Morgans Lagoon Final Large

MORGAN’S LAGOON
(MOORUNDI WETLAND COMPLEX)

WETLAND MANAGEMENT PLAN 2005
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 and The Swan Reach and Districts Landcare Group, and reviewed and
endorsed by the SA River Murray Wetland Technical Group.
Funding was provided by the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality, the Natural
Heritage Trust, and the River Murray Catchment Water Management Board.
The management plan has been prepared according to the Guidelines for developing wetland
management plans for the River Murray in South Australia 2003 (River Murray Catchment Water
Management Board and Department of Water Land and Biodiversity Conservation 2003) and as
such fulfils obligations under the Water Allocation Plan for the River Murray Prescribed
Watercourse.
Disclaimer:
The Mid Murray Local Action Planning Committee 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. (2005). Morgan’s Lagoon (MOORUNDI WETLAND COMPLEX) 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 and Adrienne Frears for
assistance with the draft.
Thanks also go to those that contributed their knowledge including, The Swan Reach and Districts
Landcare Group and surrounding landholders particularly Wayne Brice and Jason Higham (for
advice on wetland snagging) 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 Morgan‟s Lagoon,
Bottom River Murray & cliffs opposite Morgan‟s Lagoon
Photographs in document by Tumi Bjornsson.
Swan Reach & Districts Landcare Group
c/- 15 Arthur Street, Tranmere SA 5073
Phone (08) 8332-1929
Email -rivergum@chariot.net.au
20th March 2006
To Whom It May Concern,
The Swan Reach and Districts Landcare Group would like to confirm our involvement with the
Morgans Lagoon Wetland Management Plan. Our group was very keen to have close involvement
to firstly ensure the Baseline survey was completed then have the management plan written.
Our group previously received funding from the then NHT 1 & 2 funding periods to construct and
replace six water management flow paths under the name of the Moorundie Wetland complex. Of
these, two were constructed at Morgans Lagoon. One that connects directly to the River Murray
and the other to a backwater creek.
These sites were purposely built to provide water manipulation options together with carp control
gates. The goal is to ensure the lagoon is maintained at his current ecological health and then to
demonstrate to the local community ways to improve the overall health of the lagoon and
surrounding floodplains.
In summary the group is happy to submit the Management Plan and understands its contents,
together with applying for a long-term water licence.
If you require further information, please do not hesitate to contact.
Wayne Brice
Chairman, Swan Reach Landcare Group
Morgan’s Lagoon (Moorundi Complex) 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 Morgan’s Lagoon ......................................................................................... 1
Section 1.02 Why does Morgan’s LAGOON NEED a management plan? ............................ 2
(a) Mission Statement ....................................................................................................... 2
(b) Vision Statement ......................................................................................................... 2
(c) Broad Objectives ......................................................................................................... 3
(d) Current Achievements ................................................................................................. 3
Chapter 2. SITE DESCRIPTION OF MORGAN’S LAGOON ..................................................... 5
Section 2.01 Wetland Location ............................................................................................. 5
Section 2.02 Stakeholders .................................................................................................... 6
Section 2.03 Survey Sites, Dates & Locations ...................................................................... 6
Section 2.04 PHYSICAL FEATURES ................................................................................... 8
(a) Morgan’s Lagoon ......................................................................................................... 8
(b) Geomorphology, Geology And Soils ............................................................................ 8
(c) Climate ........................................................................................................................ 9
(d) Wetland Volumes and Water Requirements for various filling stages .......................... 9
(e) Surface and Groundwater Features ........................................................................... 11
Section 2.05 ECOLOGICAL FEATURES ............................................................................ 21
(a) Flora .......................................................................................................................... 21
(b) Fauna ........................................................................................................................ 24
Chapter 3. SOCIAL ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL VALUES .................................................. 31
Chapter 4. LAND TENURE, JURISDICTION AND MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS ..... 31
Section 4.01 LAND TENURE .............................................................................................. 31
Section 4.02 LAND AND WATER USE ............................................................................... 31
Section 4.03 JURISDICTION AND MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY ...................................... 31
Chapter 5. THREATS AND POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS TO MORGAN’S LAGOON.................. 33
Chapter 6. MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES .............................................................................. 36
Chapter 7. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ..................................................................................... 39
Section 7.01 ON GROUND ACTION AND TIMETABLE ..................................................... 39
Section 7.02 WETLAND WATER OPERATIONAL PLAN (Hydrology – Water Regime) ...... 41
Chapter 8. MONITORING ....................................................................................................... 47
Chapter 9. EVALUATION, REVIEW AND REPORTING .......................................................... 49
Section 9.01 Evaluation and Review ................................................................................... 49
I
Section 9.02 Reporting ....................................................................................................... 49
Chapter 10. REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 50
Appendix A. Wetlands Atlas Data for Wetland Main Body .......................................................... 52
Appendix B. Surface Water Archive Graph ................................................................................ 53
Appendix C. Bore Profiles (adapted from Smitt, Jolly et al. (2003)) ............................................ 54
Appendix D. Morgan’s Lagoon Inlet Morphology and Culvert Designs ....................................... 55
Appendix E. Baseline Survey Locations ..................................................................................... 56
Appendix F. Baseline Survey Vegetation Zones ........................................................................ 59
Appendix G. Groundwater maps ............................................................................................ 60
Appendix H. Species List for Morgan’s Lagoon .......................................................................... 62
Section H.01 FLORA ........................................................................................................... 62
(a) Riparian and floodplain species ................................................................................. 62
Section H.02 WETLAND AND FLOODPLAIN FAUNA ......................................................... 68
(a) Birds of Morgan’s Lagoon .......................................................................................... 68
Appendix I. Evaporation and precipitation obtained using the Wetland Loss Calculator. ....... 71
II
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Recent flood levels ........................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2: Photo location 3 culvert to River Murray ........................................................................... 4
Figure 3: Photo location 4 channel to Wetland from River Murray ................................................... 4
Figure 4: Photo location 1 culvert to Yarramundi Creek .................................................................. 4
Figure 5: Photo location 1 channel to Wetland from Yarramundi Creek .......................................... 4
Figure 6: Photo location 2 looking NNE........................................................................................... 8
Figure 7: Photo location 2 looking SSW .......................................................................................... 8
Figure 8: Photo location 2 looking W ............................................................................................... 8
Figure 9: Photo location 4 ............................................................................................................... 8
Figure 10: Photo location 5 ............................................................................................................. 8
Figure 11: Photo location 5 ............................................................................................................. 8
Figure 12: Groundwater levels ...................................................................................................... 17
Figure 13: Cross section of Morgan’s Lagoon (transect 3), comparing topography and groundwater
(adapted from (Australian Water Environments 2005)) .......................................................... 18
Figure 14: Decision support framework (DSF) for Morgan’s Lagoon ............................................. 43
Figure 15: 6 year water regime scenario for Morgan’s Lagoon (benefit description) ...................... 44
Figure 16: 6 year water regime scenario for Morgan’s Lagoon (volume description) ..................... 44
Figure 17: Downstream water level at Lock 1................................................................................ 53
Figure 18: Photopoint and water level monitoring sites ................................................................. 56
Figure 19: Morgan’s Lagoon fish survey sites ............................................................................... 57
Figure 20: Morgan’s Lagoon vegetation monitoring sites .............................................................. 58
Figure 21: Morgan’s Lagoon ecological zones .............................................................................. 59
Figure 22: Ground water depth ..................................................................................................... 60
Figure 23: Ground water salinity ................................................................................................... 61
LIST OF MAPS
Map 1: Morgan’s Lagoon ................................................................................................................ 5
Map 2: Map of wetland complex (photographic locations 30th April 2005) ....................................... 7
Map 3: Hydrogeology of the Moorundi Wetland Complex (Barnett 1989) ........................................ 9
Map 4: Historical flow connections between Morgan’s Lagoon and the River Murray .................... 11
Map 5: Flowpath levels (m AHD) adapted from Moorundi Wetland Complex Management Plan
2002 (Jensen and Turner 2002) ............................................................................................ 14
Map 6: FIM III flow volume and connection between Morgan’s Lagoon and the River Murray ....... 15
Map 7: Expected water movement within Morgan’s Lagoon .......................................................... 16
Map 8: Piezometer locations ......................................................................................................... 20
Map 9: Cadastral boundaries covering Morgan’s Lagoon and surrounds. ..................................... 32
III
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Baseline survey monitoring of following parameters .......................................................... 6
Table 2: Photo locations.................................................................................................................. 7
Table 3: Water volume requirements at Morgan’s Lagoon at different depths (adapted from
(Australian Water Environments 2005)) ................................................................................. 10
Table 4: Water quality ................................................................................................................... 12
Table 5: Groundwater monitoring locations ................................................................................... 19
Table 6: Ecological zones around Morgan’s Lagoon ..................................................................... 21
Table 7: Habitat features identified in Morgan’s Lagoon; Table adapted from (Australian Water
Environments 2005). ............................................................................................................. 25
Table 8: Frogs at Morgan’s Lagoon, habitat and significant aspects. ............................................ 26
Table 9: Native fish - table adapted from (Australian Water Environments 2005) .......................... 28
Table 10: Introduced fish - table adapted from (Australian Water Environments 2005) ................. 28
Table 11: Community group fish survey 27th January 2002 ........................................................... 28
Table 12: Community group fish survey 25th November 2002 ....................................................... 29
Table 13: Community group fish survey 23rd November 2004 ....................................................... 29
Table 14: Morgan’s Lagoon responsible positions contact details ................................................. 31
Table 15: Existing and prospective threats to Morgan’s Lagoon.................................................... 34
Table 16: Management objectives Morgan’s Lagoon. ................................................................... 37
Table 17: Implementation plan for Morgan’s Lagoon. .................................................................... 40
Table 18: 6 year hydrological operational plan (HOP) for Morgan’s Lagoon .................................. 45
Table 19: Water use calculation .................................................................................................... 46
Table 20: Water Allocation Requirements ..................................................................................... 46
Table 21: Monitoring plan for Morgan’s Lagoon. ........................................................................... 48
Table 22: Morgan’s Lagoon, Wetland atlas data (Jensen, Paton et al. 1996) ................................ 52
Table 23: Plant species at Morgan’s Lagoon (baseline survey) ..................................................... 62
Table 24: Plant species at Morgan’s Lagoon (community monitored)............................................ 66
Table 25: Waterbird species observed in Morgan’s Lagoon Wetland Complex, adapted from
(Australian Water Environments 2005) .................................................................................. 68
Table 26: Non-Waterbird species observed in Morgan’s Lagoon Wetland Complex, adapted from
(Australian Water Environments 2005) .................................................................................. 69
Table 27: Calculated water loss (evaporation – precipitation) from Wetland Loss Calculator ........ 71
IV
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 Morgan‟s 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
Morgan‟s Lagoon (wetland name used in Wetland Atlas is Yarramundi North) as having a high-
moderate conservation value and to be of basin and local importance (see Appendix A on page 52).
As part of the Management of Wetlands of the River Murray Valley Draft Action Plan 1996-1999
(South Australian River Murray Wetlands Management Committee (SARMWMC) 1996), Portee
complex was listed as having a high priority (first in the High rankings) for maintenance or
rehabilitation. The Floodplain Wetlands Management Strategy (Murray-Darling Ministerial Council
1998) lists the Portee Creek wetlands as a large and significant floodplain wetland complex in the
Murray Darling Basin.
The valuation of the wetland has been rated at High-moderate by Thompson (1986), however both
the Wetlands Atlas of the South Australian Murray Valley (Jensen, Paton et al. 1996) and the
Moorundi Wetland Complex Management Plan 2002 (Jensen and Turner 2002) called for a re-
evaluation of the wetland, as its health increased during five years of inundation experienced during
overbank flows after 1989.
(a) HISTORY OF MORGAN’S LAGOON
A short summary of the history of the wetland complex is provided in Moorundi Wetland Complex
Management Plan 2002 (Jensen and Turner 2002).
1841 Area settled including irrigation development (see Moorundi Wetland Complex
Management Plan 2002 (Jensen and Turner 2002))
1986 Thompson report (Thompson 1986)
1993 flood (see Figure 1 on page 2)
Vegetation surveys
1999 Wetland Management Study (Jensen, Marsh et al. 1999)
2002 Wetland Management Plan (Jensen and Turner 2002)
1
2002 Installation of two culverts, with carp screens and sluice gates at the culvert connecting
the wetland to the River Murray
Fish monitoring projects (Jan. 2002, Nov. 2002 and Nov. 2004 (see Section 1.01(a)(iii) on
page 27 for data))
2003 installation of groundwater monitoring network (Smitt, Jolly et al. 2003)
2003 – 2004 the wetland dried to a large extent (down to 40% of normal volume) leaving
only a small refuge for native fish.
2003-2004 baseline survey (Australian Water Environments 2005)
Recent floods were in 1993 (peak 7/12/93 at 115,000 ML, photo 29/11/93 at 111,500 ML Figure 1),
1996 (peak 19/12/96 at 63,800, photo 10/12/96 at 59,850 ML Figure 1) and 2001 (peak 11/12/00 at
39,215 ML, photo 17/01/01 at 6,810 ML Figure 1).
1993 1996 2001

Figure 1: Recent flood levels
SECTION 1.02 WHY DOES MORGAN’S LAGOON NEED A MANAGEMENT PLAN?

