Third Reedy Lake Bypass Project - Planning · 2018. 1. 15. · Third Reedy Lake is a 250 hectare wetland, located approximately ten kilometres north-west of Kerang. The area occupied

Third Reedy Lake Bypass Project

Goulburn Murray Water Connections Project

Environmental Report

R01 | Draft 16a

14 November 2017

Envir onm ent al R epor t

G oulbur n M ur r ay Wat er Connect ions Pr oject


R01 i


Project no: IS182561

Document title: Environmental Report

Document No.: R01

Revision: Draft V16a

Date: 14 November 2017

Client name: Goulburn Murray Water Connections Project

Client no: Client Reference

Project manager: Dustin Lavery

Author: Simon Treadwell, Sarah Heard, Rhonda Butcher

File name: R01_TRLBP_Environmental Report_Draft V16a.docx

Jacobs Australia Pty Limited

80A Mitchell St

PO Box 952

Bendigo VIC 3552 Australia

T +61 3 5444 1861

F +61 3 5444 1862

www.jacobs.com

© Copyright 2017 Jacobs Australia Pty Limited. The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of Jacobs. Use or

copying of this document in whole or in part without the written permission of Jacobs constitutes an infringement of copyright.

Limitation: This report has been prepared on behalf of, and for the exclusive use of Jacobs’ Client, and is subject to, and issued in accordance with, the

provisions of the contract between Jacobs and the Client. Jacobs accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for, or in respect of, any use of, or reliance

upon, this report by any third party.

Document history and status

Revision Date Description By Review Approved

V1 28/04/2016 Draft Chapter 1 and 2 to GMW Sarah Heard Simon Treadwell Dustin Lavery

V5 16/05/2017 Draft report to GMW Sarah Heard Simon Treadwell Dustin Lavery

V6 17/05/2017 Draft report to consultative committee Sarah Heard Simon Treadwell Dustin Lavery

V8 19/06/2017 Draft Chapter 1,2 and 3 to GMW Sarah Heard Simon Treadwell Dustin Lavery

V9 21/06/2017 Draft report to GMW Sarah Heard Simon Treadwell Dustin Lavery

V10 23/06/2017 Draft to DELWP/ DEE Sarah Heard Simon Treadwell Dustin Lavery

V12 31/07/2017 Draft to GMW Sarah Heard Simon Treadwell Dustin Lavery

V13 1/08/2017 Draft to DELWP Sarah Heard Simon Treadwell Dustin Lavery

V14 10/08/2017 Draft to DELWP/ DEE Sarah Heard Simon Treadwell Dustin Lavery

V15 27/10/2017 Draft to DELWP Simon Treadwell Dustin Lavery Dustin Lavery

V16 14/11/2017 Draft report for public consultation Sarah Heard Simon Treadwell Dustin Lavery


R01 ii

Contents

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................5

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................5

Third Reedy Lake Bypass Project ..............................................................................................................5

Project objectives and activities..................................................................................................................6

Approvals process .....................................................................................................................................7

Project environment ...................................................................................................................................8

Assessment criteria and impact assessment ..............................................................................................8

Evaluation of impacts and benefits .............................................................................................................9

Specific impacts and benefits on MNES .....................................................................................................9

Specific impacts and benefits on other significant environmental values ................................................... 10

Proposed mitigation and management actions ......................................................................................... 11

Operational management ......................................................................................................................... 11

Construction management ....................................................................................................................... 13

Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 13

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 17

1.1 Third Reedy Lake Bypass Project ................................................................................................. 17

1.1.1 Project objectives ......................................................................................................................... 18

1.2 Project proponent ......................................................................................................................... 18

1.2.1 Environmental Policy .................................................................................................................... 18

1.2.2 GMW Connections Project Approval and Construction Environmental Management Framework ... 18

1.2.3 Victorian State Government referral – Environment Effects Act 1978 ............................................ 19

1.2.4 Commonwealth Government referral - Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act

1999............................................................................................................................................. 21

1.2.5 Bilateral agreement ...................................................................................................................... 21

1.2.6 Proceedings under Commonwealth or State law ........................................................................... 21

1.3 Consultation process .................................................................................................................... 21

1.4 Purpose of the Environmental Report (this report) ........................................................................ 22

2. Project description ..................................................................................................................... 23

2.1 Kerang Lakes Bypass Project ....................................................................................................... 23

2.1.1 Options analysis ........................................................................................................................... 25

2.2 Third Reedy Lake Bypass Project ................................................................................................. 26

2.2.1 Project location............................................................................................................................. 26

2.2.2 Current operation ......................................................................................................................... 30

2.2.3 Options Assessment .................................................................................................................... 32

2.2.4 Preferred water regime ................................................................................................................. 33

2.2.5 Description of construction and operation ..................................................................................... 38

3. Project environment ................................................................................................................... 44

3.1 Surrounding wetlands................................................................................................................... 44

3.2 Proposed area of impact .............................................................................................................. 54

3.2.1 Habitat ......................................................................................................................................... 54


R01 iii

3.2.2 Matters of National Environmental Significance ............................................................................ 56

3.2.3 Plants........................................................................................................................................... 57

3.2.4 Animals ........................................................................................................................................ 60

3.2.4.1 Birds ............................................................................................................................................ 60

3.2.4.2 Fish, frogs and turtles ................................................................................................................... 61

3.2.5 Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 63

3.3 Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Site...................................................................................................... 63

3.3.1 Listing criterion ............................................................................................................................. 64

3.3.2 Ecological character of Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Site ................................................................. 68

4. Impacts assessment .................................................................................................................. 69

4.1 Short term impacts (construction phase) ....................................................................................... 71

4.2 Medium term impacts (establishment phase) ................................................................................ 81

4.2.1 Overall impacts ............................................................................................................................ 81

4.2.2 Assessment of proposed water regime effectiveness .................................................................... 82

4.2.3 Feasibility of vegetation recovery .................................................................................................. 85

4.3 Long term impacts (operational phase) ......................................................................................... 86

4.3.1 Impacts on ecological communities, habitats and process ............................................................ 86

4.3.2 Impacts on threatened species ..................................................................................................... 90

4.3.2.1 Birds ............................................................................................................................................ 90

4.3.2.2 Fish, frogs and turtles ................................................................................................................... 93

4.3.2.3 Plants........................................................................................................................................... 97

4.3.3 Threats to achieving objectives..................................................................................................... 98

4.3.4 Risks to Ramsar ecological character ......................................................................................... 102

4.3.4.1 Assessment against Ramsar listing criteria ................................................................................. 103

4.3.4.2 Assessment against Limits of Acceptable Change ...................................................................... 103

4.4 Risk mitigation and contingency measures ................................................................................. 105

4.4.1 Salinity ....................................................................................................................................... 105

4.4.2 Acid sulfate soil .......................................................................................................................... 106

5. Environmental Management Plan............................................................................................ 111

5.1 Management objectives.............................................................................................................. 111

5.2 Environmental Watering Plan ..................................................................................................... 112

5.2.1 Management actions .................................................................................................................. 113

5.2.2 Adaptive management and contingency actions ......................................................................... 114

5.2.3 Monitoring .................................................................................................................................. 114

5.3 Construction Environmental Management Plan .......................................................................... 117

5.4 Offset requirements .................................................................................................................... 118

5.4.1 Permitted Clearing of Native Vegetation ..................................................................................... 118

5.4.2 EPBC Act 1999 Offsets .............................................................................................................. 121

5.5 Governance ............................................................................................................................... 122

6. Other considerations ............................................................................................................... 123

6.1 Social and economic impacts and benefits ................................................................................. 123


R01 iv

6.2 Flood impacts............................................................................................................................. 123

6.3 Other approvals and conditions .................................................................................................. 124

6.4 Stakeholder and public consultation ........................................................................................... 124

6.4.1 Investigation phase .................................................................................................................... 125

6.4.2 Indigenous consultation .............................................................................................................. 126

6.4.3 Future engagement .................................................................................................................... 127

7. Synthesis / overall outcome .................................................................................................... 128

7.1 Impacts on MNES ...................................................................................................................... 128

7.2 Impacts on other significant environmental values ...................................................................... 128

7.3 Cumulative impacts and benefits ................................................................................................ 129

7.4 Summary ................................................................................................................................... 130

8. References................................................................................................................................ 131

Appendix A. TRLBP investigations and studies undertaken to date

Appendix B. GMW Environmental Policy

Appendix C. Review committee membership

Appendix D. Third Reedy Lake Mapping

Appendix E. Conceptual cross section of Third Reedy Lake

Appendix F. Standard design drawings

Appendix G. Threatened plants and animals present or potentially present at Third Reedy Lake

Appendix H. Construction mitigation actions


R01 5

Executive Summary

Introduction

The objective of this Environmental Report is to address the conditions specified in the Victorian Minister for

Planning’s decision under the Environment Effects Act 1978 and the Department of Environment and Energy’s

decision that the TRLBP is a controlled action under section 75 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity

Conservation Act 1999. Preparation of an Environmental Report is part of the assessment process and the

content of this report is consistent with the Bilateral Agreement scope provided to GMW by DELWP

(References: 2016R03 & EPBC 2016/7760).


As part of the Goulburn Murray Water (GMW) Connections Project, the Kerang Lakes Bypass Project (KLBP)

was one of the ‘Special Projects’ identified in the Stage 2 Business Case. The project proposed to remove a

number of Kerang Lakes from the Torrumbarry Irrigation System (TIS) to achieve water savings and develop a

more natural, variable water regime that will enhance the environmental values of the Ramsar listed Kerang

Lakes Wetlands (North Central CMA, 2014).

A Business Case for the KLBP was developed in 2015 (RMCG, 2015) to assess the feasibility of constructing

bypass channels around First Reedy, Middle Reedy and Third Reedy Lakes, Little Lake Charm (and Scott’s

Creek) and Racecourse Lake, all located within the Kerang Lakes wetland system.

The KLBP option Business Case was submitted to the Commonwealth and State Governments. In May 2015,

the GMW Connections Project was advised by the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning

(DELWP), acting on advice from the Commonwealth Department of Environment and Energy (DEE), that:

• The KLBP satisfies the due diligence criteria for State Priority projects. The draft due diligence report

recommends the project proceed to seek approvals under Commonwealth and State Government

environmental legislation.

• It is expected that identified knowledge gaps and risks associated with the proposed changes will be

addressed as part of the environmental approval process (these relate mainly to the potential for

emergence of acid sulfate soils and saline groundwater intrusion).

• If the outcomes of the approvals process do not have a material impact on the scope of the project,

DELWP and DEE have agreed that the project will proceed.

The KLBP Business Case recommended that Third Reedy Lake be bypassed; however, the remaining lakes in

the investigation did not meet the Business Case criteria and therefore were not recommended to be further

investigated. The project is therefore now referred to as the Third Reedy Lake Bypass project (TRLBP).

Third Reedy Lake is a 250 hectare wetland, located approximately ten kilometres north-west of Kerang. The

area occupied by the lake is 234 ha and the remaining 16 ha includes fringing public land, not all of which is

vegetated. The wetland forms part of the Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Site which was designated under the

Convention of Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar Convention) as a Wetland of International

Importance (Ramsar wetland) in 1982 (North Central CMA, 2014). The Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Site covers

9,419 ha and is made up of 23 distinct wetlands.

The inclusion of Third Reedy Lake into the TIS in the 1920s has altered its natural water regime which under

natural conditions would have been intermittent, receiving water irregularly during flood events in the cooler

winter months of wet years. Under current regulated conditions, the lake is maintained as a permanent wetland,

receiving good quality fresh water inflows from Middle Reedy Lake to the south. The lake provides water to

Little Lake Charm via the Torrumbarry No. 7 channel and irrigation areas in the north via the Torrumbarry

No. 1/7 channel (North Central CMA, 2014).


R01 6

Project objectives and activities

The overarching objectives of the TRLBP are to:

1) Enhance the environment of Third Reedy Lake and its contribution to the associated Kerang Wetlands

Ramsar Site through delivery of a more natural watering regime

2) Provide for water savings through reduction in current water losses in the TIS.

This will be achieved by constructing a bypass channel (1.4 km) and associated infrastructure to disconnect the

lake from the irrigation system and provide a planned environmental watering regime for the lake aimed at

enhancing environmental values. GMW customers who currently extract water directly from the lake will be

reconnected to the adjacent irrigation system. The construction component of the TRLBP is considered minor

compared to the planned environmental watering regime as it includes standard channel and pipeline works

within predominately previously disturbed land, whereas operations includes changing the water regime of Third

Reedy Lake.

The change in water regime associated with TRLBP has the potential to impact on existing ecological values in

lake, but also represents significant opportunity to enhance the environmental values in the lake and in this

regard the environmental benefits exceed the potential impacts.

Under the proposed TRLBP, Third Reedy Lake will be disconnected from the TIS and a water regime will be

provided to the lake that “restores Third Reedy Lake to a deep freshwater marsh wetland type (dominated by

Intermittent Swampy Woodland (EVC 813)) able to support recruitment of River Red Gums and promoting a

diverse and extensive range of habitat suitable for a variety of waterbirds” (North Central CMA, 2014). The

proposed water regime will include 3 phases:

• Establishment phase;

• Long term operational phase; and

• Optional intermediate rise (partial filling)

The establishment phase provides a wetting and drying regime to promote River Red Gum establishment

across Third Reedy Lake by allowing for seed release, seed strike and establishment of seedlings. This

establishment phase will include a series of low level fills and will require adaptive management depending on

the response from River Red Gum recruitment.

After an initial establishment phase, Third Reedy Lake will be filled once in every four years to 74.00 mAHD with

every third fill (i.e. once every 12 years) to 74.56 mAHD (equivalent to current full supply level). The wetland will

be maintained at 74.56 mAHD for a 31day period to maintain Black Box and recruit River Red Gums. An option

for an intermediate partial filling to about 73.2 mAHD with a duration of 31 days has been included in the third

year of each cycle for ecological purposes (e.g. maintain permanent habitat for frogs and turtles) or for

contingency purposes (e.g. salt, blackwater and acid sulfate soil flushing/ dilution events required) if deemed

necessary based on monitoring outcomes.

This preferred water regime will change Third Reedy Lake from a permanent freshwater lake with little water

level fluctuations to something more closely resembling its natural wetting and drying cycle. The preferred water

regime provides a water regime that is intermittent, allowing the lake to dry out in accordance with an

Environmental Watering Plan to be developed when the TRLBP is fully approved (GMW, 2016a).

Figure E1 illustrates the modelled water level in the lake associated with the preferred regime (including the

intermediate partial filling to 73.2 mAHD in the third year of every cycle) and the % of lake bed area inundated

with the water levels.


R01 7

Figure E1: Modelled water level under preferred regime (including intermediate rise) from Gippel, C. J (2015)

Approvals process

GMW referred the TRLBP to the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) under the EE

Act 1978 on 27 June 2016. On 31 August 2016, the Minister for Planning (the Minister) decided that an

Environment Effects Statement (EES) is not required for the TRLBP, subject to conditions including preparation

of an Environmental Report to be prepared in consultation with a Consultative Committee and opportunities for

public comment.

GMW also referred the TRLBP to the Department of Environment and Energy (DEE) on 25 August 2016. On 21

October 2016, GMW received advice from DEE that the TRLBP is a controlled action under the EPBC Act 1999,

as it was assessed as likely to have a significant impact on the following Matters of National Environmental

Significance (MNES).

Assessment of the project under the EPBC Act 1999 is to be via the accredited Environmental Report process

under the EE Act 1978, as set out in Schedule 1 (part 5) of the Bilateral (Assessment) Agreement between the

Commonwealth and the State of Victoria under section 45 of the EPBC Act 1999 (the Bilateral Agreement).

The Environmental Report must be consistent with conditions under the EE Act 1978 that sufficiently describes

the project and assesses the likely relevant impacts and benefits, as well as describe any feasible alternatives

and mitigation measures that could avoid or reduce relevant impacts. The Environmental Report will also need

to address specific requirements of the Bilateral Agreement under the EPBC Act 1999, including matters

technically beyond those formally required under the conditions set under the EE Act 1978.

At the conclusion of the accredited process, the Minister for Planning will provide an “Assessment Report” to the

Australian Government Minister for Environment and Energy, which will inform the Minister’s decision on

whether the project is approved, refused or approved with conditions under the EPBC Act 1999.


R01 8

Project environment

The Environmental Report describes the TRLBP project environment, including general information of the plant

and animal values present at Third Reedy Lake, attributes of the lake which contribute to the ecological

character of the Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Site, and the predicted changes likely associated with the TRLBP

and assessment of the likelihood of the threatened species, including those listed in the Bilateral Agreement

occurring within the project environment.

Assessment of the connection between Third Reedy Lake and the surrounding wetlands in the landscape

determined that whilst a number of wetlands are connected to Third Reedy Lake, their connection to the

broader Ramsar site and wetland system will be retained via the Third Reedy Lake bypass channel and

therefore the only hydrological change in the connected system will occur at Third Reedy Lake. There are

some potential water quality related impacts on downstream wetlands (e.g. Little Lake Charm (and Scotts

Creek), Lake Charm, Racecourse Lake and Kangaroo Lake) during flushing events at Third Reedy Lake due to

their connection with Third Reedy Lake, however, water will only be operationally released to these lakes when

water quality (EC) within Third Reedy Lake is within an acceptable range according to a detailed operational

management plan. Therefore, the proposed area of impact associated with TRLBP is defined as Third Reedy

Lake (including the fringing wetland and riparian vegetation) and the proposed bypass channel and its

associated construction footprint.

A total of 23 species of conservation significance1 were identified as being present or likely to be present at

Third Reedy Lake, based on habitat suitability, and for which detailed impact and benefit assessment should be

undertaken. These species included nine birds, six fish, one reptile and seven plants. There are other species

of conservation significance within the broader Kerang Wetlands site, but detailed assessment of those species

was not required because they have not been recorded at Third Reedy Lake, and the lake does not provide

suitable habitat for those species. A full list of species considered for detailed assessment is provided in the

report.

Assessment criteria and impact assessment

The Bilateral Agreement requires a review and description of all the foreseeable environmental effects,

including environmental benefits, of the project addressing matters related to the Ramsar characteristics of

Third Reedy Lake and impacts on threatened flora and fauna. The assessment has been broken into 3

timeframes associated with construction and operation of the TRLBP:

1) Short term – impacts and benefits associated with the construction of the TRLBP infrastructure

2) Medium term – impacts and benefits associated with the establishment phase of the proposed water

regime

3) Long term – impacts and benefits associated with the long term operation of the proposed water regime

The assessment has also been tailored to show impacts and benefits to:

1) Those 23 plant and animal species identified as being present or likely to be present at Third Reedy Lake.

2) The ecological character of the Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Site and the contribution Third Reedy Lake

makes to that character.

3) Critical Components, Processes and Services that could benefit or be impacted upon by the proposed

change in water regime.

Furthermore, within the operations phase, the risk to benefits is assessed based on the likelihood of successful

implementation of the new hydrological regime and success of establishment of the target vegetation

communities (termed the establishment phase). In this context, there are a) risks to the successful

establishment of the target vegetation and b) risks to predicted long term benefits if the target vegetation cannot

be established.

1 Defined within the Bilateral Agreement as any “…native flora and fauna species listed in any “threatened” category or part of any listed “threated”

community under relevant legislation (at the local, regional, state, national and international scale) or in relevant DELWP advisory lists”.


R01 9

Evaluation of impacts and benefits

The potential short term impacts associated with the construction phase of TRLBP are related to damage to

plants and animals that occur within the construction footprint of the proposed bypass channel, new regulating

structures and associated areas required for construction access etc. Whilst the construction phase of the

TRLBP will include native vegetation removal (and offsets), this removal will not impact any Matters of National

Environmental Significance or other regional or local threatened species and will not result in a negative change

in ecological character that impacts on the contribution of Third Reedy Lake to the overall character of the

Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Site.

There is a high degree of confidence that if the target Intermittent Swampy Woodland EVC is restored the

overall condition of Third Reedy Lake will improve in terms of increased diversity of wetland plants, increased

habitat complexity and increased opportunities for feeding and breeding for a range of waterbirds , albeit

perhaps different from those that currently frequent the lake.

There is some uncertainty about the exact vegetation composition that will establish and the time it will take for

establishment. It could take many years for the target Intermittent Swampy Woodland EVC to establish.

Monitoring and careful water regime manipulation will be required to ensure seedling growth will not be

impacted by unintended inundation. Weed management and active revegetation may also be required to assist

with successful vegetation recovery.

In the medium to long term (establishment and operation phase), individual species present at the current

wetland that could be impacted by the altered hydrological regime are native fish, Murray River turtle and some

waterbirds that prefer permanently inundated conditions. However, none of these species are likely to be

impacted at a broader landscape scale and overall risks are considered low. Furthermore, actions are identified

to avoid and minimise impacts, such as provision of fish passage, manipulation of the water regime to

encourage fish to leave the drying lake and provision of intermediate filling if monitoring indicates this is

necessary.

Third Reedy Lake in its current condition does not make a critical contribution to any of the critera under which

the Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Site qualifies for Ramsar listing. The proposed changes to Third Reedy Lake are

not considered likely to impact on any listing criteria. Several of the Critical Components Process and Services

(CPS) for the lake will be permanently altered as a result of changes in hydrology, and potential salinity that

exceed the current Limits of Acceptable Change (LACs). This will constitute a change in character of the Third

Reedy Lake, but not the overall character of the Ramsar site. The proposed changes are expected to provide

ecological gains in terms of increased biodiversity values, and therefore are considered ‘positive’ in terms of the

overall contribution the Third Reedy Lake makes to the Kerang Lakes Ramsar character.

At a broader landscape scale, the proposed changes to Third Reedy Lake will result in significant water savings,

some of which will become available for environmental use. This water will be managed by the Commonwealth

and Victorian Environmental Water Holder and will be used to implement the proposed water regime for Third

Reedy Lake, but can also be available as environmental water for other wetlands. In this context, the benefits

gained as a result of the TRLBP extend beyond Third Reedy Lake itself to other wetlands in the Kerang Lakes

system and elsewhere. This water can be used in a strategic way to provide drought refuge across the

landscape and compensate for any climate change impacts that may occur in the future.

In addition to the specific impacts and benefits, there are a number of threats to achieving the project objectives,

namely from weeds impacting on ability to successfully establish the target EVC and increased salinity and acid

sulfate soils. There is some uncertainty about how these threats would manifest, but there is high confidence in

the ability to manage these threats through a management framework that includes adaptive management and

contingency measures to address the identified risks.

Specific impacts and benefits on MNES

There are five MNES that are present or potentially present at Third Reedy Lake and therefore may be

impacted by the TRLBP including four EPBC Act 1999 listed species (Silver Perch, Murray Hardyhead, Murray

Cod, Chariot Wheels) and the Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Site.


R01 10

Impact assessment has demonstrated that the impact to the four EPBC Act 1999 listed species is all considered

very low due to the absence of records in recent surveys (Silver Perch and Murray Hardyhead) and some

populations being stocked (Murray Cod). The only known location of Chariot Wheels is 5 km south of Third

Reedy Lake (near First Reedy Lake) and therefore the impact to Chariot Wheels is also considered very low,

specifically:

• Silver Perch has not been recorded in Third Reedy Lake since 1981, however they have been recorded more recently in the flowing channels connecting lakes throughout the region. They are a riverine species that prefer flowing waters, so their presence in the lakes is likely to be a consequence of their movement through the connected system and it is considered that the lakes do not provide core habitat for this species. If Silver Perch are moving through the current system of lakes and channels, they will still be able to move between hydrologically connected lakes and wetlands upstream and downstream of Third Reedy Lake via the new bypass channel, even when Third Reedy Lake itself is isolated from the current system. On this basis, the bypassing of Third Reedy Lake will not interrupt regional scale fish movement. This connection will not be interrupted, so the overall risk to Silver Perch is considered very low.

• Murray Hardyhead has not been recorded in Third Reedy Lake, although a single individual has been recorded in Middle Reedy Lake in 2013 and there are known populations in other lakes in the region. However, repeated targeted surveys have not detected Murray hardyhead in Third Reedy Lake and it is considered that the lack of aquatic plants and the relatively low salinity levels in Middle and Third Reedy Lakes (compared to locations where Murray hardyhead flourish) mean Third Reedy Lake in its current form does not provide suitable long term habitat for the species.

• Murray Cod has not been recorded in Third Reedy Lake since 2006. Murray Cod is stocked in

neighbouring First Reedy Lake and records from Third Reedy Lake are likely to be of stocked individuals. The lake in its current condition does not provide ideal breeding habitat for Murray Cod, which prefer flowing water for breeding, although individuals will survive in impoundments. Overall the lakes are considered to not provide core habitat for this species. Murray Cod are a mobile species and individuals that are present in the lake may be encouraged to move out of the lake during initial drawdown (i.e. when the inlet regulator is still open). The bypass system will continue to allow fish to move through system of connected lakes and wetlands. Overall risk to native (not-stocked) populations is considered very low

• Chariot wheels have not been recorded at third Reedy Lake, the nearest known individual is located 5

km south of Third Reedy Lake (near First Reedy Lake) and therefore the impact to Chariot Wheels is also considered very low.

The proposed changes to Third Reedy Lake are expected to provide ecological gains in terms of increased

biodiversity values, and therefore are considered ‘positive’ in terms of the overall contribution the Third Reedy

Lakes makes to the Kerang Lakes Ramsar character.

There is no significant impact on MNES present or potentially present in the project environment and therefore

offsets are not required to help compensate for residual impacts on the MNES as part of the TRLBP.

Specific impacts and benefits on other significant environmental values

There are a number of site and local significant species which include species listed under the Flora and Fauna

Guarantee (FFG) Act 1988 that are present or potentially present at Third Reedy Lake The impact to all

significant species, except for the Murray River Turtle was considered low to very low, in fact for many of these

species there will be moderate benefit as changed water regime will provide increase in habitat.

The impact to the Murray River Turtle was assessed as moderate. They prefer permanent inundation, hence

the lake may not provide preferred habitat. However, they are likely to move to between nearby habitats during

wet and dry phases, and are present in large numbers at nearby wetlands (e.g. Middle Reedy, Little Lake

Charm and Racecourse Lake), therefore the risk is moderate at the site scale but low risk at the landscape

scale.


R01 11

Proposed mitigation and management actions

Operational management

Operational management of Third Reedy Lake and its watering regime (including establishment and long term

operational phases) will be guided by the preparation of an Environmental Watering Plan (EWP) developed by

GMW. Development of the EWP will occur once the TRLBP has been fully approved.

The EWP will outline the operational management of Third Reedy Lake and its watering regime, including

establishment and on-going operation phases, and will build on the work completed by North Central CMA

(2014). The EWP will include management objectives and water regime requirements for the lake, mitigation

actions, including adaptive management and contingency actions, to manage the risks associated with TRLBP,

operational requirements for delivery of environmental water, procedures for environmental monitoring (long

term and intervention), auditing and reporting and roles and responsibilities for the operation and management

of the lake.

A number of risks associated with the operation of the proposed water regime were identified. Mitigation

actions including adaptive management and contingency actions can overcome or substantially reduce these

risks. Table E1 summarises the key risks and mitigation measure for managing those risks. The effectiveness

of mitigation measures is provided in more detail in the report.

Table E1: Key risks and mitigation actions to minimise risks

Value /threat Risk

Rating

Mitigation action Modified

risk

Ecological communities

Failure to

successfully

establish

target

Intermittent

Swampy

Woodland

(EVC 813)

High

Impact

• Include management actions in EWP to that maximise the likelihood of regeneration of

the target EVC.

• Mature surrounding River Red Gums and other Indicator Species to offer seed source

(Target EVC is already present in the location).

• Implement an establishment phase water regime of initial filling to 74.2-74.56 mAHD

followed by a series of intermediate filling to a depth of

0.3 to 0.5 m to encourage River Red Gum germination and growth.

• Monitor the establishment of species as part of adaptive management process, ensuring

filling is timed to not drown seedlings before they can cope with inundation.

• Undertake weed control where needed to increase EVC 813 establishment.

• Active planting (e.g. plugging) and manual dispersal of seed if monitoring indicates

regeneration is not occurring as predicted.

• Control of public access and stock to minimise erosion and degradation of dry bed

areas.

High

benefit

Fish Moderate

impact

• Included management actions in EWP that maximise the likelihood of fish being able to

leave Third Reedy Lake during the drawdown phase and to allow for opportunistic

colonisation during the filling phase.

• Manage the transition from filling to drawdown to provide flow related cues that

encourage fish that have entered the wetland to exit the wetland before it becomes

isolated from the connected supply system.

• Monitor drawdown and undertake translocation if required for key species stranded or

captured in carp screen (i.e. Murray hardyhead).

• Promote fish passage through the Reedy Lakes/Loddon River/Pyramid Creek in order to

ensure community is connected at a landscape scale.

• Fish passage (vertical slot fishway) will be provided on the bypass channel regulator,

allowing fish movement between Middle Reedy Lake to the south and Little Lake

Charm, Lake Charm and Racecourse Lake to the north west.

• Salvage dead fish if necessary (e.g. carp) to reduce odour.

Very low

impact


R01 12

Value /threat Risk

Rating


risk

Waterbirds

Impacts on

waterbird

breeding

success

Moderate

Impact

• If significant waterbird breeding occurs during a wet phase, through a contingency

management approach extend the duration of the wet phase to allow bird breeding and

fledging to be completed should be considered. This would need to take into account

water availability, and the significance of any breeding event, including whether an event

was significant at the broader landscape scale.

• Proposed water regime will encourage greater diversity of habitat to support future

breeding events.

• Consider managing external threats if predation of nests is a problem.

Moderate

benefit

Turtles

Murray River

Turtle

Moderate

Impact

• Turtle species particularly Common Long-necked Turtle are likely to move to nearby

wetland/Lake (e.g. First and Middle Reedy Lakes) if drying phase is introduced (Howard

et al. 2013). Ensure appropriate management action to assist movement, particularly

during drawdown phase.

• For Murray River Turtle movement is less well understood and may require translocation

if turtles become trapped during the initial dry phase.

• Monitor and consider benefits of implementing the partial filling to maintain conditions for

turtle or implement translocation for stranded individuals if required.

• Avoid complete drying in winter, when turtles are hibernating – it gets too cold and

adults may die.

• Drying in summer / autumn represents a lower risk because individuals are more likely to move to nearby inundated habitats at this time.

• Consider managing external threats including fox predation of egg in order to maximise

breeding success during wet phases.

Low

impact

Threats

Depleted

dissolved

oxygen

impacts on

aquatic biota

during filling

phase

(blackwater)

Moderate

Impact

• Monitor organic matter accumulation on the dry lake bed.

• If excessive growth of non-native, terrestrial weeds on the bed of the lake is occurring

and contributing to organic matter build up consider weed control and removal of

excessive organic material to reduce organic matter accumulation.

• Monitor DO during filling. If DO falls rapidly and remains low (< 4mg/L) across the

majority of the lake, consider maintaining a flow through the lake for a period of time

until DO increases above critical level.

• Avoid filling of the lake during warm weather in order to avoid warm water temperatures

which increases rates of organic matter decomposition and also reduces the amount of

oxygen that can be dissolved in the water (% saturation).

Low

Impact

Increased

salinity due to

saline

groundwater

discharge to

the lake

during the

drying phase

High

Impact

• Include monitoring, adaptive management and contingency procedures for wetland

operations in the EWP.

• Monitor wetland salinity during drawdown. If wetland salinity increases above critical

thresholds for the target EVC (~4,500 µS/cm) then implement contingency actions to

increase the flow of fresher water into the wetland to provide a flushing flow. Flushing to

about 73.0 mAHD is possible and very achievable at 74.0 (Lake is full at 74.56mAHD,

empty at 72.9 mAHD). The volumes required to support flushing have not yet been

determined and are highly dependent on wetland salinity levels.

• Provide adequate dilution with bypass water to prevent increases in salinity in

downstream environments during flushing events.

• Monitor local groundwater levels and salinity. If groundwater levels are high and saline,

then consider avoiding wetland drawdown if it would result in excessive ingress of saline

groundwater to the wetland (e.g. time drawdown periods to coincide with lower

groundwater levels i.e. during dry periods across the landscape).

Low

Impact


R01 13

Value /threat Risk

Rating


risk

• Monitor vegetation health and adjust watering regime and operations plan accordingly if

excessive salinity appears to be impacting on vegetation health.

• Monitor vegetation during the dry phase for salt indicator/ tolerant p lants and any signs

of salinity discharge on the edge and banks of the lake.

Exposure of

soils to

oxygen

creating acid

sulfate soils

during dry

phase and

decreased pH

on rewetting

High

Impact

• Include monitoring, adaptive management and contingency procedures for wetland

operations in EWP.

• Monitor wetland pH and heavy metal concentrations. If pH falls below critical thresholds

and/or heavy metal concentrations increase, then implement contingency actions to

increase the flow of fresher water into the wetland to provide a flushing flow. Flushing to

about 73.0 mAHD is possible and very achievable at 74.0 (Lake is full at 74.56mAHD,

empty at 72.9 mAHD). The volumes required to support flushing have not yet been

determined and are highly dependent on wetland pH levels.

• Provide adequate dilution with bypass water to prevent increases in salinity in

downstream environments during flushing events.

• Apply agricultural lime if acid forms on sections of the lake bed.

Low

Impact

Construction management

Construction activities associated with Third Reedy Lake will be managed under the provisions of the GMW

Connections Project’s CEMF (a condition of previous environmental approvals and approved by the Minister for

Planning) and will be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the Connections Project Construction

Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). Environmental impacts associated with the construction phase of

TRLBP are related to damage to plants and animals that occur within the construction footprint of the proposed

bypass channel, new regulating structures and associated areas required for access, laydown etc.

The CEMP includes the development of a Site Environmental Control Map which will identify individual site

environment controls (e.g. native vegetation, MNES or cultural heritage sensitive areas, approved laydown

areas and site access routes).

Summary

The proposed water regime for Third Reedy Lake should result in the successful establishment of Intermittent

Swampy Woodland EVC across the majority of the lake. An assessment of benefits and impacts identified that,

provided vegetation recovery is successful, there are a range of benefits including increased vegetation and

habitat diversity for a range of animals, including increased foraging opportunities for waterbirds. While a range

of threatened species have been recorded at Third Reedy Lake, the lake does not provide critical habitat for any

EPBC Act 1999 or FFG Act 1988 listed threatened species, and overall the impact on threatened species is

considered low. Even so, appropriate management is required through the development and implementation of

an EWP which will outline management actions, monitoring and contingency arrangements in the event of

unintended outcomes (e.g. failure of target vegetation to establish or standing of animals during drying phases)

and management of potential threats (e.g. acid sulfate soil activation or unacceptable increases in salinity).

Third Reedy Lake in its current condition does not make a critical contribution to any of the criterion under which

the Kerang Wetlands qualifies for Ramsar listing. The proposed changes to Third Reedy Lake are not

considered likely to impact on any listing criteria and are expected to provide ecological gains in terms of

increased biodiversity values, and therefore are considered ‘positive’ in terms of the overall contribution the

Third Reedy Lakes makes to the Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Site character.


some of which will become available for environmental use. A portion of the water saved will be used to

implement the proposed water regime at Third Reedy Lake and the remaining water will be available as

environmental water for other wetlands and rivers. In this context, the benefits gained as a result of the TRLBP

extend beyond Third Reedy Lake itself to other wetlands in the Kerang Wetlands system and elsewhere.


R01 14

Important note about your report

In preparing this report, Jacobs has relied upon, and presumed accurate, any information (or confirmation of the

absence thereof) provided by the Client and/or from other sources. Except as otherwise stated in the report,

Jacobs has not attempted to verify the accuracy or completeness of any such information. If the information is

subsequently determined to be false, inaccurate or incomplete then it is possible that our observations and

conclusions as expressed in this report may change.

Jacobs derived the data in this report from information sourced from the Client (if any) and/or available in the

public domain at the time or times outlined in this report. The passage of time, manifestation of latent conditions

or impacts of future events may require further examination of the project and subsequent data analysis, and re-

evaluation of the data, findings, observations and conclusions expressed in this report. Jacobs has prepared

this report in accordance with the usual care and thoroughness of the consulting profession, for the sole

purpose described above and by reference to applicable standards, guidelines, procedures and practices at the

date of issue of this report. For the reasons outlined above, however, no other warranty or guarantee, whether

expressed or implied, is made as to the data, observations and findings expressed in this report, to the extent

permitted by law.

This report should be read in full and no excerpts are to be taken as representative of the findings. No

responsibility is accepted by Jacobs for use of any part of this report in any other context.

This report has been prepared on behalf of, and for the exclusive use of, the Client, and is subject to, and

issued in accordance with, the provisions of the contract between Jacobs and the Client. Jacobs accepts no

liability or responsibility whatsoever for, or in respect of, any use of, or reliance upon, this report by any third

party.


R01 15

Glossary

Adaptive management The integration of monitoring, management activities and review of operations to

effectively manage identified and/or emerging risks in order to maximise

environmental outcomes.

Change in ecological

character

The human induced adverse alteration of any ecosystem component, process

and or ecosystem benefit/service (from Butcher et al. 2015)

Ecological character The combination of the ecosystem components, processes and benefits/services

that characterise the wetland at a given point in time (from Butcher et al. 2015)

Kerang Bypass Lakes First Reedy Lake, Middle Reedy Lake, Third Reedy Lake, Little Lake Charm (and

Scott’s Creek) and Racecourse Lake.

Kerang Lakes A system of over 100 permanent and intermittent aquatic ecosystems comprising

freshwater lakes, swamps and marshes, and saline and hypersaline lakes,

located near Kerang in Northern Victoria.

Kerang Wetlands

Ramsar Site

A cluster of 23 distinct wetlands in the Kerang Lakes system stretching from Lake

Tutchewop, northwest of Kerang, to Hird Swamp in the southeast. Includes

Kangaroo Lake, Racecourse Lake, Lake Charm, Little Lake Charm (and Scott’s

Creek), Reedy Lake, Middle Reedy Lake, Third Reedy Lake, Kerang Weir, Town

Swamp, Johnson Swamp, Hird Swamp, Lake Cullen, Lake Tutchewop, Lake

William, Lake Kelly, Little Lake Kelly, Stevenson Swamp, Lake Bael Bael, First

Marsh, Second Marsh, Third Marsh, Foster Swamp and Cemetery Swamp.

Matters of National

Environmental

Significance

Matters of National Environmental Significance protected under Part 3 of the

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. For this project,

it includes wetlands of international importance (sections 16 and 17B) and listed

threatened species and communities.

Project environment The area impacted by the Third Reedy Lake Bypass Project which includes Third

Reedy Lake (including the fringing wetland vegetation) and the proposed bypass

channel and associated construction footprint.

Reedy Lakes complex First Reedy, Middle Reedy and Third Reedy Lake and their associated fringing

wetland vegetation.

Third Reedy Lake Third Reedy Lake and its associated fringing wetland vegetation.

Wise Use Wise use of wetlands is the maintenance of their ecological character, achieved

through the implementation of ecosystem approaches, within the context of

sustainable development (from Butcher et al. 2015)


R01 16

Abbreviations

BAR Biodiversity Assessment Report

BIOR Biodiversity Impact and Offset Requirements

CEMF Connections Project Construction Environmental Management Framework

CEMP Construction Environmental Management Plan

CHMP Cultural Heritage Management Plan

CPS Critical Components, Processes and Services

DEE Department of Environment and Energy

DELWP Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning

DO Dissolved oxygen

DST Decision Support Tool

EVC Ecological Vegetation Community

EES Environment Effects Statement

EE Act 1978 Environment Effects Act 1978

EPBC Act 1999 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

EWP Environmental Watering Plan

FFG Act 1988 Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988

GMID Goulburn Murray Irrigation District

GMW Goulburn Murray Water

IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature

KLAN Kerang Local Aboriginal Network

KLBP Kerang Lakes Bypass Project

LAC Limits of Acceptable Change

MNES Matters of national environmental significance

NCWS North Central Waterway Strategy

North Central CMA North Central Catchment Management Authority

NPV Net Present Value

NVIM National Vegetation Information Management

TIS Torrumbarry Irrigation System

TRLBP Third Reedy Lake Bypass Project

WCMF Water Change Management Framework


R01 17

1. Introduction

1.1 Third Reedy Lake Bypass Project

As part of the Goulburn Murray Water (GMW) Connections Project Stage 2 Business Case that was prepared

by the State Government and approved by the Commonwealth Government, a number of projects were

included as ‘special environmental projects’. These projects were considered as opportunities for environmental

enhancement and were identified by a number of environmental agencies within Victoria including the

Catchment Management Authorities and then included in the Business Case.

The Kerang Lakes Bypass Project (KLBP) was one of the ‘special environmental projects’ identified in the Stage

2 Business Case. The project proposed to remove a number of Kerang Lakes from the Torrumbarry Irrigation

System (TIS) to return the wetlands to a more natural wetting/drying regime, as well as to construct connecting

channels to facilitate environmental watering of lakes. The key focus of this project was environmental

enhancement.

A Business Case for the KLBP was developed in 2015 (RMCG, 2015) to assess the feasibility of constructing

bypass channels around First Reedy, Middle Reedy and Third Reedy Lakes, Little Lake Charm (and Scott’s

Creek) and Racecourse Lake, all located within the Kerang Lakes wetland system.

The KLBP option Business Case was submitted to the Commonwealth and State Governments. In May 2015,

the GMW Connections Project was advised by the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning

(DELWP), acting on advice from the Commonwealth Department of Environment and Energy (DEE), that:

• The KLBP satisfies the due diligence criteria for State Priority projects. The draft due diligence report

recommends the project proceed to seek approvals under Commonwealth and State Government

environmental legislation.

• It is expected that identified knowledge gaps and risks associated with the proposed changes will be

addressed as part of the environmental approval process (these relate mainly to the potential for

emergence of acid sulfate soils and saline groundwater intrusion).

• If the outcomes of the approvals process do not have a material impact on the scope of the project,

DELWP and DEE have agreed that the project will proceed.

The KLBP Business Case recommended that Third Reedy Lake be bypassed; however, the remaining lakes in

the investigation did not meet the Business Case criteria and therefore were not recommended to be further

investigated. The project is therefore now referred to as the Third Reedy Lake Bypass project (TRLBP).

The TRLBP proposes to reinstate a more natural watering regime to Third Reedy Lake by undertaking works

and measures to disconnect the lake from the TIS, generating environmental benefits for the lake and reducing

current water losses in the Goulburn Murray Irrigation District (GMID). The proposal is that the water regime at

the lake will change from permanently full to four-year wetting and drying cycles, and that the drying cycle will

result in the lake being progressively revegetated with native vegetation (naturally, but if required through

intervention), which will provide habitat for native animals and waterbirds. This will be achieved by constructing

a bypass channel (1.4 km) and associated infrastructure to disconnect the lake from the irrigation system and

provide a planned environmental watering regime for the lake aimed at enhancing environmental values. GMW

customers who currently extract water directly from the lake will be reconnected to the adjacent irrigation

system.

In addition to the environmental benefits, the proposal will also generate water savings through reduced

evaporation losses and more efficient water delivery to customers. The water savings achieved as part of the

TRLBP will contribute to the overall GMW Connections Project Stage 2 water savings target, which will be

owned by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder and used to improve the health of priority wetlands

and waterways.

Since the development of the Stage 2 Business Case, a number of investigations and studies have been

undertaken on Third Reedy Lake to help inform the project. The key investigations and studies undertaken in


R01 18

relation to TRLBP and used throughout this assessment report have been provided in Appendix A and are

publicly available via http://www.connectionsproject.com.au/kerang-lakes-bypass-project-referral-documents/.

1.1.1 Project objectives

The overarching objectives of the TRLBP are to:

1) Enhance the environment of Third Reedy Lake and its contribution to the associated Kerang Wetlands

Ramsar Site through delivery of a more natural watering regime

2) Provide for water savings through reduction in current water losses in the TIS.

1.2 Project proponent

The project proponent is GMW, their relevant environmental policy and environmental management system and

the key environmental approvals and documentation frameworks are described below.

1.2.1 Environmental Policy

The GMW Environmental Policy states the authority’s commitment to the prevention of pollution, environment

protection and sustainability initiatives. The policy statement is attached in Appendix B.

1.2.2 GMW Connections Project Approval and Construction Environmental Management Framework

The GMW Connections Project (then known as the Northern Victoria Irrigation Renewal Project, or NVIRP) was

referred under the Victorian Environment Effects (EE) Act 1978 on the 16 February 2009. The Minister for

Planning determined on the 14th April 2009 that an environment effects statement was not required for the

project, subject to six conditions. The conditions covered construction and operational impacts associated with

the GMW Connections Project. At present the implementation of the TRLBP sits outside this approval

framework (GMW, 2016b). However, it is expected that the TRLBP will be implemented in accordance with the

broader GMW Connections Project approval framework (Figure 1-1).

A comprehensive suite of environmental management protocols and documents were developed in response to

the EE Act 1978 conditions for the Connections Project including the establishment of a Construction

Environmental Management Framework (CEMF) under which the GMW Connections Project has subsequently

operated (Figure 1-1). The CEMF is a subsidiary to the GMW Environmental Policy and the GMW Connections

Project Environmental Management System and was approved by the Minister for Planning in May 2009.

Further details on the CEMF are provided in Section 5.3. The construction activities associated with TRLBP will

be managed under the provisions of the existing GMW’s Connections Project’s CEMF and associated

Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP).

The operational management of Third Reedy Lake and its watering regime (including establishment and long

term operational phases) will also be guided by the preparation of an Environmental Watering Plan (EWP)

developed by GMW. Further details on the EWP are provided in Section 5.2.

http://www.connectionsproject.com.au/kerang-lakes-bypass-project-referral-documents/


R01 19

1.2.3 Victorian State Government referral – Environment Effects Act 1978

GMW referred the TRLBP to the DELWP under the EE Act 1978 on 27 June 2016. The scope of the referral

included the key construction and operational components of the TRLBP as follows:

The construction components of the project as referred include:

1) Constructing a bypass channel

2) Replacing an existing channel with a pipeline

Departmental Approval

Ministerial Approval

Connections Project Approval

GMW Approval Environmental Policy

Environmental Management System

Construction Environmental Management Framework

Capital Works

Environmental Commitments

Strategies & Protocols

Native Vegetation

Management Strategy

Flora & Fauna Management

Strategy

Cultural Heritage Strategy

Communication & Consultation

Protocol

Construction Environmental Management

Plan

Site Environmental Control Maps*

*approved as directed in EMP

Offset Management

Plan

Connections


Connections Protocol

Water Change Management Framework


Processes, methodologies & procedures

- addressing values and risks

- preparing environmental watering plans- monitoring,

reporting & auditing

Assessment report

Environmental Watering Plans

Figure 1-1: GMW Connections Project environmental documentation structure (GMW, 2013)


R01 20

3) Disconnecting Third Reedy Lake from the irrigation system

4) Installing structures to allow environmental watering that more closely resembles the lake’s former, natural

watering regime.

The operational components of the referred TRLBP involves the long-term management of Third Reedy Lake’s

water regime to achieve environmental objectives and channel and pipeline operation to deliver irrigation water

to GMW customers.

