Sugar Shack Final Large

SUGAR SHACK
WETLAND MANAGEMENT PLAN 2006
LAPS
Lower Murray Local Action Planning Groups
Kjartan Tumi Bjornsson
This management plan was written by Kjartan Tumi Bjornsson for the Mid Murray Local Action
Planning Committee Inc. and the Landholders of Swan Reach Complex, and reviewed and endorsed
by the SA River Murray Wetland Technical Group.
Funding was provided by the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality, the Natural
Heritage Trust, and the River Murray Catchment Water Management Board (now SA MDB NRM
board).
The management plan has been prepared according to the Guidelines for developing wetland
management plans for the River Murray in South Australia 2003 (River Murray Catchment Water
Management Board and Department of Water Land and Biodiversity Conservation 2003) and as
such fulfils obligations under the Water Allocation Plan for the River Murray Prescribed
Watercourse.
Disclaimer:
The Mid Murray Local Action Planning Committee Inc. do not guarantee that the publication is
without flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore
disclaim all liability for any error, loss or other consequences which may arise from you relying on
any information in this publication.
Cite as:
Bjornsson, K. T. (2006). Sugar Shack Lagoon Wetland Management Plan. Mid Murray Local
Action Planning Committee Inc., Cambrai.
Acknowledgements:
This wetland management plan has been developed with the support of a number of organisations,
community groups and individuals. Special thanks go to Judy Pfeiffer, Adrienne Frears and Jem
Tesoriero for assistance with the draft.
Thanks also go to those that contributed their knowledge including, Cynthia and Richard Hunter
and the River Murray Catchment Water Management Board and the members of the South
Australian River Murray Wetland Technical Group.
For further details contact:
The Mid Murray LAP
PO Box 10
Cambrai SA 5353
Phone: (08) 8564 6034
Fax: (08) 8564 5003
Photographs:
Cover photograph: Top, Sugar Shack looking west,
Bottom, Inlet channel
All photographs in document by Tumi Bjornsson.
Wetland Management Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................... I
LIST OF FIGURES..................................................................................................................... III
LIST OF MAPS .......................................................................................................................... III
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... IV
Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1
Section 1.01 Environmental, Social and Cultural Significance of wetland ............................. 1
(a) History of Sugar Shack Lagoon ................................................................................... 2
Section 1.02 Why does Sugar Shack Lagoon need a management plan? ............................ 2
(a) Mission Statement ....................................................................................................... 2
(b) Vision Statement ......................................................................................................... 2
(c) Broad Objectives ......................................................................................................... 2
(d) Current Achievements ................................................................................................. 3
Chapter 2. SITE DESCRIPTION OF SUGAR SHACK LAGOON ............................................... 4
Section 2.01 Wetland Location ............................................................................................. 4
Section 2.02 Survey Sites, Dates & Locations ...................................................................... 4
Section 2.03 PHYSICAL FEATURES ................................................................................. 10
(a) Geomorphology, Geology and Soils .......................................................................... 10
(b) Climate ...................................................................................................................... 10
(c) Surface and Groundwater Features ........................................................................... 10
Section 2.04 ECOLOGICAL FEATURES ............................................................................ 17
(a) Flora .......................................................................................................................... 17
(b) Fauna ........................................................................................................................ 19
Chapter 3. LAND TENURE, JURISDICTION AND MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS ..... 25
Section 3.01 LAND TENURE .............................................................................................. 25
Section 3.02 LAND AND WATER USE ............................................................................... 25
Section 3.03 JURISDICTION AND MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY ...................................... 25
Chapter 4. THREATS AND POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS TO SUGAR SHACK LAGOON ........... 27
Chapter 5. MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES .............................................................................. 30
Chapter 6. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ..................................................................................... 33
Section 6.01 ON GROUND ACTION AND TIMETABLE ..................................................... 33
Section 6.02 WETLAND WATER OPERATIONAL PLAN ................................................... 36
(a) Hydrology Regime ..................................................................................................... 36
Chapter 7. MONITORING ....................................................................................................... 41
Chapter 8. EVALUATION, REVIEW AND REPORTING .......................................................... 43
Section 8.01 Evaluation and Review ................................................................................... 43
Section 8.02 Reporting ....................................................................................................... 43
Chapter 9. REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 44
Appendix A. Wetlands Atlas Data for Wetland Main Body .......................................................... 46
I
Appendix B. Surface Water Archive Graph ................................................................................ 47
Appendix C. Baseline Survey Locations ..................................................................................... 48
Appendix D. Baseline Survey Vegetation Zones ........................................................................ 51
Appendix E. Sugar Shack Inlet Channel .................................................................................... 52
Appendix F. Species List for Sugar Shack Lagoon .................................................................... 53
Section F.01 FLORA ........................................................................................................... 53
(a) Riparian and floodplain species ................................................................................. 53
Section F.02 WETLAND AND FLOODPLAIN FAUNA ......................................................... 56
(a) Birds of Sugar Shack Lagoon .................................................................................... 56
Appendix G. Evaporation and precipitation obtained using the Wetland Loss Calculator. ....... 59
II
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: SS 1 Looking WSW at Sugar Shack ................................................................................ 6
Figure 2: SS 1 Looking SSW at Sugar Shack ................................................................................. 6
Figure 3: SS 1 Looking SE at Sugar Shack ..................................................................................... 7
Figure 4: Goats close to SS3 at the SE end of Sugar Shack ........................................................... 7
Figure 5: SS 2 Looking W towards the Yactko creek connection from Sugar Shack ....................... 7
Figure 6: SS2 landholders, LAP and RMCWMB officers, Sugar Shack Lagoon in the background . 7
Figure 7: SS 2 Looking E towards at Sugar Shack the Yactko creek connection ............................ 8
Figure 8: SS 2 Looking S along Yactko creek ................................................................................. 8
Figure 9: SS3 Looking N along Yactko creek .................................................................................. 8
Figure 10: SS 3 Yactko creek (relatively clear) ................................................................................ 8
Figure 11: SS 4 Looking W at a wetland close to Sugar Shack ....................................................... 8
Figure 12: SS4 Looking W at a wetland close to Sugar Shack ........................................................ 8
Figure 13: SS 5 Looking S at a wetland close to Sugar Shack ........................................................ 9
Figure 14: SS 6 Looking SE at a wetland close to Sugar Shack...................................................... 9
Figure 15: SS 6 Looking S along creek at a wetland close to Sugar Shack ..................................... 9
Figure 16: SS 12 Looking N along creek at a wetland close to Sugar Shack................................... 9
Figure 17: SS 11 Looking S onto River Murray ............................................................................. 10
Figure 18: SS 12 snags located in creek close to River Murray..................................................... 10
Figure 19: Groundwater salinity .................................................................................................... 16
Figure 20: Groundwater levels ...................................................................................................... 16
Figure 21: 5 year water regime scenario for Sugar Shack Lagoon (benefit description) ................ 38
Figure 22: 5 year water regime scenario for Sugar Shack Lagoon (volume description) ............... 38
Figure 23: Downstream water level at Lock 1................................................................................ 47
Figure 24: Ground water and gauge board locations ..................................................................... 48
Figure 25: Photopoint and water level monitoring sites ................................................................. 49
Figure 26: Sugar Shack Lagoon fish survey sites.......................................................................... 50
Figure 27: Sugar Shack Lagoon vegetation monitoring sites ......................................................... 50
Figure 28: Sugar Shack Lagoon ecological zones......................................................................... 51
LIST OF MAPS
Map 1: Sugar Shack Lagoon ........................................................................................................... 4
Map 2: Map of wetland complex (Photographic locations)............................................................... 6
Map 3: Expected water movement within Swan Reach Complex .................................................. 13
Map 4: Flood Inundation Model III; Sugar Shack Scenarios .......................................................... 14
Map 5: Cadastral boundaries covering Sugar Shack Lagoon and surrounds. ............................... 26
Map 6: On ground works at Sugar Shack Lagoon. ........................................................................ 34
III
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Baseline survey monitoring of following parameters .......................................................... 5
Table 2: Photo locations.................................................................................................................. 5
Table 3: Water quality (Australian Water Environments 2005) ...................................................... 10
Table 4: Groundwater monitoring locations ................................................................................... 15
Table 5: Ecological zones around Sugar Shack Lagoon ............................................................... 17
Table 6: Habitat features identified in Sugar Shack Lagoon; Table adapted from (Australian Water
Environments 2005). ............................................................................................................. 20
Table 7: Frogs at Sugar Shack Lagoon, habitat and significant aspects. ....................................... 21
Table 8: Native fish; Table adapted from (Australian Water Environments 2005) .......................... 23
Table 9: Introduced fish; Table adapted from (Australian Water Environments 2005) ................... 23
Table 10: Sugar Shack Lagoon responsible positions contact details ........................................... 25
Table 11: Existing and potential threats to Sugar Shack wetland .................................................. 28
Table 12: Management objectives for Sugar Shack Lagoon wetland. ........................................... 31
Table 13: Implementation plan for Sugar Shack Lagoon land based activities. ............................. 35
Table 14: 5 year hydrological operational plan (HOP) for Sugar Shack Lagoon ............................ 39
Table 15: Water use calculation .................................................................................................... 40
Table 16: Water allocation requirements ....................................................................................... 40
Table 17: Monitoring plan for Sugar Shack Lagoon....................................................................... 42
Table 18: Swan Reach Complex, Wetland atlas data (Jensen, Paton et al. 1996) ........................ 46
Table 19: Plant species at Sugar Shack Lagoon ........................................................................... 53
Table 20: Waterbird species observed in at Sugar Shack Lagoon, adapted from (Australian Water
Environments 2005) .............................................................................................................. 56
Table 21: Non-waterbird species observed at Sugar Shack Lagoon, adapted from (Australian
Water Environments 2005) .................................................................................................... 57
Table 22: Calculated water loss (evaporation – precipitation) from the Wetland Loss Calculator .. 59
IV
Sugar Shack Wetland Management Plan
Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION
Since the adoption of the Water Allocation Plan for the River Murray in 2002 the wetlands of South
Australia have an annual water allocation of 200GL. To access this water allocation for wetland
management, a licence is now required.
The allocation of water required for Sugar Shack Lagoon is mainly in response to the Section 5.1.
Objectives of the Water Allocation Plan for the River Murray (River Murray Catchment Water
Management Board 2002) Principle;
2 “Provide for the water needs of water-dependent ecosystems” and
6(e) “Provide for the allocation and use of water to prevent adverse impacts on the health,
biodiversity status of habitat value of floodplains, or wetlands of conservation significance”
This wetland management plan is structured in accordance with the criteria set out in the Guidelines
for developing wetland management plans for the River Murray in South Australia (River Murray
Catchment Water Management Board and Department of Water Land and Biodiversity
Conservation 2003).
SECTION 1.01 ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE OF

WETLAND
The Wetland Atlas of the South Australian Murray Valley (Jensen, Paton et al. 1996) listed Sugar
Shack as being part of the Swan Reach Complex and having a high conservation value and to be of
national, basin and local importance (see Appendix A on page 46). As part of the Management of
Wetlands of the River Murray Valley Draft Action Plan 1996-1999 (South Australian River Murray
Wetlands Management Committee 1996), Swan Reach complex was listed as the eleventh highest
rank priority for maintenance or rehabilitation of 250 wetlands of the South Australian River
Murray Valley.
The Floodplain Wetlands Management Strategy (Murray-Darling Ministerial Council 1998) lists
the Swan Reach wetlands complex as a large and significant floodplain wetland complex in the
Murray Darling Basin.
Thompson (1986) classified the complex as having a high conservation value due to the variability
of wetland types (Class 1 and Class 2 see box) and the two creeks, the ease of management of the
complex, its inhabitation by many bird species including water and forest birds. At the time of
Thompson‟s survey there was a significant regeneration of red gums at Sugar Shack Lagoon
(Thompson 1986), however most of this regeneration does not remain (Australian Water
Environments 2005).
“Class 1 directly connected to the Murray at normal pool level;

