An assessment of the research requirements to support effective provision of environmental water allocation in the South Australian Murray-Darling Basin: A summary of research recommendations

Full text

An assessment of the research requirements to support
effective provision of environmental water allocation in the
South Australian Murray-Darling Basin:
A summary of research recommendations
Kilsby NN, Bice CM, Aldridge KA, Furst D, Hemming S, Maxwell S, Nicol J, Oliver R, Rigney D,
Rogers D, Turner R, Szemis JA, Wallace T and Zampatti BP
Goyder Institute for Water Research
Technical Report Series No. 14/25
www.goyderinstitute.org

Lower River Murray Research Requirements i | P a g e
Goyder Institute for Water Research Technical Report Series ISSN: 1839-2725
The Goyder Institute for Water Research is a partnership between the South Australian Government
through the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, CSIRO, Flinders University,
the University of Adelaide and the University of South Australia. The Institute will enhance the South
Australian Government’s capacity to develop and deliver science-based policy solutions in water
management. It brings together the best scientists and researchers across Australia to provide
expert and independent scientific advice to inform good government water policy and identify
future threats and opportunities to water security.
The following Associate organisations contributed to this report:
Enquires should be addressed to: Goyder Institute for Water Research
Level 1, Torrens Building
220 Victoria Square, Adelaide, SA, 5000
tel: 08-8303 8952
e-mail: enquiries@goyderinstitute.org
Citation
Kilsby NN, Bice CM, Aldridge KA, Furst D, Hemming S, Maxwell S, Nicol J, Oliver R, Rigney D, Rogers
D, Turner R, Szemis JA, Wallace T and Zampatti BP 2014, An assessment of the research requirements
to support effective provision of environmental water allocation in the South Australian Murray-
Darling Basin: Part 4 – A synthesis of research recommendations, Goyder Institute for Water
Research Technical Report Series No. 14/25, Adelaide, South Australia.
Copyright
© 2014 University of Adelaide. To the extent permitted by law, all rights are reserved and no part of
this publication covered by copyright may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means
except with the written permission of University of Adelaide.
Disclaimer
The Participants advise that the information contained in this publication comprises general
statements based on scientific research and does not warrant or represent the completeness of any
information or material in this publication.

Lower River Murray Research Requirements ii | P a g e
Contents
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................. v
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 1
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 3
2 Part One: Decision processes associated with planning and delivery of environmental water ..... 4
2.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................. 4
2.2 Current processes and models................................................................................................ 4
2.2.1 The Murray-Darling Basin Plan ....................................................................................... 4
2.2.2 Key sources and planning ............................................................................................... 4
2.2.3 Hydrological, hydraulic, groundwater and ecosystem response models ....................... 7
2.3 Decision flow charts ................................................................................................................ 8
2.3.1 Steps 1-4 – long term planning ....................................................................................... 8
2.3.2 Step 5-6 – annual planning ........................................................................................... 10
2.3.3 Steps 7-12 – event management .................................................................................. 11
2.4 Research recommendations ................................................................................................. 12
3 Part Two: Hydro-ecological conceptual models ........................................................................... 13
3.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................... 13
3.2 Hydro-ecological models ....................................................................................................... 13
3.2.1 Model development ...................................................................................................... 13
3.2.2 Models .......................................................................................................................... 15
3.3 Research recommendations ................................................................................................. 28
3.3.1 Overview ....................................................................................................................... 28
3.3.2 Management implications and future research ........................................................... 28
4 Part Three: Indigenous engagement framework .......................................................................... 30
4.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................... 30
4.1.1 Kungun Ngarrindjeri Yunnan Agreement ...................................................................... 30
4.1.2 Decision flow chart linkages .......................................................................................... 32
4.2 Further work ......................................................................................................................... 32
5 Future research ............................................................................................................................. 34
6 References .................................................................................................................................... 36