On 31 August 2016, the Minister for Planning (the Minister) decided that an Environment Effects Statement

(EES) is not required for the TRLBP, subject to the following conditions:

a) The proponent must prepare an Environmental Report to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning (or

delegate), which describes:

i. The likely impacts of the project and the intended environmental benefits of the project, relative to the

ecological values provided by Third Reedy Lake both currently and historically, in the context of its

listing under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Significance;

ii. The nature of and rationale for the proposed watering regime, including scope for adaptive

management;

iii. Potential impacts on native fauna species listed in any “threatened” category or part of any listed

“threatened” community under legislation or in relevant DELWP Advisory Lists;

iv. Measures for managing and protecting native fish which might occupy or colonise the lake;

v. Measures for managing variable water quality in the lake over time;

vi. Results of an acid sulfate soil sampling and analysis program covering the bed of the lake and options

for managing acid sulfate soils which may be present; and

vii. Any other foreseeable adverse effects of the project and proposed measures for management of

those effects.

b) The report must be prepared in consultation with DELWP, the Shire of Gannawarra and the North Central

Catchment Management Authority.

c) The Environmental Report must be released for public comment for at least 10 business days.

d) Following the receipt of any public comments, the proponent must provide a response to the issues raised

by the public submissions to the Minister for Planning (or delegate).

e) Project works (other than investigative works to inform the preparation of the Environmental Report) may

not commence before revisions to incorporate the project are made and approved to the Environmental

Management Framework and relevant subordinate strategies and plans for the GMW Connections Project.

The Minister’s decision states that the reasons for the decision are:

• “The project’s potential environmental effects are not sufficiently significant or complex to warrant

requirement of an Environment Effects Statement relative to the considerations set down in the

Ministerial Guidelines for assessment of environmental effects under the Environment Effects Act

1978.

• However, the project is unusual and environmentally sensitive in that it seeks to create environmental

benefits by significantly altering the ecological character of a wetland listed under the international

Ramsar Convention. This necessitates a robust and transparent process to demonstrate that the

environmental risks of the project are clearly understood and addressed, and that the likelihood that the

project will achieve the intended benefits will justify statutory decisions on the project.”


R01 21

1.2.4 Commonwealth Government referral - Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation

Act 1999

GMW also referred the TRLBP to the DEE on 25 August 2016. On 21 October 2016, GMW received advice from

DEE that the TRLBP is a controlled action under the EPBC Act 1999, as it was assessed as likely to have a

significant impact on the following matters of national environmental significance (MNES), which are protected

under Part 3 of the EPBC Act 1999:

• Wetlands of international importance (sections 16 and 17B), and

• Listed threatened species and communities (sections 18 and 18A).

Therefore, the TRLBP requires assessment and approval under the EPBC Act 1999 before it can proceed.

Assessment of the project under the EPBC Act 1999 is to be via the accredited Environmental Report process

under the EE Act 1978, as set out in Schedule 1 (part 5) of the Bilateral (Assessment) Agreement between the

Commonwealth and the State of Victoria under section 45 of the EPBC Act 1999 (the Bilateral Agreement).

1.2.5 Bilateral agreement

The Environmental Report to be developed under the Bilateral Agreement must be consistent with conditions

under the EE Act 1978 (Section 1.2.3) that sufficiently describes the project and assesses the likely relevant

impacts and benefits, as well as describe any feasible alternatives and mitigation measures that could avoid or

reduce relevant impacts.

The Environmental Report will also need to address specific requirements of the Bilateral Agreement under the

EPBC Act 1999, including matters technically beyond those formally required under the conditions set under the

EE Act 1978. The required scope of the Environmental Report to address these requirements (under both the

Bilateral Agreement and No EES conditions) has been provided to GMW (References: 2016R03 & EPBC

2016/7760) by DELWP in the form of a scoping document (referred to herein as the Environmental Report scope).

This scoping document forms the basis for the structure of the TRLBP Environmental Report (this report).

1.2.6 Proceedings under Commonwealth or State law

Although unrelated to the TRLBP, a requirement in the Environmental Report scope is to “detail any proceedings

under a Commonwealth or State law for the protection of the environment or the conservation and sustainable

use of natural resources against the organisation proposing to take the project”. The GMW Connections Project

has received a warning for contravening Section 142 of the EPBC Act 1999 (ref 2009/5123) in April 2016. This

related to identification by independent audit of two non-compliances of actions that should have been undertaken

in accordance with GMW’s Water Change Management Framework.

GMW has addressed this warning and the DEE noted that investigations were completed in relation to these non-

compliances and corrective actions implemented, and that it is unlikely the environment was impacted as a result

of these actions.

1.3 Consultation process

A condition of the Minister for Planning’s decision that an EES is not required for the TRLBP is that the

Environmental Report be prepared in consultation with DELWP, the Shire of Gannawarra and the North Central

Catchment Management Authority (CMA).

In order to address this condition GMW established a Consultative Committee consisting of representatives

from each of these organisations (members listed in Appendix C). The consultative committee was involved in

scoping the Environmental Report and has reviewed the draft of the report.

In addition, the GMW Connections Project Expert Review Panel (members listed in Appendix C) was engaged

by GMW to provide technical review of the TRLBP key investigations and reports. The Expert Review Panel

has reviewed and commented on the scope of the Environmental Report and the draft of the report.


R01 22

Following the completion of the Environmental Report, to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning, GMW is

required to advertise the Report for public comment for at least 10 business days, consistent with requirements

under part 5 of the Bilateral Agreement. Any public comments received are to be addressed and included as an

addendum to this Report, and submitted to DELWP and the Minister for Planning. This consultation process,

along with previous public consultation in regards to the TRLBP is discussed in more detail in Section 6.4.

The Minister for Planning then provides the Environmental Report to the Australian Government Minister for the

Environment and Energy, which will inform the Minister’s decision on whether the project is approved, refused

or approved with conditions under the EPBC Act 1999.

1.4 Purpose of the Environmental Report (this report)

The purpose of this Environmental Report is to satisfy the requirements of the:

• Conditions under which the Victorian Minister for Planning permits the TRLBP to proceed without

requiring an EES

• DEE decision that the TRLBP is a controlled action under section 75 of the EPBC Act 1999.

The Environmental Report (this report) is consistent with the Bilateral Agreement scope and is structured as

follows:

• Section 2 describes the study area and details of the TRLBP as referred including description of current infrastructure and current and proposed operating conditions.

• Section 3 details the current environment with a particular focus on threatened species listed in the bilateral agreement scope and the ecological character and listing criterion for the Kerang Wetland Ramsar Site.

• Section 4 summarises and evaluates the risks of the TRLBP.

• Section 5 evaluates the proposed mitigations measures and their effectiveness at addressing identified

risks. This section also presents an adaptive management framework for the TRLBP and identifies key contingency measures and offsets that may be required.

• Section 6 details other considerations of the TRLBP, including social and economic impacts and

benefits and consultation undertaken as part of the development of the TRLBP.

• Section 7 provides an overall synthesis of predicted outcomes for the lake under the proposed regime, including an evaluation of the overall impacts and how these can be managed through appropriate mitigation measures, and how the benefits predicted to occur offset potential impacts.


R01 23

2. Project description

2.1 Kerang Lakes Bypass Project

The KLBP was originally one of the ‘Special Projects’ identified in the GMW Connections Project Stage 2

Business Case. The project proposed to remove irrigation demand and develop a variable water regime that will

enhance the environmental values of the Ramsar listed Kerang Wetlands (North Central CMA, 2014).

The Kerang Lakes are a system of over 100 permanent and intermittent wetlands comprising freshwater lakes,

swamps and marshes, and saline and hypersaline lakes, located near Kerang in Northern Victoria (Figure 2-1).

A cluster of 23 distinct wetlands in the Kerang Lakes system stretching from Lake Tutchewop, northwest of

Kerang, to Hird Swamp in the southeast form the Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Site and are listed in the Directory

of Important Wetlands in Australia and, as such, are of national and international significance (see Section 2.2.1

for a more detailed description). The majority of the wetlands in the Kerang Lakes system would have filled

intermittently prior to European settlement, however a number were regulated as part of the development of the

TIS in 1925 and as a result became permanent freshwater lakes.

For those wetlands regulated as part of the TIS, such as Third Reedy Lake which was used as part of the TIS

water delivery system and a water storage, the change in water regime from intermittent to permanent resulted

in adverse impacts on their ecological condition. In addition, water losses resulted due to evaporation and

seepage.

The development of the KLBP commenced in 2011 and was developed in two stages (Figure 2-2).

Phase 1 of the KLBP was the investigation phase and considered disconnecting five of the Kerang Lakes from

the TIS and reinstating a more natural water regime. The five lakes included First Reedy, Middle Reedy and

Third Reedy Lakes, Little Lake Charm (and Scott’s Creek) and Racecourse Lake (including Bertram’s Lake),

located to the north-west of Kerang, in land that is mainly used for farming and rural living (DoE, 2015).

Phase 1 included stakeholder engagement and examination of the details, feasibility, benefits and costs o f

options.

Phase 1 of the KLBP involved two distinct sub-phases. Phase 1a included investigations for all five lakes (First,

Middle and Third Reedy, Little Lake Charm and Racecourse Lake) using four generic watering scenarios. This

aimed to test the feasibility of the bypass.

Phase 1b included further, more detailed, investigation to understand the implications of the recommended

watering scenario for each lake. This led to Little Lake Charm being removed from scope due to the risk

associated with salinisation, and the present state of knowledge on Middle Reedy Lake which supports a

significant breeding site for colonially nesting waterbirds was deemed insufficient for adequate risk management

(RMCG, 2015).


R01 24

Figure 2-1: Kerang Lakes system locality diagram


R01 25

Figure 2-2: Kerang Lakes Bypass Project phases – prior to operations commencing (adapted from RMCG, 2015). Solid outlines

= completed or in progress. Hashed outlines = to be completed.

2.1.1 Options analysis

As part of the KLBP Phase 1 investigations (including the KLBP Business Case) a comprehensive analysis was

completed of a range of options including works at individual lakes and combinations of lakes. This assessed:

• The technical feasibility of constructing bypass infrastructure

• The cost of the infrastructure and other works required

• The water savings that would be generated

• The social and environmental benefits and costs

• Risks and issues associated with the initiative

• Governance and project delivery requirements.

The options assessed included:

• Option 1 - Standalone: Bypassing each lake on a standalone basis:

Option 1A - First Reedy Lake

Option 1B - Middle Reedy Lake

Option 1C - Third Reedy Lake

Option 1D - Racecourse entire lake

Option 1E – Racecourse Lake - Bertram’s Lake

• Option 2: Bypassing all four lakes together - First Reedy, Middle Reedy, Third Reedy, and the whole of Racecourse (Option 1D)


R01 26

• Option 3: Bypassing all four lakes with the Bertram’s Lake option (First Reedy Lake, Middle Reedy

Lake, Third Reedy Lake, and Option 1E)

• Option 4: Bypassing Third Reedy Lake with the Bertram’s Lake option (Option 1E).

The possibility of lowering the lakes by one metre during the non-irrigation season rather than disconnecting the

Lakes from the TIS was raised as a potential option during stakeholder consultation. Whilst this remains a

management option for non-bypassed lakes, it was not considered a viable option for consideration in the

options assessment due to minimal water savings achieved and minor ecological benefits.

The options analysis identified only one of these options as meeting the assessment criteria, that being Option

1C (Third Reedy Lake). This option was:

• acceptable from a risk management perspective;

• offered relatively high Net Present Value (NPV) to the community as a whole for the Commonwealth

Government’s investment in the GMW’s Connections Project;

• fell within the budget approved in principle by the Commonwealth for the Special Project;

• met the water savings cost-effectiveness criteria required for the Commonwealth’s investment; and

• offered environmental benefits (RMCG, 2015).

2.2 Third Reedy Lake Bypass Project

2.2.1 Project location

Third Reedy Lake is a 250 ha wetland, located approximately ten kilometres north-west of Kerang

(Figure 2-3). The area occupied by the lake is 234 ha and the remaining 16 ha includes fringing public land, not

all of which is vegetated. The wetland forms part of the Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Site, which was designated

under the Convention of Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar Convention) as a Wetland of

International Importance (Ramsar wetland) in 1982 (North Central CMA, 2014). The Kerang Wetlands Ramsar

Site covers 9,419 ha and is made up of 23 distinct wetlands of varying types (Table 2-1).

The diversity of wetland types is one of the critical components of the ecological character for the Kerang

Wetlands Ramsar Site. The site is recognised for its diversity of permanent and temporary wetlands, including

permanent open freshwater lakes, permanent freshwater marshes, freshwater tree-dominated wetlands, shrub-

dominated wetlands, intermittent saline/brackish lakes, permanent saline/hypersaline lakes and part of one

wetland functions as a wastewater treatment area (summarised in Table 2-1 and illustrated in Figure 2-3). The

wetlands are situated at the junction of three large river systems, receiving water from the Murray River (via the

TIS), and the Avoca and Loddon Rivers (North Central CMA, 2016). The value of Third Reedy Lake specifically

in relation to the overall Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Site is further discussed in Section 0).


R01 27

Figure 2-3: Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Site wetland types


R01 28

Table 2-1: Ramsar wetland types and four hydrological categories as given in the Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Action Plan

(Source: North Central CMA, 2016, Butcher and Hale 2016). O = permanent freshwater lakes (over 8 hectares), Tp = Permanent

freshwater marshes/ pools, W = shrub-dominated wetlands, Ts = Seasonal/ intermittent freshwater marshes, R = Seasonal/

intermittent saline/ brackish/ alkaline marshes/ pools, Q = Permanent saline/ brackish/ alkaline lakes, P = Seasonal/

intermittent/ freshwater lakes (over 8 hectares)

Hydrological category Wetland Wetland type

Regulated freshwater

permanent wetlands

Kangaroo Lake O - Permanent freshwater lakes (over 8 hectares)

Racecourse Lake O - Permanent freshwater lakes (over 8 hectares)

Lake Charm O - Permanent freshwater lakes (over 8 hectares)

Little Lake Charm/ Scott’s

Creek

O - Permanent freshwater lakes (over 8 hectares)

Reedy Lake O - Permanent freshwater lakes (over 8 hectares)

Middle Reedy Lake Tp - Permanent freshwater marshes/pools

Third Reedy Lake O - Permanent freshwater lakes (over 8 hectares)

Regulated freshwater

intermittent wetlands

Kerang Weir W - Shrub-dominated wetlands

Town Swamp W - Shrub-dominated wetlands

Johnson Swamp Ts -Seasonal/intermittent freshwater marshes

W - Shrub-dominated wetlands

Hird Swamp Ts - Seasonal/intermittent freshwater marshes

W - Shrub-dominated wetlands

Lake Cullen R - Seasonal/ intermittent saline/ brackish/ alkaline

marshes/ pools

Saline/ sewerage

disposal and drainage

wetlands

Lake Tutchewop Q - Permanent saline/brackish/alkaline lakes

Lake William Q - Permanent saline/brackish/alkaline lakes

Lake Kelly Q - Permanent saline/brackish/alkaline lakes

Little Lake Kelly Q - Permanent saline/brackish/alkaline lakes

Fosters Swamp

R - Seasonal/ intermittent saline/ brackish/ alkaline

marshes/ pools

Q - Permanent saline/brackish/alkaline lakes

Wastewater treatment area

Unregulated freshwater

intermittent wetlands Stevenson Swamp1

R - Seasonal/ intermittent saline/ brackish/ alkaline

marshes/ pools

Lake Bael Bael P - Seasonal/intermittent freshwater lakes (over 8

hectares)

First Marsh P - Seasonal/intermittent freshwater lakes (over 8

hectares)

Second Marsh W - Shrub-dominated wetlands

Third Marsh W - Shrub-dominated wetlands

Cemetery Swamp W - Shrub-dominated wetlands 1Stevensons Swamp was noted as freshwater in DSE 2004 and saline in DSE 2010.

Third Reedy Lake is the most northerly site in the Reedy Lakes Complex (comprising First, Middle and Third

Reedy Lakes) and has been held artificially full (between full supply level (FSL) of 74.56 m AHD and

74.2 m AHD) since its inclusion into the TIS (SKM, 2010). The bathymetry of Third Reedy Lake (Figure 2-4)

shows a maximum depth of 1.66 metres (bed elevation 72.9m AHD2) with a slight gradient of 0.4 metres to the

littoral zone (at 73.6 m AHD). The bed of the lake is relatively flat, with only minor variations in depth (North

Central CMA, 2014) and it has relatively steep sides; 50% of the area of the lake bed has a level of 73.3 -73.4

mAHD.

2 There are inconsistencies in various reports about the elevation of the floor of Third Reedy Lake (e.g. 72.8m AHD, 73.2m AHD, 72.77m AHD,

72.77m AHD, 73.17m AHD, 72.9m AHD) however the differences are not material in terms of lake area or volume.


R01 29

Figure 2-4: Third Reedy Lake Bathymetry


R01 30

Third Reedy Lake receives regulated water diverted from the Murray River at Torrumbarry Weir, which flows

into the National Channel, Kow Swamp, Pyramid Creek and the Kerang Weir. Flows pass along Washpen

Creek and into Reedy Lake, which spills into Middle Reedy Lake and then into Third Reedy Lake (North Central

CMA, 2016). Water from the lake is then supplied to irrigation channels to the west (Torrumbarry No 7 Channel)

and north (Torrumbarry No 1/7 Channel). The lake is also a direct source of irrigation supply for five GMW

customers and is used for some boating and fishing activities by the local community (GMW, 2016a).

Unregulated flood flows originating from the Loddon River (via Washpen Creek), and flood water from Wandella

Creek can also enter the system, initially into First Reedy Lake and then once full, flood waters travel to Middle

Reedy Lake then onto Third Reedy Lake.

An existing levee bank (up to 1.5m high) and vehicle access track exists around the south-west edge of the lake

between the inlet structure on the creek linking Middle and Third Reedy Lakes and the outlet structure to the

Torrumbarry No 7 channel. The track and levee provide a clear boundary between vegetation on public land

around the lake and the adjacent farmland. The track is clearly shown in the large scale map in Appendix D.

2.2.2 Current operation

The inclusion of Third Reedy Lake into the TIS altered its natural water regime, which under natural conditions

would have been intermittent, receiving water irregularly during flood events in the cooler winter months of wet

years. Being at the end of the Reedy Lake complex, Third Reedy Lake would have been the last lake to receive

flood waters, so in some years floods that entered First Reedy would not have made it to Third Reedy Lake.

Hence of the three lakes, Third Reedy Lake would have had the driest regime, followed by Middle Reedy and

then First Reedy, which would have had the wettest regime. The lake is now permanently inundated, receiving

good quality fresh water inflows from Middle Reedy Lake to the south.

The lake provides water to Little Lake Charm and beyond via the Torrumbarry No. 7 channel and irrigation

areas in the north via the Torrumbarry No. 1/7 channel. Scott’s Creek, to the west of the lake, can also engage

during flood events. Figure 2-5 shows the location of these key inlet/ outlets (North Central CMA, 2014). Water

levels in Third Reedy Lake are maintained at a maximum of 74.56 m AHD (full supply level) and a minimum of

74.2 m AHD, with the lake operating above 74.47 m AHD for 95% of the time and a level of 74.56 m AHD for

50% of the time. The wetland is constantly kept at full supply level between 1 August and 31 January. After 31

January, the lake can be drawn down for irrigation purposes by up to 30 cm and in some cases, generally at the

end of the irrigation season, the wetland can be further drawn down by evaporation (North Central CMA, 2014).

As part of the North Central CMA (2014) investigation, conceptual cross sections were developed to illustrate

the various components of the lake under the current water regime/ operating regime. These cross sections are

provided in Appendix E.


R01 31

Figure 2-5: Third Reedy Lake key operational features


R01 32

2.2.3 Options Assessment

As described in Section 2.1.1, the KLBP Business Case (RMCG, 2015) undertook a comprehensive analysis of

a range of investment options for generating water savings from bypassing different lakes in the Kerang Lakes

complex as part of the KLBP. The analysis identified Third Reedy Lake as the preferred option as a stand-

alone project. The other options were not progressed as they involved either too high a cost, heightened

environmental risks, small water savings or lack of sufficient evidence to proceed (GMW, 2016b).

Three options for TRLBP were assessed as part of the KLBP Business Case (RMCG, 2015) to determine the

most suitable option for TRLBP. These options included:

• Option 1: Do-nothing

• Option 2: Lake by-pass

• Option 3: Lowered full supply level

Each of the three options were assessed against the key selection criteria for the overall KLBP options analysis;

water savings, environmental benefits, environmental impact and cost per megalitre of water saved. A summary

of the assessment detailed in the KLBP Business Case (RMCG, 2015) is provided in Table 2-2.

Table 2-2: Third Reedy Lake options assessment (adapted from GMW, 2016b)

Option Water Savings Environmental benefits Environmental impacts Cost per ML of water

saved

Option 1:

Do-nothing

No water savings

generated. Significant

annual losses from the

lake (Gippel, C. J 2012

estimated

2,675 ML) represents

substantial economic loss

to the region.

No environmental

benefit.

There has recently been

some decline in the

condition of Third Reedy

Lake (loss of wetland

vegetation). This existing

environmental condition of

lake would be retained (or

further decline).

Moderate environmental

impacts

Dead stands of trees will

be lost due to rotting,

impacting on habitat

available for aquatic fauna

and roosting and nesting

for waterbirds

Not applicable.

Option 2:

Lake By-pass

Significant water

savings generated for the

area.

Water savings of

approximately

1,600ML/year will be

generated

Significant

environmental benefits.

Improvement in ecological

function of wetland due to

reinstating a wetting-drying

regime more closely

aligned with the lakes

natural behaviour.

Low-moderate

environmental impacts

Some aquatic fauna may

become stranded during

drying phase (e.g. fish and

turtles). Potential for water

quality to decrease after

drying phase (e.g. salinity,

DO and ASS).

Management actions could

mitigate these impacts.

Acceptable.

Provides cost effective

generation of water

savings and positive

benefit cost ratio.

Option 3:

Lowered full

supply level

Limited water savings

generated.

Limited due to evaporation

losses being the main

water savings driver and

lowering the full supply

level does not address

this.

Minimal environmental

benefits. Minimal

improvement in ecological

function due to the drying

cycle being applied to only

a small area of the lake.

Moderate environmental

impacts

Dead stands of trees will

be lost due to rotting,

impacting on habitat

available for aquatic fauna

and roosting and nesting

for waterbirds

Not acceptable.

Water savings generated

not high enough to meet

costs.

Based on the condition assessment provided in Rakali Consulting (2013) and a review of the project by the

GMW Expert Review Panel, it was considered that Third Reedy Lake has suffered ecological decline as a result

of the artificial flow regime from irrigation, however it is considered to now be in a reasonably stable state


R01 33

(equilibrium) and that reinstating a wetting-drying regime more closely aligned with the wetland natural

behaviour is likely to improve the conservation value of the lake (illustrated in Figure 2-6). Therefore, the do-

nothing scenario was not considered an acceptable outcome for the lake (GMW, 2016b).

Figure 2-6: Possible future trajectories following a step change deterioration in lake condition (RMCG, 2015)

Option 3, lowering full supply level, was considered for Third Reedy Lake at the request of the GMW Expert

Review Panel. This option was not considered a viable option for consideration due the option only generating

minimal water savings and only a minor ecological benefit because a drying cycle would only be applied to a

small area of the lake (e.g. drawing down Third Reedy Lake by 1 metre would still result in around 75% of the

lake being permanently inundated) (GMW, 2016b).

Therefore Option 2, bypassing Third Reedy Lake, was identified as the preferred option because it ranked the

highest in relation to the key selection criteria (Table 2-2) and was subsequently carried on for further

investigation as part of the TRLBP. The implementation of this option will lead to a number of benefits to the

lake, including:

• Increased area of a deep freshwater marsh wetland type (intermittent), with a corresponding decrease in the area of permanent open freshwater. This increase will return the lake back to a more natural state

• Restoration of habitat, including aquatic herbs, sedges and rushes, Black Box fringing wetland vegetation, Intermittent Swampy Woodland EVC, and River Red Gums

• Improved water-bird breeding and feeding opportunities

• Restored ecological processes associated with intermittent drying to promote biodiversity (GMW,

2016b).

However, it was also recognised that the introduction of drying regime had the potential to impact on some

current values that were present in the lake, including native fish and turtles that require permanent inundation,

and potential water quality impacts from elevated salinity, low dissolved oxygen and activation of acid sulfate

soils (Table 2-2).

2.2.4 Preferred water regime

As part of North Central CMA (2014) TRLBP investigation, a preferred water regime for Third Reedy Lake was

determined based on the implementation of Option 2, bypassing Third Reedy Lake. The recommendation was

based on previous work by North Central CMA (2012) which developed alternative wetland watering regime

scenarios for all the lakes proposed to be bypassed as part of the KLBP, and from previous work by SKM

(2010) and KBR (2011). These watering regime scenarios are provided in (Table 2-3).


R01 34

Table 2-3: Third Reedy Lake proposed watering regime scenarios (North Central CMA, 2014)

Wetland scenario Regime

Dry - episodic Frequency of wetting: 1 in 4 years

Timing: Winter/Spring

Depth: FSL 74.56 mAHD

Duration: up to 10 months (allow to dry naturally)

Deep Freshwater Marsh – intermittent Frequency of wetting: 2 in 3 years

Timing: Winter/Spring filling

Depth:

• Year 1 - 74.56 mAHD

• Year 2 - 74.2 mAHD

• Year 3 - no fill

Duration: 7-10 months

Open Freshwater Lake – semi-

permanent

Frequency of wetting: annually

Timing: Fill Winter/Spring

Depth: FSL – 74.56 mAHD

Duration: 12 months – allow to evaporate by 1m (to 73.74mAHD) at least two years in a

row

Open Freshwater Lake – permanent No change

North Central CMA (2014) undertook a risk and benefit assessment for each of the alternative wetland watering

regime scenarios identified and modelled in North Central CMA (2012). The assessment considered the risks

and benefits associated with the lake’s Ramsar criterion, threatened species, EVCs, salinity and potential acid

sulfate soils (summary of assessment provided in Table 2-4). The preferred water regime based on this

assessment was an episodic to intermittent watering regime.

The assessment identified that any change in water regime from the current permanent open freshwater lake

will provide a benefit to the Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Site through improving the habitat available at Third

Reedy Lake. North Central CMA (2014) stated that whilst the majority of negative changes are likely to have

already occurred and the lake is now in a state of equilibrium, the loss of stands of dead trees due to rotting

resulting from permanent inundation would have a significant impact on habitat available for aquatic fauna and

roosting and nesting for waterbirds. Therefore, any change to the water regime from a permanent or near

permanent water regime will benefit the lake and the habitat available. It should be noted that Kerang Wetlands

Ramsar Site criterion, Limits of Acceptable Change (LACs) and Critical Processes and Services (CPS) has

recently been amended (see Butcher and Hale 2016), however this does not alter the conclusions in Table 2-4.

This assessment also identified the need for additional investigations on frogs, turtles, salinity and acid sulfate

soils to ensure that the re-introduction of a drying regime does not impact negatively on the wetlands current

environmental values.


R01 35

Table 2-4: Risk assessment associated with each watering regime scenario at Third Reedy Lake. Red = preferred water regime

based on assessment. (Source: North Central CMA, 2014)

Water regime scenario

Ramsar

criterion

Biota EVCs/ flora Salinity Acid

sulfate

soils

Birds Fish Frogs/

turtles

Dry - episodic ✓ ✓ ✓ /

Deep Freshwater Marsh

– intermittent ✓ ✓ ✓ _

Open Freshwater Lake –

semi-permanent ✓ _

No change – Permanent

open freshwater lake _ _ _* _ _ _ _

KEY:

✓ Benefit

- No change expected

Additional investigations, management required

Negative impact likely

* native fish community placed under increased pressure from

significant Carp population

To more clearly define the preferred water regime for Third Reedy Lake, management, ecological and

hydrological objectives were defined for the lake (North Central CMA 2014). Previous management objectives

recommended for the lake were used in conjunction with the current and future ecological values and its historic

natural water regime, to define the future management objective for Third Reedy Lake as:

“Achieve projected water savings (approximately 1.6GL/year) whilst providing a watering regime that restores

Third Reedy Lake to a deep freshwater marsh wetland type (dominated by Intermittent Swampy Woodland

(EVC 813)) able to support recruitment of River Red Gums and promoting a diverse and extensive range of

habitat suitable for a variety of waterbirds” (adapted from North Central CMA, 2014).

Ecological objectives and hydrological requirements for Third Reedy Lake were then developed (Table 2-5).

Table 2-5: Proposed ecological objectives for Third Reedy Lake (Source: North Central CMA, 2014).

Ecological Objectives Justification Hydrological requirement

Habitat objectives

1.1 Maintain health of existing Black

Box fringing wetland vegetation

(within Intermittent Swampy Woodland

EVC)

Supports waterbird breeding (nests,

hollows, fallen timber etc.). Also provides

shade to instream habitat and the existing

Black Box population to be sustained.

Fill to full supply level (74.56 mAHD) in late

winter or early spring. This level will not flood

the trees, but will provide water to the bank soil

profile.

1.2 Restore opportunities for

recruitment of River Red Gum trees

through body of wetland

River Red Gums provide important

waterbird habitat and woody debris.

Promote recruitment opportunities for River

Red Gum by inundating once in every 2-4

years for a period of 2-4 months (Roberts and

Marston, 2011). Ensure period of summer-

autumn drying (Lloyd et al. 1993 in DSE,

2004).

1.3 Restore diverse understory

Intermittent Swampy Woodland

vegetation (i.e. lignum and sedge

communities) in the body of the

wetland able to withstand fluctuating

water levels

Understory Intermittent Swampy Woodland

EVC assemblage (i.e. Tangled lignum, salt

bush etc.) provides important duck and

waterfowl habitat, fish species (when

inundated), invertebrates, turtles and frogs

and a food source for aquatic and terrestrial

herbivores.

Also filters water.

Lignum generally requires inundation once in

every 3-5 years for a period of 3-7 months

(Roberts and Marston, 2011).

Species/ community objectives

2.1 Restore waterbird breeding

opportunities

Linked to habitat objectives 1.1 and 1.2.

Provide a range of habitat types suitable for

waterbird nesting, resting and breeding.

Generally, the significant species currently at

Third Reedy Lake are stimulated by flooding

between September and May and require

permanent water under nests for 5 to 12

months


R01 36

Ecological Objectives Justification Hydrological requirement

2.2 Restore waterbird feeding

opportunities

Linked to habitat objective 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3

which includes providing terrestrial and

aquatic insects/ macroinvertebrates and

plant matter.

Provide suitable habitat as per habitat

objectives ensuring slow recession of water

level.

2.3 Provide opportunistic turtle and

frog feeding and breeding

Linked to habitat objective 1.3 and species

objective 2.2.

Expose shallower areas to promote diversity of

aquatic plants for feeding opportunities.

Process objectives

3.1 Maintain connectivity between

Reedy Lakes

Facilitates dispersal of seeds, micro and

macro organisms, fish, frogs and turtles.

Also maintains water quality through

exchange of water.

Ensure connectivity remains under

modernisation. Ensure water regimes are

managed across all three Reedy Lakes to

ensure dispersal can take place.

3.2 Restore ecological process

associated with intermittent drying

A diversity of biological and chemical

process takes place during drying phase

i.e. germination, aeration of sediments,

increased organic matter input, promotes

diverse habitat types (i.e. drawdown zones

during drying) etc.

Some fluctuations in water level at littoral zone

(specific requirements dependent on species).

The preferred water regime adopted for the TRLBP was then developed by GMW, in close collaboration with

the GMW Connections Project’s Expert Review Panel and the North Central CMA, and informed by the water

regime recommended in North Central CMA (2014). The main change in the preferred water regime was the

inclusion of an optional intermediate rise during year three to meet frog and turtle habitat requirements. This

water regime has been endorsed by both the Expert Review Panel and the North Central CMA.

The environmental watering regime proposed for Third Reedy Lake aims to return the lake to a deep freshwater

marsh wetland type (Intermittent Swampy Woodland EVC) dominated by River Red Gums with a sedge and

lignum understory and a fringing Black Box community. With the lake being the furthest downstream in the

Reedy Lakes series, in its original form, Third Reedy Lake would have been the driest of the three, and is likely

to have been an intermittent wetland before inclusion in the irrigation supply system. Therefore, the proposed

water regime is considered to closely resemble its natural wetting and drying cycle.

The proposed watering regime is provided in Table 2-6 together with a comparison of the current water regime,

Figure 2-7 illustrates the modelled water level in the lake associated with the preferred regime (including the

intermediate partial filling to 73.2 mAHD in the third year of every cycle) and the % of lake bed area inundated

with the water levels.

Table 2-6: Current and proposed environmental watering regime (GMW, 2016a,b, North Central CMA 2014)

Current water regime

(as described in

Section 2.2.2)

Proposed Environmental Watering Regime

Phase Description

Irrigation regulation Full

Supply Level (74.56

mAHD).

Permanently freshwater

lake minimal fluctuations

of water level between

74.2 – 74.56 mAHD

(meters above AHD)

Establishment An establishment phase is proposed to provide opportunities for establishment

of River Red Gums across the lake floor by allowing for seed release, seed

strike and establishment of seedlings. The regime will include:

• Filling the wetland to between 74.2m-74.56m AHD and allowing the lake to

dry by natural drawdown.

• A series of low level fills (approximately 0.3m to 0.5m deep) to follow the

drawdown period to encourage establishment of River Red Gums.

The establishment phase will require monitoring to assess the response of

River Red Gum recruitment. This regime may be followed for two to three

cycles; however, the duration of the establishment will be dependent on when

the desirable number of saplings have established. Furthermore, once

germination occurs, subsequent filling will need to be carefully managed to

avoid drowning saplings before they are large enough to cope with deeper

inundation.


R01 37

Current water regime

(as described in

Section 2.2.2)

Proposed Environmental Watering Regime

Phase Description

Long Term - operational The long term operational regime will provide a watering regime that returns

Third Reedy Lake to a deep freshwater marsh wetland type dominated by

River Red Gums with a sedge and lignum understory and fringing Black Box

community.

The regime will include three 4-year wetting and drying cycles:

• Cycles One and Two:

Year 1 – Filling event (rising to 74.0 mAHD) and

commencing drawdown

Year 2 – No filling event. Natural drawdown occurring.

Climate conditions will control wet/ dry climatic years and

lake bed likely waterlogged in wet climatic years.

Year 3 – No filling event. Climate conditions will control

wet/ dry periods – dry in dry periods (see year 2

description)

Year 4 – No filling. Climate conditions will control wet/ dry

periods (see year 2 description)

• Cycle Three:

Year 1 – Filling event (rising to 74.56 mAHD) and being

held for 31 days to maintain Black Box and recruit River

Red Gums and allow a flushing flow for salt, blackwater or

acid sulfate soil management (if required).

Year 2 – No filling event. Natural drawdown occurring.

Climate conditions will control wet/ dry periods. Climate

conditions will control wet/ dry climatic years and lake bed

likely waterlogged in wet climatic years.


wet/ dry periods (see year 2 description).


wet/ dry periods (see year 2 description).

Optional intermediate rise An option for an intermediate rise to about 73.2 mAHD with a duration of 31

days has been included in the third year of each cycle for ecological purposes

(e.g. permanent habitat required for frogs and turtles) or for contingency

purposes (e.g. salt, blackwater and acid sulfate soil flushing/ dilution events

required) if deemed necessary based on monitoring outcomes.


R01 38

Figure 2-7: Modelled water level under preferred regime (including intermediate rise) from Gippel, C. J (2015)

After an initial establishment phase, Third Reedy Lake will be filled once in every four years to 74.00 mAHD with

every third fill (i.e. once every 12 years) to 74.56 mAHD (equivalent to the current full supply level). The wetland

will be maintained at 74.56 mAHD for a 31day period to maintain Black Box and recruit River Red Gums.

Management intervention will also be required to ensure the salinity tolerances of ecological objectives (i.e.

River Red Gum) are not exceeded and that the system can respond to variable climate and associated

hydrological conditions (e.g. storms and floods). Further details on adaptive management and contingency

measures are provided in Section 0) (GMW, 2016a, b).

This preferred water regime will change Third Reedy Lake from a permanent freshwater lake with little water

level fluctuations to something more closely resembling its natural wetting and drying cycle. The preferred water

regime provides a water regime that is intermittent, allowing the lake to dry out in accordance with the EWP (to

be developed – see Section 5.2). This water regime will reflect the more natural flow requirements typically

required for River Red Gums (GMW, 2016a). The conceptual cross sections that were developed as part of the

North Central CMA (2014) investigation and provided in Appendix E illustrate the various components of the

lake under the proposed water regime.

2.2.5 Description of construction and operation

There are two main components for the delivery and operation of the TRLBP, these include:

• Construction of infrastructure to enable management of Third Reedy Lake’s water regime

• Operations – long term management of the lake’s water regime to achieve environmental objectives

and channel and pipeline operation to deliver water to GMW customers.

The construction component of the TRLBP is considered minor compared to the operations as it includes

standard channel and pipeline works within predominately previously disturbed land, whereas operations

includes changing the water regime of Third Reedy Lake.


R01 39

Construction

In order to deliver the preferred option for TRLBP (Section 2.2.3) and the preferred environmental watering

regime (Section 2.2.4) the key construction activities and infrastructure required are outlined in Table 2-7 and

Table 2-8 respectively. The infrastructure is proposed to be constructed over a six-month period (approximate).

The start date for works has not been confirmed, this will be dependent on the timing of approvals and

development of detailed design. Currently construction is planned to begin in mid-2018 and to be completed by

the end of that year.

The infrastructure has been designed to preliminary standard, appropriate to allow estimation of costs for input

into the KLBP Business Case (RMCG, 2015). These drawings are provided in Appendix F and provide typical

set-out of channel, control regulators, isolation regulator, pump station and fishway. Detailed design will be

undertaken after the TRLBP is fully approved.

GMW has been undertaking irrigation infrastructure works for around 100 years. The irrigation and construction

components proposed for the TRLBP are consistent with the standard irrigation infrastructure works (e.g.

construction of channels, pipelines and regulators) undertaken by GMW.

Table 2-7: TRLBP construction activity components

Component Type

Preliminary site/works preparation Site establishment, survey, site set out, floating (transport of machinery by

floats), mobilisation

Environmental offsets - secure

Preparation; Clearing and grubbing

Land acquisition, legalities (crown land and landholder land)

Construct channel - Bulk earthworks Topsoil stripping

Channel excavation

Compacted Bank Construction

Class 3 crushed rock

Topsoiling

Construct Associated Infrastructure Inline regulators

New vertical gates (between Middle and Third Reedy Lakes)

Flow measurement

Bridge at Third Reedy Lake (regulator access)

Fishways

Pump Station and Pipeline

Coffer dams

Demobilisation Site clean-up, including decommissioning of existing pump station.

Fencing

Landholder connections Connect existing GMW customers to pipeline

Table 2-8: TRLBP infrastructure and construction components (GMW, 2016b)

Component Type Purpose Construction footprint

(approximate)

Third Reedy Lake

Isolation Regulator

Upgrade Enable delivery of the preferred watering regime by:

• isolating the lake from the TIS

• controlling flows being diverted into Third Reedy Lake.

New vertical gates to be installed. No provision for fish

passage to be provided as operation of isolation regulator

is essentially either open or closed.

50m x 30m

Third Reedy Lake

Bypass Offtake

New In line regulator (TR3) to divert flows from Middle Reedy

Lake into the new bypass channel

50m x 30m

Third Reedy Lake

Bypass Fishway

New Vertical slot fishway in in-line regulator to allow fish

passage to and from Middle Reedy Lake into the bypass

channel

15m x 20m


R01 40

Component Type Purpose Construction footprint

(approximate)

Third Reedy Lake

Bypass Channel

New Transfer flows of up to 750ML/day around Third Reedy

Lake and back to the Torrumbarry No 7 channel.

A small area (~7 ha) of adjacent private used (farmland)

will be acquired for construction of the bypass channel.

(Other infrastructure will be constructed on land already

managed by G-MW).

Channel to be fenced.

1,400m x 50m – channel

~ 7ha – temporary

construction base including

site hut, laydown of

materials, vehicle parking (to

be removed at completion of

construction phase)

Occupational

Bridge

New Allow vehicular access across the bypass channel for

maintenance

With channel

Torrumbarry No 1/7

Channel Pump

Station

New Pump water out of the Torrumbarry No 7 channel into the

new pipeline to supply landowners previously supplied

from the 1/7 channel

40m x 40m

Torrumbarry No 1/7

Pipeline in existing

channel footprint

New Pressurised pipeline of approximately 1100m in length

used to supply customers previously supplied from the

Torrumbarry No 1C/7 channel.

10 metres either side of the

existing Torrumbarry No 1/7

channel

Torrumbarry No 1/7

channel

Decommission Following construction of the Torrumbarry No 1/7

Pipeline, the existing channel will be decommissioned and

site levelled.

1100 m x 20-30 m

Existing

Torrumbarry No 1/7

channel pump

station

Decommission Removal of existing pump station at the north end of Third

Reedy Lake and levelling of site.

30 m x 10m

Native vegetation

removal

Removal of maximum 6.8 ha of native vegetation

(depending on final design) to enable construction of

infrastructure above, refer to Section 5.4.1 for further

details on native vegetation removal and offsets.

6.8 ha (Section 5.4.1

provides assumptions and

details of offset)

The proposed construction footprint shown in Figure 2-8 is based on a nominal 50 m for the new bypass

channel (25 m either side of the centre line of the proposed channel) and 20 m for the pipeline (10 m either side

of the centre line of the existing channel) due to no detailed design currently being available for the TRLBP

infrastructure.

The bypass channel will be an earthen channel with a bed width of 7 m, corresponding to a typical width

between inside bank crests of about 17 m. 1V:2H bank batters have been adopted (Appendix F), with a nominal

water depth in the channel of 1.8 m. The 1.8 m water depth was determined to be the optimum profile to

minimise earthworks and reduce the risk of intersecting the local groundwater table during construction.

Channel banks have been designed with nominally 600 mm freeboard. This gives a constructed channel width

(banks and access track) of around 25 m. This does not allow for working room during construction for topsoil

stockpiling and other working requirements. Typically, the design bank level is within 500 mm of natural surface,

therefore requiring minimal compacted banks to be constructed. However, there is a large volume of cut to be

distributed in spoil banks and as exported fill.

The actual location of the proposed channel within the nominal 50m wide footprint will be determined during

detailed design and will be contingent on the outcomes of cultural heritage assessments and requirements to

distribute fill. The channel construction footprint has been kept to within reasonable limits and its siting has been

selected to minimize disturbance of the strip of vegetation around the edge of Third Reedy Lake and to

maximise its placement on land that has been used for farming for many years.

A number of options were assessed for the location of the TRLBP infrastructure (i.e. the bypass route). There are two main options, locating infrastructure on the eastern side of the lake and locating infrastructure on the western side of the lake. The selection of the preferred location was based on avoiding existing habitat values that fringe the lake and any other sites of sensitivity (e.g. cultural heritage), minimising the length and extent of footprint (i.e. reducing impact area and requirement for land acquisition) and the location of existing irrigation infrastructure.


R01 41

The preferred option selected was for the bypass infrastructure to be constructed on the western side of the lake (Figure 2-8). The key benefits of this route are:

• Provides the smallest construction footprint

• Utilises existing channel along the north-western margin of the lake for the pipeline

• The channel alignment is located predominately in disturbed agricultural land

• Avoids the lunette located on the eastern margins of the lake (cultural heritage sensitivity)

• Enables integration with existing irrigation infrastructure.

A number of options were considered when selecting the infrastructure for the Torrumbarry No. 1/7 channel and

the bypass channel. The Torrumbarry No. 1/7 requires a capacity of 145 ML/day and both a pipeline option and

channel options were assessed. The options assessment concluded that a pump and pipeline was the better

option due to the lowest overall capital cost and whole of life cost; construction of a channel on a new alignment

would have involved considerable disruption to the environment and properties (and potential issues with

ingress of saline groundwater as the route passes through saline areas) and a pump station would still have

been required to lift water from the Torrumbarry No. 7 channel into the new channel. Therefore, the pipeline

option was selected as it will result in less construction disturbance. The proposed pipeline has a diameter of

1200 mm for a capacity of 145 ML/day.

The bypass channel requires a capacity of 750 ML/day. Earthen channel technology (construction, maintenance

and operation) in the region is well understood and the bypass channel is consistent with other channels in the

region. These suit the low grades available. Given the capacity required (750 ML/day) and likely very large

pipeline size and associated pumping capital and operating cost a pipeline option for the bypass was not a

feasible option.

Construction activities will be managed under the provisions of the existing GMW’s Connections Project’s CEMF

(Section 1.2.2) and will be undertaken by the contractor in accordance with the requirements of the project’s

CEMP (Section 5.3).


R01 42

Figure 2-8: Third Reedy Lake Bypass Proposed Infrastructure (Source: adapted from GMW 2016a)


R01 43

Operation

The key operational activities for the TRLBP are:

1. Management of the water regime of Third Reedy Lake

2. Operation of the bypass channel

3. Operation of pump and pipeline

4. Environmental management.

1. Management of the water regime of Third Reedy Lake

The water regime for Third Reedy Lake will be managed in accordance with an EWP, further details are

provided in Section 5.2.

2. Operation of the bypass channel:

GMW has the ability to operate regulators and offtakes across the irrigation system from their local operation

centres using radio controlled, solar powered technology; this is called remote operation. As part of the remote

operation of Third Reedy Lake, GMW will remotely operate and manage the TIS so that water can:

• enter Third Reedy Lake from Middle Reedy Lake in accordance with the requirements of the EWP at

rates and times determined via the EWP.

• pass irrigation supplies for TIS customers around Third Reedy Lake, further downstream to Lake Charm and Kangaroo Lake and beyond through the proposed bypass channel from Middle Reedy Lake. This will generally be during the irrigation season (August 15 to May 15), but can also occur at other times of the year depending on operation of downstream storages that are part of the Victorian Mid-Murray Storages (GMW, 2016b). It should be noted that passing irrigation supplies around Third Reedy Lake to Lake Charm and Lake Kangaroo will not change their water regime, as they are both currently connected to the TIS. Management of flood flows will also continue to be managed in line with existing accepted protocols.

3. Environmental management:

The existing GMW Connections Project Water Change Management Framework (WCMF) will be adapted to

manage the operation of Third Reedy Lake through preparation of an EWP (Section 5.2). Identification,

management and control of the potential impacts associated with the construction of the TRLBP will be

managed through preparation of an CEMP for the project (Section 5.3). Environmental water delivery will be

managed and supplied in accordance with the Victorian environmental watering framework outlined in Section

5.2.

All management arrangements for Third Reedy Lake as part of the operation of the TRLBP are described in

detail in Section 0, including details of the EWP and CEMP for the project.


R01 44

3. Project environment

The TRLBP environment can be defined as the area potentially impacted by the TRLBP which includes Third

Reedy Lake, the surrounding connected wetlands in the Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Site and the broader Kerang

wetlands system, and the proposed bypass channel and its associated construction footprint. A number of field

investigations have been undertaken to understand the project environment, in particular the wetland dependent

flora and fauna values at Third Reedy Lake. Descriptions of the surveys, including scope, timing (survey

season/s) and methodology are described in detail in each of these reports (publicly available at

http://www.connectionsproject.com.au/kerang-lakes-bypass-project-referral-documents/). These investigations

have included:

• EVC mapping, Index of Wetland Condition assessments and collection of flora and fauna data (Rakali Consulting 2013).

• Fauna (fish, birds, frogs, turtle, macroinvertebrate) investigations (Biosis 2013).

• Targeted surveys for Murray hardyhead (Sharpe 2014).

• Flora and fauna assessment and some ground-truthing of previous investigations (SKM 2013a).

These investigations were relied on to determine the current presence and the likelihood of occurrence of

species at Third Reedy Lake. Details on the reliability of information within the documents and an assessment

against whether the surveys were consistent with the EPBC Act 1999 assessment guidelines or other best

practice guidelines where available are provided in Appendix A.

In addition, North Central CMA (2014) developed extensive flora and fauna species lists based on the first three

surveys above, plus information from Ho et al. (2006), SKM (2001), SKM (2010) and Birdlife Australia.

These investigations and survey data were used together with data from the Atlas of Living Australia, Victorian

Biodiversity Atlas (DELWP, 2016a), Cook and Bayes 2014, CMA unpublished data, Annual Summer Waterfowl

counts (DELWP unpublished), Kingsford et al. 2014 and Butcher and Hale, 2016 to provide a more

comprehensive review of the ecological values present at Third Reedy Lake.

