbeckia florulenta was found on the northern and southern shorelines of
the wetland in areas where there were no levees.
The majority of exotic species were recorded on the levee between the wetland and irrigated pasture
(SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006b). These species included;
Brome spp.
Ward's Weed Carrichtera annua
Salvation Jane Echium plantagineum
False Caper Euphorbia terracina
Bastard's Fumitory Fumaria bastardii
Wild Lettuce Lactuca saligna
Rye grass Lolium sp.
Lippia Phyla canescens (which has a potential to spread and become a serious weed)
The baseline survey monitoring team surveyed eight plant associations at Reedy Creek wetland
(SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006b). These associations are listed below and their location can be
seen in Appendix B.
21
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006
1. Diverse grazed shoreline at western edge of wetland
2. Muehlenbeckia florulenta shrubland
3. Typha sp. sedgeland in central part of wetland
4. Schoenoplectus validus sedgeland in central part of wetland
5. Phragmites australis grassland in eastern part of wetland
6. Typha sp. sedgeland in eastern part of wetland
7. Salix babylonica woodland in eastern part of wetland,
8. Schoenoplectus validus sedgeland in eastern part of wetland.
A detailed list of species found within the plant associations can be found in Appendix F.
A long history of vegetation clearing exists for the Reedy Creek area. Thomas (Thomas 1973b)
discusses the clearing of vegetation for grazing and cultivation following settlement in 1870. At the
time of his survey there was little remnant vegetation remaining in the Reedy Creek area with only
a few pines and mallee (Thomas 1973b). Further clearing mentioned included cutting down of trees
for feed during drought, logging and for use in mine smelting fires. The report includes a flora list
of “large and obvious” native species. This list included an extended area outside the wetland zone
considered in this plan. This list is therefore not considered in this plan but may be of interest to
conservationists working in the area and is therefore included in Appendix F. A second list that
covers the red gum flats, creek bank, and streambed where sand mining occurred is also included in
Appendix F. These lists may be relevant for future vegetation surveys and revegetation efforts.
Frears (2001) conducted seed and egg bank experiments, where sediments taken from different
areas of the wetland depending on the salinity gradient (fresher closer to the river), were dried out
and re-flooded. The sediments from the western end of the wetland (i.e. the area which is to be
dried-out) had a greater abundance of seedlings that germinated during the experiment, yet slightly
less diversity (11 diff species, compared to 15 further up the wetland, and 14 near the river). Many
of the species that germinated were not recorded in the veg surveys undertaken at the same sites.
Ostracods, chironomids and collembolla were some of the many invertebrates that hatched out of
the sediments after re-flooding. There was no difference between sites.
(b) FAUNA
Historical records exist listing a number of species that were found in and around the wetland.
Some of these records have been used in the individual sections below. However, other species that
are of interest and were not covered by any aspect of the recent baseline survey include, long-
necked tortoises (common around most areas of water and creek), shingle backed lizards, common
brown snake, tiger snake, platypus, native water-rat and historical reports of the common wombat.
These wombats were reportedly found in burrows in the surrounding limestone (Cox 1975).
The most recent fauna survey was undertaken as part of the River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey
- 2005 (SKM 2006b). Individual teams with appropriate expertise conducted a number of surveys
on fauna in the wetland environment. These surveys are described below.

Birds
There is a long history of bird monitoring at Reedy Creek wetland. From 1969 through to 1975 Cox
(Cox 1973; Cox 1974; Cox 1975) recorded sightings at Reedy Creek both at the wetland and the
waterfall area further upstream. Cox (1975) gives a description of the habitat use by different birds
and updates the bird count from the previous year. Some of the requirements include still-water and
reeds for breeding by grebes, shallow clear backwater for herons and egrets and muddy shallow
areas for ibis and spoonbills for foraging, waders the shallow mud of the western end of the
wetland, and duck, swans, crakes and moorhens require the shelter of fringing vegetation for
breeding (Cox 1975). Most of the birds of prey require red gums for breeding however, the swamp
22
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006
harrier requires reeds to breed in (Cox 1975). These birds of prey hunt over the floodplain and may
even have a significant impact on the rabbit population (Cox 1975). Terrestrial and perching birds
were also found to use the area in great abundances due to the varied habitat available, including
trees, lignum, samphire and reeds (Cox 1975).
Further monitoring was conducted at the conservation park through the 1990‟s. The baseline survey
also included bird monitoring at the wetland, which was undertaken by the consultants EBS &
HydroTas (2006). The wetland itself therefore has baseline data almost 4 decades apart allowing for
a long-term assessment of birds using the area.
The wetland is recognised as an important waterbird habitat with Thomas (1973a) describing it as
the most valuable aspect of the wetland. Cox (Cox 1975) echoes this sentiment describing the
implications of the loss of this central „nucleus‟ to birds in the entire region. Thomas describes large
clumps of common reed Phragmites australias in the wetland which provides shelter for ducks and
waterhens. Thomas‟s report recommended the declaration of Reedy Creek wetland as a
conservation park. The site was also mentioned for its importance for JAMBA (Japan Australia
Migratory Birds Agreement) and CAMBA (China Australia Migratory Bird Agreement), protected
migratory species in the Australian Heritage Database and Australian Heritage Places Inventory
(2006a; 2006b). As part of the Heritage listing the area around the wetland is described as offering
breeding and foraging habitat for numerous terrestrial birds and waterbirds, with clumps of reeds
described as providing shelter for ducks and water hens, this information was probably obtained
from the report by Thomas (1973a) mentioned previously.
The bird assessment of the baseline survey was located at four fixed area search sites and one
transect (EBS & HydroTas 2006). The surveys were undertaken twice in the baseline survey period,
once in autumn and once in spring. All sites were at the western end of the wetland around the
samphire area of the creek delta and were considered simple (see Table 24 in Appendix F and
Appendix B). The water level increased for the second survey minimising the availability of wet
mud and covering some of the low vegetation (EBS & HydroTas 2006).
The baseline survey observed a total of 37 waterbird species with a total of 42 species. All the
species observed by the baseline survey has been observed by J. B. Cox who recorded a total of 158
species with 51 seen to be breeding (to 1975) (Cox 1975). Of the 148 birds recorded by 1974 (Cox
1974), 15 species are listed in JAMBA and 14 species in CAMBA, of these the baseline survey
observed only 3 species, see Appendix F. Ten of the observed species are regarded as threatened or
vulnerable species in South Australia with 21 recommended for protection (DEH 2003).
The baseline survey found the abundance of birds using the wetland to remain relatively constant at
346 birds in autumn and 341 in spring. The difference in the habitat availability was a reduction in
wet mud and an increase in water level for the spring survey. The most significant habitat use by
birds at the wetland is shown in Table 9 a list with the habitat use of all baseline survey recorded
birds at the wetland and the observed activity can be seen in Appendix F.
Table 9: Most significant habitat use at Reedy Creek wetland
Habitat Individuals Number of Species
Open water 262 14
Samphire 140
Mud 108 10
Lignum 8
Shallow water 8

The three most abundant birds observed were the Grey Teal with 206 individuals, the Australian
Pelican with 73 individuals and the Straw Necked Ibis with 58 individuals only observed in the
spring monitoring period (EBS & HydroTas 2006). The baseline survey observed 15 species that
were roosting and 30 foraging, see Appendix F. The baseline survey noted the Australasian
Shoveler as a species of state conservation significance, classified as rare. From its habitat

23
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006
requirements their recommendations suggested maintaining an open water habitat during the dryer
months, i.e. Autumn, as that was the season the bird was observed at the wetland.

Frogs
A frog survey was included in the baseline survey with four separate monitoring dates, these frog
surveys were conducted by SA MDB NRM Board staff (SA MDB NRMB 2006). There were two
sites one at the western end of the wetland and the other at a permanent pool of Reedy Creek near
the waterfalls, the locations of which can be seen in Appendix B. Site 1 consisted of damp samphire
and lignum close to open water, site 2 consisted of a deep creek habitat with mature red gums and
common reed.
Four frog species were recorded at Reedy Creek during the survey, which are listed in Table 10.
Most species were recorded in the late winter and spring sampling periods. Of the recorded species
the Eastern banjo frog Limnodynastes dumerilii and the spotted grass frog L. tasmaniensis were the
most abundant, they were also recorded at another 19 wetlands out of the 22 surveyed (SA MDB
NRMB 2006). All of the recorded frogs are common throughout South Australia and have been
continuously the four most significantly recorded species in the frog census run by the South
Australian EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) (Walker et al. 1999; Walker et al. 2000;
Walker and Goonan 2001; Walker 2002; Walker 2003). The brown tree frog was probably absent
from the western end of the wetland due to the absence of mature red gums, the remaining three
frogs are highly adaptable using strategies such as burrowing (L. dumerilii) and being highly mobile
and therefore a colonising species (L. tasmaniensis).
Table 10: Frogs recorded at Reedy Creek wetland
Date Site 1 (western end of wetland) Site 2 (Permanent pool of Reedy Creek near waterfalls)
Common Spotted grass frog Eastern banjo Common Spotted grass frog Eastern banjo Brown
froglet frog froglet frog tree frog
Crinia Limnodynastes Limnodynastes Crinia Limnodynastes Limnodynastes Litoria
signifera tasmaniensis dumerili signifera tasmaniensis dumerili ewingi
14/03/05 One
25/05/05 Few One
31/08/05 Lots Few Lots Few Few Few
02/11/05 Few Few Few Few Few Many
Abundance: One = 1, Few = 2 - 9, Many = 10 - 50, lots = >50
Source: River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005 (SA MDB NRMB 2006)

Site 2 had a greater abundance and diversity. The pugged ground and the lack of suitable habitat
around the samphire region of the western end could account for some of the lower numbers of
frogs. The baseline survey recommends fencing of the wetland to restrict stock access and thereby
allow an increase in fringing vegetation such as sedges and rushes. This would increase habitat
availability and therefore potentially frog abundance (SA MDB NRMB 2006).

Fish
The baseline survey included a fish survey at Reedy Creek wetland by SARDI Aquatic Sciences
(2006a), once in autumn and once in spring. The species collected are shown in Appendix F.
Overall the native to exotic species ratio was 3.7:1. However, the abundance of exotic fish brings
the ratio of the number of native fish to exotic to 1.8:1 (839 native and 448 exotic). Most of the
exotics (326) were eastern gambusia Gambusia holbrooki caught in the autumn survey. There were
104 carp Cyprinus carpio caught with many seen migrating upstream to the waterfall area of the
wetland where they spawned (SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006a). Preventing carp access in spring
might have an impact on this migration, however the carp screens and sheet pile structure are
currently believed to be too low allowing water overflow and carp migration in spring. The most
abundant native species were the bony herring Nematalosa erebi with 230 individuals, flathead

24
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006
gudgeon Philypnodon grandiceps with 194 and Australian smelt Retropina semoni with 141
(SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006a).
Of the native fish the dwarf-flathead gudgeon Philypnodon sp. and Murray rainbowfish
Melanotaenia fluviatilis are a significant catch in that they are both proposed to be listed as
threatened (rare) under the revised National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 (DEH 2003). There was
an indication of seasonal fish movement in ant out of the wetland along with some fish recruitment
in or close to the wetland (SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006a).
Flow control structures can have an impact on the movement of fish in and out of wetland
environments, due to changes in water quality and/or water flow (velocities, turbulence) (see Your
Wetland: Supporting Information (Tucker et al. 2002)), however the sheet pile structure may not
have the full impact that the traditional culverts have. In the case of Reedy Creek the reduction of
movement of large fish may be of a minor consequence as only a few native fish can tolerate the
salinity (>10,000 EC) of the refuge pools of the creek. The fish that can tolerate this level are
flathead gudgeons P. grandiceps and carp gudgeons Hypseleotris spp. which were found in large
numbers.

Macroinvertebrates
The River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey - 2005 (SKM 2006a) monitored macroinvertebrates at
Reedy Creek wetland in autumn and spring. Reedy Creek wetland had an above average taxa
richness with 43 in Reedy Creek, 37.3 the average for the geographical zone and 34.3 the average
for the baseline survey 2005 surveyed wetlands (SKM 2006a). However, the abundance at Reedy
Creek wetland was seen to be low, the full list of taxa and abundance can be seen in Appendix F.
The baseline survey related the low abundance to the low availability of habitat such as submerged
and emergent vegetation.
Of the taxa found at the wetland the most abundant were those that were most widely distributed
and may not have been impacted on as much by the lack of habitat (SKM 2006a). The argument for
the lack of habitat is supported by the baseline survey findings of an increased abundance following
the increased water levels in the wetland in spring, which flooded surrounding fringing vegetation
increasing submerged habitat diversity and availability. The most pollution sensitive taxa were
dependent on or prefer slow flowing or still waters, these taxa being, Eusiridae (order Amphipoda),
class Acarina (freshwater mites) and Leptoceridae (stick caddis) (SKM 2006a). For a description of
the function of macroinvertebrates in wetlands refer to Your Wetland: Supporting Information
(Tucker et al. 2002).