Lower River Murray Research Requirements iii | P a g e
List of Figures
Figure 2-1 Basin and catchment-scale planning for environmental water supply and demand (CEWO,
2013) ....................................................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 2-2 Flow to the SA border 2012-13 by source (MDBA, 2013a). At any time QSA can comprise a
number of sources; for example, in November 2012 QSA comprises flow from a CEWH Murray trade,
a TLM Murray/Darling trade, TLM Murrumbidgee, CEWH Goulburn, TLM Goulburn, Additional
Dilution Flows (ADF) and entitlement flow. ........................................................................................... 6
Figure 2-3 Sketch of main flow sources, approximate travel times and key infrastructure for flow
upstream of the South Australian border. .............................................................................................. 7
Figure 2-4 Simulated decision flow chart for specifying river components. Blue boxes = primary task,
green boxes = inputs, orange boxes = outputs. ...................................................................................... 9
Figure 2-5 Simulated decision flow chart for describing the range of potential management actions.
Blue boxes = primary task, green boxes = inputs, orange boxes = outputs. .......................................... 9
Figure 2-6 Simulated decision flow chart for developing monitoring programs. Blue boxes = primary
task, green boxes = inputs, orange boxes = outputs. ........................................................................... 10
Figure 2-7 Simulated decision flow chart for assessing Ecological Condition and determining if action
is warranted. Blue boxes = primary task, green boxes = inputs, orange boxes = outputs. ................. 10
Figure 2-8 Simulated decision flow chart for determining management actions that could be
implemented in the water year. Blue boxes = primary task, green boxes = inputs, orange boxes =
outputs. ................................................................................................................................................. 11
Figure 2-9 Simulated decision flow chart for determining management actions that could be
implemented in the water year. Blue boxes = primary task, green boxes = inputs, orange boxes =
outputs. ................................................................................................................................................. 11
Figure 3-1 Sketch diagram of different flow bands considered overlaid on river geomorphology
(MDBA, 2011). ....................................................................................................................................... 14
Figure 3-2 Synthesis diagram of hydro-ecological models for flows of 3,000 ML.day-1 in the ‘lower
River Murray channel and floodplain’. Select vegetation symbols courtesy of the Integration and
Application Network (ian.umces.edu/symbols). .................................................................................. 16
Figure 3-4 Synthesis diagram of hydro-ecological models for flows of 7,000 ML.day-1 in the ‘lower
River Murray channel and floodplain’. Select vegetation symbols courtesy of the Integration and
Application Network (ian.umces.edu/symbols). .................................................................................. 17
Figure 3-6 Synthesis diagram of hydro-ecological models for flows of 20,000 ML.day-1 in the ‘lower
River Murray channel and floodplain’. Select vegetation symbols courtesy of the Integration and
Application Network (ian.umces.edu/symbols). .................................................................................. 18
Figure 3-8 Synthesis diagram of hydro-ecological models for flows of 40,000 ML.day-1 in the ‘lower
River Murray channel and floodplain’. Select vegetation symbols courtesy of the Integration and
Application Network (ian.umces.edu/symbols). .................................................................................. 19
Figure 3-10 Synthesis diagram of hydro-ecological models for flows of 60,000 ML.day-1 in the ‘lower
River Murray channel and floodplain’. Select vegetation symbols courtesy of the Integration and
Application Network (ian.umces.edu/symbols). .................................................................................. 20
Figure 3-12 Synthesis diagram of hydro-ecological models for flows of 80,000 ML.day-1 in the ‘lower
River Murray channel and floodplain’. Select vegetation symbols courtesy of the Integration and
Application Network (ian.umces.edu/symbols). .................................................................................. 21