The following sections provide details of the important ecological communities, plants and animals in relation to

the project environment and within the Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Site boundary for Third Reedy Lake:

• Section 3.1 provides a description of the surrounding environment and an assessment of wetlands hydrologically connected to Third Reedy Lake, including the likelihood for potential impacts to these connected wetlands.

• Section 3.2 provides a general description of the area of impact (e.g. Third Reedy Lake) including habitat available, identifies Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) that may be present based on a Protected Matters Search Tool (PMST) search, species listed in the Bilateral Agreement and general information on the plant and animal values known to be or potentially present in the assessment area (full species lists are provided in Appendix G).

• Section 3.3 compares the attributes of the Third Reedy Lake that contribute to the ecological character of the broader Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Site, and the predicted changes likely associated with the TRLBP.

3.1 Surrounding wetlands

Third Reedy Lake is ecologically and hydrologically linked to other aquatic ecosystems within the Kerang Lakes

wetlands region, including First and Middle Reedy Lakes and the Loddon River (upstream), and Little Lake

Charm, Scott’s Creek, Little Lake Charm and Kangaroo Lake (downstream). Consideration of the hydrological

connection of Third Reedy Lake with the aquatic ecosystems in the broader landscape are important in terms of

determining the potential impacts attributable to the TRLBP at the site and regional scale.

An assessment of the connection between Third Reedy Lake and the surrounding wetlands in the landscape

has been undertaken to determine whether there are any physical or hydrological threat pathways associated

with the TRLBP. Figure 3-1 illustrates the location of wetlands in the project environment and their connection



R01 45

with Third Reedy Lake. Table 3-1 provides a summary of this assessment and indicates that whilst a number of

wetlands are hydrologically connected to Third Reedy Lake under current conditions, their connection to the

broader Ramsar site and wetland system will be retained via the Third Reedy Lake bypass channel and

therefore Third Reedy Lake will be the only wetland that experiences hydrological change.

There are some potential water quality related impacts on downstream wetlands (e.g. Little Lake Charm (and

Scotts Creek), Lake Charm, Racecourse Lake and Kangaroo Lake). This is because there is potential that

water in Third Reedy Lake could occasionally be of poor quality as a result of elevated salinity, low dissolved

oxygen or low pH, and that if this water was released to downstream environments there could be potential

impacts on those environments. However, water will only be operationally released to these lakes from Third

Reedy Lake when water quality is within an acceptable range. This will be achieved by passing water through

Third Reedy Lake to provide dilution (see Section 4.4.1).

The proposed construction footprint (Figure 2-8) is within the immediately vicinity of Third Reedy Lake and

therefore any physical impacts associated with the construction will also only occur at Third Reedy Lake. Based

on this assessment, a detailed risk assessment will only be undertaken at Third Reedy Lake (see Section 4.1).

This potential impact area and the values present are discussed further in Chapter 3.2.

Table 3-1: Assessment of connection with Third Reedy Lake (green = connection but no physical or hydrological impact

pathway, orange = connection and hydrological impact pathway present).

Lake/

Wetland

Distance

(approx.)

from Third

Reedy

Lake (km)

Area

(ha)

Current Water Source

(North Central CMA,

2017)

Connection with

Third Reed Lake

Potential impact from TRLBP

Surrounding wetlands of significance

First Reedy

Lake (Kerang

Wetlands

Ramsar Site)

2.4 196 • Diversions from the

Murray River through

Kow Swamp, Pyramid

Creek.

• Floodwater from the

Loddon River

No connection.

Upstream of Third

Reedy Lake

Physical impacts:

Approx. 2.4km from construction footprint

therefore no potential physical impacts.

Hydrological impacts: Upstream of Third

Reedy Lake, therefore no water regime

change and no potential hydrological

impact.

MNES impact: No physical or hydrology

threat pathway and therefore no potential

impact on MNES or the ecological

character of the Ramsar site.

Middle

(Second

Reedy Lake)

(Kerang

Wetlands

Ramsar Site)

0.6 196 • Diversions from the


Kow Swamp, Pyramid

Creek, Reedy Lakes.


Loddon River

Connected via

irrigation system.

Upstream of Third

Reedy Lake

Physical impacts:

Approx. 200-500m from construction

footprint therefore no potential physical

impacts.


Reedy Lake and will be connected to Lake

Charm and Kangaroo Lake and beyond via

the proposed bypass channel therefore no

water regime change and no potential

hydrological impact.

MNES impact:

No physical or hydrology threat pathway

and therefore no potential impact on

MNES or the ecological character of the

Ramsar site.

Third Reedy

Lake (Kerang

Wetlands

Ramsar Site)

- 234 • Diversions from the


Kow Swamp, Pyramid

Creek, Reedy Lakes.

N/A Construction impacts: Construction

footprint within proximity of the lake,

therefore impact assessment and

mitigation undertaken (Section 4.1)


R01 46

Lake/

Wetland

Distance

(approx.)

from Third

Reedy

Lake (km)

Area

(ha)


(North Central CMA,

2017)

Connection with

Third Reed Lake



Loddon River

Water regime impacts: Change in water

regime and occasional increase in salinity,

therefore impact assessment and

mitigation undertaken (Section 4.3).

MNES impact: Physical or hydrology

threat pathway identified, therefore impact

assessment and mitigation of MNES or the

ecological character of the Ramsar site

undertaken (Section 4.3).

Little Lake

Charm,

(Kerang

Wetlands

Ramsar Site)

5 113 • Diversions from the


Kow Swamp, Pyramid

Creek, Reedy Lakes,

Torrumbarry No. 7

Channel to Little Lake

Charm.


Loddon River

Connected via

irrigation system.

Downstream of

Third Reedy Lake.

Construction impacts: Approx. 5 km from

construction footprint therefore no potential

physical impacts.

Water regime impacts: Downstream of

Third Reedy Lake and will continue to

receive diversions from Middle Reedy

Lake via the proposed bypass channel.

May be occasional increase in salinity (up

to 100 EC increase), however this is a low

risk due to the ability to deliver dilution

flows to mitigate any risk (Section 4.4). No

potential hydrological impact.

MNES impact:




Ramsar site.

Lake Charm,

(Kerang

Wetlands

Ramsar Site)



Kow Swamp, Pyramid

Creek, Reedy Lakes,

Torrumbarry No. 7


Charm.


Loddon River

Connected via

irrigation system.

Downstream of

Third Reedy Lake.

Physical impacts:

Approx. 5km from construction footprint

therefore no potential physical impacts.

Hydrological impacts: Downstream of

Third Reedy Lake and will be connected to

Middle Reedy Lake via the proposed

bypass channel, therefore, no water

regime change and no potential


MNES impact:




Ramsar site.

Racecourse

Lake,

(Kerang

Wetlands

Ramsar Site)



Kow Swamp, Pyramid

Creek, Reedy Lakes,

Torrumbarry No. 7


Charm.


Loddon River

Connected via

irrigation system.

Downstream of

Third Reedy Lake.

Downstream of

Third Reedy Lake.

Physical impacts: Approx. 5 km from


physical impacts.







risk due to the low concentrate and the

ability to deliver dilution flows to mitigate


R01 47

Lake/

Wetland

Distance

(approx.)

from Third

Reedy

Lake (km)

Area

(ha)


(North Central CMA,

2017)

Connection with

Third Reed Lake


any risk (Section 4.4). No potential


MNES impact:




Ramsar site.

Kangaroo

Lake (Kerang

Wetlands

Ramsar Site)



Kow Swamp, Pyramid

Creek, Reedy Lakes,

Torrumbarry No. 7


Charm.


Loddon River

Connected via

irrigation system.

Downstream of

Third Reedy Lake.



physical impacts.







risk due to the low concentrate and the

ability to deliver dilution flows to mitigate

any risk (Section 4.4). No potential


MNES impact:




Ramsar site.

Kerang Weir

(Kerang

Wetlands

Ramsar Site)

~7 46 • Overbank flows from

the Loddon River

• Backed up flows from

the Kerang Weir,

300m downstream of

the wetland.

No Connection.

Upstream of Third

Reedy Lake.



physical impacts.


Reedy Lake and no hydrological

connection, therefore, no potential


MNES impact:




Ramsar site.

Town Swamp

(Kerang

Wetlands

Ramsar Site)


the Loddon River

• Backed up flows from

the Kerang Weir,

300m downstream of

the wetland.

No Connection.

Upstream of Third

Reedy Lake.



physical impacts.





MNES impact:




Ramsar site.

Johnsons

Swamp

26 411 • Regulated:

Western section:

flows from

No Connection.

Upstream of Third

Reedy Lake.



physical impacts.


R01 48

Lake/

Wetland

Distance

(approx.)

from Third

Reedy

Lake (km)

Area

(ha)


(North Central CMA,

2017)

Connection with

Third Reed Lake


(Kerang

Lakes)

Torrumbarry 4/7/2

channel (capacity of

160 ML/day)

outfalling to an

environmental water

delivery conduit (80

ML/day)

• Natural:

West and eastern

section: Significant

overbank flooding

from Pyramid Creek

(>2,000 ML/day)

required to overtop

banks





MNES impact:




Ramsar site.

Hird Swamp

(Kerang

Lakes)

31 344 • Regulated:

Western section:

Regulated flow from

Torrumbarry 1/7/2

channel. Maximum

outfall rate to the

wetland is 50ML/day.

Eastern section:

375mm siphon from

western section

• Natural:

West and eastern

section: Significant

overbank flooding

from Pyramid Creek

(>2,000 ML/day)

required to overtop

banks

No Connection.

Upstream of Third

Reedy Lake.



physical impacts.





MNES impact:




Ramsar site.

Lake Cullen

(Kerang

Wetlands

Ramsar Site)

7 632 • Regulated flow from

irrigation channel

linking to Racecourse

and Kangaroo Lakes

Connected via

irrigation system.

Downstream of

Third Reedy Lake.



physical impacts.



receive managed diversions from irrigation

channel, therefore, no potential


MNES impact:


and therefore, no potential impact on


Ramsar site.

Lake

Tutchewop

(Kerang

Wetlands

Ramsar Site)

17 752 • Barr Creek Drainage

Diversion Scheme

• Groundwater

interactions

Only connected to

Third Reedy Lake

during very major

floods.

Downstream of

Third Reedy Lake.



physical impacts.


Third Reedy Lake and only connected

during very major floods, therefore project


R01 49

Lake/

Wetland

Distance

(approx.)

from Third

Reedy

Lake (km)

Area

(ha)


(North Central CMA,

2017)

Connection with

Third Reed Lake


will not impact water regime. Not in same

local groundwater system as Third Reedy

Lake, therefore, no potential hydrological

impact.

MNES impact:




Ramsar site.

Lake William

(Kerang

Wetlands

Ramsar Site)


Diversion Scheme

• Groundwater

interactions

No Connection.

Downstream of

Third Reedy Lake.



physical impacts.


Third Reedy Lake and no hydrological

connection. Not in same local

groundwater system as Third Reedy Lake,

therefore, no potential hydrological impact.

MNES impact:




Ramsar site.

Lake Kelly

(Kerang

Wetlands

Ramsar Site)


Diversion Scheme

• Groundwater

interactions

No Connection.

Downstream of

Third Reedy Lake.



physical impacts.



connection. Not in same local groundwater

system as Third Reedy Lake, therefore, no


MNES impact:




Ramsar site.

Little Lake

Kelly (Kerang

Wetlands

Ramsar Site)


Diversion Scheme

• Groundwater

interactions

No Connection.

Downstream of

Third Reedy Lake.



physical impacts.



connection. Not in same local groundwater

system as Third Reedy Lake, therefore, no


MNES impact:




Ramsar site.

Fosters

Swamp

(Kerang

11 225 • Treated wastewater

discharge from

Kerang Waste Water

Treatment Plant

No Connection.

Upstream of Third

Reedy Lake.



physical impacts.


R01 50

Lake/

Wetland

Distance

(approx.)

from Third

Reedy

Lake (km)

Area

(ha)


(North Central CMA,

2017)

Connection with

Third Reed Lake


Wetlands

Ramsar Site)

• Urban stormwater

• Regional and local

surface water run-off





MNES impact:




Ramsar site.

Stevensons

Swamp

(Kerang

Wetlands

Ramsar Site)

2.5 80 • Overflow from Scotts

Creek but only in very

large floods.

Only connected to

Third Reedy Lake

during very major

floods.

Downstream of

Third Reedy Lake.

Physical impacts: Approx. 2.5 km from


physical impacts.


Third Reedy Lake and only connected

during very major floods, therefore project

will not impact water regime. Not in same

local groundwater system as Third Reedy

Lake, therefore, no potential hydrological

impact.

MNES impact:




Ramsar site.

Lake Bael

(Kerang

Wetlands

Ramsar Site)

12 647 • Flow from the Avoca

River

No Connection. In

adjacent

catchment to

Third Reedy Lake.



physical impacts.

Hydrological impacts: In adjacent

catchment to Third Reedy Lake and no

hydrological connection, therefore, no


MNES impact:




Ramsar site.

First Marsh

(Kerang

Wetlands

Ramsar Site)


River via Lake Bael

Bael

No Connection. In

adjacent

catchment to

Third Reedy Lake.



physical impacts.





MNES impact:




Ramsar site.

Second

Marsh

(Kerang


River via Lake Bael

Bael and First Marsh

No Connection. In

adjacent

catchment to

Third Reedy Lake.



physical impacts.


R01 51

Lake/

Wetland

Distance

(approx.)

from Third

Reedy

Lake (km)

Area

(ha)


(North Central CMA,

2017)

Connection with

Third Reed Lake


Wetlands

Ramsar Site)





MNES impact:




Ramsar site.

Third Marsh

(Kerang

Wetlands

Ramsar Site)

13 1,205 • Flow from the Avoca

River via Lake Bael

Bael and First Marsh

and Second Marsh

No Connection. In

adjacent

catchment to

Third Reedy Lake.



physical impacts.





MNES impact:




Ramsar site.

Cemetery

Swamp

(Kerang

Wetlands

Ramsar Site)


Pyramid Creek

• Stormwater

• Overflow from

Fosters Swamp via

drain (in large floods)

No Connection.

Upstream of Third

Reedy Lake.



physical impacts.





MNES impact:




Ramsar site.

Additional wetlands of importance identified in PMST

Banrock

station

wetland

complex

300-400km

downstream

1,375 • Murray River via Inlet

Creek

• Overbank flows from

Murray River

• Groundwater

interactions

Not connected.

300-400km

downstream of

Third Reedy Lake.

Physical impacts:

Approx. 300-400km downstream of


physical impacts.

Hydrological impacts:

No plausible impact; Site is 300-400km

downstream, not connected and is beyond

the boundary of groundwater effects can

reasonably be expected to be detected,

therefore, no potential hydrological impact

MNES impact:




Ramsar site.

Hattah-

Kulkyne

lakes

150-200km

downstream

955 • Murray River via

Chalka Creek

Not connected.

150-200km

Physical impacts:


R01 52

Lake/

Wetland

Distance

(approx.)

from Third

Reedy

Lake (km)

Area

(ha)


(North Central CMA,

2017)

Connection with

Third Reed Lake


• Overbank flows from

Murray River

downstream of

Third Reedy Lake.



physical impacts.







MNES impact:




Ramsar site.

Riverland

300-400km

downstream

30,600 • Murray River, its

backwaters and

tributaries

Not connected.

300-400km

downstream of

Third Reedy Lake.

Physical impacts:



physical impacts.







MNES impact:




Ramsar site.

The Coorong,

and lakes

Alexandrina

and Albert

wetland

300-400km

downstream

140,500 • Murray River

• Southern Ocean

• Groundwater

interactions

Not connected.

300-400km

downstream of

Third Reedy Lake.

Physical impacts:



physical impacts.







MNES impact:




Ramsar site.


R01 53

Figure 3-1: Project environment – surrounding wetlands


R01 54

3.2 Proposed area of impact

As discussed in Section 3.1, Third Reedy Lake is the only wetland in the Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Site and

broader Kerang Wetlands complex that has the potential to be impacted by the TRLBP. Therefore, the

proposed area of impact associated with TRLBP can be defined as Third Reedy Lake (including the fringing

wetland and riparian vegetation) and the proposed bypass channel and its associated construction footprint

(Figure 3-2). The following sections provide a general description of the project environment within the proposed

area of impact.

3.2.1 Habitat

The project environment has undergone significant change since European settlement. This has included land

use change in the area (e.g. conversion of native vegetation to farming land and stock use), introduction of pest

species (e.g. rabbits and foxes), construction of the Kerang Weir in the 1880s and regulation of Third Reedy

Lake which changed the lakes hydrology from an intermittent wetland to a permanent wetland with a maximum

depth of approximately 1.66m. These changes have resulted in a significant change to the habitat available at

the site and ecological values.

Despite the changes from natural, Third Reedy Lake provides habitat for a range of fauna species due to the presence of a narrow band of fringing aquatic vegetation, abundant snags and permanent open water (North Central CMA, 2014). The deepest part of the lake is open water, with no aquatic vegetation. Abundant dead River Red Gums (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) are distributed across the shallow open water zone and the riparian margin is largely complete with continuous fringing macrophytes (Biosis, 2013). The wetland sits in a regional setting of cleared agricultural land. The intensity of agricultural use varies from annual surface and sub-surface irrigation, perennial irrigation, and dryland cropping and grazing (GMW, 2016a). Section 3.2.3 and 3.2.4 provides information on the plants and animals that utilise the range of habitat available at Third Reedy Lake.

An Index of Wetland Condition assessment in 2013 determined that against pre-European benchmarks, Third

Reedy Lake was considered to be in poor condition, but the lake vegetation was in moderate condition when

assessed against EVC benchmarks for the vegetation that has established at the wetland since regulation

(North Central CMA, 2016).

There is currently no regular water quality monitoring program at Third Reedy Lake. The nearest monitoring station in on the Loddon River at Kerang. Water quality in Third Reedy Lake is assumed to approximate the quality of the Loddon River site because both are influenced by flows of water from the River Murray via deliveries for the TIS. Data extracted from the Victorian Water Management System (VWMS) indicates high turbidity, occasionally high salinity (EC), high Total Nitrogen (TN) levels dominated by organic nitrogen (TKN) and very low levels of nitrates (NOX), high level of Total Phosphorus (TP), but relatively low levels of bioavailable phosphorus. Values for TP, TN and turbidity exceed Victorian State Environment Planning Policies (Waters of Victoria) objectives (GMW, 2016a).


R01 55

Figure 3-2: TRLBP area of potential impact


R01 56

3.2.2 Matters of National Environmental Significance

A Protected Matters Search Tool (PMST) search based on a 2.5 km radius from the centre of Third Reedy Lake

was undertaken as part of the EPBC Act 1999 referral submitted to DEE (GMW, 2016b). A summary of the

PMST search is provided in Table 3-2. The Bilateral Agreement (Section 1.2.5) also specifically identifies

MNES that may be present at Third Reedy Lake and these have also been provided in Table 3-2. The following

sections provide more detailed description of these MNES and an assessment of their likelihood of being

present at Third Reedy Lake.

Table 3-2: PMST search based on 2.5 km radius from the centre of Third Reedy Lake and EPBC Act 1999 listed species

specifically identified in the Bilateral Agreement.

EPBC Criterion PMST Bilateral Agreement

World Heritage Properties None None

National Heritage Places None None

Wetlands of International

Importance:

• Banrock station wetland complex

• Hattah-Kulkyne lakes

• Kerang wetlands

• Riverland

• The Coorong, and lakes Alexandrina and Albert wetland

Kerang wetlands

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park: None None

Commonwealth Marine Area: None None

Listed Threatened Ecological

Communities*

• Buloke Woodlands of the Riverina and Murray-Darling Depression Bioregions

• Grey Box (Eucalyptus microcarpa)

Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands of South-eastern Australia

• Natural Grasslands of the Murray Valley Plains

• White Box-Yellow Box-Blakely's Red

Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Native Grassland (White Box Woodland) community

None

Listed Threatened Species*

Flora species

• Austrostipa wakoolica

• Winged Pepper-cress (Lepidium monoplocoides)

• Chariot Wheels (Maireana cheelii)

• Slender Darling-pea (Swainsona murrayana)

Birds

• Australian Bittern (Botaurus poiciloptilus)

• Painted Honeyeater (Grantiella picta)

• Swift Parrot (Lathamus discolor)

• Malleefowl (Leipoa ocellata)

• Plains-wanderer (Pedionomus torquatus)

• Night Parrot (Pezoporus occidentalis)

• Australian Painted Snipe (Rostratula australis)

Frogs

• Growling Grass Frog (Litoria raniformis)

• Brown Toadlet (Pseudophryne bibroni Mammals

• South-eastern Long-eared Bat

(Nyctophilus corbeni)

• Greater Glider (Petauroides volans) Reptiles

• Striped Legless Lizard (Delma impar)

Fish

• Silver Perch (Bidyanus bidyanus)

• Murray Hardyhead (Craterocephalus fluviatilis)

• Murray Cod (Maccullochella peelii)

• Macquarie Perch (Macquaria australasica)

• Flathead Galaxias (Galaxias rostratus),

Flora species

• Winged Pepper-cress (Lepidium monoplocoides)

• Chariot Wheels (Maireana cheelii)

• Slender Darling-pea (Swainsona murrayana)

Birds

• Australian Bittern (Botaurus poiciloptilus)

• Curlew Sandpiper (Calidris ferruginea)

• Eastern Great Egret (Ardea modesta)

• White-bellied Sea Eagle (Haliaeetus leucogaster)

• Hardhead (Aythya australis)

• Plains-wanderer (Pedionomus torquatus)

• Australian Painted Snipe (Rostratula australis)

• Regent Parrot (Polytelis anthopeplus

monarchoides)

• Supurb Parrot (Polytelis swainsonii)

• Painted Honeyeater (Grantiella picta) Frogs

• Growling Grass Frog (Litoria raniformis)

• Brown Toadlet (Pseudophryne bibroni) Fish

• Silver Perch (Bidyanus bidyanus)

• Murray Hardyhead (Craterocephalus

fluviatilis)

• Murray Cod (Maccullochella peelii)

• Macquarie Perch (Macquaria australasica)

• Flathead Galaxias (Galaxias rostratus)

• Freshwater Catfish (Tandanus tandanus)


R01 57

EPBC Criterion PMST Bilateral Agreement

Listed Migratory Species*

• Fork-tailed Swift (Apus pacificus)

• Rainbow Bee-eater (Merops ornatus)

• Yellow Wagtail (Motacilla flava)

• Satin Flycatcher (Myiagra cyanoleuca)

• Great Egret, White Egret (Ardea alba)

• Cattle Egret (Ardea ibis)

• Latham's Snipe, Japanese Snipe (Gallinago hardwickii)

• Common Greenshank (Tringa nebularia)

• Painted Snipe (Rostratula benghalensis [sensulato])

None

* denotes that additional species (not in PMST but known from site) were added (GMW, 2016b)

3.2.3 Plants

The inclusion of Third Reedy Lake within the TIS permanently inundated the lake resulting in the vegetation

changing and the majority of the lake now being open water. The current vegetation communities and records

of individual species has been described by Rakali Consulting (2013) and Cook and Bayes (2014).

Mapping of Ecological Vegetation Communities (EVCs) (Rakali Consulting, 2013 and Cook and Bayes, 2014)

has identified three EVCs associated with the current water regime of the lake (Tall Marsh – EVC821,

Intermittent Swampy Woodland – EVC813 and Aquatic Herbland – EVC 653) (Figure 3-3 and Figure 3-3). The

freshwater EVCs identified at Third Reedy Lake have a combined cover of 3,278 hectares within the Kerang

Wetlands Ramsar Site, occurring at Little Lake Charm, Lake Charm, Kangaroo Lake, Racecourse Lake, the

Reedy Lake Complex, Lake Bael Bael and the Avoca Marshes, Hird Swamp and Johnson Swamp. The extent

of freshwater EVCs at Third Reedy Lake is less than 10% of that found across the 23 Ramsar wetlands (Rakali

Consulting, 2013).

Table 3-3: Ecological vegetation communities recorded at Third Reedy Lake (from Rakali Consulting, 2013)

EVC No.: EVC

Name

Bioregional

Conservation Status

(Victorian Riverina)

General vegetation description (Rakali, 2013)

EVC653: Aquatic

Herbland

Not listed for Victorian

Riverina (Vulnerable

in Murray Fans

bioregion)

Small, localised areas of Aquatic Herbland occur in association with Tall Marsh.

Species included: Ludwigia peploides subsp. montevidensis (Clove-strip),

Myriophyllum papillosum (Robust Water-milfoil) Persicaria decipiens (Slender

Knotweed)

EVC813:

Intermittent

Swampy Woodland

Depleted Overstorey of Eucalyptus camaldulensis (River Red Gum), with an understorey

including Duma florulenta (Tangled Lignum), Rhagodia spinescens (Hedge

Saltbush), Cressa australis (Rosinweed), Cyperus gymnocaulos (Spring Flat-sedge)

and Sporobolus mitchellii (Rat-tail Couch). Littoral species Eleocharis acuta

(Common Spike-rush), Amphibromus nervosus (Veined Swamp Wallaby-grass),

Eragrostis infecunda (Barren Cane-grass) and Carex tereticaulis (Poong’ort) are

locally dominant. Includes a range of herbs characteristic of seasonal inundation

including Marsilea drummondii (Common Nardoo), Senecio runcinifolius (Tall

Fireweed) and the rare Asperula gemella (Twin-leaf Bedstraw).

EVC821: Tall Marsh Depleted Occurs around the wetland perimeter; dominated by reeds, rushes and sedges.

Typha orientalis (Broad-leaf Cumbungi) and Typha domingensis (Narrow-leaf

Cumbungi) often formed mixed stands with Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani (River

Club-rush); with small patches of Juncus ingens (Giant Rush) and occasionally

Phragmites australis (Common Reed).

Third Reedy Lake itself has a high density and abundance of dead River Red Gums (Eucalyptus camaldulensis)

across the entire shallow open water zone, which is devoid of aquatic vegetation; although, it is noted that in the

1990s, the open water zone had abundant of Robust Water-milfoil (Myriophyllum papillosum) and Clove-strip

(Ludwigia peplodies subsp. montevidensis) (North Central CMA, 2014). Emergent vegetation (Tall Marsh

EVC821) fringes the open water area with Typha spp. and Juncus spp. extending for approximately 50 metres

from the edge of the wetland to depths of about 0.3-0.7 metres. Small (<10 m2) patches of rushes and aquatic

herbs are present in some isolated areas (e.g. a small depression on the south-east boundary of the lake). The


R01 58

boundary of Third Reedy Lake is characterised by River Red Gum and Black Box (Eucalyptus largiflorens)

overstorey, with a shrubby understorey (predominantly Tangled Lignum (Duma florulenta) (Intermittent Swampy

Woodland EVC813).

Within the EVCs seven species of plants with conservation significance have been recorded at Third Reedy

Lake, including the Flora and Fauna Guarantee (FFG) Act 1988 listed Winged Water-starwort (Callitriche

umbonata) (Table 3-4). These species also occur around Middle and First Reedy Lakes (Cook and Bayes

2014). A number of other threatened species are potentially present but have not been recorded in the area of

potential impact (e.g. the EPBC Act 1999 listed Chariot Wheels, Winged Peppercress and Slender Darling-pea).

An assessment of the habitat preferences for each species has been undertaken to determine their likelihood of

occurrence at Third Reedy Lake, this includes an assessment of any critical habitat identified in a species

recovery plan or habitat listed on the Register of Critical Habitat under the EPBC Act 1999. Appendix G

provides a full list of species recorded or potentially present at Third Reedy Lake.

Table 3-4 Plants of conservation significance recorded at Third Reedy Lake or potentially present at the lake and for which

detailed impact assessment is required.

Common

Name Scientific Name

Vic

ad

vis

ory

/

FF

G #

EP

BC

@

Likelihood of presence at Third Reedy Lake

Twin-leaf

Bedstraw

Asperula

gemella r

Recorded associated with existing Intermittent Swampy Woodland (EVC) (Rakali

Consulting 2013)

Flat-top

Saltbush

Atriplex lindleyi

subsp. lidleyi k


Consulting 2013)

Winged

Water-

starwort

Callitriche

umbonata r, L


Consulting 2013)

Spiny Lignum Duma horrida

subsp. Horrida r


Consulting 2013)

Winged

Peppercress*

Lepidium

monoplocoides En,L En Not recorded in direct association with Third Reedy Lake or bypass area.

Chariot

wheels* Maireana cheelii V,L V

Not recorded in direct association with Third Reedy Lake or bypass area but has been

recorded south west of First Reedy Lake (Rakali Consulting 2013).

Dark Roly-

poly

Sclerolaena

muricata var.

muricata

k Recorded associated with existing Intermittent Swampy Woodland (EVC) (Rakali

Consulting 2013)

Branching

Groundsel

Senecio

cunninghamii

var.

cunninghamii

r Recorded associated with existing Tall Marsh (EVC) (Rakali Consulting 2013)

Slender

Darling-pea*

Swainsona

murrayana En,L V Not recorded in direct association with Third Reedy Lake or bypass area.

* Species specifically included in the Bilateral Agreement #Vic Advisory / FFG: Ce – critically endangered, En – endangered, V – vulnerable, r – rare, NT – near threatened, k - insufficient known / L – listed, I – rejected for listing as threatened; taxon invalid @EPBC: Ce – critically endangered, En – endangered, V – vulnerable

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=8008


R01 59

Figure 3-3: Mapped EVCs associated with the current water regime of the lake (Rakali, 2013). Tall Marsh not mapped.


R01 60

Rakali Consulting (2013) also investigated whether four threatened ecological communities identified by the

EPBC Act 1999 Protected Matters Search Tool (http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/protected-matters-search-

tool and see Table 3-5) as being present within the project environment were actually present at Third Reedy

Lake. The investigation found no intact remnants within the project environment.

Table 3-5: Threatened ecological communities potentially within the project environment

Listed threatened ecological communities Status Finding Rakali Consulting (2013)

Buloke Woodlands of the Riverina and Murray-Darling

Depression Bioregions

Endangered Terrestrial community occurs in the local area; no

intact remnants were observed within the proposed

bypass area.

Grey Box (Eucalyptus microcarpa) Grassy Woodlands

and Derived Native Grasslands of South-eastern

Australia

Endangered Terrestrial community that occurs in the region, but no


bypass area.

Natural grasslands of the Murray Valley plains Critically

Endangered

Terrestrial community that occurs in the region, but no


bypass area.

White Box-Yellow Box-Blakely's Red Gum Grassy

Woodland and Derived Native Grassland

Critically

Endangered

Not known from the local area and no intact remnants

were observed within the proposed bypass area.

3.2.4 Animals

Third Reedy Lake has suitable habitats for a range of animals due to its extensive fringing aquatic vegetation,

abundant snags that provide good perching, basking and roosting locations, and permanent open water for fish.

A number of fauna surveys have been undertaken at Third Reedy Lake and the broader Kerang Lakes system.

These include Ho et al. 2006; SKM 2010; Rakali Consulting, 2013; Biosis, 2013; DEPI, 2013a and BirdLife

Australia records (http://birdlife.org.au).

3.2.4.1 Birds

Thirty two (32) waterbird species have been recorded at Third Reedy Lake. Species include fish-eaters,

shoreline foragers, deep-water foragers and waders. Species of conservation value (i.e. listed threatened

species and/or species listed on International migratory bird agreements) recorded at the lake include Eastern

Great Egret (Ardea modesta), Little Egret (Egretta garzetta), White-bellied Sea Eagle (Haliaeetus leucogaster),

Caspian Tern (Anas caspia) and Musk Duck (Biziura lobata). There are no records of Third Reedy Lake

supporting significant waterbird breeding events; most records appear to relate to foraging or fly -over

observations.

Table 3-6 summarises bird species of conservation significance recorded or potentially present at Third Reedy

Lake. Appendix G proved a full list of species of conservation significance.

Table 3-6 Birds of conservation significance recorded at Third Reedy Lake or potentially present at the lake and for which

detailed impact assessment is required

Common


Vic

ad

vis

ory

/

FF

G #

EP

BC

@

Inte

rnati

on

al

treaty


Waterbirds

Intermediate

Egret Ardea intermedia En,L Recorded in Ramsar site but not recorded from Third Reedy Lake

Eastern

Great Egret* Ardea modesta Vu,L Eastern Great Egret have been recorded at Third Reedy Lake (Biosis 2013).

Hardhead* Aythya australis V Previously recorded from Third Reedy Lake.

Musk Duck Biziura lobata Vu Previously recorded from Third Reedy Lake.

http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/protected-matters-search-tool

http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/protected-matters-search-tool

http://birdlife.org.au/


R01 61

Common


Vic

ad

vis

ory

/

FF

G #

EP

BC

@

Inte

rnati

on

al

treaty


Australasian

Bittern*

Botaurus

poiciloptilus En, L En

Recorded in Ramsar site, but not recorded from Third Reedy Lake. Is restricted

to wetland habitats where it prefers dense reedbeds (Biosis 2013) that are not

present at Third Reedy Lake.

Red Knot Calidris canutus En EN Y Recorded in Ramsar site but not recorded from Third Reedy Lake

Curlew

Sandpiper*

Calidris

ferruginea En CE Y

Not recorded in the Ramsar site or Third Reedy Lake, but may occasionally be

present along the drainage system to the west of Third Reedy Lake (Biosis

2013).

Great Knot Calidris

tenuirostris En,L CE Y Recorded in Ramsar site but not recorded from Third Reedy Lake

Greater

Sand Plover

Charadrius

leschenaultii CE V Y Recorded in Ramsar site but not recorded from Third Reedy Lake

Little Egret Egretta garzetta En,L Previously recorded from Third Reedy Lake.

Gull-billed

Tern

Gelochelidon

nilotica En,L Y Recorded in Ramsar site but not recorded from Third Reedy Lake

White-bellied

Sea Eagle*

Haliaeetus

leucogaster V,L Y Previously recorded in the general vicinity Third Reedy Lake (fly-over records).

Eastern

Curlew

Numenius

madagascariensi

s

Vu CE Y Recorded in Ramsar site but not recorded from Third Reedy Lake

Nankeen

Night-heron

Nycticorax

caledonicus NT Previously recorded from Third Reedy Lake.

Pied

Cormorant

Phalacrocorax

varius NT Previously recorded from Third Reedy Lake

Royal

Spoonbill Platalea regia NT Previously recorded from Third Reedy Lake.

Australian

Painted

Snipe*

Rostratula

australis CE,L En

Recorded within Ramsar area, but not specifically from Third Reedy Lake.

Prefers range of wetland shallow habitats rather than open water habitats (Biosis

2013).

Caspian

Tern Sterna caspia NT,L Y Previously recorded at Third Reedy Lake.

Terrestrial species

Painted

Honeyeater* Grantiella picta Vu,L

Not recorded from Third Reedy Lake, or broader Ramsar Site. Preferred habitat

is terrestrial, including River Red Gum woodlands.

(http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/470-

conservation-advice.pdf).

Plains-

wanderer*

Pedionomus

torquatus Ce,L CE

Recorded in Ramsar site but not recorded from Third Reedy Lake. Preferred

habitat is treeless plains (Commonwealth of Australia 2016).

Regent

Parrot*

Polytelis

anthopeplus

monarchoides

Vu,L V

Not recorded from Third Reedy Lake, or broader Ramsar Site. Preferred habitat

is terrestrial, including River Red Gum woodlands. Current breeding habitat and

distribution is west of Swan Hill (Baker-Gabb, D and Hurley, V. 2011).

Superb

Parrot*

Polytelis

swainsonii En,L Vu

Not recorded from Third Reedy Lake, or broader Ramsar Site

Preferred habitat is red gum forests and box woodlands with current breeding

habitat and distribution along the Murray River around the Edwards River /

Barmah Forest and into NSW (Baker-Gabb, 2011).

3.2.4.2 Fish, frogs and turtles

Table 3-7 summarises aquatic fauna of conservation significance recorded or potentially present at Third Reedy

Lake.


R01 62

Ten native and six exotic fish species have been recorded in Third Reedy Lake. The most abundant fish

species recorded in the most recent survey by Biosis (2013) was the exotic Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio)

(37% of catch abundance and 99% of the biomass), followed by the common and widespread native Carp

Gudgeon (Hypseleotris compressa) (30% of catch abundance but just 0.02% of biomass). Other abundant

species include Australian Smelt (Retropinna semoni) and Flathead Gudgeon (Philypnodon grandiceps). Of the

native species, previously recorded, five are of conservation significance (Murray Cod, Silver Perch, Freshwater

Catfish, Golden Perch, Flat Headed Galaxias). Of these, all are listed under the FFG Act 1988 and Murray Cod,

Silver Perch and Flat Headed Galaxias are also listed under the EPBC Act 1999. However, Murray Cod (and

Golden Perch) are likely to be the result of stocking (Hunt et al. 2010), Silver perch have not been recorded

since 2006, although they were recorded in the connecting channel between Third Reedy and Middle Reedy

Lakes in 2013 (Biosis 2013) and are assumed to be occasionally present in the lake, and Flat Headed Galaxias

have not been recorded since 1963 and are believed to be locally extinct (North Central CMA, 2014). A single

Murray hardyhead (FFG Act 1988 and EPBC Act 1999 listed) was recorded in Middle Reedy Lake in 2013

(Biosis, 2013), but follow up targeted surveys failed to find any Murray hardyhead in either Middle Reedy Lake

or Third Reedy Lake (Sharpe, C. 2014).

Two turtle species, the FFG Act 1988 listed Murray River Turtle (Emydura macquarii) and Common Long-

necked Turtle (Chelodina longicollis), have also been recorded at Third Reedy. Although the Murray River Turtle

was recorded in high numbers in 2006 (total of 19 individuals), no individuals were caught during the survey by

Biosis (2013) and only one Common Long-necked Turtle was recorded compared to three by Ho et al. (2006).

Three common frog species have been recorded, however, the Bilateral Agreement has identified that habitat

for the FFG Act 1988 listed Brown Toadlet (Pseudophryne bibronii) also may be present in the project

environment.

A total of 14 macroinvertebrates families were recorded at Third Reedy Lake in a recent Biosis (2013) survey

compared to 15 by Ho et al. in 2006. Compared to the 2006 survey, the macroinvertebrate taxa recorded in

2013 are substantially different, with a lack of aquatic molluscs (Planorbidae and Physidae) and some dipteran

larvae (Ceratopogonidae and Sciomyzidae). However, the change in assemblage may be attributed to non-

ideal weather conditions for macroinvertebrates during the survey conducted in February-March 2013 compared

to the 2006 surveys which were undertaken over a longer five month period from November to March (GMW,

2016a).

Table 3-7 Aquatic fauna of conservation significance recorded at Third Reedy Lake or potentially present at the lake and for

which detailed impact assessment is required.

Common


Vic

ad

vis

ory

/

FF

G #

EP

BC

@


Fish

Silver Perch* Bidyanus

bidyanus V,L CE Previously recorded from Third Reedy Lake.

Murray

Hardyhead*

Craterocephalus

fluviatilis Ce,L En

Has not been recorded in Third Reedy Lake despite numerous surveys, but was recorded

in Middle Reedy Lake (1 individual in 2013 – Biosis 2013) so potential to be present in

Third Reedy Lake,

Unspecked

Hardyhead+

Craterocephalus

stercusmuscarum

fulvus

L Previously recorded from Third Reedy Lake.

Flathead

Galaxias*

Galaxias

rostratus V,I Ce

Not recorded in the Kerang Lakes since 1963 (First Reedy Lake) (North Central CMA,

2014). While they may be present in the broader landscape (Biosis 2013), they have not

been detected in numerous recent surveys at Third Reedy Lake and are considered

locally extinct.

Murray Cod* Maccullochella

peelii V,L V Previously recorded from Third Reedy Lake.

Golden

Perch

Macquaria

ambigua NT,I Previously recorded from Third Reedy Lake.


R01 63

Common


Vic

ad

vis

ory

/

FF

G #

EP

BC

@


Macquarie

Perch*

Macquaria

australasica En,L En

Not been recorded in the Kerang Lakes and the last recorded Macquarie Perch west of

Torrumbarry Weir was in 1949 (Cadwallader 1977) and is considered extinct from the

area.

Freshwater

Catfish*

Tandanus

tandanus En,L Previously recorded from Third Reedy Lake.

Frogs

Growling

Grass Frog Litoria raniformis En, L V Not recorded from Third Reedy Lake but suitable habitat may be present

Brown

Toadlet*

Pseudophryne

bibronii En,L

Not recorded from Third Reedy Lake. Prefers grasslands and forests were eggs are laid

under leaf litter and tadpoles develop in wet depressions and is not reliant on permanent

wetlands.

Turtles

Murray River

Turtle*

Emydura

macquarii V Recorded in low numbers in Third Reedy Lake.

3.2.5 Summary

In summary, the fauna at Third Reedy Lake includes seventy-three bird species, two native turtles, three native

frogs and ten native fish species (North Central CMA, 2016). A number of these species are listed as significant,

including ten waterbirds and five fish species as well as one turtle. Seven plants of conservation significance

have also been recorded. However, all of the species that are of conservation significance also occur more

broadly across the region, including in and around Middle and First Reedy Lakes. Third Reedy Lake is not

regarded as critical habitat for any of the species recorded. A full list of species recorded at Third Reedy Lake is

provided in the Appendix G.

Impacts of a changed hydrological regime on species of conservation significance recorded or potentially

present at Third Reedy Lake, including those listed in the Bilateral Agreement are assessed in detail in

Section 4.

3.3 Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Site

As discussed in Section 2.2.1, Third Reedy Lake is located within a broader complex of wetlands which are listed as wetlands of international importance under the Ramsar Convention. The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar, (Iran), 2 February 1971), or Ramsar Convention, as it is commonly known, is an international intergovernmental treaty with the broad aims of halting and, where possible, reversing, the worldwide loss of wetlands and to conserving those that remain through wise use and management (DSEWPaC, 2012). Contracting Parties are required to designate sites containing representative, rare or unique wetlands, or wetlands that are important for conserving biological diversity to the List of Wetlands of International Importance. Listed wetlands are generally known as Ramsar sites or Ramsar wetlands (Butcher et al. 2015).

For a wetland to be designated to the Ramsar List it must satisfy one or more of the criterion for identifying

wetlands of international importance (Ramsar listing criterion), of which there are currently nine. In designating a

wetland as a Ramsar site, countries agree to establish and oversee a management framework aimed at

conserving the wetland and ensuring its wise use. Wise use under the Convention is broadly defined as

maintaining the ecological character of a wetland (Butcher et al. 2015).

A “declared Ramsar wetland” is an area that has been designated under Article 2 of the Ramsar Convention or

declared by the Minister to be a declared Ramsar wetland under the EPBC Act 1999. Under the EPBC Act 1999

Ramsar sites are one of nine MNES.


R01 64

Contracting Parties to the Ramsar Convention are required to maintain the ecological character o f their listed

sites. A notification of change is required if the ecological character of a site has changed, is changing, or is

likely to change as the result of technological developments, pollution or other human interference (Article 3.2,

Appendix A, DEWHA 2009). Notification concerns changes to the ecological character of a site, rather than

changes to the Ramsar Criteria for which the site was originally listed (see section 3.3.2). While change in

ecological character can be positive or negative, a change in ecological character for the purposes of

notification is limited to ‘human-induced adverse alteration’.

3.3.1 Listing criterion

The Ecological Character of the Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Site has been previously described (KBR 2011) and

has been recently amended (Butcher and Hale 2016). The following character description, listing criteria and

Limits of Acceptable Change are based on the amended character description of Butcher and Hale (2016).

The Kerang Lakes Ramsar Site meets criterion 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 (Butcher and Hale 2016). The following

describes the attributes for which the site meets each criterion, and where known, the contribution of Third

Reedy Lake to each criterion. At the end of the section a summary of the potential impact of TRLBP on the

listing criterion is presented.

Criterion 1: A wetland should be considered internationally important if it contains a representative, rare, or

unique example of a natural or near-natural wetland type found within the appropriate biogeographic region.

Criterion 1 relates to wetland type and uniqueness within the bioregion, in this case, the Murray-Darling

Drainage Division. Recent mapping and classification of the wetlands in the drainage division, indicates that the

Kerang wetlands do not represent any “rare” or “unique” wetland types (Brooks et al. 2013). Neither are the

wetlands of the Ramsar site in “near natural” condition, with most being modified for water resource

management. The Avoca Marshes, which are unregulated, were recently assessed as being in poor condition

and are not considered good representatives of their type in the bioregion.

This criterion was erroneously assessed as being met at nomination (Ministry of Conservation 1982) and in the

2011 ECD (KBR, 2011). This criterion was not met at the time of listing and remains unmet (Butcher and Hale

2016).

Criterion 2: A wetland should be considered internationally important if it supports vulnerable, endangered, or

critically endangered species or threatened ecological communities.

This criterion is only applied to wetland dependent flora and fauna that are regularly supported. Kerang Wetland

Ramsar Site meets this criterion as it regularly supports two waterbird species listed under the EPBC Act 1999

and / or International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List:

• Australasian Bittern (Botaurus poiciloptilus) – Endangered (EPBC Act 1999 and IUCN)

• Curlew Sandpiper (Calidris ferruginea) – Critically endangered (EPBC Act 1999).

The Australasian Bittern has only been recorded from Hird and / or Johnsons Swamp in 2003, 2004, 2005,

2006, 2007, 2014, 2015 and 2016. Whilst habitat for this species is present at Third Reedy Lake (i.e. Tall

Marsh) it has not been recorded at the lake. Recent sightings at Lake Cullen (17 individuals in 2017) are likely

to be dispersing juveniles.

Curlew Sandpipers are a migratory species which typically favour estuarine and coastal habitats and occur only

on some inland wetlands. The Kerang Lakes are one of the more significant inland areas utilised by the species

in Victoria. Within the Ramsar site there are 150 records from the 1970s to 2015 (Butcher and Hale 2016).

Between 1980 and 2015 they were recorded in 69% of years (data from the Atlas of Living Australia and the

Victorian Biodiversity Atlas cited in Butcher and Hale 2016). They have been recorded at Fosters Swamp,

Kangaroo Lake and Lakes Cullen, Kelly and Tutchewop. There are no records of this species utilising Third

Reedy Lake.


R01 65

Criterion 3: A wetland should be considered internationally important if it supports populations of plant and/or

animal species important for maintaining the biological diversity of a particular biogeographic region.

The Kerang Wetland Ramsar site meets this criterion on the basis of waterbird diversity (Butcher and Hale

2016).

Assessment of the biodiversity values of the sites is at the scale of the bioregion, which is the Murray-Darling

drainage division. The number of wetland dependent bird species recorded at Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Site is

86 (this includes species that regularly occur as well as vagrants and isolated records). The Kerang Wetlands is

the second most species rich Ramsar site, with respect to waterbirds, in the bioregion after The Coorong, and

Lakes Alexandrina and Albert Wetland Ramsar site (118 waterbird species; O’Connor et al. 2012). In addition,

data collected between 2010 and 2012 indicates that Kerang was among the most species rich of waterbird

sites in the bioregion, ranking in the top 20 sites for each year and at number four in 2012 (Kingsford et al.

2014; Butcher and Hale 2016.

Data sets specific to the Reedy Lake system are limited making it difficult to assess the contribution that Third

Reedy Lake makes to this criterion. For example, eBird (http://ebird.org/content/australia/) has only two

checklists specific to Third Reedy Lake identifying 19 waterbird species present compared to 50 checklists, 43

species and 49 checklists, 43 species at First and Middle Reedy Lakes respectively.

