environmental watering scenarios for kerang lakes bypass ... · environmental watering scenarios...

Environmental Watering Scenarios for Kerang Lakes Bypass Investigation Project - Phase 1

Draft

DOCUMENT HISTORY AND STATUS

Version Date Issued Prepared By Reviewed By Date Approved

Version 1 (partial draft)

22 July 2012 Louissa Rogers and Emer Campbell

Pat Feehan 24 June 2011

Version 1 (complete draft)

6 July 2012 Louissa Rogers Pat Feehan Janet Holmes Michelle Maher

10 July 2012

Version 2 18 July 2012 Louissa Rogers Project Reference Group

25 July 2012

Version 3 30 July 2012 Louissa Rogers Pat Feehan

DISTRIBUTION

Version Date Quantity Issued To

Version 1 (partial draft)

22 June 2012 Email Pat Feehan

Version 1 (complete draft)

6 July 2012 Email Pat Feehan GMW Connections Project

Janet Holmes DSE

Michelle Maher NCCMA

Version 2 18 July 2012 Email Kerang Lakes Bypass Investigation Project - Project Reference Group

Version 3 30 July 2012 Email

DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT

Printed: 6 September 2012

Last saved: 6 September 2012 02:32 PM

File name: NCCMA-68221 KLBI Environmental Watering Scenarios v3.0

Authors: Louissa Rogers and Emer Campbell

Name of organisation: North Central CMA

Name of document: Environmental Watering Scenarios for Kerang Lakes Bypass Investigation Project – Phase 1

Document version: Draft – Version 3

Document manager: 68221

For further information on any of the information contained within this document contact:

North Central Catchment Management Authority PO Box 18 Huntly Vic 3551 T: 03 5440 1800 F: 03 5448 7148 E: [email protected] www.nccma.vic.gov.au

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.nccma.vic.gov.au/

© North Central Catchment Management Authority, 2012

Front cover photo: [Click here to type Front Cover Photo]

The Environmental Watering Scenarios for Kerang Lakes Bypass Investigation Project – Phase 1 draft report is a working document, compiled from the best available information. It will be subject to revision in the future as new information becomes available.

This publication may be of assistance to you, but the North Central Catchment Management Authority and its employees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind, or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore disclaims all liability for any error, loss or other consequence which may arise from you relying on information in this publication.

Please cite this document as: North Central CMA (2012). Environmental Watering Scenarios for Kerang Lakes Bypass Investigation Project – Phase 1, Report prepared for the Goulburn-Murray Water Connections Project, North Central Catchment Management Authority, Huntly, Victoria.

v

Table of Contents

1 Purpose: .............................................................................................................................. 1

2 Background: ........................................................................................................................ 1

3 Process ................................................................................................................................ 2

3.1 Definitions ................................................................................................................................ 3 3.1.1 Wetland water regimes ............................................................................................................... 3 3.1.2 Wetland zones ............................................................................................................................. 3 3.1.3 Wetland classifications ................................................................................................................ 3

3.2 Physical Characteristics of the Wetlands .................................................................................... 4

3.3 Wetland types and representativeness ...................................................................................... 5

3.4 Ecological values ....................................................................................................................... 6

3.5 SWET ........................................................................................................................................ 6

3.6 Scoping water regimes .............................................................................................................. 7 3.6.1 No change .................................................................................................................................... 7 3.6.2 Dry ................................................................................................................................................ 7 3.6.3 Intermediate ................................................................................................................................ 7 3.6.4 Wet .............................................................................................................................................. 7

3.7 Limitations and uncertainty ...................................................................................................... 8

4 Water Regime Scenarios ...................................................................................................... 9

4.1 (First) Reedy Lake ..................................................................................................................... 9

4.2 Middle (Reedy) Lake ............................................................................................................... 13

4.3 Third (Reedy) Lake .................................................................................................................. 17

4.4 Little Lake Charm (including Scott’s Swamp) ............................................................................ 21

4.5 Racecourse Lake ..................................................................................................................... 24

References ............................................................................................................................... 28

Appendix A – Ecological Values ................................................................................................ 29

(First) Reedy Lake ............................................................................................................................. 29

Middle (Reedy) Lake ......................................................................................................................... 33

Third (Reedy) Lake ............................................................................................................................ 37

Little Lake Charm .............................................................................................................................. 40

Racecourse Lake ............................................................................................................................... 43

Appendix B ............................................................................................................................... 47

(First) Reedy Lake ............................................................................................................................. 47

Middle (Reedy) Lake ......................................................................................................................... 57

Third (Reedy) Lake ............................................................................................................................ 66

vi

Little Lake Charm .............................................................................................................................. 71

Racecourse Lake ............................................................................................................................... 78

Appendix C ............................................................................................................................... 85

vii

List of Tables Table 1: Description of wetland water regime terminology (Source: Brock et al. 2003) _________________ 3 Table 2: Wetland classification definitions (Source Corrick and Norman 1980) _______________________ 4 Table 3: Physical characteristics of the five wetlands ___________________________________________ 4 Table 4: Area of wetland types in Kerang Wetland Ramsar Site, North Central Region and GMID (Source DSE, 2012a and 2012b) _______________________________________________________________________ 5 Table 5: Wetland types of the five wetlands, proportion of wetland type represented in Kerang Lakes Ramsar Site complex, the North central Region and the Goulburn-Murray Irrigation District ____________ 6 Table 6: Water Regime Scenarios proposed for (First) Reedy Lake ________________________________ 10 Table 7: Water Regime Scenarios proposed for Middle (Reedy) Lake ______________________________ 14 Table 8: Water regime scenarios proposed for Third (Reedy) Lake ________________________________ 18 Table 9: Water Regime Scenarios proposed for Little Lake Charm ________________________________ 22 Table 10: Water regime scenarios proposed for Racecourse Lake _________________________________ 25 Table 11: Bird species recorded at (First) Reedy Lake (source: NCCMA, 2011) _______________________ 29 Table 12: Fish and other species recorded at (First) Reedy Lake (Source: NCCMA, 2011) _______________ 30 Table 13: Flora species recorded at (First) Reedy Lake (Source: NCCMA 2011) _______________________ 32 Table 14: Bird species recorded at Middle (Reedy) Lake (source: NCCMA 2011) ______________________ 33 Table 15: Fish and other species recorded at Middle (Reedy) Lake (Source: NCCMA, 2011) _____________ 35 Table 16: Flora species recorded at Middle (Reedy) Lake (Source: NCCMA 2011) _____________________ 36 Table 17: Bird species recorded at Third (Reedy) Lake (source: NCCMA 2011) _______________________ 37 Table 18: Fish and other species recorded at Third (Reedy) Lake (Source: NCCMA, 2011) ______________ 38 Table 19: Flora species recorded at Third (Reedy) Lake (Source: NCCMA 2011) ______________________ 39 Table 20: Bird species recorded at Little Lake Charm (source: NCCMA 2011) ________________________ 40 Table 21: Fish and other species recorded at Little Lake Charm (Source: NCCMA, 2011) _______________ 41 Table 22: Flora species recorded at Little Lake Charm (Source: NCCMA 2011) _______________________ 42 Table 23: Bird species recorded at Racecourse Lake (Source NCCMA, 2011) _________________________ 43 Table 24: Fish and other species recorded at Racecourse Lake (Source: NCCMA 2011) ________________ 44 Table 22: Flora species recorded at Racecourse Lake (Source: NCCMA 2011) ________________________ 45 Table 25: Ability of water regime scenarios to provide for ecological values present at (First) Reedy Lake _ 47 Table 26: Ability of water regime scenarios to provide for ecological values present at Middle (Reedy) Lake ____________________________________________________________________________________ 57 Table 27: Ability of water regime scenarios to provide for ecological values present at Third (Reedy) Lake 66 Table 28: Ability of water regime scenarios to provide for ecological values present at Little Lake Charm _ 71 Table 29: Ability of water regime scenarios to provide for ecological values present at Racecourse Lake __ 78

List of Figures Figure 1: Location of the Kerang Lakes Bypass Project Investigation ............................................................... 2 Figure 2: (First) Reedy Lake Index of Wetland Condition report card (DSE, 2009) ............................................ 9 Figure 3: Middle (Reedy) Lake Index of Wetland Condition report card (DSE, 2009) ...................................... 13 Figure 4: Third (Reedy) Lake Index of Wetland Condition report card (DSE, 2009) ........................................ 17 Figure 5: Racecourse Lake Index of Wetland Condition report card (DSE, 2009) ............................................ 24 Figure 6: Historic and current wetland classification for Kerang Lakes Bypass Investigation Project Area .... 85

1

1 Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to outline a set of water regime scenarios for each of the wetlands within the Kerang Lakes By-Pass Project. The wetlands are (First) Reedy Lake, Middle (Reedy) Lake, Third (Reedy) Lake, Little Lake Charm and Racecourse Lake. These scenarios descriptions will provide input to in the Savings at Wetlands from Evapotranspiration daily Time-series model (SWET) to estimate the required volumes of water to implement the water regimes and provide indicative and potential water savings from the implementation of the bypass project.

In addition, each water regime was compared against the ecological values identified for each wetland based on a desktop analysis. This was to provide guidance on what values will be supported by the alternative regimes although, however it must be noted that a comprehensive impact assessment has not been completed in Phase 1a and that the scenarios presented in this report may not be appropriate.

If the outcomes of Phase 1 are favourable, Phase 2 will see a number of detailed investigations undertaken to, amongst other things:

Develop preferred environmental water management regimes for the five wetlands;

Further investigate surface water connectivity between the five wetlands and surrounding lakes (i.e. Lake Charm and Kangaroo Lake)

Further investigate surface and groundwater interactions;

Assess potential impacts on the environmental and social assets of the lakes; and

Gather information to support approval applications.

2 Background:

The Kerang Lakes Bypass Project is a project to investigate the feasibility of the concept to construct bypass channels around (First) Reedy Lake, Middle (Reedy) Lake and Third (Reedy) Lakes, Little Lake Charm and Racecourse Lake (the five wetlands) (Figure 1) . The wetlands are operated as part of the irrigation conveyance system in the Torrumbarry Irrigation Area (TIA).

The bypass project has been funded as part of Stage 2 of the G-MW Connections Project (formerly called the Northern Victoria irrigation Renewal Project (NVIRP)).

The five wetlands form part of the larger Kerang Lakes Ramsar site which comprises 23 wetlands (DSE, 2009). The national guidelines for Ramsar wetlands advise that under the convention Australia is obliged to provide a notification of change for “human-induced adverse alteration’ (DEWHA 2009). This concerns change to ecological character rather than the change to the criteria for which it was listed. The current ecological character description was prepared in 2006 (DSE 2006).

The project will investigate the amount of water that can be saved by introducing alternative water regimes to each of the wetlands and removing them from the irrigation conveyance system. The project will also investigate the environmental impact of proposed water regime scenarios and determine the most appropriate regime to enhance the environmental values of the wetlands. The project is unlikely to proceed if the water recovery is too small or the environmental effects are negative.

The investigation project will be done in a number of Phases.

Phase 1 will largely rely on previous investigations and, using the ‘Savings at Wetlands from Evapotranspiration daily Time-Series’ (SWET) model, will refine water loss estimates and quantify potential water savings based on a range of environmental water management scenarios.

2

At the end of Phase 2, the viability of the project will again be assessed. If the outcomes of this assessment are favourable, then approval applications will be prepared and submitted.

This environmental watering scenarios report is an important input to Phase 1 of the Kerang Lakes Bypass Investigation Project.

Figure 1: Location of the Kerang Lakes Bypass Project Investigation

3 Process

The process for developing alternative wetland water regime scenarios has been informed by consideration of:

ecological values previously recorded at the wetlands

wetland water regime definitions and classifications

previous work to define water regimes for the wetlands.

At each wetland four alternative water regime scenarios have been developed:

no change

episodic

intermittent

semi-permanent

These alternative scenarios have been developed for planning purposes and no particular scenario has been selected or recommended for future management purposes.

3

The impacts of alternative water regimes on values have not been assessed; however, Appendix A describes the ecological values and Appendix B demonstrates the ability of the proposed scenarios to maintain those values based on a desktop analysis. The values that support the Ramsar listing criteria are identified as well as where the values are listed under state or national legislation or international agreements.

3.1 Definitions

3.1.1 Wetland water regimes

Water regimes in this report are described using water regime and wetland classification terminology. Wetland water regime terminology is described in Table 1. The variables that determine the type of watering regime and the wetland classification comprise the frequency (number of years), depth (mAHD) and timing (season) of the watering event and the duration that the wetland remains inundated (months).