Class 2 connection with the Murray is above normal pool level;” (Thompson 1986)
The wetland complex is a culturally important indigenous site with at least 38 scar trees, traditional
campsites, middens, tool scatters and burial sites. More recent history includes indigenous fishing
shacks at the northern end of the lagoon. The name Sugar Shack stems from these shacks.
The complex is registered in the Australian Heritage Database (List: Register of the National Estate)
as an Indigenous site (21/10/1980) (Anonymous).
1
(a) HISTORY OF SUGAR SHACK LAGOON
Indigenous camp grounds
Indigenous burial grounds
Sugar Shack fishing shacks on complex
Trenches around the wetland were used to irrigate feed crops. Pipe culverts and flow control
structures were constructed at the connection between the wetland and to Yactko creek. By
controlling the flow of water into the wetland the trenches were filled prior to the wetland.
The wetland could then be evenly flooded from all sides. This provided a form of irrigation
for feed crops growth on the wetland basin proper.
Removal of culverts and filling in of trenches
2002 Reduction in the stock numbers grazing the wetland
2003-2004 Baseline Survey (Australian Water Environments 2005)
2005 Planned stock exclusion fencing around wetland (Funding by Mid Murray LAP)
2005/2006 Planned installation of culverts (pending funding applications going to
Community Grants 2005)
2005 wetland management plan (this document)
SECTION 1.02 WHY DOES SUGAR SHACK LAGOON NEED A MANAGEMENT PLAN?
(a) MISSION STATEMENT
Restore the wetland to a healthy state, with associated fish and birdlife. This focuses on the
restoration of a fluctuating water regime (wet with dry periods) and therefore improves water
quality within the wetland for the benefit of native vegetation and native fauna.
(b) VISION STATEMENT
The vision for Swan Reach Complex is a restored wetland complex with extensive native vegetation
fulfilling a diversity of habitat requirements for water birds, tortoises, frogs and for native fish
species. It is envisaged that Sugar Shack Lagoon will be a „healthy‟ shallow clear wetland with a
high diversity of macrophytes (emergent and submerged) providing habitat for native fish, tortoises,
frogs and birds. The wetland and the surrounding area would also, as a consequence of habitat
provision, be expected to provide breeding sites to native fauna.
(c) BROAD OBJECTIVES
Once the wetland restoration has been achieved, through appropriate adaptive management of the
water regime, the wetland condition would need to be maintained. The maintenance of a restored
wetland, fulfilling the functions described above, includes future water regime manipulation,
removal of weeds, potential active revegetation, and the exclusion of grazing from the aquatic and
fringing zone.
The management of the wetland, due to legislation, requires a water licence for which a detailed
operational management plan needs to be structured. The objectives listed below, and in detail in
Chapter 5 on page 30, fulfil a number of the water allocation criteria from Section 5.3 of the Water
Allocation Plan for the River Murray (River Murray Catchment Water Management Board 2002).
These objectives include:
Restore wetland (hydrological regime and water quality)
Introduce a drying regime to Sugar Shack Lagoon, which may:
o Compact sediment, reduce turbidity
2
o Remove large carp, reduce turbidity
o Induce macrophyte germination
Promote germination and growth of riparian vegetation
Restore habitat diversity for native fish, water birds and other aquatic wildlife:
o Fish, increase abundance and maintain diversity
o Birds, provide habitat for foraging and breeding
o Tortoises, provide safe breeding areas (where eggs remain safe from current
predators e.g. foxes)
o Frogs, increase abundance and maintain (or increase) diversity
(d) CURRENT ACHIEVEMENTS
The wetland currently has less invasive land management practices than experienced in the past.
Grazing has been reduced in recent years. Currently the wetland aquatic zone and fringe is in the
process of being fenced off to exclude stock.
The Landholders are in the process of applying for funding for the design and construction of flow
control structures, which are to include fish grills. Depending on access to funding it is hoped that
the construction of the flow control structure will commence in early 2006.
The Landholders are considering the following on ground actions:
Re-excavate the channels, or part of the channels (see History of Sugar Shack Lagoon) to
develop deep habitat for fish
Deposit the spill in the wetland as a tortoise refuge (island)
Actively remove carp
Stock the wetland with native fish from Yactko creek (pending license)
3
Chapter 2. SITE DESCRIPTION OF SUGAR SHACK LAGOON

SECTION 2.01 WETLAND LOCATION
Swan Reach Complex (including Sugar Shack Lagoon) is listed as wetland number S0090 in the
Wetlands Atlas (Jensen, Paton et al. 1996) and M058B in Thompson (Thompson 1986). The current
water regime is permanent with a connection through a narrow channel to Yactko Creek. The
wetland is located approximately 4 km north of Swan Reach (Map 1 below). AMG coordinates
371622E 6177760N (Grid Zone 54). Sugar Shack Lagoon can be found on the 1:50,000 map, Swan
Reach map sheet number 6828-4. The wetland is found in the Hundred of Nildottie Section E.
Map 1: Sugar Shack Lagoon

The depth of Sugar Shack Lagoon is shallow at below 1-meter depth (Australian Water
Environments 2005). The wetland sits to a large degree on freehold land (see Chapter 3 on page
25). Grazing continues at a reduced rate to that of the previous owner of 3 years ago (Hunter
2005a). The current grazing includes approximately 100 goats (permanent number plus offspring of
2 kids twice per year), 30 cattle (lowline), one horse and two sheep.
The current custodian is keen on the proper management and restoration of Sugar Shack Lagoon,
with the reservation that the stock number remain at the density to cover the cost of maintaining the
land (i.e. 100 goats).
SECTION 2.02 SURVEY SITES, DATES & LOCATIONS

The Sugar Shack Wetlands Baseline Survey (Australian Water Environments 2005) monitored
different wetland parameters on separate occasions which are listed in Table 1. The locations of the
baseline survey sites can be seen in Appendix C.
4
Table 1: Baseline survey monitoring of following parameters
Parameter Site Surveyed Date 1 Date 2 Date 3 Date 4 Date 5
Site physical Y
Vegetation Y 24/11/03 23/02/04 28/02/04 19/09/04
Fish 1 Y 27/11/03 15/04/04
2 Y 27/11/03 15/04/04
3 Y 27/11/03 15/04/04
4 Y 28/11/03 15/04/04
Birds (Main Survey 4hrs + Y 18-
night survey 1hr) 19/09/04
(Opportunistic) Y 24/11/03 23/02/04 28/02/04
Frogs and Reptiles Y 24/11/03 23/02/04 28/02/04 18/09/04 19/09/04
Macroinvertebrates Y 10/12/03 12/03/04 22/07/04 21/10/04
Water Quality Y 10/12/03 12/03/04 22/07/04 21/10/04
Groundwater Y 17/08/04 Jan 05
NR = Not Recorded
Photographs of the wetland complex were taken on the 30th April 2005 at 12 locations throughout
the complex, 8 are relevant to Sugar Shack Lagoon, see Table 2 below. These 8 photographic
locations were at the following coordinates (and can be see in Map 2 on page 6).
Table 2: Photo locations
Easting Northing
SS 1 371614 6178049
SS 2 371184 6177846
SS 3 371813 6177261
SS 4 370412 6178646
SS 5 370295 6178593
SS 6 370250 6178504
SS 11 370189 6178240
SS 12 370226 6178301
5
Map 2: Map of wetland complex (Photographic locations)

Figure 1, below, though to Figure 7, on page 8, show Sugar Shack Lagoon, including the
connection between the wetland and Yactko creek.
Figure 1: SS 1 Looking WSW at Sugar Figure 2: SS 1 Looking SSW at Sugar

Shack Shack
6
Figure 3: SS 1 Looking SE at Sugar Shack Figure 4: Goats close to SS3 at the SE end
of Sugar Shack
Figure 5: SS 2 Looking W towards the Figure 6: SS2 landholders, LAP and

Yactko creek connection from Sugar RMCWMB officers, Sugar Shack Lagoon in
Shack the background
Yactko creek outside the connection to the wetland is depicted in Figure 8 on page 8. Figure 9 and
Figure 10 on page 8 show Yactko creek close to the southern connection to the River Murray. Sugar
Shack Lagoon still has remnants of the trenches dug for irrigation purposes. Whilst visiting this
wetland at the start of the development of this management plan large carp were visible in the open
water of the wetland. The wetland was shallow at the time and turbid. The landholders regularly see
waders using the wetland (Hunter 2005a; Hunter 2005b).
7
Figure 7: SS 2 Looking E towards at Sugar Figure 8: SS 2 Looking S along Yactko

Shack the Yactko creek connection creek
Figure 9: SS3 Looking N along Yactko Figure 10: SS 3 Yactko creek (relatively
creek clear)
Two years ago a neighbouring wetland, also within the Swan Reach wetland complex, became
blocked for a period of 8 months (Hunter 2005a). This wetland went from a degraded permanently
inundated state to an apparently restored wetland with healthy vegetation growth (monitoring of this
area has not been undertaken, therefore the full impact of the dry period and the following grazing
has not been assessed. The vegetation growth in this wetland can be seen in Figure 11 below
through to Figure 14 on page 9.
Figure 11: SS 4 Looking W at a wetland Figure 12: SS4 Looking W at a wetland

close to Sugar Shack close to Sugar Shack
8
Figure 13: SS 5 Looking S at a wetland Figure 14: SS 6 Looking SE at a wetland

close to Sugar Shack close to Sugar Shack
The connection between this „restored‟ wetland and the River Murray can be seen in Figure 15
below to Figure 18 on page 10. This wetland was not as intensely used in feed crop production,
therefore the seed bank and consequent regeneration within this wetland may have occurred at a
faster rate than can be anticipated at Sugar Shack Lagoon. As can be seen in the photographs there
remains some open water within the wetland. This water has remained clear since refilling with few
large carp present and abundant water birds (Hunter 2005a).
Figure 15: SS 6 Looking S along creek at a Figure 16: SS 12 Looking N along creek at
wetland close to Sugar Shack a wetland close to Sugar Shack
9
Figure 17: SS 11 Looking S onto River Figure 18: SS 12 snags located in creek
Murray close to River Murray
SECTION 2.03 PHYSICAL FEATURES

(a) GEOMORPHOLOGY, GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The bottom of the lagoon consists of silty clay. During the installation of the groundwater
monitoring wells the northern edge of the lagoon consisted of clay to a depth between 2 and 3 m
followed by sands from the Monoman Formation. The southern side, between Yactko Creek and the
river, consisted of grey sandy and silty clay of the Coonambidgal Formation to a depth of over 7m
(Australian Water Environments 2005).The hydrological connection between the wetland and the
river is assumed to be low.
(b) CLIMATE
The following climatic conditions are taken from the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) Waikerie
station (number 024018) (Latitude (deg S): -34.1778; Longitude (deg E): 139.9806) (BOM 2005).
The recording of data commenced at Waikerie in 1896; the latest records used in the assessment of
the climatic condition of the area stemming from 2001.
The area has Mediterranean climatic conditions with warm dry summers and cool wet winters. The
median (5th decile) annual rainfall is 249 mm. The mean monthly maximum rainfall is in October
(26.2 mm), the minimum in March (12.5). The expected mean daily maximum temperature is
highest in January at 33 C, lowest in July at 16.5 C, and has an annual mean of 23.5 C. The
minimum daily temperature is at its maximum in January at 15.2 C, and its minimum in July at
5.2 C. The annual mean daily minimum temperature is 9.5 C.
(c) SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER FEATURES
(i) Surfacewater
Water quality monitoring was undertaken as part of the Baseline Survey (see Table 3 below). For a
description of the implications of water quality in wetlands refer to Your Wetland: Supporting
Information (Tucker, Dominelli et al. 2003).
Table 3: Water quality (Australian Water Environments 2005)
Parameters Location 10/12/03 12/03/04 22/07/04 21/10/04
(Composite)
TDS (by EC Sugar 370 600 430 390
(mg/L)) Shack East
Sugar 370 600 390
Shack West
10
EC μS/cm Sugar 678 1090 786 704
Shack East
Sugar 675 1090 701
Shack West
River 400 380 508 502 (1st
Murray September „04)
above Lock
1*
Suspended Solids Sugar 532 132 135 383
(mg/L) Shack East
Sugar 570 236 627
Shack West
Turbidity NTU Sugar 590 220 190 530
Shack East
Sugar 700 250 630
Shack West
Filt. Reactive Sugar 0.024 0.019 0.005
Phosphorus as P Shack East
(mg/L)
Sugar 0.029 0.018 0.007
Shack West
Phosphorus as P Sugar 0.76 0.335 0.189 0.449
(mg/L) Shack East
Sugar 0.998 0.365 0.621
Shack West
* Obtained from the Surface Water Archive (Department of Water Land and Biodiversity Conservation 2005a)
The EC is well below that of seawater (~50,000 μS/cm), and is similar to that of the River Murray
indicating a good connection between the two. As a comparison, the River Murray EC levels at
Lock 1 (upstream which will be comparable with the downstream levels), obtained from the Surface
Water Archive (Department of Water Land and Biodiversity Conservation 2005a), was 400 μS/cm
on the 10th December 2003 compared to 678/675 μS/cm in the wetland, 380 μS/cm on the 12 March
2004 compared to 1090 μS/cm in the wetland, 508 μS/cm on the 22nd July 2004 compared to 786
μS/cm in the wetland and 502 μS/cm on the 1st September 2004 the last day on the record obtained
and therefore closest to the wetland monitored date of 21st of October 2004, which was measured at
704/701 μS/cm. The consistent higher reading in the wetland may be as a result of
evapoconcentration influenced by the shallow nature of the wetland, future monitoring should also
monitor Yactko creek salinity levels.
The high turbidity within the wetland may contribute to the lack of submerged macrophytes,
although the cause for them not being present is probably more attributable to stock grazing and
pugging, the rate of water level fluctuation and/or to bioturbation, causing sediment resuspension.
The extreme turbidity of the 10/12/03 and the 21/10/04 could possibly have been an error. In future
monitoring where turbidity in this range is detected an attempt should be made to establish the
reason behind the extreme turbidity such as algal bloom. Macrophyte uprooting, caused by
European carp feeding, may have lead to further reductions in submerged aquatic plant production.
The factors affecting turbidity and therefore restricting submerged macrophyte germination, growth
and survival is addressed in this wetland management plan through the alteration of the water
regime and stock exclusion fencing.
11
The surface water levels in the River Murray below Lock 1, obtained from the Surface Water
Archive (Department of Water Land and Biodiversity Conservation 2005b) can be seen in Appendix
B. This water level will have a direct impact on the water level in Sugar Shack Lagoon. The flow
path for Sugar Shack Lagoon during normal regulated river flow is shown in Map 3 on page 13,
whereby Yactko creek is connected to the River Murray at both ends (although currently the
southern end is restricted due to reed blockage).
The Flood Inundation Model (FIM III) was used to study the potential critical flow volumes of the
River Murray for Sugar Shack Lagoon. Map 4 on page 14 shows the normal inundation level in
September at a 5,000ML/day flow. At a flood level of 30,000 ML/day the side arm of the wetland is
also inundated, significantly increasing the area of the wetland providing aquatic habitat for fish and
water birds, including waders. At this flood level the wetland structure may be opened for free
passage of native fish in and out of the wetland. At a flood level of 50,000 ML/day the banks of the
wetlands are expected to overflow therefore well surpassing the flow control structure of the
wetland. Prior to such a flow level the stop logs should be removed to allow free passage of fish and
water between the wetland and the river.
12
Map 3: Expected water movement within Swan Reach Complex
5,000 ML/day flow 30,000 ML/day flow
13
50,000 ML/day flow 102,000 ML/day flow