Lower River Murray Research Requirements iv | P a g e
Figure 3-3 Synthesis diagram of hydro-ecological models for flows of 3,000 ML.day-1 in the ‘Lower
Lakes and Coorong’. Select vegetation symbols courtesy of the Integration and Application Network
(ian.umces.edu/symbols). ..................................................................................................................... 22
Figure 3-5 Synthesis diagram of hydro-ecological models for flows of 7,000 ML.day-1 in the ‘Lower
Lakes and Coorong’. Select vegetation symbols courtesy of the Integration and Application Network
(ian.umces.edu/symbols). ..................................................................................................................... 23
Figure 3-7 Synthesis diagram of hydro-ecological models for flows of 20,000 ML.day-1 in the ‘Lower
Lakes and Coorong’. Select vegetation symbols courtesy of the Integration and Application Network
(ian.umces.edu/symbols). ..................................................................................................................... 24
Figure 3-9 Synthesis diagram of hydro-ecological models for flows of 40,000 ML.day-1 in the ‘Lower
Lakes and Coorong’. Select vegetation symbols courtesy of the Integration and Application Network
(ian.umces.edu/symbols). ..................................................................................................................... 25
Figure 3-11 Synthesis diagram of hydro-ecological models for flows of 60,000 ML.day-1 in the ‘Lower
Lakes and Coorong’. Select vegetation symbols courtesy of the Integration and Application Network
(ian.umces.edu/symbols). ..................................................................................................................... 26
Figure 3-13 Synthesis diagram of hydro-ecological models for flows of 80,000 ML.day-1 in the ‘Lower
Lakes and Coorong’. Select vegetation symbols courtesy of the Integration and Application Network
(ian.umces.edu/symbols). ..................................................................................................................... 27
List of Tables
Table 2-1 Categorisation of research requirements. ............................................................................ 12
Table 3-1 ‘Certainty’ scoring system used to define confidence in predictive statements of response
to flow in the hydro-ecological conceptual models. ............................................................................. 14
Table 3-2 Summary of the number of knowledge gaps identified as priorities for future research in
relation to each ecosystem component and ecological/biological theme ........................................... 28

Lower River Murray Research Requirements v | P a g e
Acknowledgements
This project was funded by the Goyder Institute for Water Research with in-kind contributions from
participant research organisations including the South Australian Research and Development
Institute (SARDI), University of Adelaide and Commonwealth Science and Industrial Research
Organisation (CSIRO) Land and Water, and the South Australian Department of Environment, Water
and Natural Resources (DEWNR). Thank you to Michele Akeroyd for overseeing the project and the
project working group – Tumi Bjornsson, Tony Herbert, Jason Higham, Daniel Rogers, Adrienne
Rumbelow, Tracey Steggles and Rebecca Turner (all DEWNR). Thanks also to Marion Peters for
assisting with management and financial reporting.
Special thanks go to Keith Walker and Qifeng Ye for reviewing this report and providing constructive
feedback.

Lower River Murray Research Requirements 1 | P a g e
Executive Summary
The ecological outcomes of the Murray-Darling Basin (MDB) Plan (the Basin Plan) will depend upon the
effective provision of environmental water (e-water), which is also likely to enhance the indigenous values
of the MDB. As part of the Basin Plan, South Australia’s Department of Environment, Water and Natural
Resources (DEWNR) is required to develop a Long-Term Watering Plan and annual priorities for e-water, to
be considered during e-water allocation planning by e-water holders. However, because climatic and
hydrological conditions continuously change, real-time management decisions are also required. To be
effective, all three levels of decision making (long-term and annual planning, and delivery) must be
underpinned by the best available science, with a capacity to incorporate new knowledge.
The general aim of this project has been to identify future research required to support decisions
regarding the allocation and delivery of e-water in the SA MDB, including riverine, floodplain (wetland and
woodland) habitats and the Coorong and Lower Lakes. This has been achieved by focussing on three core
aspects:
 PART ONE: An overview of decision processes and information gaps. This part provided an overview of
e-water planning and delivery to provide a context for the science. Identification of research
requirements was achieved through development of a decision flow chart.
 PART TWO: Identifying key knowledge gaps in current ecological understanding of flow-biota
relationships. This part summarised contemporary knowledge of flow-biota relationships as hydro-
ecological conceptual models based on the responses of ecosystem components to different flows.
The consolidated hydro-ecological models allowed identification of research requirements.
 PART THREE: Identifying the key processes for effective Indigenous engagement in environmental
water planning, research and management. This part outlined key processes for effective Indigenous
engagement in environmental water planning, research and management. Future needs were
identified through the initial development of a regional Indigenous engagement framework.
This part (PART FOUR) synthesises the first three reports, providing an overview of the research
requirements to support effective provision of e-water in the SA MDB. These were identified as:
 PART 4-1: Three primary areas were identified:
o Consolidation of ecological data to support: Environmental Water Requirements;
ecological resilience1 periods; and thresholds for management action.
o Development of a Decision Support System.
o Refinement of Monitoring Plans and collection of monitoring data.
 PART 4-2: A total of 71 knowledge gaps (issues of low and very low ‘certainty’) were identified;
most were under the themes of trophic dynamics (40 knowledge gaps) and population dynamics
and community structure (23 knowledge gaps).
 PART 4-3: Continued development and implementation of the Indigenous Engagement Framework
and mechanisms to effectively use indigenous knowledge.
1 Resilience can be defined as “a measure of the persistence of systems and their ability to absorb change and
disturbance and still maintain the same relationship between populations or state variables…” Holling (1973)