Table 1: Description of wetland water regime terminology (Source: Brock et al. 2003)

Watering Regime Definition

Semi-permanent Wetland usually holds some water, with annual inflows being equal to or exceeding minimum losses in 90 per cent of years; surface water persists for decades, only drying out in extreme droughts

Seasonal Wetland alternates between holding water and being completely dry, in nearly all years, except possibly extremely wet and extremely dry years, and on a fairly predictable seasonal pattern; surface water persists for months

Intermittent Wetland alternates between holding water and being completely dry, but not annually as in seasonal wetlands; surface water persists for months to years

Episodic Wetland alternates between holding water and being completely dry, with the dry Phase being the usual state; flooding occurs rarely and irregularly; surface water persists for months

Ephemeral Wetland alternates between holding water and being completely dry, with the dry Phase being the usual state; flooding occurs rarely and irregularly; surface water persists only very briefly, days to a few weeks.

3.1.2 Wetland zones

Lakes and wetlands are divided into two horizontal zones:-

the nearshore environment (the littoral zone). The littoral zone also has phytoplankton, but in addition has aquatic vascular plants (macrophyte), which typically are rooted on the substrate, and films of attached algae, which grow on the macrophyte surfaces or on the bottom of the littoral zone (Lewis 2009).

the offshore environment (the pelagic zone). The pelagic zone has phytoplankton, which are adapted to live suspended in the water column (Lewis 2009).

3.1.3 Wetland classifications

The system of wetland classification used to describe wetlands in Victoria describes wetlands based on water depth, frequency of inundation, salinity and dominant vegetation (Corrick and Norman 1980). Corrick and Norman (1980) have seven wetland classifications. The three classifications relevant to the wetlands in this report are defined in Table 2.

4

Table 2: Wetland classification definitions (Source Corrick and Norman 1980)

Wetland Classification Definition

Shallow freshwater marsh (SFM)

Wetlands that are usually dry by mid-summer and fill again with the onset of winter rains. Soils are waterlogged throughout the year and surface water up to 0.5 m deep may be present for as long as eight months.

Deep freshwater marsh (DFM)

Wetlands that generally remain inundated for greater than eight months of the year and can remain permanently inundated to a depth of 1 – 2 m throughout the year (drying out one in 4-5 years)

Permanent open freshwater (POF)

Wetlands that are usually more than 1 m deep. They can be natural or artificial. Wetlands are described to be permanent if they retain water for longer than 12 months, however they can have periods of drying

3.2 Physical Characteristics of the Wetlands

The wetlands are discreet wetlands with differing physical characteristics. Depth and surface area determine the volume of water required to fill the wetland. Wetland depth influences the duration of inundations and the deeper wetlands (Racecourse, (First) Reedy and Middle (Reedy)) will take longer to dry than the shallow wetlands (Third Reedy and Little Lake Charm). Surface area influences the volume of water losses through evaporation.

Table 3: Physical characteristics of the five wetlands1

Wetland Max. depth (m) Area (ha) Max. volume (ML)

(First) Reedy Lake 2.18 198.28 3313.48

Middle (Reedy) Lake 2.00 193.40 2550.80

Third (Reedy) Lake 1.36 230.13 2459.23

Little Lake Charm 1.65 130.87 1091.14

Racecourse 2.55 239.65 4686.25

1 Will need to check figures, some discrepancy with maps and tables provided.

5

3.3 Wetland types and representativeness

Criterion 1 of the Ramsar convention (previously Criterion 3) for which the Kerang Wetlands complex was listed is ‘A wetland should be considered internationally important if it contains a representative, rare or unique example of a natural or near natural wetland type found within the appropriate biogeographic region’. The areas for the wetland types discussed in this report pre development (1788) and post development (1994) are shown in Table 4.

Table 4: Area of wetland types in Kerang Wetland Ramsar Site, North Central Region and GMID (Source DSE, 2012a and 2012b)

Wetland type Pre-European area (ha) in wetland complex that was Ramsar listed as Kerang Wetlands in 1982.

Current Area(ha) in Kerang Wetlands Ramsar site

Pre-European area (ha) in North Central Region

Current Area(ha) in North Central Region

Pre-European area (ha) in the GMID

Current Area(ha) in the GMID

Shallow Freshwater Marsh

1,414.5 247.3 11,774 4,811 41,185 22,496.5

Deep Freshwater Marsh

2,746.2 2,084.6 10,526 4,880 20,395 8,898.6

Permanent Open Freshwater

2,197.4 3,839.7 14,121 28,360 17,598 48,329.9

The five wetlands, under the current operation regime, do not represent natural wetland types as they are used to store irrigation water permanently and are operated at constant levels with allowances for small fluxes (less than 500mm).

Table 5 shows the pre and post development wetland types of the five wetlands, as well as the current proportion of the current wetland type (i.e. Permanent Open Freshwater) represented in the Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Site complex, the North central Region and the Goulburn-Murray Irrigation District.

6

Table 5: Wetland types of the five wetlands, proportion of wetland type represented in Kerang Lakes Ramsar Site complex, the North central Region and the Goulburn-Murray Irrigation District

Wetland Pre-European wetland type

Current wetland type

% of post development type remaining in Kerang wetlands Ramsar site

% of post development type remaining in North Central Region

% of post development type remaining in the GMID

First (Reedy) Lake



5.1 0.7 0.4

Middle (Reedy) Lake



5.1 0.7 0.4

Third (Reedy) Lake



6.1 0.8 0.5

Little Lake Charm

Shallow freshwater marsh


2.6 0.4 0.2

Racecourse Lake



6.1 0.8 0.5

3.4 Ecological values

The ecological values of the five wetlands and how these values support the Ramsar criteria for which the Kerang Lakes Ramsar site was listed in 1982 are documented in Appendix A.

High value flora and fauna for each site was compiled from previous studies such as Ho et al (2006) and Lugg et al (1989). The 2009/10 Index of Wetland Condition (IWC) assessment was used to identify the Ecological Vegetation Classes (EVC) present in (First) Reedy Lake, Middle (Reedy) Lake, Third (Reedy) Lake and Racecourse. The EVC documented for Little Lake Charm was obtained from the Department of Sustainability and Environment Index of Wetland Condition interactive mapping tool from the 2005 EVC layer. These were cross referenced with Ho et al (2006).

Water regime requirements for recorded vegetation and vegetation likely to be present in the EVCs were determined using Roberts and Marston (2011). Fauna was grouped into broad functional groups and the water requirements for habitat, feeding and breeding were sourced from Rogers and Ralph (2011).

3.5 SWET

The water regime scenarios have been prepared for use in the SWET model. Modelling the water balance will quantify the volumes required for each water regime scenario for each wetland and consequently give an indication of the water savings to be achieved under each scenario. The water regime scenarios are described as per the input requirements for the model.

Frequency of wetting: The number of years within a specified timeframe (years) that water will be delivered, e.g. one in three years, to a specified supply level. If appropriate the frequency of drying has also been documented.

7

Duration: The number of months that the wetland will remain inundated at the specified supply level

Depth: The specified supply level in m AHD. The depth of the wetland in metres is also described.

Timing: The season that delivery of water is required

Please note:

Groundwater is not included in the model. If Phase 2 goes ahead further analysis may be required to determine the likelihood of groundwater inputs to the wetlands.

3.6 Scoping water regimes

3.6.1 No change

If the project does not demonstrate that sufficient water savings can be achieved and the wetland health can be maintained or enhanced as desired, the system will continue to operate as it is currently.

3.6.2 Dry

Sinclair Knight Mertz (SKM) (2010) completed a review of system losses and an assessment of water regimes and potential water savings for G-MW in early 2010. The SKM report used the Assessment framework of changed water management regimes on the health of the Kerang Lakes (KBR 2007) to rank the ecological and determine ecological objectives.

SKM recommended water regimes that were linked to historical unregulated flows in the Loddon River for (First) Reedy Lake, Third (Reedy) Lake, Little Lake Charm and Racecourse Lake. The report acknowledged that climate variability was a risk and included a “compromise” regime that comprised sourcing water from the regulated Murray River system one in eight to ten years for (First) Reedy Lake, Little Lake Charm and Racecourse Lake and one in four to five years for Third (Reedy) Lake. If this regime is supported the modelling will require a climate prediction component. These regimes were selected to represent the driest scenario for (First) Reedy Lake, Third (Reedy) Lake, Little Lake Charm and Racecourse Lake. While SKM did not support altering the regime of Middle (Reedy) Lake a dry regime will still be tested as part of Phase 1.

3.6.3 Intermediate

The intermediate scenario was developed drawing on the water requirements of the flora and fauna present at each wetland and considering the water regime most likely for the wetland in its previous natural state. Consideration was also given to the unique lignum community of Middle (Reedy) Lake.

3.6.4 Wet

Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) (2011) has prepared an Ecological Character Description of the Kerang Lakes Ramsar Wetland Site. The draft ECD was prepared using the National Framework and Guidelines for describing the Ecological Character of Australia’s Ramsar Wetlands and has not yet been endorsed by the Australian Government. However the limits of acceptable change to the hydrologic baseline condition for the five wetlands proposed by KBR were selected to represent the wettest scenario for the five lakes.

8

3.7 Limitations and uncertainty

The ecological values and water regime scenarios presented in this report are based on a desktop study. Assumptions are based on flora and fauna previously recorded and values historically supported, however a number of significant limitations exist including:

The most recent field environmental assessment (comprehensive monitoring of flora and fauna) was completed in 2006 (Ho et al. 2006); small fish surveys conducted in 2012 have shown a dramatic difference in species richness and abundances.

The most recent Index of Wetland Condition assessment for four of the five lakes was completed in 2009 (DSE, 2010); the condition of the littoral biota is likely to have been significantly impacted by the flooding in Jan 2011.

The ECDs lump the Reedy Lakes together, and Little Lake Charm with Lake Charm when describing the ecosystem services and ecological character (DSE 2006; KBR 2011);

Knowledge gaps as identified in the Kerang Lakes Water Savings Project Investigation Literature review (North Central CMA, 2011), including but not limited to:

o Hydrogeology – risk of groundwater induced salinisation of the wetlands and littoral vegetation under drying scenarios

o Soil properties – e.g. the seepage component of the wetland beds and subsequent losses likely to occur during filling phase

o Downstream impacts – changes to salinity/ water quality in the Murray River if alternative water regimes are adopted;

Knowledge gaps about potential acidification of wetlands should they be dried out; and

Knowledge gaps in the water regime requirements of some flora and fauna (Roberts and Marston 2011; Rogers and Ralph 2011).

9

4 Water Regime Scenarios

4.1 (First) Reedy Lake

Historically (First) Reedy Lake would have been classified as a Deep Freshwater Marsh (DFM) (DSE 2012a) and is currently classified as Permanent Open Freshwater (POF) (DSE 2012b) (Appendix C). It is supplied with good quality fresh water from the Murray River through the Torrumbarry Irrigation System. The Murray River water is diverted to the Loddon Weir pool and enters (First) Reedy Lake from the Weir Pool via the Washpen regulator. (First) Reedy Lake is maintained at its maximum depth (74.88 mAHD) with small fluctuations to a minimum level of 74.57 mAHD.

The bathymetry of (First) Reedy Lake shows that the surface area of water at maximum depth is 201.55 ha. The depth of the wetland at maximum depth is 2.18m (at maximum depth of the bed 72.7mAHD) and the bed shows a slight gradient over one and a half metres to the littoral zone at 74.28 mAHD. The surface area of the littoral zone is 189.94 ha.

(First) Reedy Lake has historically supported large waterbird populations and waterbird breeding events. The most recent records show that the wetland now has negligible breeding events, however waterbirds still frequent the wetland and the wetland also contains fish, turtle and frog populations. The flora and fauna recorded at (First) Reedy Lake are provided in Appendix A.

The overall wetland condition was assessed as moderate during the statewide 2009 IWC assessment (DSE 2009) (Figure 2). The hydrology was assessed as being in very poor condition which is related to the artificial flow regime and the permanence of the inundation. The biota score was poor which was due to high percentage of weed species present in each of the EVCs.

Figure 2: (First) Reedy Lake Index of Wetland Condition report card (DSE, 2009)

The proposed water regime scenarios and the rationale for selecting them are presented in Table 6. Table 6 also documents the ecological values that the water regime scenario is likely to support. Appendix A cross references the water regime scenarios with the water regime requirements of the ecological values present at (First) Reedy Lake.