(a) MISSION STATEMENT
To develop a water regime strategy which enhances native vegetation, riparian and aquatic, as well
as the reduction of carp within the wetland.
(b) VISION STATEMENT
A plan for the management of the entire Moorundi wetland complex was developed in 2002 for the
Mid Murray Local Action Planning Association by Wetland Care Australia (Jensen and Turner
2002). The vision statement identified in this early plan is summarised here.
The fish screens will keep large carp from entering the wetland, whilst allowing the movement of
water and smaller fish. The periodic drying will be used to reduce the numbers of carp within the
Lagoon. Due to the altered water regime and the reduction in the impact of carp, macrophytes and
macroinvertebrates will prosper. Further, there will be an improvement in water quality due to
sediment compaction (i.e. less re-suspension of sediment through bioturbation (feeding action of
carp)), and the sedimentation mechanisms of macrophytes and their nutrient uptake capacity. With
the increase in habitat availability, through the healthy vegetation growth and re-snagging, the
2
wetland will be expected to support increased numbers of native fish, yabbies and waterbirds. To
achieve this the on-ground action will focus on; habitat development through snagging, removal of
weeds both fringing the wetland and on the banks, and the control of feral animals particularly carp
and rabbits.
(c) BROAD OBJECTIVES
The objectives remain similar to past objectives of the Landcare group. However, the management
of the wetland, due to a change in legislation, now requires a water licence for which a detailed
operational management plan needs to be structured. The objectives for the restoration of Morgan‟s
Lagoon, listed in detail in Chapter 6 on page 36, fulfil a number of the water allocation criteria, as
outlined in Section 5.3 of the Water Allocation Plan for the River Murray (River Murray Catchment
Water Management Board 2002).
The objectives include the restoration of the wetland condition and associated habitat values
(wetland fringing and aquatic vegetation). The purpose of which is the restoration of native
vegetation, which will benefit waterbirds and native fish species. This will be partly achieved
through the appropriate management of the water regime, i.e. the restoration of a pattern of wetting
and drying cycles, and partly through on ground action such as weed control and feral animal
control. Other objectives include the restoration of habitat for native fish communities, facilitating
their recruitment and reduction of the impact of exotic fish.
(d) CURRENT ACHIEVEMENTS
The Moorundi Wetland Project is led by the Swan Reach and Districts Landcare Group and
supported by local landowners. This group has installed flow control structures in six locations
throughout the Moorundi wetland complex and intend to install more as was envisaged in the
Moorundi Wetland Complex Management Plan 2002 (Jensen and Turner 2002).
Morgan‟s Lagoon has two of these constructed inlets in the form of box culverts, connecting the
wetland to the River Murray and Yarramundi Creek (see Figure 2 to Figure 5 on page 4). They have
flow control structures (sluice gates) allowing the control of flows into the wetland. These culverts
can be fitted with fish exclusion grills to hinder large fish such as European Carp (Cyprinus carpio)
from entering the wetland.
Morgan‟s Lagoon has been fenced off to exclude stock. Wayne Brice has undertaken some
revegetation work in the wetland area with mixed success rates.
The major achievements at Morgan‟s Lagoon include:
Building of flow control structures
o 1st stage NHT 1999-2000 $160,100
o 2nd stage NHT 2000-2001 $103,100
o Total $263,200
Removal of stock
Installation and monitoring of Piezometers
Fish monitoring
Vegetation surveys
3
Figure 2: Photo location 3 culvert to River Figure 3: Photo location 4 channel to

Murray Wetland from River Murray
Figure 4: Photo location 1 culvert to Figure 5: Photo location 1 channel to

Yarramundi Creek Wetland from Yarramundi Creek
4
Chapter 2. SITE DESCRIPTION OF MORGAN’S LAGOON

SECTION 2.01 WETLAND LOCATION
Morgan‟s Lagoon is listed as wetland number S0094 in the Wetlands Atlas of the South Australian
Murray Valley (Jensen, Paton et al. 1996) and number M060 by Thompson (1986). Morgan‟s
Lagoon is part of the Moorundi wetland complex also known as the Portee wetland complex. The
current water regime is permanent with a connection through a narrow channel to the river and a
second connection, which disconnects during low river levels, to Yarramundi Creek. The wetland is
located approximately 13 km south of Blanchetown (Map 1 below). AMG coordinates 371291E
6184566N (Grid Zone 54). Morgan‟s Lagoon can be found on the 1:50,000 map, Blanchetown map
sheet number 6829-3.
Map 1: Morgan’s Lagoon

The wetland is found in the Hundred of Fisher, Section 10 (part) and Hundred of Skurray, Section
10 (part), 11 (part), 12 (part) and 13 (part).
The water depth of Morgan‟s Lagoon is shallow at below 1 meter depth (Australian Water
Environments 2005), with a surface area of approximately 26 ha when the water is at pool level
(~0.8 m AHD (see Section 7.02 on page 41). The lowest point of the wetland is at – 0.1 m AHD.
The surface area if the wetland were to be filled to its maximum holding capacity (~1 m above pool
level (i.e. 1.8 m AHD)) is 36 ha. The connection between the wetland and the River Murray is
through a box culvert at 371545E and 6184722N and a smaller connection via Yarramundi Creek
through a box culvert at 371439E and 6185365N (designs of which can be seen in Appendix D).
The wetland sits to a large degree on freehold land (see Chapter 4 on page 31). Grazing has, with
5
the exception of Portee station, been excluded from lands adjacent to Morgan‟s Lagoon (Brice
2005).
The Swan Reach and Districts Landcare Group and local landowners are heavily involved in the
management and restoration of Morgan‟s lagoon as well as surrounding wetlands of the Moorundi
(Portee) Complex.
SECTION 2.02 STAKEHOLDERS

The stakeholders identified by Moorundi Wetland Complex Management Plan 2002 (Jensen and
Turner 2002) include:
Mid Murray Local Action Planning Committee
Swan Reach and Districts Landcare Group
Mid Murray Council
Irrigators and Landholders
Portee Station
Blanchetown Shackowners Association.
SECTION 2.03 SURVEY SITES, DATES & LOCATIONS

The Morgan’s Lagoon Wetlands Baseline Survey (Australian Water Environments 2005) monitored
different wetland parameters (Table 1) on separate occasions. The locations of the baseline survey
sites can be seen in Appendix E.
Table 1: Baseline survey monitoring of following parameters
Parameter Site Surveyed Date 1 Date 2 Date 3 Date 4 Location
Site physical Y on page 8
Vegetation Y on page 21
Fish 1 Y 25/11/03 14/04/04 on page 27
2 Y 25/11/03 13/04/04
3 Y 26/11/03 14/04/04
4 Y 26/11/03 13/04/04
5 Y 26/11/03 13/04/04
Birds (Main Survey Y 18 to on page 29
8hrs + night surveys) 19/09/04
Birds (Opportunistic) Y 24/11/03 07/02/04 08/02/04
Frogs and Reptiles Y 24/11/03 07/2/04 18/09/04 on page 30
08/02/04 19/09/04
Macroinvertebrates Y 10/12/03 12/03/04 22/07/04 21/10/04
Water Quality 10/12/03 12/03/04 22/07/04 21/10/04 on page 11
Groundwater Y 02/08/04 04/03/05 on page 16
NR = Not Recorded
6
Photos of the wetland were taken on the 30th April 2005 at 5 photo locations. The photo locations
were at the following coordinates;
Table 2: Photo locations
Easting Northing
Photo Location 1 371439 6185365
Map 2: Map of wetland complex (photographic locations 30th April 2005)
7
SECTION 2.04 PHYSICAL FEATURES

(a) MORGAN’S LAGOON
Figure 6: Photo location 2 looking NNE Figure 7: Photo location 2 looking SSW
Figure 8: Photo location 2 looking W Figure 9: Photo location 4
Figure 10: Photo location 5 Figure 11: Photo location 5
(b) GEOMORPHOLOGY, GEOLOGY AND SOILS

The wetland is sitting on alluvial/fluvial sediments from the Holocene. The bottom of lagoon, which
is uniformly flat, consists of silt and fine clay (Australian Water Environments 2005). The
hydrogeology, which consist of Coonambidgal formation over Monoman Formation is taken into
consideration for the development of a groundwater monitoring network for Morgan‟s Lagoon. This
8
is presented in Map 3 below (adapted from Smitt, Jolly et al. (2003)). The groundwater monitoring
is described in Section 1.01(a)(ii) on page 16. The bore profiles show the geology to consist of
mainly dark brown clay characteristic of the Coonabidgal Formation, for a detailed account for all
profiles refer to Appendix C on page 54.
Map 3: Hydrogeology of the Moorundi Wetland Complex (Barnett 1989)

(c) CLIMATE
The following climatic conditions are taken from the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) Waikerie
station (number 024018) (Latitude (deg S): -34.1778; Longitude (deg E): 139.9806) (BOM 2005).
The recording of data commenced at Waikerie in 1896; the latest records used in the assessment of
the climatic condition of the area stemming from 2001.
The area has Mediterranean climatic conditions with warm dry summers and cool wet winters. The
median (5th decile) annual rainfall is 249 mm. The mean monthly maximum rainfall is in October
(26.2 mm), the minimum in March (12.5). The expected mean daily maximum temperature is
highest in January at 33 C, lowest in July at 16.5 C, and has an annual mean of 23.5 C. The
minimum daily temperature is at its maximum in January at 15.2 C, and its minimum in July at
5.2 C. The annual mean daily minimum temperature is 9.5 C.
(d) WETLAND VOLUMES AND WATER REQUIREMENTS FOR VARIOUS FILLING STAGES
An approximate wetland volume was calculated as part of the baseline survey. Table 3 on page 10
summarises the wetland water requirement for Morgan‟s Lagoon. The volumes at selected
hydrology regimes including evaporative losses are covered in Section 7.02 on page 41.
9
Table 3: Water volume requirements at Morgan’s Lagoon at different depths (adapted from
(Australian Water Environments 2005))
Fill stage Water Level Incremental Incremental Total Volume Total Plan
(m AHD) Volume (m ) Plan Area (m2)
3
(m3) Area (m2)
1.8 70946 19411 445265 364373
1.6 67011 19878 374319 344962
1.4 62971 20637 307308 325085
1.2 58732 21808 244337 304448
1.0 54102 24943 185605 282640
Full 0.8 49129 23792 131503 257697
¾ Full 0.6 43346 48654 82374 233905
Half full 0.4 27498 94715 39028 185251
¼ Full 0.2 10422 69629 11530 90536
0.0 1108 20907 1108 20907
10
(e) SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER FEATURES
(i) Surface water

