south east wetlands: climate change risks and

South East wetlands: climate change risks and opportunities for mitigation

DEWNR Technical report 2015/18

South East wetlands: climate change risks and opportunities for mitigation

Michelle Denny, Darren Herpich, Lydia Cetin and Graham Green

Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources

June, 2015

DEWNR Technical report 2015/18

Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources

GPO Box 1047, Adelaide SA 5001

Telephone National (08) 8463 6946

International +61 8 8463 6946

Fax National (08) 8463 6999

International +61 8 8463 6999

Website www.environment.sa.gov.au

Disclaimer

The Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources and its employees do not warrant or make any representation regarding the use, or results of the use, of the information contained herein as regards to its correctness, accuracy, reliability, currency or otherwise. The Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources and its employees expressly disclaims all liability or responsibility to any person using the information or advice. Information contained in this document is correct at the time of writing.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

© Crown in right of the State of South Australia, through the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources 2015

ISBN 978-1-922255-00-7

Preferred way to cite this publication

Denny M, Herpich D, Cetin L, and Green G, 2015, South East wetlands: climate change risks and opportunities for mitigation, DEWNR Technical report 2015/18, Government of South Australia, through Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, Adelaide

Download this document at: http://www.waterconnect.sa.gov.au

DEWNR Technical report 2015/18 i

http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

http://www.waterconnect.sa.gov.au/

Foreword The Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources (DEWNR) is responsible for the management of the State’s natural resources, ranging from policy leadership to on-ground delivery in consultation with government, industry and communities.

High-quality science and effective monitoring provides the foundation for the successful management of our environment and natural resources. This is achieved through undertaking appropriate research, investigations, assessments, monitoring and evaluation.

DEWNR’s strong partnerships with educational and research institutions, industries, government agencies, Natural Resources Management Boards and the community ensures that there is continual capacity building across the sector, and that the best skills and expertise are used to inform decision making.

Sandy Pitcher CHIEF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, WATER AND NATURAL RESOURCES

DEWNR Technical report 2015/18 ii

Acknowledgements This report was prepared by Michelle Denny (Australian Water Environments Pty.), Lydia Cetin (Jacobs SKM Pty.), Darren Herpich and Graham Green of the Science, Monitoring and Knowledge Branch of the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources.

The project team would like to acknowledge and thank the South East region staff of DEWNR, Natural Resources, South East and the South Eastern Water Conservation and Drainage Board, including Claire Harding, Daniela Conesa, David Williamson, Jennifer Schilling, Mark de Jong, Melissa Herpich, and Saad Mustafa, for data contributions and feedback.

In particular, thanks are due to Mark de Jong for supplying drainage information on surface water quality, information pertaining to regulators and ad hoc questions, and to Claire Harding for explaining and making available her extensive previous work in the area.

DEWNR Technical report 2015/18 iii

Contents Foreword ii

Acknowledgements iii

Summary 1

1. Introduction 2 1.1 Background 2 1.2 Aims and objectives 3 1.3 Overview of approach 3

2. Wetland prioritisation 4 2.1 Wetland prioritisation methods 4 2.1.1 Information Sources 4 2.2 Model for prioritisation method 4 2.2.1 Risk indication 5 2.3 Data used for the wetland prioritisation risk score 5 2.3.1 Climate change hazard 5 2.3.2 Vulnerability of wetlands 6

2.3.3 Wetland value 8

2.4 Method of combining risk component scores 9 2.4.1 Hazard and vulnerability scores 9 2.4.2 Value scores 10 2.5 Wetland prioritisation results 11

3. Feasibility assessment 15 3.1 Acceptable salinity envelopes 15 3.1.1 Salinity targets for surface watering – output 16 3.1.2 Feasibility assessment– geospatial analyses 18 3.1.3 Data review 19 3.1.3.1 Drains spatial data 19 3.1.3.2 Drains and wetland connectivity 19 3.2 Methodology for spatial analysis 24 3.2.1 ArcHydro tools 24 3.2.1.1 Digital elevation model (DEM) 24 3.2.2 Fill 24 3.2.2.1 Flow direction 24 3.2.3 Wetland volume 24 3.2.4 Wetland elevation 24 3.2.5 Drain elevation 24 3.2.6 Nearest drain to high priority wetlands 24 3.2.7 Surface water quality 25 3.2.8 Groundwater quality 25 3.3 Results and analysis 25 3.3.1 Preliminary analysis 25

DEWNR Technical report 2015/18 iv

3.3.1.1 Volume 26 3.3.1.2 Surface water quality 26 3.3.2 Final combination of feasibility and prioritisation 28 3.3.2.1 Wetlands and water quality criteria 28 3.3.2.2 Wetlands, water quality & distance 28 3.4 Summary of spatial feasibility analyses 42

4. Drain L climate change case study 43 4.1 Background 43 4.2 Aims and objectives of the case study 43 4.3 Climate projection scenarios 44 4.3.1 Climate data 44 4.3.1.1 Climate futures framework for the South East region 44 4.3.2 Climate Change Scenarios 47 4.3.3 Scenario analysis framework 47 4.4 Results 51 4.4.1 Impacts on annual inflows to Lake Hawdon 51 4.4.2 Impacts on summer inflows to Lake Hawdon 53 4.4.3 Impacts on the frequency of flows draining to Lake Hawdon 55 4.5 Summary of Drain L climate change case study 60

5. Discussion 61

6. Conclusions 63 6.1 Recommendations for progression of climate change mitigation assessment 64 6.2 Recommendations for data improvement 65

7. Appendices 66 A. Surface water latest results TDS (used for interpolation) 61 B. Wetlands that are lower in landscape than nearest drain elevation 71 C. Wetlands that have drains in proximity (which are higher in the landscape and have water quality equal

or below that required) 73 D. Wetlands of very high priority that do not intersect drains 75 E. Very high priority wetlands (98) which intersect drains but have no regulator infrastructure in place to

regulate flow 81 F. Very high priority wetlands with drain connectivity that are within 500 m of USE regulators (28) 84 G. Very high priority wetlands with drain connectivity that are within 500 m of LSE regulators (20) 84

8. Units of measurement 85 8.1 Units of measurement commonly used (SI and non-SI Australian legal) 85 8.2 Shortened forms 85

9. Glossary 86

References 88

DEWNR Technical report 2015/18 v

List of figures

Figure 1: Levels of risk assessment (after Deere and Davison, 2005) 5 Figure 2: Summary of prioritisation processing 12 Figure 3: Wetland prioritisation 14 Figure 4: Wetlands of social/cultural value, shown according to climate change risk indication (not including sites

with EVA scores) 15 Figure 5: Preliminary salinity targets 19 Figure 6: Wetlands with and without drain connectivity 22 Figure 7: IDW interpolation of latest salinity readings for surface water quality (data supplied by Mark de Jong) 26 Figure 8: Very high (priority 1) wetlands that meet elevation and water quality criteria 28 Figure 9: Wetlands meeting elevation and water quality criteria having drainswithin 1km (ELWQDI_1), between 1

and 5 km (ELWQDI_2), and between 5 and 20 km (ELWQDI_3) 29 Figure 10: Example of exploded view of classified wetlands draped over a hillshade having drains that are within

1km (ELWQDI_1), between 1 and 5 km (ELWQDI_2), and between 5 and 20 km (ELWQDI_3) 32 Figure 11: Example of short local drain segments around Bool Lagoon 33 Figure 12: Very high /Priority 1 wetlands that do and do not have a regulator within 500m 35 Figure 13: Very high / Priority 1 wetlands which are connected to drains, have no regulator infrastructure and are

within 500 m of a permanent pool 36 Figure 14: GCM projections for Climate Futures for Robe for 2050, low emissions 40 Figure 15: GCM projections for Climate Futures for Robe for 2050, high emissions 41 Figure 16: Geographic model view of the Drain L catchment and the three drainage points into Lake Hawdon 43 Figure 17: Conceptual representation of climate scenario analysis framework 43 Figure 18: Comparisons of historical inflow volumes derived by SILO and GCM climate projection realisations of

rainfall and PET 45 Figure 19: Change in median annual inflows to Lake Hawdon from 1990 baseline under different GCM climate

projections and high and low RCP emission cases 47 Figure 20: Change in median summer (Nov-Apr) inflows to Lake Hawdon from 1990 baseline under different GCM

climate projections and high and low RCP emission cases 49 Figure 21: Number of days per year where annual median inflows to Lake Hawdon are greater than 100 ML/day

under CSIROmk3.6 GCM climate projections 52 Figure 22: Number of days per year where annual median inflows to Lake Hawdon are greater than 100 ML/day

under IPSLcm5alr GCM climate projections 53 Figure 23: Number of days per year where annual median inflows to Lake Hawdon are greater than 100 ML/day

under noresm1m GCM climate projections 54

DEWNR Technical report 2015/18 vi

List of tables

Table 1: Climate change potential impacts scoring 6 Table 2: SAAE typology vulnerability score 8 Table 3: Groundwater extractive demand vulnerability score 8 Table 4: Ecological value score 9 Table 5: Risk score classification 10 Table 6: Value score classification (combined ecological and social/cultural) 11 Table 7: Prioritisation matrix 11 Table 8: Risk indication results 13 Table 9: Value classification results 13 Table 10: Wetland prioritisation results 13 Table 11: Reference values for salinity 16 Table 12: Method of assignment of salinity targets 18 Table 13: Wetlands which are lower in landscape than nearest drain, where drain segments have water quality less

than or equal to target and are within or equal to a distance of 1 km from the drain 30 Table 14: Wetlands which are lower in landscape than nearest drain, where drain segments have water quality less

than or equal to target and are within or equal to a distance between 1 and 5 km from the drain 30 Table 15: Wetlands which are lower in landscape than nearest drain, where drain segments have water quality less

than or equal to target and are within or equal to a distance of 5 and 20 km from the drain 31 Table 16: Very high priority wetlands which are connected to drains, have no regulator infrastructure and are

within 500 m of a permanent pool 34 Table 17: Climate Future matrix for Climate Futures for Robe for 2050, low emissions 40 Table 18: Climate Future matrix for Climate Futures for Robe 2050, high emissions 41 Table 19: Comparison across time periods for the average number of days that inflows to Lake Hawdon are above

100 ML/day and the change from historical inflows under CSIRO GCM climate projections 50 Table 20: Comparison across time periods for the average number of days that inflows to Lake Hawdon are above

100 ML/day and the change from historical inflows under IPSLcm5alr GCM climate projections 51 Table 21: Comparison across time periods for the average number of days that inflows to Lake Hawdon are above

100 ML/day and the change from historical inflows under noresm1m GCM climate projections 51 Table 22: Wetland climate change mitigation option assessment - overview of required studies and supporting

information 58

DEWNR Technical report 2015/18 vii

Summary This project aimed to provide a prioritisation of wetlands for climate impact mitigation and management planning, based on an assessment of ecological, social and cultural values, and physical vulnerability of wetlands in the South East Natural Resource Management region to climate change. Further to this, opportunities to mitigate climate impacts to wetlands through management of water from the South East drainage network were examined.

Drainage infrastructure is the major linear network for conveyance of water through extensive areas of the South East region, in a landscape with few natural watercourses. Options for mitigating the impacts of future climate change on wetlands include the use of regulators to retain water within wetlands that are already connected to the drainage network or are on natural watercourses, and making new connections to the drainage network to facilitate environmental watering of wetlands.

An initial wetland prioritisation was undertaken based on wetland value and potential risk from climate change. Concurrently, a feasibility assessment of the potential to deliver environmental water, via the existing drainage network or via new connections to the drainage network, was made using spatial analysis of wetland proximity to drains and relative elevation.

A number of considerations / options have been provided that could serve the basis of mitigation, including connection to the drainage network and / or constructing new regulators. Additionally, the presence of permanent pools has been included as a further feature to be protected and an additional criterion which could be incorporated into the prioritisation process.

Modelling was undertaken to assess the potential impacts on surface water flows in a case study catchment (Lake Hawdon – Drain L), under a range of climate change scenarios, as an indication of whether there may be water available for environmental watering of wetlands that are not currently connected to the drainage network.

The project was an initial study in identifying the range of investigations needed to demonstrate feasibility, opportunities, and constraints inherent in undertaking environmental watering of wetlands as a climate change mitigation option through new connections to the drainage network, and to a lesser extent, placement of new regulators.

Each component of work undertaken has identified potential improvements in supporting data and additional considerations that were beyond the current scope. Nevertheless, in doing so, the outcomes of this project begin to define a structured methodology for undertaking such investigations in future, including documenting the data required to support analysis and identifying the component work packages that are required to make an implementable assessment of appropriateness and feasibility of these mitigation options.

DEWNR Technical report 2015/18 1

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

Historically, 45% of the South East (SE) NRM region is thought to have been subject to seasonal or permanent inundation (SE NRM Board, 2010). Wetlands in the South East are varied in their physical and biological characteristics, and include soaks and springs, riverine wetlands, karstic lakes and pools, saline swamps and inter-dunal swales. The current landscape has been significantly altered, by vegetation clearance and drainage of land to make way for agriculture, forestry, and other land uses associated with built settlement. It is now estimated that only 6% of the original extent of wetlands survives (SE NRM Board, 2010). These environments support significant biodiversity, and a number of sites and many associated species are listed, as being of conservation significance, under legislation and treaties.

The South East region experiences higher and more reliable rainfall than other South Australian NRM regions, and the regional NRM plan identifies water availability as a critical input to regional wealth (SE NRM Board, 2010). Extractive uses of water that underpin the region’s economy, landscape amenity, and biodiversity, will all potentially be impacted by climate change. South Australia’s Water for Good plan (Government of South Australia, 2010) identifies climate change as a major challenge to the management of water resources in most of South Australia’s Natural Resource Management (NRM) regions. Climate change is likely to result in a warmer, drier environment for the south-east of South Australia which will have implications for retention of water in the landscape, with consequences for the hydrology of all wetlands. In fragmented landscapes, wetland biota may have limited opportunity to track suitable climatic conditions. Wetlands that have ecological, cultural or social values may be of greater concern and thus require a framework for prioritisation.

Engineering works to remove water from the South East landscape began in the nineteenth century. In recent times, drainage infrastructure has also been managed to convey water for environmental purposes, utilising a system of regulators and a decision support system designed to maximise productive values and environmental protection in the landscape. This infrastructure provides an opportunity for mitigation against the impacts of climate change through potential new connections of wetlands to the drainage network, in order to receive environmental watering, or through placement of new regulators to aid retention of water in the landscape.

This project provides an initial assessment, using spatial analyses and existing data sources, to identify high priority wetlands in the landscape which could be targeted for engineering works applied to retain water in the landscape.

Further spatial, financial and environmental assessments will need to be conducted on wetlands that are identified as potential candidates for managed hydrology.

A case study of the climate change impacts on flows in the Lake Hawdon – Drain L catchment has been undertaken to consider the likelihood of water being available for diversion to other wetlands, which are not currently connected to the drainage network, as a measure to mitigate the impacts of climate change on such wetlands.

This report is one in a series of projects completed under the Impacts of Climate Change on Water Resources (ICCWR) program, through the Department of Environment Water and Natural Resources, over the past four years. ICCWR was established in 2010 under the New Knowledge for the Future component of the then Department for Water’s Groundwater Program. The Groundwater Program addresses Target 75 of South Australia’s Strategic Plan 2011, which requires that “South Australia’s water resources are managed within sustainable limits by 2018”. The studies conducted by the ICCWR project will ultimately fulfil Action 43 of the Water for Good plan: “Commission, where required, regional scale studies on the Impacts of Climate Change on Water Resources”.

Data-sets and methods from precursor ICCWR studies have been incorporated into the current project.


1.2 Aims and objectives

This project aims to provide a prioritisation of wetlands for climate impact mitigation and management planning, based on an assessment of ecological, cultural and community values, and physical vulnerability of wetlands in the SE NRM Region to climate change. Further to this, opportunities to mitigate climate impacts to wetlands through management of water from the Southeast drainage network are examined.

1.3 Overview of approach

This project was undertaken as three main components of work. Firstly, an initial wetland prioritisation was undertaken based on wetland value and potential risk from climate change. Concurrently, a feasibility assessment of the potential to deliver environmental water, via the existing drainage network or via new connections to the drainage network, was made using spatial analysis of wetland proximity to drains and relative elevation. Additionally, modelling was undertaken to assess the potential impacts on surface water flows in a case study catchment (Lake Hawdon – Drain L), under a range of climate change scenarios, as an indication of whether there may be water available for environmental watering of wetlands that are not currently connected to the drainage network.

The packages of work are presented as separate chapters of this report, with the methods and results of each work package described within each chapter for ease of understanding (Chapters 2 – 4). An integrated discussion and conclusions and recommendations for further investigations are then presented in Chapters 5 and 6.


2. Wetland prioritisation The aim of the wetland prioritisation was to select a sub-set of the 18 902 wetlands mapped in the South East region, that would be considered further through the feasibility assessment, for their suitability to receive environmental watering as a climate change mitigation action.

The criteria for prioritisation were relative vulnerability to the potential impacts of climate change and ecological and community value.

2.1 Wetland prioritisation methods

2.1.1 Information Sources

A number of previous studies have investigated climate change in relation to wetlands of the South East region, and generally to water resources of the state of South Australia. The outcomes of those studies have been utilised by this current project. A number of these projects were part of the wider Impacts of Climate Change on Water Resources (ICCWR) program, carried out over the past four years. The key projects of relevance to the current work were “A Preliminary Risk Assessment of Water Dependent Ecosystems in South Australia – Phase 1” (Harding and O’Connor, 2012); “Impacts of Climate Change on Water Resources Phase 2: Selection of Future Climate Projections and Downscaling Methodology” (Gibbs et al., 2011); “Impacts of Climate Change on Water Resources in South Australia, Phase 4 Volume 1” (Harding, 2012a); and “Extension of the Water-dependent Ecosystem Risk Assessment Framework to the South East NRM Region” (Harding, 2012b).

In 2012 – 2013, Natural Resources, South East produced a geodatabase of water assets for the Australian Government to support the work of the Independent Expert Scientific Committee (formed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999). In part, the process of preparing the data for this geodatabase involved assigning social and cultural values to water assets, including wetlands (see Harding, 2014, for a description of this database). In 2013, the Water Allocation Plan for the Lower Limestone Coast Prescribed Wells Area was also completed, which involved some community consultation on cultural value of wetlands (SE NRM Board, 2013). Data-sets from both of these projects have been drawn upon for the current project.

Data-sets were selected from each of these past projects for their capacity to meet the objectives of this project’s wetland prioritisation.

2.2 Model for prioritisation method

It was determined that the prioritisation should capture the potential for negative impact to wetlands from climate change, as well as the ecological, cultural and community value of the wetlands, wherever the necessary data was available.

Conceptually, the approach is an example of semi-quantitative risk ranking, for the purpose of producing a prioritisation (see Figure 1, adapted from Department of the Environment http://www.environment.gov.au/science/ssd/research/ecological-risk).


http://www.environment.gov.au/science/ssd/research/ecological-risk

Figure 1: Levels of risk assessment (after Deere and Davison, 2005)

Wetlands are ranked, on a relative basis, for their potential to be impacted by climate change and for their ecological, cultural and community value, with the final prioritisation rank determined from the sum of scores of likelihood of impacts and value criteria.

This prioritisation process provides an analysis of risks of climate change impacts to wetlands of the southeast in order to provide a prioritised shortlist of wetlands for consideration of climate impact mitigation options. It was not intended that this study provides a complete risk assessment as defined by the DEWNR Risk Management Framework for Water Planning and Management (RMFWPM) (Maxwell and Franssen, 2012). The approach adopted to this risk analysis is in line with that outlined in the DEWNR RMFWPM, but does not include an analysis of existing controls, or evaluate the tolerability of the risk quantified through the analysis. However, the resulting risk-prioritised shortlist of wetlands is subjected to an analysis of the feasibility of mitigating climate change impacts through engineered regulation of water in wetlands or drains. An outcome of this analysis will be to enable future comprehensive risk assessments to include consideration of mitigation options.

2.2.1 Risk indication

The approach adopted describes the potential for negative impact to wetlands from climate change, through a relative ‘risk indication’ ranking, hereafter referred to as the ‘risk score’. A detailed risk assessment has not been possible across all of the wetlands of the South East region, which number in excess of 18 000. There are many individual traits of wetlands that contribute to the risk of impact, and it would be unfeasible to account for the variability in these traits across the number of sites included in this assessment, to produce a quantitative probabilistic analysis of risk. Therefore, in this prioritisation, some high level indicators of risk were applied to the wetlands, which once combined with the added filters of wetland value and feasibility of mitigation options, identifies a smaller number of sites that can be further assessed in detail in subsequent work.

2.3 Data used for the wetland prioritisation risk score

Three data-sets were used to generate a risk score for the prioritisation, and two other data-sets were utilised to provide a value score for the prioritisation. These data-sets are further described in the following sections. The data-sets were ultimately combined via a matrix to produce a final prioritisation, which is described further at the end of this Chapter (Section 2.5).

Quanti-tative risk

assessment Predictions

Incr

easi

ng q

uant

ifica

tion

Semi-quantitative risk ranking

Priorities

Pathways Conceptualised risk pathways


2.3.1 Climate change hazard

Table 1 below describes the first of three data-sets used in the risk indication part of the prioritisation. The data-set was generated as part of the Phase 4, Volume 1, assessment, and the methods are described more fully in Harding (2012a).

In brief, and summarised directly from Harding (2012a: 20 – 21), three parameters drawn from the National Centre for Atmospheric Research (USA) (NCAR) CCSM3 Global Climate Model (GCM) were used. Harding (2012a) used one climate change scenario – the high (A2) emissions scenario, for the winter quarter, for a projected time horizon of 2070. It was considered that the winter quarter was the most significant to runoff and recharge, and the most significant in fulfilling environmental water requirements for seasonal wetlands of temperate areas of South Australia (Harding, 2012a). The 2070 time frame was chosen because it provides a clear indication of the direction of predicted change, and the A2 ‘high emissions’ scenario was chosen because recent climate inventories show anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions tracking near the high emissions scenario (Harding, 2012a, referencing Global Carbon Project 2009). Scores were assigned to each mapped wetland for the three parameters: change in potential evapotranspiration (PET); change in temperature; and, change in average winter rainfall.

The assignment of scores was based on the difference between the NCAR GCM prediction for the value of the various climate variables, and the 1990 base climate value for the grid square (within the Model’s spatial output) within which each wetland is located.

The three separate sub-scores shown in Table 1 were combined into one score, up to a maximum value of 15. This score represents the relative hazard to the wetlands.

Table 1: Climate change potential impacts scoring

Parameter Description Score Criteria

Predicted Change in PET Potential Evapotranspiration, 2070 high emissions scenario (A2), winter quarter

1 Change in PET 5 - 10mm 2 Change in PET 10 - 20mm 3 Change in PET 20 - 30mm 4 Change in PET 30 - 40mm 5 Change in PET 40 - 50mm

Predicted Change in Temp

Predicted change in temp under 2070 high emissions scenario (A2), winter quarter

1 Change in Temp 1 - 1.5C 3 Change in Temp 1.5 - 2C 5 Change in Temp 2 - 2.5C

Predicted Change in Rainfall

Predicted change in rainfall under 2070 high emissions scenario (A2), winter quarter

1 Change in Rainfall -5 to -10mm 2 Change in Rainfall -10 to -15mm 3 Change in Rainfall -15 to -20mm 4 Change in Rainfall -20 to -30mm 5 Change in Rainfall -30 to -40mm

It is acknowledged that wetlands may be impacted by a range of other potential climate change effects, such as coastal erosion from storm surge, water temperature increase, and exposure of acid sulphate soils. These other factors have not been considered as part of the current study.

2.3.2 Vulnerability of wetlands

The second data-set used in the risk indication score provides an indication of the relative vulnerability of wetland types to changes in climate. Based on a review of aspects of vulnerability provided in Harding (2012a) and applicability to core attributes of the classification, it is considered that all Water Dependent Ecosystems (WDEs) are likely to be impacted by climate change in South Australia. However, certain types of aquatic ecosystems including freshwater meadows, grass sedge swamps, terminal depression lakes and seasonal and ephemeral watercourses are likely to be at increased vulnerability due to the ecology of these systems having a high reliance on localised seasonal rainfall events (Harding, 2012a).


Vulnerability scores were applied to each wetland based on their South Australian Aquatic Ecosystems (SAAE) wetland ‘type’ classification. The classification of SAAE wetland types was originally carried out by Lachlan Farrington (see Butcher (Ed.), 2011), based on the framework set out in Scholz and Fee (2008). Wetland type is one of the fundamental tags of information recorded for each wetland in the South East NRM region’s South Australian Wetland Inventory Database (SAWID). The SAAE classification is often used in assessments of wetland vulnerability to various impacts, because it describes the basic hydrological characteristics of the wetland system. Classification of wetlands into ‘type’ is based on a number of attributes, including hydrology and water quality. Three of the attributes used in wetland typology classification were selected as having particular relevance for climate change and have been used for the purpose of ranking wetlands for vulnerability to climate change.

These core wetland attributes considered in rating vulnerability to climate change were:

• Water source;

• Water regime; and

• Salinity.

An expert elicitation process was used to assign a score of 1 to 3 to these characteristics of wetlands, with 1 indicating low vulnerability to climate change and 3 indicating high vulnerability to climate change. Wetland types, therefore, were assigned an overall score of up to 9 (combining the three individual attribute scores), with a score of 9 indicating highest vulnerability to climate change.

The scores ranged from 4 to 9 (out of a possible 9) for SAAE wetland types identified within the South East NRM Region, and are presented in Table 2.


Table 2: SAAE typology vulnerability score

SAAE Typology

Core Attributes

Total Ecosystem

Vulnerability Score

Water Source Water Regime Salinity

SW = surface water, GW = groundwater

LR = local runoff Art = Artesian

Score

E = ephemeral S = seasonal

P = Permanent

Score

Fresh = <5000 EC Brackish = 5000 –

10000 EC Saline = >10000 EC Eury = Euryhaline

Hyper = Hypersaline

Score

Freshwater meadows LR 3 S/E 3 Fresh 3 9 Terminal lakes SW 3 S/E 3 Fresh / Brackish 2 8 Floodplain SW 3 S/E 3 All 2 8 Inland interdunal wetland floodplain

SW 3 S/E 3 All 2 8

Salt lakes SW 3 E 3 Saline/Hyper 1 7 Permanent freshwater lake LR/SW/GW 2 S/P 2 Fresh 3 7 Coastal dunal lakes LR/GW 2 P/S 2 Fresh 3 7 Permanent freshwater swamp

LR/SW/GW 2 P/S 2 Fresh 3 7

Inland interdunal wetlands LR/SW/GW 2 S/E 3 Brackish 2 7 Grass sedge wetland LR/SW/GW 2 S 3 Fresh / Brackish 2 7 Lake Floodplain SW/GW 2 S/E 3 Fresh / Brackish 2 7 Seasonal watercourse reach

LR/SW/GW 2 I 3 Eury 2 7

Seasonal WC waterhole LR/SW/GW 2 I 3 Eury 2 7 Peat swamp LR/SW/GW 2 P 1 Fresh 3 6

Soaks & springs GW 1 P/S 2 Fresh / Brackish /

Saline 2 5

Saline Swamp LR/GW 2 All 2 Saline / Hyper 1 5

Karst systems GW 1 P/S 2 Fresh / Brackish /

Saline 2 5

Artificial Wetlands LR/SW/GW 2 P/S 1 Fresh / Brackish /

Saline 1 4

The third data-set used in the risk indication part of the prioritisation was sourced from the ICCWR Phase 4, Volume 1 work of Harding (2012a). This score is one of two which represent the vulnerability of the wetland. It provides an additional component to wetland vulnerability scores by recognising and incorporating the extractive demands made on wetlands, in the form of groundwater usage data. The groundwater usage data were derived in part from Drillhole Enquiry System data, examining the density of well development in non-prescribed areas and using the drillhole ‘purpose’ descriptors, and salinity information, to exclude drillholes not used for water extraction. Additionally, extraction volumes recorded against licenses in prescribed areas, and the locations and potential water use of forestry and mining developments were used to develop the relative scores. The method and outcomes are described in Harding (2012a) and Harding and O’Connor (2012). The scoring is as shown below in Table 3.

Table 3: Groundwater extractive demand vulnerability score

Parameter Description Score Criteria

Water Usage - Groundwater

Only applied to Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems. Level of groundwater extraction, using licensing data, intensity of wells, plantation forestry and mining

0 Low 4 Moderate 6 High 9 Very High


2.3.3 Wetland Value

The first data-set used in the value part of the prioritisation was the Ecological Value Assessment (EVA) scoring developed by Harding (2012b & 2014). This scoring is updated as significant new supporting information becomes available, and entered into SAWID. The version used for this prioritisation was from March 2014. The EVA scores are based on four ecological parameters: Landscape Naturalness & Connectivity; Diversity & Richness; Threatened Species and Communities; and, Special Features. The criteria for scoring and overall methodology are described in full in Harding (2012b & 2014). The results of assessment are in the format of Low, Moderate, High and Very High ecological value. Scoring relies on sufficient on-ground biological survey data being available, and cut-off thresholds are applied whereby wetland sites with little survey effort are tagged as having ‘insufficient data’, and no EVA score is assigned.

For the purposes of the current prioritisation the following conversion of value descriptors into numeric values was made (Table 4). This was undertaken to support relative ranking of wetlands.

Table 4: Ecological value score

Ecological Value Class Score Low 1

Moderate 4 High 7

Very High 10

The second data-set used in the value score was social / cultural value. There were two sources of original data brought together for this aspect of the prioritisation.

The first source of data was information collected through consultation with indigenous representatives for the Lower Limestone Coast Prescribed Wells Area Water Allocation Plan (provided by email, D. Conesa, 22 April 2014). This work recorded social and cultural significance of wetlands and watercourses by groundwater management area (GMA). This means that all wetlands within a GMA (which are defined spatially as rectangular grids across the South East region) were tagged as having social or cultural significance, if the GMA was recorded as an area of importance. The significance described by the contributors ranged from association with traditional law, to sites of important resource supply.

The second source of data was the ‘water asset’ database prepared by Natural Resources, South East, in 2013 under the National Partnership Agreement (NPA) on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining. The water asset database collated information, including social and cultural values, in a standardised format to be provided to the Australian Government’s Independent Expert Scientific Committee, which is responsible for assessing development proposals under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

Each wetland that was identified as having cultural or social value, through either the NPA database project or the Lower Limestone Cost PWA WAP, was assigned a nominal score of ‘3’. When combined with the EVA scores, this served the purpose of increasing the overall wetland value score by one category.

No order of priority or weighted classification of social/cultural value was made – every site that was nominated as having social/cultural value via the two contributing projects was assigned a social/cultural value score (of 3). Sites did not receive a ‘double’ score if they were identified by both projects, and no differentiation was made between heritage, amenity, recreational, educational or other social/cultural values.

2.4 Method of combining risk component scores

All of the data generated by this prioritisation is essentially qualitative in nature rather than quantitative. Numerical values were assigned to different classes of information (e.g. cultural value / no identified cultural value) largely to assist processing in a spatial database environment, to assist later identification of the contributing factors that drive the prioritisation results, and to produce a relative ranking.


2.4.1 Hazard and vulnerability scores

The hazard and vulnerability scores for the risk indication part of the prioritisation were added together. In review, for each of the wetlands scores for the following were combined:

• A maximum score of 15 for predicted change temperature, rainfall and PET (hazard);

• A maximum score of 9 for inherent vulnerability to hydrological disruption; and

• A maximum score of 9 for raised vulnerability due to extractive demand.