Map 4: Flood Inundation Model III; Sugar Shack Scenarios
(ii) Groundwater
The baseline survey installed 6 groundwater wells within Sugar Shack Lagoon. These wells were
monitored twice during the survey period, one on the day of their installation (17th August 2004),
and the second in January 2005, follow up monitoring by LAP and RMCWMB staff was made on
the 24th November 2005. The locations of the piezometers and gauge boards are presented in Table
4 and in Appendix C. The ground water is relatively saline at between 10 and 38 mS/cm, see Table 4 and
Figure 19 on page 16, at a depth between 1.25 and 2.85, see Table 4 and Figure 20 on page 16. The
salinity of the groundwater may therefore be a contributing factor to the stress of the floodplain
vegetation. Future groundwater monitoring data may be able to clarify whether the saline groundwater does
in fact approach the surface. Current measurements show this to be a minor threat as t he groundwater
levels and salinity appear to be stable based on the monitoring from 2005, see Figure 19 and Figure
20.
14
Table 4: Groundwater monitoring locations
Name Easting Northing Water level m Conductivity
Elevation of Bore
To obtain water
level in m AHD
AHD (mS/cm)
Hole casing
Elevation
(m AHD)
(m AHD)
Ground
2005**
2005**
2004*
2004*
2005
2005
Aug
Aug
Nov
Nov
Jan
Jan
BH1a 371571 6178135 2.14 1.67 -0.22 -0.2 10.1 10.2 11.03
BH1b 371571 6178135
BH2 371923 6177846 2.62 2.07 0.82 0.85 17.08 NR 20.1
BH3 371186 6177578 3.00 2.44 0.42 0.43 11.5 NR 3.02
BH4 371519 6177378 3.77 3.24 0.39 38.4 38
BH5 371342 6177484 3.05 2.53 0.30 0.28 35 34.7 36.6
BH6 371745 6178047 2.93 2.32 0.72 0.98 17.45 17.3 17.84
Sugar
GB 1 Shack
371377 6177825
(SSG1) Lagoon
GB +0.15
Yactko
GB 2
371747 6177641 Creek GB
(SSG3)
+0.4
SSG3 371818 6177273
GB = Gauge Board
*Unfortunately the data from the first date of monitoring was obtained on the same day as the installation of the
piezometers. It is recommended that piezometers are allowed to rest for a number of days following installation to allow
the possible slow flowing groundwater to come to and equilibrium and the conductivity to give a more accurate reading.
** Follow up monitoring by Adrienne Frears and Tumi Bjornsson
45
40
35
30
E C m S /c m
25
20
15
10
5
0
B H1a B H2 B H3 B H4 B H5 B H6
B o re ID
C o nd uctivity m S /cm 0 1 /0 8 /2 0 0 4 C o nd uctivity m S /cm 0 1 /0 1 /2 0 0 5

C o nd uctivity m S /cm 2 4 /1 1 /2 0 0 5
15
Figure 19: Groundwater salinity
3 .5 0
G ro u n d w a te r L e v e l m A H D
3 .0 0
2 .5 0
2 .0 0
1 .5 0
1 .0 0
0 .5 0
0 .0 0
B H1a B H2 B H3 B H4 B H5 B H6
-0 .5 0
B o re ID
G ro und le ve l (m A H D ) W a te r L e ve l (m A H D ) 0 1 /0 1 /2 0 0 5
W a te r L e ve l (m A H D ) 2 4 /1 1 /2 0 0 5
Figure 20: Groundwater levels
16
SECTION 2.04 ECOLOGICAL FEATURES

(a) FLORA
Flora was surveyed by Thompson (1986) who identified hundreds of young red gums (Eucalyptus
camaldulensis) which were recorded at this time as being approximately 6m high. The baseline
survey divided the Lagoon surrounds into five „Ecological Zones‟ for which the vegetation was
assessed (see Appendix D for survey sites). These ecological zones are described in Table 5 below.
Table 5: Ecological zones around Sugar Shack Lagoon
Zone Description Summary
Near Shore Zone Permanent or prolonged inundation Very little vegetation
Sedge and Rush Shallow water at edge of lagoon Low diversity
Community
Condition ratings very poor to poor Low regeneration of annual
Most vegetation occurred in patches and showed species
signs of heavy grazing. Also pugging by cattle Heavy hoof damage
evident. During the survey some areas were
degraded between monitoring dates. Heavy grazing (splendid flat-
sedge)
Southern shore in best
condition
Rising Ground Measured from the edge of the high water mark in Poor condition
an average season this zone was 5 to 10 metres
Sedge and Very little vegetation
wide, up to 20 metres wide.
Herbaceous
species (red Seasonally inundated – spring flows Low diversity
gums) Low regeneration of annual
Direct influence from lagoon/creek water
species
Conditions rated very poor through to moderate
Few red gums
Zone in poor condition with, grazing and pugging
due to stock and weed infestation. Grazing
There are some red gums, in excellent health, Heavy hoof damage
present in two age categories (approx. 10 & 30
years) at two locations and mature in one. In one
area the red gums may receive more inundation
than other „Rising Ground area,‟ due to a low
channel passing between the gums. Here the
understorey is degraded, red gums juvenile and
seedlings were heavily grazed.
Some areas contain lignum as the most
prominent shrub. Lignum is in good condition but
area generally degraded, heavy grazing pressure,
weed infestation.
Generally the understorey was degraded due to
grazing and pugging (hoof) damage. Some areas
contained more native vegetation, these areas
seemed to have less grazing.
Floodplain Flat land Low diversity
Lowland Flats
Seasonal/sporadic inundation High proportion bare ground
Red Gum Forest
Some spring flood Lacking annual and perennial
and Woodlands
Inundated during high floods regeneration
Condition poor to moderate Some healthy red gums,

although most are in poor health
Some red gums in moderate health, limited
regeneration, and in other areas dead red gums. Lignum degraded (grazed) in
Few native species with lignum understorey in most places, moderately healthy
17
poor health in most areas, moderate health in in others
other areas. Weed infestation.
Vegetation in poor health,
Red gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis Woodlands, stress, grazing pressure, ground
lignum Muehlenbeckia florulenta Shrublands and compaction, lack of flooding and
black box Eucaluptus largiflorens Woodland possible salinity issues
severely degraded (went from moderate condition
to severely degraded during the Basline Survey).
Upper Floodplain Flat land Rarely inundated
Lignum Shrubland Inundated only during high floods Mainly bare ground with few
Condition very poor degraded native species
Lignum poor health. Mainly bare ground, few Grazing pressure

native species, diversity low. Grazing seen as a
contributor to the removal of native ground cover.
Site 1 (small depression coming of the wetland)
with increased inundation and fencing off from
grazing, would be a good site for regeneration of
sedge, rush and lignum.
Rises on Upper Rises on floodplain Rarely inundated
Floodplain
Inundated sporadically during high floods Some native species present
Black Box
Condition rating very poor to poor with some Generally poor condition
Woodland
Moderate.
Grazing pressure
Some red gums in moderate health and black box
in good health although in to few numbers
(possibly lack of regeneration) Some lignum up to
50% ground cover however native species
abundance low. Severe grazing became evident
during monitoring. In other areas the red gum and
lignum were more degraded. Weeds (burr medic)
abundant.
Some native vegetation present, although these
species indicated stress to other natives (see
Australian Water Environments (2005))
The largest probable past and present pressure on the wetland vegetation, which can be controlled,
is stock grazing, this was identified by the baseline survey (Australian Water Environments 2005)
as well as Thompson (Thompson 1986). The stocking levels within the complex are currently at
lower levels than previously, which can only be of benefit to the wetland environment. However
there remains the contentious issue of the impact of grazing on weed removal, i.e. grazing may
actually be keeping the weed population in check, and if removed, other methods may be required.
Other significant factors, which are contributing to the decline in the vegetation health, include the
change in hydrological regime, in particular the lack of flooding of the floodplain with rising
ground water salinity was also identified as a potential detrimental impact on the vegetation health
(Australian Water Environments 2005). That said, the most prominent degradation that can be
addressed by this wetland management plan is grazing impacts these being pugging, grazing, ring
barking, native ground cover removal and soil compaction. Another cause for loss of red gums is
seen to be the lack of frequent flooding with salinity also seen as a potential contributor.
The main restoration options for Sugar Shack Lagoon are either to increase flooding (Regional
Issue), and/or fence off areas where regeneration has/does occur. That is, whenever there is a
significant flood an assessment should be made as to where areas could be fenced off where red
gum (and other native) regeneration does occur, this would however only be a very localised
solution and would need full cooperation of the landholder. In the past juvenile red gums have died
off probably due to a lack of water i.e. no flooding (Hunter 2005b). To significantly address this
problem a regional strategy needs to be developed where increased flooding and therefore the
regeneration and maintenance of juvenile and mature red gums is the aim. In general, fencing off of
18
areas of vegetation will assist in removing grazing pressures and assist in future regeneration as
well as the long-term survival of native vegetation.
The baseline survey (Australian Water Environments 2005) predicts the complete degradation and
loss of significant plant communities within the wetland complex over the next 50 years due to the
current hydrological regime. To address this issue a regional approach to floodplain wetland
restoration is therefore required. That is, the complete restoration of this wetland complex would
therefore require the increase in flood frequency and extent.
A detailed list of species found within the plant associations can be found in Appendix F Section
F.01 on page 53. For a description of the function of vegetation in wetlands refer to (Tucker,
Dominelli et al. 2003).
(i) Implications for management