2.5 IMPLICATIONS FOR MANAGEMENT


The River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey - 2005 (SKM 2006b) had a number of
recommendations to make for improved management of the wetland. The recommendations were
based on each survey team‟s assessment of their collected data and have been summarised below.
The turbidity of the wetland seems to be localised in the western end as the creek itself is clear and
the wetland has an increasing turbidity the further it is from the connection to the River Murray.
This turbidity is probably due to the wind resuspension of sediment facilitated by the lack of
vegetation (both terrestrial and aquatic) and the shallow nature of the wetland at the western end.
Focusing on revegetation and inducing germination in this area would potentially provide the
greatest benefit for water quality and fauna habitat. Drying this wetland section and thereby
compacting the sediment may also contribute to reducing the sediment resuspension thereby
reducing the turbidity at this end of the wetland.
The only management suggestions made by the baseline survey regarding freshwater was to
increase the flushing of the wetland, and to observe the impact of saline water inflows for Reedy
Creek. The groundwater team recommend continued monitoring and comparison to river and
wetland levels as well as climatic data, this monitoring can be assisted with the use of a data logger
(AWE 2006).
25
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006
From the physical features of this wetland the following management recommendation, from Frears
(2001), and considerations can be adopted;
Introduce a dry period in the saline west end of the wetland (not the open water for fear of
salinisation of this freshwater area) by closing the sheet pile structure.
Introduction of managed dry periods in the west end of the wetland needs to consider the
feasibility of actually achieving a dry state, given the ephemeral nature of Reedy Creek that
flows into this end of the wetland. Due to the Mount Lofty Ranges winter rainfall pattern, a
dry period extending into winter would therefore not be possible.
Monitor groundwater inflows into the hydrologically managed section of the wetland to
observe the impact of groundwater prior to, during and following a drying event
Monitor impact of the altered hydrology regime on wetland salinity, water quality,
vegetation germination, fish and macroinvertebrate population and water pH.
From the ecological features of the wetland observed during monitoring, both baseline and from
previous records, understanding could be elucidated as to the current degradation of the wetland as
well as potential restoration actions, existing and potential threats. Each team of the baseline survey
made recommendations to management based on their data and expertise, these are presented and
discussed below.
The recommendations from the vegetation team of the baseline survey (SARDI Aquatic Sciences
2006b) included;
Protection of submerged macrophytes
Grazing trials to be considered in the future for currently grazed area, i.e. fencing to
control/manage stock access
Willow control is recommended on the levee between the wetland and the river
Agricultural weed removal recommended for the levee between the wetland and irrigated
pasture
The recommendations made by the baseline survey bird team (EBS & HydroTas 2006) include;
For birds maintain open water habitat in autumn to provide refuge when other wetlands
would be dry. Described as being of particular significance to the Australasian Shoveler.
Further research would be needed to validate the claim.
Need to promote submerged aquatic vegetation that will be beneficial to waterbird species,
increase in abundance of observed species.
Ephemeral lagoons should be maintained as such to make sure wet mud, shallow water and
open water is maintained.
Removal of stock should increase the habitat quality for water birds.
Fix sheet-piling structure to allow water level fluctuations to increase abundance and
diversity of wader species utilising wetland.
The recommendation from frog team of the baseline survey (SA MDB NRMB 2006) include;
Fence off western wetland area to restrict stock access and thereby improve fringing
vegetation.
Site to be included in the annual South Australian Frog Census (LAP, community group or
landholders)
Frogs to be monitored at least twice a year (assistance from local Wetland Project Officer)
more sites to be included particularly close to the River Murray

26
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006
The recommendation from the fish team of the baseline survey (SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006a)
include;
Removal of stock to minimise riparian and littoral zone degradation
Revegetation of streamside vegetation
Limit carp migration upstream to Reedy Creek waterfall area in spring
No concrete recommendations were made by the macroinvertebrate team (SKM 2006a). However, a
number of issues were recognised by the team that affected the habitat availability for
macroinvertebrates. Based on the information contained in the macroinvertebrate chapter of the
baseline survey the following management considerations seem prudent;
Increase the reeds in an attempt to increase the aquatic vegetation (historical anecdotes point
to there having been more reeds in the wetland)
Increased structural woody habitat (SWH) could possibly also add to the habitat availability
in the wetland
Reedy Creek wetland seems to be recognised for its importance in providing water bird habitat.
This fact and the recommendations made by the baseline survey teams suggest the key management
considerations for Reedy Creek wetland should focus on maintaining the habitat availability for
water birds. As waterbirds are at the top of the wetland food chain, the lower food chain must be in
tact and be capable to supporting the number of waterbirds expected. Therefore, to help the
waterbirds the wetland ecosystem must be in a healthy stable and productive state. Restoration of
this wetland must therefore focus on the establishment of habitat, the lack of which has been
identified as a major degradation, as well as protecting that habitat. Habitat must therefore be
developed and maintained for macroinvertebrates, fish and frogs through the protection of the
samphire and herbland, and the establishment or expansion of reed beds. With the development of
more habitat (submerged, emergent, woody debris, variable depths) the identified
macroinvertebrates indicate the potential for an increase in diversity and abundance at this wetland,
particularly given the freshwater status at present (Goonan 2006).
The approach normally undertaken to reinvigorate seed germination, i.e. drying and then rewetting
a wetland, is in the case of Reedy Creek wetland not an option for the complete wetland as there is a
potential of salinising the wetland. There is however, the option of drying the Reedy Creek delta
during the late summer months prior to winter rains. This structure could then also be used to
restrict carp movement in the following spring. Other management options for the wetland include
the control of stock, management of weeds, and the replanting of fringing vegetation. The
management of stock was repeatedly mentioned in the baseline survey as well as other historical
reports (Thomas 1973a; Jensen et al. 1999; Frears 2001). As the currently grazed area has a high
diversity of vegetation, potentially facilitated through disturbance caused by stock, a crash grazing
regime will need to be trialled (SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006b). The replanting of reed clumps as
in the historical anecdotal records could increase the macrophyte, fish and bird habitat availability
at the western end of the wetland where no reeds currently exists. These reeds may assist in
reducing the turbidity of the wetland and promote some submerged macrophyte expansion.

27
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

Chapter 3. SOCIAL ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL VALUES


The area surrounding Reedy Creek was the traditional lands of the Peramangk. The area offered
good water supply, food and the granitic rock provided shelter. Therefore, permanent camps were
established in the area. Evidence exists in the form of rock paintings and extensive middens
(McBriar and Milnes 1968; Thomas 1973b). Thomas (1973b) discusses anecdotal information from
a Mr Kowald, who grew up in the area, of remembering an Aboriginal camp in the granite borders
above Reedy Creek.
Aboriginal consultation on management issues was conducted by Wetland Care Australia. No
specific concerns were raised although there was general concern over the decline in vegetation,
birds, yabbies and fish (Jensen et al. 1999). In a questionnaire to landholders, organised by Wetland
Care Australia for their Reedy Creek management plan, Arthur Hein recorded observations of the
area prior to the 1940‟s permanent inundation of the wetland. This anecdotal information mentions
lignum of 2 to 3 m tall, saltbush in the samphire clay pans, dense reed beds areas up to 3 m tall with
some approx 2 hectares in size (see Map 1), no reeds in the creek and interestingly water grasses
and duck weed in most areas, something which is not found today (Heine 1999). Heine also
recorded prolific water birds many nesting in tall reed beds and some of the fish seen in the wetland
included, callop, silver perch and small native species. He further observes that the cumbungi is all
but gone following the raising of the river level as well as a reduction in waterfowl as a
consequence.

28
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

Chapter 4. LAND TENURE, JURISDICTION AND


MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS
There are multiple properties, which encompass Reedy Creek wetland and the surrounding land.
The wetland lagoon itself covers thirteen of these properties, eleven in private ownership, and two,
covering the wide opening between the wetland and the river, in Mid Murray Council ownership.
Some of the surrounding properties are residential (shacks) although most of the area is still in
primary production including animal husbandry. The property boundaries and the key ownership
details can be seen in Map 6.

Map 6: Cadastral boundaries covering Reedy Creek wetland and surrounds.


The Reedy Creek community members i.e. the Caloote Landcare Group, with support from the
Mannum to Wellington LAP and the SA MDB NRM BOARD will be responsible for the
management of the wetland in consultation with the neighbouring landholders.
Contact persons for Reedy Creek wetland management will be Mannum to Wellington LAP
Officers, Wetland Management Planning Officer or SA MDB NRM BOARD Wetland Project
Officer, see

29
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006
Table 11 for contact details. Access to the wetland will need to be arranged through consultation
with the relevant landowner, contact with whom should be established through the Mannum to
Wellington LAP.

30
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006
Table 11: Reedy Creek wetland responsible positions contact details
Position Present Organisation Mailing Address Phone number
Officers

Mannum to Kathryn Rothe Mannum to Wellington LAP PO Box 2056 Murray SA 5253 (08)
Wellington LAP Bridge 8531 3222
Project Manager
Wetland Project Adrienne Frears SA MDB NRM BOARD PO Box 2056 Murray SA 5253 (08)
Officer, Lower Bridge 8232 6753
Murray
Wetland Tumi Bjornsson Lower LAPS Mt. Lofty Ranges Mount SA 5251 (08)
Management Catchment Centre Barker 8391 7515
Planning Officer Upper Level
Cnr. Mann and Walker St's

31
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

Chapter 5. THREATS AND POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS TO


REEDY CREEK WETLAND
There are a number of existing and potential threats to Reedy Creek 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.
The major threats include stock access to sensitive wetland fringing vegetation, lack of aquatic
habitat such as submerged and emergent vegetation, pest species such as carp and rabbits and
potential groundwater salinity from upland areas. The past clearing of the wetland area has
degraded the native habitat throughout the area and willows cover a large section of the causeway
between the wetland and the river. Some management interventions may be able to address some of
these threats 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
12.

32
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006
Table 12: Existing and potential threats to Reedy Creek wetland
THREATS SYMPTOM CAUSE IMPACT CATEGOR EXTENT POTENTIAL SOLUTION
Y (IF
KNOWN)
Potential Acid Needs to be tested Saline water and Sulfuric acid release Local Wetland and Not to introduce dry periods
Sulphate Soils for groundwater following drying event Reedy
Potential

Severe ecological Creek


degradation, including fish kills
and degradation of vegetation
Saline wetland Mainly salt tolerant Saline water from Reduction in potential native Local/ Wetland and Only possible to minimise future increase by
Regional Reedy
Existing

fish species caught in Reedy Creek fish diversity minimising the drying events at the wetland
wetland Saline Creek
groundwater intrusion

Salinisation of Increasing EC of Drying of main part Degradation of wetland water Local Wetland Use minimal dry events to induce germination
the wetland if wetland water body of wetland quality (long term degradation of of water plants
extensive and Increasing salinity in Saline seepage wetland) Monitor groundwater flow around wetland to
frequent dry wetland base/soil from groundwater Degradation of wetland assess the impact and respond adaptively
periods are Frequent drying of environment Do not allow wetland to remain dry more than 6
introduced western end allowing Reduced biodiversity months
excessive inflow of Degradation of habitat quality
Potential

saline groundwater for native fish


ABIOTIC

into wetland Degradation of bird habitat


Wetland (increased fish and
maintained at a dry macroinivertebrates may
phase for too long improve habitat for water birds)
allowing groundwater Only salt tolerant species
seepage into the present
wetland Salt inflow into river
Erosion of Loss of bank stability Inappropriate Loss of levee Local/ Levee bank Follow expert recommendation on willow
levee bank Undercutting willow control Greater exchange between Regional control
Potential

between Slumping river and wetland Revegetate with appropriate native species
wetland and Loss of levee Unknown consequences to
river sections wetland ecosystem
Greater link between Potential reduction of still
wetland and river waters
Water West end of wetland Ground too low for Dry management regime not Local Land Survey
bypasses the does not dry water levels expected possible surrounding Prop up with fill (extend embankment) and re
structure at embankmen revegetate to prevent erosion
Potential

lower ground t & structure


near levee
(embankment)