Natural Flow Regime
According to a 1905 map of Morgan‟s Lagoon, obtained from the Swan Reach and Districts
Landcare Group (Brice 2005), the lagoon had more connections with the river than is currently the
case. See Map 4 below. The wetland would have acted as a through flow wetland with the wetland
and the river interacting when the river levels established a connection between the two.
Map 4: Historical flow connections between Morgan’s Lagoon and the River Murray
11
Current Flow Regime
Culverts at both connections in and out of the wetland can control the flow in and out of Morgan‟s
Lagoon. The culverts are box culverts with flow barriers and large fish grills (control structures).
Water quality monitoring was undertaken as part of the baseline survey and is summarised in, Table
4 below. For a description of the implications of water quality in wetlands refer to Your Wetland:
Supporting Information (Tucker, Dominelli et al. 2003).
Table 4: Water quality
Parameters Location 10/12/03 12/03/04 22/07/04 21/10/04
pH Morgan 7.2
East
Morgan 7.2
West
EC μS/cm Morgan 463 491 507 583
East
Morgan 468 479 506 582
West
River 400 380 508 502 (1st
Murray September
above Lock „04)
1*
Suspended Solids Morgan 106 216 54 118
(mg/L) East
Morgan 112 394 51 166
West
Turbidity NTU Morgan 180 240 81 110
East
Morgan 180 280 69 130
West
Filt. Reactive Morgan 0.015 0.006 0.009
Phosphorus as P East
(mg/L)
Morgan 0.018 0.007 0.013
West
Phosphorus as P Morgan 0.297 0.262 0.103 0.194
(mg/L) East
Morgan 0.356 0.348 0.094 0.237
West
* Obtained from the Surface Water Archive (Department of Water Land and Biodiversity Conservation 2005a)
The EC is well below that of seawater (~50 mS/cm), and is similar to that of the River Murray
indicating a good connection between the two waterbodies. As a comparison the River Murray EC
levels at Lock 1 (upstream), 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
463/468 μS/cm in the wetland, 380 μS/cm on the 12 March 2004 compared to 491/479 μS/cm in the
wetland, 508 μS/cm on the 22nd July 2004 compared to 506/507 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 t 583/582 μS/cm.
12
The relatively high turbidity within the wetland may contribute to the lack of submerged
macrophytes, although the cause for them not being present may have been a rapid refill event, i.e.
the rate of inundation of the wetland following the last dry event, or bioturbation. Bioturbation
through European carp feeding strategy can lead to sediment resuspension and macrophyte
uprooting. The factors affecting turbidity and therefore limiting/restricting submerged macrophyte
germination, growth and survival will be addressed in this Wetland Management Plan.
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, the calculated median water level over the 5 years is at 0.78 m AHD. This water level will have a
direct impact on the water level in Morgan‟s Lagoon. The bottom of the culvert (commence to flow
level) between Morgan‟s Lagoon and the River Murray is at 0.147 mAHD, the bottom of the culvert
between Yarramundi Creek and Morgan‟s Lagoon is at 0.415 mAHD (see Appendix D).
The flow path levels for Moorundi Complex is shown in Map 5 below and the river flood volumes
as simulated in the Flood Inundation Model III can be seen in Map 6 on page 15. The Flood
Inundation Model III was used to study the potential critical flow volumes of the River Murray for
Morgan‟s Lagoon. Map 6 on page 15 shows that at a flow level of 40,000 ML/day the banks will
overflow in multiple locations, therefore surpassing the flow control structure of the wetland. Prior
to such a flow level the stop logs and fish screens should be removed to allow free passage of fish
and water between the wetland and the river. During flood events, depending on feasibility and
access, the flow control structures should be manipulated to allow inundation of the wetland at a
slow rate and the recession of wetland water levels to occur slowly. As can be seen in both Map 4
on page 11 and Map 5 on page 14 the wetland has in the past had more connection to the river,
many of these old connections still remaining as bank overflow channels, the lowest of these at 1.3
m AHD (Jensen, Marsh et al. 1999). If the water level is anticipated to surpass 1.3 m AHD (which
occurs at approximately 15,000 ML/day (Department of Water Land and Biodiversity Conservation
2005b)) the bank of the wetland will overflow and access to the culvert, between the river and the
River Murray, will be hindered. Fish screens and stop logs should be removed before access to the
culvert is restricted.
13
Map 5: Flowpath levels (m AHD) adapted from Moorundi Wetland Complex Management
Plan 2002 (Jensen and Turner 2002)
14
5,000 ML/day flow 30,000 ML/day flow
40,000 ML/day flow 102,000 ML/day flow
Map 6: FIM III flow volume and connection between Morgan’s Lagoon and the River Murray
15
To provide some understanding of the current and anticipated flow within Morgan‟s Lagoon with
the commencement of management, Map 7 below shows the anticipated flow direction. As the flow
direction of both the River Murray and Yarramundi Creek can change direction as a consequence of
wind direction, the level of both can change rapidly therefore reversing flow in and out of the
wetland. This rapid change can lead to high fluctuations in water levels within the wetland over a
matter of hours.
Map 7: Expected water movement within Morgan’s Lagoon
(ii) Groundwater
On the floodplain surrounding Morgan‟s Lagoon 14 groundwater wells, as part of a case study on
the Moorundi Wetlands Groundwater Monitoring Network (Smitt, Jolly et al. 2003), were planned
and installed by CSIRO Land and Water on behalf of the Swan Reach and Districts Landcare Group
and the Mid Murray LAP. These wells existed prior to the baseline survey at Morgan‟s Lagoon and
were monitored twice during the survey period (in August 2004 and March 2005). The baseline
survey found the spring salinity reading to be unreliable (Australian Water Environments 2005).
Salinity data is therefore only discussed for the March sampling period. The groundwater salinities
monitored during the March sampling period, ranged from very low (1.5 mS/cm) to equivalent of
seawater (54 mS/cm), with most wells ranging between the mid 20s to low 40s mS/cm, the median
being 26 mS/cm. The groundwater levels, the groundwater salinity and details of the piezometers
are presented in Table 5 on page 19, this table was adapted from the baseline survey at Morgan‟s
Lagoon (Australian Water Environments 2005), a map of the piezometer locations can be seen in
Map 8 on page 20. Maps showing the depth of the ground water and its salinity content can be seen
in Appendix G. The depth of the groundwater compared to the ground level can be seen in Figure
12 on page 17.
The assumed groundwater flow described in the Moorundi Wetlands Groundwater Monitoring
Network (Smitt, Jolly et al. 2003) is in a southerly direction, down valley, parallel to the river flow.
The trend observed by Smitt, Jolly et al. (2003) is that the ground water was flowing from Morgan‟s
16
lagoon towards both the River Murray and Yarramundi Creek. During their survey the water level
within Morgan‟s Lagoon was slightly higher than in the River Murray, suggesting that the
downstream winds push water up Yarramundi and into Morgan‟s Lagoon. The baseline survey
interpolated the groundwater height in relation to the topography (see Figure 13 on page 18). Figure
13 suggests the intersection of the wetland base and the groundwater level. Careful attention should
therefore be payed to the wetland if it is dried completely. If groundwater salinity intrusion becomes
evident, adaptive management will need to introduce a slow partial inundation of the wetland. The
layer of freshwater would allow a semi dry phase to continue through the provision of a freshwater
seal to the wetland base, thereby reducing the evapoconcentration of the groundwater.
It is to be noted that the groundwater salinity is higher than that of the surface water. Any dry period
within the wetland should therefore not be maintained for an overly extended period as this would
risk the loss of a freshwater lens below the wetland and allow salinity intrusion through encroaching
groundwater.
3
W ater L evel m A H D
0
M L 01
M L 02
M L 04
M L 05
M L 06
M L 07
M L 08
M L 09
M L 10
M L 11
M L 12
M L 13
M L 14
M L 15
-1
-2
-3
B o re ID
W a te r le ve l m A H D 0 2 /0 8 /2 0 0 4 W a te r le ve l m A H D 0 4 /0 3 /2 0 0 5
W a te r le ve l m A H D 2 4 /1 1 /2 0 0 5 W a te r le ve l m A H D 0 1 /0 1 /2 0 0 3
N a tu ra l su rfa ce m A H D
Figure 12: Groundwater levels
17
Figure 13: Cross section of Morgan’s Lagoon (transect 3), comparing topography and
groundwater (adapted from (Australian Water Environments 2005))
18
Table 5: Groundwater monitoring locations
Name Easting Northing To obtain Elevation of Ground Water level m AHD Depth to Calculated Conductivity mS/cm
(Piezometer) water level at Bore Hole Elevation water water level
mAHD casing (m AHD) table** m AHD**
(m AHD) 02/08/04 04/03/05 24/11/05 02/08/04 04/03/05 24/11/05
ML01 371576 6185335 4.375 3.605 0.043 -0.139 1.285 4.00 -0.40 38.4 40.7
ML02 371558 6185293 2.308 1.198 0.393 0.088 0.588 1.45 -0.25 10.72 21.1
ML03 NR NR NR NR 3.03 14.81 17.32
ML04 371263 6184670 4.791 3.691 0.201 0.01 0.391 4.46 -0.77 54 68
ML05 371123 6184775 3.988 2.788 0.028 0.018 0.278 2.80 -0.01 38.2
ML06 371014 6184855 4.126 2.626 0.036 -0.021 2.66 -0.03 1.701 0.763
ML07 371064 6184316 2.498 0.998 0.318 0.098 0.628 0.75 0.25 40.1 43.6
ML08 370931 6184379 3.702 3.202 0.117 0.027 0.332 3.22 -0.02 41.4
ML09 370877 6184416 3.3 2.69 0.185 0.08 2.10 0.59 34.8
ML10 370662 6184148 5.204 3.754 0.209 0.026 3.70 0.05 16.86 19.49
ML11 370940 6183998 2.417 1.267* 0.137 -0.229 0.467 2.85 29.1
ML12 370997 6183794 3.813 2.193 -0.837 -1.012 4.20 -2.01 23
ML13 371319 6184047 4.125 2.605 0.165 -0.286 3.60 -1.00 7.41 9.25
ML14 371247 6184140 2.941 1.171 0.186 -0.329 0.571 1.90 -0.73 1.477 1.501
ML15 371430 6184553 2.4 0.98 0.345 0.21 1.85 -0.87 14.81 17.32
ML16 371502 6184529 5.531 4.131* 4.50
ML17 370924 6184934 NR NR 7.00
GB 1 Southern end
GB +0.2
GB 2 Northern end
GB +0.37
GB 3 Yarramundi
Creek GB +0.4
River Murray 371531 6184734 Top of regulator
Inlet structure structure deck
is 1.82
GB = Gauge Board; * table and map mAHD
in report do not correspond; ** (Smitt, Jolly et al. 2003)
19
Map 8: Piezometer locations
20
SECTION 2.05 ECOLOGICAL FEATURES
(a) FLORA
Flora was surveyed by Thompson (1986) who identified mature red gums Eucalyptus camadulensis
and some red gum regeneration. Thompson also identified lignum Muehlenbeckia florulenta close
to the wetland banks and sedges of 1m height fringing the wetland. Moorundi Wetland Complex
Management Plan 2002 (Jensen and Turner 2002)) discuss the varying density of lignum found
around Morgan‟s Lagoon and its role in providing habitat during flood events. Thompson (1986)
did not identify any submerged macrophytes. The baseline survey divided the lagoon surrounds into
five ecological zones for which the vegetation was assessed (see Appendix F). These ecological
zones, as well as a summary/assessment for each zone, are described in Table 6 below, for a more
detailed description refer to the Morgan’s Lagoon Baseline Wetlands Survey (Australian Water
Environments 2005). A survey of the complex by Wetland Care Australia (1998) found 70% of
wetland edge zone (red gum community) to be disturbed as well as 25% of the floodplain zone
(black box E. largiflorens and lignum). Other species observed included spiny sedge Cyperus
gymnocaulus (extensive), emu bush Eremophila divaricata ssp. divaricata (patchy), river cooba
Acacia stenophylla and grevillea (occasional). Other vegetations surveys conducted by the
community group are presented in Appendix G Section H.01 on page 62.
Table 6: Ecological zones around Morgan’s Lagoon
Zone Description Summary/Assessment
Near Shore Zone Permanent or prolonged inundation Good to excellent
Sedge and Rush Shallow water at edge of lagoon Healthy sedge and rush
Community growth
Condition ratings good to excellent
5 to 10 m wide. Splendid flat sedge Cyperus Red gum E. camadulensis
exaltatus dominant species with aprox. 50% regeneration
cover. South west corner of lagoon in excellent
condition with red gum Eucalyptus camadulensis
regeneration and lack of weeds.
Rising Ground Measured from the edge of the high water mark in Mainly in good condition
an average season this zone was 5 to 10 metres
Sedge and Healthy native vegetation
wide, up to 20 metres wide.
Herbaceous including red gums, lignum
species (Red Seasonally inundated – spring flows rushes, reeds and herbs.
Gums)
Conditions rated mainly good, some poor Red gum regeneration
Reeds, rushes and herbs in good condition, with Some weed presence
some weed species present (buffalo grass
Stenotaphrum secundatum and water couch Buffalo grass Stenotaphrum
Paspalum vaginatum). Buffalo grass covers up to secundatum and water couch
75% in some areas. Other areas poor condition Paspalum vaginatum are the
with few native species and weed being most significant weeds
predominant. Some red gum and lignum
Muehlenbeckia florulenta regeneration.
At Yarramundi creek inlet the vegetation is in
good condition, with healthy red gums (various
ages) and other natives, some weeds present,
particularly where track crosses inlet.
Around the river itself the conditions were very
poor through to good. At inlet into the lagoon
there is low native diversity with weed presence
(spear thistle Cirsium vulgare and wild oats Avena
fatua). Common reed expanding into red gums
suggesting a more permanent water regime.
Around caravan area the condition is poor with
bare ground, some native vegetation. Dense red
21
gum presence north of caravans (good condition).
Floodplain Flat land Frequent red gum
Lowland Flats regeneration
Seasonal/sporadic inundation
Red Gum Forest Red gum heath excellent
Some spring flood
and Woodlands
Inundated during high floods Healthy and regenerating
lignum
Condition 50% moderate 50% good.
Some weed infestation (main
10 to 20 metres around wetland have extensive degradation in area)
red gum regeneration (young trees at less than 20
years old). Conditions for red gum regeneration Where the surrounding area
must have been frequent, this being mainly is mainly influenced by the River
around the inlets. Area close to lagoon assumed Murray and Yarramundi Creek,
to inundate annually has very health and dense the vegetation was in a more
red gums (closed canopy) with healthy sparse degraded condition and lacked
native understorey. Older red gums fringe the the regeneration seen in the
young ones with a more open canopy and healthy wetland influenced area.
lignum understorey. Rabbits impact on area
Some juvenile red gums and regenerating lignum
throughout this zone. Some areas with very
healthy red gums and no weed infestation.
The moderately rated areas had no regeneration
of red gums with only sparse mature trees and
lignum and ruby saltbush Enchylaena tomentosa
as groundcover.
Generally the wetland was fringed by healthy
young red gums with more mature trees behind.
The groundcover included native species such as
lignum. Where the red gums had a closed canopy
(young trees) weeds were absent due to the litter
layer. Weeds were otherwise the main
degradation within this zone, these weeds often
included buffalo grass and californian burr
Xanthium orientale.
In the zone influenced mainly by the river the
condition ranges from poor to good. The general
trend is of poor condition red gums and lignum
close to the river, with improving condition (to
excellent) the further the zone moves from the
river. There is evidence of numerous rabbits in
this area.
On the Yarramundi Creek side only mature red
gums were found in moderate health (some
dead). There seems to be less red gums and
lignum than would be expected for that area.
Upper Floodplain Flat land Very degraded areas due to a
lack of inundation
Lignum Shrubland Inundated only during high floods (very
infrequent) Large areas of bare ground
Condition mostly very poor, some poor. Weed infestation
Covers area between Yarramundi Creek and the Water/salinity stress evident
red gum woodland fringing the lagoon (cracking
clay soils). Due to the infrequency of flooding the
lignum was very degraded with large areas of
bare ground. Weeds were often the predominant
groundcover. In a depression in the southwestern
section the lignum was in a better health
condition. Dead red gums indicate water/salinity
22
stress.
Rises on Upper Rises on floodplain Minimal area

Floodplain
Inundated sporadically during high floods Excellent condition
Black Box
Condition rating good to excellent. Minimal impact by rabbits
Woodland
Small area within the wetland property in south
west corner next to Yarramundi Creek. This area
is a black box woodland with Spreading Emubush
Eremophila divaricata ssp. divaricata as
groundcover. The property is in an excellent
condition due to the diverse understorey, the
lichen crust protecting the soil, the presence of
mature black box E. largiflorens as well as their
regeneration and the minimal impact of rabbits.
The main issue in the wet „Rising Ground‟ area is the buffalo grass and water couch, therefore the
main management issue in this area would be the removal of these species, careful spraying with
glyphosate herbicide probably the best method of removal (Nicol 2006). Other weeds are also
present although natives outnumber these. The management action required for this area is weed
reduction.
There is a heavy rabbit infestation to the north of the caravans in the „Floodplain Lowland Flats‟ (in
between the wetland and the River Murray) with some spread throughout the property. The control
of this rabbit population would reduce the impact on the regenerating vegetation.
Red gum and lignum regeneration is successful in the zones influenced by the wetland, however
this is not reflected in the areas mainly influenced by the River Murray and Yarramundi Creek. The
regeneration within the wetland-influenced area should be encouraged through mimicking of the
past inundation regime, i.e. minimum alteration for the majority of the time. The regeneration
within the river-influenced area is more of a regional issue. There is a possibility that Yarramundi
Creek could be influenced through a change in its hydrology regime to induce more red gum and
lignum regeneration. That is, the construction of flow control structures for Yarramundi Creek
could be used to imitate the hydrology regime of Morgan‟s Lagoon, and therefore hopefully elicit
similar regeneration patterns. A management plan would have to be purposely written for
Yarramundi Creek to address this assumption. A future baseline survey is therefore recommended
for Yarramundi Creek.
The creek (flow channel) connecting the Morgan‟s Lagoon and Yarramundi creek is currently
choked with Typha and water primrose Ludwigia peploides (water primrose). Management of the
wetland will require regular channel maintenance, where excessive growth in the channel is cleared
to allow exchange of water between the wetland and Yarramundi creek.
Golden Dotter Cuscuta campestris has been identified within the wetland area and is being
addressed by the local Animal and Plant Control Board. However, this should be taken into
consideration during future weed management strategies as well as regional planning.
A detailed list of species found within the plant associations can be found in Appendix G Section
H.01 on page 62. For a description of the function of vegetation in wetlands refer to (Tucker,
Dominelli et al. 2003).
(i) Implications for management