To restore the wetland increased control of stock grazing is required. A buffer zone around the
wetland would assist Ecological zones 1 and 2 to re-establish. This however would only solve the
immediate and locally solvable degradation issues facing the wetland environment. Regionally
increased flooding and frequency should be aimed for, without this locally invested effort could be
of minimal consequence.
(b) FAUNA
(i) Birds
Wetlands provide birds with habitat, food and breeding sites. The condition of a wetland plays a
significant role as to whether habitat conditions are available or suitable for a variety of birds. For
example, the water regime directly influences the availability of food, from macroinvertebrates
through to fish. Further, healthy vegetation, around wetlands, presents breeding opportunities for
many waterbirds, particularly following flood events (Scott 1997). Permanently inundated wetlands
provide waterbirds with refuge areas during times of drought and can therefore be important in a
regional context, if not national or international, particularly as river regulation throughout Australia
is reducing the availability of flooded habitat (Scott 1997). The restoration of wetlands should
attempt to provide waterbird habitat and at the very least maintain the habitats available. A good
summary of the role wetlands play for waterbirds is presented in Relationships between waterbird
ecology and river flows in the Murray-Darling Basin (Scott 1997).
During the survey of South Australia‟s River Murray Wetlands by Thompson (1986) many birds
were recognised as using Sugar Shack Lagoon, possibly for breeding, including:
Yellow-billed Spoonbill Platalea regia
Grey Teal Anas gracilis
Sulphur-crested cockatoo Cacatua galerita
Laughing Kookaburra Dacelo novaeguineae
Peaceful doves Geopelia striata
Willie wagtail Rhipidura leucophrys
Superb Fairy-wrens Malurus cyaneus
Whistling kites Haliastrus sphenurus
Australian magpies Gymnorhina tibicen
Galah Cacatua roseicapilla (Eolophus roseicapilla)
Magpie-lark Grallina cyanoleuca
19
The Sugar Shack Lagoon Baseline Wetlands Survey (Australian Water Environments 2005) found
19 of the estimated 62 species of waterbirds that are likely to frequent the area and a further 39 non-
waterbirds. The main habitats used by the water birds include open water, sedgelands, fringing red
gums and muddy verges, a summary of the habitats identified at Sugar Shack Lagoon can be found
in Table 6 below. Four species of waterbird were reported breeding at Sugar Shack Lagoon these
were the Australian Shelduck Tadorna tadornoides, Australian Wood Duck Chenonetta jubata,
Grey Teal Anas gibberifrons and Pacific Black Duck Anas superciliosa.
Most species that were expected at Sugar Shack Lagoon, given the habitat and time of year in which
the surveys were conducted and the lack of flooding, were identified. Some of the bird species
would use the wetland for seasonal breeding, however a flood that inundates wetlands, lignums and
wets red gums would be required to initiate a larger breeding event.
As for vegetation (see) the need for extensive flooding in a regional scale was identified. A large
„regional‟ flood acts as a trigger for breeding by many bird species. This flooding would provide
both additional food required for breeding as well as the habitat (flooding of lignums and red
gums).
The large diversity of non-waterbirds is also dependent on the health of the floodplain vegetation.
Although not dependent on open water, the maintenance and restoration of this vegetation is
therefore a benefit to the habitat requirements of non-waterbird species. Of particular interest
identified during the survey was the regent parrot Polytelis anthopeplus listed as „Vulnerable‟
nationally and in south Australia. This species was recorded as breeding in hollows of red gums on
Sugar Shack Lagoon (Australian Water Environments 2005).
Sugar Shack provides habitat to water birds as part of the wetland complex around it with muddy
verges and hollows in fringing red gums being the main features. This habitat is described in Table
6 below.
Table 6: Habitat features identified in Sugar Shack Lagoon; Table adapted from (Australian
Water Environments 2005).
Habitat features Description
Open water (O) Open water >30cm deep
Reedbeds (R) Typha, Phragmites or
Schoenoplectus >1m tall
Sedges (S) Eleocharis, Cyperus, Juncus in
shallow water
Mud (M) Bare mud, shallow water <10cm
Lignum (L)
Red Gum (G)
Dead Logs + Debris (D)
(ii) Frogs
All the expected frog species were heard at Sugar Shack Lagoon. The frogs heard at Sugar Shack
Lagoon included the spotted grass frog Limnodynastes tasmaniensis, eastern banjo frog L. dumerili,
common froglet Crinia signifera, eastern sign bearing froglet C. parinsignifera, southern bell frog
Litoria raniformis the southern bell frog is listed under the EPBC Act (Anonymous 1999). For a
summary of the frogs identified at Sugar Shack Lagoon see Table 7 on page 21.
Other reptiles identified during the baseline survey were the eastern water skink Eulamprus quoyii,
common snake-eye Morethia boulengeri and shell remains of the murray river turtle Emydura
macquarii.
20
Table 7: Frogs at Sugar Shack Lagoon, habitat and significant aspects.
Name Scientific Habitat Significance
Name
Spotted Grass Limnodynastes Southern and western reed 2 Males, 1 Female
Frog tasmaniensis clumps in Sugar Shack Lagoon
Breeding at wetland. Foam
nests with 90-1300 eggs,
floating attached to vegetation.
Eastern Banjo L. dumerili, Southern end of Lagoon >10
Frog
Breed throughout year. Large
foam nest with 1000-4000
eggs, attached to vegetation.
12 to 15 months in tadpole
stage.
Common Froglet Crinia signifera Both sides of channel at east >20
end of Lagoon, near causeway
Lay eggs on underside of
gate. Good fringing rush in
grass and reeds. Tadpoles
area heard. Anticipated that if
need still shallow water for 5 to
rushes return to wetland, the
6 weeks.
habitat conditions will be
suitable for this frog species.
Eastern Sign C. parinsignifera Several sites near waters >20
Bearing Froglet edge.
Eggs are scattered. Breeds in
winter
Southern Bell Litoria raniformis At 2 sites (few, up to 5). Reed Listed as Vulnerable in SA
Frog beds in southern section of (may become “Endangered”).
Lagoon. Large permanent Eggs on floating rafts which
water bodies with abundant later sink.
growth of vegetation near the
bank.
(iii) Fish
Wetlands play an important part in the lifecycle of fish. Wetlands provide food, habitat for breeding
and shelter from predators. Fish can therefore be used as bio-indicators of the long-term habitat
availability, habitat conditions and water quality within individual wetlands. Fish are also important
in the complex structure of the wetland ecosystem, for example providing a food source to birds,
they can also impact the water quality through bioturbation (e.g. European carp feeding habits).
The baseline survey (Australian Water Environments 2005) found Sugar Shack Lagoon to be an
example of a Lower River Murray wetland degraded by river regulation. They found the low
diversity of native fish throughout the wetland to include most of the expected species for a
degraded Lower River Murray wetland. The shallow and turbid nature of the wetland with limited
vegetation and therefore limited habitat provided suitable conditions for generalist species. The
distribution within the wetland showed the tendency for generalist species, in abundant numbers, to
occupy the open water of the wetland, these species included the Australian smelt with 515
individuals, bony herring with 662 individuals and carp gudgeon with 313 individuals (Australian
Water Environments 2005). According to the baseline survey two species caught in Yactko Creek
(just outside the wetland) are listed in the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 draft Threatened
Species Schedules, the un-specked hardyhead being listed as vulnerable and the Murray
rainbowfish as rare. Presently the wetland is degraded with few submerged habitats such as plant or
physical cover (snags), and therefore lacks the habitat availability for specialist species such as the
flathead gudgeon, hardyheads and large native species including Murray cod (Australian Water
21
Environments 2005). As the community group is interested in providing habitat for native fish this
is a significant obstacle, the restoration of fish habitat is therefore an objective of this management
plan. However, the large fluctuations in water level observed by the baseline survey, including a
10m reduction of the water edge between sampling dates, would probably favour the generalist
species (Australian Water Environments 2005). The baseline survey identified different sizes for
most fish species. This size distribution indicates the presence of both juvenile and mature
individuals within the wetland (Australian Water Environments 2005).
A restored Sugar Shack Lagoon, with submerged and emergent macrophytes, may provide
additional habitat for these species. That is, to increase the abundance of the more specialist species
the submerged habitat in the wetland would have to be increased. This could be achieved through
the encouragement of macrophyte growth. The fluctuations in water levels would have to be
controlled to favour the desired habitat conditions for the more specialist species; this could involve
a more gradual drawdown and refill of the Lagoon. The full native fish species list can be seen in
Table 8 on page 23. Historical records identified by the baseline survey (Australian Water
Environments 2005) list chanda perch, southern purple spotted gudgeon and Murray hardyhead as
having been caught in wetlands close to Sugar Shack Lagoon. These species may still persist in the
area (Australian Water Environments 2005). Providing suitable habitat through healthy wetlands
would potentially assist in restoring their numbers.
Four exotics were caught at Sugar Shack Lagoon see Table 9 on page 23. These were mainly
Gambusia Gambusia holbrooki and the European carp Cyprinus carpio. Currently there are no
effective management strategies for the control of Gambusia. The Baseline survey did not identify
Gambusia as being a significant threat to Sugar Shack Lagoon. However large numbers of juvenile
carp were caught indicating the wetland might be a recruitment area for carp. Very large carp were
seen throughout the wetland on the 29th of April 2005 (personal observation). Carp control
strategies available include fish screens, which restrict the movement of large fish between the
wetland and the river, and fish separation cages for the removal of carp, however both have inherent
restrictions in their use. The fish screens will exclude the entry of all large fish, including native
species intending to breed. The intent of these screens is to exclude large carp from entering the
wetland and therefore minimise bioturbation. Smaller carp are however able to pass through the
barriers and then become trapped in the wetland once they grow large. The fish separation cages are
still in the development stage and have not been trialed in South Australian wetlands, the
effectiveness and limits to their use can therefore not be discussed. Identifying the carp breeding
season and manipulating the wetland water levels accordingly to desiccate carp eggs is a
management possibility currently under research. If Sugar Shack Lagoon is indeed a carp recruiting
wetland the control of carp either through fish screens (which will be used for the present) or water
level manipulation, depending on research findings, is or should become, respectively, an objective
of the management of this wetland.
The simplest identified option for adequate restoration of Sugar Shack Lagoon, according to the
Baseline Survey, is the re-establishment of habitat (Australian Water Environments 2005). They
suggest stock exclusion trials to encourage riparian regeneration.
22
Table 8: Native fish; Table adapted from (Australian Water Environments 2005)
Common Name Scientific Name Abundance Abundance Status
November April SA Australia
Australian smelt Retropinna semoni 388 127
Bony herring (bream) Nematalosa erebi 408 254
Flathead gudgeon Philypnodon
grandiceps 17 24
Dwarf Flathead gudgeon Philypnodon sp. 4 3
Un-specked hardyhead Craterocephalus R
stercusmuscarum
fulvus 4 0
Murray rainbowfish Melanotaenia fluviatilis 0 1 V
Carp gudgeon (two Hypseleotris spp
species and hybrid form) 202 111
Murray Darling golden Macquaria ambigua
perch (callop) ambigua 4 0
Number of Species 7 6
R = Rare (taxon in decline or naturally limited presence), V = Vulnerable (high risk of extinction in wild), E =
Endangered (very high risk of extinction in wild) (Anonymous 1999; National Parks and Wildlife Council and
Department for Environment and Heritage 2003)
Table 9: Introduced fish; Table adapted from (Australian Water Environments 2005)
Abundance Abundance
Common Name Scientific Name November April 2004
2003
Common Carp Cyprinus carpio 274 10
Goldfish Carassius auratus 0 2
Redfin Perca fluviatilis 1 0
Gambusia Gambusia holbrooki 161 452
Number of Species 3 3
(iv) Implications for management

Birds
The muddy areas surrounding the wetland provide feeding habitat for wadders. The red gum
hollows provide nesting areas for both water birds and non-water birds. The management of Sugar
Shack Lagoon, from the perspective of birds, again identifies the need for a regional flood. A
regional flood would induce birds to take advantage of the vegetation present that would provide
breeding habitat.
Frogs
Most of the frog species identified require vegetation including reeds at or close to the waters edge.
Therefore to assist the survival of the identified frog species the vegetation at the waters edge of
Sugar Shack Lagoon needs to be restored.
Fish
Further fish monitoring, conducted by the community group, to elicit a comprehensive list of fish
species dependent on Sugar Shack Lagoon is recommended by the baseline survey (Australian
Water Environments 2005). This list would assist in planning future management for the
23
encouragement of the maintenance and development of appropriate fish habitat. In the mean time
the removal of exotic species is encouraged.
The best method for the removal of the exotic fish present in the wetland would be the construction
of a flow control barrier, followed by the drying of the wetland. Active removal (rescue) of native
fish species would be recommended at the start of the drying event, this could be used as a
monitoring exercise. To enhance the habitat availability for native specialist species within Sugar
Shack Lagoon more snags, such as dead red gum branches, could be introduced into the open water
of the wetland. The germination and growth of emergent and submerged macrophytes needs to be
encouraged throughout the wetland. The drying of the wetland would initiate this germination. To
protect the growth of the germinated vegetation, both riparian and aquatic (submerged and emergent
macrophytes) areas of the wetland edge needs to be fenced off, this fencing is also recommended by
the baseline survey.
The water level fluctuations within the wetland also need to be controlled to the advantage of the
native specialist species. Further, the water level fluctuations could in the future also be used for
carp control; this however depends on future research and should not adversely impact the native
fish species. For the native specialist species the water level fluctuations should be more gradual
coinciding with the „natural‟ seasonality. The installation of carp screens is recommended at this
wetland given the very large carp seen.
Summary
Based on the review of the fauna identified during the baseline survey some management strategies
required could be identified. Hydrological management entails the drying of the wetland. This
should stimulate the germination of macrophytes as well as compact some of the clay substrate.
During this time native fish should be rescued. The reintroduction of snags through submerging red
gum branches should be considered in order to provide increased habitat.
On land in the riparian area, a management focus should be on stock exclusion from sensitive
riparian area and into the waters edge. This should benefit the vegetation restoration and therefore
stabilise some of the currently resuspending sediment. The increased vegetation growth would also
provide habitat for the birds, frogs, fish and macroinvertebrates.
The main regional management issue is the increase in regional flooding levels and frequency. This
is needed to restore riparian vegetation germination and regrowth and survival as well as minimise
the potential salinity impact, which may be occurring. This requirement has been identified for both
Sugar Shack Lagoon and Morgan‟s Lagoon some 7 km upstream. Stock exclusion should also be
considered when a regional flood event leads to the regeneration of floodplain vegetation including
river red gums. This may assist the survival of the floodplain vegetation proving a more diverse
riparian habitat in the wetland area.
24
Chapter 3. LAND TENURE, JURISDICTION AND

MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS
SECTION 3.01 LAND TENURE
Surrounding Area: Tenure Type in surrounding area is Crown Lease held mainly by Indigenous
Land Corp, the custodian being Richard and Cynthia Hunter. A map covering the property borders
across the wetland area is presented in Map 5 on page 26.
SECTION 3.02 LAND AND WATER USE

There is some traditional use of the area. This impact is minimal throughout the complex and does
not impact Sugar Shack Lagoon.
The current land use in the complex is light grazing which includes approximately 100 goats
(permanent number plus offspring of 2 kids twice per year), 30 cattle (lowline), one horse and two
sheep. There is no other land use or irrigation present. The current land use is for cost recovery for
land maintenance (lease etc.).
SECTION 3.03 JURISDICTION AND MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY

The Indigenous Land Corp will be responsible for the management of the wetland. Access to the
property must be arranged through the Landholder. The contact person is Cynthia Hunter, the
current caretaker of the property. The wetland falls within the Mid Murray LAP area. See Table 10
below for contact details.
Table 10: Sugar Shack Lagoon responsible positions contact details
Position Present Phone
Officers Organisation Mailing Address number
Landholders/ Cynthia & Indigenous Land PO Box 58 Nildottie SA 5238 (08)
Caretakers Richard Corp 8570-1048
Hunter
Mid Murray LAP Judy Mid Murray LAP PO Box 10 Cambrai SA 5353 (08)
Project Officer Pfeiffer 8564 6034
Wetland Tumi Lower LAPS Mt. Lofty Ranges Mount SA 5251 (08)
Management Bjornsson Catchment Centre Barker 8391 7515
Planning Officer Upper Level, Cnr
Mann and Walker St's
Wetland Project Adrienne SA MDB NRM board PO Box 2056 Murray SA 5253 (08)
Officer, Lower Frears Bridge 8232 6753
Murray
25
Map 5: Cadastral boundaries covering Sugar Shack Lagoon and surrounds.
26
Chapter 4. THREATS AND POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS TO

SUGAR SHACK LAGOON
There are a number of existing and potential threats to Sugar Shack Lagoon, some of which have
become apparent in the description of the wetland and available data in the chapters above. The
identification of these threats is essential for appropriate adaptive management of the wetland. Their
early recognition allows for an appropriate monitoring strategy for early identification of adverse
impacts of management and therefore rapid response through management.
The major current threats to the wetland are the lack of regular overbank flooding and stock
grazing. Both of these lead to a loss of biodiversity such as riparian vegetation dieback and
complete loss of aquatic vegetation. The Baseline Survey (Australian Water Environments 2005)
state that as a result of the lack of flooding the condition of plant communities will continue to
degrade, and that within 50 years may result in their complete degradation and/or disappearance.
Other threats to the wetland identified so far have been listed in Table 11 on page 28.
The most immediate threats which can be addressed by this plan is the exclusion of stock from the
wetland and wetland fringing zone and the impact of rapid water level change on macrophyte
germination and growth. The awareness of these threats is central to future management actions, on-
ground work and monitoring set out in this wetland management plan.
27
Table 11: Existing and potential threats to Sugar Shack wetland
THREATS SYMPTOM CAUSE IMPACT CATEGORY EXTENT (IF POTENTIAL SOLUTION
KNOWN)
Rapid water level change Loss of submerged Shallow wetland Dieback of submerged Regional & Local Wetland Rigorous control of flow control
macrophytes River level fluctuation macrophytes Local structure (this will impact on the fish
Existing
Loss of habitat variability for management movement)

Fauna (Birds, Fish, Frogs, response Allow fluctuation except when very
Turtles, Macroinvertebrates) low river levels are anticipated
Addressed in this Management
Plan
Lack of flooding Dieback of floodplain Locks and river flow Dieback of floodplain Regional & Local River Murray Increase regional flooding (not in
vegetation management vegetation through to the scope of this management plan)
Existing
Lack of water supplies to the Loss of large bird breeding International.

Lower River Murray events Requires a Greater environmental flows
regional response (National approach needed)
Saline groundwater Increasing EC of groundwater Evapo-concentration Salinisation of floodplain Regional & Local Floodplain To minimise potential impact on
Increasing salinity in wetland Hydrostatic pressure from Stress and dieback of Local wetland, monitor groundwater salinity.
Potential
base/soil river (now held at a constant floodplain vegetation management Adaptively manage future wetland
Rising groundwater table level) response drying periods based on monitored
ABIOTIC
Stressed and dying vegetation results.
Poor Water Quality: Turbid wetland, loss of Bioturbation (Carp & stock) Blocking of light penetration Local & potentially Wetland Exclude large carp (this would
Turbidity macrophytes and potential algal Wind resuspension and therefore reducing regional minimise the impact of the feeding
bloom Algal bloom macrophyte growth behaviour of carp)
Lack of macrophytes – less Exclude stock
nutrient uptake which become Restoration of macrophytes
available to algae which are not through appropriate hydrology
as impacted on by high turbidity (macrophytes have been shown to
Potential
Algal blooms increase sedimentation within

Degradation of habitat quality wetlands and therefore reduce
for fauna (e.g. turbidity)
macroinvertibrates, native fish Restoration of fringing vegetation
and birds) (the riparian vegetation will act as a
windbreak and may therefore reduce
wind induced resuspension, the
maintenance of this vegetation
through flooding is a regional issue)
Loss of aquatic vegetation Their absence Stock grazing and pugging Loss of aquatic and bird Local Wetland Addressed in this Management
Generalist fish species Rapid water level fluctuation habitat availability and diversity Plan
Existing
dominating Loss of seed bank Inundate wetland

Very few specialist fish
species
BIOTIC
Macroinvertebrate population
reflecting the lack of habitat
Loss of native riparian Their absence Lack of water (inundation) Loss of habitat/breeding Regional & Local Lower River Inundate floodplain (not in the
Existing
vegetation Degraded/dying specimens Weed infestation hollows (birds) Murray scope of this management plan)
Red Gums & groundcover Bare ground Grazing Loss of snags in water body Fence of successful regrowth
species etc. Invasive species present Loss of windbreak (Some has been included in the stock
exclusion fencing)
28
THREATS SYMPTOM CAUSE IMPACT CATEGORY EXTENT (IF POTENTIAL SOLUTION

KNOWN)
Reduction of native fish and Low numbers in specialist Lack of habitat Threat to specialist species (2 Local and Wetland (SA) Restore wetland habitat
Existing
biodiversity species Destruction of habitat species identified as vulnerable Regional

(macrophytes) through carp and or rare)
grazing
Invasive fish species (Carp, Turbid wetlands Well known environmental Competition for habitat. Regional and local Wetland Fish grills to exclude large
gambusia, goldfish and Reduction in native fish problem in region (large pest (domination of available habitat) (Managed locally) specimens.
redfin) diversity and abundance population), introduced for Predation/aggressive Removal of large carp during dry
various reasons including interaction on/with small and phase
mosquito control, aquaculture young native fish Monitor abundance of invasive
Existing
and aquarium industry (discarded (Redfin/Gambusia) species with comparative monitoring

specimens) Damage to aquatic vegetation of abundance of native species
Rapid breeding cycles (Carp Decrease in water quality Future consideration of water level
~2/year), live bearing (Turbidity increase) manipulation to desiccate carp eggs
(gambusia), unpalatable eggs
(Redfin)
Predation on native fish
(redfin)
Weeds Their presence Degradation of native Exotic species Local Floodplain Active removal as per expert
vegetation Competition with native recommendation
Existing
vegetation
Loss of habitat (food source?)
Stock Lack of ground cover Grazing Loss of emergent vegetation Local Floodplain Stock exclusion fencing
vegetation and therefore habitat for fish,
BIOTIC
Hoof damage
Lack of emergent Pugging frogs and birds
macrophytes Compaction Degradation of groundcover in
Existing
floodplain
Damage of soil structure
(pugging)
Resuspension of sediment in
wetland
No habitat development for Reduction/low numbers of Fish screens Loss of recruitment and grow Local Wetland Consider the removal of carp
larger native fish species large native fish out habitat screens when breeding not in
Loss of potential increase in progress
Potential
abundance of large native fish
Increase in Weeds Increased presence Less grazing pressure Exotic species Local Floodplain Active removal as per expert
Potential
No competition with native Competition with native recommendation

species vegetation
Loss of habitat (food source?)
Blocking of inlet channel Blocking of flow channel Low flow in channel Causes decrease in water and Local Wetland Ameliorated by installation of
with reeds/sediment/lack of
Potential
Reed growth increase in salinity proper culvert/structure and

flows Sedimentation Reed maintenance if needed
29
Chapter 5. MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES

Based on the objectives presented in Section 1.02(c) on page 2 and the threats to the wetland
discussed in Chapter 4 on page 27, management objectives can now be developed in detail. The
objectives, including solutions, actions needed and priorities are detailed in Table 12 on page 31.
Adaptive management will drive the actions undertaken to achieve the objectives. Due to the
identified potential threats to the wetland, stock exclusion is underway through fencing around the
wetland (see Chapter 6 on page 33). A minor review of the objectives based on the monitored data
is recommended every year with a major review after 5 years.
30
Table 12: Management objectives for Sugar Shack Lagoon wetland.
MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES SOLUTIONS ACTIONS (Management (M) or QUANTIFIABLE MONITOR LEGISLATION PRIORITY
Engineering or structural (ES)) /MEASURE OF ACHIEVEMENT (TIMING)
Regeneration of wetland Management of Construct flow control structures Diversity of aquatic species Photo point (Y) WAP (water High
aquatic species inundation/drying periods (ES) (presence of emergent and submerged Vegetation license) Covered by this plan
(Improved water plant Manage water regime to Close flow control gates (dry macrophytes) survey (Y)
communities) trigger/induce aquatic and riparian wetland) (M) Maintain clear wetland (Turbidity Monitor water
Native
vegetation regeneration (Aim for Open flow control gates (M) NTU 80 for 75% of time) quality (M)
key wetland species) Establish a water regime which
includes wetting and drying cycles to
VEGETATION
induce germination adaptively (see

Section 6.02 on page 36)
Regeneration of fringing Manage water regime to restore Allow flooding when possible Vegetation germination and growth Photo point (Y) WAP (water Medium
vegetation fringing vegetation license)
Native
No grazing damage of vegetation Vegetation

Exclude stock survey (Y)
Removal of weeds from Establish weed removal projects Weed control as per expert Reduction of weeds (as per expert Vegetation N/A Low
Invasive
wetland area in the wetland area recommendations assessment) survey (Y)
Restore native fish Manage water regime to restore Dry wetland (M) Maintenance or increase in fish Fish survey (Y) WAP (water High
habitat habitat values for native fish and Open flow control gates (ES) diversity (No net loss) license) to control
therefore enhance their breeding. Control refilling speed to optimize Increase abundance of specialist water within the
Improved fish habitat through for aquatic vegetation germination species (at least double) wetland
improved and more diverse and growth (M) No more than 30% reduction in
ecological niches, such as Maintenance of a stable still water generalist species
macrophytes (emergent and environment (M)
submerged), snags (therefore need Increase snags in wetland (ES)
riparian vegetation) and open water.
Native
With increased snags and aquatic

vegetation more food sources,
biofilms etc. would be available.
This would lead to an increased
diversity and abundance of small
FISH
native fish, which are prayed upon

by larger native fish. Both are in turn
prayed upon by waterbirds who also
obtain a more diverse habitat
though the development of aquatic
and riparian vegetation
Minimize adverse impact Allow free movement of small Removal of flow control structures Presence of native fish in wetland Fish survey sites N/A High
on native fish entering native fish between Yactko Creek when river levels adequate to (Y)
wetland and Sugar Shack lagoon maintain water level in wetland (M)
Native
31
MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES SOLUTIONS ACTIONS (MANAGEMENT (M) QUANTIFIABLE MONITOR LEGISLATION PRIORITY
OR ENGINEERING OR /MEASURE OF ACHIEVEMENT (TIMING)
STRUCTURAL (ES))
Reduce threat of invasive Restrict invasion by large carp Installation of fish grills (M) Presence of invasive fish species in Fish survey (Y) Medium
fish species wetland (No large carp, reduced carp to
Invasive
Manage water regime to Manage wetland water regime to Observation

FISH
desiccate carp eggs minimize turbidity and maintain native fish ration) (Carp come to
aquatic vegetation (M) surface)
Maintain diversity of frogs Not adversely impact on present Restoration of fringing vegetation No reduction in frog diversity Monitor frogs Medium
habitat (M)
FROGS
Native
Improved habitat for Manage water regime to restore Restoration of wetland habitat and Increase bird species reliant on Bird survey Medium
Native/Migratory
water birds habitat values for water birds conditions for native fish species, fringing vegetation using wetland (3 (1/2Y)
Manage water regime to restore migratory water birds, native water more species) Vegetation
habitat values for migratory bird birds and fringing species, through the Increase in habitat diversity survey (Y)
BIRDS
species restoration of aquatic and riparian Observation

plant species (M)
Restore hydrology regime (M)
Salinity Manage water regime to Monitor water quality (adaptive Monitor wetland salinity (no net Monitor water Low
minimise salinity impact of management, i.e. alter the increase over time after inundation) quality (Q)
WQ
management strategy management of the wetland if a net

increase in salinity is identified)
Turbidity Manage water regime to Establish an wetland dry phase, Visibly clear water Monitor water Medium
minimise turbidity of wetland water, every second year, to promote quality (M)
maximising the wetland restoration sediment compaction (to reduce Turbidity of wetland water below 80
Observation
MANAGEMENT
Remove large carp resuspension) and macrophyte NTU for majority of time ( 75%)
Remove stock access growth (and therefore induce
WQ
sedimentation) (M)
Remove large carp during drying
phase
Install fish screens
Fence off wetland
Construction of culvert Apply for funding Engineering design Presence of culvert Asap Mid Murray Council High
with flow control structure Planning approval
Structural
Construction
and large fish screens
Construction of stock LAP funding Construction Presence of fence Asap High

exclusion fence
WMP, Wetland Management Plan; GW, Ground Water; WQ, Water Quality; W, Weekly; M, Monthly; Q, Quarterly; Y, Yearly
32
Chapter 6. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