IWC Report Card

Project: Statewide assessment 2009: North Central CMA

Wetland name: Reedy Lake

Wetland ID: 7626604477

Assessment date: 20/10/2009

Subindices Score Condition Category

Wetland catchment 9.0 / 20 Poor

Physical Form 20.0 / 20 Excellent

Hydrology 0.0 / 20 Very Poor

Water Properties 20.0 / 20 Excellent

Soils 20.0 / 20 Excellent

Overall Biota 10.79 / 20 Poor

Overall IWC score 6.0 / 10 Moderate

10

Table 6: Water Regime Scenarios proposed for (First) Reedy Lake

Scenario Proposed Water Regime

Other information Rationale Notes

Dry- episodic Frequency of wetting- 1 in 5 years

Timing- Winter/Spring

Depth – Yr 1 74.88 mAHD

Yr 2-5 – no fill

Duration- 1-4 months*

No top-ups

*Allow to dry naturally

This regime is the driest regime that can be implemented, based on historical unregulated inflows from the Loddon River. As it is highly dependent on flows within the Loddon catchment (First) Reedy Lake would be very vulnerable to climatic conditions.

This regime is not expected to support ongoing fish communities, and emergent vegetation such as sedges and rushes may be impacted. Lignum is expected to enter periods of dormancy which may limit the strength of the shrubs to support nesting colonial birds (i.e. ibis and spoonbills) although the wetland has not supported a breeding population since 2001 (Appendix A).

Transition would need to occur. Based on unregulated flows that are impacted by climate change and vulnerable to climate variability.

Values would be significantly impacted.

11



Deep Freshwater Marsh- intermittent

Frequency of wetting- 3 in 4 years

Timing- Winter/Spring filling

Depth: Yr 1 74.88mAHD, Yr 2 73.6mAHD, Yr 3 73.6 mAHD Yr 4 no fill

Duration- 7-10 months

Fill to maximum depth 1 in 4 years and to 73.6 mAHD 2 in 4 years. Allow wetland to drawdown. Do not fill 1 in 4 years.

Top ups may be required to maintain water in wetland for required duration.

This regime is based on an intermittent water regime for a deep freshwater marsh wetland (the 1788 wetland classification – DSE 2012a).

This regime may not support ongoing fish communities depending on evaporation rates and length of inundations.

It is expected to support a diversity of habitat (such as aquatic macrophytes and lignum) and water birds, and targets enhancing and extend the littoral vegetation communities to provide suitable conditions that may support breeding of colonial nesting birds such as Royal Spoonbill (last recorded breeding in 2001 (KBR 2011).

If this regime was adopted it would increase the percentage of Deep Freshwater Marsh in the Kerang Wetland Ramsar Site by 2%

The ability to completely dry this wetland and duration of inundation will depend on evaporation rates. Based on output of Scenario 1, we will understand the rate of drawdown and then need to factor in top-ups- volume and frequency. Some iteration will be required.

12



Open Freshwater Lake- semi-permanent

Frequency of wetting - 8 to 9 in 10 years

Timing: Winter/Spring

Depth

Yr 1-9 74.88 mAHD

Yr 10 – no fill

Duration-12 months+

Top-ups required. Allow to draw down to 74.28 through natural evaporation. Exceed this 2 years in a row.

This regime is based on the recommended limits of acceptable change to (First) Reedy Lake’s hydrological baseline condition from KBRs (2011) draft Ecological Character Description. It is extremely conservative and biased towards current values but allows for greater fluctuation than is currently available through the operation of the wetland as part of the irrigation system.

This regime is expected to maintain the fish communities and benefit the littoral vegetation through small fluxes. This regime will continue to prevent vegetative communities throughout the wetland.

Drying cycle may enhance values by increasing productivity of wetland. Fluctuation will facilitate littoral productivity.

Permanent Open Freshwater Lake - permanent

No change No change The existing water regime will be maintained if the project does not demonstrate that water savings can be achieved without adversely affecting the ecological values of the wetland. Maintaining the existing regime will not improve the hydrology or overall biota ratings under the IWC assessment.

Maintains status quo. Dependent on operation of the system in terms of maintenance.

13

4.2 Middle (Reedy) Lake

Historically Middle (Reedy) Lake was classified as a DFM (DSE 2012a) and is currently classified as POF (DSE 2012b) (Appendix C). It is supplied with good quality fresh water diverted through (First) Reedy Lake and is maintained at a maximum depth of 74.88 mAHD with small fluctuations to a minimum level of 74.57 mAHD.

The bathymetry of Middle (Reedy) Lake shows that the surface area of water at maximum depth is 178.8 ha. The depth of the wetland at maximum depth is about two metres (bed depth at 72.84 mAHD) and the bed shows a gradual incline about 400 mm half a metre to the lignum community (73.2 mAHD) that curves around the centre on the western and southern sides of the wetland. The lignum community is under a depth ranging between 1.68 m (depth of bed 73.2mAHD) and 1.28 metres (depth of bed 73.6 mAHD) when the wetland is at maximum depth. The bed inclines gradually past the lignum community to the western and southern edges, where as the eastern and north eastern edges have sharp incline to the high water mark due to a levy bank.

Middle (Reedy) Lake has historically supported large waterbird populations and waterbird breeding events. The most recent records show that the wetland still supports a significant rookery for Australian White Ibis, Straw-necked Ibis and Royal Spoonbill (KBR 2011). The lignum community used for nesting by the colonial waterbirds in Middle (Reedy) Lake is an anomaly being the only known lignum community that thrives under permanent inundation in Australia (Roberts and Marston 2011). Other waterbirds also frequent the wetland for feeding and breeding (Ho et al 2006). The wetland also contains fish, Eastern Long-necked and Murray turtles and had the highest species rich frog populations. The fauna recorded at Middle (Reedy) Lake are provided in Appendix A.

The overall wetland condition was assessed as moderate during the statewide 2009 IWC assessment (DSE 2009) (Figure 3). The hydrology was assessed as being in very poor condition which is related to the artificial flow regime and the permanence of the inundation. The biota score was moderate due to the extensive coverage and health of the lignum community.

Figure 3: Middle (Reedy) Lake Index of Wetland Condition report card (DSE, 2009)

The proposed water regime scenarios and the rationale for selecting them are presented in Table 7. Table 7 also documents the ecological values that the water regime scenario is likely to support. Appendix A cross references the water regime scenarios with the water regime requirements of the ecological values present at Middle (Reedy) Lake.

IWC Report Card


Wetland name: Middle Lake




Wetland catchment 10.5 / 20 Moderate



Water Properties 16.67 / 20 Good


Overall Biota 14.87 / 20 Moderate


14

Table 7: Water Regime Scenarios proposed for Middle (Reedy) Lake

Scenario Regime Other information Rationale Notes

Dry - Episodic Frequency of wetting – 1 in 2 years

Timing – Winter/Spring

Depth – Yr 1 to maximum depth 74.85 mAHD Yr 2 – no fill

Duration – 1-4 months

If this scenario was adopted bird breeding events would need to be monitored closely and top ups may be required to ensure nests are not abandoned.


This regime is the driest regime that can be implemented, based on historical unregulated inflows from the Loddon River. As it is highly dependent on flows within the Loddon catchment from (First) Reedy Lake it would be very vulnerable to climatic conditions under this scenario.

This regime is not expected to support ongoing fish communities and emergent vegetation such as sedges and rushes may be impacted. Lignum is expected to enter periods of dormancy which may limit the strength of the shrubs to support nesting colonial birds (i.e. ibis and spoonbills) (Appendix A).



15



Frequency of filling- 1 in 4 years

Timing – Winter/ Spring

Depth – Yr 1 74.85 mAHD Yr 2 3 – fill to 73.85 mAHD Yr 4 – no fill

Duration – maintain at 73.85 m AHD.

Fill to maximum depth (74.85 mAHD) 1 in 4 years and 73.85 mAHD (average 0.5 m water depth around lignum community) 2 in 4 years. Allow wetland to drawdown to 73.85 mAHD. Top-ups may be required to maintain wetland depth.

This regime is based on deep freshwater marsh (previous classification of this wetland) but is conservatively maintaining an average depth of 1m under the lignum community. Middle (Reedy) Lake supports an anomalous Lignum Community that thrives under permanent inundation. This is the only lignum community of its kind in Australia (Roberts and Marston 2011). This regime will continue to support the large scale breeding events of the Australian White Ibis, Straw-necked Ibis and Royal Spoonbill. This will ensure that Middle (Reedy) Lake continues to meet the Ramsar Criteria 3 and 5 (KBR 2011).

If this regime is adopted it will increase the representation of deep freshwater marsh in the Kerang lakes Wetland site by 2%

Transition would need to occur with close monitoring of the lignum community. Duration will depend on evaporation rates.

16



Frequency- 9 in 10 years to maximum depth

Timing Winter/Spring

Depth – 74.85 mAHD

Duration – allow drawdown through evaporation to 74.45 mAHD two years in a row.

Top ups required. Allow to drawdown to 74.45 mAHD through natural evaporation. Exceed this 2 years on a row.

This regime is based on the recommended limits of acceptable change to Middle (Reedy) Lake’s hydrological baseline condition from KBRs (2011) draft Ecological Character Description. It is extremely conservative and biased towards current values but allows for greater fluctuation than is currently available through the operation of the wetland as part of the irrigation system.

This regime is expected to maintain the fish communities and benefit the littoral vegetation through small fluxes.

Fluctuation will promote littoral activity.

Permanent Open Freshwater Lake

No change No change The existing water regime will be maintained if the project does not demonstrate that water savings can be achieved without adversely affecting the ecological values of the wetland. Maintaining the existing regime will not improve the hydrology rating under the IWC assessment.

Maintains Status quo. Dependent on operation of the system in terms of maintenance.

17

4.3 Third (Reedy) Lake

Historically Third (Reedy) Lake was classified as a DFM (DSE 2012a) and is currently classified as POF (DSE2012b). It is supplied with good quality fresh water through (First) Reedy and Middle (Reedy) Lakes and is maintained at a maximum depth of 74.56 mAHD with small fluctuations to a minimum level of 74.2 mAHD.

The bathymetry of Third (Reedy) Lake shows that the surface area of water at maximum depth is 231.6 ha. The depth of the wetland at maximum depth is 1.36 m (bed depth 73.2 mAHD) and the bed shows a slight gradient of 0.4 m to the littoral zone at 73.6 mAHD.

Third (Reedy) Lake has historically supported large waterbird populations and waterbird breeding events. KBR (2011) did not mention bird breeding at Third (Reedy) Lake in setting limits of acceptable change; however Ho et al (2006) noted that small rookeries existed for Australian White Ibis and Straw-necked ibis. Other waterbirds frequent the wetland and the wetland also contains fish, turtle and frog populations. The fauna recorded at Third (Reedy) Lake are provided in Appendix A.

The overall wetland condition was assessed as moderate during the statewide 2009 IWC assessment (DSE 2009) (Figure 4). The hydrology was assessed as being in very poor condition which is related to the artificial flow regime and the permanence of the inundation. The biota score was poor which was due to high percentage of weed species present in each of the EVCs.

Figure 4: Third (Reedy) Lake Index of Wetland Condition report card (DSE, 2009)

The proposed water regime scenarios and the rationale for selecting them are presented in Table 8. Table 8 also documents the ecological values that the water regime scenario is likely to support. Appendix A cross references the water regime scenarios with the water regime requirements of the ecological values present at Third (Reedy) Lake.

IWC Report Card


Wetland name: Third Lake




Wetland catchment 2.0 / 20 Very Poor





Overall Biota 12.42 / 20 Poor


18

Table 8: Water regime scenarios proposed for Third (Reedy) Lake

Scenario Regime Other information

Rationale Notes

Dry- episodic Frequency of wetting - 1 in 4 years


Depth – Yr 1 74.56 mAHD

Yrs 2 to 4 no fill.

Duration- up to 10 months*

Fill to maximum depth 1 in 4 years.

No top-ups


This regime is the driest regime that can be implemented, based on historical unregulated inflows from the Loddon River. As it is highly dependent on flows within the Loddon catchment from (First) Reedy Lake and Middle (Reedy) Lake it would be very vulnerable to climatic conditions under this scenario.

This regime is not expected to support ongoing fish communities and emergent vegetation such as sedges and rushes may be impacted. Lignum is expected to enter periods of dormancy which may limit the strength of the shrubs to support nesting colonial birds (i.e. ibis and spoonbills) (Appendix A).

Transition would need to occur. Based on unregulated flows of the Loddon River that vulnerable to climate variability.

19


Rationale Notes




Depth Yr 1 74.56 mAHD Yr 2 74.2 mAHD Yr 3 – no fill


Fill to varying levels- 74.56 and 1m. Allow wetland to drawdown but maintain some depth and extent.

Top ups may be required to maintain water in wetland for required duration.