33
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006
THREATS SYMPTOM CAUSE IMPACT CATEGOR EXTENT POTENTIAL SOLUTION
Y (IF
KNOWN)
Loss of native Less than potential Clearing Loss of habitat diversity and Local Surrounding Revegetate with local native species
riparian native vegetation Grazing abundance (vegetation etc.) area. Protect from rabbits
vegetation species in the area Weed infestation Loss of structural woody Extensive.
Invasive species Mismanagement of habitat (snags) in water body Revegetatio
Existing

present wetland hydrology Loss of windbreak n option for


Impact on native riparian area
fauna species diversity and
and abundance potentially
into the
wetland
water.
Rabbits Less diverse Rabbits eat Destruction of riparian Local Surrounding Fence off wetland with rabbit proof fence
vegetation to what vegetation vegetation area Baiting
could be expected in Loss of habitat Shooting
Existing

area Ripping of burrows


Destruction of current
vegetation
Destruction of
revegetation efforts
Stock (Cattle Pugging Unrestricted stock Pugging Local Unfenced Fence off stock
and sheep) Grazing pressure access to wetland Erosion surrounding Introduce appropriate grazing regime
(destruction of existing fringe Grazing of vegetation (lack of area
Existing
BIOTIC

revegetation) regeneration)
Prevention of Lack of riparian and fringing
vegetation growth vegetation
Lack of fauna habitat
Stock (Cattle Grazing pressure Drying of the Same as above Local Embankmen Fence of stock and restrict access while
and sheep) destruction of existing wetland allowing Destruction of revegetation t linking to wetland is dry (no point in attempting to dry the
revegetation access to revegetated efforts sheet pile wetland if stock has full access to the management
Potential

Pugging of drying areas and wetland Compromise of management structure area during this period)
wetland base base efforts (undermining drying
Grazing of event)
germinating plants in
wetland bed
Weeds Their presence Degradation of Exotic species Local Floodplain Active removal
Existing

native vegetation Competition with native poisoning


vegetation
Loss of habitat
Lack of Gradual loss of Degradation of Loss of bird habitat Local/ Wetland and Monitor bird numbers regularly
waterbird abundance of birds wetland ecosystem Reduced numbers of birds Regional wetland Restore wetland ecology
habitat surrounding
Existing

visiting and breeding in Lack of fish and using wetland than the potential Increase habitat availability
wetland macroinvertebrates as of the wetland allows area Revegetate
food source
Lack of floodplain
vegetation (habitat)

34
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006
THREATS SYMPTOM CAUSE IMPACT CATEGOR EXTENT POTENTIAL SOLUTION
Y (IF
KNOWN)
Lack of Lack of specialist Possibly due to Loss/reduction of frogs in Local Wetland and Restore wetland ecology/habitat availability
Existing

specialist frogs frogs lack of suitable habitat ecosystem wetland Increase habitat availability
Degradation of surrounding Revegetate
wetland ecosystem area
Lack of native Mainly generalist fish Saline wetland Reduction in available Local/ Wetland and Restore wetland ecology/habitat availability
fish habitat in wetland Lack of structural habitat including breeding areas Regional river Revegetate riparian vegetation (provide shade
woody habitat (nurseries) and snags)
Existing

Revegetate reeds (Typha) clumps in areas


where anecdotal evidence points to their presence
Minimise any potential adverse saline
groundwater inflow into the wetland following
management
Invasive fish Turbid wetlands Well known Competition for habitat. Local/ Wetland and Establish height/capacity of structure, improve
species (carp, environmental (domination of available habitat) Regional Reedy if necessary and possible
gambusia, problem in region Predation/aggressive (Managed Creek Provide habitat to favour native species
goldfish and (large pest population) interaction on/with small and locally) Restrict carp movement into Reedy Creek in
redfin) Rapid breeding young native fish spring using carp (large fish) screens
Potential

cycles (carp ~2/year), (redfin/gambusia) Allow movement of carp out of wetland in late
live bearing Damage to aquatic summer to autumn by removing screens
(gambusia), vegetation Monitor abundance of invasive verses native
unpalatable eggs Decrease in water quality species
(redfin) (Turbidity increase) Removal of carp following drawdown
Predation on native fish Removal of carp and juveniles in Reedy Creek
(redfin) pools when levels fall in the ephemeral creek

35
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

Chapter 6. MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES


The main management objective is the restoration of the ecology of Reedy Creek wetland. Based on
the objectives, presented in Chapter 1, the baseline data presented in Chapter 2 and the threats to the
wetland, discussed in Chapter 5, more detailed management objectives can now be developed. The
objectives, including solutions, actions needed, and priorities are detailed in Table 13.
Adaptive management will drive the actions undertaken to achieve the objectives. Due to the
complexity of the habitat requirements of waders, water birds, native fish, macroinvertebrates and
frogs and identified potential threats to the wetland the management and therefore detailed
objectives will need to be flexible. A minor review of the objectives and the wetland management
plan is recommended at the end of each year, community groups can achieve this, with the support
of the local wetland officers listed in Chapter 4, by reviewing their monitored data. A major review
should follow 5 years after the commencement of the management.

36
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006
Table 13: Management objectives for Reedy Creek wetland
MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES SOLUTIONS ACTIONS (Management (M) or QUANTIFIABLE MONITOR (TIMING)* LEGISLATION PRIORITY
Engineering or structural /MEASURE OF ACHIEVEMENT
(ES))
Regeneration of Establish native re- Actively revegetate using Expansion and survival of Photo point (Q) Medium
riparian vegetation vegetation projects locally collected seed native species (numbers Vegetation survey
(surrounding wetland Work on rabbit control Fence of stock from based on expert (Y)
Native

and creek) Work on stock control wetland/ establish grazing recommendation)


regime Minimisation of stock
Use rabbit control induced vegetation
measures as appropriate degradation
Regeneration/ maintain Maintain open water Revegetate with reeds in Diversity of aquatic Photo point (Q) Medium
wetland aquatic species Minimise wave action shallow areas species, continued presence Vegetation survey
(maintain/increase Revegetate reeds Revegetate riparian zone of submerged species (Y)
Native

abundance of (Potamogeton crispus and Monitor water


submerged Vallisinera spiralis) quality (M)
macrophytes) Expansion of fringing
reeds
VEGETATION

Regeneration/maintain Introduce dry period Slow drying of wetland Diversity of aquatic Photo point (Q) WAP (water High
wetland aquatic species followed by inundation to Monitor water levels and species, continued presence Vegetation survey license)
Native

(maintain water plant initiate germination salinity and respond of submerged species (Y)
communities) in creek adaptively to maintain shallow (Ruppia in pond, Monitor water
delta water and mud flats and EC myriophyllum in Reedy Creek quality (M)
of around 5000 channel)
Control of willows from Establish willow removal Willow control as per Control of willows (as per Vegetation survey High
levee between wetland projects in the wetland area expert recommendation expert recommendation) (Y)
Invasive

and river (Natural State have extensive Willow control to be


experience in willow control in cautious of erosion issues
wetland of the area)
Removal of weeds from Establish weed removal Weed control as per Reduction of weeds (as Vegetation survey High
levee between the projects in the wetland area expert recommendation per expert recommendation) (Y)
Invasive

wetland and irrigated


pasture

Restore native fish Improved fish habitat Restore riparian Increase in abundance of Fish survey (Y) Medium
habitat ** vegetation specialist native species Macroinvertebrate
Native

Increase structural woody Increase in survey (1/2Y)


habitat macroinvertebrate abundance
(food for fish)
Minimise impact of carp Improve capacity of Make sure structure is Minimal carp recruitment Fish survey High
FISH

structure high enough (See chapter Far less carp in western (spring/summer)
Operate carp grills at 7.2) end of wetland and in creek
sheet pile structure based on Extend carp screens
expert recommendation Dry west part of wetland
Invasive

Install screens in mid Aug


remove in mid Dec. (Smith
2006)

37
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006
FROGS Restore native frog Improved frog habitat Restore riparian Presence of specialist Frog survey (1/2Y) Low
Native
habitat through improved and more vegetation (revegetate) native frog species in wetland
diverse ecological niches Increase reed growth/plant
(habitat)
Maintained/Improved Maintain all habitat Restoration of wetland Maintain/Increase bird Bird survey (1/2Y) High
habitat for water birds including open water, shallow habitat for native fish species abundance and diversity Vegetation survey
Native/Migratory

(waterfowl, waders and water, wet and dry mud and macroinvertebrates using wetland (Y)
shorebirds) Revegetate surrounding through revegetation of Increase in habitat Observation
area with native vegetation aquatic and riparian plant diversity (fringing vegetation)
species
Revegetate as per expert
BIRDS

recommendation
Maintain open water Do not alter hydrology of Avoid impacting on open Monitor for presence of Bird survey (1/2Y) Low
habitat in autumn as (dry) larger wetland basin water regime (no action waterbirds (particularly Observation of
refuge needed) Australasian shoveler) water levels
Review waterbirds
requirements at 5 year review
(particularly Australasian
shoveler)
Minimise groundwater Keep wetland inundated Monitor effect of restored Monitor wetland salinity Monitor water High
impact on wetland Only dry out western part hydrology and adapt following drying event (no net quality (M)
GW

occasionally (1 in 5 years) management accordingly increase) Monitor ground


No increase in water (Q)
groundwater discharge
Turbidity Expand reeds in wetland Revegetate riparian Visibly more clear water Monitor water Low
to minimise resuspension of vegetation Turbidity of wetland water quality (M)
WQ

sediment Revegetate reeds below 100 NTU for 50% of Observation


time
Manage stock access Fence off wetland Construct fence (ES) No loss of diversity in Vegetation survey High
Control stock access (trial Develop grazing currently grazed areas (Y)
crash grazing to maintain management plan (M) Less grazing impact (more Frog monitoring
Structural
MANAGEMENT

vegetation diversity in regeneration, less pugging, (1/2Y)


currently grazed area) less shore erosion and less Bird Monitoring
sediment entering wetland) (1/2Y)
Increased bird use
Increased frog abundance
Test effectiveness of Install ‘logs’ Install ‘logs’ with Structure effectively holds Observation WAP (water High
Structural

structure Dry wetland and observe assistance of engineer water license)


capacity of structure

Find AHD of structure Level in structure and Contract in team with Missing information i.e. 1 time contractor High
and surrounding surrounding samphire differential GPS structure height in m AHD and
Structural

lowland to establish (lowland) more accurately surrounding samphire m AHD


potential flow paths than baseline survey for potential flow paths

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


** Improved and more diverse ecological niches, such as macrophytes (emergent and submerged), snags (therefore need riparian vegetation) and maintenance of open water, as well as more food
sources, biofilms, etc. would lead to an increased diversity and abundance of macroinvertebrates and small native fish. These small native fish are prayed upon by larger native fish, both are in turn prayed
upon by waterbirds, who also obtain a more diverse habitat though the development of snags, aquatic and riparian vegetation.

38
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

39
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

Chapter 7. IMPLEMENTATION OF PLAN


The primary focus of the management of Reedy creek is the establishment of habitat for birds, fish,
frogs and macroinvertebrates. To achieve this, action needs to focus on the protection of fringing
vegetation, i.e. manage stock access to the wetland, the revegetation of the wetland (this could
include expanding the reeds), maintain open water habitat, maintain samphire/floodplain habitat and
introduce structural woody habitat. To improve habitat weed management, including willows, also
needs to be included in the management schedule. Other significant management considerations
include the maintenance/management of the sheet pile structure to enable a change in hydraulic
regime at the western end of the wetland and the exclusion of carp in spring.
Map 7 shows the open water section of Reedy Creek wetland as well as the western end of the
wetland that can be dried using the sheet pile structure, this area includes the Reedy Creek delta.
This map should provide some understanding of the management potential of Reedy Creek wetland.