Management actions have been developed based on the threats to the wetland, the management
objectives, the baseline survey data and the vision/mission statement. These management actions include
on-groundwork as well as the alteration of the wetland hydrological regime. A monitoring plan, designed
to assist in adaptive management of the wetland and therefore focus on the fulfilment of the vision
statement, is discussed in the next chapter (Chapter 7 on page 41).
The major on ground actions identified include:
Fence off Sugar Shack Lagoon from stock grazing (see Map 6 on page 34)
Design of flow control structures and carp grills (see Appendix E)
Construction of flow control structures and carp grills (see Map 6 on page 34)
Drying of wetland for 3 to 6 months
Inundate wetland (see hydrology operational plan Section 6.02 on page 36)
Monitoring (see monitoring plan Chapter 7 on page 41)
SECTION 6.01 ON GROUND ACTION AND TIMETABLE

Table 13, on page 35, provides a timetable for the on ground works in Sugar Shack Lagoon area, prior to
inundation, during inundation as well as post inundation. This table does not address monitoring, which is
discussed in Chapter 7 on page 41.
A log of all activities should be maintained. This log would assist in the review process of the wetland
management plan discussed in Chapter 8 on page 43.
33
Map 6: On ground works at Sugar Shack Lagoon.
34
Table 13: Implementation plan for Sugar Shack Lagoon land based activities.
ACTIVITY PRIORITY RESOURCES TIMETABLE RESPONSIBILITY

Construct stock exclusion fence High Fencing material (Funding – Mid Murray LAP) Spring - Summer 2005/6 Land holder
MANAGEMENT
Capable individuals
WETLAND
PRIOR TO
Design of culvert (see Appendix E for inlet channel High Engineer Consultant Summer 2005 – Autumn 2006 Land holder with assistance from the
morphology) LAP
Construction of culvert High Funding Summer 2005 – Autumn 2006 Land holder with assistance from the
Contractors etc. LAP
While the deep flow channel is inundated – Fish Medium Fish nets (seine net) Autumn Land holder with assistance, if
WETLAND DRY
survey (release native fish into Yactko creek, necessary, from the LAP or SA MDB
destroy exotic species) NRM board
Monitor Ground water (height and salinity). High Tape measure Monthly during dry phase (see monitoring Land holder with assistance from the
DURING
PHASE
Follow schedule in Chapter 7 on page 41 Bailer schedule Chapter 7 on page 41) SA MDB NRM board
Containers to collect water samples (SA MDB
NRM board can measure salinity)
Install fish exclusion grills High 1 person 5 minutes September Land holder
Inundate wetland High 1 person 15 minutes/day for time that culvert is September Land holder
DURING INUNDATION
Less than 1cm/day (needs to maintain flow path open

clear, i.e. remove debris from exclusion mesh)
Maintain wetland volume. That could involve the High Stop Logs (Culvert needs to be in place) As Appropriate Land holder
reinsertion of flow control structures (Stop logs) if 1 person
the river levels are expected to drop well below 0.8
m AHD. The wetland may otherwise dry out when
the management intention is to maintain a wet
phase.
Monitor according to monitoring schedule Chapter 7 High See monitoring schedule Chapter 7 on page 41 See monitoring schedule Chapter 7 on page 41 Land holder with assistance, if
on page 41 necessary, from the LAP or SA MDB
NRM board
Respond to issues identified during ongoing High Annual review of monitoring data Winter Land holder with assistance from the
AS APPROPRIATE
management (e.g. increase in weeds) LAP or SA MDB NRM board
Insert snags (red gum branches) if available Low Branches During dry phase Land holder
Manpower
Establish whether high turbidity is a result of Low Sampling As necessary Land holder with assistance from the
suspended sediment or algae Funding LAP or SA MDB NRM board
35
SECTION 6.02 WETLAND WATER OPERATIONAL PLAN

The strongest tool in managing a wetland is the control of the wetland hydrology. The hydrology controls
the germination and growth of aquatic and riparian vegetation. The healthy vegetation and appropriate
inundation leads to the growth of biofilm, the vegetation and biofilm being a food source for
macroinvertebrates and small native fish. The vegetation and appropriate water regime also provide a
more diverse habitat for waterbirds and fish. The restoration of Sugar Shack Lagoon and fulfilment of the
major objectives, the restoration of a complex wetland ecosystem, is therefore reliant upon the
establishment of an appropriate water regime.
Sugar Shack Lagoon has presently a highly and rapidly fluctuating water regime (Australian Water
Environments 2005). The management of the wetland will attempt to minimise this rapid fluctuation and
mimic more natural fluctuations expected to occur in Lower River Murray wetlands. This would include
dry periods and therefore the re-establishment of wet and dry periods. When Sugar Shack Lagoon is filled
to a depth of 0.8 meter, the water surface area covers approximately 26 ha, (the surface area identified by
Thompson (Thompson 1986) and the Wetlands Atlas of the South Australian Murray Valley (Jensen,
Paton et al. 1996) is 30 ha which includes a small side extension of the wetland). The volume of the
wetland at 26 ha is 132 ML.
By re-establishing an appropriate seasonal and slowly fluctuating water regime, adapted to the current
conditions in the River Murray and Sugar Shack Lagoon, it is anticipated that the macrophyte
germination and growth can be encouraged. The increased growth of macrophytes would provide
increased habitat than currently available for macroinvertebrates, fish, amphibians and water birds.
The management of the hydrology regime and the fill rate, volume and drying stage will be based on
observed conditions and on monitored data. Adaptive management of Sugar Shack Lagoon is controlled
through the 5-year hydrological operational plan (HOP), which is described in Table 14 on page 39. This
intended hydrological regime is described below and shown in Figure 21 and Figure 22 on page 38. The
HOP includes an assessment of the water volumes needed annually over the 5-year period (Table 16on
page 40).
At the end of each inundation season a decision should be made as to whether the hydrology regime
intended is to be followed based on monitored data and past experiences, this would be as part of an
annual review of the wetland management plan (WMP). An annual review of the WMP is essential for
best practice management to guide efforts according to the vision and therefore objectives. This will assist
to assess whether the submerged vegetation has set seed and if the wetland is due for a dry period.
(a) HYDROLOGY REGIME
The wetland hydrology regime (management) intended for Sugar Shack Lagoon is as follows:
Stage 1. Dry the wetland following construction of flow control. Wetland should remain dry for at
least 3 months and no more than 6. Drying should therefore commence at the end of February
beginning of March. The first dry period will include drying the deep flow channel into the
wetland. All following dry events will maintain the pool within the flow channel as a refuge for
native fish.
Stage 2. Refill the wetland. Refill can proceed rapidly between depth of - 0.8 m AHD and 0.4 m
AHD. This depth is in the flow channel and should fill rapidly. No macrophyte growth is desired
in the flow channel. The filling of the wetland following this initial fill stage should proceed
slowly at maximally 2cm depth per day. The filling should take between 6 and 8 weeks.
Stage 3. (Not part of water licence) If the water level is adequate (i.e. small scale flooding has
occurred) the wetland should be brought to 1.4 m AHD, which includes the side wetland. If this is
not possible during this time it will remain an option during spring to early summer if the river
level should allow it. The 1.4 m AHD should be held for as long as possible up to 7 month in
duration (4 minimum aimed for).
36
Stage 4. The 0.8 m AHD water level should be strived for, for the wet part of a two-year wet dry
cycle. This would allow the macrophytes to set seed (Tucker, Harper et al. 2002). Prior to re-
drying there needs to be a confirmation that the macrophytes have seeded. This would be achieved
through monitoring.
Stage 5. Return to stage 1.
A representation of these stages is made in Figure 21 and Figure 22 on page 38.
Water allocation (WA) required during year 1 (September to September) is expressed in Equation 1, see
Figure 22 on page 38 for a description of the parameters. This initial year can include an overfill volume
to simulate a flood in the side wetland. This would optimally be conducted in the first year but may be
aimed for in consecutive years if the water levels do not allow the „flooding‟, the water allocation
required for a „flood‟ is calculated using Equation 2. The water allocation required during a normal wet
(September to August) is expressed in Equation 3. Only the evaporation is needed to calculate the water
volume in dry years. In these „dry‟ years the deep flow channel is left inundated, the surface area during
this time reduces and consequently the evaporation. The calculated water allocation requirements for
Sugar Shack Lagoon over the period of the wetland management plan are calculated in Table 15 on page
40 and presented in Table 16 on page 40.
Equation 1: WA 1 Rfv 1 Ev
Equation 2: WA 4 Xv Ev
Equation 3: WA 1 Rfv 2 Ev
The evaporation rates were obtained using the Wetland Loss Calculator obtained from RMWCMB. The
details of the estimated volume of evaporation used for the calculation of water requirements can be seen
in see Appendix G.
The salinity impact of wetland management was to be estimated using the SIWM model. However the
Department of Water Land and Biodiversity Conservation (DWLBC) has withdrawn the use of the SIWM
model. Some inherent difficulties were found in developing and finalising this model for general use
leading to a new modelling approach to be undertaken. DWLBC is presently developing a new model for
the simulation of, the impact wetland management will have on salt accumulation within wetlands, as
well as, the potential impacts to the river (Croucher 2005). A salinity assessment will be conducted on
Sugar Shack Lagoon once the model is available for use, a brief report outlining the results of this
modelling will be included in the plan in the future.
37
Slow refill between 1 & 2 cm/day.

Relative rapid refill in Promote aquatic plant growth (emergent Allow seasonal variability
channel of wetland and submerged macrophytes). Monitor for
success & adjust fill rate.
Compact sediment. Kill

exotic fish. Rescue
Revise
native fish.
Develop habitat for
Draw down, provide
Evaporation
Wetland
mudflat for wadders.
fish, frogs and birds. Management
Plan
1.4
0.8
m AHD
Overfill wetland and into side wetland

during spring (if conditions allow,
0.4 excess water available) to provide a
variable habitat, extra breeding areas
for native fish and frogs as well as
water riparian vegetation. Overfill can
be attempted in any fill year during
spring/summer.
-0.8
January September January September January September January September January September January
Figure 21: 5 year water regime scenario for Sugar Shack Lagoon (benefit description)
Ev1 = Evaporation during refill (average surface area used for evaporation calculation)
Ev2 = Evaporation during normal volume
Ev3 = Evaporation during dry event
Ev4 = Evaporation during „flood‟ Revise

Rfv1 = Required fill volume after complete dry Wetland
Rfv2 = Required fill volume after wetland bed dry Management
Xv = Extra volume (for side wetland, flood simulation) Plan
Water Operational Year 1 Water Operational Year 2 Water Operational Year 3 Water Operational Year 4 Water Operational Year 5
1.4
Ev1 Ev4 Ev2 Ev3 Ev2 Ev3 Ev2
0.8
Xv
m AHD
Rfv2 Rfv2
0.4
Rfv1
-0.8
January September January September January September January September January September
Stage 1 2a&b 3 4 5 2b 4 5 2b 4
See next page for a description of each stage
Figure 22: 5 year water regime scenario for Sugar Shack Lagoon (volume description)
38
Table 14: 5 year hydrological operational plan (HOP) for Sugar Shack Lagoon
Stage Stage description Water Level Depth (m) Wetland Timing Triggers
Depth (m
AHD)
Measured @ Centre
deepest (average)
point of depth of
wetland. wetland.
Actual depth
1 Drying wetland 0 0 -0.8 March to August Closing of „new‟ flow control structures.
2a Refill wetland inflow channel. 1.2 0 0.4 September Opening of structure. The inundation of this
Can be filled rapidly as macrophyte area may proceed very quickly as the volume
growth is not wanted in the flow required is not great.
channel.
2b The flow is reduced to 1 to 2 1.6 0.4 0.8 September The „channel‟ is filled and the inflowing water
cm/day to allow macrophyte spreads onto wetland base. Maintain
germination and growth. appropriate water inflow rate to induce
macrophyte germination and support growth.
3a The water level maintained at 1.4 2.2 1 1.4 Summer Macrophyte healthy. Shallow sections used by
m AHD for up to 7 months if wadders, fish etc.
possible *
3b Slow draw down to 0.8 m AHD 1.8 0.4 0.8 Late Drop in river levels. Maintenance of the „flood‟
depth Summer/Autumn no longer possible (Mudflats for wadders).
4 Maintenance of wetland volume 1.6 0.4 0.8 Seasonal Water levels in river, in wetland and the
with seasonal variation. requirements. season.
Water regime change stabilised September „higher‟
to occur slowly rather than the reducing in late
current rapid change. This could summer.
entail inserting the stop logs at 1 m
AHD if the river level is expected to
drop to ensure the wetland does not
go below its pool volume during an
intended wet year.
5 Drying wetland 0.8 0 0.4 Autumn Submerged and emergent macrophytes have
Return to Stage 2b completed seeding cycle. Closing of flow
control structures. Water retained in flow pool.
* This length of inundation would be good for riparian vegetation and for fish and water birds breeding in the area. However, it is unlikely that it will be possible to
maintain this level of inundation without a regional approach to hydrology management.
Grey areas not relevant to current water license application.
39
Table 15: Water use calculation
Volume (ML) * Potential Evaporation (ML) ** Total Annual Water Requirement