This regime is based on an intermittent wetland and deep freshwater marsh water requirements. Due to the shallow nature of the wetland it is expected that parts of the wetland will evaporate quickly and that the wetland will be dry in the dry year. This is expected to, over time, allow trees (e.g. red gums) to regenerate and return the wetland to a more natural state (i.e. evidenced by dead trees in the lake). This will over time provide more habitat for tree nesting birds (such as Egrets (JAMBA/CAMBA) and Cormorants (FFG)).

If this regime is adopted it will increase the representation of deep freshwater marsh representation by 2.4%.

Duration will depend on evaporation rates. Based on output of Scenario 1, we will understand the rate of drawdown and then need to factor in top-ups- volume and frequency. Some iteration will be required.

20


Rationale Notes


Frequency of wetting – annually

Fill Winter/Spring

Depth - 74.56 mAHD

Duration-12 months – allow to evaporate by 1m (to 73.74mAHD) at least two years on a row

Top-ups required. Allow to vary up to 1000mm through natural evaporation two years in a row

This regime is based on the recommended limits of acceptable change for the hydrology identified in the unpublished Ecological Character Description. It is extremely conservative and biased towards current values but allows for greater fluctuation than is currently available through the operation of the wetland as part of the irrigation system.

This regime is expected to enhance the littoral vegetation.

No drying cycle


No change No change The existing water regime will be maintained if the project does not demonstrate that water savings can be achieved without adversely affecting the ecological values of the wetland. Maintaining the existing regime will not improve the hydrology or overall biota ratings under the IWC assessment.


21

4.4 Little Lake Charm (including Scott’s Swamp)

Little Lake Charm’s (including Scott’s Swamp) 1788 wetland classification is Shallow Freshwater Marsh (SFM) (DSE 2012a). The current classification is POF (DSE 2012b).

Goulburn Murray Water has no records of the levels in Little lake Charm however its maximum depth is 73.95 mAHD and G-MW has advised that it has been kept at or near maximum depth permanently (John Ginnivan pers. comm.)

The bathymetry of Little Lake Charm (including Scott’s Swamp) shows that the surface area of water at maximum depth is 73.47 ha. The depth of the wetland at maximum depth is about 1.65 m (at bed depth of the bed 72.3 mAHD) in the lake bed. The length of Scott’s Swamp at the time of the survey was filled with silt, and the depth of the swamp to the top of the silt is about 650mm (to 73.3mAHD). The lake bed shows a gradual incline of about 900mm the littoral zone at 73.2 mAHD. The surface area of the littoral zone is 34.9 ha.

A number of birds have been recorded using Little Lake Charm as a feeding site (Ho et al 2006), no breeding at the sight has been documented. Fish, turtles and frogs are also present at the wetland (Ho et al 2006). Little Lake Charm (including Scott’s Swamp) was not included in the 2009 statewide IWC assessment. The fauna previously recorded at Little Lake Charm is documented in Appendix A.

The proposed water regime scenarios and the rationale for selecting them are presented in Table 9. Table 9 also documents the ecological values that the water regime scenario is likely to support. Appendix A cross references the water regime scenarios with the water regime requirements of the ecological values present at Little Lake Charm.

22

Table 9: Water Regime Scenarios proposed for Little Lake Charm


Dry- episodic Frequency of wetting - 1 in 4 years


Depth Yr 1 73.95 mAHD Yr 2-4 no fill


No top-ups


This regime is based on unregulated flows from the Loddon River with a regulated supply from the Murray one in four to five years as a contingency. It is the driest regime recommended and will significantly change current values.

This regime is not expected to support long term fish communities and may be too dry to the aquatic macrophyte communities.

This regime may also pose the risk of saline groundwater intrusion when the wetland is empty depending on the hydrogeology of the area.



Shallow Freshwater Marsh- intermittent

Frequency- 4 in 5 years


Depth Yr 1 – 73.95 mAHD Yr 2,3,4 – 72.75 mAHD Yr 5 – no fill

Duration- 4 months

Fill to 72.75 mAHD 3 in 5 years for four months. Fill to maximum depth (73.95 mAHD) 1-5 years to allow inundation of littoral vegetation. Allow wetland evaporate naturally.

This regime will return the lake to a shallow freshwater marsh conditions. This regime is expected to support mud foraging water birds and will enhance the littoral vegetation communities.

If this regime is adopted this would increase the representation of Shallow Freshwater Marsh in the Kerang Wetlands Ramsar site by 1.5%.

Transition would need to occur. Values may be impacted.

This regime would require an initial period of filling and drying that would ensure Red Gum saplings could be sufficiently established before being substantially inundated.

23



Frequency- 8/9 in 10 years

Fill Winter/Spring

Duration-12 months+

Top-ups required. Allow to drawdown to 72.95 mAHD through natural evaporation. Exceed this 2 years in a row.

This regime is based on the recommended hydrological limits of acceptable change described in the draft Ecological Character Description (KBR 2011). It is extremely conservative and biased towards current values but allows for greater fluctuation than is currently available through the operation of the wetland as part of the irrigation system.

This regime is expected to enhance the littoral vegetation.

Drying cycle may enhance values by increasing productivity of wetland. Fluctuation will facilitate littoral productivity.


No change No change The existing water regime will be maintained if the project does not demonstrate that water savings can be achieved without adversely affecting the ecological values of the wetland. This will not improve the hydrology or ecological values recorded at the site.


24

4.5 Racecourse Lake

Historically Racecourse Lake was classified as a POF (DSE 2012a) and is currently classified as POF (DSE2012b). Historical wetland mapping shows that Racecourse Lake was almost completely divided into two lakes through the middle (Appendix C) DSE (2012a). It is supplied with good quality fresh water through the Reedy Lakes and the number 7 channel through Little Lake Charm. Goulburn Murray Water has no records of the levels in Racecourse Lake however its maximum depth is 73.95 mAHD and G-MW has advised that it has been kept at or near maximum depth permanently (John Ginnivan pers. comm.).

The bathymetry of Racecourse Lake shows that the surface area of water at maximum depth is 238.4 ha. The depth of the wetland at maximum depth is 2.55 m on both sides (bed depth 71.4 mAHD). The bed on the left side shows a strong incline over a metre to the littoral zone at 73.0 mAHD and on the right side shows a gradual incline over about 600mm to 72.0 metres then a sharp incline up to the littoral zone at 73.0 mAHD. The surface area of the littoral zone is 32.36 ha.

Racecourse Lake is not noted as a site that supports bird breeding events in DSE 2006 or KBR 2011, however waterbirds were observed feeding (in Racecourse Lake during the Ho et al (2006) study. The wetland also contains a species rich but low to moderately abundant fish population, and also has turtle and frog populations. The fauna recorded at Racecourse Lake are provided in Appendix A.

The overall wetland condition was assessed as good during the statewide 2009 IWC assessment (DSE 2009) (Figure 4). The hydrology was assessed as being in very poor condition which is related to the artificial flow regime and the permanence of the inundation. The biota score was moderate which was due some EVCs having a low percentage of weeds present.

Figure 5: Racecourse Lake Index of Wetland Condition report card (DSE, 2009)

IWC Report Card


Wetland name: Racecourse Lake




Wetland catchment 8.5 / 20 Poor





Overall Biota 13.88 / 20 Moderate


25

Table 10: Water regime scenarios proposed for Racecourse Lake


Rationale Notes

Dry- episodic Frequency of wetting- 1 in 4 years


Depth Yr 1 73.93mAHD Yr 2 – 4 no fill


Fill to maximum depth (73.93 mAHD) 1 in 4 years. No top-ups


This regime is the driest regime that can be implemented, based on historical unregulated inflows from the Loddon River. As it is highly dependent on flows within the Loddon catchment Racecourse Lake would be very vulnerable to climatic conditions.

This regime is not expected to support fish communities and emergent vegetation such as sedges and rushes may be impacted.

Salinity impacts could be severe with only periodic inundation. This may result in the wetland becoming saline with a consequent change in vegetation and habitat.

26


Rationale Notes

Deep Freshwater Marsh - Intermittent



Depth Yr 1 74.56 mAHD Yr 2 74.2 mAHD Yr 3 – no fill


This regime is based on an intermittent water regime for a deep freshwater marsh wetland. Racecourse lake was previously classified as a POF, however the DSE interactive mapping tool shows the lake was almost completely divided into two indicating the depth of the lake was much lower prior to development.

This regime may not support ongoing fish communities depending on evaporation rates and length of inundations.

It is expected to support a diversity of habitat (such as aquatic macrophytes and lignum) and water birds, and targets enhancing and extend the littoral vegetation communities.

If this regime was adopted it would increase the percentage of Deep Freshwater Marsh in the Kerang Wetland Ramsar Site by 2.4%


Permanent- 9 in 10 years

Timing Winter/Spring

Depth - 73.93 mAHD

Duration-12 months

Top-ups required. Allow to vary with evaporation

Allow to vary by 1m

Rationale: this regime maintains the lake as permanent but allows for fluctuation in levels, exposing littoral zones and increasing productivity. Lake is deep so would retain water for long periods.

*drying introduced. KBR recommend no drying.

Allow to dry occasionally

27


Rationale Notes


No change No change The existing water regime will be maintained if the project does not demonstrate that water savings can be achieved without adversely affecting the ecological values of the wetland. Maintaining the existing regime will not improve the hydrology rating under the IWC assessment.


28

References

Brock MA, Nielsen Dl, Shiel RJ, Green JD and Langley JD (2003). Drought and aquatic community resilience: the role of eggs and seeds in sediments of temporary wetlands. Freshwater Biology 48: 1207–1218 cited in Roberts and Marston (2011).

Corrick AH and Norman FI (1980). Wetlands of Victoria 1. Wetlands and waterbirds of the Snowy River and Gippsland Lakes Catchment. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria

DEWHA (2009). National Guidelines for Notifying Change in Ecological Character of Australian Ramsar Sites (Article 3.2). Module 3 of the National Guidelines for Ramsar Wetlands—Implementing the Ramsar Convention in Australia. Australian Government Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra.

DSE (2006) Kerang Lakes Ecological character Description, Compiled by Pam Clunie, Department of Sustainability and Environment, Bendigo.

DSE (2009). Index of Wetland Condition Data Management System. Sighted 6 July 2012 at: http://iwc.dse.vic.gov.au/iwc/dms/welcome

DSE (2012a). Data Source: ‘WETLAND_1788’, © The State of Victoria, Department of Sustainability and Environment. The contribution of the Royal Botanical Gardens Melbourne to the data is acknowledged. Accessed: May 2012.

DSE (2012b). Data Source: ‘WETLAND_1994’, © The State of Victoria, Department of Sustainability and Environment. The contribution of the Royal Botanical Gardens Melbourne to the data is acknowledged. Accessed: May 2012.

Ho S, Roberts J, Cheers G and Suitor L (2006). Development and application of an ecological monitoring and mapping program for targeted Kerang lakes. Technical Report 6/2000. Report prepared by the Murray-Darling Freshwater Research Centre, Mildura for the North Central Catchment Management Authority.

KBR (2011). Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Site: Ecological Character Description. Draft report prepared by Kellogg Brown and Root, St Kilda, Victoria for the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water Population and Communities.

Lewis WM (2009). Ecological zonation in lakes. In; Likens E (Ed), Encyclopedia of inland waters: lake ecosystem ecology. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

North Central CMA (2011). Kerang Lakes Water Savings Project Investigation: Literature Review, Prepared for the Northern Victoria Irrigation Renewal Project, North Central Catchment Authority, Huntly, Victoria.

Roberts J and Marston F (2011). Water regime for wetland and floodplain plants: A source book for the Murray-Darling Basin. National Water Commission, Canberra, ACT.

Rogers K and Ralph TL (Eds) (2011). Floodplain wetland biota in the Murray-Darling Basin: water and habitat requirements. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Victoria.

SKM (2010). Environmental water regime requirements of the Kerang Lakes; review of system losses, identification of environmental water regimes and potential water savings. Report prepared for Goulburn-Murray Water.