Map 7: Open water v’s hydrologically managed sections


The main land use in the surrounding area is grazing, both cattle and sheep. In the past Reedy Creek
wetland was fully open to stock access. Some parts of the wetland is now fenced off to exclude
stock however, in areas where stock still has full access to the wetland evidence of stock grazing
impact was evident during the baseline survey. Therefore, the River Murray Wetlands Baseline
Survey – 2005 vegetation, fish, frog and bird teams (EBS & HydroTas 2006; SA MDB NRMB
2006; SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006b; SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006a) recommend the exclusion
of stock from sensitive areas to promote the value and diversity of natural habitats. As discussed in
chapter 2.4 the grazed area has some of the highest vegetation diversity at the wetland potentially
due to the grazing of otherwise dominating plans. The vegetation survey therefore recommends a
crash grazing trial to maintain the diversity found in the grazed areas (SARDI Aquatic Sciences
2006b) The complete fencing off of stock should be accomplished before the wetland is dried.

40
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006
Otherwise, access will be provided for stock onto revegetated and fenced off areas thereby
undermining past revegetation efforts.

For the structure to be able to function as required in drying the wetland during February to May it
must be above the February to May expected highest river levels of 1 m AHD, based on the past 10
years of data obtained from DWLBC (DWLBC 2006b). For the structure to function from
December to May it must be above 1.2 m AHD. Otherwise, it will not have the capability to dry out
the western end of the wetland during the chosen dry period. The structure or at least the carp
screens must also be higher than the August to December expected highest river levels of 1.3 m
AHD, based on data obtained from DWLBC (DWLBC 2006b), for it to fulfil the function of
excluding carp from the Reedy creek following a drying event. To allow the structure to fulfil the
functions described, the surrounding land must also be higher than either of these elevations of 1 m
and 1.3 m. If the surrounding land is above 1.3 m AHD the structure can be upgraded as necessary
to allow for carp control by mounting screen extensions above the structure. These screen
extensions should extend a minimum of 30 cm above the anticipated maximum water level with 50
cm to 1m preferable (Smith 2006).

Should the river return to the more fluctuating water levels as seen in Figure 11, where the river
exceeded 1 m AHD 4 times during the planed drying period of February to May between 1974 and
2006, the structure and surrounding land may well not be able to effectively block water flow into
the western end of the wetland. In such a scenario, management of the wetland and water licensing
would have to be adaptive to be able to postpone planed drying and carp restriction to the following
year.

1.4
River Level at Mannum Feb to May

1.35

1.3

1.25
m AHD

1.2

1.15

1.1

1.05

1
1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

Year

Figure 11: Years river water levels exceeded 1.3m between 1974 and 2006

7.1 ON GROUND ACTION AND TIMETABLE


Table 14, provides a timetable and prioritisation for the on ground works in the Reedy Creek
wetland. The table does not address monitoring which is discussed in Chapter 8. A log of all
41
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006
activities undertaken at the wetland should be maintained. This log would assist in the review
process of the wetland management plan discussed in Chapter 9. The revegetation of reeds could be
attempted at shallow areas in the wetland. This may reintroduce the extensive reed beds mentioned
in historical (pre 1940‟s) accounts.

42
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006
Table 14: Implementation plan for Reedy Creek wetland
ACTIVITY PRIORITY RESOURCES TIMETABLE RESPONSIBILITY

Establish acid sulphate soils threat High Finance ASAP Prior to any drying event SA MDB NRM BOARD/LAP (Adrienne
Frears, Kathryn Rothe)
Establish elevation of sheet pile structure High Finance (differential GPS) ASAP Prior to any drying event SA MDB NRM BOARD (Adrienne
Frears)
Establish elevation of land surrounding sheet pile structure High Finance (differential GPS) ASAP Prior to any drying event SA MDB NRM BOARD (Adrienne
Frears)
PRIOR TO WETLAND DRYING

Improve structure as necessary (install screen extenders) High Finance ASAP LAP (Kathryn Rothe)

Improve structure as necessary (increase height) High Finance ASAP Prior to any drying event LAP (Kathryn Rothe)
Improve levee bank as necessary (increase height) High Finance ASAP Prior to any drying event LAP (Kathryn Rothe)
Install Groundwater data logger in piezometer (which High Finance ASAP Prior to any drying event SA MDB NRM BOARD (Adrienne
piezometer based on expert recommendation) Frears)
Install river gauge board Medium Finance ASAP SA MDB NRM BOARD (Adrienne
Frears)
Install permanent photo point Medium 2 persons 3 hrs Prior to management actions SA MDB NRM BOARD/LAP (Adrienne
Materials and tools (available) Frears, Kathryn Rothe)
Fence off stock access to west end of wetland High Finance ASAP Prior to any drying event LAP (Kathryn Rothe)
Fencing materials
Volunteers
Weed removal see chapter 2.4(a) Medium Funding As appropriate LAP/Community group
As per expert recommendation
Revegetation (terrestrial) including any levee bank High Funding As appropriate for seed collection LAP/Community group
extensions Seed collection and revegetation works
As per expert recommendation
AS APPROPRIATE

Revegetation (aquatic) plant reeds in mid and western end High Funding As appropriate for seed collection LAP/Community group
of wetland potential locations include shallow areas in the Seed collection and revegetation works
wetland bed As per expert recommendation
Introduce structural woody habitat (SWH) Medium Medium When possible (discuss with LAP/Community group
relevant expert)
Develop appropriate grazing regime in currently grazed Medium Funding ASAP LAP/landowner
wetland area (area which is to be fenced off) Agreement/cooperation by
landowner
Annual review of monitored data High Monitored data End of each inundation year (End Community group with assistance from
of summer) LAP and SA MDB NRM BOARD
Install fish screens and extenders High Fish screens and extenders Mid August to mid December Community group with assistance from
LAP and SA MDB NRM BOARD
OPERATION
ANNUAL
SCREEN

Remove fish screens and extenders High Manpower Mid December to mid August Community group with assistance from
LAP and SA MDB NRM BOARD

43
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

7.2 WETLAND WATER OPERATIONAL PLAN


One of the strongest tool in managing a wetland is the control of the wetland hydrology. Hydrology
controls the germination and growth of aquatic and riparian vegetation. The healthy vegetation and
appropriate inundation leads to the growth of biofilms, the vegetation and biofilms being a food
source for macroinvertebrates and small native fish. The vegetation and appropriate water regime
also provide a more diverse habitat for waterbirds and fish. Changing a wetlands‟ hydrology must
however take into account potential threats such as saline groundwater inflow. The restoration of
the western end of Reedy Creek wetland and the Reedy Creek delta therefore includes the
establishment of an infrequent drying regime to induce germination of aquatic and fringing
vegetation whilst minimising potential salinisation of the wetland.
(a) WATER REGIME

Establish a 1 in 5 year drying event. The surrounding groundwater must be monitored frequently at
selected piezometers during this time to establish the impact of wetland drying on saline
groundwater intrusion to the wetland. Carp screens should be used following this drying event. The
wetland cannot dry in winter as winter rain in the Mt. Lofty Ranges feeds Reedy Creek and
ultimately the wetland. As discussed above the most appropriate dry periods of the wetland is from
February through to May, see Figure 12. However, scheduled dry periods could be washed out with
summer flooding as seen in 1992 or through overtopping of the structure. In such a case the drying
will be reviewed and reinitiated or postponed as necessary, potentially until the following year.

In s ta ll s to p lo g s R e m o v e s to p lo g s

~ 0 .7 5 m A H D ~ 0 .7 5 m A H D
N o te : C a rp s c re e n s in s ta lle d a n d s e c u re d

S e p te m b e r O c to b e r N ovem ber D ecem ber J a n u a ry F e b ru a ry M a rc h A p ril M ay June J u ly A ugust

O p e n c o n n e c tio n to riv e r - in u n d a tio n o f w e tla n d S to p lo g s in s ta lle d - w e tla n d d ryin g D ry w e tla n d O p e n c o n n e c tio n to riv e r - in u n d a tio n o f w e tla n d

Figure 12: Water regime ‘normal’ managed drying event

Due to the current water shortage and the expected drying of Reedy Creek wetland through this
management plan the drying event will be brought forward to assist in minimising water loss in the
river. It is not anticipated that extending the dry period for Reedy Creek by two months will have an
adverse impact. It is further utilising the opportunity to test the sheet pile structure at the wetland
prior to the wetland drying due to an anticipated drop in river levels. Management through drying of
Reedy Creek wetland will therefore commence in December of 2006. A fully dry wetland would be
expected by March. Drying of the wetland will not be seen as a failure during this management
season unless overtopping of the structure extends through to March. The dry period should extend
until water from Reedy Creek fills the west end of the wetland. Based on the expected rainfall in the
Reedy Creek Catchment area, see Figure 14, the creek would be expected to be flowing by late
April to May. Maintaining a dry wetland following this inundation would not be possible. Future
drying events should return to the February to May schedule as described above, although a fully
dry period may not be possible in such a short time frame achieving only a partial drying of the
fringing regions. Volume calculations have been made for 2007 with the extreme dry period, A
February to May „normal‟ managed drying event and a wet year. Water license applications will be
relevant to the 2007 and wet year calculations.

44
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

In s ta ll s to p lo g s R e m o v e s to p lo g s fo llo w in g in u n d a tio n fro m R e e d y C re e k

~ 0 .7 5 m A H D ~ 0 .7 5 m A H D
N o te : C a rp s c re e n s in s ta lle d a n d s e c u re d

S e p te m b e r O c to b e r Novem ber Decem ber J a n u a ry F e b ru a ry M a rc h A p ril M ay June J u ly A ugust

O p e n c o n n e c tio n to riv e r - in u n d a tio n o f w e tla n d S to p lo g s in s ta lle d - w e tla n d d ryin g D ry w e tla n d O p e n c o n n e c tio n to riv e r - in u n d a tio n o f w e tla n d

Figure 13: Water regime 2007 extreme drying event

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Median (5th decile) monthly rainfall - mm

Figure 14: Median monthly rainfall at Mt. Crawford Forest


(b) VOLUME CALCULATIONS
Only the western end of the wetland can be manipulated using the sheet pile structure. Therefore, to
estimate the volume required for the wetland license only this section will be taken into account. As
discussed in Chapter 2.3(d) the median River Murray level were calculated at 0.74 m AHD based
on DWLBC Surface Water Archive data at Pump station 1 Murray Bridge (DWLBC 2005). Reedy
Creek wetland water requirements are therefore based on the 0.75 m AHD level.
The baseline survey provided estimates of the volume within the wetland at different depths.
However, the volumes were estimated for the full wetland and not the manageable area only.
Therefore, a simple average depth multiplied by surface area would give the best approximation of
volume in the west end of the wetland. The average depth of the western end of the wetland was
found to be at 0.25 m AHD based on the data collected by the baseline survey. At 0.75 m AHD the
depth of the wetland would be 0.5 m. The calculated volume can be seen in Table 15, the
anticipated evaporative loss based on the wetland loss calculator can be seen in Table 16. The total
annual water requirements were calculated based on the wetland fill volume and the potential
evaporation and can be seen in Table 17.
Table 15: Volume estimate for managed section of wetland
Parameter Units Complete Reedy Creek wetland Managed section of Reedy Creek wetland only
Depth m AHD 0.75 0.75
Max depth of wetland m 1.2 0.5
Surface area m2 1009195 147342
Volume m3 639996 73666
Volume ML 640 74

45
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006
Table 16: Calculated water loss (evaporation – precipitation)
TOTAL
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC (ML)
Area used in calculation (ha) 14.7 14.7 14.7 14.7 14.7 14.7 14.7 14.7 14.7 14.7 14.7 14.7
Net Loss (ML) 1997 Extreme 8 3 3 7 12 11 22 25 91
Dry Year
Net Loss (ML) ‘Normal’ 24 8 3 3 7 12 11 22 25 115
Managed Dry Year
Net Loss (ML) Wet Year 24 22 20 15 8 3 3 7 12 11 22 25 173
Water loss obtained using the Wetland Loss Calculator

Table 17: Water use calculation


Lagoon Surface area Fill volume (ML) Potential Total Annual Water
(ha) Evaporation (ML) Requirement (ML)
2007 ‘Extreme’ Managed 14.6 74 91 165*
Dry Year
‘Normal’ Managed Dry 14.6 57 (17 ML remaining at end of 115 172**
Year ‘dry’ period)
Wet Year 14.6 0 173 173
* Assuming the wetland dries completely
** Assuming the wetland does not dry out completely in the time allowed
Using the above information an estimated water use calculation for Reedy Creek wetland, including
evaporation loss was developed. This water use calculation can be seen in Table 17. The total
annual allocation requirements for Reedy Creek wetland annually (managed area only considered)
in a wet year amounts to 173 ML (or 173,000 kL), in 2007 the water requirement is 165 ML. The
management of the wetland is planed on an ecological basis. Water savings that could be made by
introducing the „Normal‟ managed dry year would only result in a 1 ML water savings. Even the
current water savings through the „Extreme‟ managed dry year amounts to a mere 8 ML. Drying of
this wetland for water savings would therefore be of no significant benefit to the River Murray
water balance and may actually impact on the wetland adversely. This approach to future water
savings is for this wetland strongly discouraged.
The salinity impact of wetland management was to be estimated using the SIWM model. However,
the Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation (DWLBC) has withdrawn the use of
the SIWM model. Some inherent difficulties were found in developing and finalising this model for
general use leading to a new modelling approach to be undertaken. DWLBC is presently developing
a new model for the simulation of, the impact wetland management will have on salt accumulation
within wetlands, as well as, the potential impacts to the river. A salinity assessment will be
conducted on Reedy Creek wetland once a model is available for use, a brief report outlining the
results of this modelling will be included in the plan in the future.