From addition of scores for these three risk components the maximum possible risk indication score is 33. When applied to all the mapped wetlands, the resulting spread of scores attained was 10 – 24. Based on an equal interval classification, these resulting risk indication scores were assigned a relative classification of Low, Moderate, High or Very High, as shown in Table 5 below.

Table 5: Risk score classification

Risk Class Spread of scores Low 10 - 13

Moderate 14 - 17 High 18 - 21

Very High 22 - 24

It is important to note again, that this is a relative rather than an absolute risk score. That is, a wetland with a risk indication score of 10 is, based on the available information, at lower risk of impact from climate change than a wetland that scores 24. However, that wetland may not be at low absolute risk from climate change. Although ranked lower, it may still be at significant risk of degradation under the influence of climate change.

2.4.2 Value scores

The scores for the value part of the prioritisation were added together. In review, for each of the wetlands, scores for the following were combined:

• A maximum score of 10 for ecological value; and

• A score of 3, if the site had identified social/cultural value.

The assignment of a score for social/cultural value has the effect of moving a wetland site into the next highest value class. The exception is for a site that has Very High EVA values, as well as cultural value. No extra class was created for these, but they can be identified separately within the data-set. Both of the two projects that supplied data on social/cultural values acknowledged that the respective consultation processes were not exhaustive, and therefore the absence of recorded social/cultural value does not necessarily mean that any particular wetland has none. Additionally, the Lower Limestone PWA WAP consultation tagged all wetlands within a GMA, themselves defined by arbitrary administrative boundaries, as having value if the general GMA or specific sites within the GMA were identified as having value. Individual consideration of all wetlands within the GMA has not necessarily occurred (for a variety of reasons valid to the original project’s internal objectives). For these reasons, it was considered inappropriate to split sites of Very High ecological value into a higher and lower rank, based on recorded social/cultural value or absence of recorded social/cultural value. The final assignment of overall value was as shown below.


Table 6: Value score classification (combined ecological and social/cultural)

Class Score Low 1

Moderate 4 High 7

Very High 10 or 13

The particular purpose of prioritisation for the current project was to select sites for further assessment of suitability for mitigation of climate change effects through environmental watering. It was deemed important that any sites to be assigned a high priority for further investigation must be of high value, to warrant investment in mitigation options. A matrix approach to combining the risk indication and value scores was, therefore, adopted. The matrix used to combine risk and value scores to produce an overall prioritisation is shown below, in Table 7.

The process of combining all relative rankings assigned to wetlands is represented on Figure 2, over leaf. The method of combining rankings for value and vulnerability was presented to an expert panel through an interim discussion paper, and feedback incorporated, to ensure that final relative scoring of wetlands appropriately reflected the objectives of producing a ranking of wetlands.

Table 7: Prioritisation matrix

Value L M H VH

Risk

In

dica

tion

L Low / Priority 4 Low / Priority 4 High / Priority 2 High / Priority 2

M Low / Priority 4 Medium / Priority 3 High / Priority 2 High / Priority 2

H Medium / Priority 3 High / Priority 2 Very High / Priority 1 Very High / Priority 1

VH Medium / Priority 3 High / Priority 2 Very High / Priority 1 Very High / Priority 1


Figure 2: Summary of prioritisation processing

HAZARD

Sum of

Change in PET, Rainfall and Temperature scores

Max. 15

VULNERABILITY

Sum of

Source, Water regime, Salinity scores

Max. 9

VULNERABILITY MODIFIER

Sliding scale of

Extractive use based on licensing data, density of wells and extractive land uses

Max. 9

VALUE

Score from Ecological Values Assessment

Max. 10

VALUE MODIFIER

Within one of the groundwater management areas identified as having cultural significance and/or identified in NPA data base as having social or cultural significance

Yes = 3 (increases EVA by 1 class)

+ + + X Combined via matrix (shown in Table 7)

Very High / Priority 1 High / Priority 2 Medium / Priority 3

Low / Priority 4

sites


2.5 Wetland prioritisation results

The scores for the risk indication part of the prioritisation were added together (i.e. maximum of 15+9+9). The spread of scores was 10 – 24. Based on an equal interval classification, the resulting scores were assigned Low, Moderate, High or Very High. The number of wetlands assigned to each class is shown below in Table 8.

Table 8: Risk indication results

Risk class Number of wetlands assigned Low 3341

Moderate 2399 High 1482

Very High 8129

There were approximately 3563 sites with no SAAE wetland type classification (and for which there is therefore no vulnerability sub-score). There were also a small number of sites missing other elements of data from the original source projects. These sites are mostly newly mapped polygons that have been added to the South East wetlands spatial data-set based on newer or better resolution imagery, after some or all of the climate risk data was applied to the original spatial data-set in the ICCWR Phase 4, Volume 1 project.

Following combination of the ecological and social/cultural value scores, wetlands were assigned to relative value classes of Low, Moderate, High and Very High, as shown below in Table 9.

Table 9: Value classification results

Value class Number of wetlands assigned Low 504

Moderate 564 High 509

Very High 239

These numbers are very much smaller than the number of wetlands that were assigned to a risk indication class. There are just over 1800 sites that had sufficient data for an EVA score to be assigned.

There are an additional 1762 sites that are recorded as having social/cultural value, that do not have an EVA score.

The final prioritisation, based on combination of risk indication and site value, yielded the following wetland numbers classified as Low, Medium, High and Very High priority (see Table 10).

Table 10: Wetland prioritisation results

Priority Number of wetlands assigned Very High / Priority 1 393

High / Priority 2 602 Medium / Priority 3 419

Low / Priority 4 232

The results of the prioritisation, for sites where there was data to support all input parameters, are shown in Figure 3. Sites that do not have an EVA score are shown labelled as “Insufficient data” (i.e. not of “Low” priority). Sites with recorded social/cultural value, but no EVA score are shown separately, on Figure 4.


Figure 3: Wetland prioritisation


Figure 4: Wetlands of social/cultural value, shown according to climate change risk indication (not including sites with EVA scores)


3. Feasibility assessment This aspect of the project focuses on opportunities to mitigate climate change impacts to wetlands through management of water from the South East drainage network. There were two main elements forming the feasibility assessment – determination of acceptable salinity values for environmental watering, and spatial analyses to enable comparison of the water quality of water currently conveyed within drains with those salinity targets; and spatial analyses to assess proximity of wetlands to drains, and their elevation relative to the nearest drain.

Hydrological requirements of wetlands include not only water quality and quantity, but also the timing of availability of water and the duration of inundation. However, these aspects are much less amenable to regional scale summary assessment and have not been included in this study. Clearly, these aspects would need to be assessed, to progress planning for particular sites.

3.1 Acceptable salinity envelopes

Environmental watering is only beneficial as a mitigation option if the quality of water to be delivered is compatible with the eco-hydrological nature of a wetland.

A general guide to salinity is provided below, in Table 11. Whilst the range identified as brackish is large, it should be noted that this is the range in which many wetland management decisions need to be made. Often decision points need to be based on tolerances of individual species, or to provide a biological cue of quite a narrow range in salinity. Therefore, further investigation of individual wetland’s values would be required, once preliminary feasibility for watering had been established.

Table 11: Reference values for salinity

General descriptors Fresh water <800 EC

Marginally fresh 800 – 2,400 EC Brackish 2,400 – 8,000 EC Saline >8,000 EC Marine 55,000

Functional descriptors Human consumption Up to 900 EC

Upper limit for fish breeding 5,000 EC Upper limit for adult native fish survival 16,000EC

Upper limit for tadpole survival ~5,000 EC Upper limit for aquatic

microintertebrate survival 3,800 – 20,800 EC, depending on species

Upper limit for aquatic macroinvertebrate survival

3,800 – 76,000 EC, depending on species ( but diversity of extremely salt-tolerant species is low)

Aquatic and riparian vegetation Widely variable in the range from 1,000 – 8,000 EC depending on vegetation community, can be much higher for samphire

vegetation Stock water 3,300 – 10,000 EC (depending on livestock, condition and

environmental factors) Irrigated fruit trees 330 -370 EC (depending on tree species)

Irrigated crops 500 – 6,000 EC (depending on crop) Sources: Health SA (2008), Kearney et al (2012), Kefford et al (2007), Water Victoria (1989)

A preliminary assessment of default requirements for water quality has been made based on available information. It has only been possible to consider salinity, and not any other water quality parameters, within the scope of this work. The potential


importance of other water quality parameters is acknowledged, and should be considered at any later detailed scoping stage when individual wetlands are targeted for further investigation.

Existing wetland salinity data was sourced from SAWID and was used in combination with the conceptual models of the SAAE wetland types (Ecological Associates, 2009) to develop these preliminary salinity targets for input water.

Within SAWID, an existing data field records wetland “average salinity”. This value for wetland average salinity has been derived two different ways, depending on the wetland’s relative reliance on groundwater and/or surface water, as described below (C. Harding, pers. comm., 29 April 2014).

For groundwater dependent systems, the average salinity was taken from the salinity of the underlying shallow, unconfined aquifer. This value comes from a grid layer of average groundwater salinity, derived from drillhole enquiry system (point) data.

The groundwater salinity grid was overlain with the wetland polygon layer, and spatial processing undertaken (zonal statistics) to assign the average value of the underlying grid squares to each wetland polygon.

For surface water dependent systems, the average value of surface water monitoring samples recorded for the wetland in SAWID was recorded as the “average salinity”.

This average salinity data-set in SAWID was produced for a different purpose to that of the current project. Different types of wetlands receive, store and export salt differently. The average salinity of a wetland is not necessarily appropriately used as a target for the salinity of source water for (surface) environmental watering (i.e. the climate change mitigation measure investigated by this project).

For wetlands that overlie shallow groundwater, and for which surface water provides a significant freshening effect, any ‘replacement’ surface watering, undertaken as a mitigation against declining rainfall, may need to be significantly lower in salinity than the wetland’s ‘average salinity’ as has been determined through surface water monitoring. Similarly, for retained water, end-of-system wetlands that concentrate salt, water applied as surface watering may need to be significantly fresher than the average recorded salinity of the water body, to avoid fundamentally altering the ecology of the wetland to a more saline environment. For this reason, some initial default salinity targets for input water have been set, using a combination of the existing “average salinity” values recorded in SAWID, and through consideration of the eco-hydrology of the different SAAE wetland types. The decision-making process and assignment of default salinity targets is documented in Table 12.

The preliminary targets are likely to be conservative default values, that can be revisited in light of other feasibility and opportunity assessments, focussing on a smaller number of key sites whose eco-hydrology can then be examined in more detail.


Table 12: Method of assignment of salinity targets

Wetland (SAAE classification) type

Water quality target (for source surface water)

Coastal Dune Lake Assigned as the salinity of the underlying unconfined aquifer, unless existing data on surface water monitoring in SAWID indicated a lower value, in which case, that value was assigned as the target.

Peat Swamp Default 800 EC assigned for all wetlands classified as peat swamps. Terminal Lake Default 2000 EC assigned for all wetlands classified as terminal lakes. Permanent Freshwater Lake or Permanent Freshwater Swamp

If the value for average salinity in the existing SAWID data was less than 1500 EC, that value was adopted. If the existing average salinity value was above 1500 EC, then the target for input water has been assigned as 1500 EC.

Grass Sedge Wetlands If the value for average salinity in the existing SAWID data was less than 2000 EC, that value was retained as the target. If the existing average salinity value was above 2000 EC, then the target for input water has been assigned as 2000 EC.

Freshwater Meadows Default 300 EC assigned to all wetlands classified as freshwater meadows. Inland Interdunal Wetlands If the dominant vegetation community has been recorded in SAWID, then the

conceptual model for that vegetation type has been used to assign a default water quality target. For Red Gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) woodland that value was 2000 EC, for samphire communities that value was 5000 EC, for Gahnia spp. sedgelands or seasonal brackish aquatic beds that value was 3500 EC. If the value for average salinity in the existing SAWID data or average value for the underlying shallow aquifer was less than 3500 EC, then that value was assigned as the water quality target.

Karst Wetlands Assigned as the salinity of the underlying unconfined aquifer, unless existing data on surface water monitoring in SAWID indicated a lower value, in which case, that value was assigned as the target.

Soaks and Springs Input target assigned as the salinity of the underlying unconfined aquifer. Saline Swamps The salinity of the underlying unconfined aquifer has been assigned, unless that was in

excess of 15 000 EC, in which case the input salinity target has been revised down to 15 000 EC.

Salt Lakes and Salt Lake Floodplains

If the value for average salinity in the existing SAWID data was less than 15 000 EC, that value was retained. If the existing average salinity value was above 15 000 EC, then the target for input water has been revised down to 15 000 EC. These sites are all highly distinctive and well known. They would probably be further assessed on an individual basis, rather than by reference to these default values.

Watercourse Only three sites classified as watercourse wetlands. Input water quality target set to 1500 EC, on the basis of specific information relating to these three sites.

Wet Heath Assigned as 3500 EC on the basis that half of the ten sites classified as Wet Heath are mapped as being dominated by Melaleuca brevifolia or Banksia ornata.

Artificial wetlands Target has been set to null No SAAE classification Target has been set to null

3.1.1 Salinity targets for surface watering – output

The results of the preliminary assignment of target values for the salinity of source water are displayed on Figure 5.

Individual values are stored in a results table for each wetland. A Jenks Natural Breaks classification was used for the purposes of displaying the results on the map.


Figure 5: Preliminary salinity targets


3.1.2 Feasibility assessment– geospatial analyses

The spatial analyses for the feasibility assessment were applied to the ‘very high’ prioritised wetlands (Chapter 2) and utilises facets such as elevation, proximity, and surface water qualities to identify which high priority wetlands could physically be watered from a drain segment.

At a later stage more complex modelling using cost-distance functionality within ESRI’s ArcGIS (i.e. Spatial Analyst) could be undertaken to specify individual paths of proposed channels. Such analysis could, for example, incorporate the elevation model, flow direction, slope and land use to derive a least-cost path. This analysis could then be supported by a hydrogeological assessment which evaluates the potential for transmission loss and the nature of surface water – groundwater interaction along the proposed drain path (i.e. gaining groundwater or losing surface water).

The main component of this work focuses on wetlands which are not connected to the drainage network.

Wetlands that are connected and either have or don’t have a regulator, and / or infrastructure in place to restrict water flow are also identified. These may provide a more cost effective method of retaining water in the landscape for high priority wetlands. However, detailed ecological assessments will be required to ascertain the potential impacts to downstream receiving environments.

Assumptions applied during the spatial analyses include:

• The proximity of a drain segment to a wetland is a straight line;

• The minimum elevation within the buffered wetland layer is used in comparison to the minimum elevations of drain segments. This is deemed the deepest for a drain because it is expected that mean and maximum elevation values could be masked by aspects such as spoil dumps from the drains. Drains need to be higher in the landscape than a wetland in order for water to be diverted to that wetland;

• A 20 m buffer was used to capture elevations associated with the major drains. This was assumed to be applicable to the smaller private drains as well (i.e. all line segments of drains regardless of their size were buffered by 20 m to capture the elevation value from the underlying DEM). The 20 m value was derived by measuring the width of some of the larger Upper South East drains;

• This project excludes the option of taking water from an alternative drain or a drain segment which is further away than the distance identified in the proximity analysis. This option would require an expert opinion and is beyond the scope of this assessment;

• The minimum surface water salinity (latest reading) is used for comparison against the proposed water quality criteria for a wetland; and

• A 500 m distance was used for analysis of: a) wetlands in proximity to regulators; and b) permanent pools in proximity to drains. This distance is an estimate taking into account the overall accuracy of wetland mapping and potential area of the influence of drains over the South East. Future work incorporating attribution of ‘zone of influence’ (of drains) will result in a range of distances for drain types and soil types. We know, for example, that some drains in the Upper South East can have a zone of influence up to 1.5 km on upward side and 0.8 km on leeward side. At this stage not enough information is known to attribute all drains with a distance attribute for the zone of influence.


3.1.3 Data review

The first aspect of the spatial analysis of feasibility was to review the available data-sets for their capacity to support the required analyses.

3.1.3.1 Drains spatial data

The South East drains are spatially represented in two data-set layers. One is called Topo_watercourse and is stored on the DEWNR Spatial Database Environment (SDE), whilst the other, called South East Drains Spatial data is stored as a geodatabase and includes some additional information such as embankments. The latter was produced by Chris Medlin in 2013 as part of the National Partnership Agreement on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining (NPA) project (Medlin, 2013). Additionally, the South Eastern Water Conservation and Drainage Board (SEWDCB) has a local spatial dataset called SECWDB_Drains_Completion, comprising the Lower South East (LSE) drains and stopbanks constructed prior to the Upper South East (USE) Program. All of the drains are comprehensively identified. However, their alignments are relatively inaccurate when overlaid on LiDAR and aerial photography. The drains layer was produced from scanning paper Hundred Plans produced for the Board by the Land Titles Office (Mark de Jong pers. comm., 2014).

Spatial comparisons were made between the Topo_watercourse layer and the South East Drains spatial layer to examine the differences. The Topo_watercourse layer groups channels, ditches, canals and drains to one feature (Feature code 4424). It is, therefore, more extensive in the range of features that are spatially represented, but does not allow for the drains to be uniquely separated as one type of feature.

Given that the South East Drains layer was the most up to date data source in terms of drains construction and alignment, this layer was used for analyses. It is, however, known to contain some errors of omission. Such errors were identified by Mark de Jong, whereby drains in the Tatiara district have not been incorporated.

The spatial layer needs to be edited in consultation with SECWDB and attributed according to the schema developed by Chris Medlin (2013). Edits should incorporate topological and flow direction methodology as described in Medlin (2013).

3.1.3.2 Drains and wetland connectivity

Previously, connectivity between wetlands and drains have been illustrated for the USE and LSE using Visio (e.g. Slater & Farrington, 2010).

Medlin (2013) reported on several unsuccessful efforts to establish and codify connectivity between the SE Drains spatial dataset and wetlands in the region. An interim solution was implemented by adding an attribute called “connected” to the attribute table and used to record whether a drain segment is connected to a wider drainage network or part of a localised network.

Medlin (2013) recommends pursuing development of a “geometric network” over the drains layer, in addition to using the “Utility Network Analyst”. The benefits of this approach are that flow direction and connectivity between the elements in the network can be embedded in the information system, and statistical and logical queries of the network (such as distance between various elements) are enabled. From a visualization point of view the use of the “Schematics Extension” may also be warranted (e.g. Hansen 2007). This may be beneficial if it feeds into the geometric network.

Time restrictions and license availability to the Schematics and Network Analyst extension prevented any further exploration for this project. A pilot project to undertake this network analysis was underway at the same time as preparation of this report.

Some 1960 wetlands (out of 17 384) are located within 20 m of a drain (refer to Figure 6).

In addition to the zone of influence layer that is required for the region, a feature class is also required identifying those wetlands that are classified as connected to individual drain segments.


Figure 6: Wetlands with and without drain connectivity


3.2 Methodology for spatial analysis

3.2.1 Hydro tools

A number of hydro tools within the Spatial Analyst extension were utilised to develop rasters in preparation for analyses. These are briefly described below.

3.2.1.1 Digital elevation model (DEM)

The base DEM utilized was that produced by Geoff Wood for the project Development of the Technical Basis for a Regional Flow Management Strategy for the South East of South Australia (Wood and Way, 2011). It includes the 10 m SE DEM and components of the Wimmera 10 m DEM. Processing was conducted by Wood and Way (2011) to get the DEM to an agreeDEM stage for input to ArcHydro (a surface hydrology extension for ArcGIS).

3.2.2 Fill

The ‘Fill’ tool within the Spatial Analyst Extension of ArcGIS was utilized to produce a fill raster. This raster is an input to volume and flow direction calculations.

3.2.2.1 Flow direction

The ‘Flow Direction’ tool within Spatial Analyst extension of ArcGIS was utilized to produce a raster which can be used to indicate flow. This can be used at a later stage for input to cost-distance models to define a route with associated costs restrictions i.e. land use, distance etc. This output raster was not ultimately employed in the analysis for the current project.

3.2.3 Wetland volume

Volumes (m3) were calculated by subtracting the Fill raster from the DEM. The Raster Calculator was used to multiply the difference raster by 100 (i.e. size of the cells 10 x 10 m).

Zonal Statistics (Spatial Analyst) was selected to extract statistics from the Volume raster for wetlands using the AusWetnr (unique identifier).

This output can potentially be used in the future to assess the feasibility of hydrologically managing particular wetlands, in comparison with volumes of water available for environmental watering.

3.2.4 Wetland elevation

Zonal statistics (Spatial Analyst) were extracted from the agreeDEM for each wetland polygon using the Aus_WetNR as the unique identifier. This table was joined to the wetlands layer for various spatial analyses. Minimum, maximum and mean values for wetland elevation were extracted.

3.2.5 Drain elevation

A 20 m buffer was applied to the SE drainage layer produced by Chris Medlin (2013). The agreeDEM was then clipped to the buffered drain layer. Zonal Statistics were utilized to extract elevation statistics for each drain segment. This table was then joined to the SE drainage layer for various analyses. Minimum, maximum and mean values for drain elevation were extracted.

For comparison purposes, minimum elevations of wetlands were compared to minimum elevations for drains.

3.2.6 Nearest drain to high priority wetlands

The ‘Near’ tool within the geoprocessing environment of ESRI Spatial Analyst was utilised. The Wetlands feature class was selected as the input with the high priority wetlands selected, and the SE drainage feature class was specified as the near feature. Both location and angle options were selected.


The tabular output of this was joined to the very high wetlands feature class.

3.2.7 Surface water quality

Mark de Jong provided all 2012 and 2013 surface water quality data recorded by loggers in the drainage network, and a copy of all other collated water quality data as at 14 April 2014.

Data without location coordinates were removed. This data was formatted in Microsoft Excel and then converted to an ArcGIS Feature Class. Null, zero or blank electrical conductivity (EC) values were removed. Data without dates were also removed. One data-set had been collected as EC, whist the other had values stored as TDS (mg/L). EC data was converted to mg/L by multiplication of 0.6. Data schemas were matched and data appended to form one file.

The majority of these records did not have a unique site number or consistent spatial location. To overcome this, the point feature class was buffered by 20 m with a dissolve function to create a unique site number. This site information was then joined to the point layer using “join layer from another location using spatial location” with each point getting all the attributes of the polygon layer it falls within. There are areas (e.g. Taratap, Didicoolum and Bald Hills Drain) where fresh water cross-over structures are present over the top of salty drains. This processing method did not have any means of correcting for this, these sites would have to be identified with the assistance of local experts and checked and processed manually to account for this.

The point data was exported to a text file, converted to Microsoft Excel and then imported to Microsoft Access. Two queries were performed to extract only the latest readings for each unique site. It is acknowledged that the latest readings are unlikely to account for temporal changes in water quality. A more detailed analysis would need to consider other factors such as season, amount of flow in the drain, and highest and lowest values. However, this was beyond the resources available to this project.

This data was then exported and rejoined to the point layer. The latest TDS readings were then interpolated with Spatial Analyst with an inverse distance weighted interpolation (IDW) technique.

Zonal statistics were then used to extract surface water quality statistics for each drain segment.

3.2.8 Groundwater quality

The National Groundwater Information System (NGIS) database was utilised for sourcing groundwater data using the latest readings only. The hydrogeological units selected were 33, 71, 94 and 139 which corresponds to the Gambier Limestone, Murray Group, Quaternary Limestone Aquifer and Undifferentiated Quaternary Sediments.

The selected bore types included domestic, stock, monitoring, drainage, environmental and irrigation that had associated salinity data. If multiple records for salinity existed the most recent value was selected and this dataset was interpolated using an IDW technique.

Zonal statistics was then employed to extract groundwater quality for each drain segment. The output was not used further in this project. It is available for future analysis once a feature class pertaining to the zone of influence is known for all drains.

3.3 Results and analysis

3.3.1 Preliminary analysis

An attribute ‘Drain_Int’ was added to the Landscape_wetlands layer and a “select by location” query performed to identify those wetlands which intersect a drain. Attributes of Yes or No were added to the table. Elevation and volume data were incorporated using a join.

The wetland prioritisation and water quality criteria (Chapter 2 and Section 3.1 of this chapter) were joined to the Landscape_Wetlands layer and a selection performed for the very high wetlands. A new feature class was exported. All further spatial analyses were performed only on the very high priority wetlands (as prioritised and discussed in Chapter 2).

This feature class was joined to the near drain information and the tables containing elevation, surface water quality and groundwater quality for each drain segment.


Additional attributes were added i.e. El_Cond, SW WQ Cond and Distance to the table with El Cond representing Elevation Condition, SW WQ Cond representing surface water quality condition and Distance Cond representing distance. Queries and selections were performed to score each of the high value wetlands which do not intersect drains (i.e. not currently connected to the drain network).

The scoring criteria used was:

• Elevation of wetland less than closest drain segment (1 = Yes; 2 = No);

• Surface water quality of drain less than or equal to wetland requirement (1 = Yes; 2 = No); and

• Distance:

- Less than or equal to 1km (Score 1);

- Between 1 and 5km (Score 2);

- Between 5 and 20km (Score 3); and

- Greater than 20km (Score 4).

For those Very high/ Priority 1 wetlands (identified in Chapter 2) that intersect drains, a ‘select by location’ query was undertaken to identify those wetlands that are within 500 m of a LSE or USE regulator.

The converse of the above was selected and a new feature class created to identify those very high priority wetlands which are connected to a drain and therefore have the potential for a regulating structure to be installed to retain water in the landscape longer.

Furthermore, from the created feature class a location query was performed to also identify those very high priority wetlands which are connected to a drain. These have the potential for engineering works to be installed to retain water in the landscape longer and are within 500 m of a known permanent pool. Permanent pools are defined by NGT (2013) as a landscape depression, incised watercourse or channel reach that is inundated with water throughout the entire cycle and capable of persisting through prolonged dry periods. These sites may be refuges for significant aquatic fauna and flora. These pools also have demonstrated characteristics of resilience i.e. depth and surface water extent along with water quality suitable for supporting key populations of significant aquatic biota.

This type of spatial analysis may be another way of prioritising those wetlands for future work (i.e. to protect existing permanent pools) by retaining water longer in the landscape. At some stage in the future, these may need to be assessed in relation to surface water quality and impacts on permanent pools.

3.3.1.1 Volume

A table and spatial layer have been created containing the volume of each wetland (external to this report). The volumes can be refined if known sill heights are provided. Individual analysis can be run for such wetlands using the Polygon Volume tool (3D Analyst) or equivalent.

3.3.1.2 Surface water quality

The interpolated surface water quality data using the latest readings is presented in Figure 7. This was created using an Inverse Distance Weighting (IDW) method incorporating the raw data shown in Appendix A. This data has been reduced from some 13 000 records with multiple dates to 837 records, assigning the most recent single value to each feature. The interpolation between surface water features contains considerable uncertainty because the features are not necessarily connected. However, this approach has been considered acceptable for this broad-scale risk analysis purpose because the salinity of water in these drain features is influenced by shallow groundwater salinity, which is relatively consistent across these spatial scales. This interpolation therefore, provides one snapshot of drain salinity, for the purposes of regional scale assessment only. A more detailed analysis to pick up temporal variability is warranted.


Figure 7: IDW interpolation of latest salinity readings for surface water quality (data supplied by Mark de Jong)


3.3.2 Final combination of feasibility and prioritisation

Of the 393 very high priority wetlands, there are 247 that do not intersect drains. These are therefore considered further in terms of their potential for future provision of water from the drainage system.

Of these 247 wetlands (also listed in Appendix D):

• 86 have wetlands with a minimum elevation less than the closest drain segment (minimum elevation of the segment). Refer to Section 7.B for tabular data;

• 166 of the closest drainage segments have water quality equal to or less than the identified targets;

• 82 are within 1 km of the nearest drain segment;

• 118 are between 1 and 5 km;

• 47 are between 5 and 20 km; and

• 0 are greater than 20 km.

3.3.2.1 Wetlands and water quality criteria

60 wetlands meet both the elevation and water quality criteria. This is illustrated in Figure 8 and tabulated in Appendix B.

Note there are some wetlands which are at a lower elevation than drains which are identified as conveying water of a quality that is slightly outside of the water quality target. Given that the water quality data have large date variations, further investigation is warranted. An assessment should ultimately be made as to the impacts of higher salinity water versus no water.

Further review of the monitoring data combined with additional monitoring information may enable development of seasonal surface water qualities for drain segments which could be used for modelling purposes.

3.3.2.2 Wetlands, water quality & distance

Drain segments having lower salinity than the identified target wetland were found for:

• 12 wetlands that met the criteria of being lower in the landscape than the nearest drain segment located within a distance of 1km (Table 12 and Figure 9);

• 24 wetlands that met the criteria of being lower in the landscape than the nearest drain segment located between 1 and 5km (Table 13 and Figure 9); and

• 24 wetlands that met the criteria of being lower in the landscape than the nearest drain segment located between 5 and 20km (Table 14 and Figure 9).

In some cases engineering works may not be feasible to connect these drain segments with the target wetlands. For example, the Valley Lake wetland meets the elevation and water quality criteria, but establishment of a drain would be impractical due to the Karst environment and surrounding land use (Figure 10).

Further consideration also needs to be given to the nearest drains identified. For example, Figure 11 illustrates the priority and scored wetlands around Bool Lagoon. Some of the drain segments shown appear to be disconnected and whether these can actually supply a volume of water needs to be assessed, particularly where it seems that they are not connected to a larger drainage system. These are likely to be short local drains or, possibly, segments of natural watercourse flow-path.


Figure 8: Very high (priority 1) wetlands that meet elevation and water quality criteria


Figure 9: Wetlands meeting elevation and water quality criteria having drainswithin 1km (ELWQDI_1), between 1 and 5 km (ELWQDI_2), and between 5 and 20 km (ELWQDI_3)


Table 13: Wetlands which are lower in landscape than nearest drain, where drain segments have water quality less than or equal to target and are within or equal to a distance of 1 km from the drain AUS_ WETNR

WQ_Tgt TDS

NAME El Min Wet

El Max Wet

El Mean Wet

NEAR_Drain FID

NEAR Dist (m)

Drain Name Segment

El_Min Drain

El_Max Drain

El_Mean Drain

SW_Min mg/L

SW_Max mg/L

SW_Mean mg/L

GW_Min mg/L

GW_Max mg/L

GW_Mean mg/L

El Cond

SW WQ Cond

Distance

S0100001 10050* THE COORONG -0.18 18.19 0.86 7093 640.63 Tilley Swamp Drain 7093 0.48 8.36 3.50 3950.00 15156.05 9994.69 8802.93 21091.83 13275.09 1 1 1 S0100246 1206 CAMPSITE 28.61 31.15 29.30 3477 51.18 3477 29.26 30.68 29.82 760.92 911.69 895.52 3798.28 3994.59 3898.54 1 1 1 S0100295 2345 33.65 34.79 34.05 5791 587.79 5791 33.82 34.80 34.30 2308.70 2308.70 2308.70 4728.59 4728.59 4728.59 1 1 1 S0100301 2345 20.34 21.31 20.55 3282 385.87 3282 20.43 21.24 20.84 1847.32 1901.66 1860.79 2995.73 3097.84 3086.88 1 1 1 S0100348 1340 BLOOMFIELD SWAMP 33.16 35.17 34.16 7827 565.22 Tresant Drain 7827 34.82 38.40 35.64 604.58 604.58 604.58 4845.32 5978.48 5280.62 1 1 1 S0107607 733 WHITE HAWK LAGOON 67.69 71.90 69.31 204 501.54 Glencoe West Drain 204 69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 1 S0108068 1340 48.45 53.70 50.08 2307 462.73 2307 49.89 53.00 50.84 866.64 872.46 868.91 1409.02 1651.83 1498.42 1 1 1 S0110419 2345 COPPINGS SWAMP 47.07 49.99 47.83 2527 377.17 2527 48.27 48.88 48.58 1347.38 1353.66 1352.44 969.65 1246.86 1099.10 1 1 1 S0110430 1700 ROUND SWAMP 46.54 48.81 46.82 2508 35.05 Reflows Eastern

Floodway 2508 46.67 69.45 48.09 914.07 921.29 919.43 1441.53 1445.46 1443.34 1 1 1

S0110453 1340 BOOL LAGOON / HACKS LAGOON

47.68 49.80 48.38 2320 61.93 2320 48.90 49.92 49.47 903.03 964.87 931.11 859.87 1161.63 970.12 1 1 1

S0116834 1340 32.32 34.85 32.99 6807 776.40 Reflows Western Floodway

6807 33.23 34.81 33.63 803.50 803.50 803.50 2401.37 2697.23 2480.01 1 1 1

S0120280 2647 BUTCHERS LAKE 0.11 1.73 0.56 3076 17.19 Butchers Gap Drain 3076 0.35 4.03 1.03 738.16 754.67 744.18 1369.36 1375.16 1372.12 1 1 1

*As noted in Table 11, these default values are unlikely to be used to set targets for the Coorong. This value results from adopting a default cut-off value for input water salinity of 15,000EC, clearly a very low value for the Coorong.