The weeds identified in Morgan‟s Lagoon do not pose an immediate threat. The only one that poses
a control problem is the californian burr Xanthium orientale (Australian Water Environments 2005)
and should therefore be addressed as soon as possible. The restoration of the wetland area would
optimally require the regeneration of the vegetation directly influenced by the River Murray and
Yarramundi Creek. This vegetation is stressed, most probably as a result of a reduction in flood
23
frequency and extent. It is also possible that groundwater salinity is increasing and/or the water
table rising. Continued monitoring of the groundwater is therefore necessary. If degradation
continues chenopod low shrubland will establish with native colonising species and weeds
(Australian Water Environments 2005). However, this area is outside the influence of the hydrology
regime that can be managed by the wetland. This regeneration issue for these areas therefore
remains a regional issue. The management of Yarramundi Creek may possibly provide an
opportunity for the restoration of the area influenced though its hydrological regime. This aspect
should therefore be considered in the selection of a wetland for future restoration work. Optimally
future management plans should focus on the inclusion of all wetlands within the complex.
The main issues directly surrounding the wetland area, which can be addressed by this plan,
therefore include the presence of weeds and the rabbit infestation. On-ground works should address
each of these in turn paying particular attention to the minimisation of further spread of weeds
within the „wet‟ areas.
The main recommendation from the baseline survey (Australian Water Environments 2005) for the
restoration of the vegetation is the control of the rabbit population. This rabbit control would be
significant within the „Floodplain Lowland Flats‟.
(b) FAUNA
(i) Birds
Many bird species are dependent on healthy wetlands, particularly waterbirds. 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.
Permanently inundated wetlands provide waterbirds with refuge areas during times of drought and
can therefore be important in a regional context, if not an national or international context,
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 by Thompson (1986) many waterbirds were recognised as using Morgan‟s
Lagoon. These birds included the yellow billed spoonbills Platalea flavipes and black swans
Cygnus atratus. Black swans were known to nest in the area (Thompson 1986). Other bird species,
other than water birds, were also known to use the area including the sulphur-crested cockatoo
Cacatua galerita.
The black swan was again found breeding at Morgan‟s Lagoon and another 10 species are assumed
to breed in this area as well. The Morgan’s Lagoon Baseline Wetlands Survey (Australian Water
Environments 2005) found 21 of the estimated 62 species of waterbirds that are likely to frequent
the area and a further 41 non-waterbirds. The main habitats used by the water birds include open
water, sedgelands and reed beds, a summary of the habitats identified at Morgan‟s Lagoon can be
found in Table 7 on page 25.
The bird survey conducted during the Morgan’s Lagoon Baseline Wetlands Survey (Australian
Water Environments 2005), recognises Morgan‟s Lagoon as an important wetland for waterbirds in
the River Murray floodplain. Most species that were expected at Morgan‟s Lagoon, given the
habitat and time of year in which the surveys were conducted, were identified. A total count of
water birds came to 372 individuals, the most common of which were the Australian wood duck
Chenonetta jubata, pacific black duck Anas superciliosa, grey teal Anas gracilis, australian pelican
24
Pelecanus conspicillatus and little grassbird Megalurus gramineus. Some bird species would use
Morgan‟s Lagoon for seasonal breeding.
As for vegetation (see 0(a) on page 21) 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 and habitat (flooding of lignums and red gums) required for
breeding.
The extensive area of fringing reeds and regenerating red gums provides valuable habitat for birds
as well as frogs, which are preyed upon by some bird species (herons and egrets). The mudflats
developed when the wetland dries over summer may provide a further habitat for wading birds. The
habitat diversity provided by lignum and red gums would be of great benefit for breeding for a large
variety of water birds during a flood event.
The European carp within the wetland may impact on the food availability for birds, which feed in
the open water. However, the permanent inundation of the wetland, which is of an advantage to the
European carp, provides a refuge for waterbirds when other wetlands are dry.
The large diversity of non-waterbirds is also dependent on the health of the floodplain vegetation.
The maintenance and restoration of this vegetation is therefore of significance on their behalf. Of
particular interest identified during the survey were; the diamond firetail Stagonopleura guttata, a
declining species, and the regent parrot Polytelis anthopeplus, both listed as Vulnerable in South
Australia: National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 (Anonymous 1972), which indicates suitable
habitat availability in the surrounding area.
Table 7: Habitat features identified in Morgan’s 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)
25
(ii) Frogs
All the expected frog species were heard at Morgan‟s Lagoon. The frogs heard at Morgan‟s Lagoon
included the Peron‟s Tree Frog Litoria peroni, 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. L. raniformis is a significant finding, as it is
listed as „Vulnerable‟ under the EPBC Act 1999 (Anonymous 1999) and the South Australian
National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 (Anonymous 1972). It is commonly found, but in low
abundances, in the Riverland, however it is less common downstream of Blanchetown (Walker
2002). For a summary of the frogs identified at Morgan‟s Lagoon see Table 1 below.
Frogs were heard mainly around the wetland (shallow riparian environments with thick vegetation)
and not as much around the river, despite the presence of reed beds. Around the wetland significant
habitat includes vegetation (low and dense), which provides shelter from predators, provides insect
food resources and helps to maintain moisture.
Other reptiles identified during the baseline survey were the red bellied black snake Pseudechis
porphyriacusm, eastern water skink Eulamprus quoyii, common snake-eye Morethia boulengeri and
shell remains of the Murray River turtle Emydura macquarii, this species was also identified by
Thompson (1986).
Table 8: Frogs at Morgan’s Lagoon, habitat and significant aspects.
Name Scientific Habitat Significance
Name
Spotted Grass Limnodynastes Numerous from all locations. Males and females identified.
Frog tasmaniensis Edge of Lagoon.
Foam nests with 90-1300
eggs, floating attached to
vegetation.
Eastern Banjo L. dumerili Numerous at southern end of >20
Frog Lagoon.
Breed throughout year. Large
foam nest with 1000-4000
eggs, attached to vegetation.
Common Froglet Crinia signifera Edge of Lagoon. Good fringing Lay eggs on underside of
rush in area heard. Anticipated grass and reeds. Tadpoles
that if rushes return to wetland, need still shallow water for 5 to
the habitat conditions will be 6 weeks.
suitable for this frog species.
Eastern Sign C. parinsignifera All around lagoon up to a few Eggs are scattered. Breeds in
Bearing Froglet meters away from water edge winter
in thick waterlogged grass.
Southern Bell Litoria raniformis At 2 sites (few, up to 5). Tall Listed as Vulnerable in SA
Frog reeds. Large permanent water (may become “Endangered”).
bodies with abundant growth of Eggs on floating rafts which
vegetation near the bank. later sink. Sighting in this
Many more expected to be at section of the River Murray
wetland. valley significant.
Peron’s Tree Litoria peroni Live under loose bark on gum Breeding between Oct. and
Frog trees during day. Move to Jan.
vegetation near water at night
26
(iii) Fish
Wetlands play an important part in the life-cycle 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 nutrients to
birds, they can also impact the water quality such as through bioturbation (European carp feeding
habits).
There was a good diversity of native fish throughout the wetland with the expected species for a
Lower River Murray wetland identified (Australian Water Environments 2005). The distribution
within the wetland showed the tendency for the generalist species to occupy the open water of the
wetland. The species occurring in great abundance were the Australian smelt with 589 individuals
and Bony herring with 448 individuals, with the more specialist species (e.g. un-specked hardyhead
and Murray rainbowfish) occupying the inlet channels (gudgeon‟s were more abundant at the inlet
channels) (Australian Water Environments 2005). This indicated that the open water of Morgan‟s
Lagoon, with shallow turbid waters and sparse submerged habitat, favoured these generalist species
(Australian Water Environments 2005). 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 increase in snags (dead red gum branches) and through the encouragement of submerged
macrophyte growth. The full native fish species list can be seen in Table 9 on page 28.
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 Morgan‟s 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.
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. The seasonal distribution
of the size of the fish suggests the use of the wetland for recruitment and growth by native fish
species (Australian Water Environments 2005).
Four exotics were caught at Morgan‟s Lagoon. These were mainly gambusia Gambusia holbrooki
and the European carp Cyprinus carpio. Currently there are no effective management strategies for
the control of gambusia, although it is thought that promoting habitat suitable for native fish may
increase the competitive advantage in favour of the native fish. 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 (currently in development stages), 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 trialled in South Australian
wetlands. The community group at Morgan‟s Lagoon is keen to become involved in the trialling of
the carp separation cages. For details on the exotic fish species caught at Morgan‟s Lagoon see
Table 10 on page 28. Table 11, Table 12 and Table 13 below show the fish species (native and
exotic) caught in 2002 and 2004 during community group surveys. The community group add
records of long necked turtle, shrimp and yabbie within the wetland.
27
Table 9: Native fish - table adapted from (Australian Water Environments 2005)
Common Name Scientific Name Abundance Abundance Status
November April SA Australia
Australian smelt Retropinna semoni 290 299
Bony herring (bream) Nematalosa erebi 221 227
Flathead gudgeon Philypnodon 15 17
grandiceps
Dwarf flathead gudgeon Philypnodon sp. 4 11
Un-specked hardyhead Craterocephalus 18 14 R
stercusmuscarum
fulvus
Murray rainbowfish Melanotaenia fluviatilis 4 3 V
Carp gudgeon (two Hypseleotris spp 151 79
species and hybrid form)
Murray Darling golden Macquaria ambigua 7 1
perch (callop) ambigua
Number of Species 8 8
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 10: Introduced fish - table adapted from (Australian Water Environments 2005)
Abundance Abundance
Common Name Scientific Name November April 2004
2003
Common carp Cyprinus carpio 492 24
Goldfish Carassius auratus 10 4
Redfin Perca fluviatilis 14 0
Gambusia Gambusia holbrooki 48 1396
Number of Species 4 3
Table 11: Community group fish survey 27th January 2002

Net1 Net 2 Net 2 Net 3 Net 4 Total
9pm- 9:15pm- 1pm- 1pm- 1pm-6pm
Common Name 10am 12pm 5:45pm 5:30pm
Australian smelt 6 110 2 1 11 130
Bony herring 2 8 6 8 24
Flathead gudgeon 2 5 7
Hardyhead 1 1
Western carp gudgeon 4 7 4 5 11 31
Midgely's carp gudgeon 3 7 1 3 4 18
Number of Species 6 5 3 4 4 6
Carp 1 1
Gambusia 5 1 1 4 3 14
Number of Species 1 2 1 1 1 2
28
Table 12: Community group fish survey 25th November 2002
Net1 Net 2 Net 3 Net 4 Total
4:15pm- 4:30pm- 4:45pm- 5:15pm-
Common Name 12:30am 11am 11:30am 12pm
Australian smelt 7 6 2 5 20
Bony herring 49 33 21 33 136
Hardyhead 4 4
Murray rainbowfish 25 35 45 40 145
Western carp gudgeon 2 2 4
Shrimp 10 30 26 13 79
Yabbie 2 2
Long neck turtle 4 4
Number of Species 5 5 5 6 8
Carp 4 4
Goldfish 20 20
Number of Species 0 1 1 0 2
Table 13: Community group fish survey 23rd November 2004

Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Total
Common Name 6pm-10am 6:15pm-10:30am 6:30pm-11am
Australian smelt 101 3 104
Bony herring 38 38
Flathead gudgeon 1 1
Un-specked hardyhead 22 1 23
Murray rainbowfish 7 7
Carp gudgeon 10 45 11 66
Cherax (Yabbie) 50 20 100 170
Macrobrachium (Prawn) 15 300 25 340
Paratya (Shrimp) 300 100 25 425
Tadpoles 2 2 4 8
Number of Species 5 10 7 10
Carp 10 47 6 63
Goldfish 4 4
Gambusia 2 2
Number of Species 2 2 1 3
(iv) Implications for management