A change in hydrological regime at Third Reedy Lake, if the TRLBP proceeds, will potentially alter the species

mix at the lake as the foraging, roosting and breeding habitat will change (see comments under criterion 4), but

it is highly unlikely that this will involve either a loss or gain in species numbers across the whole site because

the change will not significantly alter the relative areas of the wetland types present within the Ramsar site

(Figure 3-4 which shows the Third Reedy Lake bypass project would result in a slight reduction in the area of

regulated permanent freshwater wetlands and a slight increase in the area of regulated freshwater intermittent

wetlands). There is no change in hydrological regime or wetland type for any other wetland in the Kerang Lakes

Ramsar Site.

Figure 3-4: Relative area of different wetland types in the Kerang Lakes Ramsar Site pre and post Third Reedy Lake Bypass

Project.


R01 66

Criterion 4: A wetland should be considered internationally important if it supports plant and/or animal species

at a critical stage in their lifecycles, or provides refuge during adverse conditions.

This criterion is met for supporting critical life stages of waterbirds, including during migration, by providing

drought refuge, supporting breeding and moulting in waterfowl.

Twenty-three international migratory species have been recorded from the Ramsar site with five utilising the site

on a regular basis. None of these species have been recorded from Third Reedy Lake and the proposed

changes are unlikely to affect this aspect of the criterion.

The Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Site supports Australian Shelduck (Tadorna tadornoides) and Musk duck (Biziura

lobata) during the critical life stage of moulting. These species aggregate on the open waters of the permanent

lakes during moult of primary flight feathers, when the birds are vulnerable to predators (KBR 2011). Australian

shelduck have been recorded from Third Reedy Lake but there are no records for Musk duck. The relative

importance of Third Reedy Lake as a moulting site is unknown.

Butcher and Hale (2016) report that 28 species of waterbird breed within the Ramsar site and is significant for

colonial nesting species at the bioregion scale (Kingsford et al. 2014). In 2016 large numbers of Australian

White Ibis (Threskiornis molucca) and Straw necked ibis bred at Middle Reedy Lake (North Central CMA

unpublished data). It is not anticipated that changes to Third Reedy Lake would negatively affect this aspect of

the criterion.

Third Reedy Lake is one of a number of permanent wetlands within the Ramsar site that are maintained as

water storages (e.g. Reedy Lake complex, Lake Charm, Kangaroo Lake). These permanent wetlands provide

drought refuge, particularly for waterbirds. During years of below average rainfall, as many as 55,900 waterbirds

have been recorded within the Ramsar site (Butcher and Hale 2016). Specific abundances for Third Reedy are

not available so the relative contribution to Third Reedy in providing vital habitat in dry years is not known.

Overall the proposed changes to Third Reedy Lake are not considered likely to impact on the support of critical

life stages of fauna in that the Ramsar site will still support migrating waterbirds, provide drought refuge,

waterbird breeding and moulting through the maintenance of high areas of permanent wetlands (see

Figure 3-4).

Criterion 5: A wetland should be considered internationally important if it regularly supports 20,000 or more

waterbirds.

Complete multi-year counts of waterbirds across all wetlands within the Kerang Lake Ramsar Site are rare.

Despite this, there is some evidence that the site regularly supports > 20,000 waterbirds. Data pooled from all

sources indicates that between 1977 and 2016, the annual maximum count exceeded 20,000 on 18 occasions

(46 % of years). While this falls below the two thirds of seasons requirement to meet this criterion, the average

maximum abundance (1977 to 2016) is 31,600 (Butcher and Hale, 2016). This indicates that the Ramsar site

meets this criterion with respect to average annual maximum abundance, despite a lack of consistent counts

across the Ramsar site. TRLBP could possibly impact negatively or positively in relation to the site meeting this

criterion (the issue of consistent counts is a separate matter) To estimate the nature of the impact, it would be

necessary to consider the relative attractiveness of the proposed new habitat compared to the current

permanent habitat and the frequency with which the new habitat is suitable to support waterbirds. This

assessment has not yet been completed.

Criterion 6: A wetland should be considered internationally important if it regularly supports 1% of the

individuals in a population of one species or subspecies of waterbird.

The history of records for the species within the Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Site is insufficient to determine if it is

regularly supported within the site. There are few dedicated counts and only records since 2003. The Kerang

Wetlands Ramsar Site may support 1% of the population of Australasian bittern (Botaurus poiciloptilus) at

Johnson and Hird Swamps, however it is unlikely to be present at Third Reedy Lake as there are no records for

it at the lake.


R01 67

Criterion 7: A wetland should be considered internationally important if it supports a significant proportion of

indigenous fish subspecies, species or families, life-history stages, species interactions and/or populations that

are representative of wetland benefits and/or values and thereby contributes to global biological diversity.

In order to meet this criterion, a site should have a high degree of endemism or biodisparity in fish communities.

A site can potentially qualify based on the proportion of fish species present that are endemic to the site (must

be greater than 10%) or by having a high degree of biodisparity in the fish community (Ramsar Convention,

2009). Biodisparity relates to measures of uniqueness in morphology, life-history, function and/or genetics within

a community (DeVaney 2010 cited in Watt 2013). The biodisparity of a wetland community is determined by the

diversity and predictability of its habitats in time and space. A site which is heterogeneous, with unpredictable

habitats, has the potential to have a greater biodisparity of the fish fauna (Ramsar Convention, 2009.

Further, a “significant proportion” of species includes all species and is not limited to those of economic interest.

Some wetlands with a “significant proportion” of species may be marginal habitats for fish and may only contain

a few fish species. The potential of a degraded wetland to support a “significant proportion” of species if it were

to be restored should also be taken into account. In areas where fish diversity is naturally low, genetically

distinct infraspecific groups of fishes could also be counted (Ramsar Convention 2012).

Ideally the following is required to assess against this criterion (Ramsar Convention 2012):

• an inventory of the species (and ideally subspecies) of fish present at the wetland (from which can be

derived a list of the fish families present),

• knowledge of the extent to which fish subspecies, species or families are indigenous to the wetland

concerned (within the context of a biogeographic region),

• an understanding of the life history stages of fish present at the site,

• an understanding of the interactions between fish present at the site, and

• contextual information about fish to enable attributes of the site to be placed in a regional context .

Typically, in Australia this criterion is only met at large complex sites, for example coastal systems such as The

Coorong and Lakes Alexandrina and Albert Wetland Ramsar Sites.

The Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Site does not meet Criterion 7.

Criterion 8: A wetland should be considered internationally important if it is an important source of food for

fishes, spawning ground, nursery and/or migration path on which fish stocks, either within the wetland or

elsewhere, depend.

This criterion relates to the importance of wetlands for providing food sources, spawning grounds, nursery

grounds and or migratory routes for fish, thus supporting fish stocks. The Kerang Wetland Ramsar site is not

considered significant for supporting fish stock from the bioregion. Fish stocks are defined as the potentially

exploitable component of a fish population (Ramsar Convention 2012).

Whilst the Loddon River is reported to be one of the most degraded systems in the Murray Darling Basin, it still

supports a relatively diverse fish community (O’Connor et al 2015). Data are limited on fish in the Ramsar site,

with the regulator on Washpen Creek potentially impacting recruitment from the Reedy Lake complex back to

the Loddon system. Information on use of the lakes as nursery and or feeding areas is not available. The

Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Site does not meet this criterion.

Criterion 9: A wetland should be considered internationally important if it regularly supports 1% of the

individuals in a population of one species or subspecies of wetland-dependent non-avian animal species.

The application of this criterion relies on estimates of the total population of internationally important non-avian

wetland dependent species. It is applicable to populations and species of mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish

and aquatic macro-invertebrates. Eligible species or subspecies must have reliable population estimates.

Where no such information exists, Contracting Parties should give consideration to designation for important


R01 68

non-avian animal species under Criterion 4 (Ramsar Convention 2009). The Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Site

does not meet this criterion.

3.3.2 Ecological character of Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Site

Ecological character of Ramsar sites in Australia is described by identifying critical components, processes and

services (and benefits) (CPS). Critical CPS are defined as those (DEWHA, 2008):

1) that are important determinants of the site’s unique character; and

2) that are important for supporting the Ramsar criterion under which the site was listed; and

3) for which change is reasonably likely to occur over short to medium time scales (less than 100 years); and

4) that will cause significant negative consequences if change occurs.

The critical CPS for the Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Site have been identified as (KBR 2011, Butcher and Hale

2016):

• Hydrology

• Salinity

• Vegetation diversity

• Waterbird abundance

• Waterbird diversity

• Waterbird feeding

• Supports a diversity of wetland types

• Supports threatened species

For each of the critical CPS listed above, Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) have been set at the point that

represents a potential change in the critical CPS (LAC provided in Section 4.3.4.2, Table 4-16). This typically

represents a threshold value beyond which would be a significant difference to the benchmark. Benchmark is

set at the time of listing and described in the Ecological Character Description (see KBR 2011, Butcher and

Hale 2016). LAC are derived only from variables that describe the critical CPS (e.g. abundance, diversity,

reproductive success, ecological connectivity, and/or flow regime). LAC are not synonymous with management

triggers. The exceedance of a LAC does not automatically mean a change in character has occurred, but that it

may require investigation to determine whether there has been a change in ecological character.

The Bilateral Agreement requires an assessment of the potential benefits and impacts of TRLBP in the context

of the relevant listing criterion for the Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Site. This assessment is provided in Section 0,

including an assessment of the potential for LACs to be exceeded, consequence for CPS and implications for

listing criterion.


R01 69

4. Impacts assessment

The Bilateral Agreement requires a review and description of all the foreseeable environmental effects of the

TRLBP on values, including MNES (i.e. matters related to the Ramsar characteristics of Third Reedy Lake and

EPBC Act 1999 listed flora and fauna), and on other threatened flora and fauna of local regional and state

conservation significance. The assessment has been broken into 3 timeframes associated with construction

and operation of the TRLBP:

1) Short term – impacts associated with the construction of the TRLBP infrastructure.

2) Medium term – impacts associated with the establishment phase of the proposed water regime (0-15 years

timeframe).

3) Long term – impacts associated with the long-term operation of the proposed water regime (15 years

onwards).

The assessment has also been tailored to show impacts to:

1) Those species identified in Section 3.2 as being present or likely to be present at Third Reedy Lake.

2) The ecological character of the Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Site and the contribution Third Reedy Lake

makes to that character.

3) Critical Components, Processes and Services that could benefit or be impacted upon by the proposed

change in water regime.

Impacts are based on an analysis of risk pathways associated with 1) direct impacts from construction activities

and 2) changed hydrological regime and consequent impacts on critical habitat or life history requirements, and

any related water quality impacts (e.g. salinity or pH). It should be noted that there are no medium or long term

impacts associated with construction and therefore only short term impacts have been assessed for

construction activities.

Furthermore, within the medium and long term (water regime establishment and operation) phase, the risks to

values are assessed based on the likelihood of successful implementation of the new hydrological regime and

success of establishment of the target vegetation communities (termed the establishment phase). In this

context, there are a) risks to the successful establishment of the target vegetation and b) risks to values if the

target vegetation cannot be established.

For the purposes of consistency with previous assessments the assessment reported here has adopted (with

some slight modifications as outlined below) the risk framework used by North Central CMA (2014). This

assessment process was based on that used by Ecological Associates (2010) and uses the same principles

and steps as the Australian/New Zealand Standard for Risk Assessment (AS/ NZS ISO 31000).

The assessment uses a qualitative approach to evaluate the impacts of an altered hydrological regime with the

level of risk defined based on exposure and consequence (Table 4-1) (definitions of exposure and consequence

, taking into consideration the likelihood/extent of potential exposure and EPBC Act 1999 significant impact

criteria, are provided in Table 4-2 and Table 4-3).

Impacts/risks rated low or very low are considered to be acceptable and do not require mitigation. However, for

moderate, high and very high impacts/risks mitigation measures are required. Mitigation of some potential

impacts maybe inherent in the changed hydrological regime (i.e. the changed hydrological regime is expected to

benefit many of the values over the long term). For other potential impacts (e.g. salinity increases), specific

mitigation/contingency measures may be required if impacts are deemed unacceptable. Criteria for the extent to

which benefits offset risks are summarised in Table 4-4 and Table 4-5. A revised risk rating is determined

based on implementing the mitigation measures, including where the new hydrological regime is expected to

benefit values. Mitigation measures and revised risk ratings are provided in Section 4.4.


R01 70

Table 4-1: Matrix for defining risk to values / objectives associated with altered water regime

Consequence Impact / risks

High Medium Low

Exp

osu

re

Low

Moderate Low Very low / no impact

Minor High Moderate Low

Moderate Very high High Moderate

Strong Very high Very high High

Table 4-2: Exposure and consequence rating descriptions (adapted from NCCMA 2014 and MNES Significant impact

guidelines)

Risk Component Rating Description

Exposure

Low

• Exposure is remotely likely and/or weak and/or occurs to an insignificant spatial extent.

• Only occurs in exceptional circumstances

Minor

• Exposure is rare and/or mild and/or occurs in a localised or patchy spatial extent.

• Could occur in a few circumstances but not expected.

Moderate

• Exposure is common and/or intense and/or occurs broadly.

• Could occur

• Evidence to support it will happen

Strong

• Exposure is frequent or constant and/or intense and/or widespread.

• Is expected to occur in most circumstances.

Consequence

Low • Minimal or no loss of habitat considered critical for the survival of a population

• Area affected negligible compared to area of total population

Medium

• Moderate modification, destruction, removal or decrease of local habitat, however not considered critical for survival of a significant population as a whole

• Population in other locations not impacted

• Loss of connectivity between habitats at a local scale

High

• Loss of habitat considered critical for the survival of a significant population

• Major reduction or loss of significant population

• Serious and significant impact on Matter of National Environmental Significance

Table 4-3 Summary of impact descriptions

Rating Impact

Very low • No reasonable prospect that existing values will be impacted.

Low • Localised impacts on species that are common and widespread across the landscape.

• No specific risk management actions required

Moderate

• Loss of species of local or regional conservation significance at the site scale but with no consequence for the

species at the regional (Ramsar site) scale

• The threat (e.g. salinity or acid sulfate soils) has the potential to occur but it is not likely to cause significant environmental harm.

• Impacts can be easily mitigated

• Benefits associated with changed hydrological regime offset impacts.

High

• Impact on EPBC Act 1999 or FFG Act 1988 listed species / communities at the site scale but with no

consequence for the species at the regional (Ramsar site) scale.

• The threat (e.g. salinity or acid sulfate soils) will occur and will have harmful consequences or objectives will be significantly compromised.

• Risk management is essential but is likely to be successful at mitigating impacts.

• Benefits associated with changed hydrological regime may partially offset some impacts. Very High • Impact on EPBC Act 1999 or FFG Act 1988 listed species / communities at the site scale and with

consequence for the species at the regional (Ramsar site) scale.

• The threat is likely to occur and will have very harmful consequences.

• Risk management may not be sufficient to mitigate impacts.

• Benefits associated with changed regime not sufficient to offset impacts


R01 71

Table 4-4: Benefit rating descriptions

Risk Component Rating Description

Exposure

Low

• Exposure is remotely likely and/or weak and/or occurs to an insignificant spatial extent.

• Only occurs in exceptional circumstances

Minor

• Exposure is rare and/or mild and/or occurs in a localised or patchy spatial extent.

• Could occur in a few circumstances but not expected.

Moderate

• Exposure is common and/or intense and/or occurs broadly.

• Could occur

• Evidence to support it will happen

Strong

• Exposure is frequent or constant and/or intense and/or widespread.

• Is expected to occur in most circumstances.

Consequence

Low • Minimal or no improvement in habitat considered critical for the survival of a population

• Area affected negligible compared to area of total population

Medium

• Increase in extent of common habitat, however not considered critical for survival MNES

• Improvement in ecological character at the the local (Third Reedy Lake) scale

• Increased connectivity between habitats at a local scale

High • Increase in extent of habitat considered critical for the survival of MNES

• Significant improvement in ecological character that contributes to broader RAMSAR site.

Table 4-5 Summary of benefit descriptions

Rating Benefit

Very low

• No benefit occurs

• Target EVC does not establish

• No increase in habitat diversity or increase in diversity of plants and animals

• No increase in species specific habitat

Low • Target EVC does not establish but alternative vegetation provides some increased habitat diversity that could

support requirements for common species

Moderate

• Target EVC is established across some of the lake bed

• Localised increases in habitat diversity that could support requirements for some threatened species

• Some increase in plant and animal diversity

High

• Target EVC is established across majority of lake bed

• Increased habitat diversity across whole of lake bed that would directly translate to increased abundance of threatened species

• Increased diversity of plants and animals across site

• Restoration of ecological processes associated with wetting and drying at the site scale

Very High • Widespread improvement in condition that also extends beyond the local scale (i.e. benefits extend to whole of Ramsar site).

• Significant increase in habitat critical to the survival of threatened species

4.1 Short term impacts (construction phase)

As discussed in Section 2.2.5, the irrigation and construction components proposed for the TRLBP are

consistent with the standard irrigation infrastructure works that have been undertaken by GMW and therefore

any impacts to environmental values and the appropriate measures required to be undertaken to avoid and

minimise risks associated with construction are well understood and documented in existing procedures.

The potential environmental impacts associated with the construction phase of TRLBP are related to damage to

plants and animals that occur within the construction footprint of the proposed bypass channel, new regulating

structures and associated areas required for access, laydown etc.

Currently there is no detailed design for the TRLBP infrastructure; therefore, a conservative 20 m wide

construction footprint at the proposed pipeline (10 m either side of the centre line of the existing channel) and a

50 m wide construction footprint for the new channel (25 m either side of the centre line of the proposed

channel) have been adopted to assess the short term impacts associated with the project. Where this buffer

was not possible (e.g. along the embankment of the lake on the channel alignment) the buffer was moved to still

encompass a width of 50 m. Figure 4-1 illustrates the proposed construction footprint for the TRLBP.

Figure 4-1 indicates that the proposed pipeline alignment is within an existing irrigation channel in order to

minimise the impact on the environment. The proposed channel alignment is predominately in cleared

agricultural land, however some native vegetation is present within the alignment corridor which may be


R01 72

required to be removed during construction. Flora and fauna surveys (Rakali Consulting, 2013 and Jacobs,

2013) within the proposed construction footprint confirm this and recorded two EVCs and four threatened or rare

species within the construction footprint (see Figure 4-2 and Figure 4-3). The four threatened species are listed

under the FFG Act 1988 but not the EPBC Act 1999 and therefore are not considered MNES, but are

assessable under state legislation.

Potential impact pathways for construction related impacts include direct disturbance (i.e. ground disturbance

and vegetation removal) and indirect impacts (e.g. sediment in runoff from disturbed sites, fragmentation of

remaining habitats, increase in edge effects). An initial project environmental risk assessment has been

undertaken as part of the development of this Environmental Report (Table 4-6). This assessment has

demonstrated that the key unmitigated construction risks are:

• Disturbance to native flora and fauna without approval

• Erosion and/ or sedimentation of existing channels, waterbodies or drainage lines

• Potential disturbance of Aboriginal cultural heritage artefacts or places without approval

• Dust emissions from stockpiles and vehicle movements impacting sensitive receptors

• Introduction and/or spread of pests, weeds and pathogens

• Noise and vibration caused by machinery, vehicles, generators or construction works impacting sensitive

receptors or disturbance to native fish populations and their breeding

• Inadequate management of contaminated soils

• Contamination of soil or water from fuels, oils, chemicals or hazardous substances (e. g. solvents)

• Bushfire or grassfire due to escape of sparks from machinery (e.g. welding, grinding, cutting), vehicles or

other construction equipment.

• Local traffic congestion, dust and mud on roads disrupting local residents

Table 4-7 summarises the outcomes for the EVC and threatened species identified as present at Third Reedy

Lake. This was based on the location of these species within the construction footprint and the habitat

preferences for each species.


R01 73

Figure 4-1: Proposed construction footprint for TRLBP


R01 74

Figure 4-2: EVCs and rare and threated species recorded within the TRLBP construction (northern pipeline section)


R01 75

Figure 4-3: EVCs and rare and threated species recorded within the TRLBP construction (southern channel section)


R01 76

Table 4-6 Unmitigated construction related risks- based on entire footprint

Activity Aspect Risk description Unmitigated impacts

Exposure Consequence Risk

Site establishment

activities

Clearing of access and

construction areas

Potential for removal, destruction or modification of native flora and fauna habitat (based on regional vegetation mapping)

Moderate Medium High

Dust emissions from the clearance of access or construction areas may reduce air quality Minor Low Low

Vehicles or machinery introducing and or spreading of noxious or declared weeds and pathogens (including Phytopthera cinnamomi and Chytrid fungus) around site and off-site

Minor Medium Moderate

Visual change to existing landscape conditions and

values

Landowners, residents and community disturbed or concerned Minor Low Low

Transport and

mobilisation of equipment, materials and staff to or from construction sites

Operation of heavy vehicles, machinery or

other vehicles

Incompetent operation of vehicles or machinery causing damage or loss of native flora, habitat

and collision with fauna Minor Medium Moderate

Incompetent operation of vehicles or machinery causing erosion of lake /channel embankments and disruption to drainage lines


Spills, leaks or release of hazardous substances causing soil or water contamination and damage to native flora, habitat and fauna




Increased traffic

movement on local road networks

Traffic conflicts or collisions and disturbances to other road users, residents and fauna Minor Medium Moderate

Damage to roads external to construction sites Minor Medium Moderate

Dust emissions from heavy vehicles movements and mobilisation of machinery may reduce air

quality Minor Medium Moderate

Vehicle or machinery

exhaust

Atmospheric emissions released into the air and general reduction in amenity Minor Medium Moderate

Bushfire or grassfire due to escape of sparks from vehicle exhausts or machinery during

mobilisation Minor Medium Moderate

Disturbance and damage to native flora, habitat and fauna Minor Low Low

Heavy vehicle movements, earthworks,

General operation of heavy vehicles, machinery or equipment

Incompetent heavy vehicle, machinery or equipment operation causing disturbance, damage or loss of native flora, habitat and fauna


Incompetent heavy vehicle, machinery or equipment operation causing soil erosion and embankment collapse.



R01 77



excavation, and other construction works

Spills, leaks or release of fuels, oils, chemicals or hazardous substances causing soil or water degradation/contamination and damage or loss of native flora, habitat or fauna


Incompetent heavy vehicle, machinery or equipment operation causing destruction or modification of aquatic flora, habitat or fauna




Vehicle or machinery exhaust

Atmospheric emissions released into the air and general reduction in amenity Minor Low Low

Disturbance and damage to native flora, habitat and fauna Minor Medium Moderate

Bushfire or grassfire due to escape of sparks from vehicle exhausts or machinery during construction


Storage, handling and use of fuels, oils, chemicals or hazardous substances

Spills, leaks or release of fuels, oils, chemicals or hazardous substances (i.e. solvents) causing soil or water degradation/contamination and damage or loss of native flora and fauna


Excavation activities

Spills, leaks or release of fuels, oils or chemicals during open trench excavation causing groundwater degradation or contamination


Heavy vehicle, machinery or equipment operation introducing and or spreading of noxious or

declared weeds and pathogens (including Phytopthera cinnamomi and Chytrid fungus) around site and off-site


Dust emissions from excavation, and construction may reduce air quality Minor Low Low

Small ground dwelling fauna become trapped in open excavations Minor Medium Moderate

Disturbance to local residents and fauna as a result of noise and vibration Minor Low Low

Unidentified contaminated soil leading to inappropriate disposal or reuse Minor Medium Moderate

Loss, destruction or modification of native flora, habitat and fauna from in appropriately located, covered or managed stockpiles

Moderate Medium High

Dust emissions from stockpiles which are not appropriately located, covered or managed causing reduced air quality

Minor Low Low

Inappropriate stockpiling of topsoil and subsoil preventing reestablishment of native flora or pasture/crops


Sediment discharge to surface water during high rainfall periods resulting in sedimentation of drainage lines or Lake and impacts to aquatic native aquatic species



R01 78



Pouring concrete foundations

Spills, leaks or release of concrete may cause disturbance to local flora, fauna and habitats and/or degradation/contamination of soil or water


Installation of control structures and

associated infrastructure

Disturbance or damage to native flora, habitat and fauna Minor Medium Moderate


Disturbance to native fish populations and their breeding as a result of noise and vibration Minor Medium Moderate

Unidentified contaminated soil leading to inappropriate disposal or reuse Minor Medium Moderate

Bushfire or grassfire due to escape of sparks from welding, cutting or operation of other machinery


Bushfire or grassfire due to installation, refurbishment or alterations to electricity supply infrastructure


Inadequate site drainage Sediment discharge to surface water run-off during high rainfall periods leading to sedimentation and impacts to native fish populations and their breeding (i.e. silt in runoff smothering their gills

and eggs)


Materials transport and storage

Construction material contaminated with weeds or pathogens (including Phytopthera cinnamomi and Chytrid fungus) and/or pests causing introduction or spread of species


Excessive noise and/or vibration


Discovery of new cultural heritage sites or relics Damage or destruction of cultural heritage items or relics Moderate Medium High

Inadequate protection of known cultural heritage

sites or relics

Damage or destruction of cultural heritage items or relics Moderate Medium High

Waste management Inappropriate storage or disposal of wastes leading to soil or water degradation or contamination Minor Medium Moderate

Inappropriate storage or disposal of construction material causing litter Minor Low Low

Levelling of site at completion of

construction

Levelling of site Reinstatement of contaminated topsoil with weeds or pathogens (including Phytopthera cinnamomi and Chytrid fungus) causing spread weed/disease species



R01 79

Table 4-7: Short term impacts on significant environmental values within the construction footprint

Common Name Conservation status Description of potential outcome

Impact

Impact consequence Exposure Overall risk rating

Ecological Vegetation Communities

Chenopod Woodland (EVC103)

Bioregional Conservation Status (Victorian Riverina) - Vulnerable

EVC mapping suggest this EVC covers the whole construction footprint. On this basis, 5.4 Ha of Chenopod Woodland has the potential to be impacted which translates to a moderate risk under the risk-assessment pathway detailed in the Biodiversity Assessment Guidelines (DEP, 2013b). However, surveys (Rakali,2013) show the EVC to be fragmented and restricted in distribution to the southern boundary of the footprint area. The area is also used for agriculture and existing vegetation is degraded.

Final bypass channel design will aim to first avoid any impact on existing vegetation and if this is not possible, minimise impacts to the lowest practicable extent. Any removal of this EVC that may be required for construction of the bypass channel will be offset in accordance with Victoria’s native vegetation permitted clearing regulations (see Section 5.4.1 for further details)).

Any removal of this EVC will be offset in accordance with Victoria’s native vegetation permitted clearing regulations (see Section 5.4.1 for further details. Even if there are localised impacts on this EVC it will not impact the EVC across the broader landscape.

Low

Area potentially impacted is small & any impact will be offset so

consequence to

community as a whole is low

Minor

Where possible, exposure will be avoided through

detailed design. If

exposure does occur, it is minor in the context of the community as a

whole.

Low

Intermittent Swampy Woodland (EVC 813)

Bioregional Conservation Status (Victorian Riverina) - Depleted

Intermittent Swampy Woodland EVC is currently restricted to the fringes of the lake but extends in to the construction footprint in some areas. However, using a conservative assessment of actual works within the footprint of 10m either side of pipeline and 25m either side of bypass channel centre line, direct impacts on this EVC will be avoided. This will be further refined through detailed design and any removal of this EVC that may

be required will be offset in accordance with Victoria’s native vegetation permitted clearing regulations (see Section 5.4.1 for further details).

Low

Area potentially impacted is small & any impact will be offset so

consequence to community as a whole

is low

Minor

Where possible, exposure will be avoided through

detailed design. If

exposure does occur, it is minor in the context of the community as a

whole.

Low

Birds

Eastern Great Egret (Ardea modesta)

FFG (En), Vic Advisory (L)*

The Eastern Great Egret requires large River Red Gums for nesting (Jacobs, 2013). The construction footprint is predominantly in cleared or disturbed land with minimal large trees. The detailed design will avoid the removal of large River Red Gums that provide roosting and nesting habitat for threatened bird species, therefore there is unlikely to be any short-term impacts on this species.

Low

Loss of potential nesting habitat, but there is no recorded nesting in this habitat at this location

Low

Large RRG will not be removed

Very Low

Royal Spoonbill (Platalea regia)

FFG (NT) The Royal Spoonbill requires large River Red Gums for nesting (Jacobs, 2013). The construction footprint is predominantly in cleared or disturbed land with minimal large trees. The detailed design will avoid the removal

of large River Red Gums that provide roosting and nesting habitat for threatened bird species, therefore there is unlikely to be any short-term impacts on this species.

Low

Loss of potential nesting

habitat, but there is no recorded nesting in this habitat at this location

Low

Large RRG will not be

removed Very low

Plants


R01 80

Common Name Conservation status Description of potential outcome

Impact

Impact consequence Exposure Overall risk rating

Flat-top Saltbush

FFG (k)

Has been recorded on the edge of the construction footprint for the bypass channel (i.e. 25m from the

proposed centreline of the channel on the edge of the Lake). The construction footprint is a conservative estimate and the detailed design will avoid known locations of threatened species so there is unlikely to be any impacts on individuals of this species.

Low

Loss of individuals,

fragmentation, but individuals will be

identified and protected in exclusion zones

Low

Individuals will not be

removed Very low

Winged Pepper-cress

FFG (V), Vic Advisory (L), EPBC (En)

Not recorded in direct association with Third Reedy Lake or in the construction footprint area. In Victoria, the nearest known records are >40 km from Third Reedy Lake (Mavromihalis 2010).

Low

No individuals recorded in footprint, nearest

recorded individual will not be impacted.

Low

Species not recorded within impact area

Very low

Chariot Wheels* (Maireana cheelii)

Not recorded in direct association with Third Reedy Lake or bypass area. It has been recorded south west of First Reedy Lake (~ 5 km south of Third Reedy Lake) (Rakali Consulting 2013).

Low

No individuals recorded

in footprint, nearest recorded individual will

not be impacted.

Low

Species not recorded

within impact area Very low

Branching Groundsel (Senecio cunninghamii var.

cunninghamii)

FFG (r)

Branching Groundsel is present at Third Reedy Lake in association with Tall Marsh. Individual have been recorded on the edge of the pipeline and bypass channel construction foot prints. The construction footprint is a conservative estimate and the detailed design will avoid known locations of threatened species so there is unlikely to be any impacts on individuals of this species.

Low

Loss of individuals, fragmentation, but

individuals will be identified and protected

in exclusion zones

Low

Individuals will not be removed

Very low

Slender Darling-pea*

Swainsona murrayana

Slender Darling-pea is associated with heavy soils in grassland and box woodland areas (Commonwealth of Australia undated). They are not associated with permanent water bodies and have not been recorded at Third Reedy Lake – no suitable habitat exists around Third Reedy Lake (Rakali Consulting, 2013).

Low

No individuals recorded

in footprint, nearest recorded individual will

not be impacted.

Low

Species not recorded

within impact area Very low




R01 81

The only ‘high’ environmental risk rating is related to potential impacts associated with vegetation removal and

damage or destruction of cultural heritage items or relics within the construction footprint (Table 4-6). The

impact rating associated with vegetation removal was based on regional scale vegetation mapping that

indicated the potential for native vegetation to be present in the construction footprint area. However, surveys

and mapping revisions has shown much of the area that is mapped as native vegetation is cleared for

agriculture (Jacobs 2016, Rakali 2013). While potential risks to native vegetation were identified as high, further

detailed assessment has refined these risks (Table 4-7).

The impact rating associated with cultural heritage items or relics is based on the area being predominantly

within an area of cultural heritage sensitivity. A Cultural Heritage Management Plan will be developed for the

project (if approved) to avoid any disturbance to cultural heritage items or relics within the project area. More

information is provided in Section 6.4.2.

After refinement, no plants that are listed under the EPBC Act 1999 have been recorded within the construction

footprint. There is potential for mobile animals, notably birds and frogs, to occasionally be present in the

footprint area, but the area does not provide critical habitat for any EPBC Act 1999 listed animals. Therefore,

no EPBC Act 1999 offsets are required for construction activities. Some of the native vegetation that is present

within the construction footprint is of state conservation significance, impacts to this vegetation will be avoided

or minimised through the detail design phases and any vegetation removal required will be offset under

Victoria’s native vegetation permitted clearing regulations.

Whilst the assessment has indicated that construction will have no impacts on MNES and no significant impact

on the EVCs present or any other threatened species of state conservation significance, the existing GMW

Connections Project CEMF will be adapted to identify, manage and control any potential construction impacts

associated with the construction phase of TRLBP (Section 5.3). This will include identification of environmental

risks in the construction phase and the site management and mitigation actions and controls to be implemented

by GMW and the contractors to ensure that construction impacts are classified as low (including no go zones).

This will be undertaken after the TRLBP is fully approved and the detailed design of the infrastructure has been

undertaken and construction activities confirmed.

Contractor(s) will be required to undertake a further risk review prior to site mobilisation to review and update

the environmental risk register in accordance with the contracted work package and to reduce the identified

risks. Contractor(s) will be required to periodically review and update the environmental risk register as

necessary for the contracted work package, but at a minimum the register will be reviewed following any change

to project design, construction methodology or following any environmental incident.

Any native vegetation offsets required under Victoria’s native vegetation permitted clearing regulations for

TRLBP will be managed under the existing GMW Connections Project arrangement for securing offsets. An

initial assessment of potential native vegetation offsets has been undertaken (Jacobs, 2016) and found that

native vegetation will be removed as part of the TRLBP. This assessment is further described in in

Section 5.4.1.

4.2 Medium term impacts (establishment phase)

4.2.1 Overall impacts

As part of the proposed watering regime for the TRLBP, the establishment phase provides opportunities for

establishment of River Red Gums across the lake floor by allowing for seed release, seed strike and

establishment of seedlings. The regime includes filling the wetland to between 74.2m-74.56m AHD and

allowing the lake to dry by natural drawdown and undertaking a series of low level fills (approximately 0.3m to

0.5m deep) following the drawdown period to encourage establishment of River Red Gums.

Impact pathways are through changes in water regime that has a direct negative impact on a value or alters cue

for life history responses. Altered water regime may also result in changes in water quality that could exceed

tolerance of species present, for example increases in salinity, activation of acid and low dissolved oxygen

(blackwater). It is difficult to assess the medium-term impacts of the TRLBP on matters related to the Ramsar

characteristics of Third Reedy Lake and impacts on threatened flora and fauna due to the likely outcomes of the

establishment phase on these values being dependent on whether a species is actually present or not during


R01 82

this establishment phase. The assessment of impacts in Section 4.3 takes into consideration both the impacts

associated with the establishment phase and the long term operational phase irrespective of whether a species

that is likely to occur at Third Reedy Lake is present during the establishment phase or not. As such, this

assessment provides a worst-case scenario of medium term impacts. Therefore, the medium-term impacts are

considered to be covered as part of the long-term impact assessment provided in Section 4.3.

Of particular focus during the establishment phase will be the risk associated with changes in salinity, acid

sulfate soils and blackwater events which are likely to pose the greatest risk during the first drawdown event.

There is some uncertainty about how these risks would manifest, however these risks will be closely managed

through a monitoring and adaptive management approach (Section 5.2) and mitigation measures include

provisioning for a flushing flow to improve water quality and the application of agricultural lime to any acid

sulfate soil hot spots. There risks are discussed in more detail in Section 4.3 as part of the long-term impacts.

The likelihood of impacts occurring hinges on the success of regeneration of the target EVC Intermittent

Swampy Woodland during this establishment phase. If establishment is successful, then impacts will be

reduced. Two approaches to evaluating the likelihood of success have been adopted:

1) a comparison of the proposed water regime with the recommended water regime for Intermittent Swampy

Woodland EVC documented by Frood and Papas (2016) in a guide to the water regime and salinity ranges

of Victorian wetland Ecological Vegetation Classes.

2) An evaluation of feasibility of vegetation recovery using a recently developed Decision Support Tool (DST)

by Roberts et al (2017) that asks a series of questions related to the target EVC, hydrology, threats etc.

The outcome of the tool is an evaluation of the feasibility of vegetation recovery.

4.2.2 Assessment of proposed water regime effectiveness

Intermittent Swampy Woodland (EVC813) is a Eucalypt (+/- Acacia) dominated woodland with (variously

shrubby) rhizomatous sedgy -turf grass understorey, at best development dominated by flood-stimulated

species in association with flora tolerant of inundation (Frood and Papas 2016). Indicator species include River

Red Gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis, shrubs such as Tangled Lignum Duma florulenta and understory species

including a range of grasses, sedges and forbs tolerant of flooding (Frood and Papas 2016).

Frood and Papas (2016) note that “composition and hydrology of this EVC vary according to context (e.g. on

riverine flats versus lake verges). Depth of inundation can occasionally just exceed one metre, especially in

transitions towards Lake Bed Herbland (EVC 743) in lacustrine (lake) situations. If hyposaline conditions occur,

then they are only at the lower end of the range (e.g. during drawdown in lacustrine situations)”. The authors

also note that the River Red Gum trees associated with this EVC have frequently been drowned by excessive

watering of wetlands (e.g. to attract ducks or through linkage to the irrigation system), and relatively intact

examples with living trees are very rare over much its former range.

The recommended water regime and salinity range for this EVC is provided in Table 4-8. Inundation frequency

can range from intermittent (3-7 years in 10) to episodic (<3 years in 10) with a 1-6 month duration of

inundation. Inundation can occasionally be longer than six months, but not permanent. The preferred depth

range is 30-100 cm with occasional inundation >100-200 cm. Preferred salinity range is <3,000 µS/cm but will

tolerate temporary and brief periods of high salinity.

If the EVC is flooded for periods longer than six months (e.g. where this EVC occurs in shallow lakes, it can be

transitional to other EVCs, such as Tall Marsh [EVC 821], Aquatic Herbland [EVC 653] or Lake Bed Herbland

[EVC 743]), adequate dry periods are important to provide recovery time (Frood and Papas 2016). Moreover, in

zones subject to deeper and more prolonged inundation (e.g. with components of Aquatic Herbland [EVC 653]

or Lake Bed Herbland (EVC 743]), trees are sparser, and inundation can potentially last up to nine months as

an absolute maximum. In these habitats, it is desirable to have a break of a year or more from inundation (Frood

and Papas 2016). If flooding is longer than nine months, then Tall Marsh and/or Aquatic Herbland are more

likely to dominate.

The recommended water regime for Third Reedy Lake is within the preferred regime for Intermittent Swampy

Woodland EVC presented in Table 4-8. A 1 in 4 year inundation is equivalent to a 2.5 year in 10 year filling


R01 83

cycle, which places it in the episodic category. If the option for a partial filling to 73.2 m AHD in the third year of

each cycle is adopted (for adaptive management reasons), the inundation frequency increases to 5 in 10 years,

which places it within the intermittent category.

Table 4-8: Recommended water regime and salinity range for EVC 813 Intermittent Swampy Woodland (Frood and Papas 2016)

Phase context of EVC representation

Continuous

Frequency of inundation

Category Description EVC Preference

Intermittent Inundated 3-7 years in every 10 Common

Episodic Inundated less than 3 years in every 10 Common

Maximum event duration

Duration of waterlogging Duration of inundation EVC Preference

1 – 6 months 1 – 6 months Common

> 6 months (but not permanent) Occasional

Water depth

Category Range (cm) EVC Preference

Shallow to medium 30 – 100 Common

Medium to deep > 100 – 200 Occasional

Salinity

Category Range (mg/L) EVC Preference

Fresh 0 – 3,000 Common

Hyposaline > 3,000 – 10,000 Occasional

Modelling (Gippel, C.J., 2015) indicates that the duration of inundation varies across the lake bed. Figure 4-4

shows modelled storage levels for the period 1934-2010. Analysis of the data showing the proportion of bed

area inundated for five different duration categories (Figure 4-5) reveal that around 3% of the bed area will be

inundated for <3 months per inundation event, ~50% of the bed area will experience 3-6 months inundation per

event and ~35% of the bed area will experience 6-9 months inundation per event (i.e. within the preferred

duration for Intermittent Swampy Woodland EVC). However, ~10% of the bed area will experience, on average,

9-12 months inundation per inundation event (<0.5% of the lake bed could experience permanent inundation).

This analysis was based on the preferred water regime for Third Reedy Lake (Scenario 13 in Gippel, C. J, 2015)

which includes an optional partial filling to about 73.2 mAHD in year 3 of each cycle. Under this scenario

around ~10% of the lakebed (up to an elevation of 73.2 mAHD) could experience inundation of ~25 cm for a

duration that is longer than the preferred duration for Intermittent Swampy Woodland EVC, and in these areas

the vegetation community composition may tend towards Aquatic Herbland (EVC 653), Lake Bed Herbland

(EVC 107), or Tall Marsh. If the partial filling event is not delivered (or only delivered in some cycles in

accordance with an adaptive management plan) then more of the bed area will experience a regime suitable for

Intermittent Swampy Woodland EVC, increasing the likelihood of achieving the objective for the target EVC

across a larger area of the lake bed.


R01 84

Figure 4-4: Modelled storage water level for Scenario 13 (including intermediate f illing) (adopted for Business Case) from

Gippel, C. J (2015)

Figure 4-5: Average proportion of bed area inundated under different inundation duration categories relevant to EVC types

under Scenario 13 (including intermediate filling) (based on data from Gippel, C. J (2015)

From a salinity perspective, modelling indicates that during the drawdown phase salinity could increase,

particularly if the local groundwater level is high compared to lake level (e.g. during wet periods) (URS 2014).

Modelling for Scenario 13 (the adopted water regime) suggests that the 50th%ile salinity increase is likely to be

around 500 µS/cm and the 80th%ile salinity increase is likely to be ~3,300 µS/cm. Intermittent Swampy

Woodland EVC prefers salinity <3,000 mg/L (equivalent to ~4,500 µS/cm), but can tolerate temporary and brief

increases in salinity above 3,000 mg/L (Table 4-8). The outcome is that the salinity range in the wetland is likely

to be suitable for the majority of time. However, it is recommended that management intervention through a

monitoring and adaptive management approach be undertaken if salinity increases for a prolonged period of

time above the 3,000 mg/L (4,500 µS/cm).


R01 85

Mitigation measures include provisioning for a flushing flow to lower elevated salinity in the wetland and timing

drawdown periods to coincide with lower groundwater levels (i.e. during dry periods across the landscape) to

minimise the potential for groundwater ingress to the wetland (URS, 2014). A contingency is included in the

recommended water regime to partially fill the wetland to around 73.2 m and hold it there for 31 days to flush

the lake (if required).

The proposed water regime for the Third Reedy Lake bypass project is broadly consistent with the

recommended regime for Intermittent Swampy Woodland EVC documented by Frood and Papas (2016).

Provided potential salinity impacts can be managed there is a good likelihood that that the recommended water

regime will be suitable to support to the target EVC across the majority (up to 90%) of the lake, possibly with the

exception of the deepest parts of the lake if the duration of inundation regularly exceeded 9 months (i.e. if the

optional intermediate filling event occurs regularly). In these areas (~10% of the wetland area) the vegetation

community may include species more indicative of Aquatic Herbland, Lakebed Herbland or Tall Marsh.

4.2.3 Feasibility of vegetation recovery

Successful establishment of the target EVC (or similar) is critical to the success of TRLBP in terms of the

predicted benefits of the project. The likelihood of, or time taken for, successful establishment cannot be

assumed or overlooked. An establishment water regime has been proposed, but it is unclear whether this

regime is appropriate. The establishment regime will need to be tailored to 1) provide conditions conducive to

germination and 2) provide conditions conducive to seedling growth prior to subsequent inundations (i.e. to

avoid drowning seedlings). Monitoring will be required to assess the response of the wetland to natural re-

generation and decisions will need to be made as to if and when active revegetation (e.g. direct seeding,

plugging etc.) would be required. The establishment phase is proposed to take up to 12 years based on 3 4-

year cycles but monitoring will be needed to determine if establishment has been successful and when the long-

term water regime can be commenced. Furthermore, 12 years is not long enough for mature River Red Gums

to develop, so establishment needs to be considered in terms of the regime and time needed to ensure that

River Red Gums can reach a stage where they can survive and ultimately mature under the proposed long-term

regime, rather than as representing an endpoint in itself.

Finally, success itself in terms of what constitutes an acceptable vegetation community needs to be determined.

It may be that Intermittent Swampy Woodland EVC does not establish but this does not mean that the project

itself is not successful. Alternative vegetation communities may still provide a diverse habitat and conditions

suitable for an increased diversity of waterbirds.

In order to determine the broad likelihood of successful establishment a wetland vegetation recovery DST

(Roberts et al 2017) was used to evaluate the likelihood of successful restoration of Intermittent Swampy

Woodland (EVC 813). The tool asks questions related to habitat suitability, potential for passive regeneration,

and establishment potential. Answers to questions are provided in Table 4-9.

Table 4-9: Wetland vegetation recovery potential (based on Roberts et al 2017)

Question Response

1. Do the tolerances of the target EVC match the hydrological characteristics of the target area?

Likely – proposed hydrological regime is suitable for the target EVC.

2. Does the target EVC match the Wetland

Landscape and Component for that part of Victoria?

Likely – target EVC is already present at the site and is an important

EVC type with the landscape.

3. Is passive regeneration feasible in the target

area?

Possible - most indicator species are already present; some seed

bank is likely to be present within the existing site or could reach the site from adjacent area (via inflowing water).

4. Is assisted regeneration of Indicator Species

feasible in target area?

Possible – most indicator species are likely to be available as seed

source or seedlings if required 5. Is the target area free of biotic constraints on

establishing the target EVC? Unlikely – target area is likely to experience weed growth and potential mud foragers (carp) that could prevent the target EVC from

establishing. 6. Can the biotic constraints on establishment be

managed? Likely – weed control, stock exclusion, public access to the drying wetland and carp management are also possible.

7. Are there ways to establish the target EVC if biotic constraints cannot be effectively managed?

Likely – more advanced River Red Gums could be planted across the site, but the establishment of ground cover species may still be difficult.


R01 86

The outcome of the evaluation indicated the proposed water regime is likely to match that of the target EVC

(Intermittent Swampy Woodland), the target EVC matches the wetland landscape and the target EVC is

currently present within the target area (fringing the existing lake). However, there is some uncertainty about

whether passive regeneration will be successful, and if not assisted regeneration will be required (in the form of

active revegetation). Moreover, the area is likely to contain a number of biotic constraints, including weeds and

occasional presence of carp (during the inundation phases), which may reduce establishment potential. Hence

weed control, and possibly carp control, may be required to manage biotic constraints and increase the likely

success of establishment.

Overall the evaluation indicates that recovery of the target EVC is likely to be successful, but some intervention

may be required to in the form of active revegetation (seeding and/or pugging) and in the management of biotic

constraints (weeds, carp, public access/disturbance). It is uncertain how long it will take for the target EVC to

establish. Monitoring will be required to:

1) determine if and when active intervention is required

2) manage the water regime to avoid inundating emerging vegetation until it can cope with inundation

3) manage biotic constraints

4) decide when vegetation has established to the point that the long-term hydrological regime can be

implemented.

4.3 Long term impacts (operational phase)

The assessment of long term impacts is based on an assumption that the implementation of the proposed water

regime is successful at establishing a target vegetation community consistent with Intermittent Swampy

Woodland EVC across the majority of the current lake bed. Impacts are assessed at a community and

individual species scale, and on the characteristics of the wetland that contribute to Ramsar status.

4.3.1 Impacts on ecological communities, habitats and process

Assuming the establishment phase is successful there are low to very low risks to ecological communities

currently present at the lake and low risks to habitats, feeding and breeding opportunities for the majority of

waterbird species recorded or potentially present at the lake (Table 4-10). However, the assessment also

identified a range of potential risks, including moderate impacts on waterbird breeding success if drying occurs

before chicks have fledged and death of fish and turtles (high impact) if complete drying occurs and individuals

cannot exit the lake (Table 4-10).