Table 14: Wetlands which are lower in landscape than nearest drain, where drain segments have water quality less than or equal to target and are within or equal to a distance between 1 and 5 km from the drain AUS_WETNR WQ_Tgt

TDS NAME El Min

Wet El Max Wet

El Mean Wet

NEAR Drain FID

NEAR Dist (m)

Drain Name

Seg El Min Drain

El Max Drain

El Mean Drain

SW Min mg/L

SW Max mg/L

SW Mean mg/L

GW Min mg/L

GW Max mg/L

GW Mean mg/L

El Cond

SW WQ Cond

Distance

S0100175 9977 0.92 2.41 1.10 6991 3861.41 6991 5.01 6.89 5.67 278.23 5072.22 3078.83 1942.82 7073.73 3401.18 1 1 2 S0100455 2345 0.95 2.67 1.55 6991 3798.54 6991 5.01 6.89 5.67 278.23 5072.22 3078.83 1942.82 7073.73 3401.18 1 1 2 S0107404 786 AKOOLYA SWAMP 64.57 66.69 65.29 356 3273.45 Drain A 356 66.66 74.09 69.00 349.70 382.01 370.50 562.39 652.51 603.89 1 1 2 S0110203 639 CAT SWAMP 68.56 70.73 69.02 204 2087.61 Glencoe West Drain 204 69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 2 S0110225 698 WANDILO NFR 66.51 69.15 67.70 233 2590.19 Glencoe East Drain 233 67.82 70.70 69.18 194.52 218.21 211.71 602.47 687.98 654.39 1 1 2 S0110251 679 WANDILO NFR 66.45 68.21 67.29 233 4394.04 Glencoe East Drain 233 67.82 70.70 69.18 194.52 218.21 211.71 602.47 687.98 654.39 1 1 2 S0110668 698 HACKET HILL NFR 69.12 70.54 69.52 204 1951.99 Glencoe West Drain 204 69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 2 S0110670 678 HACKET HILL NFR 68.61 71.15 69.55 204 2498.19 Glencoe West Drain 204 69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 2 S0110568 604 HACKET HILL NFR 68.80 70.02 69.25 204 2348.73 Glencoe West Drain 204 69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 2 S0110662 723 HACKET HILL NFR 68.11 70.47 69.20 204 1258.96 Glencoe West Drain 204 69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 2 S0110671 675 HACKET HILL NFR 68.56 71.07 69.27 204 2596.90 Glencoe West Drain 204 69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 2 S0110672 613 HACKET HILL NFR 68.49 70.97 69.28 204 1945.97 Glencoe West Drain 204 69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 2 S0110673 624 HACKET HILL NFR 68.91 70.39 69.43 204 2343.39 Glencoe West Drain 204 69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 2 S0110676 617 HACKET HILL NFR 68.86 70.68 69.29 204 2447.13 Glencoe West Drain 204 69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 2 S0110677 605 HACKET HILL NFR 68.81 70.52 69.39 204 2274.08 Glencoe West Drain 204 69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 2 S0110682 700 WANDILO NFR 67.56 71.02 68.33 233 3234.40 Glencoe East Drain 233 67.82 70.70 69.18 194.52 218.21 211.71 602.47 687.98 654.39 1 1 2 S0110920 663 S1698A 66.44 67.86 66.99 233 3482.33 Glencoe East Drain 233 67.82 70.70 69.18 194.52 218.21 211.71 602.47 687.98 654.39 1 1 2 S0110922 663 S1698B 63.90 66.51 64.72 233 4862.82 Glencoe East Drain 233 67.82 70.70 69.18 194.52 218.21 211.71 602.47 687.98 654.39 1 1 2 S0111888 9793 1.19 3.37 1.82 6991 3327.85 6991 5.01 6.89 5.67 278.23 5072.22 3078.83 1942.82 7073.73 3401.18 1 1 2 S0114244 604 HACKET HILL NFR 68.48 69.54 68.90 204 2580.18 Glencoe West Drain 204 69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 2 S0114254 658 HACKET HILL NFR 67.71 69.32 68.24 204 3257.51 Glencoe West Drain 204 69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 2 S0114274 607 HACKET HILL NFR 68.81 70.89 69.78 204 2644.16 Glencoe West Drain 204 69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 2 S0119316 1305 MALONE HEATH NFR 26.71 35.93 30.32 4295 1182.37 4295 34.33 36.71 35.41 359.53 417.09 373.36 855.58 884.59 881.12 1 1 2 S0120486 688 HACKET HILL NFR 68.38 70.83 69.43 204 1702.50 Glencoe West Drain 204 69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 2


Table 15: Wetlands which are lower in landscape than nearest drain, where drain segments have water quality less than or equal to target and are within or equal to a distance of 5 and 20 km from the drain

AUS_WETNR NAME WQ_Tgt TDS

El Min Wet

El Max Wet

El Mean Wet

NEAR Drain FID

NEAR Dist (m)

Drain Name Seg El_Min Drain

El_Max Drain

El_Mean Drain

SW Min mg/L

SW Max mg/L

SW Mean mg/L

GW Min mg/L

GW Max mg/L

GW Mean mg/L

El Cond

SW WQ Cond

Distance

S0105797 TOPPERWEIN NFR 762 65.16 69.29 67.52 4474 10811 4474 65.55 70.96 67.77 132.55 133.92 133.08 1014.63 1084.06 1045.16 1 1 3 S0106808 TELFORD SCRUB CP 779 67.16 75.01 69.78 234 7377 Drain A 234 67.59 70.71 68.85 184.49 294.22 197.09 624.03 725.27 699.41 1 1 3 S0106951 VALLEY LAKE 724 11.45 18.62 11.72 233 19999 Glencoe East Drain 233 67.82 70.70 69.18 194.52 218.21 211.71 602.47 687.98 654.39 1 1 3 S0110014 HONAN NFR 375 66.80 69.12 67.98 204 7962 Glencoe West Drain 204 69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 3 S0110717 GRUNDY LANE NFR 692 67.57 69.28 68.00 233 6691 Glencoe East Drain 233 67.82 70.70 69.18 194.52 218.21 211.71 602.47 687.98 654.39 1 1 3 S0110719 GRUNDY LANE NFR 689 67.71 69.66 68.33 233 5923 Glencoe East Drain 233 67.82 70.70 69.18 194.52 218.21 211.71 602.47 687.98 654.39 1 1 3 S0110720 GRUNDY LANE NFR 689 67.57 68.83 67.97 233 6184 Glencoe East Drain 233 67.82 70.70 69.18 194.52 218.21 211.71 602.47 687.98 654.39 1 1 3 S0110740 KANGAROO FLAT 307 67.52 69.47 68.00 204 6515 Glencoe West Drain 204 69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 3 S0110759 DIAGONAL ROAD 239 67.72 70.12 68.47 204 7250 Glencoe West Drain 204 69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 3 S0110764 HONAN NFR 665 67.74 70.17 68.33 204 6961 Glencoe West Drain 204 69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 3 S0110767 HONAN NFR 245 67.78 70.13 68.12 204 7765 Glencoe West Drain 204 69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 3 S0110771 HONAN NFR 591 65.44 68.46 66.06 204 8379 Glencoe West Drain 204 69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 3 S0110817 HONAN NFR 248 60.40 68.47 65.71 204 8314 Glencoe West Drain 204 69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 3 S0110831 KANGAROO FLAT 630 68.09 69.39 68.53 204 6907 Glencoe West Drain 204 69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 3 S0110832 KANGAROO FLAT 630 68.38 69.17 68.76 204 6723 Glencoe West Drain 204 69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 3 S0110834 KANGAROO FLAT 630 67.17 68.92 67.70 204 7189 Glencoe West Drain 204 69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 3 S0110839 KANGAROO FLAT 604 67.81 69.10 68.40 204 6188 Glencoe West Drain 204 69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 3 S0110843 KANGAROO FLAT 597 68.68 70.31 69.08 204 5583 Glencoe West Drain 204 69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 3 S0110844 KANGAROO FLAT 597 68.45 70.31 69.18 204 5998 Glencoe West Drain 204 69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 3 S0120290 KANGAROO FLAT 597 68.61 70.02 69.02 204 6013 Glencoe West Drain 204 69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 3 S0120605 DIAGONAL ROAD 923 62.78 67.05 64.28 233 5814 Glencoe East Drain 233 67.82 70.70 69.18 194.52 218.21 211.71 602.47 687.98 654.39 1 1 3 S0120800 HONAN NFR 399 68.20 72.95 69.29 204 7668 Glencoe West Drain 204 69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 3 S0120841 MOUNT MEREDITH 958 67.50 70.62 68.35 4585 6859 4585 67.59 69.11 68.61 130.55 131.40 131.00 746.52 814.30 763.41 1 1 3 S0121485 ISLAND SWAMP LF 689 66.41 69.23 67.64 234 11022 Drain A 234 67.59 70.71 68.85 184.49 294.22 197.09 624.03 725.27 699.41 1 1 3


Figure 10: Example of exploded view of classified wetlands draped over a hillshade having drains that are within 1km (ELWQDI_1), between 1 and 5 km (ELWQDI_2), and between 5 and 20 km (ELWQDI_3)


Figure 11: Example of short local drain segments around Bool Lagoon


Figure 12 illustrates the very high priority wetlands (146) which have been separated into those connected wetlands within 500 m of a regulator (48) and those that have no infrastructure in place (98). Appendices F, G and H provide tabular data.

Of the 110 wetlands which are connected to drains but have no regulators in place, 19 are within 500 m of permanent pool sites (identified by NGT, 2013) These are illustrated within Figure 13 and Table 16.

Table 16: Very high priority wetlands which are connected to drains, have no regulator infrastructure and are within 500 m of a permanent pool

OBJECTID_1

OBJECTID

AUS_WETNR NAME

AREA (m2)

Volume (m3)

El Min Wet

El Max Wet

El Mean Wet

NEAR Drain

Drain Dist

NAME_1 HIERAR

CHY El Min Drain

SW WQ Min

Drain

GW WQ Min

25 3601 S0105894 3309800.00 -33911.00 1.78 8.67 3.01 653 0.00 Lake Frome North

Drain Minor 1.64 1053.86 968.39

26 3644 S0105943 LAKE FROME 8891800.00 -315849.00 0.27 20.77 2.42 452 0.00 Minor 1.90 899.62 529.01

32 4637 S0107023 EIGHT MILE CREEK 166400.00 -13061.00 0.77 4.69 2.08 4878 0.00 Minor 0.67 565.01 632.09

36 4649 S0107036 1318200.00 -679899.00 0.42 4.88 1.41 4871 0.00 Minor 0.28 667.28 494.32

41 4868 S0107320 SNUGGERY DRAIN

SPRING 60800.00 -1550.00 20.51 22.59 21.51 195 0.00 Drain 56A Minor 20.40 162.77 561.44

46 5678 S0108314 LAKE HAWDON

SOUTH 32843700.00 -8695444.04 3.87 6.95 4.72 1487 0.00 Bray Drain Minor 4.62 2110.22 1157.58

50 5990 S0108706 STRATMAN POND 743900.00 -45029.00 0.79 3.94 2.17 4876 0.00 Minor 0.58 506.64 648.09

57 6205 S0109028 LAKE HAWDON

NORTH 24662800.00 -821373.00 2.57 13.31 4.11 1664 0.00

Lake Hawdon Connector

Minor 3.87 1585.92 4133.16

70 7383 S0110343 PICK SWAMP 1463900.00 -27070.00 1.62 8.18 3.20 4883 0.00 Minor 0.65 2139.94 492.74

72 7423 S0110443 LITTLE BOOL

LAGOON 807100.00 -898335.99 46.39 69.38 47.54 2358 0.00 Bool Lagoon Minor 47.38 1692.28 2956.71

83 7540 S0110620 BURKS ISLAND 1015100.00 -12760.00 2.31 5.14 3.77 869 0.00 Minor 1.60 1168.72 563.36

88 8370 S0111505 Tilley Swamp 14652600.00 -6000712.00 4.25 27.46 5.93 4046 0.00 Minor 4.30 4888.29 3086.15

93 11491 S0114984 JERUSALEM CREEK

WETLAND 253400.00 -45354.00 1.31 3.69 1.81 8781 4.33 Minor 1.89 2402.86 2118.48


WETLAND 231900.00 -5435.00 1.44 4.96 3.02 4872 291.5

7 Minor 0.46 668.99 446.30


WETLAND 812000.00 -265773.00 0.98 4.16 1.78 4873 0.00 Minor 1.91 593.15 550.87


WETLAND 14500.00 -123.00 3.60 5.52 4.60 4873 0.00 Minor 1.91 593.15 550.87

99 15027 S0119688 NARACOORTE CAVES

NP 400.00 -40.00 59.57 59.83 59.68 2708 0.00 Mosquito Creek Minor 52.06 1637.08 1437.81

109 16011 S0121513 SPENCERS POND 1900.00 -193.00 2.00 3.14 2.52 4879 0.00 Minor 1.06 1437.65 666.11

110 15996 S0121498 9685200.00 -4795183.00 0.38 3.18 1.14 6477 0.00 Minor 0.90 241.79 716.91

It is important to note that some of these are rising springs and would not benefit from installation of a regulating structure. Comments provided by Steve Clarke (Wetland Ecologist, DEWNR, 29 October, 2014, Pers. Comm.) indicate that a regulating structure would either be unsuitable or of limited effectiveness at Eight Mile Creek and Spencers Pond and possible Naracoorte Caves. And, that there are already regulating structures in Pick Swamp, Jerusalem Creek Wetland and a regulator being installed in Lake Hawdon South.


Figure 12: Very high /Priority 1 wetlands that do and do not have a regulator within 500m


Figure 13: Very high / Priority 1 wetlands which are connected to drains, have no regulator infrastructure and are within 500 m of a permanent pool


3.4 Summary of spatial feasibility analyses

A number of considerations / options have been provided that could serve the basis of mitigation, including connection to the drainage network and / or constructing new regulators. Additionally, the presence of permanent pools has been included as a further feature to be protected and an additional criterion which could be incorporated into the prioritisation process.

This work could be progressed by developing a framework to be populated by an expert panel, which would outline the potential options for the mitigation of impacts on disconnected wetlands on a case by case basis. Details pertaining to issues including; correctness of the identified drainage segment; source and end point identification; potential for individual models to be created (where appropriate); consideration of the likely cost and potential environmental benefit of such mitigative actions. The feasibility of any installation of infrastructure to retain water in the landscape or connection / diversion works would then need to be assessed.

With any of the potential options, further studies will be required to identify the potential impacts of water diversion or holding water in the landscape on downstream wetlands that would otherwise receive all or a portion of the water.


4. Drain L climate change case study

4.1 Background

The catchments contributing to Lake Hawdon, most notably Drain L and the Bray Drain have been used as a case study for a number of reasons, as listed below:

• A catchment model was recently developed to assess the impacts of projected changes in climate (Taylor et al., 2014);

• For the historical climate, the catchment has reliable flows, so any changes in flow due to changes in climate are likely to be detected; and

• There is existing knowledge of the downstream environmental water requirements (EWR) for Lake Hawdon and the Robe Lakes, to support interpretation of the environmental impacts of changes in flow.

An assessment of climate change impacts on flow in this catchment is considered to be indicative of the impacts of future climate change to other wetlands in nearby drainage networks. If the EWR for Lake Hawdon and Robe Lakes can still be met under future climate change flow conditions then additional water can be considered to be available. Or alternatively, if the EWR for Hawdon and Robe Lakes cannot be met under climate change scenarios, then there is no additional water available to mitigate impacts of climate change at other locations.

The CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) have previously undertaken investigations which project the likely impacts of climate change on climate variables for South Australia (Suppiah et al., 2006; CSIRO and BoM, 2007). Their assessment of current projections indicates that through the 21st century, South Australia may be subject to:

• increased temperatures;

• reduced rainfall;

• increased rainfall variability;

• increased evaporation;

• significantly increased frequency and severity of drought; and

• changes in the frequency of extreme weather events, including flooding.

Of immediate concern to South Australia will be the impacts of decreased rainfall and its increased variability. Along with higher temperatures, which increase potential evapotranspiration (PET), the combined impacts may have significant consequences for the State’s natural water resources. With projected impacts of climate change leading to a generally drier outlook, the State may face reduced availability of good quality water resources and an increased risk to the security of important water resources.

4.2 Aims and objectives of the case study

The objective of the case study climate change scenario analysis is to provide an understanding of the likely changes to surface water flows in the South East of South Australia under a range of possible future climate scenarios. Lake Hawdon and its contributing catchments are used as the case study area.

While changes in climate are projected by Global Climate Models (GCMs), the processes controlling the conversion of changes in climate into changes in water availability occur at a smaller scale, and hence require local scale investigations on a case by case basis.

It is not the intention of this study to predict the likely changes in water availability over the next century. The GCM outputs provide a projection of the changes in climate for a range of scenarios, for example high or low emissions. In climate change impact studies typically no knowledge or judgement is applied to assess the likelihood of the different projections occurring, to provide a prediction, as opposed to projections, of the future changes.


The approach adopted in this study is to apply the climate change projections for rainfall and potential evapotranspiration (PET) from a range of current GCMs to the Drain L catchment model to assess the range of possible changes in flows to Lake Hawdon from the Drain L and the Bray Drain catchments. More specifically, the change in frequency of flows of greater than 100 ML/d has been examined. The value of 100 ML/d was selected to represent a total inflow (including from the Bray Drain) that is likely to result in inundation of the lakes.

4.3 Climate projection scenarios

4.3.1 Climate data

To enable the evaluation of climate change impacts on surface water resources, it is important to identify the most appropriate climate change projections for use in these types of studies and to adopt an appropriate method to down-scale these projections to create ‘future climate’ data-sets that are representative of each study area location.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fifth Assessment Report (IPCC, 2013) included new climate projections from updated and revised GCMs. These new climate projections have been assessed through the Goyder Institute project, “Downscaling and climate change projections for South Australia” (hereafter referred to as the “Goyder Institute project”), where approximately one third of the over 40 GCMs have been identified to adequately represent the important drivers for the South Australian climate, and as such are most likely to represent the impact of a change in climate due to changes in greenhouse gas concentrations.

Note that the work presented in Chapter 2 Prioritisation utilises data from previous studies that used different GCMs, that were at the time of those studies accepted as the most appropriate.

GCM results are too coarse to be adopted directly in water resource impact models, and downscaling of the projections to the local weather station scale is required. The Goyder Institute project has downscaled each of the GCMs selected to represent the local weather station statistics more accurately. This data represents the current best knowledge available for climate projections for the future, and as such has been adopted for this study.

The Goyder Institute project used an approach known as non-homogeneous hidden Markov models (NHMM) to undertake the downscaling, where relationships are developed to relate the large-scale climate variables that GCMs can reliably simulate, such as pressures and temperatures, to the local weather station data of interest. Local scale time series of rainfall as well as temperature, solar radiation, pressure and humidity, were available, with the variables available used to derive the potential evapotranspiration (PET) time series necessary to input to the catchment model. One hundred NHMM simulations of rainfall and PET (termed realisations in this report) were made available for this study.

4.3.1.1 Climate futures framework for the South East region

The Climate Futures Framework approach (Clarke et al., 2011; Alcoe et al. 2012) involves classifying the projected changes in climate by a suite of GCMs into separate categories (termed Climate Futures) based on the relative frequency of GCMs projecting a similar Climate Future. In the current project, the projected changes in mean annual surface temperature and mean annual rainfall are the two variables used to define the Climate Futures. The Climate Futures analysis for the Drain L catchment was applied to the NHMM data based on a selection of the most representative GCMs for South Australia, selected in the Goyder Institute project.

Three Climate Futures categories are used in this project:

1) The ‘most likely’ case, where the number of GCMs that fall in this category is at least two more than the next most likely Climate Future;

2) The ‘worst case’ is the Climate Future with the largest increase in temperature and the least rainfall (i.e. the driest and hottest climate); and

3) The ‘best case’ is the Climate Future with the smallest increase in temperature and the highest rainfall (i.e. the wettest and coolest climate).


The Climate Futures analysis was undertaken for the one suitable station that had downscaled data available (Robe, station number 26026) that is located near the study area. The time horizon of 2050 has been used to assess the projected changes in mean annual surface temperature (in degrees Celcius) and mean annual rainfall (as a percentage) derived from the downscaled GCM projections. The projected changes were calculated relative to the historic baseline period of 1990, with each period calculated using a 30 year window around the time period (i.e. for 1990 the average values are calculated over the period 1975–2005).

Two Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) emissions scenarios were considered in this report; a low emissions (r4.5) scenario and a high emissions (r8.5) scenario, with the projected changes in rainfall and temperature for Robe plotted in 14 and Figure 15 for low and high emissions, respectively. The results are summarized in Table 16 and Table 17.

Figure 14: GCM projections for Climate Futures for Robe for 2050, low emissions

Table 17: Climate Future matrix for Climate Futures for Robe for 2050, low emissions

Mean Annual Temperature

Slightly Warmer Warmer Hotter

Rainfall (0.5 - 1⁰C) (1 to 2⁰C) (2 to 3⁰C)

Much Drier (> -25%) Drier (-15 to -25%)

Slightly Drier (-5 to -15%) 5 of 15 models 6 of 15 models Little Change (-5 to 5%) 4 of 15 models

0.5

1

1.5

-15 -10 -5 0

Chan

ge in

Mea

n An

nual

Tem

pera

ture

(⁰C)

Change in Mean Annual Rainfall (%)

access10

access13

bcc.csm11m

canesm2

cnrm.cm5

csiro.mk36

gfdl.esm2g

gfdl.esm2m

inmcm4

ipsl.cm5alr

ipsl.cm5blr

miroc5

miroc.esm

mri.cgcm3

noresm1m


Figure 15: GCM projections for Climate Futures for Robe for 2050, high emissions

Table 18: Climate Future matrix for Climate Futures for Robe 2050, high emissions

Mean Annual Temperature

Slightly Warmer Warmer Hotter

Rainfall (0.5 - 1⁰C) (1 to 2⁰C) (2 to 3⁰C)

Much Drier (> -25%)

Drier (-15 to -25%) 1 of 15 models 1 of 15 models

Slightly Drier (-5 to -15%) 1 of 15 models 9 of 15 models

Little Change (-5 to 5%) 3 of 15 models

The majority of GCM projections for Robe indicate that, irrespective of emissions scenario, the climate is likely to be slightly drier (defined as between 5 and 15% reduction in annual rainfall) by 2050. For the high emissions scenario, a large majority of GCM projections indicate that the 2050 climate is likely to be warmer (defined as between 1 and 2⁰C increase in mean annual temperature). For the low emissions case, a majority of GCMs project a slightly warmer climate (defined as between 0.5 - 1⁰C temperature increase), with the rest projecting a warmer climate. On average, the projected increase in temperature was around 30% greater and the projected decrease in rainfall 35% greater for the high emissions scenario compared to the low emissions scenario.

From Figure 14 and Figure 15, it can be seen that of all GCMs considered, the IPSLcm5alr GCM projected the largest increase in temperature for both emission scenarios. It also projects the greatest reduction in rainfall, averaged across the emission scenarios, of all GCMs. For these reasons it can be considered the ‘worst’ case Climate Future under the Climate Futures framework.

Visually establishing the ‘best’ case is more difficult than the ‘worst’ case as there is no consistent outlier across both emissions scenarios. None of the GCMs that fall into the ‘best’ case category for the low emissions scenario across both sites (miroc5, incm4, gfdl.esm2g, gfdl.esm2m) fall into the ‘best’ case category for the high emissions scenario (CSIROmk3.6, IPSLcm5blr, cnrm.cm5). The differentiating factor between this group of five GCMs across emissions scenarios is projected change in annual rainfall, with all GCMs aside from the cnrm.cm5 GCM projecting the same temperature climate for 2050. The CSIROmk3.6 GCM projects a reduction in rainfall 1% greater than the ‘best’ climate future category and will be considered as the ‘best’ case GCM in this report.

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5

Chan

ge in

Mea

n An

nual

Tem

pera

ture

(⁰C)

Change in Mean Annual Rainfall (%)

access10

access13

bcc.csm11m

canesm2

cnrm.cm5

csiro.mk36

gfdl.esm2g

gfdl.esm2m

inmcm4

ipsl.cm5alr

ipsl.cm5blr

miroc5

miroc.esm

mri.cgcm3

noresm1m


The selection of ‘most likely’ GCM is constrained to come from the group of nine GCMs highlighted in Table 17. For consistency with previous work (Osti and Green, 2014), the noresm1m, which falls within the highlighted box, was selected for use in this work.

4.3.2 Climate Change Scenarios

Based on the Climate Futures analysis in the previous section, the projections from three GCMs have been considered in this study, to provide a representation of the range of projections available based on the AR5 (Assessment Report 5) GCMs selected as part of the Goyder Institute Project. Projected changes in rainfall and PET have been applied to the Lake Hawdon catchment for three GCMs:

• noresm1m GCM = ‘most likely’ case;

• CSIROmk3.6 GCM = ‘best’ case; and

• IPSLcm5alr GCM = ‘worst’ case.

Two Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) emissions scenarios were considered in this report; a low emissions (r4.5) scenario and a high emissions (r8.5) scenario. The NHMM downscaling methodology produced a continuous daily time series of rainfall and PET projections from 2006-2100, with hindcast values produced back to 1961, resulting in a continuous time series of rainfall and PET from 1961-2100 that was utilised as climate inputs to the Drain L Source model.

4.3.3 Scenario analysis framework

In order to assess the impacts of climate change on the South East wetland system, Lake Hawdon was selected as a case study to give an understanding on the long-term variability of inflows that may impact flow regime for Lake Hawdon. The model is described in Taylor et al. (2014), which originally investigated the ability to divert flow from the catchment and still maintain the desired frequency of inundation through the use of a regulator in Drain L at the downstream end of Lake Hawdon North. For this study the catchment had been modeled in its current state, and any diversions from the catchment or the use of a regulator have not been considered.

Climate projections for rainfall and PET from the three GCMs and for two emission (high – 8.5 RCP and low – 4.5 RCP) scenarios were incorporated as rainfall-runoff model inputs into the recently updated eWater Source hydrological model for the Drain L catchment (version 3.6.5.) (Figure 16). The BatchRunner tool from eWater was used to run the 100 realisations of climate data produced via the NHMM downscaling approach as inputs to the rainfall-runoff model for each scenario, enabling an estimate of variability in flows due to future climate projections (Figure 17).


Figure 16: Geographic model view of the Drain L catchment and the three drainage points into Lake Hawdon

Figure 17: Conceptual representation of climate scenario analysis framework


Comparisons were made between Lake Hawdon inflow volumes derived from SILO climate data (the same data used to assess diversion rules) and the median inflow volumes derived from the downscaled GCM historical baseline climate data for 1976 – 2005 (referred to as the 1990 baseline). Large differences in flows were observed (shown in Figure 18), with an average annual error of 36 , 27 and 44 GL for the best case, mostly likely and worst case GCMs, respectively. These differences are caused by two different sources of error. The first is the mapping of the historical climate variables (i.e. pressures and temperatures) to the weather station (i.e. rainfall) data via the NHMM model, which would be consistent across the different GCMs. The second is the error introduced in the ability of the GCM to represent the historical climate variables that were used as inputs to the NHMM model. Therefore, projected inflows were assessed as the percentage difference between the median projected value and the long-term median hindcast baseline value for that GCM. A centered 30-year moving average was used in order to highlight long-term trends between future variability of inflows from the historical baseline. Thus, the results of the climate change scenarios present indicative trends in the change in inflows from the historical baseline derived based on the Climate Futures approach.


‘mos

t lik

ely’

cas

e

nore

sm1m

GC

M

‘bes

t’ ca

se

CSI

RO

mk3

.6 G

CM

‘wor

st’ c

ase

IPSL

cm5a

lr G

CM

Figure 18: Comparisons of historical inflow volumes derived by SILO and GCM climate projection realisations of rainfall and PET


Three different metrics of the change in total inflow to Lake Hawdon have been assessed:

1. Annual inflows have been assessed to provide an indication of the change in total volume projected for the catchment;

2. Summer six monthly (November-April) inflows have been assessed to explore changes during the summer low flow period, as it may be possible that the total flow volume reduces, but there is a projected to be a shift in the seasonality of flow; and

3. The average number of days per year when inflows to Lake Hawdon were greater than 100 ML/d. Based on previous events and knowledge of the system, 50 - 100 ML/d in Drain L is expected to result in the drain spilling out into Lake Hawdon, as such the upper value of 100 ML/d was selected to represent a total inflow (including the Bray Drain) that is likely to result in inundation of the lakes. 100 ML/d corresponds to a 25th percentile flow at the gauge downstream of Lake Hawdon (Boomaroo Park, A2390505).

As noted above, the absolute values for flow, and in turn, number of days per year above this flow threshold, is influenced by the errors introduced by both the GCM and the downscaling processes. This metric should then be interpreted as the projected change in large events that are likely to result in inundation of the Lake, as opposed to a given number of days of inundation each year. It should also be noted that the values presented are averaged across the 100 realisations of each climate scenario, and as such masks some of the year-to-year variability.

For context, the variability in inflows to Lake Hawdon simulated over the baseline period is presented alongside the relevant projections. This baseline variability represents the range in the metric within the natural variability of the catchment (i.e. the flow each year is not the long term average flow) as opposed to variability introduced by the different emissions scenarios, or projections of each emission scenario represented by the three GCMs, which is presented as different series on each plot.

4.4 Results

4.4.1 Impacts on annual inflows to Lake Hawdon

Figure 19 shows the change in annual inflows to Lake Hawdon under different GCM climate projections for high and low emission scenarios. These results are calculated as the median annual percent change in long-term median inflows and therefore, the median historical variability does not necessarily correspond to 0% change, due to the skewed distribution of annual flow.

Large variability in 30 year median annual inflows to Lake Hawdon is observed over the 100 realisations of the historical period. ‘Low’ (90th percentile) flow years were found to be between 35% - 40% lower and ‘high’ (10th percentile) flows were 60 - 70% greater than the median of the 30 year median inflow.

Overall, a decreasing long-term trend in inflows to Lake Hawdon is observed compared to historical inflows for each GCM and emission case.

Under a high emissions case, this natural variability observed in the baseline was reduced by 2050 for all GCM projections, with the ‘worst’ case (IPSLcm5alr) projecting a halving in flow variability by 2070. This homogenising, or flattening of the flow cycle may have significance for ecological communities that depend on periodic inundation from overbank type events.