Stoessel D (2012). In search of translocation sites for Murray Hardyhead. Unpublished draft report. Department of Sustainability and Environment.

http://iwc.dse.vic.gov.au/iwc/dms/welcome

29

Appendix A – Ecological Values

(First) Reedy Lake

Table 11: Bird species recorded at (First) Reedy Lake (source: NCCMA, 2011)

Common Name Scientific Name EPBC status

Intern-ational

FFG status

DSE Status

Last record

Source Notes

Fauna - Birds

Australian Pelican Pelecanus conspicillatus

2006 Ho et al. 2006

Open water, loafing and feeding, Littoral perched on veg, loafing, Littoral water, loafing (Ho et al. 2006)

Australian Shelduck Tadorna tadornoides

2006 Ho et al. 2006

Open water, loafing (Ho et al. 2006)

Australasian Shoveler

Anas rhynchotis

v

GIS

Australian White Ibis

Threskiornis molucca

2001 Clunie 2010

Recorded breeding events (1996, 2001) (KBR 2011)

Black Swan Cygnus atratus

2006 Ho et al. 2006

Open water, loafing (Ho et al. 2006)

Blue-billed Duck Oxyura australis

L e

SKM 2001

Darter Anhinga melanogaster

2006 Ho et al. 2006

Riparian perched on veg, loafing (Ho et al 2006)

Dusky Moorhen Gallinula tenebrosa

2005 Ho et al. 2006

Littoral on water (Ho et al. 2006)

Eastern Great Egret Ardea modesta

J/C L v

SKM 2010

Freckled Duck Stictonetta naevosa

L e

GIS

Great Egret Ardea alba

J/C L v

GIS

Grey Teal Anas gracilis

2005 Ho et al. 2006

Littoral on water, loafing (Ho et al. 2006)

Hardhead Aythya australis

v

GIS

Intermediate Egret Ardea intermedia

L c

GIS

Pacific Black Duck Anas superciliosa

2006 Ho et al. 2006

Open water, loafing Littoral on water, loafing

30


Intern-ational

FFG status

DSE Status

Last record

Source Notes

Riparian on water, loafing (Ho et al. 2006)

Pied Cormorant Phalacrocorax varius

n 2006 GIS and Ho et al. 2006

Littoral perched on veg, loafing (Ho et al. 2006)

Pink-eared Duck Malacorhynchus membranaceus

2005 Ho et al. 2006

Littoral on water, loafing (Ho et al. 2006)

Purple Swamphen Porphyrio porphyrio

2006 Ho et al. 2006

Riparian on ground, feeding, breeding Dry land on ground, feeding Dry land perched on veg, feeding/wading (Ho et al. 2006)

Royal Spoonbill Platalea regia

v 2006 GIS and Ho et al. 2006

Riparian perched on veg, feeding young (1 individual) (Ho et al. 2006) Last recorded breeding (1996, 2001) (KBR 2011)

Whiskered Tern Chlidonias hybridus

n

GIS

White-bellied Sea-Eagle

Haliaeetus leucogaster

C L v

GIS

White-winged Black Tern

Chilidonias leucopterus

n

SKM 2010

Yellow Spoonbill Platalea flavipes

1996 Clunie 2010

Last known breeding event 1996 (KBR 2011)

Table 12: Fish and other species recorded at (First) Reedy Lake (Source: NCCMA, 2011)


FFG status

DSE Status

Source Notes

Fauna - Fish

Australian Smelt Retropinna semoni Ho et al. 2006

Most abundant species recorded at First (Reedy) Lake during Ho et al (2006) study representing >50% of the catch (Ho et al. 2006). Much less abundant in May 2012 (only 2 species found) (Stoessel 2012)

Bony bream Nematalosa erebi Ho et al. 2006

Carp Gudgeon Hypseleotris compressa Ho et al. 2006

Common Carp* Cyprinus carpio Ho et al. Most abundant species found in May 2012 (Stoessel 2012)

31


FFG status

DSE Status

Source Notes

Flathead Gudgeon Philypnodon grandiceps Ho et al. 2006

Fly-specked (Unspecked) Hardyhead

Craterocephalus stercusmuscarum

L SKM 2010 and Ho et al. 2006

One individual captured during Ho et al (2006) study. Two individuals

Freshwater Catfish Tandanus tandanus L e SKM 2010 Not found in Ho et al (2006) study

Gambusia* Gambusia holbrooki Ho et al. 2006

Golden Perch Macquaria ambigua v SKM 2010 and Ho et al. 2006

Likely to be the result of stocking rather than natural recruitment (Ho et al. 2006)

Goldfish* Carassius auratus Ho et al. 2006

Macquarie Perch Macquaria australasica EN L e SKM 2010

Murray Cod Maccullochella peelii peelii

VU L SKM 2010 and Ho et al. 2006

Tagged – likely to be the result of stocking rather than natural recruitment (Ho et al. 2006)

Murray Rainbowfish

Melanotaenis fluviatilis L SKM 2010 and Ho et al. 2006

(First) Reedy Lake was the only wetland that this species was captured at during Ho et al (2006) and DSE (2012) studies. One individual found in 2012 study.

Redfin Perch* Perca fluviatilis Ho et al. 2006

Silver Perch Bidyanus bidyanus L c SKM 2010 Not found in Ho et al (2006) study

Fauna - Other

Eastern Long-necked Turtle

Chelodina longicollis Two individuals found during Ho et al (2006) study

Murray River Turtle Emydura macquarii

d Juvenile turtles found during Ho et al (2006) study indicating recruitment

Bibron's Toadlet Pseudophryne bibroni Ho et al (2006) estimated 1 individual

Peron's Tree Frog Litoria peroni Ho et al (2006) estimated 3 individuals

Spotted Grass Frog Limnodynastes tasmaniensis

Between 10-15 present during Ho et al (2006) study

*Exotic species

32

Table 13: Flora species recorded at (First) Reedy Lake (Source: NCCMA 2011)

Common Name Scientific Name EPBC status FFG status DSE Status Last record Source

Flora Species

Berry Saltbush Atriplex semibaccata 1990 GIS

Blackseed Glasswort Tecticornia pergranulata 1990 GIS

Brome Bromus spp. 1990 GIS

Brown Beetle-grass Leptochloa fusca subsp. fusca Rare GIS

Charophytes Characeae

Ho et al. 2006

Coast Sand-spurrey Spergularia media s.l. 1990 GIS

Couch Cynodon dactylon 1990 GIS

Cumbungi Typha spp.

Ho et al. 2006

Narrow-leaf Cumbungi Typha domingensis 1990 GIS

Nitre Goosefoot Chenopodium nitrariaceum 1990 GIS

Nodding Saltbush Einadia nutans subsp. nutans 1990 GIS

Poison Pratia Lobelia concolor 1990 GIS

Poong'ort Carex tereticaulis 1990 GIS

Rat-tail Grass Sporobolus spp. 1990 GIS

River Club Rush Schoenoplectus validus

Ho et al. 2006

River Club-sedge Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani 1990 GIS

Slender Knotweed Persicaria decipiens 1990 GIS

Southern Cane-grass Eragrostis infecunda 1990 GIS

Spiny Flat-sedge Cyperus gymnocaulos 1990 GIS

Spiny Lignum Muehlenbeckia horrida subsp. horrida Rare GIS

Spiny Rush* Juncus acutus SKM 2001

Swamp Buttercup Ranunculus undosus Vulnerable SKM 2001

Swamp Crassula Crassula helmsii 1990 GIS

Tall Fireweed Senecio runcinifolius 1990 GIS

Tangled Lignum Muehlenbeckia florulenta 1990 GIS

Tassel Sedge Carex fascicularis 1990 GIS

Twin-leaf Bedstraw Asperula gemelia Rare SKM 2010

Water Couch Cynodon dactylon SKM 2001

33

Middle (Reedy) Lake

Table 14: Bird species recorded at Middle (Reedy) Lake (source: NCCMA 2011)


Intern-ational

FFG status

DSE Status

Last record

Source Notes

Fauna - Birds

Australasian Shoveler

Anas rhynchotis

v

GIS


2006 Ho et al. 2006

Perched on vegetation in the littoral zone, on open water, loafing (Ho et al 2006)


2006 Ho et al. 2006

On open water, loafing, breeding (49 individuals/ 10 young), perched on vegetation loafing, on open water in littoral zone, feeding (Ho et al 2006)

Australian White Ibis

Threskiornis molucca

2006 Ho et al. 2006

Perched on vegetation over open water, breeding (400 individuals 2005, 134 young birds Feb 2006) (Ho et al. 2006) Recorded breeding events (1985,1988, 1993, 1998, 2001,2003, 2005) (KBR 2010) 10% of breeding population (DSE, 2006)

Australian Wood Duck

Chenonetta jubata

2006 Ho et al. 2006

On water in littoral zone loafing (Ho et al 2006)


2006 Ho et al. 2006

On open water, feeding, on water in littoral zone, loafing (Ho et al 2006)

Black-tailed Native-hen

Gallinula ventralis

2005 Ho et al. 2006

On ground in riparian zone, feeding (Ho et al 2006)

Blue-billed Duck Oxyura australis

L e

GIS

Caspian Tern Sterna caspia

J/C L n

GIS


2006 Ho et al. 2006

perched on vegetation on open water and in littoral zone, loafing (1 individual nesting) (Ho et al 2006)

Dusky Moorhen Gallinula tenebrosa

1988 DSE 2006


J/C L v

SKM 2010

Eurasian Coot Fulica atra

2006 Ho et al. On water in littoral zone, loafing (Ho et al 2006)

34


Intern-ational

FFG status

DSE Status

Last record

Source Notes

2006


L e

GIS

Great Cormarant Phalacrocorax carbo

2005 Ho et al. 2006

Perched on vegetation in the littoral zone, loafing (1 individual) (Ho et al 2006)

Great Egret Ardea alba

J/C L v

GIS

Hardhead Aythya australis


In water over riparian zone, loafing (Ho et al 2006)

Little Black Cormarant

Phalacrocorax sulcirostris

2006 Ho et al. 2006

Perched on vegetation in the littoral and riparian zones, loafing (Ho et al 2006)

Musk Duck Biziura lobata

v

GIS

Nankeen Night Heron

Nycticorax caledonicus

n

GIS


2006 Ho et al. 2006

Perched on vegetation in littoral zone and on water in riparian zone, loafing (Ho et al 2006)


n

GIS


2006 Ho et al. 2006

On water and in littoral and riparian zones and on the ground on dry land, loafing, feeding (Ho et al 2006)



Perched on vegetation over open water, breeding (205 individuals 2005, 208 individuals Jan 2006, 178 individuals Feb 2006), wading in water in littoral zone, feeding (Ho et al. 2006) Recorded breeding events (1985, 1988, 2001) (KBR, 2011) 5% of breeding population (DSE 2006)

Straw-necked Ibis Threskiornis spinicollis

2005 Ho et al. 2006

Perched on vegetation over open water, breeding (8000 individuals 2005, 3050 mostly young birds Feb 2006) (Ho et al. 2006) Recorded breeding events (1985, 1988, 1991, 1993, 2001, 2003, 2005) (KBR 2011) 10% breeding population (DSE 2006)

Swamp Harrier Circus approximans

2006 Ho et al. 2006

Flying in air over littoral zone, hunting (Ho et al 2006)


n

GIS

35


Intern-ational

FFG status

DSE Status

Last record

Source Notes

White-bellied Sea-Eagle

Haliaeetus leucogaster

C L v

GIS

Yellow Spoonbill Platalea flavipes

1991 DSE 2006 Recorded breeding events (1987, 1991) (KBR 2011)

Table 15: Fish and other species recorded at Middle (Reedy) Lake (Source: NCCMA, 2011)


FFG status

DSE Status

Notes

Fauna - Fish

Australian Smelt Retropinna semoni Most abundant species recorded during Ho et al (2006) study representing >50% of the catch (Ho et al. 2006)

Bony Bream Nematalosa erebi

Carp Gudgeon Hypseleotris compressa

Common Carp* Cyprinus carpio Juvenile indicated recent recruitment in Ho et al (2006) study

Flathead Gudgeon Philypnodon grandiceps

Fly-specked Hardyhead


L Eight individuals captured during Ho et al (2006) study

Freshwater Catfish Tandanus tandanus L e Not found in Ho et al (2006) study

Gambusia* Gambusia holbrooki

Goldfish* Carassius auratus

Golden Perch Macquaria ambigua v Not found in Ho et al (2006) study

Murray Cod Maccullochella peelii peelii

VU L Not found in Ho et al (2006) study

Redfin Perch* Perca fluviatilis Juvenile indicated recent recruitment in Ho et al (2006) study

Silver Perch Bidyanus bidyanus L c Not found in Ho et al (2006) study

Fauna - Other

Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis Last sighted in 1961 (DSE 2006), not samples in Ho et al (2006) study

Eastern Long-necked Turtle Chelodina longicollis

Four individuals found during Ho et al (2006) study

Murray River Turtle Emydura macquarii L d

Juvenile turtles found during Ho et al (2006) study indicating recruitment, some turtles were observed to have shell deformities indicating inadequate diet or inadequate exposure to ultraviolet light

Barking Marsh Frog Limnodynastes fletcheri A few (2-9) individuals present during Ho et al (2006) study

Bibron's Toadlet Pseudophryne bibroni A few (2-9) individuals present during Ho et al (2006) study

36


FFG status

DSE Status

Notes

Eastern Common Froglet Crinia signifera

One individual present during Ho et al (2006) study

Eastern Sign-Bearing Froglet Crinia parinsignifera

A few (2-9) individuals present during Ho et al (2006) study

Peron's Tree Frog Litoria peroni A few (2-9) individuals present during Ho et al (2006) study

Pobblebonk Limnodynastes dumerili One individual present during Ho et al (2006) study


A few (209) to lots (10-15) of individuals present during Ho et al (2006) study

*Exotic species

Table 16: Flora species recorded at Middle (Reedy) Lake (Source: NCCMA 2011)


FFG status

DSE Status Last record

Source

Flora Species

Brown Beetle-grass Leptochloa fusca subsp. fusca Rare SKM 2010

Common Spike-sedge Eleocharis acuta 1960 GIS

Cumbungi Typha domingensis Ho et al. 2006

Moss Sunray Hyalosperma demissum 1982 GIS

Nitre Goosefoot Chenopodium nitrariaceum 1960 GIS

Pervian Primrose Ludwigia peruviana SKM 2001

River Club Rush Schoenoplectus validus Ho et al. 2006

River Red Gums Eucalyptus camaldulensis SKM 2001

Rudy Ground Fern Hypolepis rugosula SKM 2001

Spiny Lignum Muehlenbeckia horrida subsp. horrida Rare SKM 2001

Spiny Rush* Juncus acutus SKM 2001

Tangled Lignum Muehlenbeckia florulenta SKM 2001


Water Milfoil Myriophyllum papillosum Ho et al. 2006

Water Primrose Ludwigia peploides SKM 2001

Melaleuca spp. ??