Lower River Murray Research Requirements 2 | P a g e
The Goyder Institute for Water Research have developed three initial research projects, that take into
consideration the results of this report (knowledge gaps), management needs and resource availability.
The outcomes of these initial research projects will inform future research requirements, and are expected
to be used for continual refinement of adaptive management actions. The initial research projects are:
 Effective and efficient monitoring of outcomes from watering River Murray floodplains and
wetlands. This project will develop a monitoring framework to establish the direction for
monitoring the SA MDB over the 5 year period of the joint Commonwealth Environmental Water
Holder /state monitoring and beyond. The ability to demonstrate environmental outcomes
achieved through the delivery of the environmental water under the Basin Plan will be a key
measure of success for implementation of the Basin Plan in South Australia. It will also improve
understanding of the implications of management actions, and is a vital step for adaptive
management.
 Investigation of productivity, microbiota community structure and trophic dynamics in the
Coorong estuary in relation to low volume freshwater discharge. This project aims to elucidate the
role of low-volume (<10,000 ML.day-1) freshwater flow in subsidising trophic webs in the Coorong.
The objective of the project is to provide empirical data, which will form a quantitative basis to
inform/justify the provision of environmental water to the Coorong. Specifically, in relation to
low-volume freshwater discharge to the Coorong in 2014/15, the project will utilise a range of
techniques and past data, from both drought and high flow periods, to investigate:
o Primary productivity (phytoplankton community structure and biomass);
o Microbiota community structure and abundance;
o The abundance and diet of sandy sprat (Hyperlophus vitattus); and
o Assimilation of organic matter of riverine origin through the trophic web (zooplankton and
sandy sprat) using stable isotope analysis.
 Development of a River Operations Decision Support System for DEWNR River Murray Operations.
This project will provide assistance to planning and real-time decisions through an integrated tool
to inform (i) future management of flow and structures and (ii) risks associated with specific
management actions and possible mitigation actions. It will consider water security, water quality
(dissolved oxygen, algal blooms and salinity), infrastructure operating scenarios, and mitigation
measures at different flows.