Under low emissions, the ‘best’ case GCM (CSIROmk3.6) projects an increase in median annual flows in ‘high’ flow years under future climate projections, with a moderate reduction in ‘low’ flow years. Under the high emissions case, the ‘best’ case GCM projects little change in Lake Hawdon inflows until 2050 and then after 2050 Lake Hawdon inflow reduce such that by 2080 it projects that median flows will be 20% lower than the historical baseline.

The ‘most likely’ (norem1m) and ‘worst’ case GCM projections indicate progressive reduction in inflows to Lake Hawdon over time. The ‘most likely’ GCM projects a 25% reduction in median flow by 2050, with the ‘worst case’ GCM projects that by 2050, ‘high’ flow years will be less than the historical median and inflows will be 50% lower than the historical median flow by 2080.


‘mos

t lik

ely’

cas

e

nore

sm1m

GC

M

‘bes

t’ ca

se

CSI

RO

mk3

.6 G

CM

‘wor

st’ c

ase

IPSL

cm5a

lr G

CM

Figure 19: Change in median annual inflows to Lake Hawdon from 1990 baseline under different GCM climate projections and high and low RCP emission cases


4.4.2 Impacts on summer inflows to Lake Hawdon

Summer median inflows to Lake Hawdon follow similar trends to annual median inflows from each GCM climate projection (Figure 20). Under both high and low emission scenarios for all GCM climate projections there is a consistent long-term trend towards declining inflows from the historical baseline occurring by 2030, even in the ‘best’ case scenario. Therefore, it is unlikely there will be summer flows that can maintain Lake Hawdon volumes during the dry summer months.

By 2080, variability in median summer inflows decreases by approximately 30% under the ‘best’ case GCM climate projections and by approximately 40% for both the ‘worst’ and ‘most likely’ case GCM climate projections, further constraining natural variability in the flow regime that may affect beneficial environmental flows.


‘mos

t lik

ely’

cas

e

nore

sm1m

GC

M

‘bes

t’ ca

se

CSI

RO

mk3

.6 G

CM

‘wor

st’ c

ase

IPSL

cm5a

lr G

CM

Figure 20: Change in median summer (Nov-Apr) inflows to Lake Hawdon from 1990 baseline under different GCM climate projections and high and low RCP emission cases


4.4.3 Impacts on the frequency of flows draining to Lake Hawdon

Under historical baseline climate, the number of days per year where total inflows to Lake Hawdon are greater than 100 ML/d are generally around 150 days per year (±10 days) for the ‘best’ case and around 140 days per year (±10 days) for the ‘worst’ and ‘most likely’ case GCM climate projections (Figure 21, Figure 22 and Figure 23).

While the results are presented as a number of days, as outlined in the previous section it is important to note that the trend in the number of days is the most representative indicator of these metrics, As such, the trend, which is typically a decreasing trend, in the frequency of inflows above 100 ML/d observed under all climate projection scenarios (Table 18, Table 19 and Table 20).

Under the ‘best’ case (Figure 21) low emissions scenario there is a slight decrease in the 30 year average. However, under the high emission scenario the frequency of days above 100 ML/d decreases to 125 by 2060. A similar trend is observed for the ‘most likely’ case (Figure 23) GCM for both low and high emission scenarios. However, the decline in frequency of inflows above 100 ML/d occurs earlier at around 2020.

Under the ‘worst’ case (Figure 22) low emissions scenario there is a noticeable decrease in the frequency of inflows above 100 ML/d from 2005 that continues until 2070, at which time the projection is for 110 days above 100 ML/d. Under the high emissions scenario the decrease is sharper, declining to 70 days by 2080. The largest decrease in frequency of days where inflows are above 100 ML/d (56% from historical) is observed under the ‘worst’ case, high emission scenario (Table 20).

Table 19: Comparison across time periods for the average number of days that inflows to Lake Hawdon are above 100 ML/day and the change from historical inflows under CSIRO GCM climate projections

Average number days above 100 ML/d

% change from historical average (150 days/yr above 100 ML/d)

Time period Low emissions High Emissions Low emissions High Emissions

1975-1984 148 148

1985-1994 143 143

1995-2004 159 159

2005-2014 146 152 -3% 1%

2015-2024 148 152 -2% 1%

2025-2034 145 138 -4% -9%

2035-2044 137 145 -9% -4%

2045-2054 141 139 -6% -8%

2055-2064 131 144 -13% -5%

2065-2074 142 131 -6% -13%

2075-2084 145 126 -4% -16%

2085-2094 136 122 -10% -19%

2095-2100 140 118 -7% -22%


Table 20: Comparison across time periods for the average number of days that inflows to Lake Hawdon are above 100 ML/day and the change from historical inflows under IPSLcm5alr GCM climate projections




1975-1984 147 147

1985-1994 141 141

1995-2004 136 136

2005-2014 142 134 1% -4%

2015-2024 130 144 -7% 3%

2025-2034 113 108 -20% -23%

2035-2044 115 106 -18% -25%

2045-2054 114 102 -18% -28%

2055-2064 124 88 -12% -37%

2065-2074 97 94 -31% -33%

2075-2084 114 61 -18% -56%

2085-2094 111 64 -20% -54%

2095-2100 117 86 -17% -39%

Table 21: Comparison across time periods for the average number of days that inflows to Lake Hawdon are above 100 ML/day and the change from historical inflows under noresm1m GCM climate projections




1975-1984 140 140

1985-1994 152 152

1995-2004 135 135

2005-2014 139 149 -1% 7%

2015-2024 129 138 -8% -2%

2025-2034 135 139 -4% -1%

2035-2044 140 129 0% -8%

2045-2054 132 120 -6% -14%

2055-2064 120 120 -14% -15%

2065-2074 131 123 -6% -12%

2075-2084 127 118 -9% -16%

2085-2094 123 126 -12% -10%

2095-2100 123 104 -12% -26%


Lo

w (r

4.5)

em

issi

ons

scen

ario

Hig

h (r

8.5)

em

issi

ons

scen

ario

Figure 21: Number of days per year where annual median inflows to Lake Hawdon are greater than 100 ML/day under CSIROmk3.6 GCM climate projections


Low

(r4.

5) e

mis

sion

s sc

enar

io

Hig

h (r

8.5)

em

issi

ons

scen

ario

Figure 22: Number of days per year where annual median inflows to Lake Hawdon are greater than 100 ML/day under IPSLcm5alr GCM climate projections


Low

(r4.

5) e

mis

sion

s sc

enar

io

Hig

h (r

8.5)

em

issi

ons

scen

ario

Figure 23: Number of days per year where annual median inflows to Lake Hawdon are greater than 100 ML/day under noresm1m GCM climate projections


4.5 Summary of Drain L climate change case study

The overall decline in the long-term trend in projected inflows to Lake Hawdon due to a changing climate is apparent across the ‘best’, ‘worst’ and ‘most likely’ GCM projections.

The general decrease in summer median inflows to Lake Hawdon is accompanied by a decrease in the variability in inflows, suggesting summer periods will be more frequently dry.

Based on the results of the climate change scenarios, the catchment contributing to Lake Hawdon (both North and South lakes) provides flows above 100 ML/d to fill the Lake for 40% of the year. A flow of 100 ML/d has been selected to represent high flows that are likely to spill out of Drain L and lead to inundation of Lake Hawdon North. This flow corresponds to a 40 cm rise in water level based on the rating curve downstream at Boomaroo Park, and this is expected to be sufficient to reach the cut outs in the levee within Lake Hawdon North based on the 2 m DEM of the lake. This flow equates to a 22nd percentile flow, also indicative of a relatively high flow.

A realistic comparison between the modelled climatic change scenario and historical records is not possible because there is no gauge upstream of Lake Hawdon.

There is however, a gauge downstream of Lake Hawdon. A comparison between the climate change inflow data and historical outflow data indicates that there are significant storage, evaporative and infiltration losses associated with Lake Hawdon, because the modelled climate change inflows still exceed the observed historical outflows, despite Drain L flow being less than the modelled historical flows.

Furthermore, the frequency of flows above 100 ML/d does not alone represent the storage behaviour of Lakes Hawdon North and South, and further analysis would be required to convert the flow of 100 ML/d into an estimate of the inundation extent of the lake-bed, along with a volume of storage within the lakes, and in turn the water level for meeting the ecologically ideal hydrograph (detailed in Taylor et al., 2014).

Under long-term decreasing projected inflows, even under the ‘best’ case climate projections, the frequency of filling Lake Hawdon declines, particularly during the high emissions case and during the summer dry seasons, although larger events are generally maintained. Under the ‘most likely’ GCM climate projections for both high and low emissions, Lake Hawdon would be filling less than 130 days per year from 2040 onwards. Under a ‘worst’ case scenario this trend occurs much earlier at around 2020, where the frequency of inflows to the Lake decreases by as much as 56%. The overall trend is a reduction in the frequency of events that cause inundation of Lake Hawdon.


5. Discussion Drainage infrastructure is the major linear network for conveyance of water through extensive areas of the South East region, in a landscape with few natural watercourses. Options for mitigating the impacts of future climate change on wetlands include the use of regulators to retain water within wetlands that are already connected to the drainage network or are on natural watercourses, and making new connections to the drainage network to facilitate environmental watering of wetlands. Drainage network infrastructure is already managed adaptively to provide some ecological benefits, while meeting objectives for the productive use of land.

This project was an initial study in identifying the range of investigations needed to demonstrate feasibility, opportunities, and constraints inherent in undertaking environmental watering of wetlands as a climate change mitigation option through new connections to the drainage network, and to a minor extent, placement of new regulators.

Each package of work undertaken has identified shortcomings in supporting data and additional considerations that were beyond the current scope. Nevertheless, in doing so, the outcomes of this project begin to define a structured methodology for undertaking such investigations in future, including documenting the data required to support analysis and identifying the component work packages that are required to make an implementable assessment of appropriateness and feasibility of these mitigation options.

The ability to prioritise wetlands for mitigative treatment is essential; investment in infrastructure must demonstrate an obvious benefit. The ability to prioritise South East wetlands on the basis of their ecological value will continue to be hampered by lack of biological survey data, as already recognized by a number of other projects (e.g. Harding 2012a). The South East NRM region is, however, relatively better placed to undertake ecological value assessments than some NRM regions, by its SA Wetlands Inventory Database. The EVA framework is a robust method for assessment of ecological value adopted in modified form from recognized methods used elsewhere in Australia, but it has only been able to be applied to just over 10% of all mapped wetlands in the South East, due to a lack of data. The concept of social and cultural value of wetlands is well recognised, however natural resource managers and planners are still generally developing methods of eliciting these values and embedding them into assessments. Key new information on social and cultural value was available to this assessment, however there were limitations with its completeness.

The complexity of the prioritisation method employed by this project is appropriate for the level of sophistication of the available supporting data. The prioritisation could easily be made more complex, but it is clear that any advancement of detailed planning for connection to drains would involve on-ground field survey, presumably of a series of ‘candidate’ sites. The spatial analysis work has clearly demonstrated that even simple tests of feasibility filter out many sites from further investigation (e.g. as few as 7% of very high priority sites may be considered suitable for further feasibility assessment for these kinds of mitigative treatments). In this project, the spatial analyses of feasibility were focused on the highest priority wetlands, and also identified a separate category of assets that could be used in prioritisation for treatment – permanent pools. To further this work, the relative cost implications of further spatial analyses and of on-ground survey work may mean that extending the spatial feasibility analyses to all wetlands could be an effective means of prioritising wetlands for on-ground biological survey.

A series of additional constraints to connections to the drainage network have been identified, including land use, local topography, underlying geology, and tenure. These are recommended as additions to the suite of analyses undertaken for future projects investigating wetland connections. Additionally, later stage assessments would need to consider the ecological impacts of diverting water to newly connected wetlands, or of holding water in the landscape, on downstream wetlands that would otherwise have received the diverted water.

Some of the spatial analyses undertaken have yet to be incorporated into assessments. Volume of wetlands, for example, was calculated for all wetlands but has not been utilized in this project as there is as yet no modeled estimate of the potential volume of water available for watering wetlands.

There were gaps identified in spatial data, and deficiencies in the schema of existing spatial data that deals with the drainage network infrastructure, that limit both the types of assessments that can be made, and the validity of results in the analyses that have been undertaken. These have been documented (Chapter 3) and recommendations to address the issues have been made in Chapter 6 below. A number of tools have been identified that would greatly enhance the analyses that could be applied to


cleaned data, ultimately including effective methods to support cost-benefit analyses of implementation of infrastructure solutions. Increasingly the ability to undertake advanced spatial analyses of the drainage network will be required to support planning under changed climate futures.

As a first attempt, this project has demonstrated that the number of wetlands that can be feasibly connected to the drainage network may be far less than the number of wetlands that may benefit from managed environmental watering. Alternative approaches would therefore need to be developed in order to mitigate the potential impacts on very high priority and other wetlands that are practically isolated from the current network of drains.

This assessment has not been comprehensively contextual in that no consideration has been made of the likely degradation that could occur at individual wetlands under climate change, and how that degraded state might be adaptively managed. Climate change could induce transitions in wetland condition, or fundamentally alter the wetland to a different ‘type’ (e.g. a grass sedge wetland to a saline swamp, or a freshwater meadow to a terrestrial land form prone to occasional inundation). This may mean that watering wetlands with water of a lesser quality, or outside of the ideal inundation regime currently identified, presents an acceptable adaptive action where the consequences of having no water available would cause greater degradation.

The Lake Hawdon – Drain L climate change case study provides concerning indications of a significant loss of surface water flow under all scenarios assessed. Further modeling is required to relate the available flows under each scenario to the ecologically ideal hydrograph developed by Taylor et al. (2014). However, in view of evidence from aerial imagery and field inspections discussed in Taylor et al. (2014) that indicate that Lake Hawdon has been on a terrestrialising trajectory for in excess of 20 years, it appears that the prospect of diverting water to other wetlands in the vicinity of Drain L and the Bray Drain is unlikely without infrastructure intervention (such as a regulator as considered in Taylor et al., 2014). Given that this case study catchment has been considered historically to be a reliable high flow system, the results of the climate change modeling suggest significant impacts to the region’s wetlands.


6. Conclusions As a preliminary study, this project has identified suitable methods, and potential refinements in methodology, to guide further work as the necessity to understand and plan for climate change impacts continues to grow.

Some of the parameters investigated have been examined in a relatively simplistic manner, but in doing so the work has clarified the types of investigation that need to be undertaken to ultimately produce implementable mitigation options.

A summary of the component investigations required to assess wetland mitigation options under climate change is given below, in Table 21. Aspects that were assessed or not assessed within the scope of the current study are tagged as ‘√’ or ‘x’.

Table 22: Wetland climate change mitigation option assessment - overview of required studies and supporting information

Element Component This

project? Purpose Supporting data and knowledge

Site prioritisation

Wetland Value – ecological and social/cultural

√ Justified benefit to

accrue from mitigation

Biological survey data Wetland condition data

Permanent pool locations Community inputs

Potential Risk √

Relative indication of the loss of value with

no mitigation

Ecohydrological character of wetlands (vulnerability)

Extractive demands (vulnerability) Modeled magnitude of changes in rainfall,

temperature, PET, etc. (hazard) expressed as ecologically meaningful consequences such

as change to flow, timing and extent of inundation, change in water quality etc.

(impact).

Predicted impacts x

Preliminary feasibility

assessment

Distance to drains or channels that could

deliver water √

Cost – benefit analysis

Further filtering of sites for treatment

Complete and accurate spatial representation of drains, watercourses, wetlands and

regulators. Current and accurate spatial representation

of land use and tenure. Spatially accurate high resolution DEM and

geology layer. Appropriate schema and attribution of

drainage network infrastructure and wetlands spatial layers to support intelligent queries

on network connectivity to enable operating scenario modeling.

Relative elevation of drains / channels and

wetlands √

Pathway characteristics – underlying geology,

land use, tenure, topography

x

Existing drain flow characteristics –

direction, volumes, seasonality

x

Distance to existing regulator structures

√

Up and downstream connections and

operating protocols of existing regulator

structures

x


Element Component This

project? Purpose Supporting data and knowledge

Opportunity

Volume of water available for

environmental watering purposes

x Balancing needs of wetlands already managed within same catchment

Suitability of water quality and potential

timing for target wetlands

Environmental water requirements of existing high value assets within catchment.

Environmental water requirements of wetlands targeted for connection to

managed catchment.

Quality of water available for

environmental watering purposes

x/√

Timing of water availability

x

Implement-ation

Design and construction

x

Proof of operability of solution to meet

objectives Realisation

Engineering investigations (eg existing channel capacity, wetland bathymetry, etc.), survey (sill levels, channel alignment etc.),

and detailed design of structures to construction standard.

Ecohydrological investigations to support adaptive management (leading indicators for management interventions, annual and inter-annual watering regimes defined to balance requirements for all wetlands connected to

catchment)

Adaptive operating framework

x

Subsequent stages of investigation can be progressed through a combination of further data gathering and data improvement, technical assessments and expert panel input to direct efforts towards maximum benefit.

A series of specific recommendations that flow directly from the current project work are summarized below.

6.1 Recommendations for progression of climate change mitigation assessment

The following recommendations relate to knowledge or studies required to progress the overall assessment:

• Comprehensive consultation on social / cultural values;

• Wider consultation on wetland type vulnerabilities to climate change impacts, to confirm an agreed conceptual understanding that can be incorporated as ‘standard’ for future projects;

• Baseline biological and condition surveys of other wetlands that may meet the preliminary feasibility for mitigation criteria;

• Assessment of the availability of water for mitigation by environmental watering. Total catchment yields and capacity to meet end of system EWR at Lake Hawdon and Robe Lakes under climate change need to be assessed to allow quantification of available water;

• Develop a process for determining salinity targets for individual wetlands based on ecological values;

• The wetlands identified which may protect permanent pools need to be assessed in relation to surface water quality from the drains and wetlands and impacts on permanent pools;

• There are some wetlands which are at a lower elevation than drains which are slightly outside of the water quality criteria. A standard deviation analysis could be applied to capture these for assessment, especially given that the water quality data have large date variations;

• Further review of the monitoring data combined with additional monitoring information may enable development of more robust seasonal surface water qualities for drain segments which could be used for modelling purposes; and


• Develop a framework for which an expert panel can review the range of very high priority wetlands. This would be to ensure any decision to further shortlist selected wetlands for mitigative works, which require more complex modelling and investigations, was a transparent process. Details of this framework could include:

- Those wetlands not connected to a drain (but within an appropriate distance from a drain which is higher in the landscape, has sufficient water volume and can supply suitable quality water) which could be connected in the future with earthworks;

- Those wetlands which do not intersect drains but are within 500m of a regulator which could be closed to retain water in the landscape longer;

- Those wetlands which intersect a drain (which has no control structure in close proximity) and have the potential to benefit from installation of a regulator to retain water in the landscape longer; and

- Those very high wetlands which are connected to a drain and have the potential for engineering works to be installed to retain water in the landscape longer and are within 500m of a known permanent pool.

6.2 Recommendations for data improvement

The following recommendations specifically relate to corrections and improvements to spatial data:

• The SAAE wetland typology should be completed for newly mapped wetland polygons;

• The South East Drains layer should be updated spatially in consultation with SEWCDB to address errors of omission in the Lower South East and Tatiara Districts. The edits need to be attributed according to the set schema developed by Medlin (2013). Furthermore, the attributes should be reviewed to determine additional contextual information that can be added;

• The above must be incorporated onto corporate SDE with appropriate metadata as a ‘point of truth’ dataset;

• A pilot project be initiated for Drain L (or other appropriate drain system) whereby the functionality within ArcGIS i.e. Schematic Extension, Geometric Analyst and Utility Network Analyst be investigated for deployment over the remainder of the system (to replace or improve on the previous Visio drawings). The time taken for this needs to be recorded such that an estimate could be calculated for the remainder of the drainage system. Consideration should be given during such a development process to incorporating volumes and water quality information of source and receiving environments;

• The infrastructure layer for the drainage system needs to be continuously reviewed and upgraded. During this analysis a number of regulators were not spatially captured and the information for such needed to be incorporated post analysis;

• Assess ability of the surface water monitoring system to provide a monthly or seasonal surface water quality data-set that can be used for modelling purposes;

• Tables or feature classes derived from this analysis i.e. nearest drain segment to very high priority wetland etc. be stored within a geodatabase, SAWID or SDE such that it is available for future consideration; and

• Throughout this project issues such as zone of influence of drains and wetland connectivity with individual drain segments have been identified but not resolved. Such concepts need to be clearly defined and feature classes developed to assist analysis and decision-making in the future.


7. Appendices A. All Priority 1 / Very High priority sites

AUS_WETNR NAME COMPLEX SAAE Type

Combined CC Hazard Scores (Change in Temp, PET, Temp)

SAAE Vulner-ability

GW Usage

EVA Score

Cultural Social Score

Overall Risk Indication Score

Overall Value Score

Risk Rating

Value Rating

Priority

S0100001 THE COORONG COORONG SL 6 7 6 10 3 19 13 H VH VH

S0100011 MESSENT CONSERVATION PARK

MESSENT SSW 7 5 6 4 3 18 7 H H VH

S0100020 MESSENT FLOODPLAIN MESSENT IIW 7 7 6 10 3 20 13 H VH VH

S0100021 MESSENT SSW 7 5 6 4 3 18 7 H H VH

S0100022 MESSENT GSW 7 7 6 4 3 20 7 H H VH

S0100027 MESSENT SSW 7 5 6 7 3 18 10 H VH VH

S0100030 MESSENT GSW 6 7 6 4 3 19 7 H H VH

S0100038 MORELLA BASIN MORELLA BASIN SL 6 7 6 10 3 19 13 H VH VH

S0100047 BONNEYS CAMP SOUTH WATERVALLEY SL 6 7 6 7 3 19 10 H VH VH

S0100054 TILLEY SWAMP TILLEY SWAMP IIW 6 7 6 4 3 19 7 H H VH

S0100071 LOG CROSSING/ WELL AND BRIDGE

WATERVALLEY SL 6 7 6 4 3 19 7 H H VH

S0100075 TILLEY SWAMP TILLEY SWAMP IIW 6 7 6 7 3 19 10 H VH VH

S0100228 SPOONBILL SWAMP PARK HILL IIW 6 7 9 4 3 22 7 VH H VH

S0100146 TILLEY SWAMP TILLEY SWAMP IIW 6 7 6 10 3 19 13 H VH VH

S0100172 HENRY CREEK TELOWIE WC 6 7 6 7 3 19 10 H VH VH

S0100173 BIG TELOWIE TELOWIE GSW 6 7 6 10 3 19 13 H VH VH

S0100327 TATIARA SWAMP GSW 6 7 9 7 0 22 7 VH H VH

S0100098 BUTCHERS LAKE SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES SSW 7 5 9 7 3 21 10 H VH VH

S0100099 CORTINA LAKE CORTINA LAKES SL 6 7 6 7 0 19 7 H H VH

S0100117 MANDINA LAKE MANDINA LAKES IIW 6 7 6 7 0 19 7 H H VH

S0100120 THE FLOODWAYS (GUM LAGOON)

COOLA COOLA IIW 6 7 6 4 3 19 7 H H VH

S0100127 MRS WHITES LAGOON MANDINA MARSHES IIW 6 7 6 4 3 19 7 H H VH

S0100133 COOLA COOLA COOLA COOLA IIW 6 7 6 4 3 19 7 H H VH

S0100140 POOCHER SWAMP GSW 6 7 9 10 3 22 13 VH VH VH

S0100167 PRETTY JOHNNYS WATERVALLEY IIW 6 7 6 7 0 19 7 H H VH

S0100175 COORONG SL 7 7 6 7 3 20 10 H VH VH

S0100177 JIP JIP JIP JIP GSW 6 7 6 7 3 19 10 H VH VH

S0100178 LAKE NEWRY DOUBLE SWAMP GSW 6 7 6 4 3 19 7 H H VH

S0100202 BIMBIMBI SWAMP KYEEMA PFL 6 7 9 4 3 22 7 VH H VH

S0100218 REEDY SWAMP WILLALOOKA IIW 6 7 6 4 3 19 7 H H VH




SAAE Vulner-ability

GW Usage

EVA Score



Overall Value Score

Risk Rating

Value Rating

Priority

S0100220 SMITH SWAMP PARAKIE IIW 6 7 6 7 3 19 10 H VH VH

S0100231 PARK HILL PARK HILL IIWFP 7 8 9 7 3 24 10 VH VH VH

S0100232 LEVER SWAMP WILLALOOKA IIW 6 7 6 4 3 19 7 H H VH

S0100234 LITTLE SISTER WILLALOOKA IIWFP 6 8 6 4 3 20 7 H H VH

S0100237 THE MUDDIES FLOODPLAIN WILLALOOKA IIWFP 6 8 6 4 3 20 7 H H VH

S0100239 THE MUDDIES WILLALOOKA IIWFP 6 8 6 4 3 20 7 H H VH

S0100240 JAFFRAY SWAMP JAFFRAY PFL 6 7 6 10 3 19 13 H VH VH

S0100246 CAMPSITE JAFFRAY IIW 6 7 6 4 3 19 7 H H VH

S0100259 FISH FARM FISH FARM SSW 6 5 9 4 3 20 7 H H VH

S0100280 TALAPAR IIWFP 6 8 9 4 3 23 7 VH H VH

S0100283 TALAPAR IIWFP 6 8 9 4 3 23 7 VH H VH

S0100295 TALAPAR IIWFP 6 8 6 4 3 20 7 H H VH

S0100301 KEILIRA IIWFP 7 8 6 4 3 21 7 H H VH

S0100320 COCKATOO LAKE TL 6 8 9 4 3 23 7 VH H VH

S0100341 LOCHABER SWAMP LOCHABER IIW 6 7 9 7 0 22 7 VH H VH

S0100348 BLOOMFIELD SWAMP GSW 6 7 6 7 0 19 7 H H VH

S0100455 COORONG IIWFP 7 8 6 4 3 21 7 H H VH

S0100492 COOLATOO FLAT COORONG IIW 7 7 6 7 3 20 10 H VH VH

S0101060 PICCANINNIE PONDS NENE VALLEY PS 6 6 9 10 3 21 13 H VH VH

S0101105 LEECH LAKE MANDINA MARSHES IIW 6 7 6 7 3 19 10 H VH VH

S0101493 CORTINA LAKES IIW 6 7 6 7 0 19 7 H H VH

S0101778 POOL OF SILOAM SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES CDL 6 7 9 4 3 22 7 VH H VH

S0101959 RUSHY SWAMP SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES IIWFP 7 8 9 10 3 24 13 VH VH VH

S0101999 KATANI PARK WETLAND SOUTHERN BAKERS RANGE IIW 7 7 9 7 3 23 10 VH VH VH

S0102054 SOUTHERN BAKERS RANGE MT SCOTT - TARATAP DISTRICT

IIW 7 7 9 4 3 23 7 VH H VH

S0102176 LAKE ORMEROD BOOL LAGOON - COONAWARRA

TL 6 8 9 7 0 23 7 VH H VH

S0102541 CADARA SWAMP WOAKWINE RANGE GSW 7 7 9 4 3 23 7 VH H VH

S0104305 BONNEYS CAMP FLOODPLAIN

WATERVALLEY IIW 6 7 6 7 3 19 10 H VH VH

S0102800 SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES SSW 7 5 9 4 3 21 7 H H VH

S0101818 LAKE GEORGE SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES SL 6 7 9 10 3 22 13 VH VH VH

S0104954 MESSENT SSW 7 5 6 4 3 18 7 H H VH

S0105592 MULLINS SWAMP SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES PS 6 6 9 10 3 21 13 H VH VH

S0105791 TOPPERWEIN NFR FOLLETT GSW 7 7 9 7 3 23 10 VH VH VH

S0105797 TOPPERWEIN NFR FOLLETT GSW 7 7 9 10 3 23 13 VH VH VH

S0105894 SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES IIW 6 7 9 4 3 22 7 VH H VH

S0105943 LAKE FROME SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES IIW 6 7 6 10 3 19 13 H VH VH




SAAE Vulner-ability

GW Usage

EVA Score



Overall Value Score

Risk Rating

Value Rating

Priority

S0105970 Lake Frome SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES IIW 6 7 9 7 3 22 10 VH VH VH

S0106160 DEADMAN SWAMP BOOL LAGOON - COONAWARRA

GSW 6 7 9 7 0 22 7 VH H VH

S0106227 LAKE WOOLEY SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES CDL 6 7 9 10 3 22 13 VH VH VH


S0106808 TELFORD SCRUB CP DISMAL SWAMP GSW 6 7 9 7 3 22 10 VH VH VH

S0106858 GERMAN FLAT SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES PS 6 6 9 4 3 21 7 H H VH

S0106911 WEIR HILL DISMAL SWAMP GSW 6 7 9 4 3 22 7 VH H VH

S0106951 VALLEY LAKE SOUTH EAST VOLCANIC PFL 6 7 9 7 3 22 10 VH VH VH

S0106954 BLUE LAKE SOUTH EAST VOLCANIC PFL 6 7 9 7 3 22 10 VH VH VH

S0107004 MIDDLE POINT WETLAND NENE VALLEY PS 6 6 9 7 3 21 10 H VH VH

S0107021 LIONS PARK NENE VALLEY PS 6 6 9 7 3 21 10 H VH VH

S0107023 EIGHT MILE CREEK EIGHT MILE CREEK WC 6 7 9 10 3 22 13 VH VH VH

S0107833 SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES GSW 6 7 9 7 3 22 10 VH VH VH

S0108054 Lake Hawdon North SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES GSW 7 7 9 4 3 23 7 VH H VH

S0107033 GREEN POINT NENE VALLEY GSW 6 7 9 10 0 22 10 VH VH VH

S0107034 NENE VALLEY PS 6 6 9 4 3 21 7 H H VH

S0107035 GERMEIN RESERVE NENE VALLEY PS 6 6 9 4 3 21 7 H H VH

S0107036 NENE VALLEY PS 6 6 9 10 3 21 13 H VH VH

S0107037 SMITH POND NENE VALLEY PS 6 6 9 4 3 21 7 H H VH

S0107038 NENE VALLEY SKSP 6 5 9 4 3 20 7 H H VH

S0107043 SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES GSW 6 7 9 4 3 22 7 VH H VH

S0107045 BLACKFELLOWS CAVE WETLAND

NENE VALLEY PS 6 6 9 7 0 21 7 H H VH


S0107060 BUCKS LAKE SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES GSW 6 7 9 10 3 22 13 VH VH VH

S0107062 SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES GSW 6 7 6 7 0 19 7 H H VH


NENE VALLEY PS 6 6 9 10 0 21 10 H VH VH

S0107240 THE MARSHES DISMAL SWAMP GSW 6 7 9 7 3 22 10 VH VH VH

S0107273 BLUE TEA TREE SWAMP THE MARSHES GSW 6 7 9 7 3 22 10 VH VH VH




S0107320 SNUGGERY DRAIN SPRING SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES GSW 6 7 9 7 0 22 7 VH H VH

S0107321 SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES IIW 6 7 9 7 3 22 10 VH VH VH

S0107404 AKOOLYA SWAMP DISMAL SWAMP GSW 6 7 9 7 0 22 7 VH H VH

S0107552 LYNWOOD DISMAL SWAMP GSW 6 7 9 7 0 22 7 VH H VH

S0107607 WHITE HAWK LAGOON DISMAL SWAMP GSW 6 7 9 4 3 22 7 VH H VH




SAAE Vulner-ability

GW Usage

EVA Score



Overall Value Score

Risk Rating

Value Rating

Priority

S0107681 WEIR HILL DISMAL SWAMP GSW 6 7 9 7 0 22 7 VH H VH

S0107937 LAKE BATTYE SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES CDL 7 7 9 7 3 23 10 VH VH VH