SKM 2001

37

Third (Reedy) Lake

Table 17: Bird species recorded at Third (Reedy) Lake (source: NCCMA 2011)


Intern-ational

FFG status

DSE Status

Last record

Source Notes

Fauna - Birds


2006 Ho et al. 2006

Perched on vegetation and on the water in the littoral zone, loafing (Ho et al 2006)


2006 Ho et al. 2006

On the water in the littoral zone and in open water, feeding, loafing (Ho et al 2006)

Australian White Ibis Threskiornis molucca

2006 Ho et al. 2006

Perched on vegetation in the littoral zone and a small rookery observed (Ho et al 2006)

Australian Wood Duck Chenonetta jubata

2006 Ho et al. 2006

On the water in the littoral zone, loafing (Ho et al 2006)


2006 Ho et al. 2006

On open water, loafing (Ho et al 2006)

Black-tailed Native-hen Gallinula ventralis

2005 Ho et al. 2006

On the ground in the littoral zone, feeding (Ho et al 2006)

Brown Treecreeper Climacteris picumnus

n

GIS


J/C L n 2006 GIS and Ho et al. 2006

On open water, flying skimming (Ho et al 2006)

Chestnut Teal Anas castanea

2006 Ho et al. 2006

On open water, loafing (Ho et al 2006)


2006 Ho et al. 2006

Perched on vegetation in the littoral zone and on open water, loafing (Ho et al 2006)

Great Cormarant Phalacrocorax carbo

2006 Ho et al. 2006

Perched on vegetation in the littoral zone and in open water, loafing, diving one nest observed (Ho et al 2006)


2006 Ho et al. 2006

On the water and perched on vegetation in the littoral zone, loafing (Ho et al 2006)

Little Pied Cormorant Phalacrocorax melanoleucos

2006 Ho et al. 2006

Perched on vegetation in the littoral zone, loafing (Ho et al 2006)


2006 Ho et al. 2006

On the water in the littoral zone and on open water, loafing (Ho et al 2006)


n 2006 GIS and Ho et al.


38


Intern-ational

FFG status

DSE Status

Last record

Source Notes

2006


2006 Ho et al. 2006

On the ground on dry land, feeding (Ho et al 2006)


v 2006 SKM 2010 and Ho et al 2006


Silver Gull Larus novaehollandiae

2006 Ho et al. 2006

On open water, flying skimming (Ho et al 2006)

Straw-necked Ibis Threskiornis spinicollis

2006 Ho et al. 2006

Perched on vegetation in the littoral zone and a small rookery observed (10 individuals) (Ho et al 2006)

White-bellied Sea-Eagle Haliaeetus leucogaster

C L v 1998 DSE 2006

White-faced Heron Egretta novaehollandiae

Ho et al 2006


Table 18: Fish and other species recorded at Third (Reedy) Lake (Source: NCCMA, 2011)


FFG status

DSE Status

Notes

Fauna - Fish

Australian Smelt Retropinna semoni

Most abundant species found in Ho et al (2006) study accounting for almost half the entire catch


Juveniles captured during Ho et al (2006) study indicating recruitment


Second most abundant species

Common Carp* Cyprinus carpio


Fly-specked Hardyhead Craterocephalus stercusmuscarum

L

Sampled during Ho et al (2006) study

Freshwater Catfish Tandanus tandanus

L e Not sampled in Ho et al (2006) study


Golden Perch Macquaria ambigua

v Sampled during Ho et al (2006) study

Murray Cod Maccullochella peelii peelii VU L

Sampled during Ho et al (2006) study

Redfin Perch* Perca fluviatilis

Silver Perch Bidyanus bidyanus

L c Not sampled in Ho et al (2006) study

39


FFG status

DSE Status

Notes

Fauna - Other


Three individuals found during Ho et al (2006) Study


L d Murray turtles found most abundant in Third (Reedy) Lake, individuals observed basking or swimming in addition to those captured (Ho et al 2006)

Barking Marsh Frog Limnodynastes fletcheri

A few (2-9) individuals estimated to be present during Ho et (2006) study

Peron's Tree Frog Litoria peroni



Lots (10-15) of individuals estimated to be present during Ho et (2006) study

Table 19: Flora species recorded at Third (Reedy) Lake (Source: NCCMA 2011)


FFG status

DSE Status Last record Source

Flora Species

Brown Beetle-grass Leptochloa fusca subsp. fusca Rare SKM 2010

Cumbungi Typha spp. Ho et al. 2006

Giant Rush Juncus ingens Ho et al. 2006


Tangled Lignum Muehlenbeckia florulenta SKM 2001



40

Little Lake Charm

Table 20: Bird species recorded at Little Lake Charm (source: NCCMA 2011)


Intern-ationa

FFG status

DSE Status

Last record

Source Notes

Fauna - Birds

Australian Pelican Pelecanus conspicillatus 2006 Ho et al. 2006

On the water and perched on vegetation on open water and in littoral zone, loafing, feeding (Ho et al. 2006)

Australian White Ibis Threskiornis molucca 2006 Ho et al. 2006

In the water in the littoral and riparian zones, feeding (Ho et al 2006)

Black Swan Cygnus atratus 2005 Ho et al. 2006

On water in littoral zone, loafing (Ho et al 2006)

Caspian Tern Sterna caspia J/C L n GIS

Eastern Great Egret Ardea modesta J/C L v SKM 2010

Great Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo 2006 Ho et al. 2006

Perched in vegetation in the littoral zone, loafing (Ho et al 2006)

Great Egret Ardea alba J/C L v GIS

Gull-billed Tern Sterna nilotica L e 2006 SKM 2010 and Ho et al. 2006

Flying over open water, diving (Ho et al 2006)

Hoary-headed Grebe Poliocephalus poliocephalus 2006 Ho et al. 2006

On the open water, loafing (Ho et al 2006)

Little Pied Cormorant Phalacrocorax melanoleucos 2006 Ho et al. 2006

Perched on vegetation on open water and littoral zone, loafing (Ho et al 2006)

Masked Lapwing Vanellus miles 2006 Ho et al. 2006

On the ground in dry land, feeding (Ho et al 2006)

Musk Duck Biziura lobata v GIS

Pacific Black Duck Anas superciliosa 2006 Ho et al. 2006

On the ground in dry land, on the water in the riparian zone, loafing, (Ho et al 2006)

41


Intern-ationa

FFG status

DSE Status

Last record

Source Notes

Pied Cormorant Phalacrocorax varius n 2006 GIS and Ho et al. 2006

Perched on posts and vegetation on open water, loafing (Ho et al 2006)

Purple Swamphen Porphyrio porphyrio 2006 Ho et al. 2006

On the ground in dry land and on the water in the littoral zone, feeding (Ho et al 2006)

Royal Spoonbill Platalea regia v 2006 GIS and Ho et al. 2006

In water in the riparian zone, feeding, on the ground, loafing (Ho et al 2006)

Swamp Harrier Circus approximans 2006 Ho et al. 2006

In the air over the littoral zone, hunting (Ho et al 2006)

Whiskered Tern Chlidonias hybridus n 2006 GIS and Ho et al. 2006

Flying over and perched on posts in open water, diving, loafing (Ho et al 2006)

Table 21: Fish and other species recorded at Little Lake Charm (Source: NCCMA, 2011)


FFG status

DSE Status

Source Notes

Fauna - Fish


Ho et al. 2006

Highly abundant in Ho et al (2006) study


Ho et al. 2006

Juvenile and large individuals found in moderate abundance in Ho et al (2006) study indicating recruitment.


Ho et al. 2006

Highly abundant in Ho et al (2006) study


Ho et al. 2006

Juvenile and large individuals found in Ho et al (2006) study indicating recruitment


Ho et al. 2006

Moderately abundant in Ho et al (2006) study

Fly-specked Hardyhead Craterocephalus stercusmuscarum

L

SKM 2010 and Ho et al. 2006

One individual sampled in Ho et al (2006) study


Ho et al.

42


FFG status

DSE Status

Source Notes

2006

Goldfish* Carassius auratus

Ho et al. 2006


Ho et al. 2006

Juvenile and large individuals found in Ho et al (2006) study indicating recruitment

Weatherloach* Misgurnus anguillicaudatus

Ho et al. 2006

One individual sampled in Ho et al (2006) study

Fauna - Other


Ho et al. 2006

Two individuals found during Ho et al (2006) study


L d

Ho et al. 2006

Seven individuals found during Ho et al (2006) study. A juvenile was also found indicating recruitment.

Barking Marsh Frog Limnodynastes fletcheri

Ho et al. 2006


Eastern Common Froglet Crinia signifera

Ho et al. 2006

One individual estimated to be present during Ho et (2006) study

Eastern Sign-Bearing Froglet

Crinia parinsignifera

Ho et al. 2006


Peron's Tree Frog Litoria peroni

Ho et al. 2006



Ho et al. 2006

A few (2-9) to many (>50) individuals estimated to be present during Ho et (2006) study

Table 22: Flora species recorded at Little Lake Charm (Source: NCCMA 2011)


FFG status

DSE Status

Last record

Source

Flora Species




Weeping Willow* Salix Babylonica Ho et al. 2006

*Exotic species

43

Racecourse Lake

Table 23: Bird species recorded at Racecourse Lake (Source NCCMA, 2011)


Intern-ational

FFG status

DSE Status

Last record

Source Notes

Fauna - Birds


2006 Ho et al. 2006

On the water and perched on vegetation in the littoral and riparian zones, loafing, swimming/feeding (Ho et al 2006)


2006 Ho et al. 2006

On the water in the littoral zone, loafing (Ho et al 2006)

Australian White Ibis Threskiornis molucca

2006 Ho et al. 2006

Perched on vegetation on dry land, loafing (Ho et al 2006)


2006 Ho et al. 2006

On the water in littoral zone and open water, loafing, feeding (Ho et al 2006)


J/C L n 2005 GIS


2006 Ho et al. 2006

Perched on vegetation in the littoral zone, loafing (Ho et al, 2006)


J/C L v SKM 2010


L e GIS

Great Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo

2006 Ho et al. 2006



2006 Ho et al. 2006

On the water in littoral zone, loafing (Ho et al 2006)

Little Black Cormorant Phalacrocorax sulcirostris

2006 Ho et al. 2006


Little Pied Cormorant Phalacrocorax melanoleucos

2006 Ho et al. 2006

Perched on vegetation and on the water in the riparian and littoral zones, loafing, feeding (Ho et al, 2006)

44


Intern-ational

FFG status

DSE Status

Last record

Source Notes

Musk Duck Biziura lobata

v GIS


2006 Ho et al. 2006

Perched on vegetation in the littoral zone and on open water, loafing (Ho et al, 2006)


n 2006 GIS and Ho et al 2006

Perched on vegetation in the riparian zone, loafing, On the water in the littoral zone, feeding (Ho et al 2006)


2006 Ho et al. 2006

On the ground in the riparian zone and on the water in the littoral zone, feeding (Ho et al 2006)