46
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

Chapter 8. MONITORING
For the development of a wetland management plan, Reedy Creek wetland was included in the
River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey - 2005 (SKM 2006b). The data collected during this survey
provided a basis by which objectives for the wetland management could be refined, hydrology
guidelines could be developed and review procedures scheduled. However, this data did not cover
all the issues related to managing the Reedy Creek 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 to the changed hydrological regime and water
quality, the monitoring schedule can be seen in Table 19. Ongoing monitoring during wetland
management plays a role in adaptive management by providing managers with information on how
the wetland is responding to management strategies, whether the objectives are being met, whether
there are off-target implications (wetland in regional context) or (as per Your Wetland: Monitoring
Manual (Tucker 2004)) whether the Golden Rules are being broken. The Golden Rules being:
Don‟t salinise your wetland
Don‟t kill long lived vegetation
Don‟t destroy threatened communities or habitats of threatened species
To ensure that monitored data is available for evaluation, review and reporting, a log of all
activities, monitoring and site description should be maintained at an accessible and convenient
location. The purpose of such a log is to maintain a record of management steps undertaken, their
justification and observed impacts/implications. The maintenance of a log is both good management
practice, allowing future reference to potential impacts of management, and a requirement of the
Wetland Water License. The data will ultimately be stored in the appropriate databases. Refer to
Your Wetland: Monitoring Manual (Tucker 2004) for examples of data log sheets and further
description of monitoring methods.
On-going fish monitoring should occur in the wetland and in the creek, to establish if the use of the
carp screens is reducing numbers getting up the creek to spawn. A permanent photopoint has been
installed at Reedy Creek wetland (see Table 18). A second photopoint will be installed at the
western end of the wetland to show changes in wetland bed vegetation over the drying cycle. These
photopoints will be monitored quarterly, and should show the impact of management of the wetland
around the structure and surrounding vegetation. Water quality monitoring should include
monitoring of Reedy creek particularly following rains in the creek catchment area. This water
quality monitoring will assess the salinity trend of the creek discharge and establish if any
significant fresh water inflows and therefore flushing effects can be expected from the creek.
Table 18: Permanent photopoint
Site Name Date Installed Property Eastings Northings Datum No. Directions Description
REEPP01 6/08/2006 Pluckhans 340297 6131338 WGS 84 3 Near structure

47
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006
Table 19: Monitoring plan for Reedy Creek wetland.

Parameter Method Priority SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG Time Required Responsible
Level and
Groundwater conductivity (all Medium 1 monitoring day Community Group/
wetland piezos.) Q Q Q Q event Wetland Officer
Water quality
monitoring
High
(cond, turb, 1 monitoring day Community Group/
Surface Water temp) Q Q Q Q event Wetland Officer
Surface level
(using gauge Low
boards)     0.5 hour Community Group
Seine net, dip
net (and fyke
Fish* High
nets if deep 1 monitoring day Community Group/
enough) Q  event Wetland Officer

Photopoint High Community Group/


monitoring Q Q Q Q 2 hours Wetland Officer
Vegetation
Quadrat/line 1 monitoring day Community Group/
Low
intercept  event Wetland Officer
Community Group/
Frogs High
Recording Calls   0.5 hour Wetland Officer
Fixed area
Birds High
search Q Q 0.5 day To be resolved
Dip net survey 1 monitoring day
Macro- event (not
Low
invertebrates including Community Group/
Q  identification) Wetland Officer
Q = at some time in the quarter

48
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

Chapter 9. EVALUATION, REVIEW AND REPORTING


9.1 EVALUATION AND REVIEW
The full impact of a changed hydrology and water quality and the effectiveness of the new regime cannot be
fully predicted. Therefore, the data obtained through monitoring need to be regularly reviewed to respond to
impacts of the management strategy. A review, of the implications of changed management of Reedy Creek
wetland therefore needs to be an ongoing process. For the wetland management plan to be an adaptive and
complete document, periodic reviews need to be scheduled in following monitoring and evaluation of the
impact of management.
An annual review of the monitored data and the condition of the wetland should be conducted by the
community group with assistance from the LAP and the SA MDB NRM Board. This first review should be
scheduled following the drying and wetting cycle of the wetland. A full review of the wetland management
plan should be scheduled in 5 years.
For the annual review to be effective it needs to include an upgrade of the;
Hydrological regime based on new knowledge and understanding, e.g. whether the drying of the
wetland has occurred and its implications on wetland water quality and habitat development (see
management objectives Chapter 6)
Monitoring schedule to reflect changes in the wetland management plan
This can occur via a presentation of the monitoring data collected in relation to the original objectives stated in
this management plan to the community group. The group and wetland officers can then determine future
courses of action (i.e. whether the wetland should be dried again) and any other issues which will need to be
addressed.

9.2 REPORTING
The wetland management plan for Reedy Creek wetland is comprehensive and includes an estimation of the
water requirements over the period covered in this plan. Should the volume used deviate substantially from the
plan, and therefore the water license, the Department of Water Land and Biodiversity Conservation (DWLBC)
will need to be notified. The records noted in the activity and monitoring logs will assist in reporting to
DWLBC. Further, as part of the requirements of the water license, any substantial change in the wetland
management plan, e.g. objectives, monitoring timetable or hydrology regime change, also needs to be reported
to DWLBC.

49
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

Chapter 10. REFERENCES


AWE (2006). Groundwater Surveys. River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005, South Australian Murray
Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board.

Baldwin, D. S., K. C. Hall, et al. (2006). Development of a Protocol for Recognising Sulfidic Sediments
(Potential Acid Sulfate Soils) in Inland Wetlands. Wodonga Victoria, Murray-Darling Freshwater Research
Centre. DRAFT

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


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

Chandler, W. J., R. K. Sandercock, et al. (1979). Reedy Creek Conservation Zone Management Plan.
Department of Housing, Urban and Regional Affairs,.

Cox, J. B. (1973). "Birds of the Mannum Area." The S.A. Ornithologist 26(103).

Cox, J. B. (1974). Systematic List of Birds Recorded from Reedy Creek: East of the Mannum-Murray Bridge
Road. Unpublished.

Cox, J. B. (1975). Sand-Mining on the Reedy Creek Flood-Plain.

DEH (2003). 2003 Review of the Status of Threatened Species in South Australia: Proposed Schedules under
the South Australian National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972. Adelaide, National Parks and Wildlife Council in
partnership with the Department for Environment and
Heritage: 61. Discussion Paper

DEH (Commonwealth) (2006a). Australian Heritage Database. Accessed 24 January 2006,


http://www.deh.gov.au/cgi-bin/ahdb/search.pl?mode=place_detail;place_id=7895.

DEH (Commonwealth) (2006b). Australian Heritage Places Inventory. Accessed 24 January 2006,
http://www.heritage.gov.au/cgi-bin/ahpi/record.pl?RNE7895.

Douglas, J. S. (1974). A Report of the Effects of Sand Mining Operations on the Vegetation Communities of
the Bed of Reedy Creek East of a Road and Bridge Below the Mannum Water Fall. Adelaide, Ecological
Survey and Impact Section, South Australian Museum. Report

DWLBC (2005). Surface Water Archive. Accessed 3 August 2005,


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

DWLBC (2006a). Data Download. Accessed 26 June 2006,


http://www.dwlbc.sa.gov.au/subs/gis_data/data.htm.

DWLBC (2006b). Unpublished Data. Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation.

EBS & HydroTas (2006). Bird Surveys. River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005, South Australian
Murray Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board.

Frears, A. P. (2001). An Ecological Evaluation of the Proposal for Rehabilitation of Reedy Creek Lagoon, a
Wetland of the River Murray, South Australia. Department of Environmental Biology. Adelaide, University of
Adelaide: 70.

50
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006
Goonan, P. (2006). Personal Communication. Senior Aquatic Biologist: Environment Protection Authority.

Heine, A. (1999). Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan: Questionnaire for Reedy Creek Stakeholders,
Wetland Care Australia.

Jensen, A., F. Marsh, et al. (1999). Reedy Creek Wetland Complex Management Plan: Draft for Consultation.
Wetland Care Australia, Mannum to Wellington Local Action Planning Committee Inc.

Jensen, A., P. Paton, et al. (1996). Wetlands Atlas of the South Australian Murray Valley. ADELAIDE, South
Australian River Murray Wetlands Management Committee. South Australian Department of Environment and
Natural Resources.

Lamontagne, S., W. Hicks, et al. (2004). Sulfidic Materials: An Emerging Environmental Issue for the
Management of Salinity in the River Murray Floodplain. 9th Murray-Darling Basin Groundwater Workshop
2004.

Lothian, J. A. (1975). Minutes Forming Enclosure to Dec No. 3300 1975. Reedy Creek Sand Extraction -
Guidelines from and Environmental Study.

McBriar, E. M. and A. R. Milnes, Eds. (1968). The Palmer-Mannum-Reedy Creek District of South Australia:
A Brief Guide to the History and Geology of the District. Publication No. 13. Adelaide, Department of Adult
Education, The University of Adelaide.

MDFRC (2006). Water Quality Surveys. River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005, South Australian
Murray Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board.

Pressey, R. L. (1986). Wetlands of the River Murray. River Murray Commission.

River Murray Catchment Water Management Board (2002). Water Allocation Plan for the River Murray
Prescribed Watercourse. Berri, South Australia, Government of South Australia.

River Murray Catchment Water Management Board and Department of Water Land and Biodiversity
Conservation (2003). Guidelines for Development of Wetland Management Plans for the River Murray in
South Australia.

SA MDB NRMB (2006). Frog Surveys. River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005, South Australian
Murray Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board.

SARDI Aquatic Sciences (2006a). Fish Surveys. River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005, South
Australian Murray Darling Basin Natural Resources
Management Board.

SARDI Aquatic Sciences (2006b). Vegetation Surveys. River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005, South
Australian Murray Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board.

SKM (2006a). Macroinvertebrate Surveys. River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005, South Australian
Murray Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board.

SKM (2006b). River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey - 2005. South Australian Murray Darling Basin Natural
Resources Management Board.

51
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006
SKM (2006c). Site Physical Survey. River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005, South Australian Murray
Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board.

Smith, B. (2006). Personal Communication. Sub-Program Leader (Invasive Species): Sardi Aquatic Sciences -
Inland Waters.

Thomas, R. I. (1973a). Report on the Proposed Caloote Reserve. South Australian Museum.

Thomas, R. I. (1973b). Report on the Proposed Reedy Creek Reserve. South Australian Museum.

Thompson, M. B. (1986). River Murray Wetlands, Their Characteristics, Significance and Management.
Adelaide, Department of Environment and Planning and Nature Conservation Society of S.A.

Tucker, P. (2004). Your Wetland: Monitoring Manual - Data Collection. Renmark SA, River Murray
Catchment Water Management Board, Australian Landscape Trust.

Tucker, P., M. Harper, et al. (2002). Your Wetland: Hydrology Guidelines. Renmark SA, Australian Landscape
Trust.

Walker, S. (2002). Frog Census 2001: Community Monitoring of Water Quality and Habitat Condition in South
Australia Using Frogs as Indicators. Adelaide, Environment Protection Agency.

Walker, S. (2003). Frog Census 2002: Community Monitoring of Water Quality and Habitat Condition in South
Australia Using Frogs as Indicators. Adelaide, Environment Protection Agency.