S0108226 COMAUM FOREST NARACOORTE RANGE GSW 7 7 9 4 3 23 7 VH H VH

S0108591 Lake Hawdon North SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES GSW 7 7 9 4 3 23 7 VH H VH

S0108593 WEST OF LAKE HAWDON NORTH

SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES SKSP 7 5 9 4 3 21 7 H H VH


SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES IIW 7 7 9 4 3 23 7 VH H VH

S0107790 PLEASANT PARK DISMAL SWAMP GSW 6 7 9 7 0 22 7 VH H VH

S0107949 SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES PS 7 6 9 4 3 22 7 VH H VH

S0108068 BOOL LAGOON - COONAWARRA

GSW 6 7 9 4 3 22 7 VH H VH

S0108075 TAYLORS LF NARACOORTE RANGE GSW 6 7 9 7 3 22 10 VH VH VH


S0108130 LAKE NUNAN SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES GSW 7 7 9 4 3 23 7 VH H VH

S0108133 LAKE LING SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES GSW 7 7 9 4 3 23 7 VH H VH

S0108136 DAWSON SWAMP SOUTH SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES GSW 7 7 9 4 3 23 7 VH H VH

S0108154 LAKE FOX SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES GSW 7 7 9 7 3 23 10 VH VH VH


IIWFP 6 8 6 4 3 20 7 H H VH

S0108171 THE PUB LAKE SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES GSW 7 7 9 7 3 23 10 VH VH VH

S0108185 INVERGLEN BOOL LAGOON - COONAWARRA

GSW 6 7 9 7 0 22 7 VH H VH

S0108246 LIMESTONE RIDGE NARACOORTE RANGE GSW 7 7 9 7 0 23 7 VH H VH

S0108304 SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES CDL 6 7 6 4 3 19 7 H H VH

S0108314 LAKE HAWDON SOUTH SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES IIW 6 7 9 10 3 22 13 VH VH VH

S0108347 LAKE ROBE GAME RESERVE PERIPHERAL

SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES GSW 7 7 9 4 3 23 7 VH H VH

S0108357 LAKE ROBE SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES SL 7 7 9 10 3 23 13 VH VH VH


GSW 6 7 9 4 3 22 7 VH H VH





S0108474 LAKE ELIZA SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES SL 6 7 9 10 3 22 13 VH VH VH

S0108578 BROADLANDS SOUTHERN BAKERS RANGE IIW 6 7 9 7 3 22 10 VH VH VH


GSW 7 7 9 7 3 23 10 VH VH VH

S0108706 STRATMAN POND NENE VALLEY GSW 6 7 9 10 0 22 10 VH VH VH

S0108727 BARNETT ROAD SWAMP SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES IIWFP 7 8 9 4 3 24 7 VH H VH

S0108734 MARIA CREEK SWAMP SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES IIWFP 7 8 9 7 0 24 7 VH H VH


S0108757 MCINNES WETLAND WOAKWINE RANGE SKSP 7 5 9 4 3 21 7 H H VH




SAAE Vulner-ability

GW Usage

EVA Score



Overall Value Score

Risk Rating

Value Rating

Priority

S0108790 SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES SKSP 7 5 9 4 3 21 7 H H VH


S0108794 MOYHALL SWAMP MOYHALL IIW 6 7 9 4 3 22 7 VH H VH

S0108896 DAWSON SWAMP NORTH SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES GSW 7 7 9 4 3 23 7 VH H VH

S0108910 TAYLORS LF NARACOORTE RANGE SKSP 6 5 9 4 3 20 7 H H VH

S0108998 BROADLANDS SOUTHERN BAKERS RANGE IIW 6 7 9 4 3 22 7 VH H VH


GSW 6 7 9 4 3 22 7 VH H VH

S0109028 LAKE HAWDON NORTH SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES IIW 7 7 9 10 3 23 13 VH VH VH


IIW 6 7 9 7 3 22 10 VH VH VH

S0109071 HACKS LAGOON BOOL LAGOON - COONAWARRA

PFS 6 7 9 10 3 22 13 VH VH VH


IIWFP 6 8 9 4 3 23 7 VH H VH

S0110512 BOOL LAGOON BOOL LAGOON - COONAWARRA

IIW 7 7 9 4 3 23 7 VH H VH


GSW 7 7 9 4 3 23 7 VH H VH

S0110521 DEADMANS SWAMP NFR NARACOORTE RANGE SKSP 6 5 9 4 3 20 7 H H VH

S0109310 WINDAMERE BOOL LAGOON - COONAWARRA

GSW 6 7 9 4 3 22 7 VH H VH

S0109485 MONBULLA BOOL LAGOON - COONAWARRA

GSW 6 7 9 7 3 22 10 VH VH VH

S0109584 LAKE GEORGE SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES SLFP 6 7 6 4 3 19 7 H H VH

S0109696 DEADMAN SWAMP BOOL LAGOON - COONAWARRA

GSW 6 7 9 7 0 22 7 VH H VH

S0109818 NE LAKE ST CLAIR SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES SKSP 6 5 9 4 3 20 7 H H VH

S0109873 LAKE ELIZA PERIPHERAL WETLANDS

SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES CDL 6 7 6 7 3 19 10 H VH VH

S0110419 COPPINGS SWAMP BOOL LAGOON - COONAWARRA

IIW 6 7 9 4 3 22 7 VH H VH

S0110534 LAKE ROBE GAME RESERVE SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES GSW 7 7 9 4 3 23 7 VH H VH


GSW 6 7 9 7 0 22 7 VH H VH

S0110014 HONAN NFR DISMAL SWAMP GSW 6 7 9 7 3 22 10 VH VH VH

S0110025 WOAKWINE RANGE SKSP 6 5 9 4 3 20 7 H H VH








S0110074 SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES SSW 6 5 9 7 3 20 10 H VH VH




SAAE Vulner-ability

GW Usage

EVA Score



Overall Value Score

Risk Rating

Value Rating

Priority

S0110075 SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES PS 6 6 9 7 3 21 10 H VH VH


S0110115 PIC SWAMP NENE VALLEY GSW 6 7 9 7 0 22 7 VH H VH

S0110203 CAT SWAMP DISMAL SWAMP GSW 6 7 9 7 3 22 10 VH VH VH

S0110205 HACKET HILL NFR DISMAL SWAMP GSW 6 7 9 4 3 22 7 VH H VH



S0110580 THE MARSHES DISMAL SWAMP GSW 6 7 9 4 3 22 7 VH H VH

S0110581 GREEN SWAMP BOOL LAGOON - COONAWARRA

GSW 6 7 9 7 3 22 10 VH VH VH

S0111033 WEST AVENUE FLOODPLAIN

IIWFP 7 8 9 10 3 24 13 VH VH VH

S0110225 WANDILO NFR DISMAL SWAMP GSW 6 7 9 4 3 22 7 VH H VH

S0110251 WANDILO NFR DISMAL SWAMP GSW 6 7 9 7 3 22 10 VH VH VH

S0110272 WHENNAN NFR SOUTH EAST VOLCANIC GSW 6 7 9 4 3 22 7 VH H VH

S0110291 WHENNAN NFR SOUTH EAST VOLCANIC GSW 6 7 9 4 3 22 7 VH H VH






S0110724 HONAN NFR DISMAL SWAMP GSW 6 7 9 4 3 22 7 VH H VH

S0110848 KANGAROO FLAT DISMAL SWAMP GSW 6 7 9 4 3 22 7 VH H VH


S0110338 MARY SEYMOUR CONSERVATION PARK

BOOL LAGOON - COONAWARRA

GSW 6 7 9 7 3 22 10 VH VH VH

S0110343 PICK SWAMP NENE VALLEY PS 6 6 9 10 0 21 10 H VH VH

S0110344 SALT LAKE SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES SSW 7 5 9 4 3 21 7 H H VH


GSW 6 7 9 4 3 22 7 VH H VH

S0110430 ROUND SWAMP BOOL LAGOON - COONAWARRA

IIW 6 7 6 4 3 19 7 H H VH


IIW 6 7 9 4 3 22 7 VH H VH

S0110443 LITTLE BOOL LAGOON BOOL LAGOON - COONAWARRA

IIW 6 7 9 10 3 22 13 VH VH VH


GSW 7 7 9 10 3 23 13 VH VH VH

S0110453 BOOL LAGOON / HACKS LAGOON


GSW 6 7 9 4 3 22 7 VH H VH


IIW 6 7 9 4 3 22 7 VH H VH


IIW 6 7 9 4 3 22 7 VH H VH




SAAE Vulner-ability

GW Usage

EVA Score



Overall Value Score

Risk Rating

Value Rating

Priority

S0110497 LAKE FELLMONGERY SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES CDL 7 7 9 10 3 23 13 VH VH VH

S0110507 THE SALT SWAMP BOOL LAGOON - COONAWARRA

IIW 7 7 9 10 3 23 13 VH VH VH


IIW 6 7 9 4 3 22 7 VH H VH


S0110536 LAKE AMY SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES CDL 7 7 9 4 3 23 7 VH H VH

S0110539 GHOST LAKE SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES CDL 6 7 9 4 3 22 7 VH H VH






S0110563 LAKE ST. CLAIR SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES SL 6 7 9 10 3 22 13 VH VH VH


S0110572 SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES CDL 6 7 6 7 3 19 10 H VH VH




S0110661 HACKET HILL NFR DISMAL SWAMP GSW 6 7 9 7 3 22 10 VH VH VH

S0110721 GRUNDY LANE NFR DISMAL SWAMP GSW 6 7 9 4 3 22 7 VH H VH

S0111068 SSW 6 5 9 4 3 20 7 H H VH

S0111069 DEL FABBROS FLOODPLAIN IIW 6 7 6 7 3 19 10 H VH VH

S0110574 LAKE ST CLAIR SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES CDL 6 7 6 4 3 19 7 H H VH


S0110576 PENOLA CONSERVATION PARK


GSW 6 7 9 4 3 22 7 VH H VH

S0110584 SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES GSW 6 7 6 4 3 19 7 H H VH

S0110585 SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES PS 6 6 9 7 3 21 10 H VH VH

S0110586 WHITES FLAT SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES GSW 6 7 9 7 3 22 10 VH VH VH


S0110601 TRIAL WATERHOLE DISMAL SWAMP GSW 7 7 9 7 0 23 7 VH H VH


S0110620 BURKS ISLAND SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES SKSP 6 5 9 7 3 20 10 H VH VH





GSW 6 7 9 7 3 22 10 VH VH VH






SAAE Vulner-ability

GW Usage

EVA Score



Overall Value Score

Risk Rating

Value Rating

Priority

















S0110674 LYNWOOD DISMAL SWAMP GSW 6 7 9 7 0 22 7 VH H VH












S0110759 DIAGONAL ROAD DISMAL SWAMP GSW 6 7 9 7 3 22 10 VH VH VH





GSW 6 7 9 4 3 22 7 VH H VH








SAAE Vulner-ability

GW Usage

EVA Score



Overall Value Score

Risk Rating

Value Rating

Priority



S0110844 KANGAROO FLAT DISMAL SWAMP GSW 6 7 9 7 3 22 10 VH VH VH


S0110920 S1698A DISMAL SWAMP GSW 6 7 9 4 3 22 7 VH H VH

S0110922 S1698B DISMAL SWAMP GSW 6 7 9 4 3 22 7 VH H VH

S0110930 LAKE GEORGE GAME RESERVE PERIPHERAL



S0110991 TWIG RUSH LAGOONS BOOL LAGOON - COONAWARRA

IIW 6 7 9 4 3 22 7 VH H VH


S0110997 HORSESHOE PADDOCK DISMAL SWAMP GSW 7 7 9 4 3 23 7 VH H VH

S0111021 ROBERTSON SWAMP PARK HILL IIW 6 7 9 4 3 22 7 VH H VH

S0111023 WESTSLOPES FLOODPLAIN NORTH

WESTSLOPES IIW 6 7 6 4 3 19 7 H H VH


PARAKIE IIW 6 7 9 10 3 22 13 VH VH VH

S0111051 AVENUE FLOODPLAIN KEILIRA IIWFP 6 8 9 4 3 23 7 VH H VH

S0111053 DEEP SWAMP FLOODPLAIN DEEP SWAMP IIW 6 7 9 7 0 22 7 VH H VH

S0111056 OLD COACH ROAD GSW 7 7 6 4 3 20 7 H H VH

S0111057 OLD COACH ROAD GSW 7 7 9 4 3 23 7 VH H VH

S0111060 SSW 6 5 9 4 3 20 7 H H VH

S0111089 WATERVALLEY FLOODPLAIN

WATERVALLEY IIW 6 7 6 4 3 19 7 H H VH

S0111114 FAIRVIEW FLOODPLAIN FAIRVIEW IIW 6 7 6 4 3 19 7 H H VH

S0111130 GSW 7 7 9 4 3 23 7 VH H VH

S0111132 IIW 7 7 9 7 3 23 10 VH VH VH

S0111133 MOUNT SCOTT FLOODPLAIN

IIW 7 7 9 7 3 23 10 VH VH VH

S0111134 MARIA CREEK SSW 7 5 9 4 3 21 7 H H VH

S0111139 IIWFP 7 8 6 4 3 21 7 H H VH

S0111140 Rushy Swamp IIWFP 7 8 9 4 3 24 7 VH H VH

S0111505 Tilley Swamp TILLEY SWAMP IIW 6 7 6 4 3 19 7 H H VH

S0111159 HAYWARDS SWAMP KYEEMA IIW 6 7 9 4 3 22 7 VH H VH

S0111507 TILLEY SWAMP FLOODPLAIN

TILLEY SWAMP IIW 6 7 6 10 3 19 13 H VH VH

S0111474 MANDINA MARSHES MANDINA MARSHES IIW 6 7 6 10 0 19 10 H VH VH

S0111745 GUM LAGOON SSW 7 5 6 4 3 18 7 H H VH

S0111804 SANDERS SCRUB SSW 7 5 6 4 3 18 7 H H VH

S0111829 GUM LAGOON SSW 7 5 6 7 3 18 10 H VH VH

S0111882 NAEN NAEN RUINS SWAMP GSW 7 7 6 4 3 20 7 H H VH




SAAE Vulner-ability

GW Usage

EVA Score



Overall Value Score

Risk Rating

Value Rating

Priority

S0111888 COORONG SSW 7 5 6 7 3 18 10 H VH VH

S0111905 AVENUE FLOODPLAIN KEILIRA IIW 6 7 9 4 3 22 7 VH H VH

S0111907 DEEP SWAMP FLOODPLAIN DEEP SWAMP IIW 6 7 9 10 0 22 10 VH VH VH

S0113828 PETER BEGGS SWAMP SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES IIW 6 7 6 4 3 19 7 H H VH

S0113560 MCROSTIES NFR SOUTH EAST VOLCANIC GSW 6 7 9 7 0 22 7 VH H VH




S0113818 WOAKWINE RANGE GSW 6 7 9 4 3 22 7 VH H VH

S0113822 WOAKWINE RANGE GSW 6 7 9 4 3 22 7 VH H VH

S0113836 SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES IIWFP 6 8 9 4 3 23 7 VH H VH

S0113839 CANUNDA FLAT SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES IIW 6 7 9 7 3 22 10 VH VH VH


S0113849 LAKE MCINTYRE WOAKWINE RANGE ART 6 4 9 7 3 19 10 H VH VH

S0113997 PENOLA ROAD LF DISMAL SWAMP GSW 6 7 9 7 0 22 7 VH H VH





S0114398 TELFORD SCRUB CP DISMAL SWAMP GSW 6 7 9 4 3 22 7 VH H VH

S0114485 THE HEATH NFR DISMAL SWAMP GSW 6 7 9 4 3 22 7 VH H VH

S0114763 PENOLA FOREST DISMAL SWAMP GSW 7 7 9 4 3 23 7 VH H VH



S0114959 WINTERFIELD CREEK NENE VALLEY PS 6 6 9 7 0 21 7 H H VH


S0114982 CRESS CREEK SPRING NENE VALLEY GSW 6 7 9 10 3 22 13 VH VH VH

S0114984 JERUSALEM CREEK WETLAND

NENE VALLEY PS 6 6 9 4 3 21 7 H H VH







S0114989 JERUSALEM CREEK SPRING NENE VALLEY PS 6 6 9 10 3 21 13 H VH VH

S0115664 NANGWARRY NFR DISMAL SWAMP GSW 6 7 9 4 3 22 7 VH H VH

S0115665 NANGWARRY NFR DISMAL SWAMP GSW 6 7 9 7 3 22 10 VH VH VH

S0115679 NANGWARRY NFR DISMAL SWAMP GSW 6 7 9 4 3 22 7 VH H VH




SAAE Vulner-ability

GW Usage

EVA Score



Overall Value Score

Risk Rating

Value Rating

Priority

S0116834 MT SCOTT - TARATAP DISTRICT

GSW 7 7 9 7 3 23 10 VH VH VH



GSW 6 7 9 7 3 22 10 VH VH VH

S0116935 Bool Lagoon BOOL LAGOON - COONAWARRA

GSW 6 7 9 4 3 22 7 VH H VH

S0118047 COMAUM FOREST NARACOORTE RANGE GSW 7 7 9 7 3 23 10 VH VH VH

S0118381 BAMBARA BOOL LAGOON - COONAWARRA

GSW 6 7 9 7 0 22 7 VH H VH

S0119316 MALONE HEATH NFR MT SCOTT - TARATAP DISTRICT

GSW 6 7 9 4 3 22 7 VH H VH

S0119688 NARACOORTE CAVES NP NARACOORTE RANGE SKSP 6 5 9 4 3 20 7 H H VH

S0120322 TOPPERWEIN NFR FOLLETT GSW 7 7 9 4 3 23 7 VH H VH

S0119790 Rocky Swamp MT SCOTT - TARATAP DISTRICT

PS 6 6 9 4 3 21 7 H H VH

S0119834 MT SCOTT - TARATAP DISTRICT

GSW 7 7 6 4 3 20 7 H H VH


S0120246 DEADMANS SWAMP NFR NARACOORTE RANGE GSW 6 7 9 7 3 22 10 VH VH VH


S0120239 BUTCHERS LAKE SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES SSW 7 5 9 4 3 21 7 H H VH




GSW 6 7 9 7 3 22 10 VH VH VH

S0120253 GLENELG RIVER CAROLINE ART 6 4 9 7 3 19 10 H VH VH

S0120264 LEGOES SWAMP SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES GSW 6 7 9 7 3 22 10 VH VH VH



S0120290 KANGAROO FLAT DISMAL SWAMP GSW 6 7 9 7 3 22 10 VH VH VH

S0120316 SOUTHERN BAKERS RANGE IIW 7 7 9 4 3 23 7 VH H VH



S0120605 DIAGONAL ROAD DISMAL SWAMP GSW 6 7 9 4 3 22 7 VH H VH


S0120652 Lake Eliza SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES SKSP 6 5 9 7 3 20 10 H VH VH


S0120659 WOAKWINE RANGE SKSP 6 5 9 4 3 20 7 H H VH

S0120704 MOYHALL BOOL LAGOON - COONAWARRA

GSW 6 7 9 4 3 22 7 VH H VH


S0120841 MOUNT MEREDITH DISMAL SWAMP GSW 6 7 9 7 0 22 7 VH H VH

S0120842 TWIG RUSH LAGOONS BOOL LAGOON - COONAWARRA

IIW 6 7 9 4 3 22 7 VH H VH

S0120846 SALT LAKE SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES SSW 7 5 9 7 3 21 10 H VH VH




SAAE Vulner-ability

GW Usage

EVA Score



Overall Value Score

Risk Rating

Value Rating

Priority

S0120851 HORSESHOE PADDOCK DISMAL SWAMP GSW 7 7 9 4 3 23 7 VH H VH

S0120854 EWENS PONDS EIGHT MILE CREEK KST 6 5 9 10 3 20 13 H VH VH

S0120855 BIG HEATH CP BOOL LAGOON - COONAWARRA

GSW 7 7 9 10 3 23 13 VH VH VH

S0120856 REEDY CREEK LF MT SCOTT - TARATAP DISTRICT

GSW 6 7 9 7 3 22 10 VH VH VH



GSW 6 7 9 10 3 22 13 VH VH VH


S0121477 LAKE FROME SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES IIWFP 6 8 9 7 3 23 10 VH VH VH

S0121483 Lake Bonney S.E. 6 7 9 10 3 22 13 VH VH VH

S0121513 SPENCERS POND KST 6 5 9 10 0 20 10 H VH VH

S0121514 BONES POND PS 6 6 9 7 0 21 7 H H VH

S0121515 DEAD POND KST 6 5 9 7 0 20 7 H H VH

S0121485 ISLAND SWAMP LF DISMAL SWAMP SSW 6 5 9 4 3 20 7 H H VH

S0121498 SOUTH EAST COASTAL LAKES SSW 7 5 9 7 3 21 10 H VH VH

S0121512 WILKES POND KST 6 5 9 7 0 20 7 H H VH


B. Surface water latest results TDS (used for interpolation)

OBJECTID MaxOfDate Latest TDS OBJECTID MaxOfDate Latest TDS OBJECTID MaxOfDate Latest TDS 3 6/06/2007 1842 142 13/02/2012 146 241 13/02/2012 1028 6 21/11/2001 6426 143 7/09/2009 780 242 2/07/2002 312 8 23/10/2013 384 144 22/03/2010 840 244 6/08/2004 89 9 26/10/2001 720 145 2/11/2009 720 245 11/10/2012 1435 10 1/01/1991 1926 146 17/11/2010 480 246 11/10/2012 1622 11 23/10/2013 412 147 6/05/2003 300 247 11/10/2012 2505 13 20/09/2002 1800 148 17/10/2013 59 248 18/06/2001 900 16 23/10/2013 840 149 17/10/2013 64 249 24/03/2010 888 17 31/10/2007 936 151 13/10/2010 306 251 1/09/2011 508 18 23/10/2013 1708 152 17/11/2010 288 252 1/09/2004 31200 20 12/09/2007 714 153 23/10/2013 858 253 17/10/2012 2659 23 23/10/2013 402 158 4/11/2009 798 254 13/02/2012 16200 25 23/10/2013 379 163 22/10/2013 907 255 1/09/2004 19800 26 8/01/2000 456 164 23/10/2013 577 256 11/10/2012 2606 29 23/10/2013 454 165 19/09/2002 198 257 13/02/2012 2375 30 8/01/2000 562 168 6/11/2006 2076 258 28/11/2012 1378 31 5/01/2000 396 169 1/07/2002 372 260 20/12/2012 859 32 26/10/2001 420 170 23/10/2013 932 262 9/08/2004 109 34 1/01/1991 432 173 18/05/2008 804 263 3/11/2009 8376 35 9/01/2000 384 175 12/11/2002 1380 264 3/11/2009 8136 38 21/06/2001 19980 176 23/10/2013 871 265 3/11/2009 8430 40 8/03/2001 480 177 9/12/2010 1110 266 3/11/2009 3978 44 9/12/2010 2973 179 23/10/2013 556 267 16/10/2012 1816 45 26/06/2007 600 180 12/10/2010 84 268 3/11/2009 7542 46 9/12/2010 5910 181 8/08/2007 330 269 5/11/2009 7110 47 26/02/2001 420 182 24/10/2001 11999 270 5/11/2009 6750 48 14/09/2010 870 183 31/07/2013 164 273 5/11/2009 6144 49 22/11/2010 858 185 14/05/2001 900 274 5/11/2009 6102 50 22/11/2010 858 186 5/01/2005 798 275 5/11/2009 5844 51 18/03/2008 354 187 8/12/2010 35394 276 5/11/2009 5424 52 8/09/2008 1218 189 17/10/2012 1300 277 4/10/2005 138 53 23/05/2006 792 190 22/08/2001 900 278 5/11/2009 5106 54 1/07/2004 751 191 22/10/2013 1121 279 16/10/2012 2188 55 1/07/2004 392 193 17/10/2012 29830 280 3/11/2009 1944 56 1/07/2004 151 194 1/06/2012 147420 281 8/10/2004 208 57 7/07/2004 269 197 13/02/2012 404 282 2/12/2010 1668 58 7/12/2010 219 198 26/09/2012 1108 283 4/11/2009 2682 59 7/12/2010 130 199 22/10/2013 855 284 4/11/2009 3162 60 7/07/2004 173 200 17/10/2012 1076 285 4/11/2009 2460 61 7/07/2004 220 201 5/09/2012 827 287 5/11/2009 2982 62 13/02/2012 682 202 13/02/2012 964 290 18/06/2001 900 63 7/07/2004 335 203 15/09/2010 138 291 26/09/2012 1228 65 7/07/2004 97 204 13/02/2012 54000 292 16/10/2012 1027 67 28/10/2009 5682 205 17/10/2012 32970 294 4/11/2009 864 69 7/12/2010 120 206 25/10/2001 1380 295 4/11/2009 1752 77 19/09/2006 882 207 12/03/2008 900 297 4/11/2009 5976 93 19/09/2001 84 208 13/02/2012 506 298 4/11/2009 6060

107 1/07/2002 150 210 18/09/2001 74 299 2/12/2010 816 116 22/06/2011 144 211 5/03/2001 1500 300 4/11/2009 1584 119 1/11/2004 198 212 24/10/2008 882 301 4/11/2009 1578 125 13/02/2012 194 214 8/11/2004 318 302 8/11/2004 636 127 5/07/2004 161 219 18/06/2001 960 303 1/09/2004 781 128 22/06/2011 2508 220 21/08/2012 732 304 7/08/2012 8256 129 16/10/2012 81 223 6/08/2004 122 307 14/11/2009 1740 130 5/07/2004 92 224 4/08/2004 55 308 3/11/2009 1710 131 7/12/2010 143 225 22/08/2001 720 309 4/11/2009 1890 132 5/07/2004 124 227 6/12/2010 1651 310 4/11/2009 1800 133 5/07/2004 85 228 12/11/2009 2088 312 16/10/2012 1165 134 5/07/2004 102 229 12/11/2009 2214 314 24/10/2013 232 136 5/07/2004 121 230 12/11/2009 2028 318 20/12/2012 1368 137 9/09/2009 480 231 12/11/2009 2730 321 15/09/2011 541 138 5/07/2004 100 232 2/11/2005 1968 322 2/08/2012 964 139 18/06/2008 9780 234 17/10/2012 2398 323 31/07/2013 190 140 8/10/2005 119 237 13/02/2012 2197 324 18/10/2012 736


OBJECTID MaxOfDate Latest TDS OBJECTID MaxOfDate Latest TDS OBJECTID MaxOfDate Latest TDS 325 2/08/2012 1002 407 22/08/2013 552 475 5/09/2012 2552 326 24/10/2013 218 408 21/08/2012 2076 476 5/09/2012 3024 327 13/02/2012 2287 409 6/09/2012 4522 477 5/09/2012 3065 328 24/10/2013 217 410 10/03/2005 318 478 31/07/2013 3998 329 24/10/2013 217 411 4/09/2001 3054 479 24/09/2012 1902 331 18/06/2008 2814 412 6/02/2001 740 480 27/08/2012 3095 332 18/05/2001 992 413 21/08/2012 2934 481 19/07/2013 1499 333 24/10/2013 480 414 2/10/1996 714 482 19/02/2010 4572 334 24/10/2013 472 415 18/10/2012 3206 483 16/07/2013 3472 335 20/07/2006 6090 416 21/08/2012 3084 485 18/10/2012 3084 336 24/10/2013 284 417 1/01/1999 756 486 5/09/2012 3150 337 18/06/2001 1140 418 21/08/2012 2546 488 24/07/2013 2859 338 18/06/2001 1236 419 21/08/2012 2746 489 19/08/2013 1954 340 2/08/2012 446 420 18/10/2012 3849 490 31/07/2013 3736 341 1/09/2004 848 421 24/09/2012 2665 491 5/08/2013 4052 342 13/11/2009 3672 422 18/06/2001 4740 492 31/07/2013 4031 343 13/11/2009 3864 423 18/10/2012 4036 495 24/07/2013 5206 344 25/09/2012 1525 424 24/09/2012 5879 496 30/08/2013 2510 345 15/08/2012 1192 425 6/09/2012 5230 497 4/11/2009 399 348 18/06/2001 1140 426 2/08/2012 6845 498 4/11/2009 433 350 10/09/2010 1560 427 21/08/2012 2296 499 1/01/1999 1080 351 18/06/2001 2460 428 18/06/2001 4920 500 1/01/1999 1080 352 18/06/2001 2100 430 22/08/2013 552 501 26/09/2013 1321 353 18/06/2001 840 431 16/08/2013 1911 502 30/08/2013 2673 354 7/05/2004 1105 432 22/08/2013 790 503 4/11/2009 509 355 6/09/2012 322 433 16/08/2013 3230 504 4/11/2009 498 357 6/03/2003 420 434 22/08/2013 1185 505 5/08/2013 5112 359 6/06/2007 792 435 22/08/2013 699 506 26/09/2013 2954 361 17/12/2009 2856 436 21/08/2012 3041 507 30/08/2013 43 363 15/03/2010 1080 437 21/08/2012 3321 508 26/09/2013 5270 365 30/07/2007 180 438 18/09/2012 4460 509 1/01/1999 1080 366 8/11/2002 274 439 21/08/2012 193 510 26/09/2013 5682 367 5/05/2003 1512 440 3/08/2004 3600 511 4/11/2009 401 368 7/05/2003 1860 441 21/08/2012 371 512 19/08/2013 257 369 28/06/2011 870 442 21/08/2012 6447 513 4/10/2013 387 370 10/11/2004 480 443 18/08/2012 3212 514 4/11/2009 404 371 1/01/1999 2160 444 13/02/2012 6150 515 24/07/2013 4828 372 1/08/2013 2686 445 11/09/2012 7663 516 30/08/2013 2669 373 1/08/2013 1996 446 18/06/2001 3900 517 19/08/2013 658 374 1/08/2013 242 447 30/09/2013 3931 518 3/07/2012 4189 375 1/08/2013 1007 448 18/06/2001 3660 519 4/10/2013 2462 376 1/08/2013 2385 449 12/11/2009 4326 520 26/09/2013 2428 377 18/06/2001 2100 450 12/11/2009 4350 521 18/09/2012 996 379 30/09/2013 2339 451 12/11/2009 4428 522 4/11/2009 453 380 18/06/2001 1980 452 6/09/1998 1248 523 24/07/2013 4626 381 18/06/2001 2280 453 5/08/2013 5206 524 19/08/2013 248 382 21/08/2013 1256 455 12/11/2013 6402 525 11/09/2013 6126 383 6/09/2012 1542 456 12/11/2013 4999 526 7/08/2013 4306 384 18/06/2001 840 457 28/08/2013 1489 527 15/08/2013 3069 386 21/08/2013 989 458 6/09/2012 304 528 4/11/2009 760 387 21/08/2013 987 460 18/10/2012 275 529 26/09/2013 3900 391 22/08/2013 314 462 25/09/2012 236 531 19/08/2013 270 395 24/09/2012 834 463 1/11/2013 1290 532 4/11/2009 1027 396 22/08/2013 566 464 25/09/2012 276 533 26/09/2013 539 397 13/02/2012 6204 465 1/11/2013 3014 534 30/08/2011 9552 398 13/02/2012 2227 466 6/09/2012 332 535 16/09/2013 1966 399 5/09/2012 190 467 1/11/2013 4163 536 4/11/2009 1017 400 24/09/2012 229 468 18/10/2012 2812 537 26/09/2013 4220 401 5/08/2013 137 469 31/07/2013 7588 538 4/11/2009 955 402 18/10/2012 336 470 1/12/2010 623 539 26/09/2013 3722 403 2/12/2010 289 471 1/11/2013 3477 540 26/09/2013 2515 404 1/01/1999 1620 472 31/07/2013 1846 541 15/05/2013 6570 405 12/11/2009 365 473 12/11/2009 2514 542 30/08/2013 2716 406 12/11/2009 3444 474 24/09/2012 2335 543 26/09/2013 4649