R01 87

Table 4-10: Impacts for ecological communities, habitat, feeding and breeding opportunities and ecological processes

Value Status Nature of outcomes Consequence Exposure risk rating



Bioregional Conservation Status (Victorian

Riverina) - Vulnerable

Chenopod Woodland EVC is on the southern side of the lake but above the current full supply level. Water level does not extend into this area therefore changes to water level within wetland will not impact on this zone. There is potential for a slight expansion of chenopod woodland into areas around

the lake margin as a drying regime is introduced, but overall benefits are considered very low.

Low

Area of existing EVC will not be impacted by altered

hydrological regime

Low

Existing EVC will not be exposed to

changed regime

Very low

Intermittent

Swampy Woodland (EVC 813)

Bioregional

Conservation Status (Victorian Riverina) - Depleted

Intermittent Swampy Woodland EVC is currently restricted to the fringes of the lake. The proposed

water regime aims to maintain conditions for this community and if successful will result in a significant expansion in area of this community at Third Reedy Lake. Also, a number of threatened plants are associated with Intermittent Swampy Woodland EVC at Third Reedy Lake, so expansion of this EVC could benefit those species. At a landscape scale, the total area of restoration is relatively small and would not constitute a very high benefit (i.e. does not contribute habitat critical to the survival of threatened species across the landscape), so the overall benefit is considered high.

Low

New water regime aims to expand this EVC beyond

its current extent

Low

Area of existing EVC is small compared to area that will benefit

Very low

Tall Marsh (EVC 821)

Bioregional Conservation

Status (Victorian Riverina) - Depleted

Tall Marsh currently occurs around the lake perimeter. Tall Marsh prefers permanent inundation with

only slight variability in water level. There may be some reduction in the existing areas of Tall Marsh, however, it is also likely that Tall Marsh could establish in deeper areas of the lake where the duration of inundation may be too long for Intermittent Swampy Woodland EVC. Furthermore, Tall Marsh occurs extensively in other nearby (<5 km away) lakes (e.g. First and Middle Reedy) and any changes in the area and distribution of Tall Marsh at Third Reedy Lake will not represent a significant change at the landscape level of this EVC.

Low

EVC in existing location will experience a changed regime that could result in a redistribution, but it will continue to be present at

the lake but in a new

location.

Minor

Redistribution is at the local (TRL) scale but

not significant at landscape scale (i.e. does not extend to

other locations within

the Ramsar site)

Low

Habitat

Diversity of understory vegetation in bed of wetland

Includes a number of Vic Advisory listed species.

Expansion of Intermittent Swampy Woodland EVC will increase the diversity and complexity of

understory vegetation in the bed of the wetland (compared to current open water with no macrophyte community). This will also result in an increase in habitat diversity and complexity for a range of species. Assuming successful establishment of the target EVC, the increased diversity and complexity is expected to occur across the majority of the lake bed, so the overall benefit is expected to be high.

Low

New water regime aims to increase diversity

Low

Area of existing EVC is small compared to area that will benefit

Very low

Feeding and breeding opportunities

Waterbird breeding success

Includes a number of FFG listed species

An increase in habitat complexity, and over time, increased abundance of River Red Gums, could provide increased opportunities for waterbird breeding during periods of inundation. Furthermore, inundation acts as a stimulus for breeding for some waterbirds. However, it may take many years for conditions to become conducive to successful breeding. The success of breeding and recruitment will depend on how the water regime is managed with respect to depth and duration of inundation and drawdown rates. If breeding occurs but drawdown is too rapid, nests or fledglings for some species could be abandoned leading to a negative outcome. However, if breeding does occur and the water

regime is managed proactively to promote breeding success, then overall outcomes would be moderate to high.

Low

TRL is not regarded as significant for waterbird

breeding. Birds that do breed at TRL do not contribute to Ramsar

status

Minor

Potential impact is only at local (TRL)

scale and does not affect other wetlands where significant bird

breeding that contributes to Ramsar

status occur.

Low


R01 88


Waterbird feeding

Includes a number of

FFG listed bird species

Wetlands are highly productive during the re-wetting and drawdown phase. Wetting and drying regimes will create a range of different waterbird feeding opportunities that could benefit different

species at different points in the wetting and drying cycle. Even if the target EVC does not establish, it is expected that the proposed regime will increase the diversity of feeding opportunities compared to the current regime. However, it is not clear which species will specifically benefit. It is unlikely the new regime will significantly enhance conditions for critical threatened species but will create an overall increased opportunity for a range of species that already exist within the area, especially for species that might have breeding colonies at nearby (< 5 km away) permanent lakes (e.g. Middle Reedy, Little

Lake Charm and Racecourse Lake).

Low

TRL is not regarded as significant for waterbird feeding. Birds that do

feed at TRL do not contribute to Ramsar

status

Minor

Potential impact is only at local (TRL) scale and does not

affect other wetlands that contributes to

Ramsar status occur.

Low

Frog feeding and breeding

Incudes FFG listed Brown

Toadlet.

Increased habitat complexity and a complex wetting and drying regime will create a range of hydrological habitats suitable for difference frog species. Three common species are already present at Third Reedy Lake and it is expected that conditions will be enhanced for these species. It is unclear

if new species would colonise lake – this would depend on a source of recruits in connected environments.

Low

Species recorded at TRL are common and

widespread

Low

Altered regime will improve conditions for

frog breeding

Very low

Turtle feeding and breeding

Incudes FFG listed Murray

River turtle. Common Long Necked Turtle and Murray River Turtle are present in Third Reedy Lake. Common

Long Necked Turtle is an adaptable species that can also move to more favourable habitats if conditions dictate. However, Murray River Turtle are less mobile and require permanent inundation for long term survival. The change regime at Third Reedy Lake may make conditions less desirable for turtles, and this is considered to represent a moderate impact at a community level, but a high risk at a species level for Murray River Turtle (see Table 4-12 below).

Medium

A drying regime will impact on suitability for species that require permanent

water

Minor

Potential impact is only at local (TRL) scale and does not

contribute to Ramsar status

Moderate

Lowland Riverine Fish Community of

the Southern Murray-Darling Basin

Includes FFG and EPBC listed fish

species

A range of native fish have been recorded in Third Reedy Lake, including some species that are listed on the Lowland Riverine Fish Community of the Southern Murray-Darling Basin. All individuals will be impacted by a dry phase. Individuals that do not exit the wetland during the drawdown phase may die

as the wetland dries (depending on whether full drying occurs). On this basis, there is a high risk to individuals present in the lake and some connectivity between wetlands is important during the drying phase to help fish move to refuge sites upon drying. Upon re-wetting Third Reedy will be a highly productive environment for fish and will recolonise with individuals from nearby connected locations (especially via Middle Reedy Lake). Despite the high risk to individuals trapped in the drying lake, the species present at Third Reedy Lake are also present more broadly across the landscape and Third

Reedy Lake is not critical habitat for any of these species so risk to the fish community at the individual species scale and at the regional scale the risks are low (also see Table 4-12 below for individual species impacts and see Section 4.4 for general risk mitigation and residual risk assessment).

Medium

A drying regime will impact

on suitability for species that require permanent water, but lake is not

critical habitat.

Minor

Potential impact is

only at local (TRL) scale and does not

contribute to Ramsar status

Moderate

Ecological processes

Ecological

process, nutrient and organic matter cycling

Most studies suggest that the drying and oxidation of wetland and lake bed sediments promotes the

mineralisation (breakdown) of organic nitrogen and phosphorus that is stored in the sediments into more readily available, inorganic forms. Upon rewetting the inorganic (bioavailable) forms are produced and released to the water column (see SKM 2013a). The actual amounts of nutrients released from sediment on re-wetting will depend on multiple factors, such as the amount of organic material present in the sediment, the oxygen profile that establishes on re-wetting etc.

Low

Current regime does not

support diversity of ecosystem process

Low

Any existing

processes occur at small scale within the current zone of water

level variability.

Very low


R01 89


Nutrients released on re-wetting may help promote rapid macrophyte growth within the newly flooded wetland, or in the absence of macrophytes, may contribute to the development of algal growth.

However, this does not necessarily represent a risk to ecological values as wetting and drying regimes promote more productive and diverse ecosystems than permanent inundation (Boulton and Brock 1999). So overall risks from altered nutrient and carbon dynamics is considered low, and is indeed one of the benefits of introducing a drying regime.


R01 90

4.3.2 Impacts on threatened species

Potential impacts on threatened species identified as present or potentially present at Third Reedy Lake (from

Section 3.2) is based on the consequence to that species of any impact and their likely exposure. The

assessment has considered the likelihood of particular species being present at Third Reedy Lake, and whether

Third Reedy Lake provides critical habitat for the species that is not found elsewhere and where any impacts at

Third Reedy Lake would materially impact on the species survival, both at Third Reedy Lake or elsewhere (e.g.

in connected environments). Furthermore, the extent to which Third Reedy Lake contributes to Ramsar site

character and whether impacts associated with changed hydrological regime at Third Reedy Lake would impact

more broadly on Ramsar character or limits of acceptable change, were also considered. The definition of

critical habitat is that presented in the EPBC Act 1999 Significant Impact Guidelines, and refers to areas that are

necessary (DoE 2013):

• for activities such as foraging, breeding, roosting, or dispersal

• for the long-term maintenance of the species or ecological community (including the maintenance of species essential to the survival of the species or ecological community, such as pollinators)

• to maintain genetic diversity and long term evolutionary development, or

• for the reintroduction of populations or recovery of the species or ecological community.

This may include habitat identified in a recovery plan as habitat critical for that species; and/or habitat listed on

the Register of Critical Habitat under the EPBC Act 1999 (DoE 2013). Where there are records for the species

at Third Reedy Lake the likelihood of being affected is based on whether the species regularly occurs at the site

and if the proposed changes would result in loss of the habitat and or species from the lake.

The significance of impacts is assessed using the guidelines for assessment of MNES (DoE 2013). An action is

likely to have a significant impact on a critically endangered or endangered species if there is a real chance or

possibility that it will (DoE 2013):

• lead to a long-term decrease in the size of a population

• reduce the area of occupancy of the species

• fragment an existing population into two or more populations

• adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species

• disrupt the breeding cycle of a population

• modify, destroy, remove, isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline

• result in invasive species that are harmful to a critically endangered or endangered species becoming established in the endangered or critically endangered species’ habitat

• introduce disease that may cause the species to decline, or

• interfere with the recovery of the species.

4.3.2.1 Birds

Table 4-11 summarises the impacts for birds identified as present or potentially present at Third Reedy Lake. Of the species considered for assessment, low or very low impacts were predicted for waterbirds on the basis that Third Reedy Lake in its current condition does not provide critical habitat for the long-term survival of any critically endangered or endangered species, and changes to the condition will not mean a species is likely to decline. Indeed, for some waterbirds, the proposed water regime could improve conditions and ultimately benefit those species by providing more diverse foraging and breeding habitat. Specifically, for waterbird species identified in the bilateral agreement for assessment, there are low risks to Australian painted snipe, Australasian Bittern, Eastern Great Egret, White-bellied Sea Eagle, Hardhead and Curlew Sandpiper because Third Reedy Lake in its current condition does not provide ideal habitat for these species (see Table 4-11 for details).


R01 91

An assessment was also made of potential impacts on several threatened terrestrial species listed on the Bilateral Agreement as requiring assessment: Regent Parrot, Superb Parrot, Painted Honeyeater and Plains Wanderer. None of these species have been recorded in the vicinity of Third Reedy Lake, the habitat that is currently present at the lake is not suitable for these species, and if they were present, their preferred habitat will not be affected by an altered water regime at the lake (see Table 4-11 for details).

Table 4-11: Summary of potential long-term outcomes for birds

Common

Name Description of potential outcome Consequence Exposure Risk

Intermediate Egret

Intermediate Egret has been recorded in the Ramsar site (xx Lake) but there are no known records Third Reedy Lake. They prefer shallow wetlands and billabongs with extensive vegetation. Although the regime will shift the lake from permanent to intermittent, an increase in the

diversity of littoral zone vegetation as well as nesting and breeding habitat (i.e. flooded trees) may make Third Reedy Lake a more desirable breeding location during wet phases. Permanent wetlands will remain at the landscape scale. Risks are considered low with potential benefits associated with more diverse littoral zones that could improve conditions for this species on some occasions.

Low


provide critical habitat.

Low

Not recorded in the vicinity

of Third Reedy Lake

Very low

Eastern

Great Egret*

Eastern Great Egret has been recorded at Third Reedy Lake (Biosis 2013). They prefer permanent waterbodies, but also frequent shallows of deep permanent wetlands and semi-permanent swamps. The

proposed regime will move the site to an intermittent wetland, which will also impact on fish which is their primary food source (Rogers and Ralph, 2011). Although the regime will shift the lake from permanent to intermittent, an increase in the diversity of littoral zone vegetation as well as nesting and breeding habitat (i.e. flooded trees) may make Third Reedy Lake a more desirable breeding location during wet phases.

Permanent wetlands will remain at the landscape scale. Risks are considered low with potential benefits associated with more diverse littoral zones that could improve conditions for this species on some occasions.

Low

Current regime

does not provide critical

habitat.

Minor

Potential

impact is only at local (TRL)

scale Low

Hardhead*

Hardheads prefer wetlands with abundant aquatic vegetation and deep water for foraging. The regime will increase the variability of the wetland

reducing open water opportunities (Rogers and Ralph, 2011). Hardhead has not been recorded in Third Reedy Lake since 2006. Although the regime will reduce the depth of the wetland (reducing open water foraging opportunities) it will increase the diversity of vegetation which is important for nesting but overall benefits are likely to be low.

Low


provide critical

habitat.

Minor


scale. Species not recorded since 2006.

Low

Australasian Bittern*

The Australasian Bittern has been recorded at various locations within the Kerang Lakes Ramsar site (Hird and Johnsons Swamp and Lake Cullen. The presence of Australasian bittern contributes to the Ramsar listing criteria 2 (Butcher and Hale 2016). The preferred habitat for this species is dense reed beds, some of which is present at Third Reedy Lake (i.e. Tall Marsh), but the species

has not been recorded at Third Reedy Lake (Biosis 2013) and Third Reedy Lake does not currently support this species and hence does not contribute to the Ramsar site with regards to Listing Criteria 2. A change in hydrological regime at Third Reedy Lake may change the distribution of Tall marsh, but Tall marsh is still expected to remain at Third Reedy Lake. Furthermore, the altered hydrological regime at TRL

will not alter the hydrological regime or availability of suitable habitat at other wetlands where Australian Bittern has been recorded. Hence there will be no impact on this species, or the contribution it makes to the Ramsar listing criteria 2.

Low



Low


of Third Reedy Lake

Very low

Musk Duck

Musk Ducks are almost entirely aquatic and prefer stable conditions with abundant aquatic vegetation. They nest over deep water and dive

up to 6 m in search of aquatic invertebrates (Rogers and Ralph, 2011). The changed water regime means Third Reedy Lake may not provide suitable habitat under all occasions. However, Musk Duck has not been recorded in Third Reedy Lake since 2006 and even under the current regime the lake does not provide ideal habitat (i.e. too shallow) so overall risks are considered low.

Low


provide critical

habitat.

Minor


scale. Species not

recorded since 2006.

Low

Red Knot

Recorded in Ramsar site but not recorded from Third Reedy Lake. Their preferred habitat is sandy estuaries with tidal mudflats (http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/855-conservation-advice-05052016.pdf), which are not present at Third Reedy Lake. Records from Kerang Lakes are likely to be of resting

individuals during migrations to coastal areas.

Low


provide critical

habitat.

Low


of Third Reedy

Lake

Very low

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/855-conservation-advice-05052016.pdf



R01 92

Common Name Description of potential outcome Consequence Exposure Risk

Curlew Sandpiper*

Not recorded in the Ramsar site or Third Reedy Lake, but may occasionally be present along the drainage system to the west of Third Reedy Lake (Biosis 2013). Preferred habitat includes tidal mud flats

and drying ephemeral lake margins (http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/856-conservation-advice.pdf). Third Reedy Lake does not provide preferred or critical habitat for this species and an altered hydrological regime at Third Reedy Lake will not impact on this species.

Low

Current regime


habitat.

Low

Not recorded

in the vicinity of Third Reedy

Lake

Very low

Great Knot

Recorded in Ramsar site but not recorded from Third Reedy Lake. Their preferred habitat is sandy estuaries with tidal mudflats (http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/862-conservation-advice-05052016.pdf), which are not present at Third

Reedy Lake. Records from Kerang Lakes are likely to be of resting individuals during migrations to coastal areas.

Low



Low


of Third Reedy Lake

Very low

Greater Sand Plover

Recorded in Ramsar site but not recorded from Third Reedy Lake.

Their preferred habitat is sandy estuaries with tidal mudflats (http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/877-conservation-advice-05052016.pdf), which are not present at Third Reedy Lake. Records from Kerang Lakes are likely to be of resting individuals during migrations to coastal areas.

Low

Current regime


habitat.

Low


of Third Reedy Lake

Very low

Little Egret

Little Egret inhabits tidal mudflats and salt and freshwater wetlands. They forage in shallow water, feeding on invertebrates fish and amphibians. Colonial nesting occurs over water (http://birdlife.org.au/bird-profile/Little-Egret). Although the regime will

shift the lake from permanent to intermittent, an increase in the diversity of littoral zone vegetation could provide an increase in forage habitat for this species and also an increase in the abundance of suitable food resources, especially invertebrates and amphibians during wet phases resulting in a potential benefit for this species.

Low



Minor

Potential impact is only

at local (Third Reedy Lake)

scale

Low

Painted Honeyeater*

Not recorded from Third Reedy Lake, or broader Ramsar Site. Preferred habitat is terrestrial, including River Red Gum woodlands. (http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/470-conservation-advice.pdf). Third Reedy Lake does not provide

preferred or critical habitat for this species and an altered hydrological regime at Third Reedy Lake will not impact on this species

Low



Low


of Third Reedy Lake

Very low

Gull-billed

Tern

Gull-billed Terns are found in freshwater swamps, brackish and salt

lakes, beaches and estuarine mudflats, floodwaters, sewage farms, irrigated croplands and grasslands (http://www.birdlife.org.au/bird-profile/gull-billed-tern). They have been recorded at the Ramsar site but not specifically from Third Reedy Lake. Although their nomadic nature means they are likely to be present from time to time. Feeding occurs over water, which will still remain within the broader Ramsar site.

Low

Current regime


habitat.

Low


of Third Reedy Lake

Very low

White-bellied Sea Eagle*

White-bellied Sea Eagle has been recorded in the general vicinity of Third Reedy Lake (fly-over records) but is not known to breed in lake (Biosis 2013). White-bellied sea eagles are opportunistic carnivores

(eating a mix of birds, mammals, reptile and fish) and forage over large areas. While a dry phase may reduce feeding opportunities, they are not reliant solely on permanent inundation and suitable feeding and breeding habitat remains within the immediate landscape. Risk are considered low.

Low

Current regime


habitat.

Minor

Potential

impact is only at local (Third Reedy Lake)

scale

Low

Eastern Curlew

The Eastern Curlew is found on intertidal mudflats and sandflats, often with beds of seagrass, on sheltered coasts, especially estuaries, mangrove swamps, bays, harbours and lagoons (http://www.birdlife.org.au/bird-profile/eastern-curlew). They have been

recorded at the Ramsar site but not specifically from Third Reedy Lake. There have been no records of this species post Ramsar listing and they are not considered to contribute to current characteristics (Butcher and Hale 2016). Records from inland systems are most likely to be of individuals resting on their migration to coastal areas (http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/84

7-conservation-advice.pdf). Third Reedy lake in its current form does not provide shallow mudflat habitats favoured by this species.

Low



Low


of Third Reedy Lake

Very low

Nankeen Night-heron

Nankeen Nightherons are nocturnal feeders that utilise well vegetated littoral zones with tall emergent vegetation. Although they prefer permanent wetlands they have been observed on temporary waterbodies. They nest in trees, shrubs and reed beds and feed on aquatic animals, particularly fish, frogs and insects (Rogers and Ralph, 2011). The proposed regime may impact on feeding opportunities. Crome (1988) (cited in Rogers and Ralph, 2011) documented that

Nankeen night heron breeding is triggered by flooding and that there is an increase in success following a few months of drying. The regime will promote these conditions, particularly stimulating flooding upon re-

Low



Minor

Potential impact is only at local (Third Reedy Lake)

scale

Low



http://www.birdlife.org.au/bird-profile/gull-billed-tern

http://www.birdlife.org.au/bird-profile/gull-billed-tern

http://www.birdlife.org.au/bird-profile/eastern-curlew

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/847-conservation-advice.pdf

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/847-conservation-advice.pdf


R01 93


wetting and could result in improved habitat conditions for this species on some occasions.

Plains-wanderer*

Recorded in Ramsar site but not recorded from Third Reedy Lake. Preferred habitat is treeless plains (Commonwealth of Australia 2016). Third Reedy Lake does not provide preferred or critical habitat for this species (Butcher and Hale 2016) and an altered hydrological regime at Third Reedy Lake will not impact on this species.

Low



Low


of Third Reedy Lake

Very low

Pied Cormorant

Pied Cormorants prefer stable water levels typical of permanent

freshwater wetland systems and feed primarily on fish and crustaceans (Rogers and Ralph, 2011). The proposed regime will result in a drying phase which will impact on fish. The proposed regime will reduce the occurrence of Pied Cormorant breeding and use of Third Reedy Lake. Suitable foraging habitat will remain in the landscape within close proximity to Third Reedy Lake and regeneration of River Red Gums

may provide suitable nesting habitat at times when Third Reedy Lake is inundated so overall impact is considered low.

Low

Current regime


habitat.

Minor

Potential

impact is only at local Third Reedy Lake

scale

Low

Royal Spoonbill

The Royal Spoonbill inhabits shallow freshwater and saltwater

wetlands, intertidal mud flats and wet grasslands, including permanent and temporary inland waters. Preferred food resources include fish, crustaceans and other invertebrates in depths to ~40 cm. Colonial nesting occurs over water or in dense reedbeds (http://birdlife.org.au/bird-profile/royal-spoonbill). Although the regime will shift the wetland from permanent to intermittent an increase in the

diversity of littoral zone vegetation, including an increase in the area of shallow habitat as drawdown occurs could provide an increase in foraging habitat for this species and also an increase in the abundance of suitable food resources.

Low

Current regime


habitat.

Minor

Potential

impact is only at local Third Reedy Lake

scale Low

Regent Parrot*

Not known from Third Reedy Lake. Current breeding habitat and distribution is west of Swan Hill (Baker-Gabb, D and Hurley, V. 2011). Preferred habitat is terrestrial, including River Red Gum woodlands (Baker-Gabb, D and Hurley, V. 2011). Third Reedy Lake does not provide preferred or critical habitat for this species (Butcher and Hale

2016) and an altered hydrological regime at Third Reedy Lake will not impact on this species.

Low


provide critical

habitat.

Low


of Third Reedy

Lake

Very low

Superb Parrot*

Not known from Third Reedy Lake. Preferred habitat is red gum forests

and box woodlands with current breeding habitat and distribution along the Murray River around the Edwards River / Barmah Forest and into NSW (Baker-Gabb, 2011). Third Reedy Lake does not provide preferred or critical habitat for this species and an altered hydrological regime at Third Reedy Lake will not impact on this species.

Low

Current regime


habitat.

Low


of Third Reedy Lake

Very low

Australian Painted

Snipe*

Recorded within Ramsar area, but not specifically from Third Reedy Lake. Prefers a range of shallow wetland habitats, specifically shallow and exposed mud flats. Avoids deep open water areas and dense reeds (Biosis 2013). Preferred habitat is currently not present at Third

Reedy Lake (Butcher and Hale 2016) – the current permanently inundated regime means there are no shallow/exposed mudflats and the margins of the lake is dominated by reeds. Permanent inundation of naturally temporary wetlands is a threat to this species (http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=77037). The proposed

altered hydrological regime will not impact existing individuals and will potentially create improved habitat.

Low


support this species or


Low


of Third Reedy Lake. New regime may

improve habitat.

Very low

Caspian

Tern

Caspian Terns feed primarily on fish which will be impacted by the

proposed regime (Rogers and Ralph, 2010). However, Caspian tern has not been recorded at Third Reedy Lake since 1998, furthermore, suitable foraging habitat will remain in the landscape within close proximity to Third Reedy Lake, so overall impacts are considered low. Altered water regime is unlikely to result in an increase in habitat suitable for this species.

Low

Current regime


habitat.

Minor

Potential


scale

Low

* Species specifically included in the Bilateral Agreement

4.3.2.2 Fish, frogs and turtles

Fish

A number of native fish including Golden Perch, Unspecked Hardyhead, Australian Smelt, Carp Gudgeon and Bony Bream have been recently recorded in Third Reedy Lake (Biosis 2013). Murray Cod, Silver Perch and Freshwater Catfish have been previously recorded. The proposed hydrological regime will not permanently support fish if complete drying occurs during the dry phase. However, it is possible that a small permanent pool

http://birdlife.org.au/bird-profile/royal-spoonbill




R01 94

may be retained (depending on specific watering scenarios) and some individuals may persist in this pool (if present). During filling phases fish will be able to re-enter the lake from the adjacent system and may persist for several years prior to the next dry phase. Even so, there is the potential for fish deaths to occur if individuals present in the lake cannot escape during the drawdown phase, but at a species specific scale the impacts are considered low to very low (Table 4-12). With reference to species identified in the bilateral agreement for assessment (i.e. Murray Hardyhead, Murray Cod, Silver Perch, Freshwater Catfish, Flatheaded Galaxias and Macquarie Perch), there is low to very low risks. Specifically:

• Macquarie Perch has not been recorded west of Torrumbarry Weir since 1949 (Cadwallader 1977) and

is considered extinct in the region with all known populations located east of the Loddon catchment and outside of the Kerang Lakes region. The revised Ramsar character description considers the site to not support this species (Butcher and Hale 2016). An altered hydrological regime at Third Reedy Lake will not impact on known populations of this species.

• Flatheaded Galaxias has not recorded in the Kerang Lakes since 1963 (First Reedy Lake) (North

Central CMA, 2014). They have not been detected in numerous recent surveys at Third Reedy Lake and are considered locally extinct with all known populations now located east of the Loddon catchment and outside of the Kerang Lakes catchment (http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/84745-conservation-advice-05052016.pdf). The recently revised Kerang Lakes Ramsar criteria declared that they are not present within the site and that an altered hydrological regime at Third Reedy Lake will not impact on known populations of this species (Butcher and Hale 2016).

• Murray Hardyhead has not been recorded in Third Reedy Lake, although a single individual has been recorded in Middle Reedy Lake (Biosis 2013) and there are known populations in other lakes in the region. However, repeated targeted surveys have not detected Murray Hardyhead in Third Reedy Lake and Sharpe (2014) considered that the lack of aquatic plants and the relatively low salinity levels in Middle and Third Reedy Lakes (compared to locations where Murray Hardyhead flourish) mean Third Reedy Lake in its current form does not provide suitable long term habitat for the species and the revised Ramsar character description considers the site to not support this species (Butcher and Hale 2016). Recovery plan actions for Murray Hardyhead focus on maintaining water supply and conditions in those locations where Murray Hardyhead are known to persist (Backhouse et al. 2008).

• Freshwater Catfish has not been recorded in Third Reedy Lake since 1981. Freshwater Catfish prefer dense aquatic vegetation, and the lake has not supported extensive submerged vegetation since the 1990s (North Central CMA, 2014 and see Section 3.2.3). Hence it is considered the lake in its current form no longer provides suitable habitat for this species and the lack of submerged vegetation probably explains it’s absence from the lake.

• Silver Perch has not been recorded in Third Reedy Lake since 1981, however they have been recorded more recently in the flowing channels connecting lakes throughout the region. They are a riverine species that prefer flowing waters, so their presence in the lakes is likely to be a consequence of their movement through the connected system and it is considered that the lakes do not provide core habitat for this species (Butcher and Hale 2016). If Silver Perch are moving through the current system of lakes and channels, they will still be able to move between hydrologically connected lakes and wetlands upstream and downstream of Third Reedy Lake via the new bypass channel, even when Third Reedy Lake itself is isolated from the current system – maintain movement opportunities is a key requirement for Silver Perch recovery (http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/76155-conservation-advice.pdf). On this basis, the bypassing of Third Reedy Lake will not interrupt regional scale fish movement. This connection will not be interrupted, so the overall risk to Silver Perch is considered very low.

• Murray Cod has not been recorded in Third Reedy Lake since 2006 (Biosis 2013). Murray cod is stocked in neighbouring First Reedy Lake and records from Third Reedy Lake are likely to be of stocked individuals. The lake in its current condition does not provide ideal breeding habitat for Murray Cod, which prefer flowing water for breeding, although individuals will survive in impoundments. Overall the lakes are considered to not provide core habitat for this species (Butcher and Hale 2016). Murray Cod are a mobile species and individuals that are present in the lake may be encouraged to move out of the lake during initial drawdown (i.e. when the inlet regulator is still open). The bypass system will continue to allow fish to move through system of connected lakes and wetlands. Overall risk to native (not-stocked) populations is considered very low


R01 95

A number of common and widespread species are currently present in Third Reedy Lake (e.g. Unspecked hardyhead, Australian smelt), these species are likely to recolonise from connected wetlands during inundation so at a species level impacts are also considered low. For all species, including those not recently recorded in Third Reedy Lake but probably still present in the region (e.g. Silver Perch and Freshwater Catfish), opportunities for movement throughout the system will be retained as the new bypass channel will be built to include fish passage opportunities. There will also be opportunities for movement into and out of Third Reedy Lake at various points in the filling and drawdown cycles.

At certain times the quality of water in Third Reedy Lake may decline (e.g. from low dissolved oxygen, high salinity or low pH) (see Section 4.3.3) and this could also impact on the fish present in the lake, or in downstream connected environments. However, mitigation measures are proposed that will address these issues and minimise the likelihood of poor water quality conditions, especially elevated salinity and low pH (see Section 4.4). Moreover, mitigation measures are designed to avoid the risk of poor quality water leaving Third Reedy Lake and subsequently impacting on downstream environments where fish are present. On this basis, risks to downstream connected environments are considered low.

Frogs

No threatened frogs have been recorded at Third Reedy Lake, and those that are present are common species that are likely to benefit from the proposed regime. With reference to species listed in the bilateral agreement (Growling Grass Frog and Brown Toadlet), Third Reedy Lake contains some suitable habitat around the lake margins for these species, but there are no records at the site of either Growling Grass Frog or Brown Toadlet (Biosis 2013). The most recent, nearest, records for Growling Grass Frog are from 1961 at a location south of First Reedy Lake (>5 km from Third Reedy Lake) and for Brown Toadlet are from 1947 (Biosis 2013). The revised character description considers these species unlikely to be present at the site (Butcher and Hale 2016). A change in hydrological regime at Third Reedy Lake may improve habitat quality for both species by increasing wetland plant diversity and introducing a variable hydroperiod. There will be no impacts on other nearby wetlands, so permanent water will remain in the landscape.

Turtles

Two turtle species have been recorded at Third Reedy Lake (Common Long Necked Turtle and Murray River Turtle). Murray River Turtle were listed in the bilateral agreement for assessment (This species has been recorded in low numbers and is presumed to maintain a small population in the lake. They prefer permanent inundation, but may move to new habitat during the drying phase. However, complete drying should be avoided in winter because hibernating adults may die from exposure to cold conditions, and management actions may be required to minimise impacts on individuals where possible (See Section 4.4). However, the species is more widely present across the landscape and impacts at Third Reedy Lake will not constitute a significant impact on this species at the species population or landscape scale (see Table 4-12 for details).

Table 4-12: Summary of potential long-term outcomes for fish, frogs and turtles


Silver

Perch*

Silver Perch are a riverine species that prefers fast flowing rivers and major anabranch systems (Merrick 1996). They occasionally inhabit lake environments following large floods, but these are not preferred habitats (Mallen-Cooper 2001). The proposed regime may not permanently support this species if complete drying occurs. However, if a permanent pool remains some individuals may persist (if present).

Silver Perch has not been recorded in Third Reedy Lake, despite repeated surveys, since 1981, but have been recorded in the connecting channel between TRL and Middle Reedy lake (Biosis 2013). Silver Perch are a mobile species and individuals that may be present in the lake may be encouraged to move out of the lake during initial drawdown (i.e. when the inlet regulator is still open). If Silver Perch are moving

through the current system of lakes and channels, they will still be able to move between hydrologically connected lakes and wetlands upstream and downstream of Third Reedy Lake via the new bypass channel, even when Third Reedy Lake itself is isolated from the current system. On this basis, the bypassing of Third Reedy Lake will not interrupt regional scale fish movement. This connection will not be interrupted, so the

overall risk to Silver Perch is considered very low.

Low

A drying regime may impact on suitability for species that

require permanent water,

but lake is not critical habitat.

Low

Potential impact is only at local (TRL) scale. Species

not recorded since 1981,

but is present in connecting

channel. Opportunities

for movement through

system will not be interrupted.

Very low

Murray Hardyhead*

Murray Hardyhead prefer still open-water wetlands, billabong, lake and backwater habitats, particularly saline ephemeral deflation basins

(Lintermans 2007). Murray Hardyhead is present in several lakes in the Kerang region, including Lakes Cullen, Round Lake and Lake Kelly, but

Low

A drying regime may impact on

Low

Potential impact is only

Very low


R01 96


these wetlands are not directly hydrologically connected to Third Reedy Lake. Murray Hardyhead was recorded in Middle Reedy Lake (1 individual in 2013 – Biosis 2013). Further extensive survey (>2000 net hours) in 2014 failed to detect Murray Hardyhead in Middle or Third Ready Lake (Sharpe 2014). Sharpe (2014) considered that the lack of aquatic plants and the relatively low salinity levels in Middle and Third

Reedy Lakes (compared to locations where Murray hardyhead flourish) mean Third Reedy Lake does not provide suitable long term habitat for the species, but it cannot be categorically concluded that they are not present. The proposed regime may not permanently support this species if complete drying occurs. However, if a permanent pool remains some individuals may persist (if present).

Given the low likelihood of occurrence and the lack of suitable habitat, the risk is considered very low.

suitability for species that



at local (TRL) scale.

Species not recorded despite targeted

surveys

Unspecked Hardyhead

Unspecked Hardyhead prefer still and slow flowing vegetated habitats in billabongs, wetlands, lakes and backwaters. Unspecked Hardyhead were recorded in low numbers in Third Reedy Lake in 2014 (Sharpe 2014). The small size of the species may limit its ability to move to more favourable conditions. This would result in the loss of individuals trapped within the lake if complete drying occurs. However, if a

permanent pool remains some individuals may persist. Although Unspecked Hardyhead is FFG Act 1988 listed, it is common and widespread in the connected wetlands (e.g. Middle Reedy Lake – see Sharpe 2014), so sources of recruits are locally available and likely to re-enter Third Reedy Lake during filling cycles. On this basis, the risk to individuals is high but at a population scale overall risk is low and the

lake will continue to provide opportunistic habitat for small bodied native fish during inundation phases.

Low




Minor


scale, but

species are known to be

present

Low

Flatheaded Galaxias

Flatheaded Galaxias are a relatively uncommon, lowland species restricted to the Murray River and its major tributaries. Preferred habitat is backwaters, billabongs and lagoons with abundant vegetation (McDowall and Fulton 1996; Allen et al. 2002). Despite numerous

recent surveys, they have not been recorded in the Kerang Lakes since 1963 (First Reedy Lake) (North Central CMA, 2014). Current known locations of Flatheaded Galaxias are all in the mid and upper Murray River. Although generally considered to be locally extinct, some wetlands within the Kerang Lakes system do provide suitable habitat and it is possible that they are still present in the system. However, the

lack of records at Third Reedy Lake suggest the overall risk is considered very low.

Low

A drying regime may impact on

suitability for species that



Minor

Species not recorded since

1963, so no longer

considered to be present.

Low

Murray Cod*

Murray Cod has not been recorded in Third Reedy Lake since 2006

(Biosis 2013). Murray cod is stocked in neighbouring First Reedy Lake and records from Third Reedy Lake are likely to be of stocked individuals. The lake in its current condition does not provide ideal breeding habitat for Murray Cod, which prefer flowing water for breeding, although individuals will survive in impoundments. Murray Cod are a mobile species and individuals that are present in the lake may be

encouraged to move out of the lake during initial drawdown (i.e. when the inlet regulator is still open). The bypass system will continue to allow fish to move through system of connected lakes and wetlands. Overall risk to native (not-stocked) populations is considered very low.

Low


require

permanent water, but lake is not critical habitat.

Low

Potential


scale. Species

maintained by stocking

Very low

Golden Perch

The proposed regime will not permanently support this species due to a complete drying phase. No individuals were recorded in Third Reedy

Lake in 2014 (Sharpe 2014). Golden perch is stocked in neighbouring First Reedy Lake and records from Third Reedy Lake are likely to be of stocked individuals. Golden perch are a mobile species and individuals that are present in the lake may be encouraged to move out of the lake during initial drawdown (i.e. when the inlet regulator is still open). The bypass system will continue to allow fish to move through system of

connected lakes and wetlands. Overall risk to native (not-stocked) populations is considered very low.

Low

A drying regime may impact on suitability for

species that require

permanent water, but lake is not critical habitat.

Low


scale. Species is

stocked in the system.

Very low

Freshwater Catfish*

Freshwater Catfish prefer still wetland, billabong and lagoon habitats with abundant aquatic vegetation. The proposed regime may not permanently support this species if complete drying occurs. However, if

a permanent pool remains some individuals may persist (if present). However, Freshwater Catfish has not been recorded in Third Reedy Lake, despite repeated surveys, since 1981 (Biosis 2013). Furthermore, the lake in its current condition does not provide ideal breeding habitat for Freshwater Catfish because of the lack of submerged vegetation,

Low

A drying regime

may impact on suitability for species that


Low

Species not

recorded since 1981, so no

longer considered to be present.

Very low


R01 97


which is required for nest-building. Overall risk is considered very low since species is not expected to be currently present in the lake.


Murray River Turtle*

Murray River Turtle have been recorded in low numbers in Third Reedy

Lake (Biosis 2013). They prefer permanent inundation and but may move to new habitat during a drying phase. An apparent decline in Murray River Turtles at Third Reedy Lake has been attributed to nest and juvenile predation (Biosis 2013). There are potential impacts on remaining Murray River turtles at Third Reedy Lake, however they are present in larger numbers at nearby wetlands (e.g. Middle Reedy, Little

Lake Charm and Racecourse Lake) (Biosis 2013); these habitats will not be affected by the changed regime. There are moderate risks at the site scale but low risks at the landscape scale (see Section 4.4 for risk mitigation and residual risk assessment).

Medium-


require

permanent water.

Minor

Potential


scale Moderate

Frogs

Growling Grass Frog*

Growling Grass Frog prefer shallow habitats with abundant floating

vegetation. TRL contains some suitable habitat around the lake margins, but there have been no records of growling grass frog at TRL (Biosis 2013). The most recent, nearest records are from 1961 at a location south of First Reedy Lake >5 km from Third Reedy Lake. A change in hydrological regime at Third Reedy Lake may improve habitat quality for Growling Grass Frogs by increasing wetland plant diversity

during inundation phases. There will be no impacts on other nearby wetlands, so permanent water will remain in the landscape.

Low

A drying regime

may improve conditions for this

species (and frogs in general).

Low

Species not recorded at TRL, or in

general area since 1961.

Very low

Brown

Toadlet

Not recorded from Third Reedy Lake. Prefers grasslands and forests

were eggs are laid under leaf litter and tadpoles develop in wet depressions and is not reliant on permanent wetlands. Third Reedy Lake does not provide suitable habitat in its current form, although the wooded margins of the lake may provide suitable habitat. A changed water regime that increases the diversity of vegetation and provides a variable hydroperiod may benefit this species if it present.

Low

A drying regime

may improve conditions for this

species (and frogs in general).

Low

Species not

currently recorded at

TRL.

Very low


4.3.2.3 Plants

A number of plant species were listed on the bilateral agreement for assessment (Chariot Wheels, Winged Peppercress and Slender Darling-pea). Of these, only Chariot Wheels has been recorded at Third Reedy Lake, along with a number of other threatened plants, in association with the remnant Intermittent Swampy Woodland EVC. The proposed water regime aims to expand the area of Intermittent Swampy Woodland EVC at the lake, so risks to these species is considered very low (Table 4-13). Indeed, the change in hydrological regime is likely to benefit the majority of species present and provide opportunities for new species to colonise. Where Chariot wheels have been recorded, specific actions are proposed to ensure that construction activities do not impact on individuals (see Section 4.1). Winged peppercress and Slender darling-pea have not been recorded at Third Reedy Lake, furthermore, existing habitat at Third Reedy Lake is not suitable for these species (see Table 4-13 for details).

Table 4-13: Summary of potential long-term outcomes for plants


Twin-leaf Bedstraw

Recorded associated with existing Intermittent

Swampy Woodland EVC. The proposed water regime aims to expand areas of Intermittent Swampy Woodland EVC hence there is a potential benefit to this species.

Low

New water regime aims to expand EVC that this species is

associated with

Low

Preferred habitat will be expanded, so exposure to any

impact is low

Very low

Flat-top Saltbush

Recorded associated with existing Intermittent Swampy Woodland EVC. The proposed water regime aims to expand areas of Intermittent Swampy

Woodland EVC hence there is a potential benefit to this species.

Low

New water regime aims to expand EVC

that this species is associated with

Low

Preferred habitat will be expanded, so

exposure to any impact is low

Very low

Winged water-Starwort

Recorded associated with existing Intermittent Swampy Woodland EVC. The proposed water regime aims to expand areas of Intermittent Swampy

Low

New water regime aims to expand EVC

Low

Preferred habitat will be expanded, so

Very low


R01 98


Woodland EVC and retain variable wetting and drying so there is a potential benefit to this species.

that this species is associated with


Spiny Lignum

Recorded associated with existing Intermittent Swampy Woodland EVC. The proposed water regime

aims to expand areas of Intermittent Swampy Woodland EVC hence there is a potential benefit to this species.

Low

New water regime

aims to expand EVC that this species is

associated with

Low

Preferred habitat will

be expanded, so exposure to any

impact is low

Very low

Winged

Pepper-cress

Not recorded in direct association with Third Reedy Lake or bypass area. In Victoria, the species is only recorded in the Hattah-Kulkyne National Park (between Lake Hattah and Lake Bulla), on the Murray River floodplain in Barmah State Park and near

Reedy Lagoon in the Gunbower Reserve, in the Stony Plain Bushland Reserve near Sealake, in Wyperfeld National Park and in the West Wail Flora and Fauna Reserve, north-west of Horsham (Mavromihalis 2010). All sites are >40 km from Third Reedy Lake. The Winged Peppercress grows at sites that are

seasonally wet, either through periodic flooding or where rainfall runoff collects, and a regular wetting and drying regime is probably required to maintain an open habitat and facilitate seed germination. Many shallow freshwater marshes have been drained, while other sites have prolonged inundation through

irrigation supply and runoff, reducing the availability of suitable habitat for the species. If present, the proposed change in hydrological could benefit the species.

Low

Species is not reliant on current regime,

and could be benefit

by a change in regime

Low

Species not recorded within

impact area

Very low

Chariot Wheels*

Not recorded in direct association with Third Reedy Lake or bypass area. It has been recorded south west of First Reedy Lake (~ 5km south of Third Reedy Lake) (Rakali Consulting 2013). A change in water

regime will not impact this species, so risk is very low.

Low

Species is not reliant on current regime

Low


impact area

Very low

Dark Roly-poly

Recorded associated with existing Intermittent

Swampy Woodland EVC. The proposed water regime aims to expand areas of Intermittent Swampy Woodland EVC hence there is a potential benefit to this species.

Low

New water regime aims to expand EVC that this species is

associated with

Low

Preferred habitat will be expanded, so exposure to any

impact is low

Very low

Branching Groundsel

Branching Groundsel is present at Third Reedy Lake in association with Tall Marsh. However, it can grow in wet or dry soils (Walsh 1999). The proposed water regime will retain variable wetting and drying which should continue to support Branching Groundsel so there is a potential benefit to this species.

Low

New water regime will not significantly alter

area this EVC species is associated with

Low

Preferred habitat will not be impacted so


Very low

Slender Darling-pea*

Slender Darling-pea is associated with heavy soils in grassland and box woodland areas (Commonwealth of Australia undated). They are not associated with permanent water bodies and have not been recorded at Third Reedy Lake – no suitable habitat exists around Third Reedy Lake (Rakali Consulting, 2013).

A change in hydrological regime at TRL will not impact this species.

Low

Species is not reliant on current regime

Low


impact area Very low


4.3.3 Threats to achieving objectives

A range of biotic and abiotic threats have been identified that could impact on the success of the proposed

restoration activities at Third Reedy Lake (see Table 4-14 for details). Of these threats, excessive weed growth

during the dry phase represents a potential high impact because weeds could impact on the establishment of

the target EVC across the site. Acid sulfate soils and intrusion of saline groundwater pose high impacts as

Third Reedy Lake dries, and reduced dissolved oxygen presents a potential risk during filling, especially if there

is a large amount of organic material present in the bed of the lake.


R01 99

Poor water quality can impact on aquatic biota present during both drying and filling phases, especially if the

tolerances (e.g. salinity and dissolved oxygen tolerance) are exceeded. Furthermore, if water quality did

deteriorate in Third Reedy Lake there is a risk to downstream environments if that water was released from the

lake in an uncontrolled manner. To address these potential risks, a range of mitigation measures have been

identified that effectively managing the risks and hence avoid the potential for detrimental impacts, especially on

downstream values (see Section 4.4).


R01 100

Table 4-14: Biotic and abiotic threats associated with a changed water regime

Threat Description of outcomes

Consequence Exposure Risk rating

Biotic threats

Failure to successfully

establish target Intermittent Swampy Woodland EVC

Intermittent Swampy Woodland EVC and associated species are currently restricted to the fringes of the lake. The proposed water regime aims to improve conditions for this community. However, there are risks

associated with potential for poor recruitment and regeneration of Indicator Species due to lack of seedbank and as a result of the extended inundation and excessive weed growth that outcompetes native species. The consequences of not successfully establishing the target EVC are high because all other outcomes are reliant on the success of vegetation recovery (see Section 4.4 for risk mitigation and residual risk assessment).

High

Success of project is reliant on Target EVC

establishing

Minor

Potential impact is only at local (TRL) scale and does not extend to Ramsar

site

High

Weeds

Weed colonisation has the potential to impact on the regeneration of the target EVC. Weeds are present throughout the system and the highly connected nature of the waterways means there are likely to be continued supply of weed seeds and propagules. A drying regime may allow colonisation of weeds which

prevent regeneration of native species – although subsequent inundation is likely to help control terrestrial weeds. However, some species are promoted through intermittent flooding, including the native Typha and Phragmites, which have been identified as a significant problem in other wetlands within the Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Site (i.e. Johnson Swamp and Hird Swamp) that have intermittent watering regimes (Dalby-Ball et al. 2000). The current growth/spread of species such as Typha is suppressed under the current permanent regime. However, these species could spread under an intermittent regime and may reduce growth of other native flood-dependent understory species (i.e. sedges, rushes, grasses, herbs)

including rare and threatened species. On this basis, the colonisation of the lake bed by weeds that could impact on the regeneration potential of the target EVC represents a high level of risk that requires active management (see Section 4.4 for risk mitigation and residual risk assessment).

High

Ability for target EVC to

successfully establish could be impacted by

weeds

Minor

Potential impact is

only at local (TRL) scale.

High

Non-native fish Exotic fish, namely carp, dominate the fish biomass at Third Reedy Lake. Although a drying regime may kill carp and other exotic fish, carp are very mobile and will rapidly recolonise the wetland during the inundation phase. Furthermore, Carp are able to tolerate highly variable conditions more so than most native species (e.g. as the wetland dries). Carp may also pose a risk to successful vegetation recovery during the inundation phase through disturbance of sediments (Roberts et al 2017).