Birds
To manage the wetland with an aim of maintaining the bird habitat availability, and increase the
diversity and abundance, the wetland water regime should not be altered significantly. An
accentuation of the water level fluctuations, although slower than has recently been the case, may
29
increase or ensure the development of habitat for wading species as well as increase the food
availability following inundation. The drawdown would also provide an opportunity of removing
some of the carp present within the wetland. A regional large flood would provide great benefit to
waterbird breeding in the area, with Morgan‟s Lagoon providing significant habitats during such an
event.
Frogs
Most of the frog species identified require vegetation including reeds at or close to the waters edge.
Morgan‟s Lagoon is identified by the baseline survey (Australian Water Environments 2005) as one
of the best remaining frog and reptile habitats of the remaining River Murray wetlands. Therefore,
to assist the survival of the identified frog species, the vegetation at the waters edge of Morgan‟s
Lagoon needs to be maintained. A decrease in sporadic or seasonal flooding at Morgan‟s Lagoon
could severely impact frog populations. Therefore, the habitat value at Morgan‟s Lagoon may
potentially decrease through a change in vegetation due to long term lack of flooding, dry
conditions and increasing salinity. A regional approach to the maintenance of the current habitat
condition is required to address this threat.
Fish
To enhance the habitat availability within Morgan‟s Lagoon more snags, such as dead red gum
branches, should be introduced into the open water of the wetland as well as the encouragement of
submerged macrophyte germination. That is, the germination and growth of submerged
macrophytes needs to be encouraged in the wetland to provide shelter, as well as food sources such
as through the growth of plankton and epiphytes. Partial drying of the wetland would initiate this
macrophyte germination still leaving open water for the generalist species.
Morgan‟s Lagoon can be an ideal case study for what can be done in the restoration of native fish
and their habitat. Further fish monitoring, conducted by the community group, to elicit a
comprehensive list of fish species dependent on Morgan‟s Lagoon, is recommended by the baseline
survey report (Australian Water Environments 2005). This list would assist in planning future
management for the encouragement of the maintenance and development of appropriate fish
habitat. The monitoring of the fish species within Morgan‟s Lagoon is included in the monitoring
schedule of this management plan (see Chapter 8 on page 47).
As for future development of the wetland complex, flow control structures can have an impact on
the movement of fish in and out of wetland environments, the cause for this impact includes water
quality and/or water flow (velocities and turbulence), for more details on this impact see (Tucker,
Dominelli et al. 2003)). This impact on fish movement should be kept in mind in the future when
planning further flow control structures in the Moorundi complex.
Summary
Based on the review of the fauna identified during the baseline survey some management strategies
required could be identified. Hydrological management entails the drawdown of the wetland. This
drawdown should stimulate the germination of submerged macrophytes as well as compact some of
the clay substrate. During this time the active removal of carp and the reintroduction of snags
through submerging red gum branches should be conducted. Some water should remain in the
wetland as this would be used by waterbirds and waders, further the remaining water would also
leave a refuge for native fish, which are present in the wetland water body. On land in the riparian
area a management focus should be on the removal or reduction of the rabbit population, which is
impacting on the vegetation.
A regional management issue is the increase in regional flooding levels and frequency. This is
needed to restore riparian vegetation germination and regrowth, as well as minimise the potential
salinity impact. This requirement has been identified for both Morgan‟s Lagoon and Sugar Shack
Lagoon some 7 km downstream.
30
Chapter 3. SOCIAL ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL VALUES

Most wetlands of the River Murray are of cultural value to the local indigenous population. In
recognition aboriginal input is sought on any projects having a significant impact on the River
Murray wetlands, such as the construction of sluice gates. Indigenous consultation was obtained for
the Wetland Management Plan written in 2000 (Jensen and Turner 2002) for the structures planed
for the wetland complex.
Chapter 4. LAND TENURE, JURISDICTION AND
MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS
SECTION 4.01 LAND TENURE
The land tenure of Morgan‟s Lagoon and surrounding area is all in freehold, held by S. Roberts. To
the north of the wetland from the Lagoon itself the landowner is Lomond PTY LTD, this area is
also held as a freehold title. A map covering the property borders across the wetland area is
presented in Map 9 on page 32.
SECTION 4.02 LAND AND WATER USE

The wetland is situated on private land with its only use being recreational. The current use, mainly
around Easter, is the use of caravans permanently stationed between the wetland and the River
Murray. A property on the western side of Yarramundi creek irrigates some crops although this
irrigation is not large (Brice 2005).
SECTION 4.03 JURISDICTION AND MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY

The Swan Reach and Districts Landcare Group will be responsible for the management of the
wetland in consultation with the landholders. The contact person is Wayne Brice, the chairman of
the Swan Reach and Districts Landcare Group. The wetland falls within the Mid Murray LAP area.
See Table 14 below for contact details.
Table 14: Morgan’s Lagoon responsible positions contact details
Position Present Phone
Officers Organisation Mailing Address number
Chairman of the Wayne Swan Reach and 15 Arthur Street Tranmere SA 5073 (08)
Swan Reach and Brice Districts Landcare 8332 1929
Districts Group
0409 102 814
Landcare Group
Mid Murray LAP Judy PO Box 10 PO Box 10 Cambrai SA 5353 (08)
Project Officer Pfeiffer 8564 6034
Wetland Project Adrienne SA MDB NRM PO Box 2056 Murray SA 5253 (08)
Officer, Lower Frears BOARD Bridge 8232 6753
Murray
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
31
Map 9: Cadastral boundaries covering Morgan’s Lagoon and surrounds.
32
Chapter 5. THREATS AND POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS TO

MORGAN’S LAGOON
There are a number of existing and potential threats to Morgan‟s Lagoon, some of which have
become apparent in the description of the wetland and assessment of the 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 threat to the wetland is the lack of regional flooding, which is well outside the
scope of this plan. Other threats to the wetland include the lack of regeneration of submerged
macrophytes due to the permanent inundation of the wetland, weeds and rabbits. These threats can
be and are addressed by this management plan. However, the altered management of a wetland will
in itself bring with it potential threats that need to be identified. The awareness of the potential
threats is central to future management actions and monitoring set out in this Wetland Management
Plan. The potential as well as the existing threats identified so far have been listed in Table 15 on
page 34.
33
Table 15: Existing and prospective threats to Morgan’s Lagoon
THREATS SYMPTOM CAUSE IMPACT CATEGORY EXTENT (IF POTENTIAL SOLUTION
KNOWN)
Lack of regional Dying red gums, Lack of water Loss/degradation of native vegetation and Regional River Murray Outside of the scope of this management
floods lignums and black Possible increase in associated communities (e.g. red gum and plan
Existing
box groundwater salinity lignum)

Encouragement of the spread of robust weeds
Less bird habitat (long term impact on breeding
through lack of floodplain vegetation)
Permanent Degraded Lack of regeneration phase Dieback of native vegetation (Aquatic) Regional & Local Wetland Addressed in this management plan
inundation wetland plant Dry period missing, nutrient Loss of habitat variability for Fauna (Birds, Fish, Local Introduce “natural” water regime
communities therefore not available in Frogs, Turtles, Macroinvertebrates) management
Existing
Control dry period and inundation rates

substrate for plant growth. Decreased nutrient uptake by macrophytes response to promote macrophyte growth
leading to increased nutrient availability to algae
Decreased competition by macrophytes, algae
therefore obtains more light for growth
Rapid change in Vegetation The rapid fluctuations do not Loss of Macrophytes Local Wetland and Slow the exchange rate
water level dieback allow the macrophytes to fringing Potentially close/restrict the direct
respond appropriately to the vegetation connection to the river side of the wetland.
altered water levels. Leave the Yarramundi creek inlet open
The support offered by the to allow some variability as would have
Existing
water (required by some been occurring naturally due to wind. I

macrophytes) is not available. assume that the Yarramundi Creek inlet
The water level rises, too should react slower due to the restricted
quickly for the macrophyte to flows along Yarramundi Creek, the higher
compensate by increased elevation of the inlet (fluctuation should then
growth, above the optimal only occur when it is high enough to pass
height for the macrophyte, and for a long duration).
effectively drowning it.
Salinisation of Increasing EC of Evapo-concentration Degradation of wetland water quality Local Wetland If the connections (or at least one) are
ABIOTIC
the wetland wetland water body Existing control structure Degradation of wetland environments left open some exchange will be possible
through evapo- Potential (closed) Degradation of habitat quality for native fish alleviating this threat to the wetland.
Potential
concentration degradation in Less native fish diversity The salt escaping into the river would
(If the water macrophytes and Degradation of habitat quality for some bird potentially be slow if the Yarramundi Creek
exchange between native fauna inlet is the only one left open.
the wetland and the species
(including some The salt load would not be any different
river is minimised)
bird species) than if the wetland had dried naturally)
Poor Water Turbid wetland, Bioturbation (Carp) Blocking of light penetration and therefore Local Wetland Exclude large carp (this would minimise
Quality: Turbidity loss of Wind resuspension reducing macrophyte growth the impact of the feeding behaviour of carp)
macrophytes and Algal blooms Lack of macrophytes – less nutrient uptake Restoration of macrophytes
potential algal which become available to algae which are not as (macrophytes have been shown to increase
Potential
bloom impacted on by high turbidities sedimentation within wetlands and therefore

Algal blooms reduce turbidity)
Degradation of habitat quality for fauna (e.g. Restoration of fringing vegetation (the
macroinvertibrates, native fish and birds) riparian vegetation will act as a windbreak
Prevention of planktonic and epiphytic primary and may therefore reduce wind induced
production (impact on the food chain) resuspension)
Saline intrusion Increased Groundwater salinity higher Stalinisation of the wetland Local Wetland Monitor wetland and ground water during
from salinity on wetland than surface water dry phase and respond through adaptive
Potential
groundwater basin management if necessary.

during extended Limit dry phase to 6 months maximum.
dry periods of
lagoon
Saline intrusion Vegetation Potential groundwater flow Saline groundwater inflow into the wetland area Local Wetland Monitor groundwater
from dieback gradient from irrigation on west If groundwater impact is serious discuss
groundwater Saline side of Yarramundi creek adaptive management options/irrigation
Potential
(probably a small depressions efficiency with local landholders

risk as irrigation has
diminished in the
area)
34
THREATS SYMPTOM CAUSE IMPACT CATEGORY EXTENT (IF POTENTIAL SOLUTION
KNOWN)
Loss of Their absence Rapid refilling following a dry Loss of habitat availability and diversity for Local Wetland Addressed in this management plan
submerged spell native fish species and macroinvertebrates Dry wetland edge, compact sediment
aquatic Lack of dry periods for Reduced numbers of specialist native fish Remove carp
Existing
vegetation germination species Slow refill allowing germination and

Turbidity Reduction in plankton and epiphytes (impact on growth
Rapid water level fluctuation the food chain) Slow water regime fluctuation
Carp feeding strategy Monitor impact of water level and
turbidity and respond adaptively
Weeds Their presence Degradation of native Competition with native species Local Wetland and Active weed removal strategies as
Existing
vegetation cover Do not deliver same habitat requirements of floodplain recommended by experts
native fauna as native species do
Rabbits Destruction of Rabbits feeding on the Degradation in native vegetation communities Local Floodplain Control of rabbit population (poisoning
native vegetation vegetation and species dependent on these communities and/or shooting)
and limited
Existing
succession
Invasive fish Turbid wetlands Well known environmental Competition with native fish for habitat Regional and Wetland Fish grills to exclude large specimens.
BIOTIC
species (carp, Reduction in problem in region (large pest (domination of available habitat) local If carp exclusion trials are successful in
gambusia, native fish diversity population), introduced for Competition for food resource with native fish, (Managed locally) other wetlands it could be considered for
goldfish and and abundance various reasons including i.e. reduction in insect and crustacean fauna Morgan’s Lagoon
redfin) mosquito control, aquaculture Predation/aggressive interaction on/with small Removal of large carp during dry phase
Existing
and aquarium industry and young native fish (redfin/gambusia) Monitor abundance of invasive species
(discarded specimens) Damage to aquatic vegetation with comparative monitoring of abundance
Rapid breeding cycles (carp Decrease in water quality, e.g. turbidity of native species
~2/year), live bearing increase (carp)
(gambusia), unpalatable eggs Reduction in food availability for birds
(redfin)
Predation on native fish
(redfin)
No habitat Reduction/low Fish screens Loss of recruitment and grow out habitat Local Wetland and Consider carp separation cages rather
development for numbers of large Lack of snags Loss of potential increase in abundance of river than fish screens
larger native fish native fish large native fish
species
Potential
35
Chapter 6. MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES

Based on the objectives presented in Section 1.02(c) on page 3 and the threats to the wetland
discussed in Chapter 5 on page 33, management objectives can now be developed in detail. The
objectives, including solutions, actions needed and priorities are detailed in Table 16 on page 37.
Adaptive management will drive the actions undertaken to achieve the objectives.
The detailed objectives remain as those identified by the Landcare group. The objectives listed
below have been adapted from the Moorundi Wetland Complex Management Plan to correspond to
the baseline survey data and recommendations and therefore for Morgan‟s Lagoon. These
objectives are as follows:
A healthy environment
More native fish, yabbies, waterbirds
More submerged macrophytes (water plants),
Maintained emergent macrophytes,
More prickly bottlebrush and river cooba
Maintained red gums
Clearer fresher water
The issues that need to be addressed to achieve these objectives include:
Continued no grazing
Reduction in the stress to trees (outside the scope of this management plan)
Reduction in weeds
Control of carp population
No rabbits
Reduction in bare banks on the lagoons or mainstream
Better management
Appropriate seasonal flows throughout the complex, including rate of exchange/water level
fluctuation (adaptive management)
Integrate human uses to minimise impacts
Greater knowledge of ecosystem plants and animals (Jensen and Turner 2002).
36
Table 16: Management objectives Morgan’s Lagoon.
MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES SOLUTIONS ACTIONS (Management (M) or QUANTIFIABLE MONITOR LEGISLATION PRIORITY
Engineering or structural (ES)) /MEASURE OF ACHIEVEMENT (TIMING)
Regeneration of wetland Management of Close and partly dry the wetland Diversity of aquatic species Vegetation WAP (water High
aquatic species inundation/drawdown periods (M) (Presence of greater numbers of survey (Y) license)
Native
(submerged Manage water regime to Open flow control gates (ES) submerged macrophytes) Monitor water
macrophytes) trigger/induce aquatic and riparian Control hydrology regime Maintain clear wetland (Turbidity quality (M)
vegetation regeneration adaptively (see Section 7.02 on page NTU 80 for ~ 90% of time)
41) (M)
Maintenance of native Manage water regime to Establish a water regime which No loss in diversity Photo point (Y) WAP (water High
fringing and riparian maintain vegetation (woodland, allows flooding when possible (M) Maintain current healthy status Vegetation license)
VEGETATION
Native
vegetation sedgeland and herbland plant Establish a water regime which No more spread of weeds survey (Y)
communities) allows draw down and therefore
Weed removal regeneration (M)
Increased numbers of Active revegetation/seeding Seed collection and revegetation Survival of >50% of revegetation Photo point (Y) Low
Native
prickly bottlebrush and Vegetation

rive coobah 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 (M) assessment) survey (Y)
Restore native fish Manage water regime to restore Open flow control gates (M) Maintenance of species diversity Fish survey (Y) WAP (water High
habitat habitat values for native fish and Control refilling speed to optimize Increase in specialist species license)
(One of the management therefore enhance their breeding. for aquatic vegetation germination abundance
objectives is the increase Improved fish habitat through and growth
in native fish diversity. improved and more diverse Maintenance of a stable, still water
The attempt will be made ecological niches, such as environment
to provide a diverse macrophytes (emergent and Restore riparian vegetation
habitat.) submerged), snags (therefore need
riparian vegetation) and open water.
Native
As well as more food sources,

biofilms (plankton and epiphytes).
This would lead to an increased
diversity and abundance of small
native fish, which are preyed upon
FISH
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
Reduce threat of invasive Active removal of carp Instillation (Yarramundi Creek Decreased numbers of carp (No Fish survey (Y) High
fish species Restrict reinfestation by large connection) and operation of existing large carp) Observation
carp fish grills (River Murray connection) (carp come to
Manage water regime to benefit (ES & M) surface)
Invasive
native species Potential future instillation of carp

exclusion cages (River Murray
connection) (ES)
Manage wetland water regime to
minimize turbidity and maintain and
increase aquatic vegetation (M)
37
MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES SOLUTIONS ACTIONS (MANAGEMENT (M) QUANTIFIABLE MONITOR LEGISLATION PRIORITY
OR ENGINEERING OR /MEASURE OF ACHIEVEMENT (TIMING)
STRUCTURAL (ES))
Increase numbers of Provide increased submerged Drawdown of wetland, drying and Increased habitat ??? Low
insects, habitat (submerged macrophytes compacting the sediment (M) Increased relative species numbers
OTHER AQUATIC
macroinvertebrates, and snags) Introduction of snags (dead

crustaceans, plankton Increase fringing and submerged branches etc)
SPECIES
Native
and epiphytes vegetation Refilling of wetland, inducing