Lower River Murray Research Requirements 3 | P a g e
1 Introduction
Environmental flows can be described as the quantity, timing, and quality of water flows required to
sustain freshwater and estuarine ecosystems and the human livelihoods and well-being that depend on
these ecosystems (The Brisbane Declaration, 2007). In practice, they refer to environmental water (e-
water) delivered specifically for the purpose of environmental benefit, including in-channel flows and
floodplain (terrestrial habitats within reach of floods) and wetland inundation.
The ecological outcomes of the Murray-Darling Basin (MDB) Plan (the Basin Plan) are largely dependent
upon the effective provision of e-water. As part of the Basin Plan South Australia’s Department of
Environment, Water and Natural Resources (DEWNR) is required to develop a Long-Term Watering Plan
and annual priorities for e-water, which are considered during e-water allocation planning by e-water
holders. However, because hydrological conditions continuously change, real-time management decisions
are also required. To be effective, all three levels of decision-making (long-term and annual planning, and
delivery) must be underpinned by the best available science, and have the ability to incorporate new
knowledge. Since e-water events are likely to influence multiple sites and because the viability of biotic
populations is often dependent upon multiple sites, it is essential that we have adequate understanding of
the ecological response to flow at the landscape scale in order to inform decisions made at this scale.
The South Australian MDB (SA MDB) has been the focus of much research, but often this information is
not readily available to support decisions about e-water provisions, and is limited to the site scale. There
are also no clear priorities for the future research that is required to improve decision making for effective
e-water provision, or how this could interact with Indigenous values.
This project (An assessment of the research requirements to support effective provisions of environmental
water in the South Australian Murray-Darling Basin) is focussed on the entire SA MDB – including the
riverine, floodplain, wetland habitats and the Coorong and Lower Lakes. The primary aim of this Goyder
project is to identify key research that is required to support decisions regarding the allocation and
delivery of e-water in the SA MDB. This has been achieved by focussing on three core aspects:
 PART ONE: Identifying research requirements to inform the transparent, best science-based
decisions for the effective planning and delivery of e-water. This was achieved through the
development of a decision flow chart (Kilsby et al., 2014).
 PART TWO: Identifying key ecological knowledge gaps in current understanding of flow-biota
relationships. This was achieved through the development of consolidated hydro-ecological
conceptual models (Bice et al., 2014).
 PART THREE: Identifying the key processes for effective Indigenous engagement in environmental
water planning, research and management. This was achieved through the identification of a
developing, regional Indigenous engagement framework (Hemming and Rigney, 2014).
This report (PART FOUR) summarises the previous three parts (sections 2-4), and consolidates the research
recommendations (section 5).

Lower River Murray Research Requirements 4 | P a g e
2 Part One: Decision processes associated with planning and delivery of
environmental water
2.1 Overview
The first section of Part One (An overview of decision processes and information gaps) provides context to
the project by summarising the current processes for allocation and delivery of e-water with the SA MDB,
including the sources of e-water (legislative and physical), long-term and annual planning decision
processes and delivery decisions and arrangements. It also presents a consolidated list of all the
hydrological, hydraulic, groundwater and ecosystem response models that have been used in the SA MDB,
and their advantages and disadvantages. Based on this consolidated information, simulated decision flow
charts were developed to methodically identify key research requirements to inform the transparent, best
science-based decisions for the effective planning and delivery of e-water.
2.2 Current processes and models
2.2.1 The Murray-Darling Basin Plan
The Murray-Darling Basin Authority’s (MDBA) Basin Plan establishes a new framework for managing the
Basin’s water resources, including new roles and responsibilities for the MDBA, the Commonwealth
Government and the Basin States. Several key mechanisms are being used to deliver the Plan, including an
Environmental Watering Plan that will provide a framework for the use of water to achieve key
environmental outcomes. Implementation of the Plan is a key priority within the South Australian
Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources (DEWNR) Corporate Plan.
2.2.2 Key sources and planning
E-water to SA can come from the following sources:
 The Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder (CEWH) was established via the federal Water
Act 2007 to protect environmental assets by managing water in accordance with the Murray-
Darling Basin Plan. Decisions by the CEWH are supported by the Commonwealth Environmental
Water Office (CEWO).
 The Living Murray (TLM) program can deliver e-water to three ‘icon sites’ within SA: Chowilla
Floodplain; the Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth; and, the River Murray Channel. TLM is
overseen by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) but managed within SA by DEWNR.
 The SA Minister for the River Murray currently holds two licences with water that can be used for
environmental purposes: Class 9 wetland water and the SA Environmental Water Holding. ‘Class 9
- wetlands’ water on licence can be used for regulated pool-connected wetlands that have an
accredited Wetland Management Plan. The recently created SA Environmental Water Holding
comprises 6 GL of high reliability entitlement water for environmental purposes, and up to 24 GL
of an ‘Environmental Provision’ if SA receives its full entitlement flow (DEWNR, 2013).
 A number of non-government organisations hold water allocations that can be used for
environmental purposes:
o The Nature Foundation SA (through the Water for Nature initiative) has a five year
agreement (commencing 2013) with the CEWH for allocation of up to 10 GL.year-1 to
deliver community-driven projects. In 2012-13 Water for Nature delivered over 60 ML.