Medium

Exotic species may impact on target EVC and native

species

Minor


scale.

Moderate

Depleted dissolved oxygen impacts on aquatic biota during

filling phase (blackwater)

Inundation of the dry wetland may result in an initial decline in dissolved oxygen as organic matter that has accumulated on the wetland floor is inundated and decomposition commences. An assessment of the risks of blackwater conditions developing in the filling phase indicates that an initial reduction in DO is likely but

the magnitude and duration of low DO depends on the starting load of organic matter, temperature and the lake level at the commencement of inundation: the more organic matter present, the higher the temperature and the lower the lake level, the greater the decline in DO at the commencement of filling and the longer the duration of low DO conditions (SKM 2013a). The actual risk to values from low DO during filling depends on whether native fish and other biota enter the lake during the filling phase and are consequently exposed to low DO conditions (SKM 2013a). Risks can

be reduced by timing filling to avoid warm weather conditions and maintaining opportunities for fish that enter the lake during filling to also move back out of the lake if conditions are not suitable. The impacts posed by the threat are considered low to moderate depending on the response / tolerance of biota present.

Low- Medium

Threat is a common occurrence in wetlands,

but could impact on sensitive biota if present

Minor

Potential impact is

only at local (TRL) scale.

Low-moderate

Abiotic threats

Acid sulfate soils The potential for acid sulfate soils to form in Third Reedy Lake has been identified (URS, 2013b). Further investigation through additional analysis has been completed and risks further quantified (Jacobs, 2017).

High

Minor

High


R01 101

Threat Description of outcomes

Consequence Exposure Risk rating

Sampling indicated the presence of acid sulfate soils, though the distribution of soils with a high potential for acid generation was relatively low due to internal buffering within the sediments. At the whole of Third

Reedy Lake scale the generation of acid sufficient to cause wide scale impacts was considered a low risk. But there are isolated pockets within Third Reedy Lake where there is a higher potential for acid generation and hence localised high risk. Moreover, as the wetland dries the potential for elevated heavy metals, especially chromium, has been identified as a high risk to values. However, the lake water (and inflowing water) is alkaline, so it has a moderate buffering capacity. This means any acid generated is likely to be rapidly neutralised, especially during inflow periods, which will limit likelihood of low pH conditions

developing. Even so, the threat posed by acid sulfate soils is considered high and requires mitigation measures to be developed (see Section 4.4 for risk mitigation and residual risk assessment.

Ability to achieve project objectives could be

compromised if threat occurs


scale and does not extend to Ramsar

site

Salinity It is possible that groundwater intrusion may occur at Third Reedy Lake during drying phase when the

regional groundwater levels are high (URS, 2013a and 2014). This could be exacerbated by accumulation of salt in the bed of the wetland during each cycle resulting in a long-term increase in wetland salinity. High salinity has the potential to impact on the target EVC by exceeding tolerance for vegetation growth. High salinity also has the potential to impact on fish and frogs that may be present in the lake, or in downstream reaches if high salinity lake water is released to downstream environments, for example, if flushing is used as a technique to manage elevated salinity. On this basis, the threat posed by elevated

salinity is considered high and requires mitigation (see Section 4.4 for risk mitigation and residual risk assessment).

High

Ability to achieve project

objectives could be compromised if threat

occurs

Minor


site

High

Erosion and loss of top-soil

Exposure of bare soil during the drying phase has the potential to cause loss of topsoil. Furthermore, upon rewetting there is a risk of mobilising dry sediment that creates unacceptable turbidity. However, wind driven erosion of dry lake beds is a natural process that is important for the maintenance of these wetland types. Erosion is also possible due to disturbance from uncontrolled public access and stock. Exclusion of stock, management of public access and the establishment of appropriate vegetation on the lake bed and

exclusion of people, vehicles and stock will reduce this threat.

Low

Threat is a natural process, but excessive erosion caused through

disturbance could impact

on success of target EVC establishment

Minor


site

Low


R01 102

4.3.4 Risks to Ramsar ecological character

The change in hydrology at Third Reedy Lake, particularly the introduction of a dry phase, results in a change in

water regime that exceeds the current hydrology LAC (Table 4-16) (Butcher and Hale 2016) and this is likely to

alter some of the current characteristics of the wetland. However, this does not equate to a negative change in

ecological character that impacts on the contribution of Third Reedy Lake to the overall character of the Kerang

Wetlands Ramsar Site. An assessment of the impact of TRLP on meeting the Ramsar listing criterion by

considering the relative contribution that Third Reedy Lake makes to the status of being a Wetland of

International Importance was presented in Section 3.3.1 above. An assessment of potential change in

ecological character is presented in the following sections detailing:

• An assessment against the 2017 LAC for critical components, processes and services which constitute part of the character of the Ramsar site, and

• An assessment regarding the significance of impact and change in ecological character for the Ramsar site using the Guidance for determining Significance of Impact for MNES.

These activities are summarised in Figure 4-6 in relation to the process for assessing a change in ecological

character at Ramsar sites.

Figure 4-6 Approach to assessing potential change in ecological character of the Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Site (modified from

DEWHA 2009). The standard approach is encompassed by the activities in the blue box. The red shaded boxes are the process

undertaken for TRLBP and include the approvals process and the EPBC Act 1999 referral process. Grey shaded boxes are not


R01 103

relevant to the TRLBP. Green shaded boxes are Ramsar related documentation/activities used to inform the development of

this report.

4.3.4.1 Assessment against Ramsar listing criteria

The Ramsar criterion currently met by the Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Site and the potential for these criterion to

be impacted by the TRLBP were reviewed above (Section 3.3.1) and are summarised in Table 4-15. This

assessment builds on the assessment undertaken for the EPBC Act 1999 referral (GMW, 2016a). It is important

to note that the assessment focuses on the loss of criterion as this would constitute a negative change in

character. Post the changes to Third Reedy Lake as a result of the TRLBP it may be that some criterion are

‘strengthened’, for example by more EPBC Act 1999 listed species being supported at the lake in the future, but

this would be considered a positive outcome and is addressed in Section 4.2. Overall the assessment against

the listing criterion suggests that all criterion currently met will still be met post TRLBP.

Table 4-15: Summary of outcomes of TRLBP on meeting Ramsar site listing criterion

Listing criterion

Contribution to Ramsar site listing

Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Site – current

Third Reedy Lake – current Third Reedy – post TRLBP

1 Not met Not met - none Whilst there will be improved representation of pre-irrigation wetland types across the Ramsar site, the changes to Third Reedy Lake will not result in this criterion being met.

2 Met for two species Australasian Bittern (Botaurus poiciloptilus), Endangered (EPBC and IUCN); Curlew

Sandpiper (Calidris ferruginea), Critically endangered (EPBC).

No contribution Currently there are no regularly supported nationally or internationally listed wetland dependent species present at Third Reedy Lake, so the TRLBP will have no negative outcome on this listing criterion.

3 Met for waterbird diversity in

terms of species richness and feeding guilds

Contributes – supports

commonly encountered species and feeding guilds.

Limited or no negative outcome on this criterion.

4 Met for provision of vital habitat

for moulting, refuge from harsh conditions, migratory species, and breeding of waterbirds.

Contributes to breeding and

refuge during below average rainfall/drought periods. Limited to no contribution to supporting migratory species.

Potential loss of moulting site and refuge for

waterbirds in below average rainfall periods. Breeding records are inadequate for Third Reedy Lake to make a judgement if TRLBP would affect this aspect of the listing criterion. TRLBP is unlikely to impact on the support of migratory birds as there are no records of the five priority species at Third

Reedy Lake (see Butcher and Hale 2016). 5 Met for supporting large

abundances of waterbirds. Contributes in a small way – lake not known for supporting

large numbers, but site specific information is limited.

There may be potential impacts on waterbird abundances, but this is not considered likely to

mean the criterion is no longer met. Waterbirds will still use the site, just a potentially different suite of species.

6 Met for supporting 1% of Australasian bittern.

No contribution. No negative outcome on this criterion

7 Not met Not met - none The changes to Third Reedy Lake will not result in

this criterion being met. 8 Not met Not met - none The changes to Third Reedy Lake will not result in

this criterion being met

9 Not met Not met - none It is highly unlikely the changes to Third Reedy Lake will not result in the criterion being met

4.3.4.2 Assessment against Limits of Acceptable Change

The potential for change in the ecological character of Third Reedy Lake and the larger Ramsar site is assessed

within the context that it is ecologically and hydrologically linked to Middle and First Reedy Lakes and other

aquatic ecosystems within the Kerang region. Site specific information is provided where known. Consideration

of the wetting and drying patterns of the aquatic ecosystems in the broader landscape are relevant in terms of

determining the potential impacts attributable to the TRLBP at the site and regional scale. Other than for

hydrology and salinity, the LAC have been written for the whole Ramsar site. The assessment of potential

change in ecological character is based on a change at the whole of site level.


R01 104

Significance of impact under the EPBC Act 1999 guidelines is judged as impacts on ecological character of a

Ramsar site. Under the EPBC Act 1999 an action is likely to have a significant impact on the ecological

character of a declared Ramsar wetland if there is a real chance or possibility that it will result in (DOE, 2013):

1) areas of the wetland being destroyed or substantially modified,

2) a substantial and measurable change in the hydrological regime of the wetland, for example, a substantial

change to the volume, timing, duration and frequency of ground and surface water flows to and within the

wetland,

3) the habitat or lifecycle of native species, including invertebrate fauna and fish species, dependent upon the

wetland being seriously affected,

4) a substantial and measurable change in the water quality of the wetland – for example, a substantial

change in the level of salinity, pollutants, or nutrients in the wetland, or water temperature which may

adversely impact on biodiversity, ecological integrity, social amenity or human health, or

5) an invasive species that is harmful to the ecological character of the wetland being established (or an

existing invasive species being spread) in the wetland.

Of the five EPBC Act 1999 significance criteria, 2 and 3 are the most likely to occur and result in an impact on

the ecological character of the Ramsar site – i.e. will affect one or more of the critical CPS. An assessment for a

potential change in character is presented in Table 4-16.

Table 4-16 Summary of critical CPS associated Limits of Acceptable Change, and assessment of potential change in character

Critical CPS (Butcher and Hale 2017)

LAC (from Butcher and Hale 2016) Assessment for a potential change of character

Hydrology LAC specific to Third Reedy Lake: Third Reedy Lake: permanently inundated, water level to not be > 74.8 m AHD or < 74.2 m AHD for more than two years in a row.

LAC: Certain to be exceeded. However, the preceding risk assessments and mitigation measures indicate that risks to existing values are acceptable. Furthermore, the changed hydrological regime is judged to be a positive change. Ecological Character: Positive change, but not likely

to constitute a change in character at the Ramsar site level. Considered positive as returning the hydrology to a more natural regime. Risks to specific values have been identified and mitigation measures proposed. Values potentially at risk do not contribute to current listing criteria.

Salinity LAC specific to Third Reedy Lake: Salinity levels to be less than 4,000 EC (µS/cm) when lake is more than 75% full*

LAC: Only likely to exceed the LAC during the drawdown phase when the lake is less than 75% full, and even then, only under certain circumstance (URS,

2014), so, technically, the LAC is unlikely to be exceeded. Ecological Character: Will be retained as a freshwater wetland. However, there may be a need to intervene if salinity levels approach the LAC in summer drying periods.

Vegetation diversity LAC set for the whole Ramsar site: The total extent of the following vegetation communities will not be less than:

• Freshwater herb/grass/sedge/forb – 2,400 hectares

• Brackish herb/grass/sedge/forb – 450 hectares

• Samphire – 220 hectares

• Lignum dominated – 1,170 hectares

• Intermittent Swampy Woodland EVC – 975 hectares

The species richness of native wetland dependent

plant species will not be less than 125.

LAC: unlikely to be exceeded. Ecological Character: Positive change with increase in freshwater herb/grass/sedge/forb and an increase in

area of Intermittent Swampy Woodland EVC. Species richness at Third Reedy is likely to increase as a wetting and drying cycle promotes species diversity.

Waterbird abundance

LAC set for the whole Ramsar site: The 10 year rolling average for annual maximum

waterbirds is not < 10,000

LAC: Possibly LAC may be exceeded. Currently there are no data for assessing contribution of Third Reedy

Lake to meeting this LAC. Ecological Character: Possible change to ecological character of the site.

Waterbird diversity LAC set for the whole Ramsar site: Total annual species richness of wetland dependent birds shall not be less than 22.

LAC: Unlikely the LAC will be exceeded. Ecological Character: no change


R01 105

Critical CPS (Butcher and Hale 2017)

LAC (from Butcher and Hale 2016) Assessment for a potential change of character

Waterbird breeding LAC set for the whole Ramsar site: No more than 10 consecutive years in which there are no colonial nesting events of at least 1000 nests in the Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Site. Species may include any of the following:

• Australasian Darter (Anhinga novaehollandiae)

• Australian White Ibis (Threskiornis molucca)

• Great Cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo)

• Pied Cormorant (Phalacrocorax varius)

• Royal Spoonbill (Platalea regia)

• Straw-necked Ibis (Threskiornis spinicollis).

• Yellow-billed Spoonbill (Platalea flavipes)

LAC: Unlikely that LAC will be exceeded as waterbird breeding has not been identified as significant at Third Reedy Lake. It is important to note that Third Reedy Lake may be important as a foraging area for colonial nesting

species at First and Middle Reedy Lakes. Ecological Character: No direct change in character, but importance as a foraging area for nesting species is a knowledge gap.

Supports a diversity of wetland types

See LAC for hydrology, salinity and vegetation. LAC: Likely to be exceeded based on changes to hydrology. Ecological Character: Neutral to positive change – as

will become an intermittent wetland similar to others within the Ramsar site.

Supports threatened

species

LAC set for whole of Ramsar site:

Australasian Bittern (Botaurus poiciloptilus) present in five out of 10 years in Hird and / or Johnsons Swamp. Curlew Sandpiper (Calidris ferruginea) recorded within the Ramsar site in no less than five years out of 10.

LAC: Unlikely the LAC will be exceeded.

Ecological Character: Third Reedy Lake does not contribute to the listing criteria, so no change in ecological character is expected. New regime and more diverse wetland vegetation may enhance conditions for these species.

* The salinity LAC has low confidence that if triggered would constitute a change in character, but insufficient additional data could be

sourced to develop new LAC for these critical CPS (Butcher and Hale 2016).

Whilst the proposed changes to Third Reedy Lake will constitute a change in character at the lake, as several of

the critical CPS for the lake will be permanently altered, the proposed changes are expected to provide

ecological gains in terms of increased biodiversity values, and therefore are considered ‘positive’ (Table 4-16).

Moreover, as previously demonstrated, hydrological changes at Third Reedy Lake will not result in hydrological

changes at any other lake within the Ramsar site, even those currently hydrologically connected. This is

because the new bypass channel with enable the hydrological regime of Third Reedy lake to be manipulated

independently of the hydrological regime in all other lakes, which will remain the same as current. On this

basis, an altered hydrological regime and potential change is character of Third Reedy Lake does not translate

to an impact at the Ramsar site scale, nor on any of the criteria for Ramsar listing.

4.4 Risk mitigation and contingency measures

Mitigation actions for each moderate, high or very high risk to environmental values identified in Section 4.3

have been developed to prevent or minimise these risks (Table 4-17). These mitigation actions have been

selected based on their effectiveness to manage the risk and practicality. For each potential impact a revised

risk rating is provided based on the effectiveness and likelihood of the proposed mitigation measure reducing

the consequence and /or exposure of threats to environmental values. In some cases, the mitigation measure

not only reduces the risk but also results in benefits to the value by reducing current threats.

The mitigation actions adopted for Third Reedy Lake will be finalised and documented as part of a detailed

Environmental Water Plant (EWP) and will clearly describe the variables to be managed, the timing of the

implementation of actions and the roles and responsibilities associated with the actions (See Section 5 for

details of the EWP development and monitoring requirements). Construction activities associated with Third

Reedy Lake will also be managed under the requirements of the Connections Project CEMP.

With specific reference to high risks associated with salinity and Acid Sulfate Soil impacts, modelling has been

completed as to the effectiveness of management actions at mitigating risks as described below.

4.4.1 Salinity

Dilution and flushing by natural floods or by managed flushing are the two most likely mechanisms salt concentrations and loads in the Lake can be kept within desirable limits.


R01 106

Salt flushing means the dilution and downstream transport of lake water to acceptable limits. The aim is to ensure that downstream lake water EC remains within acceptable limits for irrigation (<700 EC (MDBA 2010)). This limit will also be acceptable for aquatic species (fish, frogs, turtles, etc.) that may be present in downstream environments.

In the absence of natural flushing from unregulated flows, elevated EC levels can be managed operationally. Advice from GMW suggests flushing from Third Reedy Lake is possible down to about 73.0 mAHD and very achievable at 74.0 (the lake is full at 74.56 mAHD and empty at 72.9 mAHD). This provides plenty of scope to flush salt from Third Reedy Lake with minimal downstream EC impact (GMW 2016b – EPBC Act 1999 referral). Water and salt flushed from Third Reedy Lake can be shandied using the bypass channel. Varying the ratio of lake water to bypass channel water provides the means of keeping EC in downstream environments within acceptable limits. Simple modelling suggests increases to EC in Kangaroo Lake, downstream, can be limited to <100 EC. Increases in Little Lake Charm and the 1/7 channel may be higher, but can be maintained below irrigation guideline values, and hence still protect ecological values. Shandying rates can be manipulated until acceptable outcomes are achieved (GMW 2016b – EPBC Act 1999 referral).

The modelling suggests there will be times when flushing will need to be maintained for periods longer than 30 days to ensure downstream impacts are minimised. This emphasises the need for adaptive management of water regimes (around the proposed water regime) depending on climatic conditions, unregulated flows and groundwater behaviour. Specifically, the need to:

• Actively manage flushing to limit downstream impacts

• Manage lake levels to avoid groundwater and salt ingress during periods of high surrounding

groundwater levels.

Operational rules and a plan to manage flows and salinity in the lake will need to be developed, taking in to consideration:

• Groundwater levels under, and adjacent to, the Third Reedy Lake (slow rate variable)

• Flow rates and EC in the bypass channel (fast rate variable)

• EC in Third Reedy lake (slow rate variable)

• EC in Kangaroo Lake and other downstream environments (slow rate variable).

The rate of change of the EC in the various environments will determine the temporal scale at which salinity impacts can be managed. Providing salinity can be monitored and managed, variation in salinity levels assessed above should not present ecological risks to Third Reedy Lake itself, or downstream environments.

Mitigation and management of potential effects on water environments will be guided by preparation of an EWP.

The EWP will outline the operational management of Third Reedy Lake and its watering regime, including management objectives and water regime requirements for the lake, management actions (including adaptive management and contingencies), environmental monitoring (long term and intervention) and roles and responsibilities. Section 5.2 provides more details.

4.4.2 Acid sulfate soil

An assessment of the potential risks that acidic, metalliferous leachate poses to aquatic ecosystems was

undertaken (Jacobs 2017). The risks were found to be:

• Low to moderate for soils

• Low for groundwater

• Low to high for surface water

Implementation of a robust monitoring program (detailed in Section 5.2.3) and the development of contingency

measures as informed by this monitoring, means that each of these risks can be reduced to low. The following

provides contingency measures that can be adopted to manage the risks from acid sulfate soils:

• If monitoring and analysis of soils indicate exposure of acid sulfate soils on the lake bed, the application

of agricultural lime should be considered for the management of concentrated areas of acid sulfate

soils. If concentrated acid sulfate soils are more wide-spread, neutralisation of the generated acidity via

the re-wetting of sediments with alkaline water should be undertaken. Water in the irrigation supply

system is naturally alkaline and is a suitable source water for re-wetting and neutralising sediments

(Jacobs 2017).


R01 107

• If monitoring of soil pore water/shallow ground water identifies water quality parameters, dissolved

major ions and dissolved metals as exceeding guideline limits for aquatic ecosystems then flooding of

the lake should be undertaken as necessary to induce flushing and dilution of water to meet the

guidelines (ANZECC/ARMCANZ, 2000).


R01 108

Table 4-17: Mitigation actions and residual risk for risks rated moderate, high or very high in Section 4.3

Value /threat Nature of risk Risk Rating

Mitigation actions Modified risk


Failure to successfully establish target Intermittent Swampy Woodland (EVC 813)

Intermittent Swampy Woodland EVC and associated species are currently restricted to the fringes of the lake. The proposed water regime aims to improve conditions for this community. However, there are risks associated with

potential for poor recruitment and regeneration of Indicator Species due to lack of seedbank and as a result of the extended inundation. Furthermore, excessive weed growth during the dry phase may outcompetes native species.

High • Mature surrounding River Red Gums and other Indicator Species to offer seed source (Target EVC is already present in the location).

• Implement an establishment phase water regime of initial filling to 74.2-

74.56 mAHD followed by a series of intermediate filling to a depth of 0.3 to 0.5 m to encourage River Red Gum germination and growth.

• Monitor the establishment of species as part of adaptive management process, ensuring filling is timed to not drown seedlings before they can cope with inundation.

• Undertake weed control where needed to increase EVC 813 establishment.

• Active planting (e.g. plugging) and manual dispersal of seed if monitoring indicates regeneration is not occurring as predicted.

• Control of public access and stock to minimise erosion and degradation of

dry bed areas.

• Include the management actions described above in the EWP to maximise the likelihood of regeneration of the target EVC.

High benefit Actions have a high likelihood of success based on similar actions at other locations. The techniques for vegetation

management and establishment are well understood, tested and effective.

Fish A range of native fish have been recorded in Third Reedy Lake, including some species that are listed on the Lowland Riverine Fish Community of the Southern Murray-Darling Basin. All individuals will be impacted by a dry

phase. Individuals that do not exit the wetland during the drawdown phase may die as the wetland dries (depending on whether full drying occurs). On this basis there are risks to individuals present in the lake and some connectivity between wetlands is important

during the drying phase to help fish move to refuge sites upon drying. Upon re-wetting Third Reedy will be a highly productive environment for fish. Fish will be able to recolonise with individuals from nearby

connected locations (especially via Middle Reedy Lake).

Moderate • Included management actions in EWP that maximise the likelihood of fish being able to leave Third Reedy Lake during the drawdown phase and to allow for opportunistic colonisation during the filling phase.

• Manage the transition from filling to drawdown to provide flow related cues

that encourage fish that have entered the wetland to exit the wetland before it becomes isolated from the connected supply system.

• Monitor drawdown and undertake translocation if required for key species stranded or captured in carp screen (i.e. Murray Hardyhead).

• Promote fish passage through the Reedy Lakes/Loddon River/Pyramid

Creek in order to ensure the fish community is connected at a landscape scale.

• Fish passage (vertical slot fishway) will be provided on the bypass channel regulator, allowing fish movement between Middle Reedy Lake to the south and Little Lake Charm, Lake Charm and Racecourse Lake to the north west.

• Salvage dead fish if necessary (e.g. carp) to reduce odour.

Very low Actions have a high likelihood of success based on similar actions at other locations. Techniques for enabling fish

passage are well understood and will be incorporated into the design of new regulating structures to ensure opportunities for fish movement are optimised.

The bypass channel will ensure that all other lakes within the system remain connected with unrestricted fish passage.


R01 109



Waterbirds

Impacts on waterbird breeding success

An increase in habitat complexity, and over time, increased abundance of River Red Gums, could provide increased opportunities for waterbird breeding during periods of inundation.

Furthermore, inundation acts as a stimulus for breeding in some waterbirds. However, it may take many years for conditions to become conducive to successful breeding. The success of breeding and recruitment will depend on how the water regime is managed with respect to

depth and duration of inundation and drawdown rates. If breeding occurs but drawdown is too rapid, nests or fledglings could be abandoned leading to a negative outcome.

Moderate • If significant waterbird breeding occurs during a wet phase, through a contingency management approach extend the duration of the wet phase to allow bird breeding and fledging to be completed should be considered. This would need to take into account water availability, and the significance

of any breeding event, including whether an event was significant at the broader landscape scale. It should be undertaken no more than one in ten years.

• Proposed water regime will encourage greater diversity of habitat to support future breeding events.

• Consider managing external threats if predation of nests is a problem.

Moderate benefit The ability to adaptively manage the water regime, and particularly the ability

to control the rate of drawdown through the use of supplementary inflows, will be effective at maintaining or extending the duration of the wet phase if necessary to protect bird breeding events.

Turtles

Murray River Turtle

Murray River Turtle have been recorded in low numbers in Third Reedy Lake (Biosis 2013). They prefer permanent inundation. However, they may move to new habitat during a drying phase. An apparent decline in Murray River

turtles at Third Reedy Lake has been attributed to nest and juvenile predation (Biosis 2013).

Moderate • Ensure appropriate pathway to assist movement of Murray River Turtle, particularly during drawdown phase. Translocation may be required if turtles become trapped during the dry phase.

• Monitor and consider benefits of implementing the partial filling to maintain

conditions for turtles or implement translocation for stranded individuals if required.

• Avoid complete drying in winter, when turtles are hibernating – it gets too cold and adults may die.

• Drying in summer / autumn represents a lower risk because individuals are

more likely to move to nearby inundated habitats at this time

• Consider managing external threats including fox predation of egg in order to maximise breeding success during wet phases.

Low A partial filling is proposed to help manage potential risks to turtles. The partial filling will maintain a permanently

inundated area within the lake, or avoid drying in winter, that would allow turtles (and potentially fish) to persist through drying phases. Monitoring will be undertaken to help inform if the partial filling is required.

Threats

Depleted dissolved oxygen impacts on aquatic biota during filling phase (blackwater)

Inundation of the dry wetland can result in an initial decline in dissolved oxygen as organic matter that has accumulated on the wetland floor is undated and decomposition commences. An assessment of the risks of blackwater conditions developing in the filling phase

indicates that an initial reduction in DO is likely but the magnitude and duration of low DO depends on the starting load of organic matter and the lake level at the commencement of inundation: the more organic matter present and the lower the lake level, the greater the decline

in DO at the commencement of filling and the

Moderate • Monitor organic matter accumulation on the dry lake bed

• If excessive growth of non-native, terrestrial weeds on the bed of the lake is occurring and contributing to organic matter build up consider weed control and removal of excessive organic material to reduce organic matter

accumulation.

• Monitor DO during filling. If DO falls rapidly and remains low (<4 mg/L) across the majority of the lake, consider maintaining a flow through the lake for a period of time until DO increases above critical level.

• If flow through is to be implemented, ensure suitable mixing with high quality

water via the bypass channel to prevent low DO water from Third Reedy Lake entering the downstream lakes (i.e. bypass channel can be used to provide dilution and mixing of water leaving Third Reedy Lake in order to protect downstream environments).

Low Inflows of high quality water during filling should be sufficient to maintain well oxygenated water. In the initial filling stages (from dry) there will be few aquatic

organisms present that would be affected by low DO. Those that do enter upon initial filling should be able to remain within the inflow zone where good water quality will be present – hence their exposure to low DO will be low.


R01 110



longer the duration of low DO conditions (SKM 2013a). The actual risk to values from low DO during filling depends on whether native fish and other biota enter the lake during the filling phase and are consequently exposed to low DO conditions

(SKM 2013a).

• Avoid filling of the lake during warm weather in order to avoid warm water temperatures which increases rates of organic matter decomposition and also reduces the amount of oxygen that can be dissolved in the water (% saturation).

Where flow through is provided, mixing with good quality water via the bypass channel will prevent poor quality water entering downstream environments – hence there will be low risk to connected ecosystems downstream of Third Reedy

Lake.

Increased salinity due to saline

groundwater discharge to the lake during the drying phase

It is possible that groundwater intrusion may occur at Third Reedy Lake during drying phase

(driven by regional climate) when the regional groundwater levels are high (URS, 2013a and 2014). This could be exacerbated by accumulation of salt in the bed of the wetland during each cycle resulting in a long term increase in wetland salinity.

High • Include monitoring, adaptive management and contingency procedures for

wetland operations in the EWP.

• Monitor wetland salinity during drawdown. If wetland salinity increases above critical thresholds for the target EVC (~4,500 µS/cm) then implement contingency actions to increase the flow of fresher water into the wetland to provide a flushing flow. Flushing to about 73.0 mAHD is possible and very

achievable at 74.0 (Lake is full at 74.56mAHD, empty at 72.9 mAHD). The flows required to support flushing have not yet been determined and are highly dependent on wetland salinity levels.

• Monitor local groundwater levels and salinity. If groundwater levels are high and saline then consider avoiding wetland drawdown if it would result in excessive ingress of saline groundwater to the wetland (e.g. time drawdown

periods to coincide with lower groundwater levels i.e. during dry periods across the landscape).

• Monitor vegetation health and adjust watering regime and operations plan accordingly if excessive salinity appears to be impacting on vegetation health.

• Monitor vegetation during the dry phase for salt indicator/ tolerant plants and any signs of salinity discharge on the edge and banks of the lake.

Low

Modelling has demonstrated that flushing flows are likely to be very effective at managing elevated salinity, if it occurs. Furthermore, the ability to mixing outflows from Third Reedy Lake with high quality water via the bypass channel means that

any outflow will be effectively diluted and represents a low risk to downstream ecosystems.

Exposure of soils to oxygen creating acid sulfate soils during dry phase and decreased pH on rewetting

The potential for acid sulfate soils to form in Third Reedy Lake has been identified (URS, 2013b). Further investigation through additional analysis has been completed and risks further quantified (Jacobs 2017). Sampling indicated the presence of acid sulfate soils, although the

distribution of soils with a high potential for acid generation where relatively low. At the whole of wetland scale the generation of acid sufficient to cause wide scale impacts was considered a low risk. But there are isolated pockets where there is a higher potential for acid generation and

hence localised high risk.

High • Include monitoring, adaptive management and contingency procedures for wetland operations in EWP.

• Monitor wetland pH and heavy metal concentrations. If pH falls below critical thresholds and/or heavy metal concentrations increase, then implement contingency actions to increase the flow of fresher water into the

wetland to provide a flushing flow. Flushing to about 73.0 mAHD is possible and very achievable at 74.0 (Lake is full at 74.56mAHD, empty at 72.9 mAHD). The flows required to support flushing have not yet been determined and are highly dependent on wetland pH levels. They will be determined as part of monitoring and any response to low pH, however, modelling indicates that flow manipulation has a high likelihood of success

(Jacobs 2017).

• Apply agricultural lime if acid forms on sections of the lake bed.

Low Modelling (Jacobs 2017) suggests that low pH can be effectively managed through manipulation of the water regime and the use of flushing flows. Inflow

water is relatively alkaline and will rapidly buffer / neutralise any low Ph. Furthermore, water leaving Third Reedy Lake can be mixed with freshwater from the bypass channel, which ensures that risks to downstream environments from

water leaving Third Reedy Lake remain low.


R01 111

5. Environmental Management Plan

Currently there are a number of different management plans and activities that direct the management of Third

Reedy Lake. The 2014-22 North Central Waterway Strategy (NCWS) provides an overarching management

plan for the Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Site that sits within the framework for management of Ramsar sites in

Australia and the State of Victoria (North Central CMA, 2016). This includes a program of management activities

for the Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Site, including Third Reedy Lake. As part of the NCWS, a detailed monitoring,

evaluation, reporting and improvement (MERI) plan will be developed for Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Site to

support adaptive management from planning to strategy completion.

The Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Action Plan 2016-2024 will provide a detailed monitoring program of the

ecological character and threats to the ecological character of the site. The Action Plan recommends specific

management actions at each wetland (including Third Reedy Lake), provides a framework for strong

coordination of management activities amongst the various site managers and stakeholders and a framework

for monitoring, evaluation, reporting and improvement (North Central CMA, 2016).

Further management of Third Reedy Lake is required specific to TRLBP, this management will aim to prevent or

minimise to acceptable levels the environmental risks identified in Section 4. As such, the following sections

outline the basis of an Environmental Management Plan for Third Reedy Lake as part of the TRLBP, setting the

framework for management, mitigation and monitoring of relevant impacts of the TRLBP, including governance

arrangements and any provisions for independent environmental auditing. The EMP will cover the construction,

establishment and operation phases of the TRLBP, including adaptive management of the water regime by the

preparation of an Environmental Watering Plan (EWP) and Construction Environmental Management Plan

(CEMP). Preparation of the EMP and associated EWP and CEMP will occur once the TRLBP has been fully

approved.

5.1 Management objectives

As part of the development of the preferred water regime for Third Reedy Lake (Section 2.2.4), a management

objective for Third Reedy Lake was developed which considered previous management objectives

recommended for the lake, ecological values (current and future) and the wetland’s historic natural regime:

“Achieve projected water savings (approximately 1.6GL/year) whilst providing a watering regime that restores


(EVC 813)) able to support recruitment of River Red Gums and promoting a diverse and extensive range of

habitat suitable for a variety of waterbirds” (adapted from North Central CMA, 2014).

Ecological objectives and hydrological objectives were also developed in North Central CMA (2014) based on

achieving the management objective for Third Reedy Lake and are critical for the development of mitigation and

monitoring measures at the lake. These objectives are summarised in Table 2-5 in Section 2.2.4.

With regards to maintaining or improving the ecological character of a Ramsar site, managers are encouraged

to consider the Australian Ramsar management principles when developing management arrangements,

including (DSEWPaC 2012):

• Managing the Ramsar site(s) to maintain ecological character through applying the principles of wise

use and sustainable resource management. This may be through the development and implementation

of a management plan or system for the site.

• Having procedures and monitoring in place to detect if any threatening processes are likely to, or have

altered the site’s ecological character. This will help to identify if there are any actual or likely changes

to ecological character of the site.

• Taking action to manage or remediate Ramsar sites that have undergone an actual or likely change in

ecological character.


R01 112

Managers are also encouraged to (DSEWPaC 2012):

• report any actual or likely changes in ecological character to the Australian Government,

• undertake required site level updates and reporting as required,

• seek guidance and assistance about managing and representing the needs of wetlands, if required,

• inform the Australian and relevant State Governments of any intention to transfer ownership or

otherwise sell land on which the wetland is situated, and

• notify future land managers of the property’s Ramsar status, should the property be sold or otherwise

change ownership.

5.2 Environmental Watering Plan

The TRLBP will generate approximately 1,600 ML/ yr nett water savings to be returned to the Commonwealth

and managed by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder. Water to provide for Third Reedy Lake’s

future water regime will be managed by the Victorian Environmental Water Holder and formalised through the

preparation of an EWP.

The EWP will be based on adaptation of the existing GMW Connections Project WCMF, which includes

provision for preparation of EWPs in specific circumstances. The WCMF has been used by GMW Connections

Project to prepare a number of EWPs compliant with the requirements of 2009 Approvals framework

(Section 1.2.2).

Implementation of the EWP will be guided by the Victorian environmental watering program planning and

management framework (Figure 5-1). The water regime management will be achieved by operation, by GMW,

of existing and proposed water management infrastructure (regulators) (GMW, 2016b) at Third Reedy Lake.

The EWP will outline the operational management of Third Reedy Lake and its watering regime, including

establishment and on-going operation phases, and will build on the work done by North Central CMA (2014).

The EWP will include:

• Management objectives and water regime requirements for the lake. These have already been

developed as part of the TRLBP investigations and have been described in Section 2.2.4 and 5.1

• Management actions, including adaptive management and contingency actions, to manage the risks

associated with TRLBP. The key risks and management considerations to be included in the EWP

include:

Specific fauna management including waterbird, fish, frog and turtle management

Specific flora management including ecological vegetation communities

Revegetation to enhance success of establishing the target EVC

Salinity risks

Blackwater (low dissolved oxygen) risks

Acid sulfate soil risks

A summary of the management actions and adaptive management and contingencies to consider

when managing the risks associated with TRLBP are provided in Section 5.2.1 and 0. These will be

further refined through the development of the EWP and roles and responsibilities assigned.


R01 113

• Operational requirements for delivery of environmental water. This will include the operation of the TIS

to deliver water to Third Reedy Lake through associated infrastructure.

• Procedures for environmental monitoring (long term and intervention), auditing and reporting. This will

include identification of the monitoring that is required to inform adaptive management and

implementation of contingency actions and to assess the environmental response as a result of a

change in water regime is provided in Section 5.2.3. These will be further refined through the

development of the EWP and a monitoring program developed and implemented.

• Roles and responsibilities for the operation and management of the lake. These will be assigned as

part of process for developing the EWP. The name of the authority responsible for approving each

mitigation measure or monitoring program will also be undertaken as part of the development of the

EWP.

Figure 5-1: Victorian environmental watering program planning framework (Source: VEWH, 2016)

5.2.1 Management actions

A number of benefits and impacts were identified as part of the risk assessment for the objective of restoring


EVC) (refer to Section 4). Mitigation actions for each moderate, high or very high risk to environmental values

were also developed (see Section 4.4). The mitigation measures are aimed at preventing or minimising and

have been selected based on their effectiveness to manage the risk and practicality.


R01 114

The mitigation actions adopted for Third Reedy Lake will be finalised and documented as part of the

development of the EWP and will clearly describe the variables to be managed, the timing of the implementation

of actions and the roles and responsibilities associated with the actions.

5.2.2 Adaptive management and contingency actions

An adaptive management approach to the management of risks at Third Reedy Lake will be required. Adaptive

management in the context of this project is the integration of monitoring, management activities and review of

operations to effectively manage identified and/or emerging risks in order to maximise environmental outcomes

for Third Reedy Lake consistent with objectives of the overall project. If monitoring reveals that objectives are

not being met, then an adaptive management philosophy allows for the modification of operations in light of

lessons learned through the monitoring and review process.

There is some uncertainty in the likely response of flora and fauna present in the system to the TRLBP,

including the recovery of target vegetation and the manifestation of risks. Adaptive management should be

informed by a comprehensive monitoring program that describes the variables to be managed, critical

thresholds, conditions or responses that signify when adaptive management actions or contingencies are

required to maximise benefits and minimise / manage risks.

Adaptive management and contingency actions based on mitigation measures outlined in Section 4.4 should be

incorporated in to the EWP. In addition to addressing the risk identified in Section 4, the adaptive management

and contingency actions included in the EWP will also consider the management of broader landscape

processes that may impact Third Reedy Lake e.g. flooding.

The EWP will clearly describe the variables to be managed, critical thresholds and the roles and responsibilities

associated with the monitoring. The timing of regular reviews and updates of the EWP (including monitoring

and management actions) will also be documented in the EWP.

5.2.3 Monitoring

Monitoring is required to demonstrate the short-term and long-term environmental response of the changed

water regime implemented as part of TRLBP against the project objectives. Monitoring is also required to

facilitate adaptive management of Third Reedy Lake and identify if contingency measures are needed to

mitigate risks.

The Victorian Waterway Management Strategy (DELWP, 2016b) provides a framework for maintaining or

improving condition of rivers, estuaries and wetlands and provides guidance around monitoring of condition and

the effects of management activities. Two types of monitoring recommended are:

• Long term condition monitoring

• Intervention monitoring.

The following sections provide monitoring recommendations for each of these two monitoring types. The

frequency and timing of the monitoring will be tailored to each target species and undertaken in accordance with

the EPBC Act 1999 monitoring guidelines or other best practice guidelines.

Currently there is no structured monitoring program that occurs at Third Reedy Lake or consistently across the

Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Site. A review of monitoring programs across Victoria’s Ramsar sites is currently

being undertaken by DELWP and as a result a specific monitoring plan will be developed for the Kerang

Wetlands Ramsar Site and together with the Kerang Lakes Ramsar Action Plan this monitoring could be

incorporated in to the monitoring proposed in the Third Reedy Lake EWP.


R01 115

Long term condition monitoring

Long term condition monitoring will provide information on the long term environmental outcomes of the TRLBP

and whether implementation of the TRLBP is meeting to the management objective for Third Reedy Lake

(Section 5.1) and assessing for any change in ecological character of the Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Site.

The long term condition monitoring required for Third Reedy Lake is provided in Table 5-1 and focuses on the

ecological objectives for the site detailed in Table 2-5 to demonstrate any change in condition over time. Long

term condition monitoring is also recommended in the Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Site Action Plan (North Central

CMA, 2016) and therefore this monitoring undertaken as part of the Action Plan has been assumed to provide

condition and species presence and abundance monitoring in addition to those specific to Third Reedy Lake

(Table 5-1).

Table 5-1: Required long-term condition monitoring for Third Reedy Lake

Monitoring focus Monitoring question Method When

Wetland condition Has there been an overall rehabilitation in the condition of the wetland as a result of the changed water regime?

• Undertake condition assessment and compare to Rakali Consulting, 2013 assessment

Every four years (i.e. before each wetting cycle)

Habitat objectives

1.1 Maintain health of existing Black Box fringing wetland vegetation (within Intermittent Swampy Woodland EVC)

Has there been maintenance of the existing Black Box vegetation as a result of the changed water regime?

• Undertake vegetation condition surveys. Results should be compared against Rakali Consulting (2013) assessment.


1.2. Restore opportunities for recruitment of River Red Gum trees through

body of wetland

Has there been an increase in the recruitment of River Red Gum in the body of the Lake?

• Undertake on-ground survey of the presence and abundance of

River Red Gum.


1.3 Restore diverse understory Intermittent

Swampy Woodland vegetation (i.e. lignum and sedge communities) in the body of the wetland

Has there been an increase in diversity of understory vegetation in

the body of the Lake?

• Undertake vegetation condition

surveys. Results should be compared against Rakali Consulting (2013) assessment.


Species/ community objectives

2.1 Restore waterbird breeding opportunities

Is there a range of habitat types available suitable for waterbird resting, resting and breeding?

• As per habitat objectives, undertake comprehensive vegetation condition surveys.

• Interaction with other annual monitoring undertaken as part

of the Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Site Action Plan (North Central CMA, 2016) (e.g. bird surveys including abundance and diversity.

Annual (in line with Ramsar Action Plan) Should be undertaken when there is water in the lake.

2.2 Restore waterbird feeding opportunities

Does the habitat available provide terrestrial and aquatic/ macroinvertebrates and plant matter food sources?

Annual (in line with Ramsar Action Plan) Should be undertaken when there is water in the

lake.

Provide opportunistic turtle and frog feeding and breeding.

Is there a range of habitat types available suitable for turtle and frog feeding and breeding?

• As per habitat objectives, undertake comprehensive vegetation condition surveys.

• Interaction with other annual monitoring undertaken as part of the Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Site Action Plan (e.g. Survey of birds, frogs and

turtles including abundance and diversity).

Every four years (i.e. after each wetting and drying cycle) Should be undertaken

when there is water in the lake.

Process objectives

Maintain connectivity between Reedy Lakes

Is the connectivity between Reedy Lakes maintained to:

• Facilitate dispersal of seeds,

micro and macro organisms, fish, frogs and turtles

• Maintain water quality?

• As per habitat objectives, undertake comprehensive vegetation condition surveys

• Interaction with other annual monitoring undertaken as part of the Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Site Action Plan (e.g. Survey of birds, frogs and

turtles including abundance and diversity).

Every four years (i.e. after each wetting and drying cycle)


R01 116

Intervention monitoring

Intervention monitoring (Table 5-2) focuses on collecting data about the short and long-term effects of

management actions detailed in Section 5.2.1 and aims at providing continual improvement of the management

of Third Reedy Lake. The data collated is a vital component of the adaptive management approach and in some

cases identifies the need for contingency measures.

Table 5-2: Required intervention monitoring for Third Reedy Lake

Monitoring focus Monitoring question Method When

Habitat objectives 1.1 Maintain health of

existing Black Box fringing wetland vegetation (within Intermittent Swampy Woodland EVC)

Is the drying phase of Third Reedy

resulting in a decrease/ increase of exiting Black Box fringing wetland vegetation?

• Visual surveys through photo

point monitoring and rapid condition assessments

• Compare against previous survey results (Rakali

Consulting, 2013)

Before and after each

drying phase.

1.2. Restore opportunities for recruitment of River Red Gum trees through body of wetland

Is the drying phase resulting in recruitment of River Red Gum trees in the body of the lake?

1.3 Restore diverse understory Intermittent Swampy Woodland

vegetation (i.e. lignum and sedge communities) in the body of the wetland

Is the drying phase resulting in restoration of lignum and sedge communities in the body of the

lake?

Species/ community objectives 2.1 Restore waterbird breeding opportunities

Is the drying phase resulting in increased waterbird breeding? If so,

which species?

• As per habitat objectives above,

undertake habitat condition surveys.

• Ad-hoc visual monitoring.

• Interaction with other annual monitoring undertaken as part

of the Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Site Action Plan (e.g. Survey of birds, frogs and turtles including abundance and diversity).

Annual (in line with Ramsar Action Plan)

Should be undertaken when there is water in the lake.

2.2 Restore waterbird feeding opportunities

Is the drying phase resulting in increased waterbird feeding at the

lake? Increased species richness? Provide opportunistic turtle and frog feeding and

breeding.

Is there a range of habitat types available suitable for turtle and frog

feeding and breeding?

Process objectives

Maintain connectivity between Reedy Lakes

Is the system being operated to ensure connectivity between Reedy Lakes?

• Based on operational activities On-going at appropriate time intervals.

Salinity risk Groundwater salinity Is the change in water regime

resulting in damage to aquatic and

terrestrial ecosystem due to groundwater levels being at or above the base of the lake?

• Utilise groundwater monitoring

data from around the edge of the lake (State Observation Network Bores).

On-going at appropriate time intervals.

Surface water salinity Is the change in water regime resulting in a risk to aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem due to salinity levels in the lake being above acceptable limits?

• Water quality monitoring (salinity) of surface water at several locations across the lake.

On-going at appropriate time intervals. Timing to focus on drying phase

Acid Sulfate Soils risks

Soil: pH change in soil and mobilisation of metals into soil pore water

Is the drying phase resulting in a risk to aquatic and riparian ecosystems as a result of pH change in soil and mobilisation of metals into soil pore water?

• Visual monitoring of iron hydroxide staining (could be facilitated by drone imaging)

• Soil pH field tests and water pH

in any standing pools (potentially installation of piezometers for sampling or sampling soil pore water at set locations)

On-going at appropriate time intervals. Particular focus during the initial drying phase of the lake.

Groundwater: pH change in groundwater and

mobilisation of metals into groundwater

Is the drying phase resulting in a risk to aquatic and riparian

ecosystems as a result of pH change in groundwater and mobilisation of metals into groundwater?

Surface water: pH change in surface water and mobilisation of metals into surface water

Is the drying phase resulting in a risk to aquatic ecosystems as a result of pH change in surface water and mobilisation of metals into surface water?

• Visual monitoring of iron hydroxide staining (could be facilitated by drone imaging)

• Monitoring of surface water pH

and dissolved major ions and metals at several locations with


R01 117

Monitoring focus Monitoring question Method When respect to lake depth (fixed

sampling locations could be set up and sampled using a pump from the lake shore or sampling from a boat or zodiac).

Other risks Blackwater Is the wetting phase resulting in a

risk to aquatic ecosystems as a result of a decline in dissolved oxygen?

• Water quality monitoring

(dissolved oxygen) of surface water profile at several locations across the lake.

During wetting phase

Flooding Is regional flooding occurring where Third Reedy Lake could assist with flood mitigation?

• Monitoring of weather warnings

On-going at appropriate time intervals.

Fish Are fish trapped in the drying wetland? Is translocation required? Is the removal of dead fish required?

• Interaction with any fish monitoring undertaken as part of the Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Site Action Plan

(North Central CMA, 2016).

• Visual monitoring to identify critical species for translocation

• Visual monitoring of extent of

dead Carp

• Water quality of surface water at several locations across the lake.