OBJECTID MaxOfDate Latest TDS

OBJECTID MaxOfDate Latest TDS

958 3/06/2013 14060 998 9/07/2013 3642

959 29/10/2009 13404 999 6/09/2013 19300

960 3/06/2013 15940 1000 3/06/2013 4675

961 26/11/2012 11980 1001 25/07/2013 7466

962 9/12/2003 67800 1002 22/06/2009 90

963 3/06/2013 14830 1003 10/07/2013 13830

964 9/07/2013 15980 1004 22/09/2005 14400

965 26/11/2012 8929 1005 9/12/2003 68400

967 18/10/2012 32940 1006 10/07/2013 23060

969 29/10/2009 13824 1007 25/07/2013 12240

970 3/06/2013 5533 1008 25/07/2013 12140

971 13/02/2012 23166 1009 18/02/2010 45600

972 15/08/2012 7817 1010 10/07/2013 16030

973 9/08/2012 8652 1011 10/07/2013 14240

974 15/08/2012 11370 1012 3/09/2012 17050

975 31/08/2012 32320 1013 10/07/2013 34630

976 30/07/2009 10500 1014 3/06/2013 42870

978 9/11/2009 67800 1015 10/07/2013 19920

979 2/10/2003 15780 1016 10/07/2013 33110

981 7/12/2001 10242 1017 3/06/2013 1196

982 10/11/2009 16260 1018 10/07/2013 36610

983 8/09/2010 8922 1019 9/12/2003 70800

984 8/07/2002 6666 1020 9/12/2003 71400

985 13/02/2012 24180 1021 9/12/2003 71400

986 9/11/2009 73020 1022 2/10/2003 66000

987 30/11/2010 10396 1023 9/12/2003 74400

988 29/11/2010 42158 1024 30/10/2009 11994

989 12/07/2013 8431 1025 27/03/2009 498

990 28/08/2013 8055 1026 9/12/2003 75600

991 12/07/2013 7775 1027 9/12/2003 69000

992 9/07/2013 3482 1028 9/12/2003 66000

993 9/07/2013 3044 1029 9/12/2003 58020

994 9/07/2013 2654 1030 9/12/2003 46560

996 13/02/2012 5887 1031 9/12/2003 37260

997 3/06/2013 3140


C. Wetlands that are lower in landscape than nearest drain elevation

NAME MIN_El Wet

NEAR_Drain Segment

DIST (M)

NAME_1 El Min Drain

El Cond

Distance

THE COORONG -0.18 7093 640.64 Tilley Swamp Drain 0.48 1 1

MESSENT CONSERVATION PARK 5.87 4168 6324.29 10.10 1 3

MESSENT FLOODPLAIN 8.69 4167 462.49 10.58 1 1

10.24 4164 3670.21 Unnamed (Messent Complex) 10.46 1 2

9.27 4168 1145.38 10.10 1 2

BUTCHERS LAKE 0.09 3057 16.03 Butchers Gap Drain 0.39 1 1

0.92 6991 3861.41 5.01 1 2

CAMPSITE 28.61 3477 51.19 29.26 1 1

33.65 5791 587.80 33.82 1 1

20.34 3282 385.88 20.43 1 1

BLOOMFIELD SWAMP 33.16 7827 565.22 Tresant Drain 34.82 1 1

0.95 6991 3798.54 5.01 1 2

COOLATOO FLAT 0.33 4068 3774.04 Tilley Swamp 4.52 1 2

CADARA SWAMP 0.79 2517 4721.98 Mount Benson Drain 1.02 1 2

TOPPERWEIN NFR 65.16 4474 10811.01 65.55 1 3

TELFORD SCRUB CP 67.16 234 7377.22 Drain A 67.59 1 3

VALLEY LAKE 11.45 233 19998.79 Glencoe East Drain 67.82 1 3

0.75 3 2131.38 1.02 1 2

3.09 230 897.08 Drain 90 3.51 1 1

AKOOLYA SWAMP 64.57 356 3273.45 Drain A 66.66 1 2

WHITE HAWK LAGOON 67.69 204 501.54 Glencoe West Drain 69.14 1 1

48.45 2307 462.73 49.89 1 1

40.94 5383 2296.77 42.63 1 2

COPPINGS SWAMP 47.07 2527 377.17 48.27 1 1

HONAN NFR 66.80 204 7961.94 Glencoe West Drain 69.14 1 3

CAT SWAMP 68.56 204 2087.61 Glencoe West Drain 69.14 1 2

WANDILO NFR 66.51 233 2590.19 Glencoe East Drain 67.82 1 2


HACKET HILL NFR 69.12 204 1951.99 Glencoe West Drain 69.14 1 2


COPPINGS SWAMP 47.82 2520 119.82 48.20 1 1

ROUND SWAMP 46.54 2508 35.06 Reflows Eastern Floodway 46.67 1 1

COPPINGS SWAMP 46.86 2536 493.70 47.13 1 1

BOOL LAGOON / HACKS LAGOON 47.68 2320 61.94 48.90 1 1


GRUNDY LANE NFR 65.57 233 6058.71 Glencoe East Drain 67.82 1 3








KANGAROO FLAT 68.97 204 4233.64 Glencoe West Drain 69.14 1 2






DIAGONAL ROAD 67.72 204 7249.93 Glencoe West Drain 69.14 1 3







NAME MIN_El Wet

NEAR_Drain Segment

DIST (M)

NAME_1 El Min Drain

El Cond

Distance






S1698A 66.44 233 3482.33 Glencoe East Drain 67.82 1 2

S1698B 63.90 233 4862.82 Glencoe East Drain 67.82 1 2

TWIG RUSH LAGOONS 47.63 5282 330.05 47.79 1 1

15.90 3177 3808.26 Blackford Drain 16.58 1 2

16.25 3245 2667.54 Blackford Drain 16.46 1 2

NAEN NAEN RUINS SWAMP 15.27 4140 377.84 Bunbury Drain 15.39 1 1

1.19 6991 3327.85 5.01 1 2

PETER BEGGS SWAMP 1.25 157 988.01 1.87 1 1

2.70 230 1108.77 Drain 90 3.51 1 2

CANUNDA FLAT 3.04 230 273.86 Drain 90 3.51 1 1

3.40 230 2008.15 Drain 90 3.51 1 2




0.73 3 921.29 1.02 1 1

32.32 6807 776.41 Reflows Western Floodway 33.23 1 1

BAMBARA 48.08 8748 1193.92 Killanoola Drain 48.27 1 2

MALONE HEATH NFR 26.71 4295 1182.37 34.33 1 2


BUTCHERS LAKE 0.11 3076 17.20 Butchers Gap Drain 0.35 1 1


DIAGONAL ROAD 62.78 233 5814.13 Glencoe East Drain 67.82 1 3


MOUNT MEREDITH 67.50 4585 6858.65 67.59 1 3

BIG HEATH CP 41.14 7749 143.49 Drain M 45.45 1 1

ISLAND SWAMP LF 66.41 234 11021.92 Drain A 67.59 1 3


D. High priority / Priority 1 wetlands that have drains in proximity (which are higher in the landscape and have water quality equal or below that required)

AUS_ WETNR

WQ_ Tgt_TDS

NAME Drain Int

Volume (m3)

El_Min Wet

El_max Wet

El_mean Wet

NEAR_Drain

FID

NEAR Dist (m)

Drain Name El_Min Drain

El_Max Drain

El_Mean Drain

Min_SW mg/L

Max_SW mg/L

Mean_SW mg/L

MIN_GW mg/L

Max_GW mg/L

Mean_GW mg/L

El Cond

SW WQ Cond

Distance Cond

S0100001 10050 THE COORONG N -215291 -0.18 18.19* 0.86 7093 641 Tilley Swamp Drain 0.48 8.36 3.50 3950.00 15156.05

9994.69 8802.93 21091.83 13275.09 1 1 1

S0100175 9977 N -1072576 0.92 2.41 1.10 6991 3861 5.01 6.89 5.67 278.23 5072.22 3078.83 1942.82 7073.73 3401.18 1 1 2 S0100246 1206 CAMPSITE N -38148 28.61 31.15 29.30 3477 51 29.26 30.68 29.82 760.92 911.69 895.52 3798.28 3994.59 3898.54 1 1 1 S0100295 2345 N -6608 33.65 34.79 34.05 5791 588 33.82 34.80 34.30 2308.70 2308.70 2308.70 4728.59 4728.59 4728.59 1 1 1 S0100301 2345 N -198575 20.34 21.31 20.55 3282 386 20.43 21.24 20.84 1847.32 1901.66 1860.79 2995.73 3097.84 3086.88 1 1 1 S0100348 1340 BLOOMFIELD SWAMP N -658649 33.16 35.17 34.16 7827 565 Tresant Drain 34.82 38.40 35.64 604.58 604.58 604.58 4845.32 5978.48 5280.62 1 1 1 S0100455 2345 N -492264 0.95 2.67 1.55 6991 3799 5.01 6.89 5.67 278.23 5072.22 3078.83 1942.82 7073.73 3401.18 1 1 2 S0105797 762 TOPPERWEIN NFR N -731582 65.16 69.29 67.52 4474 10811 65.55 70.96 67.77 132.55 133.92 133.08 1014.63 1084.06 1045.16 1 1 3 S0106808 779 TELFORD SCRUB CP N -245237 67.16 75.01 69.78 234 7377 Drain A 67.59 70.71 68.85 184.49 294.22 197.09 624.03 725.27 699.41 1 1 3 S0106951 724 VALLEY LAKE N -

16361454 11.45 18.62 11.72 233 19999 Glencoe East Drain 67.82 70.70 69.18 194.52 218.21 211.71 602.47 687.98 654.39 1 1 3

S0107404 786 AKOOLYA SWAMP N -541378 64.57 66.69 65.29 356 3273 Drain A 66.66 74.09 69.00 349.70 382.01 370.50 562.39 652.51 603.89 1 1 2 S0107607 733 WHITE HAWK LAGOON N -218036 67.69 71.90 69.31 204 502 Glencoe West Drain 69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 1 S0108068 1340 N -165462 48.45 53.70 50.08 2307 463 49.89 53.00 50.84 866.64 872.46 868.91 1409.02 1651.83 1498.42 1 1 1 S0110419 2345 COPPINGS SWAMP N -76262 47.07 49.99 47.83 2527 377 48.27 48.88 48.58 1347.38 1353.66 1352.44 969.65 1246.86 1099.10 1 1 1 S0110014 375 HONAN NFR N -9944 66.80 69.12 67.98 204 7962 Glencoe West Drain 69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 3 S0110203 639 CAT SWAMP N -58471 68.56 70.73 69.02 204 2088 Glencoe West Drain 69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 2 S0110225 698 WANDILO NFR N -41152 66.51 69.15 67.70 233 2590 Glencoe East Drain 67.82 70.70 69.18 194.52 218.21 211.71 602.47 687.98 654.39 1 1 2 S0110251 679 WANDILO NFR N -8686 66.45 68.21 67.29 233 4394 Glencoe East Drain 67.82 70.70 69.18 194.52 218.21 211.71 602.47 687.98 654.39 1 1 2 S0110668 698 HACKET HILL NFR N -24758 69.12 70.54 69.52 204 1952 Glencoe West Drain 69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 2 S0110670 678 HACKET HILL NFR N -31295 68.61 71.15 69.55 204 2498 Glencoe West Drain 69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 2 S0110430 1700 ROUND SWAMP N -178965 46.54 48.81 46.82 2508 35 Reflows Eastern

Floodway 46.67 69.45 48.09 914.07 921.29 919.43 1441.53 1445.46 1443.34 1 1 1

S0110453 1340 BOOL LAGOON / HACKS LAGOON

N -45786 47.68 49.80 48.38 2320 62 48.90 49.92 49.47 903.03 964.87 931.11 859.87 1161.63 970.12 1 1 1

S0110568 604 HACKET HILL NFR N -4568 68.80 70.02 69.25 204 2349 Glencoe West Drain 69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 2 S0110662 723 HACKET HILL NFR N -23758 68.11 70.47 69.20 204 1259 Glencoe West Drain 69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 2 S0110671 675 HACKET HILL NFR N -4950 68.56 71.07 69.27 204 2597 Glencoe West Drain 69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 2 S0110672 613 HACKET HILL NFR N -34399 68.49 70.97 69.28 204 1946 Glencoe West Drain 69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 2 S0110673 624 HACKET HILL NFR N -2840 68.91 70.39 69.43 204 2343 Glencoe West Drain 69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 2 S0110676 617 HACKET HILL NFR N -9396 68.86 70.68 69.29 204 2447 Glencoe West Drain 69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 2 S0110677 605 HACKET HILL NFR N -6886 68.81 70.52 69.39 204 2274 Glencoe West Drain 69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 2 S0110682 700 WANDILO NFR N -9125 67.56 71.02 68.33 233 3234 Glencoe East Drain 67.82 70.70 69.18 194.52 218.21 211.71 602.47 687.98 654.39 1 1 2 S0110717 692 GRUNDY LANE NFR N -23117 67.57 69.28 68.00 233 6691 Glencoe East Drain 67.82 70.70 69.18 194.52 218.21 211.71 602.47 687.98 654.39 1 1 3 S0110719 689 GRUNDY LANE NFR N -13080 67.71 69.66 68.33 233 5923 Glencoe East Drain 67.82 70.70 69.18 194.52 218.21 211.71 602.47 687.98 654.39 1 1 3 S0110720 689 GRUNDY LANE NFR N -5043 67.57 68.83 67.97 233 6184 Glencoe East Drain 67.82 70.70 69.18 194.52 218.21 211.71 602.47 687.98 654.39 1 1 3 S0110740 307 KANGAROO FLAT N -29242 67.52 69.47 68.00 204 6515 Glencoe West Drain 69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 3 S0110759 239 DIAGONAL ROAD N -42643 67.72 70.12 68.47 204 7250 Glencoe West Drain 69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 3 S0110764 665 HONAN NFR N -171737 67.74 70.17 68.33 204 6961 Glencoe West Drain 69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 3 S0110767 245 HONAN NFR N -45794 67.78 70.13 68.12 204 7765 Glencoe West Drain 69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 3 S0110771 591 HONAN NFR N -4046 65.44 68.46 66.06 204 8379 Glencoe West Drain 69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 3 S0110817 248 HONAN NFR N -28796 60.40 68.47 65.71 204 8314 Glencoe West Drain 69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 3 S0110831 630 KANGAROO FLAT N -1407 68.09 69.39 68.53 204 6907 Glencoe West Drain 69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 3 S0110832 630 KANGAROO FLAT N -440 68.38 69.17 68.76 204 6723 Glencoe West Drain 69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 3 S0110834 630 KANGAROO FLAT N -1003 67.17 68.92 67.70 204 7189 Glencoe West Drain 69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 3


AUS_ WETNR

WQ_ Tgt_TDS

NAME Drain Int

Volume (m3)

El_Min Wet

El_max Wet

El_mean Wet

NEAR_Drain

FID

NEAR Dist (m)

Drain Name El_Min Drain

El_Max Drain

El_Mean Drain

Min_SW mg/L

Max_SW mg/L

Mean_SW mg/L

MIN_GW mg/L

Max_GW mg/L

Mean_GW mg/L

El Cond

SW WQ Cond

Distance Cond

S0110839 604 KANGAROO FLAT N -902 67.81 69.10 68.40 204 6188 Glencoe West Drain 69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 3 S0110843 597 KANGAROO FLAT N -5338 68.68 70.31 69.08 204 5583 Glencoe West Drain 69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 3 S0110844 597 KANGAROO FLAT N -2675 68.45 70.31 69.18 204 5998 Glencoe West Drain 69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 3 S0110920 663 S1698A N -281 66.44 67.86 66.99 233 3482 Glencoe East Drain 67.82 70.70 69.18 194.52 218.21 211.71 602.47 687.98 654.39 1 1 2 S0110922 663 S1698B N -20952 63.90 66.51 64.72 233 4863 Glencoe East Drain 67.82 70.70 69.18 194.52 218.21 211.71 602.47 687.98 654.39 1 1 2 S0111888 9793 N -199375 1.19 3.37 1.82 6991 3328 5.01 6.89 5.67 278.23 5072.22 3078.83 1942.82 7073.73 3401.18 1 1 2 S0114244 604 HACKET HILL NFR N -3809 68.48 69.54 68.90 204 2580 Glencoe West Drain 69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 2 S0114254 658 HACKET HILL NFR N -1769 67.71 69.32 68.24 204 3258 Glencoe West Drain 69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 2 S0114274 607 HACKET HILL NFR N -12531 68.81 70.89 69.78 204 2644 Glencoe West Drain 69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 2 S0116834 1340 N -297895 32.32 34.85 32.99 6807 776 Reflows Western

Floodway 33.23 34.81 33.63 803.50 803.50 803.50 2401.37 2697.23 2480.01 1 1 1

S0119316 1305 MALONE HEATH NFR N -34167 26.71 35.93 30.32 4295 1182 34.33 36.71 35.41 359.53 417.09 373.36 855.58 884.59 881.12 1 1 2 S0120486 688 HACKET HILL NFR N -72473 68.38 70.83 69.43 204 1703 Glencoe West Drain 69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 2 S0120280 2647 BUTCHERS LAKE N -180636 0.11 1.73 0.56 3076 17 Butchers Gap Drain 0.35 4.03 1.03 738.16 754.67 744.18 1369.36 1375.16 1372.12 1 1 1 S0120290 597 KANGAROO FLAT N -3871 68.61 70.02 69.02 204 6013 Glencoe West Drain 69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 3 S0120605 923 DIAGONAL ROAD N -117336 62.78 67.05 64.28 233 5814 Glencoe East Drain 67.82 70.70 69.18 194.52 218.21 211.71 602.47 687.98 654.39 1 1 3 S0120800 399 HONAN NFR N -78695 68.20 72.95 69.29 204 7668 Glencoe West Drain 69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 3 S0120841 958 MOUNT MEREDITH N -119284 67.50 70.62 68.35 4585 6859 67.59 69.11 68.61 130.55 131.40 131.00 746.52 814.30 763.41 1 1 3 S0121485 689 ISLAND SWAMP LF N -400300 66.41 69.23 67.64 234 11022 Drain A 67.59 70.71 68.85 184.49 294.22 197.09 624.03 725.27 699.41 1 1 3

*Elevations have been processed based on overlay of wetland polygons onto the DEM. If wetland polygons have included landscape features such as surrounding sand dunes then this will have affected the maximum elevations.


E. Wetlands of very high priority that do not intersect drains

AUS_WETNR NAME WQ_ Tgt TDS

El Min Wet

El Max Wet

El Mean Wet

NEAR Drain

NEAR_ DIST

NAME_1 El_Min Drain

El_Max Drain

El_Mean Drain

SW Min Drain

SW Max Drain

SW Mean Drain

GW Min Drain

GW Max Drain

GW Mean Drain

El C

ond

SW W

Q C

ond

Dis

t

S0100001 THE COORONG

10050 -0.18 18.19 0.86 7093.00 640.64 Tilley Swamp Drain

0.48 8.36 3.50 3950.00 15156.05 9994.69 8802.93 21091.83 13275.09

1 1 1

S0100011 MESSENT CONSERVATION PARK

8171 5.87 11.76 7.04 4168.00 6324.29 10.10 12.17 11.10 27226.29 31533.25 29232.69

15277.98 18395.16 16174.37

1 2 3

S0100020 MESSENT FLOODPLAIN

2345 8.69 16.54 12.13 4167.00 462.49 10.58 15.17 11.76 31495.26 31495.26 31495.26

18395.16 18395.16 18395.16

1 2 1

S0100021 8431 10.24 11.87 10.72 4164.00 3670.21 Unnamed (Messent Complex)

10.46 11.54 10.98 31495.26 31630.13 31593.91

13335.69 18395.16 15456.02

1 2 2

S0100022 1340 9.27 15.52 11.06 4168.00 1145.38 10.10 12.17 11.10 27226.29 31533.25 29232.69

15277.98 18395.16 16174.37

1 2 2

S0100098 BUTCHERS LAKE

2487 0.09 3.25 0.62 3057.00 16.03 Butchers Gap Drain

0.39 5.09 1.80 3964.49 4338.95 4190.80 1890.17 1909.40 1899.08 1 2 1

S0100175 9977 0.92 2.41 1.10 6991.00 3861.41 5.01 6.89 5.67 278.23 5072.22 3078.83 1942.82 7073.73 3401.18 1 1 2 S0100246 CAMPSITE 1206 28.61 31.15 29.30 3477.00 51.19 29.26 30.68 29.82 760.92 911.69 895.52 3798.28 3994.59 3898.54 1 1 1 S0100280 2345 34.38 35.20 34.52 5782.00 660.70 33.73 34.64 34.13 2228.14 2353.38 2338.20 3017.75 3780.10 3396.21 2 1 1 S0100283 2345 34.14 34.77 34.40 5789.00 216.80 33.77 34.38 34.09 2308.70 2308.70 2308.70 4728.59 4728.59 4728.59 2 1 1 S0100295 2345 33.65 34.79 34.05 5791.00 587.80 33.82 34.80 34.30 2308.70 2308.70 2308.70 4728.59 4728.59 4728.59 1 1 1 S0100301 2345 20.34 21.31 20.55 3282.00 385.88 20.43 21.24 20.84 1847.32 1901.66 1860.79 2995.73 3097.84 3086.88 1 1 1 S0100348 BLOOMFIELD

SWAMP 1340 33.16 35.17 34.16 7827.00 565.22 Tresant

Drain 34.82 38.40 35.64 604.58 604.58 604.58 4845.32 5978.48 5280.62 1 1 1

S0100455 2345 0.95 2.67 1.55 6991.00 3798.54 5.01 6.89 5.67 278.23 5072.22 3078.83 1942.82 7073.73 3401.18 1 1 2 S0100492 COOLATOO

FLAT 2345 0.33 9.60 1.76 4068.00 3774.04 Tilley

Swamp 4.52 5.54 4.86 8455.80 8956.70 8761.61 5614.88 5614.88 5614.88 1 1 2

S0101778 POOL OF SILOAM

927 0.50 2.79 0.72 852.00 1696.24 Drain M 0.06 3.05 0.70 7079.62 11662.62 9810.06 662.05 665.76 663.49 2 2 2

S0102541 CADARA SWAMP

1340 0.79 4.50 1.53 2517.00 4721.98 Mount Benson Drain

1.02 5.26 2.97 1891.07 1897.21 1894.89 3721.28 4012.62 3838.63 1 1 2

S0102800 2337 0.41 3.57 1.43 3057.00 19.20 Butchers Gap Drain

0.39 5.09 1.80 3964.49 4338.95 4190.80 1890.17 1909.40 1899.08 2 2 1

S0104954 9838 11.26 11.62 11.43 4174.00 1078.90 Ashby Drain

9.52 18.95 11.96 31495.26 32851.64 32242.94

18395.16 24791.54 21693.80

2 2 2

S0105791 TOPPERWEIN NFR

731 66.14 68.73 67.13 4474.00 12247.70 65.55 70.96 67.77 132.55 133.92 133.08 1014.63 1084.06 1045.16 2 1 3


762 65.16 69.29 67.52 4474.00 10811.01 65.55 70.96 67.77 132.55 133.92 133.08 1014.63 1084.06 1045.16 1 1 3

S0106227 LAKE WOOLEY 932 0.34 1.72 0.51 852.00 1516.09 Drain M 0.06 3.05 0.70 7079.62 11662.62 9810.06 662.05 665.76 663.49 2 2 2 S0106808 TELFORD

SCRUB CP 779 67.16 75.01 69.78 234.00 7377.22 Drain A 67.59 70.71 68.85 184.49 294.22 197.09 624.03 725.27 699.41 1 1 3

S0106911 WEIR HILL 962 68.52 69.51 68.81 4585.00 2155.39 67.59 69.11 68.61 130.55 131.40 131.00 746.52 814.30 763.41 2 1 2 S0106951 VALLEY LAKE 724 11.45 18.62 11.72 233.00 19998.79 Glencoe

East Drain 67.82 70.70 69.18 194.52 218.21 211.71 602.47 687.98 654.39 1 1 3

S0106954 BLUE LAKE 564 11.28 26.83 11.64 7569.00 19561.69 1.03 4.52 2.29 436.35 474.75 439.87 617.32 621.36 620.04 2 1 3 S0107021 LIONS PARK 536 1.34 5.30 2.09 4871.00 1587.94 0.28 3.01 1.15 667.28 685.92 681.64 494.32 519.01 505.29 2 1 2 S0107034 536 0.89 4.82 1.35 4871.00 493.61 0.28 3.01 1.15 667.28 685.92 681.64 494.32 519.01 505.29 2 1 1 S0107035 GERMEIN

RESERVE 536 1.88 11.00 2.98 4871.00 1650.12 0.28 3.01 1.15 667.28 685.92 681.64 494.32 519.01 505.29 2 1 2

S0107038 2082 4.27 8.28 6.01 4870.00 1749.55 0.95 4.95 2.43 757.13 917.27 809.41 508.92 525.58 514.93 2 1 2 S0107043 1212 0.75 2.45 1.55 3.00 2131.38 1.02 3.56 1.84 2666.75 5572.76 3721.10 1053.57 1951.81 1493.22 1 2 2 S0107045 BLACKFELLOW

S CAVE WETLAND

536 5.02 10.78 7.59 2.00 239.92 0.19 5.18 2.59 2407.01 2463.60 2425.17 686.50 805.78 744.76 2 2 1


536 3.17 11.02 5.62 2.00 209.23 0.19 5.18 2.59 2407.01 2463.60 2425.17 686.50 805.78 744.76 2 2 1

S0107240 THE MARSHES 139 78.85 80.47 79.23 305.00 2145.86 77.12 78.06 77.39 116.01 116.01 116.01 585.36 592.92 587.78 2 1 2 S0107273 BLUE TEA TREE

SWAMP 180 78.70 81.06 79.26 328.00 2295.11 77.58 80.55 78.70 117.24 130.99 124.63 505.00 571.28 523.32 2 1 2

S0107299 THE MARSHES 94 78.30 80.19 78.86 305.00 1284.34 77.12 78.06 77.39 116.01 116.01 116.01 585.36 592.92 587.78 2 1 2 S0107304 THE MARSHES 113 78.58 79.66 78.87 332.00 896.57 77.12 79.82 78.07 114.11 130.99 124.19 571.28 603.28 587.54 2 1 1 S0107313 680 3.09 4.79 3.39 230.00 897.08 Drain 90 3.51 9.42 5.18 1075.80 1479.17 1259.18 513.51 738.25 667.00 1 2 1 S0107404 AKOOLYA

SWAMP 786 64.57 66.69 65.29 356.00 3273.45 Drain A 66.66 74.09 69.00 349.70 382.01 370.50 562.39 652.51 603.89 1 1 2

S0107552 LYNWOOD 100 70.10 71.13 70.54 4469.00 2033.49 68.31 71.00 70.39 128.49 132.14 131.77 892.42 1017.63 932.94 2 1 2 S0107607 WHITE HAWK

LAGOON 733 67.69 71.90 69.31 204.00 501.54 Glencoe

West Drain

69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 1

S0107681 WEIR HILL 866 70.22 72.33 71.06 4469.00 2566.09 68.31 71.00 70.39 128.49 132.14 131.77 892.42 1017.63 932.94 2 1 2 S0108226 COMAUM

FOREST 932 63.62 65.93 64.49 1289.00 8718.57 Drain C 55.31 58.59 56.67 877.86 926.97 896.73 571.69 780.07 734.87 2 1 3



El Min Wet

El Max Wet

El Mean Wet

NEAR Drain

NEAR_ DIST

NAME_1 El_Min Drain

El_Max Drain

El_Mean Drain

SW Min Drain

SW Max Drain

SW Mean Drain

GW Min Drain

GW Max Drain

GW Mean Drain

El C

ond

SW W

Q C

ond

Dis

t

S0108591 Lake Hawdon North

1340 4.24 7.47 4.74 1842.00 13.58 Drain L 2.52 6.23 3.99 864.20 917.40 886.18 996.09 1401.99 1261.24 2 1 1


1141 4.60 5.92 4.98 2290.00 2808.18 4.24 4.94 4.51 1574.20 1628.09 1584.89 1006.01 1122.94 1058.58 2 1 2


872 4.64 6.69 5.31 2290.00 1877.16 4.24 4.94 4.51 1574.20 1628.09 1584.89 1006.01 1122.94 1058.58 2 2 2

S0107790 PLEASANT PARK

859 69.27 70.90 70.20 4473.00 2435.81 68.02 70.76 68.94 136.97 136.97 136.97 994.39 995.92 995.10 2 1 2

S0107949 536 0.25 4.12 1.38 6513.00 111.54 -3.13 0.89 -1.02 2755.52 2755.52 2755.52 2283.04 2283.04 2283.04 2 2 1 S0108068 1340 48.45 53.70 50.08 2307.00 462.73 49.89 53.00 50.84 866.64 872.46 868.91 1409.02 1651.83 1498.42 1 1 1 S0108075 TAYLORS LF 1340 61.58 63.66 62.42 2708.00 4373.06 Mosquito

Creek 52.06 75.09 63.33 1637.08 1714.81 1681.98 1437.81 1853.72 1587.49 2 1 2

S0108103 1340 0.14 1.51 0.75 1740.00 159.89 Drain L -0.30 7.46 1.45 774.57 798.30 785.13 668.55 736.14 688.78 2 1 1 S0108136 DAWSON

SWAMP SOUTH

1340 1.59 5.22 2.23 1811.00 48.64 Drain L 0.89 18.08 4.54 1051.43 1051.43 1051.43 1001.80 1001.80 1001.80 2 1 1

S0108158 2345 48.37 48.87 48.53 5282.00 490.23 47.79 50.63 48.70 5131.88 5131.88 5131.88 1747.05 1760.83 1759.94 2 1 1 S0108185 INVERGLEN 1340 49.11 50.30 49.55 1640.00 729.14 Killanoola

Drain 48.45 52.83 49.94 5327.33 5378.70 5354.71 1488.55 2476.29 1810.45 2 2 1

S0108246 LIMESTONE RIDGE

964 55.81 57.11 56.47 1463.00 8448.45 Killanoola Drain

51.72 53.39 52.71 1509.17 1825.21 1642.37 840.53 1140.74 911.81 2 2 3

S0108304 7236 -0.24 6.69 0.68 6509.00 1086.78 -1.64 -0.85 -1.23 2755.52 6557.70 3564.50 1314.70 2283.04 1868.04 2 1 2 S0108347 LAKE ROBE

GAME RESERVE PERIPHERAL

1340 -1.28 -0.62 -1.09 6507.00 2383.30 -3.68 -0.80 -2.01 7225.63 10011.79 8626.96 4244.34 9810.51 6202.60 2 2 2

S0108391 1340 48.50 50.07 48.91 5227.00 37.77 48.48 49.62 49.07 4922.26 5376.38 5043.98 1968.10 1968.10 1968.10 2 2 1 S0108422 LAKE ROBE