Lower River Murray Research Requirements 5 | P a g e
o Healthy Rivers Australia, The Murray-Darling Foundation (through the Murray-Darling
Association), and The Murray-Darling Wetlands Working Group Ltd also hold, or
potentially have access to, water for environmental purposes.
Under the Basin Plan the MDBA is responsible for the equitable, efficient and sustainable delivery of e-
water throughout the Basin. The MDBA will publish a Basin-wide Environmental Watering Strategy
(anticipated by November 2014), as part of their long-term planning process (MDBA, 2013b). The strategy
is not intended to replace state watering plans, but to complement and guide them on a broader scale.
The MDBA will also set annual e-watering priorities on a Basin-scale, in consultation and collaboration with
state and regional authorities and the CEWH. The relationship between the states, the MDBA and the
CEWO is shown in Figure 2-1. The four main sources of e-water to SA (CEWH, TLM, state and non-
governmental) have slightly different processes of prioritisation and allocation.
Figure 2-1 Basin and catchment-scale planning for environmental water supply and demand (CEWO, 2013)
Figure 2-2 demonstrates how at any one time the water flowing to SA (QSA) may come from a number of
different sources and water holders. For example, at the beginning of October 2012, QSA was almost
50,000 ML.day-1, and comprised ~5,000 ML.day-1 entitlement flow, 3,000 ML.day-1 Additional Dilution
Flows, a small amount of CEWH Murray trade and >40,000 ML.day-1 of unregulated flows.

Lower River Murray Research Requirements 6 | P a g e
Figure 2-2 Flow to the SA border 2012-13 by source (MDBA, 2013a). At any time QSA can comprise a number of sources; for
example, in November 2012 QSA comprises flow from a CEWH Murray trade, a TLM Murray/Darling trade, TLM Murrumbidgee,
CEWH Goulburn, TLM Goulburn, Additional Dilution Flows (ADF) and entitlement flow.
Regulated delivery of water to SA relies on releases from a combination of storages, namely Lake Victoria,
Menindee Lakes, Lake Dartmouth and Lake Hume (Figure 2-3). Other sources include the Murrumbidgee
(Lake Burrinjuck) and Goulburn Rivers (Lake Eildon). Flow travel times and flow rate depend on the source.
During routine operations, outlet flow from the three main storages is limited to approximately 7,000-
9,000 ML.day-1. This limit is driven primarily by channel capacity downstream of the respective storages:
Lake Victoria limited by the capacity of Rufus River; Menindee Lakes (via the Darling River), limited by the
capacity of the Darling River and the commence-to-flow level of the Great Darling Anabranch; and Hume
Dam, limited by the channel capacity at the Barmah Choke. Lake Victoria is the only storage where
releases can be precisely manipulated to achieve targeted flow regimes at the South Australian border.
The upper limit for supplementing regulated and unregulated flows to South Australia (QSA) is currently
considered to be in the range of 10,000 ML.day-1; in general, flow to SA (QSA) may be manipulated by
about 5,000 ML.day-1 with an e-watering action. Actual limits will vary as experience is gained in delivery
of water specifically for environmental outcomes and delivery constraints are further understood and
managed.
The delivery of e-water within SA is carried out primarily by SA Water under instruction from DEWNR.
DEWNR also has capacity to deliver water to some managed wetlands.