Swamp Harrier Circus approximans

2006 Ho et al. 2006

In the air over the littoral zone, hunting (Ho et al 2006)


n GIS

White-bellied Sea-Eagle Haliaeetus leucogaster

C L v 2006 SKM 2010 and Ho et al 2006

Perched on vegetation in the riparian zone, loafing (Ho et al 2006)

Table 24: Fish and other species recorded at Racecourse Lake (Source: NCCMA 2011)


FFG status

DSE Status

Last record

Source Notes

Fauna - Fish


2005 Ho et al. 2006

Found in low abundance (surprisingly) in Ho et al (2006) study


2005 Ho et al. 2006



2005 Ho et al. 2006

Found in low abundance (surprisingly) in Ho et al (2006) study


2005 Ho et al. 2006


45


FFG status

DSE Status

Last record

Source Notes


2005 Ho et al. 2006

Found in moderate abundance during Ho et al (2006) study

Fly-specked Hardyhead


L

2005 SKM 2010 and Ho et al 2006

Found in moderate abundance (when compared to other wetlands in the project area) during the Ho et al (2006) study


2005 Ho et al. 2006

Golden Perch Macquaria ambigua

v

Ho et al. 2006

Two small individuals sampled in Ho et al (2006)

Murray Cod Maccullochella peelii peelii VU L

SKM 2010 Not sampled in Ho et al (2006) study


2005 Ho et al. 2006


Silver Perch Bidyanus bidyanus

L c

SKM 2010

Fauna - Other

Eastern Long-necked Turtle

Chelodina longicollis

Ho et al. 2006

One individual found during Ho et al (2006) study


L d

Ho et al. 2006

Nine individuals found during Ho et al (2006) study

Bibron's Toadlet Pseudophryne bibroni

Ho et al. 2006



Ho et al. 2006

One to lots (10-15) individuals estimated to be present during Ho et (2006) study

Table 25: Flora species recorded at Racecourse Lake (Source: NCCMA 2011)

Common Name Scientific Name EPBC status FFG status


Flora Species

Charophytes Characeae Ho et al. 2006


Glossostigma Glossostigma Ho et al. 2006



46

Common Name Scientific Name EPBC status FFG status


Swamp Stonecrop Crassula helmsii Ho et al. 2006


Willow* Salix Ho et al. 2006

47

Appendix B

(First) Reedy Lake

Table 26: Ability of water regime scenarios to provide for ecological values present at (First) Reedy Lake

Legend:

O- marginal, could support but not ideal.

√- ideal conditions

X- will not support

Ecological Values

Role of Value Hydrological Requirements

Regime 1 – ‘Dry’

Regime 2 – DFM

Regime 3 – semi-permanent

Habitat 1 in 5 years, 1-4 months

2 in 3 years 7-10months

Annual Fill to Maximum depth (flux of greater than 600 mm)

Maintain permanent open water and associated mudflat habitat (>90% of (First) Reedy Lake).

Open water supports long term fish populations and deep water foraging water birds

Annual top-ups or filling sufficient to maintain greater than 1m depth over period. X (risk to

Murray Rainbowfish population)

X (depending on

evaporation rate)

√

Mudflat habitat supports foraging waterbirds such as Royal Spoonbill

Emergent aquatic vegetation

Sedges and rushes (1-2% of (First) Reedy

Filters water and adds biological activity to the lake.

Ducks and water fowl

Inundate annually (1 in up to 3 years is tolerable)

X (unless one in three year

adopted) √ √

Depth 0.3 to 1.5 m (edges)

√ √ √

48

Ecological Values



Regime 2 – DFM


Lake) (eg: Cumbungi, Reeds).

observed on littoral veg.

Duration 8-12 months if 1 in three years 6 months if flooded annually)

X √ √

Timing Autumn Winter (dry out late summer)

√ √ N/A

Shrubs (eg: Lignum 1-2% of (First) Reedy Lake) – Maintain and enhance Lignum c

Breeding habitat for waterbirds (particularly White Ibis, Straw-necked Ibis and Royal Spoonbill).

One in three years (can live with less but shrubs not likely to be strong enough for nesting)

X √ √

Depth up to one metre

√ √

O

Littoral zones primarily.

Too deep to sustain popn

in deeper areas.

Duration 3-7 months

√ √ O

Timing – not critical except for regeneration (autumn/winter)

√ √ √

Restore health and extend Black box trees (1-2% of (First)

Nesting and roosting habitat for waterbirds and raptors

Frequency 1/ 3-7 years

√ O X

Depth – not critical

√ √ √

49

Ecological Values



Regime 2 – DFM


Reedy Lake) (e.g. black box)

Duration – 2-3 months for moderate to good canopy and flowering

3-6 months for vigorous canopy

√ (moderate)

X (vigorous) √ O (too wet)

Timing – not critical (advised to follow natural inflow patterns and tailor to needs of understory (eg: lignum)

√ √ √

Restore health and extend River Red Gum trees

Nesting and roosting habitat

Frequency 1/3-7 years


adopted) √ √

Depth not critical √ √ √

Duration 2-4 months

√ √ √

Timing: not critical but more growth observed after spring summer

√ √ √

Fauna

Maintain fish eating waterbird populations (eg:

Habitat: Permanent Water X X √

Feeding

Crustaceans and fish

Permanent water (shoreline can recede)

X (unless fish stock

provided unlikely)

O (will when inundated)

√

50

Ecological Values



Regime 2 – DFM


Cormorants) Breeding – Stimulated by flooding, can breed anytime when food is suitable, but generally between spring and autumn. Will not nest in dead trees.

Frequency: 1/4 years (large floods) 1/2 years (small habitat maintenance floods)

Depth: not critical

Duration: 3 months after winter spring flood 6 months following autumn flood. Some sp. Will abandon nest if sudden onset of drought)

Timing: Following Winter/spring

√ (large flood)

√ √

Colonial waterbirds e.g. Egrets (JAMBA/CAMBA migratory species and FFG listed - Egrets have not been recorded breeding on (First) Reedy Lake.

Habitat – Roosting in trees in or near wetlands. Prefers permanent waterbodies on floodplain for feeding

X O (semi-

permanent) √

Feeding – forage for fish at depths of up to 30cm

X (unlikely unless fish

stock provided or connectivity

allows natural

migration)


stock provided or connectivity

allows natural

migration)

√

51

Ecological Values



Regime 2 – DFM


Breeding – Nesting in trees in wetlands with fringing or flooded trees. Nests are shallow platform of sticks woven together.

Frequency: 1 in 3-4 years large floods 1 in 1-2 years for habitat restoration). Breeding success follows a period of drying.

Depth: Not critical Duration: up to 12 months (depending on lag time 3-9 months) and breeding (3-4 months to fledging) Timing: Flooding to occur before November

√ (large flood only)

√ (provided flooding

occurs in line with

breeding season close

to November)

√ (but less success due

to permanent inundation)

Eg: Terns Habitat – wetlands with submerged and emergent vegetation. Roosts on muddy spits

X (except in wet years)

√ √

Feeding – forages on swamps or floodwaters with vegetated margins for fish, macroinvertebrates, frogs, reptiles and baby waterbirds.

√ √ √

52

Ecological Values



Regime 2 – DFM


Nesting occurs in inundated vegetation such as lignum or floating nests attached to submerged/ emergent vegetation. Terns will abandon nest if dry

Frequency: 1-5 years

Duration: 1-2 months

Depth: not critical but nest observed at 0.6 -1.8 m depth)

Timing: Following winter/spring flooding

√ √ √

Ducks (eg: Hardhead) (FFG Listed)

Habitat – opportunistic use of ephemeral wetlands will move to permanent open water with submerged and emergent aquatic vegetation during drought.

Frequency 1-2 years (hardhead duck lives for 3-4 years)


Depth: > 2 m

Timing: winter/spring flooding

X

X (2 in 5 could

provide adequate breeding stimulus)

√

Feeding – Aquatic plants and macro invertebrates.

Breeding – nesting occurs in densely vegetated wetlands (near open water)

Large Waders (eg: Royal Spoonbill)

Habitat: Roosting occurs in trees wetlands or farmland.

Frequency: 1 in every 4-5 years (large floods), 1 in 1-2 years (small floods)


√ √

53

Ecological Values



Regime 2 – DFM


Feeding: prefers shallow with short vegetation or terrestrial land away from wetland.

Duration: 8-9 month (up to 12)

Depth: 0.5 – 1 m


Breeding: nests over thick emergent vegetation such as reeds, rushes or lignum or in trees. Nest abandonment is likely if water recedes too quickly.

Fish

Low Flow and Wetland Opportunist (eg Carp Gudgeon and Murray Rainbow fish) (Murray rainbow fish FFG listed. First Reedy was the only where the Murray Rainbowfish

Habitat: prefer slow flowing water with submerged or emergent vegetation. Some sp. recorded moving through fishways. May move in and out of wetlands during high flow events. Variable salinities.

Frequency: Unknown, however evidence of recruitment to and from wetlands occur during high flow.

Duration: Unknown however need to monitor edge water level fluctuations to prevent egg losses.

Depth: >30cm, will

X X √

54

Ecological Values



Regime 2 – DFM


was captured during Ho et al (2006) study)

Feeding: Small invertebrates such as insects, detritus, zooplankton, algae. Flooding will increase food availability. Fish are prey for larger fish species such as Murray Cod.

lay eggs in edge vegetation.

Timing: Spawning not responsive to flooding

Breeding: Spawning when water temp >20ºC over summer period.. Spawning not related to flood, however eggs deposited in shallows may be exposed if edges dry out.

Main Channel Generalists and Wetland Opportunists (eg: Flathead Gudgeon, Bony Bream, Australian Smelt).

Habitat: Slow flowing or still waters around aquatic vegetation or woody debris.

Recruitment has been linked to high flow

Frequency: Unknown

Duration: Unknown

Depth: >30cm. Not critical, will lay eggs in edge vegetation.

Timing: Spawning not responsive to

X X √

55

Ecological Values



Regime 2 – DFM


Feeding: Detritus and algae (some sp also feed on insects and micro invertebrates) associated with littoral zone. Fish are prey for larger fish species such as Murray Cod

flooding.

Breeding: Spawn in slow moving waters near littoral vegetation. Larval and juvenile fish dispersion through floodwaters

Main Channel Specialists (eg: Murray Cod) (EPBC listed Murray Cod suspected to be Loddon Stocking)

Habitat: Deep pools (>2m) with woody debris. Prefers reaches with slow flow and high levels of cover. Moderate salinity tolerance (15,700 mg/L)

Frequency: Unknown although enhance recruitment after high flow due to increase in food sources.

Depth: > 2 m

Duration: Permanent Timing: not critical.

X X √

56

Ecological Values



Regime 2 – DFM


Feeding: Carnivorous crustaceans, small fish, frogs. Enhanced recruitment after flood due to increase in available food.

Breeding: Spring/Summer Does not require flood to spawn.

57

Middle (Reedy) Lake

Table 27: Ability of water regime scenarios to provide for ecological values present at Middle (Reedy) Lake

Legend:

O- marginal, could support but not ideal.

√- ideal conditions

X- will not support

Ecological Value Justification Hydrological Requirements

Regime 1 “dry”

Regime 2 - DFM

Regime 3 - POF

Habitat 1 in 2 years

1-4 months

Fill to Maximum depth 2/ 3-4 years. Maintain depth at 74.35m AHD permanently

Fill to maximum depth annually. Allow to fluctuate up to 400 mm 2/3 years

Permanent open water and associated mudflat habitat (~40% of Middle (Reedy) Lake).


Annual top-ups or filling sufficient to maintain greater than 1m depth over period.

X √ √



Sedges and rushes (~20% of (First) Reedy Lake) (eg: Cumbungi, Reeds).

Filters water and adds biological activity to the lake. Provides shelter for small wetland opportunist fish species.


O (depending on how dry it gets in 2nd

year)

√ √ Depth 0.3 to 1.5

m (edges)


58


Regime 1 “dry”

Regime 2 - DFM

Regime 3 - POF


Shrubs (eg: Lignum ~30% of Middle (Reedy) Lake)


One in three years (can live with less but shrubs not likely to be strong enough for nesting). Lignum

X √ √


Duration 3-7 months, The Lignum population in Middle Reedy is considered an anomaly as permanent inundation is generally detrimental (Roberts and Marston, 2011)


Restore health and extend Black box trees (~10% of (First) Reedy Lake) (e.g. black




√ (moderate canopy)

X (vigorous canopy)

√ X

59


Regime 1 “dry”

Regime 2 - DFM

Regime 3 - POF

box) Duration – 2-3

months for moderate to good canopy and flowering



Maintain fish eating waterbird populations (eg: Cormorants)

Habitat: Varied roosting requirement

Permanent Water X O √

Feeding



O √ √

Breeding – Stimulated by flooding, can breed anytime when food is suitable, but generally between spring and autumn. Will not nest in dead trees.