(ML)
Rfv1** Rfv2** Xv**
First Year 130 350 480 (see Equation 1)
Dry Year (Years 2 & 4) 260 260
Wet Year (Years 3 & 5) 90 350 440 (see Equation 3)
Overfill (not needed for 180 40 220 (see Equation 2)

license)
* Obtained from the baseline survey (Australian Water Environments 2005)
** Rounded to nearest 10 ML
Table 16: Water allocation requirements
Year 1 First Year 480 ML
Year 2 Dry Year 260 ML
Year 3 Wet Year 440 ML
Year 4 Dry Year 260 ML
Year 5 Wet Year 440 ML
40
Chapter 7. MONITORING
For the development of a wetland management plan for Sugar Shack Lagoon baseline monitoring
was performed in the period 2004 to 2005. The data collected during this survey has been described
and analysed in the previous chapters of this document and provided a basis by which objectives for
the wetland management could be refined and the hydrological operational plan could be
developed.
As part of adaptive management and best practise wetland management, monitoring of the wetland
has been devised to guide the future management of the changed hydrological regime. That is,
ongoing monitoring during wetland management plays a role in adaptive management by providing
managers with information on how the wetland is responding to management strategies, whether the
objectives are being met, whether there are off-target implications (wetland in regional context) or
(as per Your Wetland: Monitoring Manual (Tucker 2004)) whether the “Golden Rules” are being
broken. The “Golden Rules” being:
Don‟t salinise your wetland.
Don‟t kill long lived vegetation.
Don‟t destroy threatened communities or habitats of threatened species.
Table 17 on page 42 sets out the intended monitoring schedule for the wetland based on the
objectives and the ability of the community and supporting agencies.
To ensure that monitored data is available for evaluation, review and reporting, a log of all
activities, monitoring and site description should be maintained at an accessible and convenient
location. A copy of the monitoring data should be regularly backed up (or copied) and stored at a
separate location so as to minimise potential loss or destruction of the data.
The purpose of such a log is to maintain a record of management steps undertaken, their
justification and observed impacts/implications. The maintenance of a log is both good management
practice, allowing future reference to potential impacts of management, and a requirement of the
Wetland Water License. Refer to Your Wetland: Monitoring Manual (Tucker 2004) for examples of
data log sheets and further description of monitoring methods.
41
Table 17: Monitoring plan for Sugar Shack Lagoon.
Time
Parameter Method Priority SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG Required Responsible
Land holder with
Groundwater Level and HIGH assistance from SA
Conductivity     Half day MDB NRM board
Water quality
monitoring (cond, HIGH
turb, temp)        Half day Land holder
Surface Water
Surface level
(using gauge HIGH
boards)             0.5 hour Land holder
Seine net, dip net Land holder with

Fish (and fyke nets if HIGH assistance from SA
deep enough)    1 day MDB NRM board
1 day (prior to
Photopoint HIGH first drying LAP & SA MDB
Installation  event) NRM board
Vegetation Photopoint LAP & SA MDB
HIGH
monitoring         2 hours NRM board
Quadrat/line LAP & SA MDB
MODERATE
intercept*  Set up 2 days, NRM board
Land holder with
Frogs MODERATE assistance from SA
Recording Calls   0.5 hour MDB NRM board
Land holder with
Birds Fixed area MODERATE Half day (from assistance from SA
search  dawn) MDB NRM board
Dip net survey 1 day (not Land holder with
Macro-
LOW including assistance from SA
invertebrates
    identification) MDB NRM board
42
Chapter 8. EVALUATION, REVIEW AND REPORTING

SECTION 8.01 EVALUATION AND REVIEW
The review of the implications of changed management of Sugar Shack Lagoon needs to be an
ongoing process. For the wetland management plan to be an adaptive and complete document,
periodic reviews have been scheduled in the monitoring and evaluation framework.
The full impact of a changed hydrology regime and the effectiveness of the new regime cannot be
fully predicted, nor can the exact timing of a change in water regime. Therefore, the data obtained
through monitoring need to be regularly reviewed to respond to impacts of the management
strategy. An annual review of the monitored data and the condition of the wetland should be
conducted by the Community group, if necessary assistance is be available from the Mid Murray
LAP and the SA MDB NRM board. A full review of the wetland management plan should be
scheduled in 5 years.
For the annual review to be effective it needs to include an upgrade of the;
Hydrological regime based on new knowledge and understanding, e.g. whether the
submerged macrophytes have set seed and therefore if a planned dry period can continue as
scheduled.
Decision Support Framework based on experiences and monitoring, e.g. does this
framework fulfil the requirements demanded of it or does it need a review.
Monitoring schedule to reflect changes in the wetland management plan.
SECTION 8.02 REPORTING

The wetland management plan for Sugar Shack lagoon is comprehensive and includes an estimation
of the water requirements over the period covered in this plan. Should the volume used deviate
substantially from the plan the Department of Water Land and Biodiversity Conservation
(DWLBC) will need to be notified. The records noted in the activity and monitoring logs will assist
in reporting to DWLBC.
Further, as part of the requirements of the water license, any substantial change in the wetland
management plan, e.g. objectives, monitoring timetable or planed hydrology regime change, also
need to be reported to DWLBC.
43
Chapter 9. REFERENCES
Anonymous Australian Heritage Database. Accessed 18 July 2005, http://www.deh.gov.au/cgi-
bin/ahdb/search.pl?mode=place_detail;place_id=7883.
Anonymous (1999). Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.
Australian Water Environments (2005). Sugar Shack Wetlands Baseline Survey. Adelaide,
Australian Water Environments.
BOM (2005). Climate Averages. Accessed 27 June 2005,

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_024018.shtml.
Croucher, D. (2005). Personal Communication.
Department of Water Land and Biodiversity Conservation (2005a). AW426902: MURRAY RIVER
@ Lock 1 Upstream (274.3km). Accessed 31 August 2005,
http://www.dwlbc.sa.gov.au/subs/surface_water_archive/sites/aw426902/aw426902.htm.
Department of Water Land and Biodiversity Conservation (2005b). AW426903: MURRAY RIVER
@ Lock 1 Downstream (274.3km). Accessed 31 August 2005,
http://www.dwlbc.sa.gov.au/subs/surface_water_archive/sites/aw426903/aw426903.htm.
Hunter, C. (2005a). Personal Communication.
Hunter, R. (2005b). Personal Communication.
Jensen, A., P. Paton, et al. (1996). Wetlands Atlas of the South Australian Murray Valley.
ADELAIDE, South Australian River Murray Wetlands Management Committee. South Australian
Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
Murray-Darling Ministerial Council (1998). Floodplain Wetlands Management Strategy: For the
Murray-Darling Basin. Canberra, Murray-Darling Basin Commission. A component of the Natural
Resources Management Strategy
National Parks and Wildlife Council and Department for Environment and Heritage (2003). 2003
Review of the Status of Threatened Species in South Australia: Proposed Schedules under the South
Australian National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972, Government of South Australia. Discussion Paper
River Murray Catchment Water Management Board (2002). Water Allocation Plan for the River
Murray Prescribed Watercourse. Berri, South Australia, Government of South Australia.
River Murray Catchment Water Management Board and Department of Water Land and
Biodiversity Conservation (2003). Guidelines for Development of Wetland Management Plans for
the River Murray in South Australia.
Scott, A. (1997). Relationships between waterbird ecology and river flows in the Murray-Darling
Basin. Canberra, CSIRO Land and Water. Technical Report
South Australian River Murray Wetlands Management Committee (1996). Management of

Wetlands of the River Murray Valley: Draft Action Plan 1996-1999. Adelaide, Wetlands
Management Program: Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
44
Thompson, M. B. (1986). River Murray Wetlands, their Characteristics, Significance and
Management. Adelaide, Department of Environment and Planning and Nature Conservation Society
of S.A.
Tucker, P. (2004). Your Wetland: Monitoring Manual - Data Collection. Renmark SA, River
Murray Catchment Water Management Board
Australian Landscape Trust.
Tucker, P., S. Dominelli, et al. (2003). Your Wetland: Supporting Information. Renmark SA,
Australian Landscape Trust.
Tucker, P., M. Harper, et al. (2002). Your Wetland: Hydrology Guidelines. Renmark SA, Australian
Landscape Trust.
45
Appendix A. Wetlands Atlas Data for Wetland Main Body

Table 18: Swan Reach Complex, Wetland atlas data (Jensen, Paton et al. 1996)
Wetland atlas data Wetland atlas data Sugar Shack Only
Area 732169.6 30ha

Perimeter 17220.57
Wetlands_ 1104
Wetlands_i 1103
As2482 44190
Aus_wetlan S0092
Thom_wetla
Thom_chang
Wetland_na SWAN REACH COMPLEX
Self-contained hydrological
Complex_na unit
Cons_value 1
Mdbc_distn 4
PERMANENT/TEMPORARY Permanent/temporary
Water_regi COMBINATION
Internatio 0
National 1
Basin 1
Valley 1
High_conse 1
Moderate_c 0
Low_conser 0
Should_rea 0
Should_ass 0
46
Appendix B. Surface Water Archive Graph
DWLBC, Surface Water Archive HYPLOT V128 Output 14/10/2004
Period 5 Year Plot Start 00:00_01/01/2000 2000-05

Interval 1 Day Plot End 00:00_01/01/2005
AW426903 MURRAY RIVER @ Lock 1 Downstream (274.3km)
100.10 Line Level (m) Daily Read
3.2
2.7
2.2
1.7
1.2
0.7
0.2
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Figure 23: Downstream water level at Lock 1
47
Appendix C. Baseline Survey Locations

Maps adapted from baseline survey report (Australian Water Environments 2005)
Figure 24: Ground water and gauge board locations

Ground water in red, gauge board in blue.
48
Figure 25: Photopoint and water level monitoring sites
49
Figure 26: Sugar Shack Lagoon fish survey sites
Figure 27: Sugar Shack Lagoon vegetation monitoring sites
50
Appendix D. Baseline Survey Vegetation Zones
Figure 28: Sugar Shack Lagoon ecological zones
51
Appendix E. Sugar Shack Inlet Channel
52
Appendix F. Species List for Sugar Shack Lagoon