Frogs- maintain or Spring flooding submerged macrophyte germination
increase abundance and (M)
diversity of frogs, Manage water regime to induce
particularly SBF and maintain submerged and
emergent macrophyte growth
Maintained habitat for Manage water regime to Drawdown of wetland, drying and Maintenance of bird diversity using Bird survey WAP (water Medium
water birds (Waterfowl, maintain habitat values for water compacting the sediment (M) wetland (1/2Y) license)
waders and shorebirds, birds and (All habitat including open Refilling of wetland, inducing Waders using mudflats during Vegetation
Native/Migratory
etc.) water) submerged macrophyte germination drawdown survey (Y)

Increase food source though (M) Increase in habitat (temporary Observation
BIRDS
improved native fish, invertebrates Manage water regime to induce mudflats and submerged vegetation)
and crustacean populations and maintain submerged and diversity
Manage water regime to restore emergent macrophyte growth
habitat values for migratory bird
species (Waders during wetland
drawdown)
Reduce rabbit population Active removal Shooting and/or poisoning Improved regeneration of native Vegetation High
OTHER TERRESTRIAL
species where rabbit degradation has survey (Y)

Rabbits
been identified
SPECIES
Removal of any stock Inform Portee Station when Inform Portee Station when sheep No stock presence 99% of the time Continual Medium
removal
which wander into sheep are seen in wetland area are seen in wetland area Observation
Stock
wetland area
Salinity Manage water regime to Allow exchange of water between Monitor wetland salinity (no net Monitor water Medium
minimise salinity impact of wetland and river when the wetland is increase over time) quality (M)
WQ
management strategy, maximising not being dried

the wetland restoration
Turbidity Manage water regime to Establish an occasional wetland Visibly clear water Monitor water Low
MANAGEMENT
minimise turbidity of wetland water partial dry phase (1 of 2 years) quality (M)
Turbidity of wetland water below 80
WQ
of management strategy, If sediment does not compact and Observation

maximising the wetland restoration NTU for majority of time (~90%)
reduce turbidity establish a full drying
event
Fish Screens Installation of fish screen at Application for funding Presence of fish grills N/A Medium
Yarramundi Creek inlet into wetland Construction and installation of fish
Structural
grills
WMP, Wetland Management Plan; GW, Ground Water; WQ, Water Quality; W, Weekly; M, Monthly; Y, Yearly
38
Chapter 7. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

Based on the threats to Morgan‟s Lagoon, the management objectives, developed from both the
baseline survey data and the vision/mission statement, management actions have been developed.
These management actions include on-ground works 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 8 on page 47).
The major actions identified include:
Partial drying of wetland
Active removal of carp
Increase snags in wetland
Slow refill of wetland
Baiting and/or shooting of rabbits
Weed control
Installation of fish grills at Yarramundi Creek inlet into wetland
Monitoring as per the monitoring plan (see Chapter 8 on page 47)
SECTION 7.01 ON GROUND ACTION AND TIMETABLE

Table 17, on page 40, provides a timetable for the on ground works in Morgan‟s Lagoon, prior to
the dry period, during the dry period and after inundation. The table does not address monitoring
which is discussed in Chapter 8 on page 47.
A log of all activities should be maintained. This log would assist in the review process of the
Wetland Management Plan discussed in Chapter 9 on page 49.
39
Table 17: Implementation plan for Morgan’s Lagoon.
ACTIVITY PRIORITY RESOURCES TIMETABLE RESPONSIBILITY

Install stopper logs High Min. 2 People January 2006 Community group
WETLAND
PRIOR TO
Stopper logs
PERIOD
DRY
Increase snags in wetland (add some dead red Medium Working party (possibly 4x4 vehicle or tractor) Possible at any time. Community group
DRY
gum branches) Available red gum branches (do not remove all from the
surrounding area)
Install fish exclusion grills (River Murray inlet) High Existing grills (see council) September Community group
1 person 5 minutes
PARTIAL
Active removal of carp High Fishnets Prior to opening of flow control structures Community group with
Large group of volunteers assistance form the Mid
Murray LAP & SA MDB
NRM BOARD
DURING
Inundate wetland High 1 person 15 minutes/day for time that culvert is open September Community group
PERIOD
Less than 1cm/day (need to maintain a clear

flow path, i.e. remove debris from exclusion
mesh)
Control water level fluctuation (buffer the rate of High Adjust stopper logs at inlets On going (only if submerged macrophytes are Community group
fluctuation if necessary (Adaptive Min. 2 People established following a dry event and these decision made with
management)). If necessary close connection macrophytes are being impacted on by the rapid assistance form the Mid
AFTER INUNDATION
Stopper logs
between the River Murray and Morgan’s Lagoon water level change) Murray LAP & SA MDB
diverting all water exchange through Yarramundi NRM BOARD
Creek, therefore slowing the fluctuation and
potentially reducing the adverse impact of rapid
water level fluctuations on submerged
macrophytes
Potentially clean fish exclusion grills Medium 1 person 1 hour As necessary Community group
Removal of weeds (terrestrial) Low Funding Asap Community group with

On ground works project assistance from the Mid
Buffalo grass and water couch careful spraying with Murray LAP
glyphosate herbicide
Rabbit control High Funding (poison and/or qualified marksman) On going Community group with
assistance from the Mid
Murray LAP
AS APPROPRIATE
Monitor GW flow direction Medium 1 person ½ hour/quarter On going Community group with
assistance form the Mid
Murray LAP & SA MDB
NRM BOARD
Establish whether high turbidity is a result of Low Sampling As necessary Community group with
suspended sediment or algae Funding assistance form the Mid
Murray LAP & SA MDB
NRM BOARD
Installation of fish screen in Yarramundi Creek High Funding Asap Community group with
inlet assistance from the Mid
Murray LAP
Clear flow channel (creek) between wetland and High Funding Asap/ On going Community group with
Yarramundi Creek On ground works project assistance from the Mid
Murray LAP
40
SECTION 7.02 WETLAND WATER OPERATIONAL PLAN (HYDROLOGY – WATER REGIME)

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 Morgan‟s 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.
Morgan‟s Lagoon is presently a permanently inundated wetland with a good through-flow connection to
the River Murray. The benefits of the good connection include the constant access to and exchange of
water, the wetland therefore not becoming saline due to evapoconcentration. The benefit to the river is the
nutrient retention of the wetland or a functional role in the reduction of nutrients within the river itself.
There are however disadvantages associated with this open connection with the river. One disadvantage is
the short term and rapid fluctuations of water level as a direct result of river height, the river height being
determined by both the operation of Lock 1 and the wind direction (as stated previously the wind
direction can alter the flow direction of the River Murray below Lock 1). Another disadvantage is the
very long-term inundation of the wetland. The long-term inundation does not allow for the drying out of
the wetland banks and the germination of macrophytes following rewetting of the wetland. Through the
long therm permanent inundation the seed bank within the wetland may also now be depauperate.
By re-establishing an appropriate seasonal and slowly fluctuating water regime, adapted to the current
conditions in the River Murray and Morgan‟s Lagoon, it is anticipated that the macrophyte germination
and growth can be encouraged, the lack of submerged macrophytes being a particular issue in Morgan‟s
Lagoon. The increased growth of submerged macrophytes and maintenance of the emergent macrophytes
and riparian vegetation 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. This management is facilitated by previous work by the
community group members from the Swan Reach and District Landcare Group and Wetland Care
Australia in the planning and construction of flow control structures. Adaptive management of Morgan‟s
Lagoon is controlled through the 5-year hydrological operational plan (HOP), which is described in Table
18 on page 45. This intended hydrological regime is described below and shown in Figure 15 and Figure
16 on page 44. The HOP includes an assessment of the water volumes needed annually over the 5-year
period (Table 20 on page 46).
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. Therefore, at the end of each inundation season a decision
should be made as to whether the hydrology regime intended as described in this plan is to be followed
based on monitored data and past experiences. This decision would be as part of an annual review of the
Wetland Management Plan (WMP).
The wetland hydrology regime (management) options available are;
Stage 1. Partial dry the wetland. The 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
wetland should be maintained at approximately 0.4 m AHD to provide a refuge for native fish
species and water birds.
Stage 2. Refill the wetland. The filling of the wetland stage should proceed slowly at maximally
2cm depth per day (preferably at 1cm/day). The filling should therefore take between 40 and 80
days.
41
Stage 3. (Not part of water licence) If the water level is adequate the wetland should be allowed to
flood. The flood should then to be contained within the wetland for as long as possible to allow
the full wetting of the riparian zone.
Stage 4. The submerged macrophytes established following refilling of the wetland should be
monitored and the impact of the relatively rapid water level fluctuations and/or turbidity
established. Future water regime management will depend on this impact, e.g. the relatively rapid
rate of water level fluctuations might need to be addressed if this is impacting on the submerged
macrophyte survival (see Figure 14 on page 43).
Through control of the flow structures a more stable seasonal water regime could be reinstated
(the issue here is, due the constant water levels maintained in the river through the operation of
lock 1 and the barrages combined with wind action there can be rapid and short lived water
fluctuations). The wind-induced fluctuations are not new, only exaggerated by the barrages. The
optimal hydrology could therefore become quite complex. Leaving the Yarramundi creek inlet
open and closing of the river connection would stabilise the fluctuations. This would allow the
submerged macrophytes to survive and to set seed.
Stage 5. Monitor whether the macrophytes have set seed, expected in a two year wet and dry cycle
(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. The cycle of partial drying
with a refill to maintain the germination and growth of submerged macrophytes can then be
reinitiated.
Stage 6. Return to stage 1. Although this second stage 1 could be a fully dry cycle, this would be
determined by the monitored data and experience of the community group (see Figure 14 on page
43).
A representation of these stages is made in Figure 15 and Figure 16 on page 44.
Water allocation (WA) required during a dry year is calculated using Equation 1; see Figure 16 on page
44 for a description of the parameters. The water allocation required during a wet year is calculated using
Equation 2, which accounts for the evaporation used during that year. If the wetland needs to be fully
dried the volume required is adjusted using Equation 3. The calculated water allocation requirements for
Morgan‟s Lagoon over the period of the Wetland Management Plan are calculated in Table 19 on page 46
and presented in Table 20 on page 46. The calculated water allocation requirements for Morgan‟s Lagoon
over the period of the Wetland Management Plan are presented in Table 20 on page 46.
Equation 1: WA 1 Rfv 1 Ev 1 Ev 2
Equation 2: WA 2 Ev 2
Equation 3: WA 3 WA 1 Ev 1 Rfv 2
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 Appendix I.
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
Morgan‟s 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.
42
Partially dry
wetland
Continual Monitoring (see monitoring schedules Chapter 8 on page 47)
Slow refill of
wetland
Growth of
submerged
macrophytes
Yes No
Increase in Did refill occur

native specialist slowly?
fish species
Yes
Yes No No
Partial dry Increase snags Turbid wetland Refill slower

again in next in wetland >80 NTU >20% following next
dry stage of time dry period
Yes No
Fully dry wetland next dry Close the connection between

stage (monitor wetland the River Murray and the
base salinity for evidence wetland following the next dry
of saline groundwater stage (the exchange of water
intrusion) should occur slower through
Yarramundi creek).
Reduced carp
numbers?
No
Yes
Repeat carp management Install

(active removal during dry separation cage
phase and installation of
fish screens).
Restart Management & Decision Process
Figure 14: Decision support framework (DSF) for Morgan’s Lagoon
43
Maintain wetland volume Draw down, provide

Slow refill between 1 & 2 cm/day. by compensating for mudflat for wadders.
Promote aquatic plant growth (emergent evaporation Allow seasonal variability
and submerged macrophytes). Monitor for
success & adjust fill rate. Leave the connection open for the variability experienced over past few
years. Consider future carp management depending on research.
Review whether the direct connection with the rive should b closed to
Compact sediment. Kill slow the water level fluctuations Revise
exotic fish. Maintain
presence of native fish. Wetland
Introduce snags to Maintain/develop habitat for
develop habitat for fish fish, frogs and birds. Management
and
macroinvertebrates. Plan
1.8
mAHD
1.0
0.8
0.6 To minimise impact on native fish present in Morgan‟s Lagoon the wetland will be
0.4 drawn down during the first drying regime, leaving refuge for the fish. If the
wetland remains turbid to the extent of restricting the growth and survival of
0.2
submerged macrophytes, the second drying event will need to dry the wetland
0.0 completely with the aim of compacting the bottom sediment of the lagoon.
WA3 WA3
-0.1
January September January September January September January September January September January September
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Equation used WA1 WA2 WA1 WA2 WA1 WA2
Figure 15: 6 year water regime scenario for Morgan’s Lagoon (benefit description)
Ev1 = Evaporation during partial dry event