Walker, S. J. and P. M. Goonan (2001). Frog Census 2000: Community Monitoring of Water Quality and
Habitat Condition in South Australia Using Frogs as Indicators. Adelaide, Environment Protection Agency.

Walker, S. J., B. M. Hill, et al. (1999). Frog Census 1998: Community Monitoring of Water Quality and
Habitat Condition in South Australia Using Frogs as Indicators. Adelaide, Environment Protection Agency.

Walker, S. J., B. M. Hill, et al. (2000). Frog Census 1999: Community Monitoring of Water Quality and
Habitat Condition in South Australia Using Frogs as Indicators. Adelaide, Environment Protection Agency.

Wen, L. (2002). Mechanisms for Phosphorus Elimination in Constructed Wetlands: A Pilot Study for the
Treatment of Agricultural Drainage Water from Dairy Farms at the Lower River Murray, South Australia.
Department of Soil and Water. Adelaide, The University of Adelaide: 197.

52
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

Appendix A. Wetlands Atlas Data


Table 20: Wetland Atlas Data
FID 1111
AREA 986332.1559
PERIMETER 8956.747097
WETLANDS# 1111
WETLANDS-ID 1110
AS2482 44040
AUS_WETLANDNR S0052
THOM_WETLANDNR
THOM_CHANGE
WETLAND_NAME REEDY CREEK
COMPLEX_NAME Self-contained hydrological unit
CONS_VALUENR 1
MDBC_DISTNR 3
WATER_REGIME PERMANENT
INTERNATIONAL 0
NATIONAL 0
BASIN 1
VALLEY 1
HIGH_CONSERVATIO 1
MODERATE_CONSERV 0
LOW_CONSERVATION 0
SHOULD_REASSESS 0
SHOULD_ASSESS 0
Source: Wetlands Atlas of the South Australian Murray Valley (Jensen et al. 1996)

53
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

Appendix B. Baseline Survey Locations

Source: River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005 (SKM 2006b)

54
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

Appendix C. Baseline Survey DTM

Source: River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005 (SKM 2006c)


55
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

Appendix D. Baseline Survey Groundwater

Source: River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005 (AWE 2006)


56
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

Appendix E. Baseline Survey Vegetation


3 3 9 2 5 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 9 5 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 9 7 5 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 0 2 5 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 0 5 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 0 7 5 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 1 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 1 2 5 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 1 5 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 1 7 5 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 2 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 2 2 5 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 2 5 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 2 7 5 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 3 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0
6 1 3 2 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0

6 1 3 1 7 5 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0
3
1
6 1 3 1 5 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0

1
1
3 42

2 2

6 1 3 1 2 5 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0
4
4
3

8
6 1 3 1 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0

6 1 3 0 7 5 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0
6
6 1 3 0 5 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0

8
6
5
8 5

6 1 3 0 2 5 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0
7
6 1 3 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0

6 1 2 9 7 5 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0
3 3 9 2 5 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 9 5 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 9 7 5 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 0 2 5 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 0 5 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 0 7 5 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 1 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 1 2 5 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 1 5 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 1 7 5 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 2 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 2 2 5 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 2 5 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 2 7 5 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 3 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0
R IV E R M U R R A Y L a rg e -s c a le V e g e ta tio n C o m m u n itie s
S u rv e y e d Q u a d ra ts W E T L A N D S B A S E L IN E
D ive rse g ra ze d sho re line P h ra g m ite s a u stra lis g ra ssla nd # SURVEY O p en W ater*

D iv ers e G r a z e d H er blan d
M u e h le n b e ckia flo ru le n ta shrub la nd # T yp h a sp . se d g e la nd # R e e d y C re e k - M a n n u m
S a lix s p p . w o o dlan d + /- E u c a ly p tu s c a m a ld u le n s is v a r. c a m a ld u le n s is , P h ra g m ite s a u s tra lis , T y p h a s p ., S c h oe n op le c tu s v a lid u s
T yp h a sp . se d g e la nd # S a lix b a b ylo n ica w o o d la nd 1 :1 5 ,0 0 0
E u c a ly p tu s c a m a ld u le n s is v a r. c a m a ld u le n s is w o o dlan d*
S ch o e n o p le ctu s va lid u s se d g e la nd # S ch o e n o p le ctu s va lid u s se d g e la nd # 0 50 100 200 300 400
M etr es D iv ers e a qu atic h er blan d P e rs ic a ria la p a th ifoliu m , E le oc h a ris a c u ta , V a llis n e ria s p ira lis , T rig loc h in p r oc e ru m *

* D e n* oDteesn co otems mc ou m m unnoity


n ity t q nu oa tnqtita
u ativ
n tita
e lytiv
s uerv
ly esye
u rv
d e ye d Q u a d ra t n u m b e rs re fe r to v e g e ta tio n a s s o c ia tio n s in w e tla n d s u m m a ry
# D en # oDteesn ao rete sa atoreo as m
to a
o llsto
m amll atop m a p

Source: River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005 (SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006b)
57
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

.0 0 0 0 0 0
.0 00 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 00 .0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 00 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 00 0 0 0
339 250 339 750 34025 0 3407 50 34 1250 3 4175 0 342 250 34 2750 3432 50

6 1322 50
61 3225 0

.0 0 0 0 0 0
.0 00 0 0 0

6 1317 50
61 3175 0

.0 0 0 0 0 0
.0 00 0 0 0

6 1312 50
61 3125 0

5
55
5 5
5 55
5
5 55
5 5
5 5
5
5
5

.0 0 0 0 0 0
5
.0 00 0 0 0

5
5 55

6 1307 50
61 3075 0

5 5
5
3 5
.0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0

5 5
402250 402500 402750 403000 403250
5
6 2 2 8 5 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0

.0 0 0 0 0 0
5
5 5

6228500
5 5

.0 0 0 0 0 0
.0 00 0 0 0

3 3 5
3 4
445 4 4

6 1302 50
61 3025 0

5
3 5
6 2 2 8 2 5 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0

.0 0 0 0 0 0
3 3 5
4

6228250
5
4 1

5
5 4
3
2
4
4
3 5
5
2 3 5
4 3 3
3 3 1 5
5 5 5
5 5
6 2 2 8 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0

.0 0 0 0 0 0

.0 0 0 0 0 0
.0 00 0 0 0

6228000

6 1297 50
61 2975 0

.0 0 0 0 00 .0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 00 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 00 0 0 0
339 250 339 750 34025 0 3407 50 34 1250 3 4175 0 342 250 34 2750 3432 50
.0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0
402250 402500 402750 403000 403250

R IV E R M U R R A Y R I V E R M U RR A Y
W E T L A N D S B A S E L IN E W E T LA N D S B A S E L I N E
SU R VEY SU R VE Y
E u c a ly p tu s c a m a ld u le n s is E uc a lyp t u s ca m al du l en s is
B o g g y F la t
Re e dy Cre e k - M an n u m
1 :5 ,5 0 0
1: 1 6 , 00 0
0 2040 80 120 160
M e tre s 0 6 5A r e1a30o f i n t e r e s260
t s h o w n i n3 r90
ed box 520
M et res Ar e a o f i n te r e s t sh o w n in r e d b o x

Source: River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005 (SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006b)

58
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

Appendix F. Species List for Reedy Creek wetland


(a) FLORA OF REEDY CREEK WETLAND
Table 21: Plant Associations at Reedy Creek wetland
Aquatic Association number **
Species Common name
species 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Atriplex prostrata creeping saltbush
Avena barbata* bearded oat
Bolboschoenus caldwellii salt club-rush X x x
Bromus diandrus* great brome
Bromus rubens* red brome
Bromus unioloides* prairie grass
Carrichtera annua* ward's weed
Chenopodium pumilio small crumbweed
Cotula coronopifolia water buttons X x
Critesion marinum* barley grass
Cyperus gymnocaulos spiny flat-sedge x x
Echium plantagineum* Salvation Jane
Eleocharis acuta common spike-rush X x x
Eleocharis sphacelata tall spike-rush X
Enchylaena tomentosa ruby saltbush
Eucalyptus camaldulensis var. camaldulensis river red gum x
Eucalyptus largiflorens river box
Euphorbia terracina* false caper
Fumaria bastardii* bastard's fumitory
Halosarcia pergranulata ssp. pergranulata black-seed samphire
Hydrocotyle verticillata shield pennywort X x x
Ipomoea indica* morning glory
Isolepis fluitans floating club-rush X x
Juncus usitatus common rush X x x
Lactuca saligna* wild lettuce
Lolium sp.* rye grass
Ludwigia peploides ssp. montevidensis water primrose X
Lycium ferocissimum* African boxthorn
Maireana microcarpa swamp bluebush
Malva parviflora* small-flowered
marshmallow
Mentha australis native mint
Muehlenbeckia florulenta lignum X x
Onopordum acanthium* scotch thistle
Parahebe decorosa parahebe x x
Paspalum distichum water-couch X x
Persicaria lapathifolium pale knotweed X x
Phragmites australis common reed X x x x
Phyla canescens* lippia
Potamogeton crispus curly pondweed X
Rumex bidens mud dock X x

59
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006
Salix babylonica* weeping willow x x
Salix fragilis* crack willow x
Schinus areira* pepper tree
Schoenoplectus validus river club-rush X x x x x
Senecio sp. groundsel x
Solanum nigrum* black nightshade
Sonchus oleraceus* common sow-thistle
Suaeda australis austral seablite
Tetragonia tetragonoides New Zealand spinach
Trifolium sp.* clover x x
Triglochin procerum water ribbons X
Typha sp. bulrush X x x x x
Vallisneria spiralis ribbon weed X
TOTAL 10 9 1 3 4 2 5 2

The above list includes opportunistic observations not surveyed in quadrats


*denotes exotic species
** Association numbers;
1. Diverse grazed shoreline at western edge of wetland
2. Muehlenbeckia florulenta shrubland
3. Typha sp. sedgeland in central part of wetland
4. Schoenoplectus validus sedgeland in central part of wetland
5. Phragmites australis grassland in eastern part of wetland
6. Typha sp. sedgeland in eastern part of wetland
7. Salix babylonica woodland in eastern part of wetland,
8. Schoenoplectus validus sedgeland in eastern part of wetland.
Source: River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005 (SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006b)

Table 22: Large and obvious native plants collected by R. I. Thomas (1973b)
Scientific name Common Name Scientific name Common Name
Alectryon oleifolius ssp.
Eucalyptus camaldulensis river red gum canescens bulloack bush (rosewood)
whipstick peppermint (mallee
Eucalyptus porosa box) Dodonaea viscosa sticky hop-bush
Eucalyptus fasciculosa pink gum Pittosporum phylliraeoides native willow (native apricot)
Melaleuca lanceolata black tea-tree (moonah) Bursaria incana native box
Melaleuca orania Lomandra effusa scented mat-rush
Acacia oswaldii Oswalds wattle Xanthorrhoea quadrangulata blackboy (mount lofty grass-tree)
Acacia armata kangaroo thorn Casuarina stricta drooping sheoak
oldman saltbush (fragrant
Rhagodia parabolica saltbush) Cassinia laevis old man kangaroo bush
Rhagodia spinescens spiny saltbush Exocarpos aphyllus leafless ballart
Maireana brevifolia small-leafed bluebush Muehlenbeckia florulenta lignum
native plum tree (weeping
Maireana appressa pale-fruit bluebush Eremophila longifolia emubush)
Salsola kali rolly polly (buckbush) Cornea schlechtendalii
Suaeda australis sea blight (austral seablite) Goodenia vernicosa wavy goodenia
Enchylaena tomentosa ruby saltbush Phragmites australis common reed
native pine (southern cypress-
Halosarcia halocnemoides grey samphire Callitris preissii pine)
Halosarcia indica ssp.
leiostachya brown-headed samphire

Source: Report on the Proposed Reedy Creek Reserve (Thomas 1973b)