GAME RESERVE PERIPHERAL

1340 -1.27 -0.85 -1.15 6507.00 2346.90 -3.68 -0.80 -2.01 7225.63 10011.79 8626.96 4244.34 9810.51 6202.60 2 2 2


1340 -1.30 -0.69 -1.05 6507.00 1917.68 -3.68 -0.80 -2.01 7225.63 10011.79 8626.96 4244.34 9810.51 6202.60 2 2 2

S0108613 1340 40.94 43.24 41.87 5383.00 2296.77 42.63 43.08 42.88 1422.37 1449.47 1439.43 2676.67 2806.49 2691.84 1 1 2 S0108734 MARIA CREEK

SWAMP 1918 1.06 4.39 1.80 3057.00 15.53 Butchers

Gap Drain 0.39 5.09 1.80 3964.49 4338.95 4190.80 1890.17 1909.40 1899.08 2 2 1

S0108790 4801 1.34 1.87 1.54 2517.00 811.56 Mount Benson Drain

1.02 5.26 2.97 1891.07 1897.21 1894.89 3721.28 4012.62 3838.63 2 1 1

S0108791 2938 1.25 6.15 2.46 3149.00 12.32 Kingston Main Drain

-0.02 5.60 1.57 2490.70 2490.70 2490.70 2802.94 2983.55 2935.74 2 1 1

S0108896 DAWSON SWAMP NORTH

1340 1.67 7.25 3.05 1811.00 23.29 Drain L 0.89 18.08 4.54 1051.43 1051.43 1051.43 1001.80 1001.80 1001.80 2 1 1

S0108910 TAYLORS LF 1765 58.76 61.19 59.39 2708.00 3587.24 Mosquito Creek

52.06 75.09 63.33 1637.08 1714.81 1681.98 1437.81 1853.72 1587.49 2 1 2

S0109067 2345 46.52 50.22 47.27 5339.00 279.30 46.40 46.92 46.62 1485.51 1485.51 1485.51 3427.56 3430.37 3427.92 2 1 1 S0110512 BOOL

LAGOON 2345 47.87 50.21 48.11 7741.00 376.87 Drain M 46.68 70.01 48.03 1183.38 1183.38 1183.38 1803.89 1803.89 1803.89 2 1 1

S0110514 BOOL LAGOON

1340 48.20 49.60 48.72 7741.00 332.35 Drain M 46.68 70.01 48.03 1183.38 1183.38 1183.38 1803.89 1803.89 1803.89 2 1 1

S0110521 DEADMANS SWAMP NFR

1416 59.03 63.16 61.30 2708.00 7749.86 Mosquito Creek

52.06 75.09 63.33 1637.08 1714.81 1681.98 1437.81 1853.72 1587.49 2 1 3

S0109310 WINDAMERE 1340 54.07 55.90 54.77 7112.00 913.83 Drain B 52.13 57.45 54.28 803.68 1473.87 1243.36 678.29 824.58 726.97 2 1 1 S0109485 MONBULLA 1230 57.49 61.06 58.51 984.00 19.82 Grey

Monbulla Drain

57.12 62.98 60.02 379.89 604.65 505.02 1060.88 1458.42 1185.24 2 1 1

S0109584 LAKE GEORGE 940 0.59 2.42 1.11 852.00 3648.25 Drain M 0.06 3.05 0.70 7079.62 11662.62 9810.06 662.05 665.76 663.49 2 2 2 S0109818 NE LAKE ST

CLAIR 9283 -1.54 0.75 -0.64 6531.00 781.30 -3.55 -1.88 -2.64 2005.62 2005.62 2005.62 1200.27 1898.75 1680.48 2 1 1

S0109873 LAKE ELIZA PERIPHERAL WETLANDS

15288 -0.75 7.04 -0.15 6531.00 4367.07 -3.55 -1.88 -2.64 2005.62 2005.62 2005.62 1200.27 1898.75 1680.48 2 1 2

S0110419 COPPINGS SWAMP

2345 47.07 49.99 47.83 2527.00 377.17 48.27 48.88 48.58 1347.38 1353.66 1352.44 969.65 1246.86 1099.10 1 1 1

S0110534 LAKE ROBE GAME RESERVE

1340 -1.66 0.73 -1.24 6507.00 1239.47 -3.68 -0.80 -2.01 7225.63 10011.79 8626.96 4244.34 9810.51 6202.60 2 2 2

S0109980 1340 48.45 49.45 48.90 5146.00 97.38 48.31 49.28 48.71 3753.39 3892.72 3782.40 1476.62 1513.67 1487.08 2 2 1 S0110014 HONAN NFR 375 66.80 69.12 67.98 204.00 7961.94 Glencoe

West Drain

69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 3

S0110025 3960 6.41 11.22 7.84 6506.00 2265.75 -2.77 -0.01 -1.62 2036.27 5885.88 3692.01 1221.71 1999.40 1300.73 2 1 2



El Min Wet

El Max Wet

El Mean Wet

NEAR Drain

NEAR_ DIST

NAME_1 El_Min Drain

El_Max Drain

El_Mean Drain

SW Min Drain

SW Max Drain

SW Mean Drain

GW Min Drain

GW Max Drain

GW Mean Drain

El C

ond

SW W

Q C

ond

Dis

t

S0110028 1340 -1.42 0.69 -0.49 6507.00 1930.64 -3.68 -0.80 -2.01 7225.63 10011.79 8626.96 4244.34 9810.51 6202.60 2 2 2 S0110115 PIC SWAMP 707 3.62 4.58 4.03 4882.00 373.93 0.53 5.41 2.38 1186.84 1186.84 1186.84 596.95 608.91 602.08 2 2 1 S0110203 CAT SWAMP 639 68.56 70.73 69.02 204.00 2087.61 Glencoe

West Drain

69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 2

S0110205 HACKET HILL NFR

688 70.89 72.26 71.59 205.00 2364.91 69.13 71.11 69.67 194.85 206.97 200.60 653.81 731.66 683.13 2 1 2


695 69.30 70.74 69.75 205.00 2429.99 69.13 71.11 69.67 194.85 206.97 200.60 653.81 731.66 683.13 2 1 2

S0110579 THE MARSHES 709 79.60 80.39 79.81 328.00 651.69 77.58 80.55 78.70 117.24 130.99 124.63 505.00 571.28 523.32 2 1 1 S0110580 THE MARSHES 707 79.65 80.66 79.95 328.00 748.54 77.58 80.55 78.70 117.24 130.99 124.63 505.00 571.28 523.32 2 1 1 S0110581 GREEN

SWAMP 93 54.01 56.73 55.26 6277.00 887.91 50.82 56.02 53.79 261.95 282.82 277.34 794.86 880.95 836.76 2 2 1

S0110225 WANDILO NFR 698 66.51 69.15 67.70 233.00 2590.19 Glencoe East Drain

67.82 70.70 69.18 194.52 218.21 211.71 602.47 687.98 654.39 1 1 2


67.82 70.70 69.18 194.52 218.21 211.71 602.47 687.98 654.39 1 1 2

S0110272 WHENNAN NFR

271 74.13 75.77 74.48 573.00 1659.95 Reedy Creek B13B Drain

54.18 55.80 54.85 284.60 301.41 292.15 613.25 713.46 653.39 2 1 2

S0110291 WHENNAN NFR

400 77.44 79.78 78.09 573.00 2340.41 Reedy Creek B13B Drain

54.18 55.80 54.85 284.60 301.41 292.15 613.25 713.46 653.39 2 1 2


693 69.18 70.28 69.76 204.00 2362.02 Glencoe West Drain

69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 2 1 2



69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 2 1 2



69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 2


682 69.50 71.08 70.05 205.00 2603.82 69.13 71.11 69.67 194.85 206.97 200.60 653.81 731.66 683.13 2 1 2



69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 2

S0110724 HONAN NFR 574 69.25 69.85 69.40 204.00 6056.91 Glencoe West Drain

69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 2 1 3

S0110848 KANGAROO FLAT


69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 2 1 3



69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 2 1 3


1340 48.91 49.90 49.35 7745.00 587.58 Killanoola Drain

47.74 51.13 49.23 2420.06 2420.06 2420.06 2374.89 2525.35 2453.71 2 2 1


1340 47.82 49.10 48.06 2520.00 119.82 48.20 49.03 48.66 1410.64 1421.05 1419.82 1464.15 1571.72 1472.45 1 1 1

S0110430 ROUND SWAMP

1700 46.54 48.81 46.82 2508.00 35.06 Reflows Eastern Floodway

46.67 69.45 48.09 914.07 921.29 919.43 1441.53 1445.46 1443.34 1 1 1


792 46.86 50.65 48.18 2536.00 493.70 47.13 48.69 47.85 887.18 940.73 936.76 1531.29 1549.49 1548.68 1 1 1

S0110453 BOOL LAGOON / HACKS LAGOON

1340 47.68 49.80 48.38 2320.00 61.94 48.90 49.92 49.47 903.03 964.87 931.11 859.87 1161.63 970.12 1 1 1


2345 47.27 49.14 47.63 5337.00 461.54 46.35 48.50 48.09 4210.35 4411.46 4227.77 3137.43 3730.66 3603.21 2 1 1

S0110476 2345 47.36 48.14 47.47 5336.00 854.74 47.17 49.81 48.65 4406.39 5280.99 4900.68 2858.61 3276.85 3108.97 2 1 1 S0110497 LAKE

FELLMONGERY 3733 -0.17 2.53 0.10 1740.00 78.58 Drain L -0.30 7.46 1.45 774.57 798.30 785.13 668.55 736.14 688.78 2 1 1


2345 47.98 49.45 48.19 5282.00 193.46 47.79 50.63 48.70 5131.88 5131.88 5131.88 1747.05 1760.83 1759.94 2 1 1

S0110529 THE MARSHES 711 79.30 80.10 79.47 328.00 973.66 77.58 80.55 78.70 117.24 130.99 124.63 505.00 571.28 523.32 2 1 1 S0110536 LAKE AMY 9003 -1.23 3.81 -0.78 6507.00 1943.52 -3.68 -0.80 -2.01 7225.63 10011.79 8626.96 4244.34 9810.51 6202.60 2 1 2 S0110539 GHOST LAKE 9622 -0.48 3.20 0.05 6507.00 1915.94 -3.68 -0.80 -2.01 7225.63 10011.79 8626.96 4244.34 9810.51 6202.60 2 1 2 S0110547 THE MARSHES 709 79.72 80.79 79.97 328.00 813.30 77.58 80.55 78.70 117.24 130.99 124.63 505.00 571.28 523.32 2 1 1 S0110548 THE MARSHES 712 78.62 80.89 79.79 328.00 657.94 77.58 80.55 78.70 117.24 130.99 124.63 505.00 571.28 523.32 2 1 1 S0110553 HACKET HILL

NFR 683 71.67 72.65 72.09 205.00 2392.20 69.13 71.11 69.67 194.85 206.97 200.60 653.81 731.66 683.13 2 1 2



El Min Wet

El Max Wet

El Mean Wet

NEAR Drain

NEAR_ DIST

NAME_1 El_Min Drain

El_Max Drain

El_Mean Drain

SW Min Drain

SW Max Drain

SW Mean Drain

GW Min Drain

GW Max Drain

GW Mean Drain

El C

ond

SW W

Q C

ond

Dis

t


683 71.36 72.42 71.78 205.00 2340.31 69.13 71.11 69.67 194.85 206.97 200.60 653.81 731.66 683.13 2 1 2


688 70.97 72.61 71.70 205.00 1842.22 69.13 71.11 69.67 194.85 206.97 200.60 653.81 731.66 683.13 2 1 2



69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 2

S0110572 13862 -0.27 8.33 0.47 6531.00 5074.56 -3.55 -1.88 -2.64 2005.62 2005.62 2005.62 1200.27 1898.75 1680.48 2 1 3 S0110656 HACKET HILL

NFR 767 69.39 71.10 69.91 204.00 1063.22 Glencoe

West Drain

69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 2 1 2



69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 2 1 2



69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 2 1 2


48 70.25 71.47 70.57 205.00 1992.32 69.13 71.11 69.67 194.85 206.97 200.60 653.81 731.66 683.13 2 2 2

S0110721 GRUNDY LANE NFR

139 65.57 67.54 66.45 233.00 6058.71 Glencoe East Drain

67.82 70.70 69.18 194.52 218.21 211.71 602.47 687.98 654.39 1 1 3

S0110574 LAKE ST CLAIR 7719 -0.53 1.30 -0.13 6531.00 5403.96 -3.55 -1.88 -2.64 2005.62 2005.62 2005.62 1200.27 1898.75 1680.48 2 1 3 S0110576 PENOLA

CONSERVATION PARK

1331 54.86 56.41 55.61 6277.00 1150.36 50.82 56.02 53.79 261.95 282.82 277.34 794.86 880.95 836.76 2 1 2

S0110601 TRIAL WATERHOLE

179 67.18 69.14 67.87 4474.00 9310.96 65.55 70.96 67.77 132.55 133.92 133.08 1014.63 1084.06 1045.16 2 1 3

S0110619 THE MARSHES 706 79.18 80.66 79.82 305.00 2774.93 77.12 78.06 77.39 116.01 116.01 116.01 585.36 592.92 587.78 2 1 2 S0110621 THE MARSHES 709 78.56 80.89 79.39 328.00 1838.57 77.58 80.55 78.70 117.24 130.99 124.63 505.00 571.28 523.32 2 1 2 S0110622 THE MARSHES 718 79.43 80.35 79.90 328.00 1944.24 77.58 80.55 78.70 117.24 130.99 124.63 505.00 571.28 523.32 2 1 2 S0110629 PENOLA

CONSERVATION PARK

1340 55.91 57.25 56.58 4198.00 1492.43 55.73 55.99 55.86 335.04 404.17 353.76 1100.22 1125.89 1122.85 2 1 2



67.70 71.29 69.19 203.63 302.91 228.86 581.49 783.13 710.94 2 1 2



69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 2 1 2



69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 2 1 2



69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 2 1 1



69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 2 1 1



69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 2 1 1


688 70.35 72.26 71.10 205.00 1863.19 69.13 71.11 69.67 194.85 206.97 200.60 653.81 731.66 683.13 2 1 2



69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 2 1 2



67.70 71.29 69.19 203.63 302.91 228.86 581.49 783.13 710.94 2 1 2



69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 2 1 2



69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 2 1 2


688 70.55 71.92 71.19 205.00 2122.93 69.13 71.11 69.67 194.85 206.97 200.60 653.81 731.66 683.13 2 1 2



67.82 70.70 69.18 194.52 218.21 211.71 602.47 687.98 654.39 2 1 2



69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 2



67.82 70.70 69.18 194.52 218.21 211.71 602.47 687.98 654.39 2 1 2



69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 2



El Min Wet

El Max Wet

El Mean Wet

NEAR Drain

NEAR_ DIST

NAME_1 El_Min Drain

El_Max Drain

El_Mean Drain

SW Min Drain

SW Max Drain

SW Mean Drain

GW Min Drain

GW Max Drain

GW Mean Drain

El C

ond

SW W

Q C

ond

Dis

t



69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 2



69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 2

S0110674 LYNWOOD 106 70.06 71.20 70.43 4469.00 2495.94 68.31 71.00 70.39 128.49 132.14 131.77 892.42 1017.63 932.94 2 1 2 S0110676 HACKET HILL

NFR 617 68.86 70.68 69.29 204.00 2447.13 Glencoe

West Drain

69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 2



69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 2


67.82 70.70 69.18 194.52 218.21 211.71 602.47 687.98 654.39 2 1 2


67.82 70.70 69.18 194.52 218.21 211.71 602.47 687.98 654.39 2 1 2


67.82 70.70 69.18 194.52 218.21 211.71 602.47 687.98 654.39 1 1 2



69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 2 2



67.82 70.70 69.18 194.52 218.21 211.71 602.47 687.98 654.39 1 1 3



67.82 70.70 69.18 194.52 218.21 211.71 602.47 687.98 654.39 1 1 3



67.82 70.70 69.18 194.52 218.21 211.71 602.47 687.98 654.39 1 1 3



69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 3



69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 3

S0110759 DIAGONAL ROAD


69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 3


69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 3


69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 3


69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 3


69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 3



69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 3



69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 3



69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 3



69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 3



69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 3



69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 3


719 68.59 70.12 69.31 234.00 7121.95 Drain A 67.59 70.71 68.85 184.49 294.22 197.09 624.03 725.27 699.41 2 1 3

S0110920 S1698A 663 66.44 67.86 66.99 233.00 3482.33 Glencoe East Drain

67.82 70.70 69.18 194.52 218.21 211.71 602.47 687.98 654.39 1 1 2

S0110922 S1698B 663 63.90 66.51 64.72 233.00 4862.82 Glencoe East Drain

67.82 70.70 69.18 194.52 218.21 211.71 602.47 687.98 654.39 1 1 2

S0110930 LAKE GEORGE GAME RESERVE PERIPHERAL

1340 -0.05 5.05 0.54 6507.00 2326.82 -3.68 -0.80 -2.01 7225.63 10011.79 8626.96 4244.34 9810.51 6202.60 2 2 2



El Min Wet

El Max Wet

El Mean Wet

NEAR Drain

NEAR_ DIST

NAME_1 El_Min Drain

El_Max Drain

El_Mean Drain

SW Min Drain

SW Max Drain

SW Mean Drain

GW Min Drain

GW Max Drain

GW Mean Drain

El C

ond

SW W

Q C

ond

Dis

t



69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 2 1 2

S0110991 TWIG RUSH LAGOONS

2345 47.63 49.55 47.81 5282.00 330.05 47.79 50.63 48.70 5131.88 5131.88 5131.88 1747.05 1760.83 1759.94 1 1 1



69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 2 1 2

S0110997 HORSESHOE PADDOCK

832 65.01 67.22 65.94 4734.00 4931.61 62.61 62.89 62.80 2220.73 2702.29 2494.24 885.09 1006.49 960.50 2 2 2

S0111056 1340 24.56 25.77 24.94 3055.00 113.88 East Avenue Watercourse

24.49 26.29 24.96 4911.10 5249.67 5130.50 2029.86 2156.50 2064.09 2 2 1

S0111060 5623 24.97 25.78 25.33 5844.00 1160.53 24.11 26.11 24.73 1778.35 3514.27 2846.19 7486.61 7804.88 7745.33 2 1 2 S0111130 1340 15.90 17.44 16.52 3177.00 3808.26 Blackford

Drain 16.58 22.37 18.42 4584.90 4584.90 4584.90 4044.25 4044.25 4044.25 1 2 2

S0111132 2345 16.25 19.78 17.44 3245.00 2667.54 Blackford Drain

16.46 21.87 18.05 3142.85 4374.42 3683.15 8515.88 9679.42 8935.63 1 1 2

S0111133 MOUNT SCOTT FLOODPLAIN

2345 17.16 19.68 18.15 3188.00 1155.62 Blackford Drain

16.52 21.01 17.66 6200.73 6200.73 6200.73 1845.44 1845.44 1845.44 2 1 2

S0111745 10050 18.37 18.82 18.54 4140.00 1035.12 Bunbury Drain

15.39 22.48 18.55 7648.61 10186.97 9114.84 7173.63 7508.71 7307.84 2 1 2

S0111829 10050 15.30 17.81 16.42 4120.00 56.25 Herriots Spur Drain

14.31 17.73 15.68 9970.31 9970.31 9970.31 5175.70 5522.53 5479.77 2 1 1

S0111882 NAEN NAEN RUINS SWAMP

804 15.27 17.44 15.76 4140.00 377.84 Bunbury Drain

15.39 22.48 18.55 7648.61 10186.97 9114.84 7173.63 7508.71 7307.84 1 2 1

S0111888 9793 1.19 3.37 1.82 6991.00 3327.85 5.01 6.89 5.67 278.23 5072.22 3078.83 1942.82 7073.73 3401.18 1 1 2 S0113828 PETER BEGGS

SWAMP 785 1.25 4.06 2.06 157.00 988.01 1.87 4.15 2.32 2392.47 2612.67 2523.82 605.33 620.45 614.23 1 2 1

S0113560 MCROSTIES NFR

103 65.20 65.91 65.33 4238.00 455.66 62.07 65.34 64.03 503.11 519.02 509.80 1159.95 1159.95 1159.95 2 2 1

S0113808 1421 2.10 4.41 2.90 653.00 29.11 Lake Frome North Drain

1.64 4.00 2.12 1053.86 1756.55 1225.21 968.39 1365.93 1130.30 2 1 1



67.82 70.70 69.18 194.52 218.21 211.71 602.47 687.98 654.39 2 1 2

S0113822 1340 5.95 8.32 6.80 521.00 231.48 Drain 1B 2.30 15.63 8.59 941.08 1411.96 1029.25 752.50 4153.57 2699.29 2 1 1 S0113836 864 2.70 3.33 2.91 230.00 1108.77 Drain 90 3.51 9.42 5.18 1075.80 1479.17 1259.18 513.51 738.25 667.00 1 1 2 S0113839 CANUNDA

FLAT 704 3.04 8.11 4.33 230.00 273.86 Drain 90 3.51 9.42 5.18 1075.80 1479.17 1259.18 513.51 738.25 667.00 1 2 1

S0113840 715 3.40 14.00 4.44 230.00 2008.15 Drain 90 3.51 9.42 5.18 1075.80 1479.17 1259.18 513.51 738.25 667.00 1 2 2 S0113849 LAKE

MCINTYRE 0 13.05 19.38 13.68 417.00 891.07 Drain

10B2 13.01 16.89 14.85 356.47 388.84 364.47 472.98 806.12 688.30 2 2 1

S0113997 PENOLA ROAD LF

706 68.28 70.75 69.40 234.00 7992.26 Drain A 67.59 70.71 68.85 184.49 294.22 197.09 624.03 725.27 699.41 2 1 3



69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 2



69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 2



69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 2



67.82 70.70 69.18 194.52 218.21 211.71 602.47 687.98 654.39 2 1 2

S0114398 TELFORD SCRUB CP

708 68.01 69.78 68.83 234.00 7968.24 Drain A 67.59 70.71 68.85 184.49 294.22 197.09 624.03 725.27 699.41 2 1 3

S0114485 THE HEATH NFR

779 66.67 67.22 66.85 4474.00 9926.57 65.55 70.96 67.77 132.55 133.92 133.08 1014.63 1084.06 1045.16 2 1 3

S0114763 PENOLA FOREST

783 66.06 67.47 66.88 4474.00 5436.47 65.55 70.96 67.77 132.55 133.92 133.08 1014.63 1084.06 1045.16 2 1 3

S0114945 1169 0.73 4.90 2.04 3.00 921.29 1.02 3.56 1.84 2666.75 5572.76 3721.10 1053.57 1951.81 1493.22 1 2 1 S0114956 536 5.14 8.62 6.36 1.00 663.26 0.66 5.24 2.44 810.93 820.83 815.98 517.30 524.26 521.32 2 2 1 S0114968 536 3.57 4.50 3.89 4868.00 295.42 0.91 4.54 2.58 1182.05 1295.51 1235.68 1631.31 1712.63 1691.86 2 2 1 S0114982 CRESS CREEK

SPRING 538 2.83 7.77 4.82 4872.00 11.83 0.46 3.91 1.64 668.99 674.10 671.74 446.30 475.45 461.67 2 1 1

S0115664 NANGWARRY NFR

973 63.28 64.69 63.87 6680.00 2489.67 62.31 64.11 63.45 490.01 551.59 547.64 1530.23 1545.07 1530.55 2 1 2


817 63.50 65.85 64.29 6680.00 3331.18 62.31 64.11 63.45 490.01 551.59 547.64 1530.23 1545.07 1530.55 2 1 2


762 63.18 67.18 65.92 4193.00 6847.06 62.37 63.49 62.92 306.66 306.66 306.66 916.67 952.54 949.31 2 1 3



El Min Wet

El Max Wet

El Mean Wet

NEAR Drain

NEAR_ DIST

NAME_1 El_Min Drain

El_Max Drain

El_Mean Drain

SW Min Drain

SW Max Drain

SW Mean Drain

GW Min Drain

GW Max Drain

GW Mean Drain

El C

ond

SW W

Q C

ond

Dis

t

S0116834 1340 32.32 34.85 32.99 6807.00 776.41 Reflows Western Floodway

33.23 34.81 33.63 803.50 803.50 803.50 2401.37 2697.23 2480.01 1 1 1

S0116935 Bool Lagoon 1340 48.15 49.54 48.40 7741.00 13.50 Drain M 46.68 70.01 48.03 1183.38 1183.38 1183.38 1803.89 1803.89 1803.89 2 1 1 S0118047 COMAUM

FOREST 949 57.98 58.23 58.11 1291.00 8642.94 Drain C 53.20 58.51 56.04 839.83 924.95 889.61 568.60 822.27 733.24 2 1 3

S0118381 BAMBARA 1340 48.08 49.44 48.80 8748.00 1193.92 Killanoola Drain

48.27 50.89 49.48 4635.38 6126.14 5322.08 3304.16 3310.99 3306.80 1 2 2

S0119316 MALONE HEATH NFR

1305 26.71 35.93 30.32 4295.00 1182.37 34.33 36.71 35.41 359.53 417.09 373.36 855.58 884.59 881.12 1 1 2


743 66.30 67.87 67.15 4474.00 11976.17 65.55 70.96 67.77 132.55 133.92 133.08 1014.63 1084.06 1045.16 2 1 3

S0119790 Rocky Swamp 536 26.54 29.46 27.39 744.00 1247.41 37B 21.88 25.90 24.57 422.74 493.32 446.05 665.76 836.13 742.26 2 1 2 S0119834 1340 24.22 27.82 25.66 2721.00 934.92 Drain K 18.64 48.75 21.60 1846.14 2009.62 1941.50 1476.95 3041.56 2167.95 2 1 1 S0120655 4630 -1.38 -0.27 -0.95 6507.00 1245.99 -3.68 -0.80 -2.01 7225.63 10011.79 8626.96 4244.34 9810.51 6202.60 2 2 2 S0120246 DEADMANS

SWAMP NFR 1049 59.40 64.89 61.68 2708.00 8379.12 Mosquito

Creek 52.06 75.09 63.33 1637.08 1714.81 1681.98 1437.81 1853.72 1587.49 2 2 3



69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 2



0.35 4.03 1.03 738.16 754.67 744.18 1369.36 1375.16 1372.12 2 1 2



0.35 4.03 1.03 738.16 754.67 744.18 1369.36 1375.16 1372.12 2 1 1


1340 54.79 57.23 56.03 7112.00 1412.31 Drain B 52.13 57.45 54.28 803.68 1473.87 1243.36 678.29 824.58 726.97 2 1 2

S0120253 GLENELG RIVER

0 0.38 18.69 1.43 4884.00 4041.87 0.23 7.37 2.51 526.13 733.48 597.24 510.29 516.75 513.73 2 2 2



69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 2 1 1



0.35 4.03 1.03 738.16 754.67 744.18 1369.36 1375.16 1372.12 1 1 1



69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 3

S0120316 2205 34.32 35.97 35.15 6819.00 16.01 Reflows Western Floodway

32.55 36.71 34.09 853.69 853.69 853.69 1527.87 1603.50 1559.93 2 1 1



67.82 70.70 69.18 194.52 218.21 211.71 602.47 687.98 654.39 2 1 2


683 71.61 72.40 71.91 205.00 2358.32 69.13 71.11 69.67 194.85 206.97 200.60 653.81 731.66 683.13 2 1 2

S0120605 DIAGONAL ROAD


67.82 70.70 69.18 194.52 218.21 211.71 602.47 687.98 654.39 1 1 3

S0120654 1340 -1.48 0.83 -1.01 6507.00 786.70 -3.68 -0.80 -2.01 7225.63 10011.79 8626.96 4244.34 9810.51 6202.60 2 2 1 S0120659 3702 4.87 10.47 7.63 1636.00 2439.41 Lake

Hawdon South

4.17 5.16 4.57 1696.44 2571.44 2138.27 905.46 26100.05 8780.38 2 1 2


69.14 73.69 70.76 196.60 206.97 200.92 558.84 731.66 647.26 1 1 3

S0120841 MOUNT MEREDITH

958 67.50 70.62 68.35 4585.00 6858.65 67.59 69.11 68.61 130.55 131.40 131.00 746.52 814.30 763.41 1 1 3

S0120851 HORSESHOE PADDOCK

54 63.29 67.29 65.76 4734.00 4034.43 62.61 62.89 62.80 2220.73 2702.29 2494.24 885.09 1006.49 960.50 2 2 2

S0120854 EWENS PONDS 888 1.60 6.15 3.02 4879.00 806.90 1.06 3.31 2.42 1437.65 1839.17 1731.76 666.11 696.70 689.48 2 1 1 S0120855 BIG HEATH CP 1340 41.14 48.12 44.75 7749.00 143.49 Drain M 45.45 67.47 46.57 2986.08 6723.42 4105.97 2094.46 3135.35 2754.81 1 2 1 S0120864 THE MARSHES 711 78.96 79.87 79.44 328.00 1846.87 77.58 80.55 78.70 117.24 130.99 124.63 505.00 571.28 523.32 2 1 2 S0121514 BONES POND 536 3.20 5.63 4.24 7569.00 99.50 1.03 4.52 2.29 436.35 474.75 439.87 617.32 621.36 620.04 2 1 1 S0121515 DEAD POND 682 2.87 3.86 3.25 7569.00 366.03 1.03 4.52 2.29 436.35 474.75 439.87 617.32 621.36 620.04 2 1 1 S0121485 ISLAND

SWAMP LF 689 66.41 69.23 67.64 234.00 11021.92 Drain A 67.59 70.71 68.85 184.49 294.22 197.09 624.03 725.27 699.41 1 1 3

S0121512 WILKES POND 509 1.64 2.10 1.87 7565.00 726.01 0.77 3.56 1.45 757.13 804.91 787.49 525.12 525.42 525.28 2 1 1


F. Very high priority wetlands (98) which intersect drains but have no regulator infrastructure in place to regulate flow

AUS WETNR

NAME Drain Int

AREA (m2)

Volume (m3)

El Min Wet

El Max Wet

El Mean Wet

NEAR Drain

Drain Dist

Drain Name HIERARCHY

El MIN Drain

SW Mean mg/L

S0100027 Y 2638200 -3315050 10.29 16.10 12.73 Drain 0.00 Deepwater Drain Minor 10.29 31383.26 S0100030 Y 4502700 -1445508 8.08 16.24 10.90 4167 0.00 Minor 10.58 31495.26 S0100047 BONNEYS CAMP SOUTH Y 1708200 -4307762 10.21 17.07 12.08 4142 0.00 Bonneys Camp South Minor 11.04 10274.41 S0100054 TILLEY SWAMP Y 5030600 -5491016 4.01 8.61 4.54 4115 0.00 Minor 4.25 9014.03 S0100075 TILLEY SWAMP Y 14382700 -12189435 3.20 9.73 4.79 4111 0.00 Tilley Swamp Minor 4.18 5034.96 S0100099 CORTINA LAKE Y 1520700 -3872390 13.62 17.40 14.03 4092 0.00 Minor 14.27 8477.29 S0100117 MANDINA LAKE Y 4280500 -7960650 13.97 16.98 14.72 4057 0.00 Minor 14.19 5948.61 S0100120 THE FLOODWAYS (GUM