Prior to draining of lake During drying phase (visual monitoring) and during filling (water quality)

5.3 Construction Environmental Management Plan

Construction activities associated with Third Reedy Lake will be managed under the provisions of the

Ministerially approved GMW Connections Project’s CEMF and will be undertaken by the contractor in

accordance with the requirements of the project’s CEMP. All current GMW Connections Project construction

activities are managed under the provisions of the CEMF. The works associated with TRLBP are typical of the

broader works undertaken by the GMW Connections Project.

The CEMF provides the framework for environmental management of physical works, including a framework for

managing impacts, assigning accountabilities and monitoring, reporting and auditing of relevant activities and

environmental outcomes. It provides the environmental commitments, strategies and protocols for undertaking

capital and on farm works which include compliance with applicable Regional River Health Strategies, relevant

Regional Catchment Strategies and Victoria’s Native Vegetation Framework. Implementation of these is

achieved via the GMW Connections Project Environmental Management Plan (EMP) and a Connections

Protocol which is a key protocol in the CEMF (GMW, 2015).

In summary, the CEMF contains the following strategies, plans and protocols:

• Native Vegetation Management Strategy, describing how the GMW Connection Project will manage

and control the potential impacts on native vegetation from capital works. The native vegetation Offset

Management Strategy and associated plans are subsidiary to this strategy

• Flora and Fauna Management Strategy, describing how the GMW Connection Project will manage and

control the potential impacts on Commonwealth and state listed flora and fauna from capital works

• Cultural Heritage Management Strategy, describing how the GMW Connection Project will manage and

control the potential impacts on Aboriginal cultural heritage from capital works

• Capital Works Environmental Management Plans, setting out the specific management controls for a

particular program of modernisation (e.g. TRLBP)

• Connections Protocol, describing how potential environmental impacts will be identified and how

landholders and their contractors will be guided in managing the environmental approvals for the

connections program


R01 118

• Communication and Consultation Protocol (GMW, 2013).

The GMW Connections Project conducts internal audits against the requirements of the CEMF. In addition, an

independent environmental audit of the activities and outcomes of each program of modernisation is conducted

annually. The Secretary DSE, or delegate, and the Minister for Planning, or delegate, is consulted in confirming

the detailed scope of the audit. The independent auditor is agreed with the Secretary DSE. The audit findings

are provided to DSE and the Department of Planning and Community Development (GMW, 2015).

As detailed in Section 4.1, there are a number of potential environmental impacts from construction activities. In

order to mitigate these impacts, mitigation measures will be included in the CEMP and will be implemented

throughout the construction footprint for the duration of the project construction timeframe. Appendix H provides

a list of mitigation measures that could be used to avoid and minimise the impacts identified in Section 4.1.

Alternative measures to achieve the same objectives may be used by the contractor, however any alternative

measures will be required to be approved by GMW. Contingencies actions will also be included in the CEMP to

manage unlikely events such as extreme weather (i.e. bushfires or flooding).

The CEMP will also include the development of a Site Environmental Control Map (SECM) which will identify

areas requiring protection and will detail any site specific environmental or cultural heritage controls. A SECM

will include as relevant:

• Site layout including approximate dimensions of the construction footprint;

• ‘Exclusion areas’ i.e. native fauna habitat, MNES or indigenous native vegetation requiring protection;

any cultural heritage sensitivity areas (or as defined in a CHMP);

• Any indigenous native vegetation / trees approved for removal (including exotic or non-indigenous

trees);

• Any other specific measures to protect or to mitigate potential impacts on matters of MNES in or near

the works area;

• Any declared weed / disease / acid sulfate soil areas (refer to desktop assessment information);

• Site access;

• Any laydown or silt disposal areas;

• Any wash / clean down or refuelling areas; and

• Any council or VicRoads road reserve or Crown Land areas (marked up with any relevant items

above).

The contractor is responsible for preparing and approving the SECM and ensuring that works are undertaken in

accordance with the SECM. If the SECM is altered in the site-set up or construction phase, it must re-submitted

for approval and changes communicated to site personnel where there are additional environmental or cultural

heritage matters to manage.

5.4 Offset requirements

5.4.1 Permitted Clearing of Native Vegetation

Annual Offset Management Plans are prepared by GMW Connections to address the offset requirements in

accordance with Victoria’s native vegetation permitted clearing regulations (GMW, 2015). The Flora and Fauna

Management Strategy included in the CEMF documents the process for developing OMPs. Any native

vegetation removal associated with the TRLBP construction activities will therefore be managed in accord with

the CEMF.


R01 119

There will be native vegetation removal as part of the TRLBP construction phase (Section 2.2.5), therefore the

project will require native vegetation offsets. SKM (2013c) undertook a net gain assessment as part of the

KLBP investigations. This involved a field and net gain assessment and was updated by (Jacobs, 2016) who

undertook an assessment of off-set requirements for the TRLBP using the Permitted Clearing of Native

Vegetation Biodiversity Assessment Guidelines.

Given detailed design has not been completed for the TRLBP infrastructure, the construction area (as applied in

Jacobs, 2016) assumes a 20 m wide construction footprint at the proposed pipeline (10 m either side of the

existing channel) and a 50 m wide construction footprint for the new channel (Figure 5-2). Any native vegetation

present within this footprint is assumed to be removed, this is considered to be worst case scenario and total

vegetation loss is likely to be less and as such the offset requirements will be confirmed when detailed design is

completed.

The Native Vegetation Information Management (NVIM) system was used to generate a Biodiversity

Assessment Report (BAR) for vegetation removals. The total extent of vegetation loss associated with this

project is 6.8 ha of remnant vegetation and five scattered trees. The total vegetation loss calculated is based on

the impact area provided and is summarised in Table 10.

Table 5-3: Remnant Vegetation identified within the impact area (GMW, 2016a)

Ecological Vegetation Class Loss (ha)

Riverine Chenopod Woodland (EVC 103) 5.4

Intermittent Swampy Woodland (EVC 813) 1.4

Total 6.8

The vegetation removal is entirely within Location risk A and combined with greater than 1 ha of native

vegetation removal means the proposed works are considered to be Moderate risk under the risk-assessment

pathway detailed in the Biodiversity Assessment Guidelines (DEPI, 2013b). A shapefile has been submitted to

DELWP and offset requirements have been provided in the Biodiversity Impact and Offset Requirements Report

(BIOR).

Based on the details of the BIOR report, the TRLBP will require removal of 6.727 ha of native vegetation. An

offset of 2.536 General Biodiversity Equivalence Units of a minimum Strategic Biodiversity Score of 0.454 within

North Central CMA or Gannawarra Shire Council areas must be sought. Consideration of threatened species

under the Victorian Advisory Lists, the FFG Act 1988 and the EPBC Act 1999 is determined by DELWP and

provided as specific offsets. No specific offsets are required for this project based on the BIOR after being

determined by DELWP.

The proposed water regime for Third Reedy Lake should positively impact on the diversity and abundance of

understory species in the wetland body and therefore it is expected that the loss of native vegetation by

construction activities will be offset, in part at least, by the improvement in quality of native vegetation achieved

through re-instatement of the lake's natural watering regime (or a more natural watering regime). Any offset

requirements that cannot be met by reinstating the watering regime will be achieved through the standard GMW

Connections Project offset management process outlined in the CEMF (by which appropriate offsets are

provided) (GMW, 2016a).


R01 120

Figure 5-2: native vegetation offset assessment (Jacobs, 2016). Numbers represent five scattered trees.


R01 121

5.4.2 EPBC Act 1999 Offsets

Under the EPBC Act 1999, offsets are required to compensate for the residual adverse impacts of an action on

any MNES. Offsets are not required where the impacts of a proposed action are not thought to be significant or

could reasonably be avoided or mitigated (Commonwealth of Australia, 2012). The EPBC Act 1999

Environmental Offset Policy (Commonwealth of Australia, 2012) provides a description of the role of offsets

within the broader environmental impact assessment process under the EPBC Act 1999 (Figure 5-3). Based on

the decision tree provided in Figure 5-3, an assessment as to whether offsets are required under the EPBC Act

1999 has been undertaken.

As described in Section 1.2.4, TRLBP was referred to the DEE on 25 August 2016. Advice received from DEE

was that the TRLBP is a controlled action under the EPBC Act 1999, as it was assessed as likely to have a

significant impact on MNES (wetlands of international importance and listed threatened species and

communities).

As part of the risk assessment (refer to Section 4), impacts associated with the construction and operation

phase of TRLBP were identified and mitigation actions for each moderate, high or very high risk to

environmental values were developed to prevent or minimise these risks (Section 5.2.1). During the

construction phase, whilst vegetation is required to be removed, as described in Section 5.4.1 this vegetation is

within the EVC class of Riverine Chenopod Woodland and Intermittent Swampy Woodland and therefore does

not include any MNES. An assessment of the presence of MNES in the construction footprint (Section 4.1) also

confirms that no MNES are present within the construction footprint, including significant habitat for MNES.

As identified in Section 3.2.2, there are MNES present or potentially present in the project environment that may

be impacted during the operation phase of the TRLBP. These species are Silver Perch, Murray Hardyhead,

Murry Cod and Chariot Wheels. An assessment of the impacts and benefits of the TRLBP to these species was

undertaken in Section 4.3. The impact associated with the TRLBP for all the EPBC Act 1999 listed species

present or potentially present was assessed as very low, as was the benefit. For the fish, Silver perch and

Murray Hardyhead have not been recorded in the lake for many years and therefore are considered not to be

currently present and the Murray Cod population at Third Reedy Lake is stocked and therefore any impacts on

native populations are very low. Even though the impact to these fish is considered very low, as part of the EWP

for Third Reedy Lake, management actions associated with fish management (detailed in Section 5.2.1) will be

included to maximise the likelihood of fish being able to leave Third Reedy Lake during the drawdown phase.

The impacts of TRLBP on Chariot Wheels is also considered very low due to this species generally associated

with the Intermittent Swampy Woodland EVC which is likely to expand in area as a result of operation phase of

the TRLBP (i.e. change in water regime).

An assessment of the operation phase on the ecological character of the Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Site was

also undertaken (Section 4.3.4) and concluded that the TRLBP is expected to provide ecological benefits in

terms of increased biodiversity values, and therefore are considered ‘positive’ in terms of the overall contribution

the Third Reedy Lakes makes to the Kerang Lakes Ramsar Site character. On this basis, any risks to the

Ramsar Site associated with the TRLBP are considered acceptable.

It is therefore assessed that there is no significant impact on MNES present or potentially present in the project

environment and therefore offsets are not required to help compensate for residual impacts on the MNES as

part of the TRLBP.


R01 122

Figure 5-3: The role of offsets within the broader environmental impact assessment process (Source: Commonwealth of

Australia, 2012).

5.5 Governance

There are a number of stakeholders involved in the management of Third Reedy Lake and the broader Kerang

Wetlands Ramsar Site. Discussions around future management of the lake have been undertaken as part of

the EE Act 1978 and EPBC Act 1999 referrals (GMW, 2016 a, b).

Third Reedy Lake is currently on public land managed by GMW. Discussions with DELWP and Parks Victoria

indicate that Third Reedy Lake public land could be classified Nature Conservation Reserve post project

implementation with management coordinated by both stakeholders in conjunction with similar nearby public

land areas. A process to finalise roles and responsibilities for the operation and management of the lake will be

undertaken as part of the development of an EWP (detailed in Section 5.2) and as such, will be implemented

once the TRLBP has been fully approved.


R01 123

6. Other considerations

6.1 Social and economic impacts and benefits

The KLBP Business Case (RMCG, 2015) outlined the social and economic impacts and benefits for the project and was supported by a more detailed social and impact assessment (RMCG, 2013) of the KLBP. During the course of the assessment, a range of community responses were collected, however it should be noted that the responses received were based on a scenario of all lakes being bypassed (i.e. KLBP), which is quite different to the final proposal of bypassing Third Reedy Lake only (i.e. TRLBP).

In relation to the TRLBP, the assessment found that:

1. Third Reedy Lake is used by the local community and a wider tourist population for a range of recreational

activities including fishing and boating. The main fishing area is the outlet from Third Reedy Lake and

RMCG (2013) estimated that there are approximately 300 visits to the lake by locals per year for fishing and

215 per year by visitors. In terms of boating, RMCG (2013) estimated that there are approximately 10 visits

to the lake each year for boating and 10 from visitors. These uses and users would suffer some reduction in

their utility as a result of the proposed program, as the lake would be dry more often, limiting access and

use. The disbenefit would be small however due to the local substitution opportunities, i.e. tourists can go to

Reedy Lake or Middle Lake if Third Reedy Lake is unavailable due to the new variable watering regime.

2. The largest continuing disbenefit is from the potential loss in amenity values for neighbouring residents as

the lake enters the drying cycles and the water retreats away from the lake fronting properties. A benefit is

however that the lower lake level provides a potential flood mitigation benefit (RMCG, 2015).

The social and economic impact is small relative to the financial cost of the project, and the value of the water

savings GMW, 2016b. The KLBP Business Case (RMCG, 2015) estimated the environmental benefits of the

project at $6.25 million which were discounted to a 2014/15 price base, of $4.77 million, assuming the benefits

were not realised until 2017/18.

It should also be noted that although minor water based recreation impacts will occur as the lake enters drying

phases (e.g. fishing and swimming), this will be substituted by an increase in other recreational activities (e.g.

walking, sightseeing and bird watching) (GMW, 2016a). There will also be some employment opportunities

associated with the TRLBP. These include roles for GMW irrigation management and within existing

organisations for site management (e.g. Parks Victoria and the North Central CMA) and there are also potential

employment opportunities if tourism increases in the area. Local contractors will also be engaged by GMW to

undertake the construction works associated with project.

6.2 Flood impacts

Third Reedy Lake currently provides flood storage and passage in the area. SKM (2014) considered the

potential flooding impacts of the implementation of the preferred regime at the lake. The channel alignments

selected for the TRLBP effectively run parallel with the direction of overland flows during a flood event. On this

basis, the anticipated impact of the bypass channel on flooding events has been assessed to be minor. This

assessment is based on the topographical information available from the LIDAR survey and some aerial

photography taken during a moderate flood event and as such a flood study has not been undertaken to support

this assessment (GMW, 2016b).

Regulator structures have been designed to either retain flood flows using the gates at control structures, or be

overtopped during events for open/close structures. As part of the TRLBP, there will also be an opportunity to

utilise the spare capacity in the lake to attenuate flooding events throughout the complex. Therefore, the

existing flooding operation plan for the Reedy Lakes complex will be updated to reflect the change in operation

and include a process for Third Reedy Lake to act as additional storage during floods as required. The use of

Third Reedy Lake during flood events may result in water with reduced quality entering the lake from the

Loddon River or Wandella Creek (e.g. hypoxic floodwater). The delivery of a flushing event to Third Reedy

Lake can be used as a contingency measure to manage reduced water quality as a result of flooding.


R01 124

If the TRLBP proceeds to detailed design then any impact on flooding would be considered as part of the

planning permit application (further information on additional approvals included in Section 6.3).

6.3 Other approvals and conditions

Consistent with approvals given to the GMW Connections Project, it is proposed construction activities will utilise the GMW Connections Project Incorporated Document August 2015 as listed in the Shire of Gannawarra Planning Scheme.

Consideration of other approvals outside the Project’s Incorporated Document include:

• Review certificates of title to identify any, covenants/ easements/ encumbrances/ restrictions which

may impact on potential approvals.

• Review of desktop specialist assessment reports (including referral documents, cultural heritage

desktop assessment and net gain assessment) undertaken with regard to planning approval triggers

and other approvals

• Consult with issuing agency and identify other primary and secondary approvals that may be required

(e.g. a works on waterways approval under the Water Act 1989, or a public land manager consent

under Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978) for the project.

• Identify any additional technical assessments that may be necessary for the preparation of any

approvals (e.g. Cultural Heritage Management Plan).

This desktop assessment will be undertaken after the approval of the Environmental Report and form the basis

for the planning and approvals process for the TRLBP.

6.4 Stakeholder and public consultation

The TRLBP (including the KLBP investigations) has involved significant public and stakeholder engagement to

date, including direct engagement with potentially affected landholders, a range of working groups involving

government and non-government entities and dissemination of information on the progress of the project. The

main groups involved in engagement activities are listed in Table 6-1. Consultation in regards to this

Environmental Report has been previously detailed in Section 1.3.

Table 6-1 Main groups involved in engagement activities

Group Purpose Membership

Environmental Technical Advisory Committee (ETAC) of the GCP

Provide advice on assessment approaches and the development of the documents outlined in the Connections Project Water Change Management Framework.

Includes agencies which will be responsible for ongoing delivery and review of management and mitigation measures

Expert Review Panel (ERP)

Provides advice to the Minister for Water, the Secretary, DELWP and the GCP in relation to the conditions of the Minister for Planning’s ‘no Environment Effects Statement’ decision (i.e., that no EES was required subject to conditions). Although this

decision does not apply to the KLBI, the ERP was used for the project. They provided advice on matters including:

• environmental management

• advice on environmental water investigation

reports.

The ERP consists of Jane Roberts and Terry Hillman, independent consultants experienced in the relationships between hydrology and ecology, and in evaluating the ecological consequences of changing hydrology.

Project Reference Group.

Oversaw preparation of investigation reports. Technical review role. PRG members participated in sub project steering committees.

Representatives of:

• GMW

• Shire of Gannawarra

• DEDJTR Fisheries

• DELWP (Water and Catchments, Region and Planning)

• GMW Connections Project

• North Central CMA


R01 125

Group Purpose Membership

• Aboriginal Victoria /Indigenous

(Corresponding)

• Parks Victoria (Corresponding)

Scientific Review Panel (SRP)

Provided quality assurance and methodological critique regarding the development of the watering regime proposals at the technical report stage. This Panel was charged with ensuring that:

• the ecological objectives are scientifically sound;

• the proposed regimes are appropriate to achieve the ecological objectives;

• other issues are considered; and

• the recommendations will mitigate the expected

impact.

Experts in specific fields that are relevant to the lakes. Also present were GMW staff responsible for overall project delivery, and NC CMA staff responsible for the development of the Technical Reports.

Community Advisory

Group

Advised the GMW CP on the implementation of the

KLBP Investigation which provided local understanding and experience.

Key Selection Criteria for membership of the

CAG (as stated on the Nomination Form) were:

• Demonstrated links to local community, community groups or user groups

• Knowledge of the Kerang Lakes which may

include their ecology, social values and historical background.

• The CAG comprised 9 members with representatives of the Barapa Barapa and Wamba Wamba communities also invited

to join the group.

The outcomes of this engagement is documented in Feehan Consulting (2015a) and indicated that initially when

the project was the KLBP and considered bypassing five of the Kerang Wetlands (First Reedy, Middle Reedy

and Third Reedy Lakes, Little Lake Charm and Racecourse Lake) the community had significant concerns

about the project; however towards the finish of the investigation, when the scope reduced to Third Reedy Lake

(TRLBP) and following extensive community engagement the community was more accepting of project

outcomes and in some cases supported the TRLBP.

The initial stakeholder concerns included:

• Trust in Government agencies, including GMW, to effectively allocate on-going resources and to

manage risks such as lake salinization, dust, pest plants and animals, acid sulfate soils etc.; this is a legacy of history issue with the community having long memories about impacts of earlier projects that had been vigorously opposed by the community

• Concern about potential loss in land value and tourism if lakes are not kept permanently full; and

• Wanting the community to be involved in the implementation of the project (if it does proceed), including wanting to be empowered to develop the tourism potential of the lakes (Feehan Consulting, 2015a).

These concerns were mitigated to a substantial extent by the refinements in project scope, particularly:

• Removing First and Middle Reedy Lake, Little Lake Charm and Racecourse Lake from scope;

• The intention of community members, GMW, Council, DEPI and other agencies to form a collaborative, community-based arrangement for future management of some or all of the lakes. These discussions are underway at present, so the terms of reference and membership of that group are not yet resolved.

6.4.1 Investigation phase

A number of consultation activities were undertaken during the investigation phase of both the KLBP and the

TRLBP (early 2012 and mid 2014). Table 6-2 summarises communication and engagement activities

undertaken and details the main groups in involved.


R01 126

Table 6-2 Summary of Communication and Engagement activity types (See Table 5 in Feehan Consulting (2015) for detailed list

of activities)

Activity type Description Comment

Community Advisory Group

To advise the Connections Project on the implementation of the Kerang Lakes Bypass Investigation project to provide local understanding and experience.

9 community members; 10 meetings; provided with detailed information about investigation activities.

Project Reference Group

To provide advice to GMW on development and implementation of components of the project, and to facilitate the development of the value for money assessment.

Comprised 10 agency and municipal representatives; 14 meetings; considered detailed information about investigation activities.

Newsletters Provide general information about the project and investigations.

Distributed in electronic or hard copy to circulation list

x6 Contributions to Lake Chatter (newsletter of Lakes Community)

Letters Responses to letter received from the public. As required Fact sheets Provide information about the project. x5, widely circulated

Media articles To local print and electronic media Various

Briefings Shire of Gannawarra x6 GMW Water Service Committee

North Central CMA

Kerang Local Aboriginal Network Agencies (regional, State and Commonwealth)

Various interactions

One on One

discussions

Drop in sessions for interested people to meet project

discuss and discuss issues.

Five sessions (2 hour) Kerang and Lake

Charm. Advertised in local print media. 13 attendees

One on one

discussions

Face to face meetings with landholders potentially

affected by bypass channel alignment.

6 potentially affected landholders.

Shopfronts Drop in sessions for members of the public to meet project staff and discuss issues

Advertised in local print media. July 2013 – total of 3 sessions at Kerang

Library (25 attendees) December 2013 – 2 sessions at Kerang Library (8 attendees) October 2014 – 1 session at Kerang Library; 1 at Lake Charm Hall (total of 11 attendees)

Project reports Hard copies made available at Kerang Library. Electronic copies lodged with State Government Library.

Provided as reports finalized.

Meetings Public meeting – Lake Charm Public meeting Kerang Regular interactions at Kerang Lakes Community Development Group meetings

~ 50 attendees (28/11/2012) ~ 40 attendees (23/1/2013)

Preliminary social and economic impacts

study

Amongst other things, documented community views of the preliminary stages of the project.

interview with 35 stakeholders

Many community concerns have been mitigated by the refinements in the TRLBP scope however it is likely that

there will continue to be a range of views on the project’s merits. GMW will continue to provide local

stakeholders the opportunity for engagement.

On-going stakeholder support will depend significantly on the establishment of trust in the on-going risk

management of the lakes, and engaging the community effectively in their development and care (GMW

2016a).

6.4.2 Indigenous consultation

SKM, 2013b undertook a cultural heritage assessment as part of the KLBP investigation phase. The

assessment looked at a number of different options and the cultural heritage sensitivity of these options. The

TRLBP area is predominantly within an area of cultural heritage sensitivity and the assessment identified a 1 km

long section along the southwestern bank of Third Reedy Lake as having archaeological potential due to

indications of Aboriginal cultural material observed in the form of small fragments of burnt clay material

The assessment therefore concluded that a mandatory Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP) will be

required and a Notice of Intent to prepare a CHMP has been lodged with the Office of Aboriginal Affairs Victoria

and the owners or occupiers of any land within the area to which the CHMP relates have been notified. There is


R01 127

currently no Registered Aboriginal Party under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, therefore the CHMP will be

submitted for approval to the Office of Aboriginal Affairs Victoria.

Aboriginal stakeholder consultation and participation as part of the assessment was undertaken via phone,

email and meetings. The BBNAC (Barapa Barapa Nations Aboriginal Corporation) and BBNTG (Barapa Barapa

Native Title Group) are key managers of the site and have indicated a willingness to participate in meetings and

field assessments for the standard phases of the CHMP and ongoing management of the site.

Informal discussions have occurred via the Kerang Indigenous Network (also known as Local Aboriginal

Network (KLAN). The Kerang LAN was established in May 2011 KLAN is made up of Aboriginal and non-

Aboriginal community members and has partnerships with a range of Aboriginal and mainstream community

organisations, businesses and Government Departments who provide support to the local Aboriginal

community. The KLAN is working towards formalising and strengthening their relationships with people such as

Local Government Departments, Gannawarra Shire Council and other organisations and businesses to

promote, educate and create opportunities with working partnerships. This will help in the process of

consultation with the local Aboriginal community as part of the development of the CHMP.

6.4.3 Future engagement

During the detailed design, construction and operation of the TRLBP engagement activities will continue to be

undertaken with the key stakeholders as detailed in Section 6.4.1 and 6.4.2. GMW will manage the future

engagement associated with the design and construction and the site manager will undertake stakeholder

engagement after the completion of these stages. The details of this engagement will be included in the EWP.


R01 128

7. Synthesis / overall outcome

There is a high degree of confidence that if the target EVC is restored the overall condition of the wetland will

improve in terms of increased diversity of wetland plants, increased habitat complexity and increased

opportunities for feeding and breeding for a diverse range of waterbirds. However, there is some uncertainty

about the exact vegetation species composition that will establish and the time it will take for establishment.

Individual animal species present at the current wetland that could be impacted by the altered hydrological

regime are native fish, Murray River Turtle and some waterbirds that prefer permanently inundated conditions.

However, none of these species will be impacted at a population or broader landscape scale. Indeed, there will

be a range of benefits to many species, especially waterbirds and frogs because the variable hydrological

regime will create a more diverse range of habitats and hydroperiods for these species. The boost in wetland

productivity following re-wetting will also contribute to diverse macroinvertebrate fauna and provide

opportunities for fish during the inundation phases.

In addition to the species specific impacts and benefits, there are a number of threats to achieving the project

objectives, namely from weeds impacting on ability to successfully establish the target EVC and increased

salinity and acid sulfate soils. There is some uncertainty about how these risks would manifest, but there is high

confidence in the ability to manage these risks through a management framework that includes adaptive

management and contingency measures to address the identified risks.

Specific outcomes of the altered regime in relation to MNES and other environmental values are summarised

below.

7.1 Impacts on MNES

As identified in Section 3, there are five MNES that are present or potentially present at Third Reedy Lake and

therefore may be impacted by the TRLBP. These MNES include:

• Four EPBC Act 1999 listed species (Silver perch, Murray hardyhead, Murray cod, Chariot wheels).

• Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Site.

The impact and benefit assessment has demonstrated that the impact to the three EPBC Act 1999 listed fish

species is all considered very low due to the absence of records in recent surveys (Silver Perch and Murray

Hardyhead) and some populations being stocked (Murray Cod). The only known location of Chariot Wheels is

5 km south of Third Reedy Lake (near First Reedy Lake). Chariot Wheels is generally associated with damp

conditions like those suited to Intermittent Swampy Woodland EVC and with this EVC likely to expand in area

as a result of operation phase of the TRLBP the impact to Chariot Wheels is considered very low.

In regards to the Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Site, the proposed changes to Third Reedy Lake means several of

the CPSs for the lake will be permanently altered as a result of changes in hydrology and potential salinity that

exceed the current LACs. This will constitute a change in character of the wetland. But, the proposed changes

are expected to provide ecological gains in terms of increased biodiversity values, and therefore are considered

‘positive’ in terms of the overall contribution the Third Reedy Lakes makes to the Kerang Lakes Ramsar

character. Furthermore, the changes are confined to, and managed within, Third Reedy Lake itself and do not

extend to other lakes in the system – these other lakes will retain their current hydrological regimes and will also

remain connected to each other via the new bypass channel around Third Reedy Lake. On this basis, any risks

are considered acceptable and no specific offsets are required to compensate for potential risks.

7.2 Impacts on other significant environmental values

In addition to the MNES, there are a number of site and local significant species, including species listed under

the FFG Act 1988, that are present or potentially present at Third Reedy Lake and therefore may be impacted

by the TRLBP. The impact to all significant species, except for the Murray River Turtle was considered low to

very low, in fact for many of these species there will be moderate benefit as changed water regime will provide

increase in habitat.


R01 129

The impact to the Murray River Turtle was assessed as high due to their preferred habitat being permanent

inundation and their limited ability to move to a new habitat during a drying phase. These species are present in

large numbers at nearby wetlands (e.g. Middle Reedy, Little Lake Charm and Racecourse Lake) (Biosis 2013),

therefore the risk is high at the site scale but low risks at the landscape scale. Mitigation of this localised

impact, including provision of intermediate filling, translocation of stranded individuals and predator

management, may be required to reduce the impact to low.

7.3 Cumulative impacts and benefits

Table 7-1 provides a summary of the potential medium and long-term outcomes for threatened species,

ecological communities, habitat, feeding and breeding opportunities and ecological processes associated with

the TRLBP. Overall moderate to high benefits are predicted in terms of increase in habitat diversity for a range

of birds, restoration of ecological processes associated with wetting and drying, including nutrient and organic

matter cycling and pulsed wetland productivity when compared with a permanently inundated system. The

overall impacts are predicted to be predominantly low to very low with the exception of moderate to high

impacts on turtles if complete drying occurs and individuals cannot exit the lake.

Table 7-1: Summary of potential medium and long-term outcomes for threatened species, ecological communities, habitat,

feeding and breeding opportunities and ecological processes

Value Scientific Name Status

Imp

act

Ben

efi

t



N/A Bioregional Conservation Status (Victorian Riverina) - Vulnerable

Very low Very low

Intermittent Swampy Woodland (EVC 813)

N/A Bioregional Conservation Status (Victorian Riverina) - Depleted

Very low High

Tall Marsh (EVC 821) N/A Bioregional Conservation Status (Victorian Riverina) - Depleted

Low Low

Habitat

Diversity of understory vegetation in bed of wetland

N/A Includes a number of Vic Advisory listed species

Very low High

Feeding and breeding opportunities

Waterbird breeding success N/A Includes a number of FFG listed species

Low Moderate

Waterbird feeding N/A Includes a number of FFG listed bird species

Low Moderate

Frog feeding and breeding N/A Incudes FFG listed Brown Toadlet. Very low Moderate

Turtle feeding and breeding N/A Incudes FFG listed Murray River turtle. Moderate Very low

Lowland Riverine Fish Community of the Southern Murray-Darling Basin

N/A Includes FFG and EPBC listed fish species Low Very low

Ecological processes Ecological process, nutrient

and organic matter cycling

N/A N/A Very low High

Birds

Eastern Great Egret* Ardea modesta FFG (En), Vic Advisory (L) Low Moderate

Hardhead* Aythya australis FFG (Vu) Low Low Musk Duck Biziura lobate FFG (Vu) Low Low

Little Egret Egretta garzetta FFG (En), Vic Advisory (L) Low Moderate

White-bellied Sea Eagle* Haliaeetus leucogaster FFG (V), Vic Advisory (L) Low Low

Nankeen Night-heron Nycticorax caledonicus FFG (NT)

Low Moderate

Pied Cormorant Phalacrocorax varius FFG (NT) Low Low

Royal Spoonbill Platalea regia FFG (NT) Low Moderate

Caspian Tern Sterna caspia FFG (NT), Vic Advisory (L) Low Very low Fish

Silver Perch* Bidyanus bidyanus FFG (V), Vic Advisory (L), EPBC (CE) Very low Very low

Murray Hardyhead* Craterocephalus fluviatilis FFG (Ce), Vic Advisory (L), EPBC (En) Very low Very low

Unspecked Hardyhead+ Craterocephalus stercusmuscarum

fulvus Vic Advisory (L) Low Very low

Murray Cod* Maccullochella peelii FFG (V), Vic Advisory (L), EPBC (V) Very low Very low

Golden Perch Macquaria ambigua FFG (NT), Vic Advisory (I), Very low Very low

Freshwater Catfish* Tandanus tandanus FFG (En), Vic Advisory (L), Very low Very low Reptiles

Murray River Turtle* Emydura macquarii FFG (V) High Very low


R01 130

Value Scientific Name Status

Imp

act

Ben

efi

t

Plants Twin-leaf Bedstraw Asperula gemella FFG (r) Very low Moderate

Flat-top Saltbush Atriplex lindleyi subsp. lidleyi FFG (k) Very low Moderate

Winged Water-starwort Callitriche umbonata FFG (r), Vic Advisory (L) Very low Moderate Spiny Lignum Duma horrida subsp. Horrida FFG (r) Very low Moderate

Chariot Wheels* Maireana cheelii FFG (V), Vic Advisory (L), EPBC (V) Very low Very low

Dark Roly-poly Sclerolaena muricata var. muricata FFG (k) Very low Moderate

Branching Groundsel Senecio cunninghamii var. cunninghamii

FFG (r) Very low Moderate

* Species specifically included in the Bilateral Agreement + Unspecked Hardyhead was not included in the April 2013 release of the Advisory List of Threatened Vertebrate Fauna in Victoria (DSE,

2013). The species has been reassessed as abundant across many locations within Victoria, however it is currently gazetted u nder FFG (March 2017). Vic Advisory / FFG: Ce – critically endangered, En – endangered, V – vulnerable, r – rare, NT – near threatened, k - insufficient known / L – listed, I - rejected for listing as threatened; taxon invalid EPBC: Ce – critically endangered, En – endangered, V – vulnerable International treaty: Y – listed under one or more international migratory bird agreements

In addition to the benefits outlined in Table 7-1, at a broader landscape scale, the proposed changes to Third

Reedy Lake will result in a benefit due to the significant water savings, some of which will become available for

environmental use. This water will be managed by the Commonwealth and Victorian Environmental Water

Holder and will be used to implement the proposed water regime for Third Reedy Lake, but can also be

available as environmental water for other wetlands. In this context, the benefits gained as a result of TRLBP

extend beyond Third Reedy Lake itself to other wetlands in the Kerang Lakes system and elsewhere. This

water can be used in a strategic way to provide drought refuge across the landscape and compensate for any

climate change impacts that may occur in the future.

7.4 Summary

The proposed water regime for Third Reedy Lake should result in the successful establishment of Intermittent

Swampy Woodland EVC across the majority of the lake.

Provided vegetation recovery is successful, there are a range of benefits including increased vegetation and

habitat diversity for a range of animals, including increased foraging opportunities for waterbirds. While a range

of threatened species have been recorded at Third Reedy Lake, the lake does not provide critical habitat for any

EPBC Act 1999 or FFG Act 1988 listed threatened species, and overall the impact on threatened species is

considered low. Even so, appropriate management is required through the development and implementation of

an EWP which will outline management actions, monitoring and contingency arrangements in the event of

unintended outcomes (e.g. failure of target vegetation to establish or standing of animals during drying phases)

and management of potential threats (e.g. acid sulfate soil activation or unacceptable increases in salinity).

Third Reedy Lake in its current condition does not make a critical contribution to any of the criterion under which

the Kerang Wetlands qualifies for Ramsar listing. The proposed changes to Third Reedy Lake are unlikely to

impact on any listing criteria and are expected to provide ecological gains in terms of increased biodiversity

values, and therefore are considered ‘positive’ in terms of the overall contribution the Third Reedy Lakes makes

to the Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Site character.


some of which will become available for environmental use. A portion of the water saved will be used to

implement the proposed water regime at Third Reedy Lake and the remaining water will be available as

environmental water for other wetlands and rivers. In this context, the benefits gained as a result of the TRLBP

extend beyond Third Reedy Lake itself to other wetlands in the Kerang Wetlands system and elsewhere.



R01 131

8. References

Allen, G. R., S. H. Midgley, and M. Allen. 2002. Field Guide to the freshwater fishes of Australia. Western

Australia Museum, Perth.

ANZECC and ARMCANZ (2000) Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality.

Volume 1, The Guidelines (Chapters 1–7). October 2000.

Backhouse, G., Lyon, J. and Cant, B. 2008a. National Recovery Plan for the Murray Hardyhead

Craterocephalus fluviatilis. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne.

Baker-Gabb, D. and Hurley, V.G. (2011). National Recovery Plan for the Regent Parrot (eastern subspecies)

Polytelis anthopeplus monarchoides. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne.

Baker-Gabb, D. (2011). National Recovery Plan for the Superb Parrot Polytelis swainsonii. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne.

Biosis (2013). Kerang Lakes Fauna Assessment- Draft report. Prepared for the North Central Catchment

Management Authority. Biosis Pty Ltd, Melbourne.

BirdLife Australia. BirdLife Australia Atlas Database. Accessed at http://www.birdlife.org.au/

Brooks, S., Cottingham, P., Butcher, R., and Hale, J. (2013). Murray-Darling Basin Aquatic Ecosystem

Classification: Stage 2 report. Peter Cottingham & Associates report to the Commonwealth Environmental

Water Office and Murray-Darling Basin Authority, Canberra.

Butcher, R. Hale, J., and Brooks, S. (2015) A guide to the management of Ramsar wetlands in Victoria. Internal

report prepared for the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning

Butcher, R. and Hale, J. (2016) Addendum to Ecological Character Description for the Kerang Wetlands

Ramsar Site. Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning. East Melbourne

(https://www.water.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0028/85456/Kerang-Wetlands-Ramsar-Site-Ecological-

Character-Description-Addendum.pdf). .Cadwallader, P. L. (1977). J.O. Langtry's 1949-1950 Murray River

investigations. Fisheries and Wildlife Papers of Victoria. No. 13.

Clunie, P. (2010). Description of the ecological character of the Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Site. Department of

Sustainability and Environment.

Cook, D and Bayes, E (2014). Kerang Ramsar and other significant wetlands monitoring project 2014. Report

prepared for North Central Catchment Management Authority.

Commonwealth of Australia undated Approved Conservation Advice for Swainsona murrayana (Slender

Darling-pea) (s266B of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999).

Commonwealth of Australia (2012). Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 –

Environmental Offsets Policy.

Commonwealth of Australia (2016). National Recovery Plan for the Plains-wanderer (Pedionomus torquatus).

Department of Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) (2016a). Victorian Biodiversity Atlas. Biodiversity Info.

Victorian State Government, Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, Melbourne. Accessed at

https://vba.dse.vic.gov.au.

Department of Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) (2016b). Overview of Waterway Management in Victoria:

Fact Sheet 6. March 2016. Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning.

Department of the Environment (DoE) (2013). Matters of National Environmental Significance, Significant

Impact Guidelines 1.1, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

http://www.birdlife.org.au/


R01 132

Department of the Environment (DoE) (2015). Kerang Lakes Bypass Project – Draft Due Diligence Assessment

Report. Prepared by Southern Water Infrastructure Section, Department of the Environment.

Department of the Environment (DoE) (2017a). Macquaria australasica in Species Profile and Threats

Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat.

Accessed May 2017.

Department of the Environment (DoE) (2017b). Polytelis swainsonii in Species Profile and Threats Database,

Department of the Environment, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed May

2017.

Department of the Environment (DoE) (2017c). Polytelis anthopeplus monarchoides in Species Profile and

Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. Available from:

http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed May 2017.

Department of Environment and Primary Industries (DEPI) (2013a). Fish stock report. Retrieved 5 July 2013,

from the Department of Environment and Primary Industries: http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/fisheries/about-

fisheries/fish-stocking-reporting.

Department of Environment and Primary Industries (DEPI) (2013b). Permitted clearing of native vegetation:

Biodiversity assessment guidelines. Department of Environment and Primary Industries. East Melbourne

Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) (2009). National Guidelines for Notifying

Change in Ecological Character of Australian Ramsar Sites (Article 3.2). Module 3 of the National Guidelines for

Ramsar Wetlands—Implementing the Ramsar Convention in Australia. Australian Government Department of

the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra

Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) (2004). Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Site: Strategic

Management Plan. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne.

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPaC) (2012). Australian

Ramsar Site Nomination Guidelines. Module 4 of the National Guidelines for Ramsar Wetlands—Implementing

the Ramsar Convention in Australia. Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water,

Population and Communities, Canberra.

Ecological Associates (2010). Gunbower Forest Hipwell Road channel ecological benefit and risk analysis - final

report. Prepared for the North Central Catchment Management Authority. Ecological Associates Pty Ltd,

Malvern, SA

Feehan Consulting (2015a). Kerang Lakes Bypass Investigation - Engagement and Communications. working

draft report, GMW Connections Project.

Frood, D. and Papas, P. (2016). A guide to water regime, salinity ranges and bioregional conservation status of

Victorian wetland Ecological Vegetation Classes. Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research. Technical

Report Series No. 266. Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, Heidelberg, Victoria.

Gippel, C. J. (2012). Preliminary hydrological modelling for Kerang Lakes bypass investigation project. Fluvial

Systems Pty Ltd, Stockton. Goulburn-Murray Water, Shepparton, September.

Gippel, C.J. (2015). Results of Third Reedy water savings modelling 26 August 2014 (amended 12 March

2015). Report for GMW

Goulburn Murray Water (GMW) (2012). Lake Boga Drying Lake Contingency Plan. Goulburn Murray Water

Goulburn Murray Water (GMW) (2013). Connections Project Water Change Management Framework. Version

3. May 2013. Goulburn Murray Water

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

http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat.%20Accessed%20May%202017

http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/fisheries/about-fisheries/fish-stocking-reporting

http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/fisheries/about-fisheries/fish-stocking-reporting


R01 133

Goulburn Murray Water (GMW) (2015). GMW Connections Project Construction Environmental Management

Framework. July 2015. Goulburn Murray Water

Goulburn Murray Water (GMW) (2016b). Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act

1999referral document. Goulburn Murray Water

Goulburn Murray Water (GMW) (2016a). Environment Effects Act 1978 referral document. Goulburn Murray

Water.

Ho, S., Roberts, J., Cheers, G., Suitor, L. (2006). Development and application of an ecological monitoring and

mapping program for targeted Kerang Lakes. Report prepared for the North Central Catchment

Ingram, B.A., C.G. Barlow, J.J. Burchmore, G.J. Gooley, S.J. Rowland & A.C. Sanger (1990). Threatened native

freshwater fishes in Australia - some case histories. Journal of Fish Biology. 37:175-182.

Jacobs (2016). Third Reedy Lake Permitted Clearing of Native Vegetation. Memo report from Rebecca

Sutherland 19 February 2016 including BIOR, GMW Connections Project.

Jacobs (2017). Third Reedy Lake Acid Sulfate Soil Study – Interpretive Report. Report for Goulburn Murray

Water

Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR) (2011). Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Site: Ecological Character Description. Draft

reported prepared for the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities,

Kellogg Brown and Root, St Kilda.

Kingsford, R., Bino, G., Porter, J., and Brandis, K. (2014). Waterbird Communities in the Murray-Darling Basin,

1983-2012. Australian Wetlands, Rivers and Landscapes Centre, University of New South Wales, Canberra,

ACT.

Lintermans, M. 2007. Fishes of the Murray-Darling Basin: An introductory guide. Murray-Darling Basin

Commission, Canberra.

Mallen-Cooper, M. 2001. Fish passage in off-channel habitats of the lower Murray River. Report prepared by

Fishway Consulting Services for Wetland Care Australia

Mavromihalis, J. (2010a). National Recovery Plan for the Chariot Wheels Maireana cheelii. Department of

Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne.

Mavromihalis, J. (2010b). National Recovery Plan for the Winged Peppercress Lepidium monoplocoides.

Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne.

McDowall, R. M. and W. Fulton. 1996. Family Galaxiidae: galaxids. Pages 52-77 in R. M. McDowall, editor. Freshwater fishes of south-eastern Australia. Reed Books, Sydney.

Merrick, J. R. 1996. Family Terapontidae: freshwater grunters or perches. Pages 164-167 in R. M. McDowall,

editor. Freshwater fishes of south-eastern Australia. Reed Books, Sydney

Ministry of Conservation (1982). Wetlands Nominated by the State of Victoria for Inclusion on the List of

Wetlands of International Importance. State Government of Victoria, East Melbourne, Victoria.

Murray–Darling Basin Authority (2010). Detailed Assessment of Acid Sulfate Soils in the Murray–Darling Basin:

Protocols for sampling, field characterisation, laboratory analysis and data presentation. MDBA Publication No.

57/10, 58 pp.

North Central CMA (2012). Alternative Water Regimes for Kerang Lakes Bypass Investigation Project – Phase

1. North Central Catchment Management Authority, Huntly.


R01 134

North Central CMA (2014). Kerang Lakes Bypass Investigation Project Technical Report – Third Reedy Lake,

North Central Catchment Management Authority, Huntly.

North Central CMA (2016). Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Action Plan 2016-2024 Draft. North Central Catchment

Management Authority, Huntly.

O’Connor, J., Rogers, D., and Pisanu, P. (2012). Monitoring the Ramsar status of the Coorong, Lakes and

Murray Mouth: a case study using birds. South Australian Department for Environment and Natural Resources,

Adelaide.

Rakali (2013). Ecological Vegetation Class Assessment for the Reedy Lake system, Little Lake Charm and

Racecourse Lake surrounding areas in the Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Site. Report prepared for the North

Central Catchment Management Authority, Huntly.

Ramsar Convention (2009). Strategic Framework for the List of Wetlands of International Importance, Third

edition, as adopted by Resolution VII.11 (COP7, 1999) and amended by Resolutions VII.13 (1999), VIII.11 and

VIII.33 (COP8, 2002), IX.1 Annexes A and B (COP9, 2005), and X.20 (COP10, 2008).

Ramsar Convention (2012). Resolution XI.8 Annex 2. Strategic Framework and guidelines for the future

development of the List of Wetlands of International Importance of the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran,

1971) – 2012 revision adopted by Resolution XI.8 (2012).

RMCG (2013) Preliminary Assessment: Social and Economic Impacts of the Proposed Kerang Lakes Bypass.

Report to Goulburn Murray Water, 22 August.

RMCG (2015). Business Case: Kerang Lakes Bypass Project. Report for Goulburn Murray Water.

Roberts, J. and Marston, F. (2011). Water Regime for Wetland and Floodplain Plants: A Source Book for the

Murray-Darling Basin. National Water Commission, Canberra, ACT.

Roberts, J., Casanova, M., Morris, K. and Papas, P. (2017). The Feasibility of Wetland Vegetation Recovery:

User Guide for a Decision Support Tool. Version 0b (1st February 2017). Prepared for DELWP.

Rogers, K. and T. Ralph (2011). Floodplain wetland biota in the Murray-Darling Basin. Water and habitat

requirements, CSIRO Publishing.

Sharpe C, Stuart, I., Stanislawski, K and Parker, A. (2016). The Gunbower Forest Fish Exit Strategy;

Implementation and Monitoring. A technical report for the North Central Catchment Management Authority by

CPS Enviro P/L. DRAFT

Sharpe, C. (2014). Kerang Lakes Murray hardyhead Survey, March 2014. CPS Environmental Research

Technical Report for Goulburn-Murray Water, April 2014. 10 pp.

SKM (2001). Reedy Lakes environmental status report. A report for the North Central Catchment Managment

Authority (working document)

SKM (2010). Environmental water regime requirements of the Kerang Lakes. Reported prepared for Goulburn-

Murray Water.

SKM (2013a). Kerang Lakes Preliminary Blackwater Risk Assessment. Final Report. Tatura, Goulburn-Murray

Water.

SKM (2013b). Kerang Lakes Bypass Project Cultural Heritage Field Assessment Report, Goulburn-Murray

Water Connections Project.

SKM (2013c). Kerang Lakes Bypass Investigation. Net Gain Assessment. Version E, Goulburn-Murray Water

Connections Project.


R01 135

SKM (2014). Kerang Lakes Bypass Project. Preliminary investigation design. Phase 2 report for G-MW

Connections Project

The Atlas of Living Australia. Accessed at http://www.ala.org.au.

Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC) (2015) Conservation advice Grantiella picta, painted

honeyeater.

URS (2013a). Further hydrogeological risk assessment: Third Reedy Lake and Racecourse Lakes. Letter to

Ross Plunkett, G-MW Connections Project 4 October 2013.

URS (2013b). Kerang Lakes Bypass Investigation: Acid Sulfate Soil Risk Assessment. Report prepared for the

Goulburn-Murray Water Connections Project. Tatura.

URS (2014). Further hydrogeological risk assessment: Third Reedy Lake. Letter dated 12 September 2014 to

GMW

VEWH (2016). The Victorian Environmental Water Plan – Seasonal Watering Plan 2016-2017. Prepared by the

Victorian Environmental Water Holder.