More recent common names are in brackets

60
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006
Table 23: Vegetation communities in sand mining area of Reedy Creek 1974
Scientific name Common Name Scientific name Common Name
Red gum flat Ehrharta longiflora* annual veldt grass
Eucalyptus camaldulensis river red gum Lycium ferocissimum* African boxthorn
Enchylaena tomentosa ruby saltbush Marrubium vulgare* horehound
Threlkeldia diffusa coast bonefruit Senecio pterophorus* African daisy
Suaeda australis austral seablite Fumaria sp.*
Sarcocornia quiqueflora beaded samphire Ricinus communis* castor oil plant
Halosarcia pergranulata ssp. pergranulata black-seed samphire Cirsium vulgare* spear thistle
Halosarcia sp. Silybum marianum* variegated thistle
Creek bank Foeniculum vulgare* fennel
Muehlenbeckia florulenta lignum Arctotheca calendula* capeweed
Euphorbia terracina* false caper Mesembryantheum crystallinum* common ice-plant
Oxalis pes-caprae* soursop Sandy Stream Bed
Echium plantagineum* Salvation Jane Phragmites australis common reed
Conium maculatum* hemlock Typha sp. bulrush
Lythrum hyssopifolia lesser loosestrife Juncus kraussii sea rush
Sonchus oleraceus* common sow-thistle Cynodon dactylon couch
Salsola kali buckbush Sporobolus virginicus sand couch
Solanum nigrum* black (-berry) nightshade Distichlis distichophylla Australian salt grass
Nicotiana glauca* tree tobacco Rumex crispus dock
Aster subulatus* wild aster

Source: A Report of the effects of sand mining operations on the vegetation communities of the bed of Reedy
Creek east of a road and bridge below the Mannum Water Fall (Douglas 1974)

Map 8: Vegetation map from 1975

61
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006
(b) BIRDS OF REEDY CREEK WETLAND
Table 24: Habitat features identified in Reedy Creek wetland
Habitat Autumn Spring
Feature
ReeBi01 ReeBi02 ReeBi03 ReeBi04 ReeBi05 ReeBi01 ReeBi02 ReeBi03 ReeBi04 ReeBi05
Shoreline simple simple simple simple simple simple simple simple simple Simple
Fringing patchy low continuous continuous patchy low patchy low patchy low continuous continuous patchy low patchy low
Vegetation cover low cover low cover cover cover cover low cover low cover cover cover
Reeds absent extensive occasional occasional occasional absent extensive occasional occasional occasional
Sedges absent occasional occasional occasional occasional absent occasional occasional occasional occasional
Herbs extensive absent occasional occasional occasional extensive absent occasional occasional occasional
Wet mud occasional occasional occasional occasional extensive occasional absent occasional extensive occasional
Dry mud extensive occasional occasional absent occasional occasional absent occasional occasional occasional
Hollow- absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent
bearing
trees
Perching absent occasional absent absent absent absent occasional absent absent absent
trees
Fringing absent occasional absent absent absent absent occasional absent absent absent
River Red
Gums
Water’s >100m >100m >100m in or 1-10m in or in or in or in or in or
edge from from from above from above above above above above
vegetation vegetation vegetation vegetation vegetation vegetation vegetation vegetation vegetation vegetation
Water dry dry dry 0.5 0.1 1-2 0.5-1 >1 <1 <1
Depth (m)
Water rising rising rising rising rising
Level

Source: River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005 (EBS & HydroTas 2006).

Table 25: Bird species observed at Reedy Creek wetland


Conservation Status
Breeding 1973 (1)

Total Abundance
Autumn 2005 (2)

Spring 2005 (2)

PROPOSED
Total species

CRITERIA (3)
STATUS (3)
List 1973 (1)

PROPOSED
STATUS (3)
CURRENT
recorded

CAMBA
2005 (2)

2005 (2)

JAMBA

Scientific name COMMON NAME


Collared
1 1 Accipiter cirrocephalus
Sparrowhawk

1 1 Accipiter fasciatus Brown Goshawk

1 1 Aquila audax Wedge-tailed Eagle

B 1 2 2 1 Circus approximans Swamp Harrier

1 1 Circus assimilis Spotted Harrier

Elanus axillaris (Elanus


B 1 1 Black-shouldered Kite
notatus)

Haliastur (Milvus)
B 1 1 Whistling Kite
sphenurus

B 1 2 2 1 Hieraaetus morphnoides Little Eagle

1 2 2 1 Milvus migrans Black Kite

1 1 Alauda arvensis Skylark

Horsfield’s (Singing)
1 1 Mirafra javanica
BushlarkI

B 1 2 2 M 1 Anas castanea Chestnut Teal

1 180 26 206 M 1 Anas gracilis Grey Teal

62
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

Conservation Status
Breeding 1973 (1)

Total Abundance
Autumn 2005 (2)

Spring 2005 (2)

PROPOSED
Total species

CRITERIA (3)
STATUS (3)
List 1973 (1)

PROPOSED
STATUS (3)
CURRENT
recorded

CAMBA
2005 (2)

2005 (2)

JAMBA
Scientific name COMMON NAME

1 10 10 1 Anas rhynchotis Australasian Shoveler R R RA a


e R;
Stat

B 1 9 14 23 M M 1 Anas superciliosa Pacific Black Duck

Hardhead (White-
1 8 8 M 1 Aytha australis
eyed duck)

B 1 1 Biziura lobata Musk Duck R R RA bc(i)

1 2 2 M 1 Chenonetta jubata Australian Wood Duck

B 1 17 17 M 1 Cygnus atratus Black Swan

Malacorhynchus
1 1 Pink-eared Duck
membranaceus

1 1 Stictonetta naevosa Freckled Duck V R RA d(ii)

1 4 5 9 M 1 Tadorna tadornoides Australian Shelduck

Egretta (Ardea)
1 5 5 1 White-faced Heron
novaehollandiae

1 1 Egretta alba White Egret 1

1 1 Egretta garzetta Little Egret R RA c(iv)

1 1 Artamus cyanopterus Dusky Woodswallow

1 1 Cracticus torquatus Grey Butcherbird

B 1 1 Gymnorhina tibicen Australian Magpie

Sulphur-crested
1 1 Cacatua galerita
Cockatoo

1 1 Cacatua sanguinea Little Corella

Eolophus (Cacatua)
B 1 1 Galah
roseicapillus

B 1 1 Nymphicus hollandicus Cockatiel

Black-faced Cuckoo-
1 1 Coracina novaehollandiae
shrike

1 1 Lalage tricolor (sueurii) White-winged Triller

Double-Banded
1 1 1 M 1 Charadrius bicinctus
Plover

Large Sand-dotterel /
1 1 Charadrius leschenaultii R RA c(ii) 1 1
Greater Sand Plover

B 1 1 Charadrius ruficapillus Red-capped Plover

Elseyornis (Charadrius)
B 1 26 4 30 M 1 Black-fronted Dotterel
melanops

B 1 30 1 31 M 1 Erythrogonys cinctus Red-kneed Dotterel

1 1 Pluvialis fulva Pacific Golden Plover R RA c(ii)

1 1 Pluvialis squatarola Grey Plover 1 1

B 1 6 32 38 M 1 Vanellus miles Masked Lapwing

1 1 Vanellus tricolor Banded Lapwing

1 1 Climacteris picumnus Brown Treecreeper

Rock DoveI (Feral Pigeon,


1 1 Columba livia Domestic PigeonIntorduced)

1 1 Geopelia cuneata Diamond Dove

63
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

Conservation Status
Breeding 1973 (1)

Total Abundance
Autumn 2005 (2)

Spring 2005 (2)

PROPOSED
Total species

CRITERIA (3)
STATUS (3)
List 1973 (1)

PROPOSED
STATUS (3)
CURRENT
recorded

CAMBA
2005 (2)

2005 (2)

JAMBA
Scientific name COMMON NAME
Geopelia placida (formerly
B 1 1 Peaceful dove
striata)

Ocyphaps (Geophaps)
1 1 Crested Pigeon
lophotes

B 1 1 Corvus mellori Little Raven

Cacomantis (Cuculus)
1 1 Fan-tailed Cuckoo
flabelliformis

Chalcites (Chrysococcyx) Horsfield's Bronze-


1 1
basalis Cuckoo

No
long
Chalcites (Chrysococcyx) Shining Bronze-
1 1 R er LR
lucidus Cuckoo
liste
d

Chalcites (Chrysococcyx)
1 1 Black-eared Cuckoo
osculans

B 1 1 Cuculus pallidus Pallid Cuckoo

1 1 Dicaeum hirundinaceum Mistletoebird

Magpie-lark
B 1 1 Grallina cyanoleuca (Australian, Murray
Magpie)

1 1 Myiagra inquieta Restless Flycatcher R RA b

Rhipidura albiscapa
1 1 Grey Fantail
(fuliginosa)

B 1 1 Rhipidura leucophrys Willie Wagtail

1 1 Falco berigora Brown Falcon

Nankeen (Australian)
B 1 1 Falco cenchroides
Kestrel

Australian Hobby
1 1 Falco longipennis
(Little Falcon)

1 1 Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon R R RA c(i)

1 1 Falco subniger Black Falcon

European Goldfinch
1 1 Carduelis carduelis
(Introduced)

1 1 Stiltia isabella Australian Pratincole

B 1 1 Dacelo novaeguineae Laughing Kookaburra

1 1 Todiramphus sanctus Sacred Kingfisher

White-backed
1 1 Cheramoeca leucosternus
Swallow

B 1 1 Hirundo neoxena Welcome Swallow

Petrochelidon (Hirundo)
B 1 1 Fairy Martin
ariel

Petrochelidon (Hirundo)
1 1 Tree Martin
nigricans

Whiskered (Marsh)
1 1 Chlidonias hybridus
Tern

1 1 1 1 Larus novaehollandiae Silver Gull

1 1 Sterna caspia Caspian Tern 1

1 1 Sterna nilotica Gull-billed Tern

64
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

Conservation Status
Breeding 1973 (1)

Total Abundance
Autumn 2005 (2)

Spring 2005 (2)

PROPOSED
Total species

CRITERIA (3)
STATUS (3)
List 1973 (1)

PROPOSED
STATUS (3)
CURRENT
recorded

CAMBA
2005 (2)

2005 (2)

JAMBA
Scientific name COMMON NAME
Superb Fairy-wren
B 1 1 Malurus cyaneus
(Blue Wren)

1 1 Malurus lamberti Variegated Fairy-wren

Spiny-cheeked
1 1 Acanthagenys rufogularis
Honeyeater

1 1 Anthochaera carunculata Red Wattle-bird

B 1 100 100 1 Epthianura albifrons White-fronted Chat

1 1 Epthianura aurifrons Orange Chat

White-plumed
B 1 1 Lichenostomus penicillatus
Honeyeater

1 1 Lichenostomus virescens Singing Honeyeater

1 1 Manorina flavigula Yellow-throated Miner

1 1 Manorina melanocephala Noisy Miner

Brown-headed
1 1 Melithreptus brevirostris
Honeyeater

White-naped
1 1 Melithreptus lunatus
Honeyeater

1 1 Plectorhyncha lanceolata Striped Honeyeater R R RA b

1 1 Merops ornatus Rainbow Bee-eater

B 1 1 Anthus novaeseelandiae Richard’s Pipit

B 1 1 Daphoneositta chrysoptera Varied Sittella

1 1 Colluricincla harmonica Grey Shrike-thrush

1 1 Pachycephala rufiventris Rufous Whistler

Yellow-rumped
1 1 Acanthiza chrysorrhoa
Thornbill

1 1 Acanthiza nana Yellow Thornbill

Chestnut-rumped
1 1 Acanthiza uropygialis
Thornbill

B 1 1 Aphelocephala leucopsis Southern Whiteface

Pardalotus striatus
B 1 1 Striated pardalote
substriatus

1 1 Smicrornis brevirostris Weebill

Passer domesticus
B 1 1 House SparrowI
(Introduced)

B 1 4 4 1 Taeniopygia guttata Zebra Finch

1 8 65 73 1 Pelicanus conspicillatus Australian Pelican

Melanodryas cucullata Hooded Robin (South


B 1 1 R RA b
cucullata East subspecies)

Jacky Winter (Mount


Microeca fascinans Lofty Ranges and
1 1 R RA b
fascinans South East
subspecies)

1 1 Petroica goodenovii Red-capped Robin

65
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

Conservation Status
Breeding 1973 (1)

Total Abundance
Autumn 2005 (2)

Spring 2005 (2)

PROPOSED
Total species

CRITERIA (3)
STATUS (3)
List 1973 (1)

PROPOSED
STATUS (3)
CURRENT
recorded

CAMBA
2005 (2)

2005 (2)

JAMBA
Scientific name COMMON NAME
Great Cormorant
1 4 6 10 1 Phalacrocorax carbo
(Black, Large)