SECTION F.01 FLORA
(a) RIPARIAN AND FLOODPLAIN SPECIES
Plant species at Sugar Shack are presented in Table 19 below (adapted from River Murray Wetlands
Baseline Survey (Australian Water Environments 2005).
Table 19: Plant species at Sugar Shack Lagoon
Species Common Name Conservation Plant Association
Introduced
Rating
1 2 3a 3b 4 5
Strata
AUS
MU
SA
1 Eucalyptus River Red Gum * * *
camaldulensis
1 Eucalyptus Black Box (River *
largiflorens Box)
2 Acacia stenophylla River Cooba * *
2 Muehlenbeckia Lignum * * * * *
florulenta
3 Atriplex Berry Saltbush U * *
semibaccata
3 Atriplex suberecta Lagoon Saltbush * * *
3 Enchylaena Ruby Saltbush * *
tomentosa
3 Eremophila Spreading U *
divaricata Emubush
3 Maireana rohrlachii Rohrlach‟s R R *
Bluebush
3 Muehlenbeckia Spiny Lignum R *
horrida
3 Myoporum Native Myrtle * *
montanum
3 Salsola kali Buckbush * *
3 Xanthium Californian Burr * *
californicum
4 Agrostis avenacea Common Blown *
var. avenacea Grass
4 Alternathera Lesser Joyweed *
denticulata
4 Amyema miquelii Box Mistletoe *
4 Aster subulatus Aster Weed * *
4 Brachycome Swamp Daisy R R *
basaltica var.
gracilis
4 Bromus rubens Red Brome * * *
4 Carrichtera annua Wards Weed * * *
4 Centipeda minima Spreading U *
53
Sneezeweed
4 Cirsium vulgare Spear Thistle * * * *
4 Clematis Old Man‟s Beard *
microphylla
4 Conyza Flax-leaf Fleabane * *
bonariensis
4 Cotula vulgaris var. Slender Cotula *
australasica
4 Crassula sp. Crassula/Stonecrop *
4 Cressa cretica Rosinweed U * *
4 Eclypta platyglossa Yellow Twin-heads U *
4 Einadia nutans Climbing Saltbush * *
4 Epaltes australis Spreading Nut- U * *
heads
4 Eragrostis Cane-grass * *
australasica
4 Euphorbia Caustic Weed * *
drummondii
4 Euphorbia False Caper * * * *
terracina
4 Heliotropium Smooth Heliotrope *
curassavicum
4 Lactuca serriola Prickly Lettuce * * *
4 Lepidium Common * *
africanum Peppercress
4 Maireana brevifolia Short-leaf Bluebush * *
4 Medicago Burr Medic * * * * *
polymorpha
4 Myoporum Creeping Boobialla R R *
parvifolium
4 Oenothera stricta Evening Primrose * *
4 Paspalum disticum Water Couch * *
4 Phyla canescens Lippia * * * *
4 Picris squarrosa Squat Picris R R *
4 Plantago Clay Plantain *
cunninghamii
4 Pseudognaphalium Jersey Cudweed *
luteoalbum
4 Reichardia False Sow-thistle * * *
tingitana
4 Rostraria cristata Annual Cat‟s Tail * * *
4 Sclerolaena Five-spine Bindyi * *
muricata var.
muricata
4 Sclerolaena Five-spine Bindyi R R *
muricata var.
villosa
54
4 Senecio lautus Variable Groundsel * *
4 Senecio Thistle-leaf *
runcinifolius Groundsel
4 Setaria jubiflora Warrego Summer- * *
grass
4 Sisymbrium sp. Wild Mustard * *
4 Stenotaphrum Buffalo Grass * *
secundatum
4 Teucrium Grey Germander U
racemosum
4 Wahlenbergia River Bluebell
fluminalis
5 Bolboschoenus Salt Club-rush *
caldwellii
5 Cyperus exaltatus Splendid Flat- *
sedge
5 Cyperus Spiny Flat-sedge *
gymnocaulos
5 Eleocharis acuta Common Spike- * *
rush
5 Juncus aridicola Inland Rush *
5 Ludwigia peploides Water Primrose *
spp. montevidensis
5 Marsilea Common Nardoo *
drummondii
5 Myriophyllum sp. Milfoil *
5 Phragmites Common Reed *
australis
5 Potamogeton Floating Pondweed *
(tricarinatus?)
5 Sporobolus Rat-tail Couch *
mitchellii?
5 Typha Narrow-leaf *
domingensis Bulrush
AUS = Australia, SA = South Australia, MU = Murray Region (R = Rare, U= Uncommon)
Strata; 1 = Large tree, 2= Small tree & Tall Shrub, 3 = Small to Medium Shrub, 4 = Ground hugging shrubs,
Groundcovers, Tussocks, Herbs, Grasses, Ferns, Annuals, 5 = Reeds, Sedges, Rushes & Aquatic plants
Ecological Zone; 1 = Near Shore, 2 = Rising Ground, 3 = Lowland Floodplain (a = Lagoon, b = other), 4= Lignum
Shrubland, 5 = Black Box Woodland
55
SECTION F.02 WETLAND AND FLOODPLAIN FAUNA

(a) BIRDS OF SUGAR SHACK LAGOON
Table 20: Waterbird species observed in at Sugar Shack Lagoon, adapted from (Australian
Water Environments 2005)
Species Habitat
Common Name Scientific Name
Abundan
Breeding
Roosting
Feeding
Status
Count
Roost
Feed
ce
Australian Tadorna G S M, D Sum UB 8 S O
Shelduck tadornoides
Australian Wood Chenonetta jubata G M, L M, D Res CB 20 S D
Duck
Pacific Black Duck Anas superciliosa G, L S, O O, D, Res UB 18 S, O O
M
Grey Teal Anas gracilis G S, O O, D, Res UB 3 S, O O, D
M
Chestnut Teal Anas castanea S, O O, D Irreg U 30 S, O O
Little Black Phalacrocorax G O G, D Irreg U 2 O D, M
Cormorant sulcirostris
Great Cormorant Phalacrocorax G O G, D Irreg U 2 O D, M
carbo
Australian Pelican Pelecanus M O O, D, Res C 170 O O, M
conspicillatus M
White-faced Heron Egretta G S, M G, M Res UB 1 S G
novaehollandiae
Australian White Threskiornis G, L S, M G, D, Res U 3 S M
Ibis molucca M
Yellow-billed Platalea flavipes G S, M G, D, Res UB 4 S M
Spoonbill M
Black-tailed Gallinula ventralis L L, S, L Irreg U 30 L, S L
Native-hen M
Red-necked Recurvirostra M M M Irreg R 16 S, M M
Avocet novaehollandiae
Black-fronted Elseyornis M M M Res UB 1 M M
Dotterel melanops
Masked Lapwing Vanellus miles M M M Res UB 2 M, L M, L
Silver Gull Larus M M, O M, O Res U 1 O O, M
novaehollandiae
Caspian Tern Sterna caspia M O M Res U 15 O M
Whiskered Tern Chlidonias S, L O M Irreg
hybridus
Clamorous Reed- Acrocephalus R R R Sum UB 1 R R
warbler stentoreus
Little Grassbird Megalurus R R, S R Res UB 1 R, S R
gramineus
56
Total Count 328
Total Species 19
* Seen to Breed in Wetland Area
Habitats: R = reedbeds, S = sedgelands, L = lignum, O = open water, M = muddy verges, G = gums, D = logs and other
debris
Status: Res = Resident, Irreg = Irregular visitor, Sum = spring/summer visitor, Win = autumn/winter visitor
Abundance: c = common (likely to be seen in reasonable numbers on most visits), U = uncommon (likely to be seen in
reasonable numbers on some visits), R = rare (recorded rarely and in small numbers), B = likely to breed regularly
Table 21: Non-waterbird species observed at Sugar Shack Lagoon, adapted from
(Australian Water Environments 2005)
Species
Common Name Scientific Name Count
Black Kite Milvus migrans 1
Whistling Kite Haliastur sphenurus Several
Wedge-tailed Eagle Aquila audax 1
Australian Hobby Falco longipennis 2
*Spotted Turtle-Dove Streptopelia chinensis 1
Common Bronzewing Phaps chalcoptera 2
Crested Pigeon Ocyphaps lophotes 2
Diamond Dove Geopelia cuneata 1
Peaceful Dove Geopelia striata Several
Galah Eolophus roseicapilla Common
Sulphur-crested Cockatoo Cacatua galerita Several
Little Corella Cacatua sanguinea Several
Purple-crowned Lorikeet Glossopsitta porphyrocephala 2
Regent Parrot Polytelis anthopeplus 2-3 Pairs, breeding
Yellow Rosella Platycercus elegans flaveolus Several
Mallee Ringneck Barnardius barnardi Several

Horsfield‟s Bronze-Cuckoo Chrysococcyx basalis 1
Laughing Kookaburra Dacelo novaeguineae 2
Sacred Kingfisher Todiramphus sanctus 1
Brown Treecreeper Climacteris picumnus Several
Superb Fairy-wren Malurus cyaneus Few groups
Variegated Fairy-wren Malurus lamberti Few groups
Striated Pardalote Pardalotus striatus Several
Noisy Miner Manorina melanocephala Several
White-plumed Honeyeater Lichenostomus penicillatus Several
White-browed Babbler Pomatostomus superciliosus 1 group
Rufous Whistler Pachycephala rufiventris 1
Grey Shrike-thrush Colluricincla harmonica 2
Magpie-Lark Grallina cyanoleuca 2
57
Willie Wagtail Rhipidura leucophrys 2
Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike Artamus cyanopterus 1
Pied Butcherbird Cracticus nigrogularis 2
Australian Magpie Gymnorhina tibicen Several
Australian Raven Corvus coronoides 2
Richard‟s Pipit Anthus novaeseelandiae 1
*House Sparrow Passer domesticus Several
Welcome Swallow Hirundo neoxena Several
Tree Martin Hirundo nigricans Several
Fairy Martin Hirundo ariel Several
*Common Starling Sturnus vulgaris Several
Total Species 39
* Introduced
58
Appendix G. Evaporation and precipitation obtained using the Wetland Loss Calculator.
The added water loss during inundation of the side arm of the wetland is calculated from parts C & D (231-207). This added water loss would occur if the
wetland inundation can be increased to include the side arm of the wetland. This loss is 23ML when lasting over 5 months.
Table 22: Calculated water loss (evaporation – precipitation) from the Wetland Loss Calculator
A: Evaporative loss based on surface area during a „wet‟ (inundated) year
First, Third & Fifth Year SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG TOTAL (ML)
Ev1 Ev2 Ev2 Ev2 Ev2 Ev2 Ev2 Ev2 Ev2 Ev2 Ev2 Ev2
Area used in calculation (ha) 23 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26
Net Loss (ML) Year 1 (No overfill) 22 22 44 50 48 44 41 30 17 8 6 16 348
B: Evaporative loss based on surface area during a „dry‟ (structures closed) year
Second & Fourth Year SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG TOTAL (ML)
Ev2 Ev2 Ev2 Ev2 Ev2 Ev2 Drying event no refill Ev3 Ev3 Ev3 Ev3
Area used in calculation (ha) 26 26 26 26 26 26 13 13 13 13 13 13
Net Loss (ML) 24 22 44 50 48 44 0 0 8 4 3 8 256
C: Evaporative loss based on surface area during the inundation of the wetland side arm
Overfill SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN TOTAL (ML)
Ev4 Ev4 Ev4 Ev4 Ev4
Area used in calculation (ha) 23 33 33 33 33
Net Loss (ML) 22 28 55 63 61 228
D: Evaporative loss based on surface area at „normal‟ levels
No overfill SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN TOTAL (ML)
Ev2 Ev2 Ev2 Ev2 Ev2
Area used in calculation (ha) 26 26 26 26 26
Net Loss (ML) 24 22 44 50 48 189
59

Sugar Shack Final Large

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sugar Shack Final Large

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUGAR SHACK

WETLAND MANAGEMENT PLAN 2006

SECTION 1.01 ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE OF

“Class 1 directly connected to the Murray at normal pool level;

Chapter 2. SITE DESCRIPTION OF SUGAR SHACK LAGOON

Map 1: Sugar Shack Lagoon

SECTION 2.02 SURVEY SITES, DATES & LOCATIONS

Map 2: Map of wetland complex (Photographic locations)

Figure 1: SS 1 Looking WSW at Sugar Figure 2: SS 1 Looking SSW at Sugar

Figure 5: SS 2 Looking W towards the Figure 6: SS2 landholders, LAP and

Figure 7: SS 2 Looking E towards at Sugar Figure 8: SS 2 Looking S along Yactko

Figure 11: SS 4 Looking W at a wetland Figure 12: SS4 Looking W at a wetland

Figure 13: SS 5 Looking S at a wetland Figure 14: SS 6 Looking SE at a wetland

SECTION 2.03 PHYSICAL FEATURES

Map 3: Expected water movement within Swan Reach Complex

5,000 ML/day flow 30,000 ML/day flow

50,000 ML/day flow 102,000 ML/day flow

C o nd uctivity m S /cm 0 1 /0 8 /2 0 0 4 C o nd uctivity m S /cm 0 1 /0 1 /2 0 0 5

Figure 20: Groundwater levels

SECTION 2.04 ECOLOGICAL FEATURES

Condition poor to moderate Some healthy red gums,

Lignum poor health. Mainly bare ground, few Grazing pressure

(i) Implications for management

(iv) Implications for management

Chapter 3. LAND TENURE, JURISDICTION AND

SECTION 3.02 LAND AND WATER USE

SECTION 3.03 JURISDICTION AND MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY

Map 5: Cadastral boundaries covering Sugar Shack Lagoon and surrounds.

Chapter 4. THREATS AND POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS TO

Loss of habitat variability for management movement)

Lack of water supplies to the Loss of large bird breeding International.

Stressed and dying vegetation results.

Algal blooms increase sedimentation within

dominating Loss of seed bank Inundate wetland

THREATS SYMPTOM CAUSE IMPACT CATEGORY EXTENT (IF POTENTIAL SOLUTION

biodiversity species Destruction of habitat species identified as vulnerable Regional

and aquarium industry (discarded (Redfin/Gambusia) species with comparative monitoring

abundance of large native fish

No competition with native Competition with native recommendation

Reed growth increase in salinity proper culvert/structure and

Chapter 5. MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES

induce germination adaptively (see

No grazing damage of vegetation Vegetation

wetland area in the wetland area recommendations assessment) survey (Y)

With increased snags and aquatic

native fish, which are prayed upon

Manage water regime to Manage wetland water regime to Observation

species restoration of aquatic and riparian Observation

management strategy management of the wetland if a net

Construction of stock LAP funding Construction Presence of fence Asap High

Chapter 6. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

SECTION 6.01 ON GROUND ACTION AND TIMETABLE

Map 6: On ground works at Sugar Shack Lagoon.

ACTIVITY PRIORITY RESOURCES TIMETABLE RESPONSIBILITY

Less than 1cm/day (needs to maintain flow path open

management (e.g. increase in weeds) LAP or SA MDB NRM board

SECTION 6.02 WETLAND WATER OPERATIONAL PLAN

Slow refill between 1 & 2 cm/day.

Compact sediment. Kill

Overfill wetland and into side wetland

Ev2 = Evaporation during normal volume

Ev3 = Evaporation during dry event

Ev4 = Evaporation during „flood‟ Revise

Volume (ML) * Potential Evaporation (ML) ** Total Annual Water Requirement