Walsh, N.G. (1999). Senecio. In: Walsh, N.G.; Entwisle, T.J. (eds), Flora of Victoria Vol. 4, Cornaceae to

Asteraceae. Inkata Press, Melbourne.

Watt, A. (2013). Biodisparity in fish communities in the Coorong, and Lakes Alexandrina and Albert Ramsar site.

Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, South Australia.


R01

Appendix A. TRLBP investigations and studies undertaken to date

All reports publicly available at http://www.connectionsproject.com.au/kerang-lakes-bypass-project-referral-

documents/

Source of information How recent is the information

How the reliability of the information was tested


Assessment against EPBC Assessment Guidelines

Biosis (2013). Kerang Lakes Fauna Assessment. Report for the North Central Catchment Management Authority and Goulburn-Murray Water

2013 Report was reviewed by ERP, CAG, PRG and SRP; makes

substantial use of earlier work and databases.

The late summer survey of amphibians and avifauna is outside of the peak breeding activity period for

certain species and as such these faunal groups may be under-represented in the current surveys. Timing of surveys were conducted to occur within

the survey season of the previous assessment conducted by Ho et al. (2006), although the previous surveys were staggered over a longer

period, each lake was assessed once

Fish surveys were

conducted in accordance with Guidelines for

detecting fish listed as threatened under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

Rapid Bioassessment

(RBA) sampling method (EPA 2003) was utilised to collect macroinvertebrates

Feehan (2016). Drying lake case

studies and literature review. Draft.

2015 Internal review Based on conclusions from

a range of case studies and scientific literature.

N/A

Feehan Consulting (2015). Kerang

Lakes Bypass Investigation - Engagement and Communications. working draft report, GMW Connections Project. Newsletters Fact sheets

2015 This is a collation

of engagement and communication activities undertaken as part of the

investigation

No uncertainties –

statement of fact

N/A

Feehan Consulting (2015). Third Reedy Lake Bypass: potential impacts

and benefits on the ecological character (EC) of the Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Site - discussion paper (draft). Goulburn Murray Water Connections Project.

2015 Internal review Internal working paper. N/A

Feehan, P. (2015). Kerang Lakes Bypass Investigation Third Reedy Lake bypass – salinity impacts and management Working Draft.

2015 Internal review Internal working paper. Based on outcomes of salinity modelling and water savings estimates

and assumptions therein. Proposes a framework for assessing and managing risks that result from the interaction of a number of factors occurring

concurrently.

N/A

GHD (2014). Kerang Lakes Bypass Investigation. Peer Review of Bypass

Infrastructure and Costing. Goulburn Murray Water Connections Project.

2014 Peer review N/A

GHD (2015). Proposal for Kerang

Lakes Bypass Project. Third Reedy Lake Acid Sulfate Soil Assessment. 12 June 2015.

2015 Peer reviewed by

Webb 2016

Proposal only N/A

Gippel, C. (2014). Results of Third Reedy water savings modelling. v5. 26 August 2014., For Goulburn-Murray Connections Project.

2014 Internal review N/A

Gippel, C. J., (2013). Preliminary hydrological modelling for Kerang Lakes bypass investigation project.

2013 Report was reviewed by CAG and PRG

The SWET water balance modelling concept was initially developed to

N/A




R01





Fluvial Systems Pty Ltd, Stockton. Goulburn-Murray Water, Shepparton, September.

accurately predict water savings potential at individual wetlands in the River Murray System. After

development of the SWET modelling approach was completed in 2005, it was reviewed by technical representatives of state and commonwealth

agencies responsible for management of the River Murray System, and then endorsed as a suitable modelling procedure for listings on The Living

Murray Developmental Register.

Gippel, C. J., 2014, Modelling preferred

hydrological regimes for Kerang Lakes bypass investigation project. Fluvial Systems Pty Ltd, Stockton. Goulburn-Murray Water, Tatura.

2014 Report was

reviewed by CAG and PRG

N/A

Jacobs (2017). Third Reedy Lake Acid Sulfate Soil Study – Interpretive Report. Report for Goulburn Murray Water

2017 Report was reviewed by ERP and TRLBP Consultative

Committee Peer reviewed by Webb 2016

John Webb is Associate Professor, Environmental Geoscience at Latrobe University, Melbourne.

His research interests include focus on improving treatment procedures for acid mine drainage and understanding the formation of acid sulfate

soils

Investigation undertaken in

accordance with the Murray Darling Basin

Authority guidelines for assessing acid sulfate soils in the Murray Darling Basin

Jacobs (2016). Third Reedy Lake Permitted Clearing of Native

Vegetation. Memo report from Rebecca Sutherland 19 February 2016 including BIOR, GMW Connections Project.

2016 Internal review N/A

Kerang Lakes Bypass Business Case Due diligence assessment

2015 Internal review (DoE)

Agency report. N/A

North Central CMA (2014), Kerang Lakes Bypass Investigation Project – Ramsar and Landscape Scale Considerations, Prepared for the Goulburn Murray Water Connections Project, North Central Catchment

Management Authority, Huntly, Victoria

2014 Report was reviewed by CAG, PRG and ERP

Some assumptions and identified risks addressed by salinity assessment and proposed ASS assessment.

N/A

North Central CMA (2014) Kerang Lakes Bypass Investigation Project

Technical Report – Third Reedy Lake, North Central Catchment Management Authority, Huntly. Version 11, 14 January.

2014 Report was reviewed by

CAG, PRG and SRP and ERP

Provides the basis for water savings estimates;

makes assumptions about the appropriate water regime to achieve objectives. Undertakes extensive analysis of risk and benefits.

N/A

Rakali Consulting Pty Ltd (2013) Ecological Vegetation Class Assessment for the Reedy Lake

system, Little Lake Charm and Racecourse Lake and surrounding areas in the Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Site. Report prepared for North Central Catchment Management Authority, version 5.0,

July.

2013 Report was reviewed by CAG, PRG and

SRP

Due to the cryptic nature and seasonal growth cycles of certain plants

and animals, ecological surveys are often unable to detect all species present at a particular site. As fieldwork for this study was carried out in

February and March 2013, only flora and fauna that were observed within the

Vegetation mapping was

undertaken by field survey

in combination with the interpretation of high resolution satellite imagery. The presence or absence of EPBC Act 1999 Matters of National

Environmental

Significance and FFG Act

species and communities were assessed.


R01





study areas over this period were recorded. Ecological surveys can also be limited by project

constraints including short timeframes for survey, and it is probable that additional flora and fauna species would be recorded given a greater sampling

effort.

The condition of each

wetland was determined using the Index of Wetland

Condition (IWC)

Method.

Vegetation Assets, States

and Transitions (VAST)

framework was used to classify vegetation and

habitat according to its

degree of modification from a natural state.

RMCG (2013) Preliminary Assessment: Social and Economic Impacts of the Proposed Kerang Lakes Bypass.

Report to Goulburn Murray Water, 22 August.


N/A

Sharpe, C. (2014). Kerang Lakes

Murray Hardyhead Survey, March 2014. Final Report, CPS Environmental Research for the G-MW Connections Project.

2014 Report was


Survey specifically

targeted Murray Hardyhead. The timing of the survey is considered not to have greatly influenced the likelihood of detecting Murray

hardyhead in either Middle or Third Reedy lake. The timing of the present surveys (early autumn) occurred during the period when abundances have

been recorded as relatively high at other locations

Targeted search in

accordance with Guidelines for detecting fish listed as threatened under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity

Conservation Act 1999.

SKM (2013). Kerang Lakes Bypass

Investigation. Net Gain Assessment. Version E, Goulburn-Murray Water Connections Project

2013 N/A

SKM (2013). Kerang Lakes Bypass Project Cultural Heritage Field Assessment Report, Goulburn-Murray Water Connections Project.


Based on limited field investigations.

N/A

SKM (2013), Kerang Lakes Preliminary Blackwater Risk Assessment. Final Report. Tatura, Goulburn-Murray Water.

2013 Report was reviewed by CAG and PRG. Based on most recent scientific papers.

Outlined risks associated with a range of scenarios.

N/A

SKM (2014), Kerang Lakes Bypass Project preliminary infrastructure design Phase 2 report. 12 February

2014 Report was reviewed by CAG and PRG and

peer review (GHD 2014)

Preliminary design only. Detailed design required before project can

proceed.

N/A

URS (2013). Further hydrogeological

risk assessment: Third Reedy Lake and Racecourse Lakes. Letter to Ross Plunkett, G-MW Connections Project 4 October 2013.

2013 Report was


Bores used in the analysis

were not situated in ideal locations; data only available over 24 years. Monte-Carlo modelling approach attempts to deal with a range of

uncertainties. Based on a number of modelling assumptions, including the relationship between bore and lake levels.

N/A

URS (2013)., Kerang Lakes Bypass Investigation: Acid Sulfate Soil Risk Assessment. Report prepared for the

Goulburn-Murray Water Connections Project. Tatura.

2013 Report was reviewed by CAG, PRG and

SRP and peer review (see Webb (2013)

Uncertain; further field work and assessment proposed.

N/A


R01





URS (2013). Kerang Lakes Bypass Investigation: Monte Carlo Hydrogeological Risk Analysis: Salinity. Report prepared for the Goulburn-

Murray Water Connections Project. Tatura.

2013 Report was reviewed by CAG, PRG and SRP and peer

review (see Webb (2013)

Bores used in the analysis were not situated in ideal locations; data only available over 24 years.

Monte-Carlo modelling approach attempts to deal with a range of uncertainties.

N/A

URS (2013). Kerang Lakes Bypass Investigation Project. Hydrogeological Risk Assessment: Conceptual Model and Project Summary Report. Report prepared for the Goulburn-Murray

Water Connections Project. Tatura.

2013 Report was reviewed by CAG, PRG and SRP and peer review (see

Webb (2013)

Based on best available knowledge and information. Bores used in the analysis were not situated in ideal locations;

data only available over 24 years.

N/A

URS (2014). Further hydrogeological

risk assessment - Third Reedy Lake. Letter report dated 12 September 2014. For G-MW Connections Project.

2014 Bores used in the analysis

were not situated in ideal locations; data only available over 24 years. Monte-Carlo modelling approach attempts to deal with a range of

uncertainties. Based on a number of modelling assumptions including the relationship between bore and lake levels.

N/A

Webb, J. (2013). Review of URS Kerang Lakes Bypass Investigation Reports for G-MW Connections Project, Latrobe University.

2013 Peer review John Webb is Associate Professor, Environmental Geoscience at Latrobe University, Melbourne.

His research interests include focus on improving treatment procedures for acid mine drainage and understanding the formation of acid sulfate

soils.

N/A

Webb, J. (2016). Review of GHD proposal: Third Reedy Lake acid

sulfate soil assessment. 27 July 2016.

2016 Peer review John Webb is Associate Professor, Environmental

Geoscience at Latrobe University, Melbourne. His research interests include focus on improving treatment procedures for acid mine drainage and

understanding the formation of acid sulfate soils

N/A


R01

Appendix B. GMW Environmental Policy

Our mission is to provide efficient and effective water services in a sustainable manner with consideration to the environment

Goulburn-Murray Water (G-MW) is a water corporation owned by the State Government and governed by a Board of Directors, who are appointed by the Minister for Water. We are Australia’s largest rural water authority. Our business is managing the water cycle; we harvest, store and deliver water, ensuring that water is available for stakeholders in our region. We are responsible for managing around 70% of Victoria’s stored water resources, around 50% of Victoria’s underground water supplies and Australia’s largest irrigation delivery network. We are committed to delivering a modernised irrigation system to help secure the economic, social and environmental future of northern Victoria. We have the challenge of balancing water management needs, expectations and impacts. In line with our mission, G-MW is committed to the prevention of pollution, environment protection and sustainability initiatives by:

1. Minimising detrimental effects while maximising opportunities

We will achieve this through:

• Achieving compliance with relevant legislation and apply a risk based approach that results in continual improvement.

• Strengthening environmental expectations on our staff and contractors through effective environmental controls in our contracts.

• Promoting awareness and understanding of sustainability and environmental issues to our staff.

• Monitoring, measuring and reporting on our environmental performance.

2. Mitigating threats to delivering water services

We operate water systems within open catchments that are popular places to visit. To mitigate environmental threats to the delivery of water services from these activities and other physical climatic changes, we will: • Set and communicate consistent standards to encourage

sound environmental management practices. • Build and utilise our understanding of water management

impacts to improve operational practices. • Establish clear arrangements with stakeholders where

responsibilities for activities are shared with G-MW or undertaken on G-MW managed land.

3. Maintaining strategic involvement

There are a number of stakeholders interested in the management of our water storages and our delivery network, therefore we will:

• Optimise internal and external stakeholder networks and partnerships to anticipate and prepare for future environmental changes that will impact on our sustainable delivery of water services.

• Target stakeholder engagement to influence catchment outcomes of benefit to G-MW activities and increase stakeholder confidence.

• Capitalise on our expertise to deliver programs that contribute to reducing the region’s irrigation environmental footprint.

Goulburn-Murray Water June 2012 #3273152v7


R01

Appendix C. Review committee membership

C.1 Expert Review Panel

Member Organisation

Dr Jane Roberts Independent consultants experienced in the relationships between hydrology and

ecology, and in evaluating the ecological consequences of changing hydrology Terry Hillman

C.2 Consultative Committee

Member Organisation

Jack Krohn Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning

Andrea Kelleher Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning

Janet Holmes Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning

Michelle Maher North Central Catchment Management Authority

Ross Stanton Goulburn Murray Water (Operations)

Geoff Rollinson Gannawarra Shire Council


R01

Appendix D. Third Reedy Lake Mapping


R01


R01

Appendix E. Conceptual cross section of Third Reedy Lake

E.1 A conceptual cross section of Third Reedy Lake showing current conditions (Source: North Central CMA, 2014)


R01

E.2 A conceptual model of the littoral zone of Third Reedy Lake under current regime (Source: North Central CMA, 2014)


R01

E.3 A conceptual cross section of Third Reed Lake under proposed regime (Source: North Central CMA, 2014)


R01

E.4 A conceptual model of the littoral zone of Third Reedy Lake under proposed regime (Source: North Central CMA, 2014)


R01

Appendix F. Standard design drawings

RACECOURSE RD

MURRAY VALLEY HIGHWAY

No. 7 CHANNEL

PRATTS RD

1/ 7 CHANNEL

ISS

UE

D F

OR

RE

VIE

W

NO

T F

OR

CO

NS

TR

UC

TIO

N

ISS

UE

D F

OR

RE

VIE

W

NO

T F

OR

CO

NS

TR

UC

TIO

N

ISS

UE

D F

OR

RE

VIE

W

NO

T F

OR

CO

NS

TR

UC

TIO

N

ISS

UE

D F

OR

RE

VIE

W

NO

T F

OR

CO

NS

TR

UC

TIO

N

ISS

UE

D F

OR

RE

VIE

W

NO

T F

OR

CO

NS

TR

UC

TIO

N

ISS

UE

D F

OR

RE

VIE

W

NO

T F

OR

CO

NS

TR

UC

TIO

N

ISS

UE

D F

OR

RE

VIE

W

NO

T F

OR

CO

NS

TR

UC

TIO

N


R01

Appendix G. Threatened plants and animals present or potentially present at Third Reedy Lake

G.1 Plants

Data sources: Atlas of Living Australia, NC CMA unpublished data, Victorian Biodiversity Atlas, Rakali Consulting (2013), Biosis (2013)). Key: EPBC/IUCN status: NT = near threatened, Vu = vulnerable,

En = endangered, CE = critically endangered. Vic Advisory / FFG: Ce – critically endangered, En – endangered, V – vulnerable, R – rare, NT – near threatened, k - insufficient known / L – listed, I – rejected

for listing as threatened; taxon invalid. * species listed in bilateral agreement.

Common Name Scientific Name Vic advisory

/ FFG

EPBC/

IUCN Location of record Likelihood of presence at Third Reedy Lake Included in

assessment First Middle Third

Twin-leaf

Bedstraw Asperula gemella R • • •


Consulting 2013) Yes

Flat-top Saltbush Atriplex lindleyi

subsp. Lindleyi K • • •



Winged Water-

starwort Callitriche umbonata R • •



Native Couch Cynodon dactylon

var. pulchellus K • Terrestrial species, not recorded in direct impact area, not included in risk No

Spiny Lignum Duma horrida subsp.

Horrida R • • •



Cane Grass Eragrostis

australasica V • Amphibious species, not recorded in impact area, not included in risk assessment. No

Dwarf Brooklime Gratiola pumelo R • Amphibious species, not recorded in impact area, not included in risk assessment. No

Winged

Peppercress*

Lepidium

monoplocoides En,L En

Winged Peppercress is associated with seasonally wet soils (Mavromihalis 2010b). It is

not associated with permanent water bodies and has not been recorded at Third Reedy Lake, although there is a possibility of presence in the landscape west of Third Reedy Lake (Rakali Consulting 2013). The likelihood of impacts is very low. The introduction of a wetting and drying regime may benefit the species and increase areas potentially available for colonisation. Not present in impact area, not included in risk assessment

Yes

Chariot Wheels* Maireana cheelii V,L Vu •

Damp lands species - Chariot Wheels are associated with heavy clay soils that are

seasonally wet (Mavromihalis 2010a). They are not associated with permanent water bodies and have not been recorded at Third Reedy Lake, but they have been recorded

south west of First Reedy Lake (Rakali Consulting, 2013) and hence are included in the risks assessment because of proximity to Third Reedy Lake.

Yes

Waterbush Myoporum montanum R • Terrestrial species, not recorded in direct impact area, not included in risk No

Swamp Buttercup Ranunculus undosus V • • Amphibious species, not recorded in impact area, not included in risk assessment. No

Dark Roly-poly Sclerolaena muricata

var. muricata K • • • Terrestrial species, not recorded in direct impact area, not included in risk assessment. No

Spear-fruit

Copperburr

Sclerolaena

patenticuspis V • Terrestrial species, not recorded in direct impact area, not included in risk No



R01

Common Name Scientific Name Vic advisory

/ FFG

EPBC/

IUCN Location of record Likelihood of presence at Third Reedy Lake Included in

assessment First Middle Third

Floodplain

Fireweed

Senecio

campylocarpus R • Damplands species - Not recorded in study area, not included in risk assessment No

Branching

Groundsel

Senecio cunninghamii

var. cunninghamii R • •

Damplands species - Branching Groundsel is present at Third Reedy Lake in associated

with Tall Marsh. However, it can grow in wet or dry soils (Walsh 1999). The proposed water regime will retain variable wetting and drying which should continue to support Branching Groundsel.

Yes

Slender Darling-

pea*

Swainsona

murrayana E,L Vu

Slender Darling-pea is associated with heavy soils in grassland and box woodland areas

(Commonwealth of Australia undated). They are not associated with permanent water bodies and have not been recorded at Third Reedy Lake – no suitable habitat exists around Third Reedy Lake (Rakali Consulting, 2013). Not present in impact area, not

included in risk assessment.

Yes

G.2 Birds recorded at the Ramsar site and Reedy Lake complex

Data sources: Atlas of Living Australia, NC CMA unpublished data, Victorian Biodiversity Atlas, Annual Summer Waterfowl counts (DELWP unpublished) and Kingsford et al. 2014; Butcher and Hale

(2016). Key: EPBC/IUCN status: NT = near threatened, Vu = vulnerable, En = endangered, CE = critically endangered. Vic Advisory / FFG: Ce – critically endangered, En – endangered, V – vulnerable, R –

rare, NT – near threatened, k - insufficient known / L – listed, I - rejected for listing as threatened; taxon invalid. International treaty: CMS = Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild

Animals, C = China-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement, J = Japan-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement, R = Republic of Korea-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement. * species listed in bilateral agreement.

Common Name Scientific Name

Vic

advisory / FFG

EPBC/

IUCN

Inter.

treaty

Location of record

Likelihood of presence at Third Reedy Lake Included in

assessment Ramsar

site First Middle Third

Australian Reed

Warbler

Acrocephalus

(Acrocephalus) australis • • • •

Common species with widespread distribution, not

included in risk assessment No

Common Sandpiper Actitis hypoleucos V CMS,C,J

,R •

Not known from study area, not included in risk

assessment No

Chestnut Teal Anas castanea • • • Common species with widespread distribution, not


Grey Teal Anas gracilis • • • • Common species with widespread distribution, not


Australasian

Shoveler Anas rhynchotis V • •

Widespread distribution, not recorded at Third Reedy

Lake, not included in risk assessment No

Pacific Black Duck Anas superciliosa • • • • Common species with widespread distribution, not


Australasian Darter Anhinga novaehollandiae • • • • Common species with widespread distribution, not


Eastern Great

Egret*

Ardea (Casmerodius)

modesta V,L • • • •

Recorded at Third Reedy Lake (Biosis 2013). They

prefer permanent waterbodies, but also frequent shallows of deep permanent wetlands and semi-permanent swamps.

Yes


R01


Vic

advisory / FFG

EPBC/

IUCN

Inter.

treaty

Location of record


assessment Ramsar


Great Egret Ardea alba C • • Common species with widespread distribution, not


Intermediate Egret Ardea intermedia E,L • • Not known from study area, not included in risk

assessment No

White-necked

Heron Ardea pacifica • • • •



Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres V CMS,C,J

,R •


assessment No

Hardhead* Aythya australis V • • • •

Previously recorded from Third Reedy lake. Prefers

abundant aquatic vegetation and deep water for foraging (Rogers and Ralph, 2011). Changed regime may reduce the depth of the wetland for foraging.

Yes

Musk Duck Biziura lobata V • • • • Previously recorded from Third Reedy Lake. Yes

Australasian

Bittern* Botaurus poiciloptilus E, L

En

(EPBC), CE (IUCN)

• •

Recorded in Ramsar site, but not recorded from Third

Reedy Lake. Is restricted to wetland habitats where it prefers dense reedbeds (Biosis 2013) that are not present at Third Reedy Lake.

Yes

Sharp-tailed

Sandpiper Calidris acuminata

CMS,C,J

,R •


assessment No

Red Knot Calidris canutus E EN(EPBC),

En (IUCN)

CMS,C,J

,R •


assessment Yes

Curlew Sandpiper* Calidris ferruginea E

CE

(EPBC), NT (IUCN)

CMS,C,J

,R •

Not known from the study area but may occasionally be

present along the drainage system to the west of Third Reedy Lake (Biosis 2013). Preferred habitat includes tidal mud flats and drying ephemeral lake margins

(http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/856-conservation-advice.pdf).

Yes

Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos NT CMS,J,R • Not known from study area, not included in risk

assessment No

Red-necked Stint Calidris ruficollis CMS,C,J

,R •


assessment No

Long-toed Stint Calidris subminuta NT CMS,C,J

,R •


assessment No

Great Knot Calidris tenuirostris E,L

CE

(EPBC),

NT (IUCN)

CMS,C,J

,R •


assessment Yes

Greater Sand

Plover Charadrius leschenaultii CE VU(EPBC)

CMS,C,J

,R •


assessment Yes

Red-capped Plover Charadrius ruficapillus • Common species with widespread distribution, not


Oriental Plover Charadrius veredus CMS,C,J

,R •


assessment No


R01


Vic

advisory / FFG

EPBC/

IUCN

Inter.

treaty

Location of record


assessment Ramsar


Australian Wood

Duck Chenonetta jubata • • • •



Whiskered Tern Chlidonias hybrida NT • • • • Common species with widespread distribution, not


White-winged Black

Tern Chlidonias leucopterus NT

CMS,C,J

,R •


assessment No

Silver Gull Chroicocephalus

novaehollandiae • • •



Swamp Harrier Circus approximans • • • Common species with widespread distribution, not


Banded Stilt Cladorhynchus

leucocephalus • •



Brown Treecreeper Climacteris picumnus NT • • • • Common species with widespread distribution, not


Black Swan Cygnus atratus • • • Common species with widespread distribution, not


Little Egret Egretta garzetta E,L • • Previously recorded from Third Reedy Lake. Yes

White-faced Heron Egretta novaehollandiae • • • • Common species with widespread distribution, not


Black Fronted

Dotterel Elseyornis melanops • • •



Red-kneed Dotterel Erythrogonys cinctus • • • Common species with widespread distribution, not


Eurasian Coot Fulica atra • • • • Common species with widespread distribution, not


Latham’s Snipe Gallinago hardwickii NT,N CMS,J,R • Not known from study area, not included in risk

assessment No

Dusky Moorhen Gallinula tenebrosa • • • • Common species with widespread distribution, not


Buff-banded Rail Gallirallus philippensis • • • Common species with widespread distribution, not


Gull-billed Tern Gelochelidon nilotica E,L C • • Not known from study area, not included in risk

assessment No

Painted

Honeyeater* Grantiella picta V,L

Not recorded from Third Reedy Lake or broader study

area. Preferred habitat is terrestrial, including River Red Gum woodlands (http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/470-conservation-advice.pdf).

Yes

Brolga Grus rubicunda V, L • • Not known from study area, not included in risk

assessment No

White-bellied Sea

Eagle* Haliaeetus leucogaster V,L C • • • Previously recorded from Third Reedy Lake Yes


R01


Vic

advisory / FFG

EPBC/

IUCN

Inter.

treaty

Location of record


assessment Ramsar


Black-winged Stilt Himantopus himantopus • Not known from study area, not included in risk

assessment No

Australian Little

Bittern Ixobrychus dubius E,L •

Recorded in Ramsar site, but not recorded from Third

Reedy Lake. Is restricted to wetland habitats where it prefers dense reedbeds (Biosis 2013) that are not present at Third Reedy Lake.

No

Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa V CMS,C,J

,R •


assessment No

Pink-eared Duck Malacorhynchus

membranaceus • •



Little Pied

Cormorant Microcarbo melanoleucos • • • •



Eastern Curlew Numenius

madagascariensis V

CE

(EPBC), En (IUCN)

CMS,C,J

,R •


assessment Yes

Nankeen Night-

heron Nycticorax caledonicus NT • • • • Previously recorded from Third Reedy Lake. Yes

Blue-billed Duck Oxyura australis E, L • Not known from study area, not included in risk

assessment No

Plains-wanderer* Pedionomus torquatus Ce,L CE •

Recorded in Ramsar site but not recorded from Third

Reedy Lake. Preferred habitat is treeless plains (Commonwealth of Australia 2016).

Yes

Australian Pelican Pelecanus conspicillatus • • • • Common species with widespread distribution, not


Great Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo • • • • Common species with widespread distribution, not


Little Black

Cormorant Phalacrocorax sulcirostris • • • •



Pied Cormorant Phalacrocorax varius NT • • • • Previously recorded from Third Reedy Lake Yes

Red-necked

Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus

CMS,C,J

,R •


assessment No

Ruff Philomachus pugnax CMS,C,J

,R •


assessment No

Yellow-billed

Spoonbill Platalea flavipes • • • •



Royal Spoonbill Platalea regia NT • • • • Previously recorded from Third Reedy Lake Yes

Glossy Ibis Plegadis falcinellus NT CMS • • Not known from study area, not included in risk

assessment No

Pacific Golden

Plover Pluvialis fulva V

CMS,C,J

,R •


assessment No


R01


Vic

advisory / FFG

EPBC/

IUCN

Inter.

treaty

Location of record


assessment Ramsar


Great Crested

Grebe Podiceps cristatus • •



Hoary-headed

Grebe

Poliocephalus

poliocephalus • • •



Regent Parrot* Polytelis anthopeplus

monarchoides V,L Vu

Not known from Third Reedy Lake. Current breeding

habitat and distribution is west of Swan Hill (Baker-Gabb, D and Hurley, V. 2011). Preferred habitat is terrestrial, including River Red Gum woodlands (Baker-Gabb, D and

Hurley, V. 2011).

Yes

Superb Parrot* Polytelis swainsonii E,L Vu

Not known from Third Reedy Lake. Preferred habitat is

red gum forests and box woodlands with current

breeding habitat and distribution along the Murray River around the Edwards River / Barmah Forest and into NSW (Baker-Gabb, 2011).

Yes

Purple Swamphen Porphyrio porphyrio • • • • Common species with widespread distribution, not


Australian Spotted

Crake Porzana fluminea •



Ballion’s Crake Porzana pusilla V, L • Not known from study area, not included in risk

assessment No

Spotless Crake Porzana tabuensis • Common species with widespread distribution, not


Red-necked Avocet Recurvirostra

novaehollandiae • • •



Australian Painted

Snipe* Rostratula australis CE,L

En, E

(IUCN) • •

Recorded within Ramsar area, but not specifically from

Third Reedy Lake. Habitat will not be impacted. Prefers range of shallow wetland habitats rather than open water habitats (Biosis 2013).

Yes

Caspian Tern Sterna caspia NT,L J • • • •

Fly over records for third Reedy Lake. Feeds primarily

on fish which will be impacted by the proposed regime (Rogers and Ralph, 2010).

Yes

Freckled Duck Stictonetta naevosa E,L • Not known from study area, not included in risk

assessment No

Australasian Grebe Tachybaptus

novaehollandiae • •



Australian

Shelduck Tadorna tadornoides • • • •



Australian White

Ibis Threskiornis molucca • • • •



Straw-necked Ibis Threskiornis spinicollis • • • • Common species with widespread distribution, not



R01


Vic

advisory / FFG

EPBC/

IUCN

Inter.

treaty

Location of record


assessment Ramsar


Black-tailed Native-

hen Tribonyx ventralis • • • •



Wood Sandpiper Tringa glareola V CMS,C,J

,R •


assessment No

Common

Greenshank Tringa nebularia V

CMS,C,J

,R •


assessment No

Marsh Sandpiper Tringa stagnatilis V CMS,C,J

,R •


assessment No

Masked Lapwing Vanellus miles • • • Common species with widespread distribution, not


Banded Lapwing Vanellus tricolor • Common species with widespread distribution, not


G.3 Threatened aquatic animals recorded at the Ramsar site and Reedy Lake complex

Data sources: Atlas of Living Australia, NC CMA unpublished data, Victorian Biodiversity Atlas, Biosis (2013), Sharpe (2014) Key: EPBC/IUCN status: NT = near threatened, Vu = vulnerable, En =

endangered, CE = critically endangered. Vic Advisory / FFG: Ce – critically endangered, En – endangered, V – vulnerable, R – rare, NT – near threatened, k - insufficient known / L – listed, I - rejected for

listing as threatened; taxon invalid. * species listed in bilateral agreement.


Vic

advisory / FFG

EPBC/

IUCN

Location of record


assessment Ramsar


Fish

Flathead

Galaxias* Galaxias rostratus Vu,I Ce • • (1968)

Not recorded in the Kerang Lakes since 1963 (First Reedy Lake) (North

Central CMA, 2014). Have not been detected in numerous recent surveys at Third Reedy Lake and are considered locally extinct.

Yes

Freshwater

Catfish* Tandanus tandanus En,L • • • • Previously recorded from Third Reedy Lake. Yes

Murray cod* Maccullochella peelii Vu,L Vu • • • Previously recorded from Third Reedy Lake. Yes

Murray

Hardyhead*

Craterocephalus

fluviatilis Ce,L En • •

Has not been recorded in Third Reedy Lake despite numerous surveys,

but was recorded in Middle Reedy Lake (1 individual in 2013 – Biosis 2013) so potential to be present in Third Reedy Lake.

Yes

Silver Perch* Bidyanus bidyanus Vu,L Ce • • • • Previously recorded from Third Reedy Lake. Yes

Macquarie

Perch* Macquaria australasica En,L En • (1949)

Not been recorded in the Kerang Lakes and the last recorded Macquarie

Perch west of Torrumbarry Weir was in 1949 (Cadwallader 1977) and is

considered extinct from the area.

Yes

Golden Perch Macquaria ambigua NT,I • • • • Previously recorded from Third Reedy Lake. Yes

Unspecked

Hardyhead

Craterocephalus

stercusmuscarum

fulvus

L • • • •

Previously recorded from Third Reedy Lake.

Yes


R01


Vic

advisory / FFG

EPBC/

IUCN

Location of record


assessment Ramsar


Frogs

Growling grass

frog* Litorai raniformus Vu, L V •

Not recorded from Third Reedy Lake, previously recorded near First

Reedy Lake in 1961. Yes

Brown toadlet Pseudophryne

bibronii En,L

Not recorded from Third Reedy Lake. Prefers grasslands and forests

were eggs are laid under leaf litter and tadpoles develop in wet

depressions and is not reliant on permanent wetlands.

Yes

Reptiles

Murray River

Turtle* Emydura macquarii Vu • • • • Recorded in low numbers in Third Reedy Lake. Yes


R01

Appendix H. Construction mitigation actions

Table 8-1: Tools or techniques for mitigating the potential environmental risks associated with construction

Mitigation Action Timing Responsibility

Management of flora and fauna

Protection of native vegetation:

• Construction footprint, including lay down areas and amenities are to be defined and clearly identified on site plans. All activities to be contained to the designated construction work zone

• Vehicle access should be limited to existing access tracks, where possible, and other designated areas. Site access points and access tracks are to be located to avoid

any impact to remnant vegetation and significant trees

• Vegetation in road reserves should be protected as far as practicable, even in treeless areas

• High visibility fencing around native vegetation prior to commencement of construction works and maintained throughout the project. Areas of native vegetation in the vicinity of the work sites are identified on the site maps

• Reinstate all habitat such as rocks, dead standing trees and fallen timber

• Avoid bark scarring which may cause rot and disease in trees

Pre-construction

and during

construction

Contractor

Protection of trees:

• Use hand digging methods where the use of mechanical excavators may cause damage to trees, above or below ground, and at such other locations as may be reasonably requested by GMW or Contractor

• Trees which have been identified as significant are to be identified and protected to prevent accidental damage. Tree protection zones are to be established.

• Any tree limbs that must be trimmed to allow for equipment movement or construction works should be undertaken by a suitably qualified arborist

Pre-construction

and during

construction

Contractor

Protection of native fauna:

• Construction methodology is to be developed in order to minimise open excavation3 or trench periods

• Contractors shall not handle any fauna at all, but should contact an appropriately trained wildlife specialist to attend the work site and carry out the capture and remo val protocols provided by GMW

• Appropriately trained wildlife specialist to be on call throughout the project timeframe

• All site personnel shall be site inducted in the protocols for when an animal is detected and for the handling a release of native animals

During

construction

Contractor

Overnight management of excavations for native fauna:

• Where possible any open excavations are to be covered

• Where excavations remain open overnight, a thorough search for the presence of native fauna shall be conducted each morning ( within the first 3 hours after sunrise and

prior to the commencement of construction)

• Should construction and inspections cease for a period of 24 hrs or more and excavations remain open, sloped fauna exit points shall be provided no steeper than 2:1

During

construction

Contractor

Protection of aquatic flora and fauna:

• Construction footprint to be defined and clearly identified on site plans. All activities to be contained to the designated construction work zone

• Ensure that all construction works comply with NCCMA guidelines and are undertaken in accordance with relevant Works On Waterways permit

During

construction

Contractor

3 An excavation will be deemed as anything deeper than 0.3 m and greater than 0.25 m2 in area.


R01


Management of weeds, pests and diseases

Weed management:

• Identify weeds in project footprint prior to works based on those known to occur in the project area.

• If weeds are disturbed / removed, appropriately bury weeds on site or at dispose of at a licensed receiving facility.

• Keep to designated access tracks and laydown areas.

• If contact with noxious weeds by any earthmoving plant, equipment and vehicles is unavoidable prior to entering the site, physical removal is required. Complete regular physical clean downs on all machinery i.e. shovel clean-down.

• Vehicle access should be limited to existing access tracks, where possible, and other designated areas, as identified on site plans

• Ensure rock and other materials used for construction purposes is free of soil, seed and plant material before being taken to the work sites and again before being taken from the work sites on completion of the project

• Minimise the movement of soil between work sites

• Practice vehicle hygiene to avoid spread of weeds especially following works in weed contaminated areas. Under the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 (Sect. 71)

a person needs to ensure they maintain vehicle hygiene when moving any equipment or machinery onto or along a roadway. Transport of weeds or weed seeds is an offence

• Soil and spoil must be covered during transport where the load is not considered secure (at the discretion of the super intendent) and disposed of in an approved location. Approval from DELWP is required to dispose of noxious weeds capable of germinating, or to deposit on land noxious weeds or weed seeds, other than in landfill.

• Obtain soil and gravel from weed free sites. A DELWP permit is required to use soil, sand or gravel which could result in th e transfer of noxious weeds

• Dispose of any weeds likely to set seed or re-shoot by burning on-site (subject to fire prevention) or at a designated dump site (cover during transport)

During

construction

Contractor

Pests and Disease Management:

• Minimise the movement of soil between work sites

• Soil and spoil must be covered during transport where the load is not considered secure (at the discretion of the super intendent) and disposed of in an approved location

During

construction

Contractor

Soil and material management

• Before starting works strip the topsoil

• Spoil to be placed in trucks where possible (entering the site by reversing along the nominated excavation footprint) and stockpiled at the agreed location

• Locate soil stockpiles on cleared areas, away from existing embankments, drainage lines, native vegetation, waterways or access roads. Where the stockpile is to be

placed, remove weeds by scalping or spraying

• Do not mix weed free and weedy topsoil

• Install temporary sediment and erosion control measures appropriate for the work site such as sedimentation fences, diversion drains and sediment traps (e. g. sediment traps, sandbags and rock / geofabric). Temporary erosion controls should remain in place until long-term erosion control methods are established and functioning (if

necessary)

• Sediment and erosion control measures should be designed in accordance with GMW EMS (including GMW Environmental Handbook and GMW Environmental Guidelines) and EPA Publications: Best Practice Environmental Management: Environmental Guidelines for Major Construction Sites (EPA Publication 480) and Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution Control (EPA Publication 275)

• Conduct weekly inspections of all sediment and erosion control measures during construction and until reinstatement measures are established. Checks should occur

immediately (i.e. within 24 hrs) after rain events exceeding 5 mm

• In all areas where soil is to be disturbed and reinstated, the topsoil should be scraped and stored separately to all other soil with a separation of no less than 1 m

• Excavated spoil to be reused where possible. Surplus spoil, imported fill and contaminated sediment to be stored and dispose d of appropriately

Pre-construction

and during

construction

Contractor

Surface water and groundwater protection


R01


Surface water protection:

• Minimise the extent to which any soil disturbance occurs as part of site preparation activities and for the storage of plant, equipment and other materials.

• Implement appropriate silt/sediment control measures to prevent input of materials into waterways, drainage lines and channels

• Locate any stockpiles of topsoil and other excavated materials in locations where the potential for input of silt/ sediment into waterways, drainage lines and channels is minimised

• Prevention methods including bunded areas for refuelling of machinery to reduce the risk of contaminants to surface water runoff

• To minimise soil disturbance and erosion, ensure that all construction works comply with EPA publications; Environmental Guidelines for Major Construction Sites (EPA

Publication 480) and Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution Control (EPA Publication 275)

• Construction methods for works on or near waterways will adhere to any approvals granted by North Central CMA for the project

During

construction

Contractor

Groundwater protection:

• Construction footprint will be minimised and therefore there will be minimal groundwater inception and demand for dewatering operations. The period of construction will be short term and localised

• Develop contingency measures with minimal impact on the resource in the event of groundwater interception during construction

• In the unlikely event where groundwater seepage results in a significant volume of water, prepare a groundwater dewatering plan to document minimisation, reuse, monitoring and disposal options

• Prevention methods including bunded areas for refuelling of machinery to reduce the risk of contaminants to groundwater

During

construction

Contractor

Water quality monitoring:

• Water quality monitoring is required to be undertaken during any construction works that have potential to impact water quality

• The Contractor must prepare a water quality monitoring program in accordance with ANZECC guidelines: Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (ANZECC 2000 Guidelines) and/or State Environment Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria) and GMW EMS and procedures

• The water quality monitoring program will also adhere to any approval granted by North Central CMA for the project (i.e. works on waterways permit/s)

Pre-construction

and during

construction

Contractor

Works near waterways

• Pump stations and discharge infrastructure to be located as far as practicable from any levee or waterway embankment to minimise disturbance to the riparian zone

• Sediment control devices must not impede fish passage past the work site

• Construction methods for works near or in waterways will adhere to any approval granted by North Central CMA for the project

Contaminated soils

• The potential discovery of contaminated soils will be minimised through shallow excavation, trenching and directional drilling. Any contaminated soil detected will be appropriately managed and disposed of in line with Environment Protection (Industrial Waste Resource) Regulations 2009, EPA Industrial Waste Guidelines and other EPA guidelines

• Soil contaminated with asbestos and asbestos containing products will be appropriately managed and disposed of in accordance with GMW EMS and procedures (including P15 Asbestos and Asbestos Containing Products)

• The storage of plant, equipment and other materials should be limited to designated areas

During

construction

Contractor

Dust and air quality

• Minimise the extent of the work site required to be stripped at any one time

• Complete site stripping when potential for dust generation is low; if not viable implement appropriate dust suppression measures

• Implement appropriate dust suppression measures such as applying water or crushed rocks as required; instigating speed limit for construction vehicles on unsealed

roads.

• Reduce intensity of construction works if dust generation is becoming problematic

• Stockpile slopes should be no greater than 2:1, unless covered with geotextile or revegetated

During

construction

Contractor

http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/Domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/PubStatbook.nsf/93eb987ebadd283dca256e92000e4069/64699A473AD57F7BCA2575E500198723/$FILE/09-077sr.pdf


R01


• Implement appropriate measures to minimise visible emissions from vehicles and machinery, consistent with EPA publication: Environmental Guidelines for Major Construction Sites (EPA Publication 480)

Noise and vibration

• Before work begins consult with affected landowners and/or occupiers to inform them of the project schedule and project contact details including 24-hour contact details

• Notify nearby residences of any planned and unavoidable out of hours works five days in advance

• Implement appropriate measures to minimise noise consistent with EPA publications; Noise Control Guidelines (EPA Publication 1254,) and Environmental Guidelines for Major Construction Sites (EPA Publication 480)

• All construction plant and equipment used on the works must, in addition to other requirements, be:

fitted with properly maintained noise suppression devices in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations

be maintained in an efficient condition

operated in a proper and efficient manner

Pre-construction

and during

construction

Contractor

Heritage management

• Implement any conditions, recommendations and any contingency measures contained within the project Cultural Heritage Management Plan (to be developed when project is approved)

Pre-construction

and during

construction

Contractor

Waste management

• A suitable waste collection and recycling system with appropriate signage shall be implemented to ensure adequate facilities are available on-site to minimise the amount of the waste being disposed to landfill and to prevent litter generation

• Any waste concrete is to removed and disposed off- site.

• Litter inspections shall be conducted regularly and action taken to remove litter where identified

• Portable toilets shall be maintained by a specialised Contractor(s) to minimise leaks and spills to the environment

• Prescribed waste shall be removed from the construction site on a progressive basis and not allowed to stockpile unduly

Pre-construction

and during

construction

Contractor

Storage and handling of chemicals and fuels

Storage of chemicals and fuels:

• Determine classification of materials and clearly label substances before bringing on site

• Maintain on site a register of hazardous materials used/stored on site, including Material Safety Data Sheets

• Any fuel, oil and chemicals on site shall be located away from waterway areas

• No bulk chemicals, fuels or oils are to be stored on site

• Storage on site of small quantities required for small tools and equipment is acceptable so long as it is contained within a mobile, aboveground spill containment unit

• Minimise the quantity of fuel and chemicals present on site at all times by only bringing materials specifically required on site

• Maintain bunds, and vandal prevention systems around any storage units to standards specified in the EPA publication: Bunding Guidelines (EPA Publication 347)

• Designated construction equipment wash down and refuelling areas should contain sufficient bunding and contamination control measures to prevent spills entering waterways

• Vehicles and equipment is to be checked daily to ensure there are no oil, fuel or other liquids leaking

Pre-construction

and during

construction

Contractor

Refuelling:

• All personnel responsible for refuelling machinery on work sites are to be trained in the re-fuelling protocols and spill response procedures prior to commencing work on site

• Refuelling shall not take place within 30 m of a drainage line, waterway other sensitive area (where practical)

Pre-construction

and during

construction

Contractor


R01


• The person responsible for refuelling shall be in direct control of the fuelling operation at all times. Under no circumstances is the refuelling allowed to occur unattended

• During refuelling a portable tray is to be used to prevent on-ground spill if there is no designated bunded refuelling area

Spill response:

• Induction materials to contain spill response information (location of spill kits & how to clean up spills) for all personnel

• Hydrocarbon spill kits are to be present on site at all times and easily accessible. Personnel are to be trained in the use of spill kits

• Immediately contain and clean up any fuel or chemical spills and report them to the contract supervisor at GMW (who is to report them to the land manager)

• All spills or leaks of fuels or chemicals are to be cleaned up and the site remediated to original condition

Pre-construction

and during

construction

Contractor

Hazardous waste material:

• Asbestos or other hazardous waste detected on site will be appropriately managed and disposed of in line with Environment Protection (Industrial Waste Resource) Regulations 2009, EPA Industrial Waste Guidelines and other EPA guidelines

• Asbestos and asbestos containing products will be appropriately managed and disposed of in accordance with GMW EMS and procedures (including P15 Asbestos and Asbestos Containing Products)

Pre-construction

and during

construction

Contractor

Fire management

• No fires shall be lit in the open

• Provide firefighting equipment, as required, to ensure the safety of people, property and the environment

• Obey fire restrictions. No cutting, welding, grinding or other activities likely to generate fires may be undertaken in the open on “total fire ban” days

• When there is a risk of fire being caused by “hot work” (such as welding) ensure that all personnel are adequately trained with regard to fire prevention, safety and basic

firefighting skills. All such personnel and vehicles involved in such activities shall be adequately equipped with firefighting equipment and safety gear

Pre-construction,

during

construction and

post-construction

Contractor

Public safety and amenity

Traffic Management:

• A Traffic Management Plan including but not limited to the following:

Location of tracks to be used

Vehicle exclusion zones (cultural, environmental and the existence of existing infrastructure may determine these areas)

Location of refuelling and vehicle maintenance

Management of weeds and pathogens (wash down areas)

Timing and location of road/track closures and type and location of signage for closures.

Management of tracks for dust suppression and inclement weather

Safety (Registration and roadworthy of vehicles, seatbelts, etc.)

Communications of the Traffic Management Plan to all those on site

• The Traffic Management Plan must be prepared in accordance with the Road Management Act 2004 and in consultation with Swan Hill Rural City Council (evidence of this consultation must form part of the plan). The plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced traffic engineer

• Site access points and roads are to be located so as to minimise the impact on nearby residences, cultural heritage sites and flora and fauna habitat

• Vehicle access should be limited to existing access tracks, where possible, and other designated areas, as identified on site plans

• Following heavy rainfall, the contractor will consult with Parks Victoria regarding the trafficability of roads and tracks and schedule for recommencing work. In addition:

No new tracks around boggy areas are permitted.

No new drainage lines or cut off drains are to be constructed.

Blading off wet material on the tracks resulting in (1) windrows on the outer edge and (2) widening of the track is not permi tted.

Pre-construction

and during

construction

Contractor


R01


Public management: • Public prohibited from entering work sites, unless wearing suitable personal protection equipment and accompanied by a senior staff member. Appropriate signage to be

erected at site offices

Pre-construction,

during

construction

Contractor

Public management:

• Before work begins consult with affected landowners and/or occupiers to inform them of the project schedule, project contact details, including out of hours contacts, access requirements, etc.

Pre-construction Contractor

Site reinstatement

• Reinstate/rehabilitate disturbed areas as soon as possible

• Areas where vegetation has been removed from roads, Crown land, private land or otherwise disturbed will be top soiled in acc ordance with what existed prior to construction

Pre-construction

and during

construction

Contractor

Documents

Third Reedy Lake Bypass Project - Planning · 2018. 1. 15. · Third Reedy Lake is a 250 hectare wetland, located approximately ten kilometres north-west of Kerang. The area occupied