Phalacrocorax
1 2 2 1 Little Pied Cormorant
melanoleucos

1 1 1 1 Phalacrocorax sulcirostris Little Black Cormorant

1 1 1 1 Phalacrocorax varius Pied Cormorant

1 1 Coturnix pectoralis Stubble Quail

1 1 Podargus strigoides Tawny Frogmouth

Poliocephalus
1 7 7 1 Hoary-headed Grebe
poliocephalus

Tachybaptus
1 1 1 1 Australasian Grebe
novaehollandiae

Pomatostomus White-browned
B 1 1
superciliosus Babbler

Barnardius zonarius Mallee (Australian)


1 1
barnardi Ringneck

Glossopsitta Purple-crowned
1 1
prophyrocephala Lorikeet

B 1 1 Melopsittacus undulatus Budgerigar

1 1 Neophema chrysostoma Blue-winged Parrot V V VU C2b

B 1 1 1 1 Neophema elegans Elegant Parrot R RA c(i)

Platycercus elegans
1 1 Adelaide Rosella
(adelaidae)

Red-rumped (Red-
B 1 1 Psephotus haematonotus
Backed) Parrot

1 1 Psephotus varius Mulga Parrot

B 1 1 1 1 Gallinula tenebrosa Dusky Moorhen

Black-tailed Native-
1 22 1 23 1 Gallinula ventralis
hen

1 4 4 1 Gallirallus philippensis Buff-banded Rail

B 1 3 3 1 Porphyrio porphyrio Purple Swamphen

Australian Spotted
1 1 Porzana fluminea
Crake

Cladorhynchus A1b
1 1 Banded Stilt V VU
leucocephalus e

B 1 7 7 14 M 1 Himantopus himantopus Black-winged Stilt

Recurvirostra
1 1 1 1 Red-necked Avocet
novaehollandiae

1 1 Rostratula benghalensis Painted Snipe R V VU A1b 1

1 1 1 M 1 Actitis hypoleucos Common Sandpiper R RA c(ii) 1 1

Sharp-tailed
1 1 Calidris acuminata 1 1
Sandpiper

1 1 Calidris canutus Red Knot 1 1

1 1 Calidris ferruginea Curlew Sandpiper 1 1

1 10 10 M 1 Calidris ruficollis Red-necked Stint 1 1

66
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006

Conservation Status
Breeding 1973 (1)

Total Abundance
Autumn 2005 (2)

Spring 2005 (2)

PROPOSED
Total species

CRITERIA (3)
STATUS (3)
List 1973 (1)

PROPOSED
STATUS (3)
CURRENT
recorded

CAMBA
2005 (2)

2005 (2)

JAMBA
Scientific name COMMON NAME
Latham's (Japanese)
1 1 Gallinago hardwickii V R RA c(ii) 1 1
Snipe

1 1 Limosa limosa Black-tailed Godwit R RA c(ii) 1 1

1 1 Tringa glareola Wood Sandpiper R RA c(ii) 1 1

1 1 1 M 1 Tringa nebularia Common Greenshank 1 1

Marsh Sandpiper
1 1 Tringa stagnatilis 1 1
(Little Greenshank)

Common StarlingI
B 1 1 Sturnus vulgaris (Introduced)

Acrocephalus australis (A. Australian


1 11 11 M 1 stentoreus now considered (Clamorous) reed-
Asian) warbler

1 1 Cincloramphus cruralis Brown Songlark

1 1 Cincloramphus mathewsi Rufous Songlark

1 11 11 M 1 Megalurus gramineus Little Grassbird

1 9 2 11 1 Platalea flavipes Yellow-billed Spoonbill

1 14 2 16 1 Platalea regia Royal Spoonbill

1 1 Plegadis falcinellus Glossy Ibis R R RA c(i) 1 1

1 42 42 1 Threskiornis molucca Australian White Ibis

1 58 58 1 Threskiornis spinicollis Straw-necked Ibis

1 1 Tyto alba Barn Owl

1 1 Zosterops lateralis Silvereye

Total
42 154 25 29 42 154 15 14

Conservation Status: M = Migratory


(1) Source: J.B. Cox unpublished data (Cox 1974)
(2) Source: Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005 (EBS & HydroTas 2006).
(3) Source: 2003 Review of the Status of Threatened Species in South Australia: Proposed Schedules under
the South Australian National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 (DEH 2003)
Table 26: Habitat use by waterbird species at Reedy Creek wetland
Common Scientific Name
Dead logs
Reed beds

Reg gums

Samphire

Name
Willows
Activity

Lignum
Shallow
Sedges

Grass
water

water
Open

Total
Mud

logs

Black Swan Cygnus atratus F 6 2 2 10


Black Swan Cygnus atratus R 7 7
Australian Tadorna R 9 9
Shelduck tadornoides
Hardhead Aythya australis R 6 2 8
Australian Chenonetta jubata R 2 2
Wood Duck
Pacific Black Anas superciliosa R 8 6 4 18

67
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006
Duck
Pacific Black Anas superciliosa F 3 2 5
Duck
Australasian Anas rhynchotis F 10 10
Shoveler
Grey Teal Anas gracilis R 22 4 10 36
Grey Teal Anas gracilis F 170 170
Chestnut Teal Anas castanea R 2 2
Australasian Tachybaptus F 1 1
Grebe novaehollandiae
Hoary-headed Poliocephalus F 7 7
Grebe poliocephalus
Little Pied Phalacrocorax F 2 2
Cormorant melanoleucos
Pied Phalacrocorax F 1 1
Cormorant varius
Little Black Phalacrocorax F 1 1
Cormorant sulcirostris
Great Phalacrocorax R 4 4
Cormorant carbo
Great Phalacrocorax F 6 6
Cormorant carbo
Australian Pelecanus R 65 8 73
Pelican conspicillatus
White-faced Egretta F 1 2 1 1 5
Heron novaehollandiae
Australian Threskiornis F 42 42
White Ibis molucca
Straw-necked Threskiornis F 58 58
Ibis spinicollis
Royal Platalea regia F 16 16
Spoonbill
Yellow-billed Platalea flavipes R 1 1
Spoonbill
Yellow-billed Platalea flavipes F 1 9 10
Spoonbill
Swamp Harrier Circus F 1 1 2
approximans
Buff-banded Gallirallus F 4 4
Rail philippensis
Purple Porphyrio R 1 1
Swamphen porphyrio
Purple Porphyrio F 2 2
Swamphen porphyrio
Black-tailed Gallinula ventralis F 20 2 1 23
Nativehen
Dusky Gallinula F 1 1
Moorhen tenebrosa
Common Tringa nebularia F 1 1
Greenshank
Common Actitis hypoleucos F 1 1
Sandpiper
Red-necked Calidris ruficollis F 10 10
Stint
Black-winged Himantopus F 7 7 14
Stilt himantopus
Red-necked Recurvirostra F 1 1
Avocet novaehollandiae
Double- Charadrius F 1 1
banded Plover bicinctus
Black-fronted Elseyornis F 23 23
Dotterel melanops
Black-fronted Elseyornis R 7 7
Dotterel melanops

68
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006
Red-kneed Erythrogonys F 30 1 31
Dotterel cinctus
Masked Vanellus miles R 4 2 32 38
Lapwing
Silver Gull Larus R 1 1
novaehollandiae
Clamorous Acrocephalus F 3 3
Reed-warbler australis
Clamorous Acrocephalus R 8 8
Reed-warbler australis
Little Megalurus F 3 8 11
Grassbird gramineus
Total 262 14 72 108 40 24 1 22 4 0 140 687
Activity: F = Feeding, R = Roosting/resting
Source: River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005 (EBS & HydroTas 2006).
(c) FISH
Table 27: Fish survey sites
Site # Habitat description Method
1 Grazed emergent veg, gently sloping bank, firm substrate, some snags, 20 cm deep Seine
2 Bare gently sloping bank, firm substrate, grazed, open water Seine
3 Dense emergent reeds, firm substrate, 60 cm deep Bait Trap
4 Rocky habitat below cliff, extending to muddy bottom, soft substrate, adjacent emergent reeds, 1 m deep GilNet
5 Dense emergent reeds, adjacent boat landing, soft substrate, 50 cm deep Fyke Net
6 Open water, centre of wetland, firm substrate, 50 cm depth Seine
7 Upland gully, large granite boulders, permanent pool, soft substrate, high salinity, 1 – 2 m deep Gil Net
8 Upland gully, large granite boulders, permanent pool, soft substrate, high salinity, 1 – 2 m deep Bait Trap
9 Upland permanent pool, dense emergent reeds on opposite bank, 2 m deep Fyke Net

Source: River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey – 2005 (SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006a)

69
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006
Table 28: Fish captured at Reedy Creek
Autumn Spring Total
Length (TL, mm) Length (TL, mm)
Common Name Species Name
Count Ave Min Max Count Ave Min Max
Native Fishes
small-mouthed Atherinosoma
2 2
hardyhead microstoma
145 137 50 305 85 164 47 430 230
bony herring Nematalosa erebi
160 54 26 114 34 58 34 80 194
flathead gudgeon Philypnodon grandiceps
carp gudgeon
85 41 32 56 22 40 32 58 107
complex Hypseleotris spp.
7 63 54 75 7
common galaxias Galaxias maculatus
1 57 57 57 1
lagoon goby Tasmanogobius lastii
Macquaria ambigua
2 249 185 312 5 220 178 296 7
golden perch ambigua
36 56 37 70 105 61 51 77 141
Australian smelt Retropina semoni
Threatened Native Fishes
9 36 27 53 116 36 26 69 125
unspecked hardyhead C. s. fulvus
dwarf-flathead
9 38 32 43 7 44 38 50 16
gudgeon Philypnodon sp.
9 36 29 42 9
Murray rainbowfish Melanotaenia fluviatilis
Exotic/Invasive Fish
55 113 83 338 49 391 23 750 104
common carp Cyprinus carpio
10 104 78 120 8 137 104 191 18
goldfish Carassius auratus
326 35 20 56 326
eastern gambusia Gambusia holbrooki
853 434 1287
Number of fish
839
Number of native fish
448
Number of exotic fish
12 11 14
Count of species
Native to Invasive
ratio (Species) 3.7
Native to Invasive
ratio (number of fish) 1.8
Source: River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey - 2005 (SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2006a)

(d) MACROINVERTEBRATES
Autumn Spring
Higher taxa Family Subfamily/Genus Total abundance
Site 1 Site 2 Site 5 Site 1 Site 2 Site 5
Bryozoa 3 3
Cnidaria Hydridae Hydra 3 3
Clavidae Cordylophora 4 4
Turbellaria Dugesiidae 2 2
Nematoda 7 4 13 3 27
Gastropoda Lymnaeidae Austropeplea 2 2
Planorbidae 7 3 9
Physidae Physa 1 20 3 24
Oligochaeta 3 51 1 3 30 5 93
Acariformes: Prostigmata Pezidae Peza 7 7
Acariformes: Oribatida 10 10
Acariformes: Astigmata Histiostomatidae 3 3

70
Reedy Creek Wetland Management Plan 2006
Acariformes: Hydracarina Hydromidae Hydrodroma 3 3
Amphipoda Hyalidae Austrochiltonia 26 7 15 48
Eusiridae Pseudomera 4 1 5 10
immature 3 41 7 48 98
Decapoda Atyidae Caridina 29 20 49
immature 5 13 8 26
Paratya 5 10 1 13 3 32
Collembola Hypogastruridae 12 263 275
Sminthuridae Katianna 13 13
Coleoptera Dytiscidae larvae 1 20 21
Hydraenidae Octhebius 1 1
Diptera Culicidae Anophelinae 1 1
Ceratopogonidae Ceratopogoninae 1 1
Psychodidae 1 1
Ephydridae 1 1
Chironomidae Tanypodinae 5 2 1 3 28 39
Orthocladinae 4 31 17 368 419
Chironominae 1 32 112 6 110 13 274
Ephemeroptera Baetidae immature 1 3 4
Caenidae Tasmanocoenis 1 1
Mesoveliidae Mesovelia 11 11
Hemiptera Corixidae immature 10 7 30 47
Micronecta 510 9 76 120 23 738
Notonectidae Anisops 10 10
immature 8 3 11
Odonata Coenagrionidae 3 1 8 12
Lestidae Austrolestes 15 15
Trichoptera Hydroptilidae Hellyethira 3 2 17 22
Leptoceridae immature 3 3
Triaenodes 7 7
Triplectides 23 23
Total abundance 515 182 140 226 710 625 2398
Total number of taxa 4 19 8 18 21 24 43

Source: River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey - 2005 (SKM 2006a)

71