Lower River Murray Research Requirements 7 | P a g e
Figure 2-3 Sketch of main flow sources, approximate travel times and key infrastructure for flow upstream of the South
Australian border.
2.2.3 Hydrological, hydraulic, groundwater and ecosystem response models
To aid the e-water allocation and delivery process, a wide range of hydrological, hydraulic, groundwater
and ecosystem response models has been used in the SA MDB:
 Hydrological models use a combination of water resource (e.g. inflow, storage data) and climatic
data (e.g. rainfall, evaporation) to model channel flow and other parameters through time. In
general, hydrological models are used to forecast flow and run scenarios on factors affecting flow,
such as the implications of delivering e-water to one area for another, or for understanding the
range of resource availability scenarios (very dry, dry, moderate, wet, very wet: (MDBA, 2012))
that could occur through the MDB.
 Hydraulic models focus on how water moves through the environment (e.g. depth, velocity,
inundation). They can be used to assess the impacts of management actions such as changing flow
magnitude and weir pool operations of velocity and inundation extent, and are important for
understanding how the biota interact with water.
 Groundwater models generally focus on understanding groundwater-salinity-water quality-
vegetation health interactions that may affect the impacts of management actions.
 Ecosystem response models are generally focussed on an ecosystem indicator and how that
responds or interacts with a physical aspect of water. Ecosystem response models often couple a
physical model with the ecosystem response model, to model a variety of flow scenarios and their
impact on the chosen ecosystem indicator.

Lower River Murray Research Requirements 8 | P a g e
Different models can be used for different aspects of e-water allocation and delivery. Some models may
provide understanding of the environmental water requirements for individual river components, or the
riverine ecosystem as a whole, while other models may provide support to specific decisions around
allocation and delivery. For example, hydrological models can be used to generate hydrological data for
use in assessments of hydrologically-based environmental water requirements (e.g .Overton et al. (2010)),
and hydraulic models may provide information on what vegetation groups are inundated at different flow
rates (e.g. DEWNR (2012)). These models may be suited to understanding environmental water
requirements, whereas other models such as Source (developed by eWater), which can take into account
a number of environmental flow management levers (e.g. upstream releases and wetland regulators), may
be more suited to e-water delivery in real time at a landscape scale.
In many cases, for investigating e-water requirements and logistics surrounding e-water delivery, different
models may be combined.
2.3 Decision flow charts
The information on e-water management and models used within the SA MDB enables the development
of simulated decision flow charts, including identification of potential key information inputs. The purpose
of developing these decision flow charts was for the identification of gaps that could be addressed through
research or data/knowledge consolidation projects. The documentation of processes used to make
transparent, science-based decisions can promote communication between government agencies and
stakeholders, including scientists and the broader community. Any such flow charts should be:
 Scalable (process can be applied to varying spatial and temporal scales)
 Adaptable (readily able to incorporate new information and steps into the framework)
 Repeatable (the process should deliver similar outcomes independent of the user)
Within a planning process that utilises the simulated decision flow charts presented here, Steps 1-4 would
be undertaken as part of the development of a long-term plan, Steps 5-6 in effect represent the annual
planning process, and Steps 7-12 represent the “active” event planning and management process.
2.3.1 Steps 1-4 – long term planning
Long term planning requires consideration of and consolidation of information and processes that do not
change annually, although the steps and outcomes should be regularly reviewed as part of the adaptive
management process. They key processes are:
1. Specify river and/or ecosystem component (e.g. site, function, asset) and scale (Figure 2-4),
2. Describe range of potential management actions (Figure 2-8),
3. Develop monitoring programs (Figure 2-6), and
4. Implement Condition Monitoring component of monitoring programs (Figure 2-6).
The key inputs for the processes are shown in the respective figures.

Lower River Murray Research Requirements 9 | P a g e
Figure 2-4 Simulated decision flow chart for specifying river components. Blue boxes = primary task, green boxes = inputs,
orange boxes = outputs.
Figure 2-5 Simulated decision flow chart for describing the range of potential management actions. Blue boxes = primary task,
green boxes = inputs, orange boxes = outputs.

Lower River Murray Research Requirements 10 | P a g e
Figure 2-6 Simulated decision flow chart for developing monitoring programs. Blue boxes = primary task, green boxes = inputs,
orange boxes = outputs.
2.3.2 Step 5-6 – annual planning
Key tasks of the annual planning process are to assess the current ecological condition against targets and
thresholds for management actions, to determine if action is warranted, and from this develop a priority
list for management action (Figure 2-7). The next step is to determine management actions that could be
implemented within the water year, pending water availability and scenarios (such as Annual Exceedance
Probabilities (AEP), hydrological conditions and seasonal factors, and from this develop an Annual
Watering Plan (Figure 2-8).
Figure 2-7 Simulated decision flow chart for assessing Ecological Condition and determining if action is warranted. Blue boxes =
primary task, green boxes = inputs, orange boxes = outputs.