Ev2 = Evaporation during normal volume
Rfv1 = Required fill volume after partial dry
Revise
Rfv2 = Additional required fill volume after complete dry (wetland bed dry)
Wetland
Management
Plan
1.8
mAHD
1.0
Ev2 Ev2 Ev2
0.8
Ev1 Ev1 Ev1
0.6
0.4
Rfv1 Rfv1 Rfv1
0.2
0.0
Rfv2
-0.1
January September January September January September January September January September January September
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Stage 1 2 4 5 6/1 2 4 5 6/1 2 4
3 3 3
Figure 16: 6 year water regime scenario for Morgan’s Lagoon (volume description)
44
Table 18: 6 year hydrological operational plan (HOP) for Morgan’s Lagoon
Stage Stage description Water Level Depth (m) Wetland Timing Triggers
Measured @ deepest point of Depth
wetland. (mAHD)
1 Draw down of wetland volume 0.5 0.4 March to August Closing of flow control structures.
2 Refill wetland. Refill depth at 1 to 0.9 0.8 September to end Opening of structure.
2 cm/day to allow macrophyte October
germination and growth.
3 (Not part of water licence) If the >0.9 >0.8 From October on High water level in river allowing the wetland
water level is adequate the wetland (when possible) to flood.
should be allowed to flood. The
flood should then to be contained
within the wetland for as long as
possible to allow the full wetting of
the riparian zone.
4 Respond to submerged 0.9 0.8 On-going Macrophyte health.
macrophyte growth. The submerged
macrophytes established following
refilling of the wetland should be
monitored and the impact of the
relatively rapid water level
fluctuations and/or turbidity
established.
5 Monitor whether the 0.9 0.8 Late Expected in a two year wet and dry cycle
macrophytes have set seed, Summer/Autumn (Tucker, Harper et al. 2002)
second year
6 Return to stage 1. 0.9 0.8 March to August This second stage 1 could be a fully dry cycle,
second year this would be determined by the monitored
data and experience of the community group
(see Figure 14 on page 43).
45
Table 19: Water use calculation
Volume (ML) * Potential Comment Total Annual Water

Evaporation Requirement (ML)
Rfv1** Rfv2** (ML)**
Partial Dry Year (A) 90 220 No water requirements during the drying 310
event (4 months)
Wet Year (B) 370 Fluctuations are expected due to a open 370
connection with the river
Full Dry Year (C) 90 40 200 Drying event, no water allocation is required 330
following the closing of the structures in
February, until opening of the structure in
September
* Obtained from the baseline survey (Australian Water Environments 2005)
** Rounded to nearest 10
Table 20: Water Allocation Requirements
2006 Partial Dry Year 310 ML
2007 Wet Year 370 ML
2008 Partial Dry Year * 310 ML
2010 Partial Dry Year * 310 ML
* If a decision is made through adaptive management that a partial dry year is to be a fully dry year 20 ML more will be used due an increased refill
requirement (some savings are made due to a reduction in evaporative loss).
46
Chapter 8. MONITORING
For the development of a wetland management plan for Morgan‟s Lagoon a baseline survey was
conducted during 2003 to 2004. The data collected during this survey provided a basis by which
objectives for the wetland management could be refined, hydrology guidelines could be developed
and review procedures scheduled.
As part of adaptive management and best practise wetland management, monitoring of the wetland
has been devised to study the potential implications of the unknowns to 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.
The schedule and parameters included for monitoring, and parties responsible, are presented in
Table 21 on page 48.
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.
47
Table 21: Monitoring plan for Morgan’s Lagoon.
Parameter Method Priority SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG Time Required Responsible
Groundwater Level and MODERATE Three monthly following The Swan Reach and Districts Landcare Group scheduled Community
Conductivity meetings half day group
Water quality
monitoring
HIGH
(cond, turb, Three monthly following The Swan Reach and Districts Landcare Group scheduled Community
temp) meetings half day group
Surface level
Surface Water
(using gauge HIGH Three monthly following The Swan Reach and Districts Landcare Group scheduled Community
boards) meetings 0.5 hour group
Sample of
water when Low Community
turbidity is high When turbidity is high 0.5 hour group
Seine net, dip
net (and fyke
Fish HIGH
nets if deep
enough)    1 day Volunteers
Photopoint HIGH Three monthly following The Swan Reach and Districts Landcare Group scheduled Community
monitoring meetings 2 hours group
Vegetation
Quadrat/line
MODERATE
intercept*  Set up- 2 days, Volunteers
Frogs Recording Calls MODERATE  0.5 hour Volunteers


Fixed area
Birds MODERATE
search  half day (from dawn) Volunteers
Dip net survey 1 day (not including
Macroinvertebrates LOW
    identification) Volunteers
The community group (The Swan Reach and Districts Landcare Group) intends to monitor on a 3 monthly basis following scheduled meetings (Brice 2005).
48
Chapter 9. EVALUATION, REVIEW AND REPORTING

SECTION 9.01 EVALUATION AND REVIEW
The review of the implications of changed management of Morgan‟s 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. 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
should be available from the Mid Murray LAP. 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.
Decision Support Framework based on experiences and monitoring.
Monitoring schedule to reflect changes in the Wetland Management Plan.
SECTION 9.02 REPORTING

The wetland management plan for Morgan‟s lagoon is comprehensive and includes an estimation of
the water requirements over the period covered in this plan. Should the volume used deviate
substantially from the plan 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.
49
Chapter 10. REFERENCES

Anonymous (1972). South Australia: National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972. Accessed July 25 2005,
http://www.parliament.sa.gov.au/Catalog/legislation/Acts/N/1972.56.un.htm.
Anonymous (1999). Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.
Australian Water Environments (2005). Morgan's Lagoon Wetlands Baseline Survey. Adelaide,
Australian Water Environments. Draft
Barnett, S. R. (1989). The hydrogeology of the Murray Basin in South Australia with special
reference to the alluvium of the River Murray floodplain. in K. Holland (2003). Moorundi Wetlands
Groundwater Monitoring Network: Case Study - Morgan's Lagoon. CSIRO Land and Water.
BOM (2005). Climate Averages. Accessed 27 June 2005,

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_024018.shtml.
Brice, W. (2005). Personal Communication. Chairman of the Swan Reach and Districts Landcare
Group.
Croucher, D. (2005). Personal Communication. Salinity Management Officer: DWLBC.
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.
Jensen, A., F. Marsh, et al. (1999). Wetland Managment Study: Moorundi Wetland Complex. Berri,
Wetland Care Australia.
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.
Jensen, A. and R. Turner (2002). Moorundi Wetland Complex Management Plan. Berri, Wetland
Care Australia.
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
Nicol, J. (2006). Personal Communication. Senior Research Officer Wetland & Riparian Plant
Ecology Inland Waters Sub-Program: SARDI aquatic sciences.
River Murray Catchment Water Management Board (2002). Water Allocation Plan for the River
Murray Prescribed Watercourse. Berri, South Australia, Government of South Australia.
50
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
Smitt, C., I. Jolly, et al. (2003). Moorundi Wetlands Groundwater Monitoring Network: Case Study
- Morgan's Lagoon, CSIRO Land and Water.
South Australian River Murray Wetlands Management Committee (SARMWMC) (1996).

Management of Wetlands of the River Murray Valley: Draft Action Plan 1996-1999. Adelaide,
Wetlands Management Program: Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
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.
Walker, S. (2002). FROG CENSUS 2001: Community monitoring of water quality and habitat
condition in South Australia using frogs as
indicators. Adelaide, Environment Protection Agency.
Wetland Care Australia (WCA) (1998). Wetlands Management Study. in A. Jensen and R. Turner
(2002). Moorundi Wetland Complex Management Plan. Berri, Wetland Care Australia.
51
Appendix A. Wetlands Atlas Data for Wetland Main Body

Table 22: Morgan’s Lagoon, Wetland atlas data (Jensen, Paton et al. 1996)
Area 352344.2
Perimeter 3608.99
Wetlands_ 664
Wetlands_i 663
As2482 44190
Aus_wetlan S0094
Thom_wetla M060
Thom_chang Y
Wetland_na YARRAMUNDI NORTH Should be Morgan’s Lagoon
Complex_na PORTEE COMPLEX

Cons_value 2
Mdbc_distn 4
Water_regi PERMANENT
Internatio 0
National 0
Basin 1
Valley 1
High_conse 1
Moderate_c 1
Low_conser 0
Should_rea 1
Should_ass 0
52
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 17: Downstream water level at Lock 1
53
Appendix C. Bore Profiles (adapted from Smitt, Jolly et al.

(2003))
Bore ID Geology Profile Description
ML01 Hard dark brown clay characteristic of the Coonabidgal Formation
ML02 Dark brown clay characteristic of the Coonabidgal Formation
ML03 Dark brown and orange clay indicative of present Jarosite or Iron III oxides
ML04 Predominately grey to black silty sand with come clay lenses
ML16 INCOMPLETE. Sandy with a small thin clay lens at 1.5m below surface
ML17 INCOMPLETE. Hard dry clay with calcareous nodules in the top 2m
54
Appendix D. Morgan’s Lagoon Inlet Morphology and Culvert

Designs
55
Appendix E. Baseline Survey Locations
Figure 18: Photopoint and water level monitoring sites
56
Figure 19: Morgan’s Lagoon fish survey sites
57
Figure 20: Morgan’s Lagoon vegetation monitoring sites
58
Appendix F. Baseline Survey Vegetation Zones
Figure 21: Morgan’s Lagoon ecological zones
59
Appendix G. Groundwater maps
Figure 22: Ground water depth