LAGOON) Y 738900 -972099 16.93 22.38 17.99 4086 0.00 Minor 16.87 7864.54

S0100127 MRS WHITES LAGOON Y 6851600 -6407079 14.70 36.97 15.66 4055 0.00 Minor 14.99 4830.35 S0100133 COOLA COOLA Y 9216000 -7012005 17.06 24.74 18.55 4025 0.00 Minor 18.78 13877.89 S0100140 POOCHER SWAMP Y 452000 -650037 62.51 68.17 65.31 9867 0.00 Tatiara Creek Minor 65.99 1309.16 S0100167 PRETTY JOHNNYS Y 1304100 -340868 17.17 20.64 18.33 3928 0.00 Minor 17.63 6563.86 S0100202 BIMBIMBI SWAMP Y 551300 -718484 25.57 28.25 25.99 3751 0.00 Minor 26.30 3363.86 S0100237 THE MUDDIES FLOODPLAIN Y 629300 -11208 28.37 29.26 28.85 3541 0.00 The Muddies Minor 28.11 913.27 S0100239 THE MUDDIES Y 350000 -40873 27.76 29.66 28.21 3516 0.00 Minor 28.09 2408.99 S0100259 FISH FARM Y 762500 -325495 21.83 23.93 22.35 3415 0.00 Minor 22.20 4485.96 S0100320 COCKATOO LAKE Y 397300 -710413 35.77 41.22 37.02 3264 0.00 Cockatoo Lake Minor 37.53 4308.84 S0101493 Y 1091900 -2272655 13.82 16.74 14.50 4092 0.00 Minor 14.27 8477.29 S0101959 RUSHY SWAMP Y 13402100 -314824 5.44 27.27 6.57 2715 0.00 Minor 6.51 1970.27 S0101999 KATANI PARK WETLAND Y 693700 -209951 32.06 36.67 33.76 6807 0.00 Reflows Western Floodway Minor 33.23 803.50 S0102054 SOUTHERN BAKERS RANGE Y 98800 -5222 33.67 35.79 34.71 6819 5.08 Reflows Western Floodway Minor 32.55 853.69 S0104305 BONNEYS CAMP FLOODPLAIN Y 1637500 -1184166 12.39 17.46 13.95 4134 0.00 Minor 12.59 2600.77 S0105894 Y 3309800 -33911 1.78 8.67 3.01 653 0.00 Lake Frome North Drain Minor 1.64 1225.21 S0105943 LAKE FROME Y 8891800 -315849 0.27 20.77 2.42 452 0.00 Minor 1.90 1045.29 S0105970 Lake Frome Y 4304200 -380603 0.24 7.65 2.29 465 0.00 Lake Frome Outlet Drain Minor -0.13 1401.46 S0106160 DEADMAN SWAMP Y 62800 -2007 59.79 61.83 61.20 4208 0.00 Minor 60.63 604.65 S0106346 Y 2366100 -207648 1.63 9.13 2.94 703 0.00 Minor 2.24 1122.24 S0106858 GERMAN FLAT Y 597100 -11737 6.31 9.43 7.26 79 0.00 Drain 84 Minor 2.62 6522.95 S0107023 EIGHT MILE CREEK Y 166400 -13061 0.77 4.69 2.08 4878 0.00 Minor 0.67 863.14 S0107833 Y 2697300 -952586 1.74 10.77 2.68 157 0.00 Minor 1.87 2523.82 S0108054 Lake Hawdon North Y 952200 -443155 4.03 6.55 4.61 1842 8.63 Drain L Major 2.52 886.18 S0107033 GREEN POINT Y 1298100 -135711 1.27 5.41 2.39 4882 0.00 Minor 0.53 1186.84 S0107036 Y 1318200 -679899 0.42 4.88 1.41 4871 0.00 Minor 0.28 681.64 S0107052 Y 321200 -253556 1.05 4.18 1.97 3 0.00 Minor 1.02 3721.10 S0107060 BUCKS LAKE Y 708900 -686330 0.85 4.85 1.78 3 0.00 Minor 1.02 3721.10 S0107320 SNUGGERY DRAIN SPRING Y 60800 -1550 20.51 22.59 21.51 195 0.00 Drain 56A Minor 20.40 162.77 S0107321 Y 7373200 -1824177 1.51 8.62 2.78 170 0.00 Drain 88 Minor 1.27 3175.98 S0107937 LAKE BATTYE Y 237600 -371434 0.09 4.01 0.64 1740 0.00 Drain L Major -0.30 785.13 S0108130 LAKE NUNAN Y 224000 -311475 0.06 2.80 0.80 1740 0.00 Drain L Major -0.30 785.13 S0108133 LAKE LING Y 109600 -139201 0.14 5.54 0.96 1740 0.00 Drain L Major -0.30 785.13 S0108357 LAKE ROBE Y 3643900 -13480609 -2.21 4.53 -1.79 6507 0.00 Minor -3.68 8626.96 S0108474 LAKE ELIZA Y 51160200 -283570462 -4.00 0.56 -3.63 6488 0.00 Minor -3.06 7217.40 S0108578 BROADLANDS Y 461800 -433075 33.46 36.69 34.64 6803 0.00 Reflows Western Floodway Minor 34.71 876.12 S0108706 STRATMAN POND Y 743900 -45029 0.79 3.94 2.17 4876 0.00 Minor 0.58 506.64 S0108727 BARNETT ROAD SWAMP Y 6165600 -351791 6.02 8.21 6.52 2587 0.00 Minor 6.17 1865.20 S0108751 Y 735100 -314932 0.89 3.00 1.42 6478 0.00 Minor 1.01 7951.26 S0108757 MCINNES WETLAND Y 1333300 -456782 3.05 6.44 4.04 2512 0.00 Minor 3.16 1872.64 S0108794 MOYHALL SWAMP Y 4331900 -1302698 43.76 47.42 44.46 2580 0.00 Reflows Eastern Floodway Minor 44.35 1895.36 S0108998 BROADLANDS Y 144500 -140620 33.94 36.52 34.88 6802 0.00 Reflows Western Floodway Minor 35.34 853.69 S0109005 Y 31900 -8974 48.11 49.12 48.40 2520 0.00 Minor 48.20 1419.82 S0109071 HACKS LAGOON Y 1564700 -211932 47.27 50.49 48.22 2356 0.00 Drain M Major 47.66 1664.51 S0109114 Y 573300 -263397 47.80 49.72 48.63 2442 0.00 Minor 47.77 886.55 S0109696 DEADMAN SWAMP Y 168900 -301269 58.51 61.88 59.33 6699 0.00 Minor 58.51 3115.21 S0110067 Y 1238200 -20466 2.22 5.49 3.35 6617 0.00 Minor 0.20 31970.44 S0110068 Y 720000 -338804 0.33 2.42 0.99 1010 0.00 Minor 0.03 29612.69 S0110069 Y 47500 -549 1.30 3.03 1.99 1010 0.00 Minor 0.03 29612.69 S0110070 Y 260200 -11422 1.02 2.11 1.50 6614 0.00 Minor 0.20 32457.47 S0110071 Y 188400 -11967 1.63 3.91 2.02 6614 0.00 Minor 0.20 32457.47 S0110073 Y 258400 -70022 0.48 5.92 1.25 6611 0.00 Minor 0.42 20132.04 S0110074 Y 674800 -223443 0.23 4.32 1.24 6611 0.00 Minor 0.42 20132.04 S0110075 Y 69400 -30081 0.31 2.71 1.04 920 0.27 Sutherlands Drain Minor 0.14 1745.18 S0110076 Y 80400 -20374 0.18 3.10 1.24 920 0.00 Sutherlands Drain Minor 0.14 1745.18 S0110344 SALT LAKE Y 141700 -140416 0.33 3.78 0.86 3057 5.63 Butchers Gap Drain Minor 0.39 4190.80 S0110443 LITTLE BOOL LAGOON Y 807100 -898336 46.39 69.38 47.54 2358 0.00 Bool Lagoon Minor 47.38 1731.21 S0110507 THE SALT SWAMP Y 110600 -174181 47.27 50.54 47.49 5282 5.53 Minor 47.79 5131.88 S0110563 LAKE ST. CLAIR Y 28171000 -127873866 -2.79 2.78 -2.63 1083 0.00 Minor -1.99 26242.19 S0111068 Y 1540000 -7777028 20.61 25.21 21.49 3414 0.00 Minor 20.86 682.47 S0111069 DEL FABBROS FLOODPLAIN Y 482900 -63195 21.69 44.86 22.84 8545 0.00 Reflows Western Floodway Minor 21.08 4100.44 S0110575 Y 1209800 -2775531 -1.62 2.12 -0.38 1138 0.00 Minor -2.05 19636.16 S0110584 Y 487800 -214798 0.69 1.72 1.01 6611 0.00 Minor 0.42 20132.04 S0110585 Y 1378600 -574059 0.57 6.01 1.05 6611 0.00 Minor 0.42 20132.04 S0110586 WHITES FLAT Y 338500 -128773 0.38 2.11 1.08 920 0.00 Sutherlands Drain Minor 0.14 1745.18


AUS WETNR

NAME Drain Int

AREA (m2)

Volume (m3)

El Min Wet

El Max Wet

El Mean Wet

NEAR Drain

Drain Dist

Drain Name HIERARCHY

El MIN Drain

SW Mean mg/L

S0110587 Y 131900 -105555 0.41 1.30 0.65 6619 0.00 Minor 0.38 1872.20 S0110620 BURKS ISLAND Y 1015100 -12760 2.31 5.14 3.77 869 0.00 Minor 1.60 1526.42 S0110800 Y 112100 -18048 49.20 51.29 50.21 2007 0.00 Seymour Drain Minor 48.81 1861.65 S0111057 Y 164200 -134464 24.27 27.45 24.67 3055 0.00 East Avenue Watercourse Minor 24.49 5130.50 S0111139 Y 41700 -32021 10.15 10.60 10.28 3356 0.00 Minor 10.14 1107.06 S0111140 Rushy Swamp Y 1884200 -888882 10.01 11.18 10.58 3304 0.00 Murrabinna Blackford

Drain Minor 10.02 4342.23

S0111505 Tilley Swamp Y 14652600 -6000712 4.25 27.46 5.93 4046 0.00 Minor 4.30 4924.06 S0111159 HAYWARDS SWAMP Y 152300 -28886 25.43 26.87 25.92 3786 0.00 Minor 25.50 3413.50 S0111474 MANDINA MARSHES Y 4564000 -6467539 14.53 16.91 15.16 6791 0.00 Minor 14.62 10354.36 S0113818 Y 131800 -16965 5.66 9.40 6.33 792 0.00 Minor 1.75 1263.88 S0114959 WINTERFIELD CREEK Y 1443200 -766623 1.01 5.58 2.02 4868 0.00 Minor 0.91 1235.68 S0114984 JERUSALEM CREEK WETLAND Y 253400 -45354 1.31 3.69 1.81 8781 4.33 Minor 1.89 2440.11 S0114986 JERUSALEM CREEK WETLAND Y 231900 -5435 1.44 4.96 3.02 4872 291.57 Minor 0.46 671.74 S0116933 MARY SEYMOUR

CONSERVATION PARK Y 335800 -30776 48.00 50.51 49.35 7745 0.00 Killanoola Drain Minor 47.74 2420.06

S0119688 NARACOORTE CAVES NP Y 400 -40 59.57 59.83 59.68 2708 0.00 Mosquito Creek Minor 52.06 1681.98 S0120264 LEGOES SWAMP Y 3417400 -3176774 6.38 9.75 7.87 1108 0.00 Minor 8.59 16629.47 S0120651 Y 685600 -1513421 -1.30 4.35 -0.29 6514 0.00 Minor -1.05 6637.15 S0120652 Lake Eliza Y 3220400 -11317321 -3.78 0.58 -1.60 6489 0.00 Minor -1.67 11319.63 S0120704 MOYHALL Y 693900 -16280 47.29 50.47 47.93 2595 0.00 Minor 46.58 2809.78 S0120842 TWIG RUSH LAGOONS Y 208300 -250316 47.54 49.79 47.85 5282 0.00 Minor 47.79 5131.88 S0120856 REEDY CREEK LF Y 1454500 -164059 19.58 28.04 22.26 1270 0.00 Minor 20.93 269.29 S0120859 MARY SEYMOUR

CONSERVATION PARK Y 1255700 -264023 47.92 50.77 48.96 7745 4.80 Killanoola Drain Minor 47.74 2420.06

S0121477 LAKE FROME Y 470500 -35167 1.73 4.14 2.37 653 7.28 Lake Frome North Drain Minor 1.64 1225.21 S0121513 SPENCERS POND Y 1900 -193 2.00 3.14 2.52 4879 0.00 Minor 1.06 1731.76 S0121498 Y 9685200 -4795183 0.38 3.18 1.14 6477 0.00 Minor 0.90 241.79 S0109028 LAKE HAWDON NORTH Y 24662800 -821373 2.57 13.31 4.11 1664 0.00 Lake Hawdon Connector Minor 3.87 1605.48 S0114987 JERUSALEM CREEK WETLAND Y 812000 -265773 0.98 4.16 1.78 4873 0.00 Minor 1.91 627.97


G. Very high priority wetlands with drain connectivity that are within 500 m of USE regulators (28)

AUS_WETNR NAME AREA (m2)

Volume (m3)

El Min Wet

El Max Wet

El Mean Wet

NEAR Drain

Drain Name HIERARCHY El Min Drain

SW WQ Min mg/L

GWWQ Min mg/L

S0100038 MORELLA BASIN 8576300 -3964637 3.42 8.47 3.79 Tilley Swamp Drain Major 2.01 8528.43 7173.63 S0100071 LOG CROSSING/ WELL AND

BRIDGE 8216500 -19361907 12.92 17.25 14.22 4103 Log Crossing/Well and

Bridge Minor 14.75 4717.93 4150.07

S0100228 SPOONBILL SWAMP 218500 -66062 16.12 19.03 16.43 3583 Spoonbill Swamp Minor 16.27 3489.68 1835.89 S0100146 TILLEY SWAMP 10757500 -2895350 4.21 27.33 5.47 3980 Minor 4.75 7249.57 864.80 S0100172 HENRY CREEK 385000 -28108 8.07 18.07 12.87 3822 Henry Creek Minor 7.97 1636.27 5821.89 S0100173 BIG TELOWIE 471000 -270477 12.60 14.40 13.27 3868 Big Telowie Minor 13.09 2942.24 4504.03 S0100327 TATIARA SWAMP 479800 -71595 24.69 26.01 25.29 3194 Tatiara Swamp Minor 25.03 5752.50 4779.17 S0100177 JIP JIP 1179400 -77148 20.58 24.49 22.03 3829 Jip Jip Minor 21.68 4175.38 4003.72 S0100178 LAKE NEWRY 574800 -526758 12.75 16.17 13.75 3826 Unnamed (West Slopes

Complex) Minor 13.89 1636.27 5821.89

S0100218 REEDY SWAMP 120400 -90156 26.67 28.79 27.36 3679 Minor 26.67 3193.63 5402.33 S0100220 SMITH SWAMP 296700 -332085 15.21 17.20 15.88 3624 Minor 15.93 6959.99 2794.73 S0100231 PARK HILL 1577700 -396748 16.05 19.55 16.67 3431 Minor 16.76 4190.05 3645.26 S0100232 LEVER SWAMP 347700 -144297 27.37 29.04 27.72 3591 Minor 27.60 6337.96 3957.22 S0100234 LITTLE SISTER 143600 -17278 28.35 29.27 28.74 3563 Minor 28.53 4985.15 2010.69 S0100240 JAFFRAY SWAMP 504000 -468185 27.60 29.73 28.25 6781 Minor 27.76 1438.09 4436.63 S0101105 LEECH LAKE 3755800 -5550444 14.05 19.70 15.10 4097 Minor 14.68 7649.40 3631.09 S0111033 WEST AVENUE

FLOODPLAIN 14024200 -557008 15.67 21.19 17.11 3442 Minor 16.66 664.65 3195.20

S0111021 ROBERTSON SWAMP 136500 -42872 16.36 18.48 16.59 3551 Robertson Swamp Minor 16.36 1139.24 3807.10 S0111023 WESTSLOPES FLOODPLAIN

NORTH 2342400 -292422 13.52 16.75 14.68 3814 Minor 14.27 4593.71 4942.01


20068500 -705969 15.44 22.63 16.57 3620 Minor 15.94 933.96 4069.97

S0111051 AVENUE FLOODPLAIN 1749500 -1685119 20.34 21.79 20.80 3282 Minor 20.43 1847.32 2995.73 S0111053 DEEP SWAMP FLOODPLAIN 3035000 -196829 23.34 47.12 24.79 6936 Fairview Drain Minor 23.65 3210.20 3228.95 S0111089 WATERVALLEY

FLOODPLAIN 13981200 -540002 17.96 42.55 19.93 3811 Minor 19.03 6326.87 2332.28

S0111114 FAIRVIEW FLOODPLAIN 789700 -27861 32.58 36.29 33.61 5655 Minor 33.51 929.42 6123.44 S0111507 TILLEY SWAMP

FLOODPLAIN 30349400 -4834888 3.79 27.71 5.72 4111 Tilley Swamp Minor 4.18 4174.72 4791.97

S0111804 SANDERS SCRUB 4609900 -98074 14.74 17.69 15.84 4143 Bunbury Drain Minor 15.18 42029.73 6096.62 S0111905 AVENUE FLOODPLAIN 9956900 -8988290 19.37 23.40 20.86 3327 Minor 20.16 3934.86 4144.67 S0111907 DEEP SWAMP FLOODPLAIN 3007900 -624154 21.86 29.45 24.10 3231 Minor 23.89 5077.44 2061.67


H. Very high priority wetlands with drain connectivity that are within 500 m of LSE regulators (20)

AUS_WETNR NAME AREA (m2)

Volume (m3)

El Min wet

El Max wet

El Mean wet

NEAR NAME_1 HIERARCHY El Min Drain

SW WQ Min mg/L

S0100341 LOCHABER SWAMP 3748600 -2265395 35.04 37.92 35.72 Drain Minor 35.43 817.55 S0102176 LAKE ORMEROD 1737500 -1501819 42.00 44.58 42.70 2913 Lake Ormerod Minor 42.16 1950.01 S0105592 MULLINS SWAMP 2749700 -249618 1.88 10.11 3.14 653 Lake Frome North Drain Minor 1.64 1053.86 S0108154 LAKE FOX 57500 -2064 0.00 2.60 0.58 1740 Drain L Major -0.30 774.57 S0108171 THE PUB LAKE 146000 -225534 0.00 2.67 0.65 1740 Drain L Major -0.30 774.57 S0111134 MARIA CREEK 223800 -135633 -0.13 2.73 0.56 3149 Kingston Main Drain Minor -0.02 2490.70 S0113806 7342400 -229475 1.84 19.03 4.29 312 Minor 4.63 852.42 S0120846 SALT LAKE 275500 -299324 0.22 2.05 0.74 3057 Butchers Gap Drain Minor 0.39 3964.49 S0121514 Bones Pond 3.2 5.63 4.24 7569 1.03 S0101060 PICCANINNIE

PONDS 1739900 -136320 3.13 6.71 4.50 4884 Minor 0.23 597.24

S0101818 LAKE GEORGE 63610700

-156943707 -2.59 10.33 -1.01 852 Drain M Major 0.06 9810.06

S0107004 MIDDLE POINT WETLAND

1712300 -209361 1.64 5.15 2.57 4870 Minor 0.95 809.41

S0107037 SMITH POND 520400 -12734 2.99 5.64 4.10 4873 Minor 1.91 627.97 S0107062 261500 -249425 0.64 4.82 1.79 4 Minor 0.07 5289.11 S0108314 LAKE HAWDON

SOUTH 3284370

0 -8695444 3.87 6.95 4.72 1487 Bray Drain Minor 4.62 2160.02

S0110343 PICK SWAMP 1463900 -27070 1.62 8.18 3.20 4883 Minor 0.65 2694.71 S0110446 BOOL LAGOON 2362960

0 -8068582 46.96 52.72 47.89 2040 Seymour Drain Minor 48.15 907.41


14500 -123 3.60 5.52 4.60 4873 Minor 1.91 627.97

S0114989 JERUSALEM CREEK SPRING

166500 -6136 3.76 6.70 4.81 4873 Minor 1.91 627.97

S0121483 Lake Bonney S.E. 75860100

-93837484 0.47 7.60 1.49 4 Minor 0.07 5289.11


8. Units of measurement

8.1 Units of measurement commonly used (SI and non-SI Australian legal)

Name of unit Symbol Definition in terms of

other metric units Quantity

day d 24 h time interval gigalitre GL 106 m3 volume

gram g 10–3 kg mass hectare ha 104 m2 area

hour h 60 min time interval kilogram kg base unit mass kilolitre kL 1 m3 volume

kilometre km 103 m length litre L 10-3 m3 volume

megalitre ML 103 m3 volume metre m base unit length

microgram µg 10-6 g mass microliter µL 10-9 m3 volume milligram mg 10-3 g mass millilitre mL 10-6 m3 volume

millimetre mm 10-3 m length minute min 60 s time interval second s base unit time interval tonne t 1000 kg mass year y 365 or 366 days time interval


9. Glossary ADAM — Australian Data Archive for Meteorology

Adaptive management — A management approach often used in natural resource management where there is little information and/or a lot of complexity, and there is a need to implement some management changes sooner rather than later. The approach is to use the best available information for the first actions, implement the changes, monitor the outcomes, investigate the assumptions, and regularly evaluate and review the actions required. Consideration must be given to the temporal and spatial scale of monitoring and the evaluation processes appropriate to the ecosystem being managed.

agreeDEM — This function modifies a DEM by imposing linear features onto it (burning/fencing). It is an implementation of the AGREE method developed Center for Research in Water Resources at the University of Texas at Austin. For a full reference to the procedure refer to the web link: http://www.ce.utexas.edu/prof/maidment/GISHYDRO/ferdi/research/agree/agree.html.

BoM — Bureau of Meteorology, Australia

Catchment — The area of land determined by topographic features within which rainfall will contribute to run-off at a particular point

Climate change impact — The quantum or extent of the hydrological or ecological effect caused by projected anthropogenic climate change in the 21st century

CSIRO — Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation

DES — Drillhole Enquiry System; a database of groundwater wells in South Australia, compiled by the South Australian Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation (DWLBC)

EC — Electrical conductivity; 1 EC unit = 1 microSiemen per centimetre (μS/cm) measured at 25 °C; commonly used as a measure of water salinity

Environmental water requirements — The water regimes needed to sustain the ecological values of aquatic ecosystems, including their processes and biological diversity, at a low level of risk

Evapotranspiration — The total loss of water as a result of transpiration from plants and evaporation from land, and surface water bodies

Flow regime — The character of the timing and amount of flow in a stream

GDE — Groundwater Dependent Ecosystem. Those parts of the environment, the species composition and natural ecological processes, which require the presence of groundwater or groundwater discharge, on a permanent, seasonal or occasional basis in order to maintain their current value, function and nature.

GIS — Geographic Information System; computer software linking geographic data (for example land parcels) to textual data (soil type, land value, ownership). It allows for a range of features, from simple map production to complex data analysis

Groundwater — Water occurring naturally below ground level or water pumped, diverted and released into a well for storage underground; see also ‘underground water’

Impact — A change in the chemical, physical, or biological quality or condition of a water body caused by external sources.

m AHD — Defines elevation in metres (m) according to the Australian Height Datum (AHD)

Model — A conceptual or mathematical means of understanding elements of the real world that allows for predictions of outcomes given certain conditions. Examples include estimating storm run-off, assessing the impacts of dams or predicting ecological response to environmental change

NRM — Natural Resources Management; all activities that involve the use or development of natural resources and/or that impact on the state and condition of natural resources, whether positively or negatively


http://www.ce.utexas.edu/prof/maidment/GISHYDRO/ferdi/research/agree/agree.html

Percentile — A way of describing sets of data by ranking the dataset and establishing the value for each percentage of the total number of data records. The 90th percentile of the distribution is the value such that 90% of the observations fall at or below it.

SILO – an enhanced climate data bank hosted by The Science Delivery Division of the Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts (DSITIA).

Surface water — (a) water flowing over land (except in a watercourse), (i) after having fallen as rain or hail or having precipitated in any another manner, (ii) or after rising to the surface naturally from underground; (b) water of the kind referred to in paragraph (a) that has been collected in a dam or reservoir

Underground water (groundwater) — Water occurring naturally below ground level or water pumped, diverted or released into a well for storage underground

Vulnerability — (AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009 risk management guidelines) Intrinsic properties of something resulting in susceptibility to a risk source that in turn can lead to an event with consequences. (Ecological and sustainability applications) Vulnerability is generally a function of exposure to a stressor, potential impact or effect on the unit exposed, current condition and resilience or potential for recovery.

WAP — Water Allocation Plan; a plan prepared by an NRM Board or water resources planning committee and adopted by the Minister in accordance with the Natural Resources Management Act 2004.

WDE — Water Dependent Ecosystem. Those parts of the environment, the species composition and natural ecological processes, that are determined by the permanent or temporary presence of flowing or standing water, above or below ground; the in-stream areas of rivers, riparian vegetation, springs, wetlands, floodplains, estuaries and lakes are all water-dependent ecosystems

Wetlands — Defined by the Act as a swamp or marsh and includes any land that is seasonally inundated with water. This definition encompasses a number of concepts that are more specifically described in the definition used in the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance. This describes wetlands as areas of permanent or periodic to intermittent inundation, whether natural or artificial, permanent or temporary, with water that is static or flowing, fresh, brackish or salt, including areas of marine water, the depth of which at low tides does not exceed six metres.


References Alcoe D., Gibbs, M., Green, G., (2012), Impacts of Climate Change on Water Resources Phase 3 Volume 3: Alinytjara Wilurara Natural Resources Management Region, Technical Report DFW 2012/05, Government of South Australia, through Department for Water, Adelaide

Butcher, R (ed), Farrington, L., Harding, C., and O’Connor, P. (2011). An integrated trial of the Australian National Aquatic Ecosystem Classification scheme in south-eastern South Australia. Report prepared for the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities.

Cardona, O.D., van Aalst, M.K., Birkmann, J., Fordham, M., McGregor, G., Perez, R., Pulwarty, R.S., Schipper, E.L.F., and B.T. Sinh (2012) Determinants of risk: exposure and vulnerability. In Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation [Field, C.B., V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA, pp. 65-108.

Clarke, J.M., Whetton, P.H., Hennessy, K.J., (2011). Providing application-specific climate projections datasets: CSIRO’s Climate Futures Framework, 19th International Congress on Modelling and Simulation, December 2011, Perth, Australia, pp. 12-16

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and Bureau of Meteorology, (2007), Climate Change in Australia, Pearce, K., Holper, P., Hopkins, M., Bouma, W., Whetton, P., Hennessy, K. and Power, S., (Eds), CSIRO Technical Report 2007, Commonwealth of Australia, through Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Melbourne, Australia

Deere D & Davidson P (2005). The Ps and Qs of risk assessment. Water March 2005.

Ecological Associates (2009) Final Report. Estimation of Water Requirements of Wetlands in the South East of South Australia. Report DG003-D, prepared for the Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity.

Fee, B. & Scholz, G. (2010). South Australian Aquatic Ecosystems Program – Stage Two Report: Development of a South Australian Aquatic Ecosystems Classification and its Potential Applications. DWLBC Unpublished Report, Government of South Australia, through Department for Water, Adelaide.

Gibbs, M., Green, G., and Wood, C., (2011) Impacts of Climate Change on Water Resources Phase 2: Selection of Future Climate Projections and Downscaling Methodology. DFW Technical Report 2011/02, Government of South Australia, through Department for Water, Adelaide.

Government of South Australia (2010) ‘Water for Good: A plan to ensure our water future to 2050’ Government of South Australia, through Department for Water, Adelaide

Hansen, D.T (2007). Delta Island Inter-Relationships: ArcGIS Schematics, Presented at ESRI User Conference, 2007, http://proceedings.esri.com/library/userconf/proc07/papers/papers/pap_1083.pdf

Harding, C., (2012a) Impacts of Climate Change on Water Resources in South Australia, Phase 4 Volume 1: First Order Risk Assessment and Prioritisation – Water-dependent Ecosystems, DFW Technical Report 2012/07, Government of South Australia, through Department for Water, Adelaide.

Harding C. (2012b) Extension of the Water-dependent Ecosystem Risk Assessment Framework to the South East NRM Region, DFW Technical Report 2012/10, Government of South Australia, through Department for Water, Adelaide.

Harding, C., (2014) National Partnership Agreement on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining – Data Improvement Phase: Improving the Wetlands Data and Classification Attribution in SAWID – South East, South Australia, DEWNR Report to South East NRM Board, Government of South Australia, through Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, Adelaide.


Harding, C. and O’Connor, P. (2012) Delivering a strategic approach for identifying water – dependent ecosystems at risk: A preliminary assessment of risk to water ‐ dependent ecosystems in South Australia from groundwater extraction, DFW Technical Report 2012/03, Government of South Australia, through Department for Water, Adelaide.

Health SA (2008) Water Quality Fact Sheet. Downloaded from http://www.health.sa.gov.au/pehs/PDF-files/ph-factsheet-water-salinity.pdf

IPCC (2013) Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535 pp, doi:10.1017/CBO9781107415324.

Kearney, B. D., Byrne, P. G. & Reina, R. D. (2012). Larval tolerance to salinity in three species of Australian Anuran: An indication ofsaline specialisation in Litoria aurea. PLoS One, 7 (8), e43427

Kefford, B., Fields, E., Clay, C. and Nugegoda, D. (2007). 'Salinity tolerance of riverine microinvertebrates from the southern Murray-Darling Basin', Marine And Freshwater Research, vol. 58, pp. 1019-1031.

Maxwell, S. and Franssen, I. (2012) Risk Management Framework for Water Planning and Management, Government of South Australia, through Department of Environment Water and Natural Resources, Adelaide

Medlin, C. (2013). South East Drains Spatial Data, Update Summary, Unpublished report for DEWNR

Nature Glenelg Trust (2013) Permanent pools in drains and watercourses in the south east of South Australia.

Osti, A. and Green, G., 2014, Impacts of Climate Change on Water Resources. Phase 3: Volume 6. Kangaroo Island Natural Resources Management Region, Draft DEWNR Technical report, Government of South Australia, through Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, Adelaide.

Scholz, G. and Fee, B. (2008) A Framework for the Identification of Wetland Condition Indicators: A National Trial – South Australia. Report DEP19, Government of South Australia, through Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation, Adelaide.

SE NRM Board (2013) Water Allocation Plan for the Lower Limestone Coast Prescribed Wells Area. Government of South Australia, through SE NRM Board, Mt Gambier.

SE NRM Board (2010) South East Natural Resources Management Plan, Part One: Regional Description. South East Natural Resources Management Board.

Slater, S. & Farrington, L. (2010) Lower South East Drainage Network Adaptive Management: Preliminary Scoping Study. Department of Environment & Natural Resources, South East Region.

Suppiah, R., Preston, B., Whetton, P.H., McInnes, K.L., Jones, R.N., Macadam, I., Bathols, J., Kirono, D., (2006), Climate Change under Enhanced Greenhouse Conditions in South Australia, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Aspendale, VIC, Australia.

Taylor, B., Gibbs, M., Hipsey, M., Sharath, I., Brookes, J., Nicol, J., Clarke, K., Dalby, P., Clark, M. and Bice, C. (2014) Investigations to inform diversion rules for the South East Flows Restoration Project in the Drain L catchment. Government of South Australia, through Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, Adelaide.

Water Victoria (1989). Water Victoria: A Resource Handbook, Department of Water Resources Victoria.

Wood, G. and Way, D. (2011) Development of the Technical Basis for a Regional Flow Management Strategy for the South East of South Australia. DFW Report 2011/21, Government of South Australia, through Department for Water, Adelaide


http://www.health.sa.gov.au/pehs/PDF-files/ph-factsheet-water-salinity.pdf

http://www.health.sa.gov.au/pehs/PDF-files/ph-factsheet-water-salinity.pdf

south east wetlands: climate change risks and

Documents