Justin Brookes presents a seminar from the second Water Wednesday entitled "Potential benefits and impacts of the proposed Chowilla Regulator." Justin Brookes is the Director of the Water Research Centre with The Environment Institute at The University of Adelaide.

1. The Environment Institute
Water Research Centre
Water Wednesday
Managing the Murray Icon Sites:
can engineering save the environment

2. Environment Institute
Water Research Centre
Potential benefits and impacts of the
proposed Chowilla Regulator
Assoc. Prof. Justin Brookes

3. Chowilla

4. The current situation

5. The consequences

7. Droughts should be perturbations in
otherwise sustainable systems
They should not be catastrophic

8. What is the objective
Provide water to the floodplain in a way that
creates a mosaic of quality habitats,
returns resources to the river, waters
vegetation and ensures resilience during
periods of low flow
Pump
Environmental Water Allocation
Regulator construction

10. Environmental Watering Sites 2004 – 2009
Also many km of creek fringes during Sept 2005
(15,000Ml/day flow increase and 15cm weir pool raising)

11. CHOWILLA FLOODPLAIN
Propping up ecosystems
Chowilla Horseshoe pre- and post-watering.

12. What are the options for Chowilla
• Brookes et al 2006
the construction and operation of an
environmental regulator on Chowilla Creek to
artificially inundate a large portion of the
Chowilla floodplain was the only option
considered that came close to halting the
decline of Chowilla floodplain ecosystem
But urged caution and rigorous risk assessments

13. A regulator

14. Natural inundation at 10,000 ML/day

15. Area inundated with regulator at 10,000 ML/day
9559 ha

16. Regulator
120000 Recorded Flow to SA
100000 Simulated Inundation Extent w ith
Regulator
80000
Flow
60000
40000
20000
0
3/1/77
3/1/78
3/1/79
3/1/80
3/1/81
3/1/82
3/1/83
3/1/84
3/1/85
3/1/86
3/1/87
3/1/88
3/1/89
3/1/90
3/1/91
3/1/92
3/1/93
3/1/94
3/1/95
3/1/96
3/1/97
3/1/98
3/1/99
3/1/00
3/1/01
3/1/02
3/1/03
3/1/04
3/1/05
Year
The regulator would be operated for 3 months every 3 years
Otherwise totally transparent

17. Risk Assessments
• Consideration of events & regime
• Floodplain salinisation
• Vegetation condition
• Weeds
• Algae
• Water Quality
• Geomorphology
• Frogs
• Fish
• Birds

18. Vegetation – modelling results
Area Dead Dead Poor Poor Good Good
Vegetation (ha) (ha) (%) (ha) (%) (ha) (%)
2007 Red Gum 3,530 653 19% 1,019 29% 1,858 52%
Black Box 4,689 1,106 24% 2,821 60% 762 16%
Understorey 9,452 9,452 100% 0 0%
2037 Red Gum 3,530 892 25% 957 27% 1,681 48%
Do-nothing Black Box 4,689 1,551 33% 2,503 53% 635 14%
Understorey 9,452 9,452 100% 0 0%
2037 Red Gum 3,476 302 9% 537 15% 2,637 76%
Regulator Black Box 4,589 1,100 24% 2,104 46% 1,385 30%
Understorey 9,452 6,388 68% 3,064 32%
17,517

19. River Red Gum response to environmental watering
• While the majority of trees respond to watering they do not
fully recover until a second or third watering
•River Red Gums have exhibited a significant increase in
canopy cover following a second watering
•A significant fraction of trees that respond to the initial
watering, but do not receive a second watering can be
expected to die

20. Painted Frog Peron’s Tree Frog
Southern Bell Frog – EPBC Spotted Marsh Frog
Act listed
20

21. Summary
• Regulator will benefit frog species
• Improve connectivity between wetlands
• Improved habitat conditions (increased habitat
diversity)
• Increased breeding opportunities
• Risk of increase in Common Carp
• No major or significant impacts due to the regulator
Long-thumbed Frog Eastern Banjo Frog

22. Fish in Chowilla system
Key features
• small-bodied species abundant
• callop and cod population – associated with fast-flowing habitats
Threatened species
• healthy Murray cod population
- high abundance
- a range of length (age) classes (not in the main stem)
• silver perch present
• catfish present
• Murray hardyhead recorded
Non-native species
• carp abundant

23. Summary
• Using the Chowilla Regulator to simulate floods on the Chowilla Floodplain
with low inflows (e.g 10,000 ML/d)
 directly benefits some small-bodied native fish species and bony herring
 would not benefit Murray cod, silver perch, callop or freshwater catfish
• periodic reduction in fast flowing habitat
 benefits non-native species (carp)
with high inflows (e.g 30,000 ML/d)
 would minimise all risks
 benefits small-bodied fish and possibly callop but Murray cod passage
remains an issue
 benefits non-native species (carp)

24. Summary
• Using the Chowilla Regulator to simulate floods on the Chowilla Floodplain
with low inflows (e.g 10,000 ML/d) and low regulator height
 directly benefits some small-bodied native fish species and bony herring
 would not benefit Murray cod, silver perch, callop or freshwater catfish
• with frequent use of the regulator these species
are very likely to decline to some extent
 benefits non-native species (carp)
 potentially maintains fast-flowing habitats
• less adult Murray cod would leave the system
• Murray cod may continue to spawn at similar to present levels
• Larval mortality and recruitment could be less
 Murray cod passage remains an issue

25. Birds
In general birds will benefit
Ground-foragers
– determined by abundance of
terrestrial arthropods + suitable
microhabitats
Terrestrial birds
– Greater tree health and canopy
support higher diversity of
herbivores – support a broader
range of bird species
Need to replace large trees that have
breeding hollows

26. Cyanobacterial Risk
• The major risk from cyanobacteria in the River is
taste and odours entering the potable supply
• Cyanobacteria restricted to the wetlands are of
little consequence
– Short-lived and little impact
• The major risk is from cyanobacteria is return
flows to river

27. Flow
• Flow > 10000ML/day in river channel
maintains mixed conditions and
cyanobacteria are selected against

28. Summary Assessment
• Do nothing is unacceptable
• Significant benefit can be achieved
• Most objectives & targets can be achieved
• Risks need to be managed by maintaining flows
• Further assessment of fish (large bodied) in
progress – uncertainty remains
• Detailed planning, extensive monitoring and caution
essential

29. Should we proceed to construction?
• On balance weighing up risks and benefits
– YES
• To not act and maintain this unique region
would be irresponsible
• Do we want more regulators in the river?
– NO but we need to be pragmatic
– Water is limited and we need to maximise
ecological benefits

30. Adaptive management
This proposal has no precedent in Australia,
and the outcomes cannot be predicted
with certainty.
It is necessary to ‘learn by doing’
Imperative that a comprehensive,
scientifically rigorous monitoring program
is maintained, and that the data and
conclusions are subject to critical review.

31. River operation
• The regulator facilitates floodplain inundation but
the ecological benefits comes with prudent
operation
– Define objectives of each regulator use
– Monitor responses closely
– Manage risks
– Winter inundation to avoid carp spawning,
cyanobacteria, blackwater problems
• River planning also needs to determine a
volume of water to maintain ecological assets