Depth: not critical



√ (small flood)

X (large flood)

√ √

60


Regime 1 “dry”

Regime 2 - DFM

Regime 3 - POF

Colonial waterbirds e.g. Egrets (JAMBA/CAMBA migratory species and FFG listed - Egrets have not been recorded breeding on Middle (Reedy) Lake.


X √ √


O (unless fish stocked

or connectivity

between other lakes

allows migration)

√ √




X √ √

Eg: Terns Habitat – wetlands with submerged and

√ √ √

61


Regime 1 “dry”

Regime 2 - DFM

Regime 3 - POF

emergent vegetation. Roosts on muddy spits


√ (not likely to provide

fish) √ √






√ √ √

Ducks (eg: Hardhead)


√ √ √

62


Regime 1 “dry”

Regime 2 - DFM

Regime 3 - POF





Depth: > 2 m


O (every second year may not be

optimal)

√ (parts of Middle

Reedy will be > 2m)

√

Large Waders (eg: Australian White Ibis).

Middle (Reedy) Lake meets the following Ramsar listing criteria 3b) Regularly supports substantial number of water fowl from particular groups. 3c) Regularly supports 1% of the individuals in a population of one species or sub-species



√ √ √

Breeding: nests over thick emergent vegetation such as reeds, rushes or lignum or in trees. Nest abandonment is water recedes to quickly.



Depth: 0.5 – 1 m


X √ √

63


Regime 1 “dry”

Regime 2 - DFM

Regime 3 - POF

Low Flow and Wetland Opportunist (eg Carp Gudgeon and Murray- Darling Rainbow fish) (Murray rainbow fish FFG listed)

Habitat: prefer slow flowing water with submerged or emergent vegetation. Some sp. recorded moving through fishways. May move in and out of wetlands during high flow events. Variable salinities.

X (depends on

connectivity to other

water bodies in drying phase)

√ √

Feeding: Small invertebrates such as insects, detritus, zooplankton, algae. Flooding will increase food availability. Fish are prey for larger fish species such as Murray Cod.

X √ √

64


Regime 1 “dry”

Regime 2 - DFM

Regime 3 - POF

Breeding: Spawning when water temp >20ºC over summer period.. Spawning not related to flood, however eggs deposited in shallows may be exposed if edges dry out.

Frequency: Unknown, however evidence of recruitment to and from wetlands occur during high flow.

Duration: Unknown however need to monitor edge water level fluctuations to prevent egg losses.

Depth: >30cm, will lay eggs in edge vegetation.

Timing: Spawning not responsive to flooding

X (depends on

connectivity to other

water bodies in drying phase)

√ √

Main Channel Generalists and Wetland Opportunists (eg: Flathead Gudgeon, Bony Bream, Australian Smelt).

Habitat: Slow flowing or still waters around aquatic vegetation or woody debris.

Recruitment has been linked to high flow

X √ √

Feeding: Detritus and algae (some sp also feed on insects and micro invertebrates) associated with littoral zone. Fish are prey for larger fish species such as Murray Cod

X √ √

65


Regime 1 “dry”

Regime 2 - DFM

Regime 3 - POF

Breeding: Spawn in slow moving waters near littoral vegetation. Larval and juvenile fish dispersion through floodwaters

Frequency: Unknown

Duration: Unknown

Depth: >30cm. Not critical, will lay eggs in edge vegetation.

Timing: Spawning not responsive to flooding.

X √ √

Main Channel Specialists (eg: Murray Cod) (EPBC listed Murray Cod suspected to be Loddon Stocking)

Habitat: Deep pools (>2m) with woody debris. Prefers reaches with slow flow and high levels of cover. Moderate salinity tolerance (15,700 mg/L)

X

O (Murray Cod territorial, smaller deep pool area may create problems)

√ Feeding: Carnivorous crustaceans, small fish, frogs. Enhanced recruitment after flood due to increase in available food.

Breeding: Spring/Summer Does not require flood to spawn.

Frequency: Unknown although enhance recruitment after high flow due to increase in food sources.

Depth: > 2 m

Duration: Permanent Timing: not critical.

X

O (drying phase will

create shallower

pool

√

66

Third (Reedy) Lake

Table 28: Ability of water regime scenarios to provide for ecological values present at Third (Reedy) Lake

Ecological Value

Justification Hydrological Requirements

Regime 1 - Regime 2 - Regime 3 -

Habitat ¼- years, 7-10 months

2/5 years Frequency 7-9 months

Annual Fill to maximum depth (flux of greater than 600 mm)

Fish: Maintain permanent open water and associated mudflat habitat (70% of Third (Reedy) Lake)


Annual top-ups required

X X √


Sedges and rushes (eg: Cumbungi, Reeds). Maintain and enhance emergent community (10% of Third Reedy)



X (unless one in three year adopted)

√ √


√ √ √


X √ √


√ √ X

67

Ecological Value



Restore health and extend black box trees (eg black box) (20% of Third Reedy)



X (unless one in three year adopted)

√ √


√ √ √



√ (moderate)

X (vigorous) √ √


√ √ √

Fauna


Habitat: Permanent Water

X X √

Feeding



X (unless fish stock provided

unlikely)

X (will when inundated)

√

68

Ecological Value





Depth: not critical



√ (large flood) √ √

eg Egrets (JAMBA CAMBA birds).


X X √



stock provided or connectivity allows natural

migration)


stock provided or connectivity allows natural

migration)

√

Breeding – Nesting in trees in wetlands with fringing or

Frequency: 1 in 3-4 years large floods 1 in 1-2 years for


√ (provided flooding occurs

in line with breeding

√ (but less success due to

permanent

69

Ecological Value



flooded trees. Nests are shallow platform of sticks woven together. No records of Egrets breeding in Thirds lake.

habitat restoration). Breeding success follows a period of drying.


season close to November)

inundation)



√ √


X X √

Nesting occurs in inundated vegetation such as lignum or floating nests



Depth: not

√ √ √

70

Ecological Value



attached to submerged/ emergent vegetation. Terns will abandon nest if dry

critical but nest observed at 0.6 -1.8 m depth)


Ducks (e.g.: Hardhead)


√ √ √


√ √ √




Depth: > 2 m


X

X (2 in 5 could provide

adequate breeding stimulus)

√

Large Waders (eg: Australian

Habitat: Roosting occurs

√ √ √

71

Ecological Value



White Ibis). in trees wetlands or farmland.


√ √




Depth: 0.5 – 1 m



√ √

Little Lake Charm

Table 29: Ability of water regime scenarios to provide for ecological values present at Little Lake Charm

Ecological Values



Regime 2 – SFM


Habitat 1/3-4 years, 1-4 months

Fill to 72.75m annually

Annual Fill to MAXIMUM DEPTH (flux of greater than 600 mm)

Fish

Maintain permanent

Open water supports long term fish populations and

Annual top-ups or filling sufficient to

X X √

72

Ecological Values



Regime 2 – SFM


open water and associated mudflat habitat

deep water foraging water birds

maintain greater than 1m depth over period.



Sedges and rushes (eg: Cumbungi, Reeds). Maintain and enhance emergent community.




adopted) √ √


√ √ √


X √ √


√ √ X

Shrubs (eg: Lignum Maintain and enhance Lignum c


One in three years (can live with less but shrubs not likely to be strong enough for nesting)

X √ √


√ √

O

Littoral zones

primarily. Too deep to

sustain popn in

73

Ecological Values



Regime 2 – SFM


deeper areas.

Duration 3-7 months

√ √ O


√ √ √

Restore health and extend Black box trees.



√ O X


√ √ √



√ (moderate)

X (vigorous) O √


√ √ √

Restore health and extend River Red Gum trees

Nesting and roosting habitat

Frequency 1/3-7 years X (unless one

in three year adopted)

√ √

Depth not critical

√ √ √

74

Ecological Values



Regime 2 – SFM


Duration 2-4 months

√ √ √

Timing: not critical but more growth observed after spring summer

√ √ √

Fauna


Habitat: Permanent Water X X √

Feeding



X (unless fish stock provided

unlikely)

O (will when inundated)

√



Depth: not critical



√ (large flood) √ √

Colonial waterbirds e.g. Egrets

Habitat – Roosting in trees in or near wetlands. Prefers permanent

X X √

75

Ecological Values



Regime 2 – SFM


waterbodies on floodplain for feeding



stock provided or

connectivity allows natural

migration)


stock provided or

connectivity allows natural

migration)

√






occurs in line with breeding season close

to November)

√ (but less success due

to permanent inundation)



√ √

Feeding – forages on swamps or floodwaters with vegetated

√ √ √

76

Ecological Values



Regime 2 – SFM


margins for fish, macroinvertebrates, frogs, reptiles and baby waterbirds.






√ √ √



√ (opportunistic)

√ (opportunistic)

√


O (aquatic plants not supported)

√ √

Breeding – nesting occurs in densely vegetated wetlands (near


Duration: 4-6

X

X (2 in 5 could provide


√

77

Ecological Values



Regime 2 – SFM


open water) months

Depth: > 2 m


Large Waders (eg: Australian White Ibis)



√ √ √




Depth: 0.5 – 1 m



√ √

78

Racecourse Lake

Table 30: Ability of water regime scenarios to provide for ecological values present at Racecourse Lake


Regime 1 - episodic

Regime 2 - intermittent


Habitat Fill to maximum depth 1 in 4 to 5 years. No top ups.

Fill 2 in 3 years Duration 7-10 months

Annual Fill to maximum depth (flux of up to and greater than 1000 mm)

Maintain permanent open water and associated mudflat habitat (72% of Racecourse Lake)


Inundate filling to maximum depth 2 in 5 years for six months


Depth: 2-2.5 m

Timing: not critical

X √ √ Mudflat habitat supports foraging waterbirds such as Royal Spoonbill

Sedges and rushes (eg: Cumbungi, Reeds). Maintain and enhance emergent community (6-7% of Racecourse).


NB: Salinity tolerance for broad leaf cumbungi is low.



adopted)

√ √


√ √ √

Duration 8-12 months if 1 in three years 6 months if

X √ √

79


Regime 1 - episodic



flooded annually)


√

X (Although 18ha of edge

will be exposed by

600mm drop)

Restore health and extend black box trees (eg black box) (6-7% of Racecourse)




adopted)

√


√ √



√ (moder

ate)

X (vigoro

us)

√


√ √

80


Regime 1 - episodic



Maintain benthic herbs sp. (eg Ribbon weed) (9-10% of Racecourse)

Food source for benthic macroinvertebrates, birds, possibly turtles. Plays a role in prevention of algal dominance.

NB: Ribbon weed is found in fresh to slightly saline water (salinities equivalent to 1/3 seawater)

Frequency – Annually or once 5-7 years

X X

Depth – > 0.5 m

√ √

Duration – If Annual – 10-11 months If 5-7 years -5-7 years.

X (unlikel

y if saline

groundwater intrusi

on occurs)

u

√ (expected to retain

permanent water)

Timing – Winter/ Spring

√ √


Habitat: Permanent Water

√ (need to

understand

magnitude of recesio

n of water)

√ (need to understand

magnitude of recesion of

water)

Feeding



√ √

81


Regime 1 - episodic





Depth: not critical



√ (large flood)

√

eg Egrets (migratory birds)


X √


√ √

Breeding – Nesting in trees in wetlands with fringing or flooded trees. Nests are shallow platform of

Frequency: 1 in 3-4 years large floods 1 in 1-2 years for habitat restoration).


√


occurs in line with breeding season close

82


Regime 1 - episodic



sticks woven together. Breeding success follows a period of drying.


to November)



√ √


√

O (if connectivity

allow fish migration

after drying phase)

√





Timing:

√ √ √

83


Regime 1 - episodic



Following winter/spring flooding



√ √ √


√ √ √




Depth: > 2 m


X √

√ (2 in 5 could provide


Large Waders (eg: Australian White Ibis)

Habitat: Roosting occurs in trees in wetlands or on farmland.

√ √ √


√ √ √

Breeding: nests over thick emergent

Frequency: 1 in every 4-5

√ (large flood

√ √

84


Regime 1 - episodic



vegetation such as reeds, rushes or lignum or in trees. Nest abandonment is water recedes too quickly.

years (large floods), 1 in 1-2 years (small floods)

Duration: 8-9 months (up to 12)

Depth: 0.5 – 1 m


only)

85

Appendix C

Figure 6: Historic and current wetland classification for Kerang Lakes Bypass Investigation Project Area

environmental watering scenarios for kerang lakes bypass ... · environmental watering scenarios...

Documents