60
Figure 23: Ground water salinity
61
Appendix H. Species List for Morgan’s Lagoon

SECTION H.01 FLORA
(a) RIPARIAN AND FLOODPLAIN SPECIES
Plant species at Morgan‟s Lagoon are presented in Table 23 below (adapted from River Murray
Wetlands Baseline Survey (Australian Water Environments 2005) and Table 24 on page 66 which
were monitored by community members.
Table 23: Plant species at Morgan’s Lagoon (baseline survey)
Species Common Name Conservation Plant Association
Introduced
Rating
1 2 3a 3b 4 5
Strata
AUS
MU
SA
1 Eucalyptus River Red Gum * * * *
camaldulensis var.
camaldulensis
1 Eucalyptus Black Box (River *
largiflorens Box)
2 Acacia stenophylla River Cooba * * *
2 Muehlenbeckia Lignum * * * *
florulenta
3 Asclepias Round-leaf Cotton *
rotundifolia Bush
3 Atriplex Pointed Saltbush *
acutibractea
3 Atriplex sp. (A. Bladder Saltbush or * *
vesicaria or A. Bitter Saltbush
stipitata)
3 Atriplex suberecta Lagoon Saltbush * * *
3 Callistemon Prickly Bottlebrush R R *
brachyandrus
3 Cullen Tall Scurf-pea *
australasicum
3 Enchlaena Ruby Saltbush * * * *
tomentose var.
tomentosa
3 Eremophila Spreading U *
divaricata ssp. Emubush
divaricata
3 Marrubium vulgare Horehound * * *
3 Muehlenbeckia Spiny Lignum R * *
horrida
3 Salsola kali Buckbush * *
3 Solanum nigrum Black Nightshade * * *
3 Xanthium Californian Burr * *
californicum
4 Ammania multiflora Jerry Jerry *
62
4 Agrostis avenacea Common Blown- *
var. avanacea grass
4 Alternathera Lesser Joyweed * *
denticulata
4 Amphibromus Veined Swamp Q * *
nervosus Wallaby-grass
4 Apium prostatum Native Celery K *
ssp. Prostatum
4 Asperula gemella Twin-leaf Bedstraw *
4 Aster subulatus Aster-weed * * *
4 Atriplexprostata? Creeping Saltbush *
4 Atriplex Creeping (or Berry) * *
semibaccata Saltbush
4 Austrostipa nitida Balcarra Spear- *
grass
4 Avena sp. Wild Oat * * *
4 Brachycome Swamp Daisy R R * * *
basaltica var.
gracilis
4 Bromus rubens Red Brome * *
4 Bulbine Small Leek-lily *
semibarbata
4 Calotis cuneifolia Purple Burr-daisy U *
4 Calotis hispidula Hairy Burr-daisy *
4 Carrichtera annua Ward’s Weed * * * *
4 Cassytha sp. Dodder-laurel *
4 Centipeda Common *
cunninghamii Sneezeweed
4 Chenopodium Nettle-leaf *
murale? Goosefoot
4 Chondrilla juncea? Skeleton Weed * *
4 Cirsium vulgare Spear Thisle * * *
4 Conyza Flax-leaf Fleabane * *
bonariensis
4 Crassula colorata Dense Crassula *
var. acuminate
4 Cynodon dactylon Couch *
4 Eclypta platyglossa Yellow Twin-heads U * *
4 Ehrharta calycina Perennial Veldt * *
Grass
4 Einadia nutans Climbing Saltbush *
ssp. nutans
4 Epaltes australis Spreading Nut- U * *
heads
4 Epilobium Hairy Willow-herb *
hirtigerum
4 Eragrostis Cane-grass *
63
australasica
4 Euphorbia Caustic Weed *
drummondii
4 Euphorbia False Caper * *
terracina
4 Glycyrrhiza Native Liquorice U *
acanthocarpa
4 Heliopium Smooth Heliotrope * *
curassavicum
4 Lactuca serriola Prickly Lettuce * * *
4 Lavatera plebeia Australian *
Hollyhock
4 Lepidium Common * * * *
africanum Peppercress
4 Lythrum Lesser Loosestrife *
hyssopifolia
4 Lythrum salicaria Purple Loosestrife R R *
4 Maireana brevifolia Short-leaf Bluebush * *
4 Maireana radiata Radiate Bluebush *
4 Melilotus indica King Island Melilot *
4 Pasphalum Water Couch * * * *
disticum
4 Persicaria Pale Knotweed U *
lapathifolia
4 Persicaria prostata Creeping Knotweed U * *
4 Phyla canescens Lippia *
4 Plantago Clay Plantain * *
cunninghamii
4 Poa fordeana Forde’s Poa U *
4 Polycalymma Poached-egg Daisy *
stuartii
4 Polygonum Wireweed *
aviculare
4 Polypogon Annual Beard- * * * *
monspeliensis grass
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
4 Senecio Annual Groundsel *
glossanthus
64
4 Senecio lautus Variable Groundsel *
4 Senecio Thistle-leaf U *
runcinifolius Groundsel
4 Setaria jubiflora Warrego Summer- * * *
(was Paspalidium grass
jubiflorum)
4 Sporobolus Rat-tail Couch * * *
mitchellii
4 Stellaria palustris Swamp Starwort R V *
var. tenella?
4 Silene apetala Sand Catchfly * *
4 Sisymbrium Smooth Mustard *
erysimoides
4 Sonchus asper Rough Sow-thistle * *
4 Sonchus oleraceus Common Sow- * * * *
thistle
4 Stemodia Bluerod *
florulenta
4 Stenotaphrum Buffalo Grass * * *
secundatum
4 Swainsona Small-leaf U *
microphylla Swainson-pea
4 Teucrium Grey Germander U * * * *
racemosum
4 Vittadinia dissecta New Holland Daisy *
4 Vulpia muralis Wall Fescue * * *
4 Wahlenbergia River Bluebell * * *
fluminalis
4 Zygophyllum Twinleaf *
aurantiacum
5 Bolboschoenus Salt Club-rush *
caldwellii
5 Cyperus difformis Variable Flat-sedge *
5 Cyperus exaltatus Splendid Flat- *
sedge
5 Cyperus Spiny Flat-sedge * * *
gymnocaulos
5 Cyperus vaginatus Stiff Flat-sedge
5 Eleocharis acuta Common Spike- * * *
rush
5 Juncus aridicola Inland Rush *
5 Juncus pallidus Pale Rush * *
5 Juncus usitatus Common Rush *
5 Ludwigia peploides Water Primrose *
spp. montevidensis
5 Phragmites Common Reed * *
australis
65
5 Schoenoplectus River Club-rush * *
validus
5 Typha Narrow-leaf *
domingensis Bulrush
5 Vallisneria spiralis River Eel-grass U *
Jersey Cudweed * *
AUS = Australia, SA = South Australia, MU = Murray Region (V = Vulnerable, rare & at risk, R = Rare, U=
Uncommon, K = Status not known, Q = ?)
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 = River), 4= Lignum
Shrubland, 5 = Black Box Woodland
Table 24: Plant species at Morgan’s Lagoon (community monitored)
Quadrat Number MMLT1-01 MMLT1-02 MMLT1-03 MMLT2-01 MMLT2-02
2 2 2 2 2
Quadrat size 4m 4m 4m 4m 4m
Date 18/08/03 18/08/03 18/08/03 18/08/03 18/08/03
Observers Matt Rose Matt Rose Matt Rose Matt Rose Matt Rose
Natural State Natural State Natural State Natural State Natural State
Wayne Brice Wayne Brice Wayne Brice Wayne Brice Wayne Brice
Climatic Conditions W = rainfall a W = rainfall a W = rainfall a W = rainfall a W = rainfall a
few days few days few days few days few days
prior prior prior prior prior
Vegetation unit Top of Riparian Chenopod Riparian Sedgeland
riparian zone zone herbland zone of
Lagoon
GPS WGS 84 WGS 84 WGS 84 WGS 84 WGS 84
E 342821 E 342820 E 342838 E 342214 E 342836
N 1393552 N 1393542 N 1393555 N 1393722 N 1393551
Species Abundance Abundance Abundance Abundance Abundance
Acacia stenophylla N
River cooba
Atriplex semibaccata 2
Spreading saltbush
Atriplex stipatata N
Bitter saltbush
Brachycome basaltica spp T N
gracilis
Swamp daisy
Bracteantha bracteate T
Yellow everlasting
Chlorus sp 2
Windmill grass
Cyperus gymnocaulos 2 3 4
Spike rush
Einadia nutans N 1
Spreading saltbush
Enchylaena tomentosa 1
66
Ruby saltbush
Eucalyptus camadulensis 2
River red gum
Juncus pavaflous 2
Loose flower rush
Maireana brevifolia 2
Short leaf blue bush
Maireana sp. 2
Blue bush
Muehlenbeckia florulenta N N
Lignum
Panicum sp. 2 1
Native Millet
Teucrium racemosum 2
Grey germander
Wahlenbergia sp. N N
Blue bells
Charichtera annua N
Wards weed
Critesion sp. 2 4
Barley grass
*Cynodon dactylon 3 2
Couch grass
*Medicago polymorpha var. N N 2 N
polymorpha
Burr medic
*Sonchus oleraceus T N N N
Sow thistle
*Vicia monantha N
Spurred Vetah
* = Introduced species
N = Not many (1-10 plants & < 5%)
T = sparsely present, cover small < 5% of area
1 = Plentiful, but of small cover < 5% of area
2 = Any number of individuals covering 5 – 25% of area
5 = Covering more than 75% of area
67
SECTION H.02 WETLAND AND FLOODPLAIN FAUNA

(a) BIRDS OF MORGAN’S LAGOON
Table 25: Waterbird species observed in Morgan’s Lagoon Wetland Complex, adapted from
(Australian Water Environments 2005)
Species Habitat
Common Name Scientific Name
Abundan
Breeding
Roosting
Feeding
Status
Count
Roost
Feed
ce
Black Swan* (R) Cygnus atratus R, S S, O O Res UB 12 S, O O
Australian Tadorna G S M, D Sum UB 2 S O
Shelduck tadornoides
Australian Wood Chenonetta jubata G M, L M, D Res CB 150 S D
Duck
Pacific Black Duck Anas superciliosa G, L S, O O, D, Res CB 20 S, O O
M
Grey Teal Anas gracilis G S, O O, D, Res CB 20 S, O O, D
M
Hoary-headed Poliocephalus R, S O O Res R 1 O O
Grebe poliocephalus
Darter Anhinga G O G, D Res R 2
melanogaster
Little Pied Phalacrocorax G O G, D Res U 1 O D, G
Cormorant melanoleucos
Little Black Phalacrocorax G O G, D Irreg U 35 O D, G
Cormorant sulcirostris
Great Cormorant Phalacrocorax G O G, D Irreg R 2 O D, G
carbo
Australian Pelican Pelecanus M O O, D, Res C 65 O O
conspicillatus M
White-faced Heron Egretta G S, M G, M Res UB 3 S G
novaehollandiae
White-necked Ardea pacifica G S, M G, M Irreg R 1 S G
Heron
Nankeen Night Nycticorax G S, M G Res R 1 S G
Heron caledonicus
Australian White Threskiornis G, L S, M G, D, Res U 1 S D, G
Ibis molucca M
Yellow-billed Platalea flavipes G S, M G, D, Res UB 30 S G, D
Spoonbill M
Eurasian Coot Fulica atra L, R, S, O O Res U 12 S, O O
S
Purple Swamphen Porphyrio porphyrio R R, M R Res UB 3 R R
Caspian Tern Sterna caspia M O M Res U 2 O
Clamorous Reed- Acrocephalus R R R Sum UB 4 R R
warbler stentoreus
Little Grassbird Megalurus R R, S R Res CB 5 R, S R
68
gramineus
Total Count 372
Total Species 21
* 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 26: Non-Waterbird species observed in Morgan’s Lagoon Wetland Complex, adapted
from (Australian Water Environments 2005)
Species
Common Name Scientific Name Count
Black Kite Milvus migrans 1
Whistling Kite Haliastur sphenurus Several
Brown Goshawk Accipiter fasciatus 1
Little Eagle Hieraaetus morphnoides 1
*Rock Dove Columba livia 2
Crested Pigeon Ocyphaps lophotes 2
Peaceful Dove Geopelia striata Several
Galah Eolophus roseicapilla Several
Sulphur-crested Cockatoo Cacatua galerita Several
Purple-crowned Lorikeet Glossopsitta porphyrocephala 2
Regent Parrot Polytelis anthopeplus 8
Yellow Rosella Platycercus elegans flaveolus 2
Red-rumped Parrot Psephotus haematonotus Several

Horsfield’s Bronze-Cuckoo Chrysococcyx basalis 1
Southern Boobook Ninox novaeseelandiae 1
Barn Owl Tyto alba 1
Tawny Frogmouth Podargus strigoides 1
Australian Owlet-nightjar Aegotheles cristatus 1
Laughing Kookaburra Dacelo novaeguineae Several
Sacred Kingfisher Todiramphus sanctus 1
Brown Treecreeper Climacteris picumnus 2
Superb Fairy-wren Malurus cyaneus 1 group
Variegated Fairy-wren Malurus lamberti 1 group
Striated Pardalote Pardalotus striatus Several
Noisy Miner Manorina melanocephala Several + (Nest with young)
White-plumed Honeyeater Lichenostomus penicillatus Several
New Holland Honeyeater Phylidonyris novaehollandiae 1
White-fronted Chat Epthianura albifrons 2
69
White-browed Babbler Pomatostomus superciliosus 1 group
Grey Shrike-thrush Colluricincla harmonica 1
Magpie-Lark Grallina cyanoleuca 2
Willie Wagtail Rhipidura leucophrys Several
Dusky Woodswallow Artamus cyanopterus 2
Pied Butcherbird Cracticus nigrogularis 2
Australian Magpie Gymnorhina tibicen Several
Zebra Finch Taeniopygia guttata Several (7/02/04)
Diamond Firetail Stagonopleura guttata 2
Welcome Swallow Hirundo neoxena Several
Tree Martin Hirundo nigricans Several
Fairy Martin Hirundo ariel Several
*Common Starling Sturnus vulgaris 2
Total Species 41
* Introduced
70
Appendix I. Evaporation and precipitation obtained using the Wetland Loss Calculator.
Table 27: Calculated water loss (evaporation – precipitation) from Wetland Loss Calculator
Dry Year
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC TOTAL
Area used in calculation (ha) 26 Drying event no refill 18.5 18.5 18.5 23 26 26 26
Net Loss (ML) 51 0 0 0 0 6 5 12 24 24 45 52 219
Evaporation at a
given surface area (Ev#) Ev1 = 23
Wet Year
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC TOTAL
Area used in calculation (ha) 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26
Net Loss (ML) 51 45 44 30 19 9 7 17 27 24 45 52 370
71

Morgans Lagoon Final Large

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Morgans Lagoon Final Large

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

MORGAN’S LAGOON

(MOORUNDI WETLAND COMPLEX)

20th March 2006

To Whom It May Concern,

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

SECTION 1.01 ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE OF

1993 1996 2001

SECTION 1.02 WHY DOES MORGAN’S LAGOON NEED A MANAGEMENT PLAN?

Figure 2: Photo location 3 culvert to River Figure 3: Photo location 4 channel to

Figure 4: Photo location 1 culvert to Figure 5: Photo location 1 channel to

Chapter 2. SITE DESCRIPTION OF MORGAN’S LAGOON

Map 1: Morgan’s Lagoon

SECTION 2.02 STAKEHOLDERS

SECTION 2.03 SURVEY SITES, DATES & LOCATIONS

Map 2: Map of wetland complex (photographic locations 30th April 2005)

SECTION 2.04 PHYSICAL FEATURES

Figure 8: Photo location 2 looking W Figure 9: Photo location 4

Figure 10: Photo location 5 Figure 11: Photo location 5

(b) GEOMORPHOLOGY, GEOLOGY AND SOILS

Map 3: Hydrogeology of the Moorundi Wetland Complex (Barnett 1989)

(i) Surface water

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

40,000 ML/day flow 102,000 ML/day flow

Map 7: Expected water movement within Morgan’s Lagoon

Figure 12: Groundwater levels

Map 8: Piezometer locations

Rises on Upper Rises on floodplain Minimal area

(i) Implications for management

Table 11: Community group fish survey 27th January 2002

Table 13: Community group fish survey 23rd November 2004

(iv) Implications for management

Chapter 3. SOCIAL ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL VALUES

SECTION 4.02 LAND AND WATER USE

SECTION 4.03 JURISDICTION AND MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY

Map 9: Cadastral boundaries covering Morgan’s Lagoon and surrounds.

Chapter 5. THREATS AND POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS TO

box groundwater salinity lignum)

Control dry period and inundation rates

water (required by some been occurring naturally due to wind. I

bloom impacted on by high turbidities sedimentation within wetlands and therefore

groundwater basin management if necessary.

(probably a small depressions efficiency with local landholders

vegetation germination species Slow refill allowing germination and

Chapter 6. MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES

prickly bottlebrush and Vegetation

As well as more food sources,

by larger native fish. Both are in turn

native species Potential future instillation of carp

macroinvertebrates, and snags) Introduction of snags (dead

and epiphytes vegetation Refilling of wetland, inducing

etc.) water) submerged macrophyte germination drawdown survey (Y)

species where rabbit degradation has survey (Y)

management strategy, maximising not being dried

of management strategy, If sediment does not compact and Observation

Chapter 7. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

SECTION 7.01 ON GROUND ACTION AND TIMETABLE

ACTIVITY PRIORITY RESOURCES TIMETABLE RESPONSIBILITY

Less than 1cm/day (need to maintain a clear

Removal of weeds (terrestrial) Low Funding Asap Community group with

SECTION 7.02 WETLAND WATER OPERATIONAL PLAN (HYDROLOGY – WATER REGIME)

Increase in Did refill occur

Partial dry Increase snags Turbid wetland Refill slower

Fully dry wetland next dry Close the connection between

Repeat carp management Install