Lower River Murray Research Requirements 11 | P a g e
Figure 2-8 Simulated decision flow chart for determining management actions that could be implemented in the water year.
Blue boxes = primary task, green boxes = inputs, orange boxes = outputs.
2.3.3 Steps 7-12 – event management
Steps 7-12 outline the processes to implementing management actions, based on real-time conditions
within the Basin (Figure 2-9). The previous steps are based on the completion of the previous steps for
efficient implementation.
Figure 2-9 Simulated decision flow chart for determining management actions that could be implemented in the water year.
Blue boxes = primary task, green boxes = inputs, orange boxes = outputs.
6: Determine management a ctions that could be
impl emented pending water ava ila bility,
hydrol ogical condi tions and season
Pri ori ty Lis t
Event Pla ns
Competing
demands
System cons trai nts
AEP cur ves Water holdi ngs
Cultural water
MDBA (TLM)
State
CEW
NGO
Annual
Watering Plan

Lower River Murray Research Requirements 12 | P a g e
2.4 Research recommendations
The simulated decision flow charts in the previous section provide an overarching perspective on the long
term, annual and event management process. Areas where research can contribute to the decision making
process were categorised as ‘low, moderate or high’ priorities (see criteria in Table 2-1), based on
information in the decision flow charts.
Table 2-1 Categorisation of research requirements.
Priority
Classification
Definition
Low
Current status of information is easily accessible and good quality - a low requirement for research
contribution.
Moderate
There is information available, but it may be unconsolidated, hard to access; from interstate experience
only, or only some information available – there is a moderate requirement for research contribution
High
To improve the quality and accessibility of the science content, this area would benefit from intensive
(high) research contribution.
The following items are regarded as the highest priority for research and/ or consolidation:
 Consolidation of ecological data to support:
o Environmental Water Requirements for river/ecosystem components
o Ecological resilience (Holling, 1973) periods for ecosystem function
o Management thresholds (triggers for management action)
Defining these will reduce the risk of loss of population or long-term damage to ecosystem
function and allow managers to be pro- rather than re-active by providing a means to forecast
condition and support decisions that need to be made regarding distribution of a finite resource.
 Development of a Decision Support System (see section 9.2) that can:
o Predict responses by targeted ecological components (e.g. vegetation, birds, fish, frogs)
o Consolidate relevant hydrological, hydraulic and water quality information on parameters
such as discharge, water level, inundation extent, water velocity, and salinity, for a range
of management actions including:
 weir pool manipulation,
 closing/opening wetland regulators,
 delivery of e-water to manipulate the shape (discharge, timing, duration, rate of
rise and recession) of hydrographs,
 barrage releases
o Compare management options if desired flow metrics can only be partially met
o Support refinement and expansion of the existing Integrated Operating Schedule that has
been developed for DEWNR Riverine Recovery Plan RRP wetlands from the border to
Wellington, to include (i) weir pool manipulation, (ii) environmental flow provisions, (iii)
floodplain scale regulators (Chowilla, Pike, Katarapko) any other management actions that
can be integrated at the reach scale to improve ecological outcomes
 Refinement of Monitoring Plans and collection of monitoring data. Monitoring plans are required
to assess ecological condition and determine if management action is required. They can also
underpin the adaptive management cycle, and be used to ensure conceptual models are up to
date
In addition, a set of guiding Ecological Principles for the allocation and delivery and e-water in the SA MDB
(part of step 2) could be developed to guide management actions when there may be conflicting
objectives and limited resources.

Lower River Murray Research Requirements 13 | P a g e
3 Part Two: Hydro-ecological conceptual models
3.1 Overview
Part Two (Development of hydro-ecological conceptual models and identification of knowledge gaps in
current understanding of flow‒biota relationships) of this project (i) summarises contemporary knowledge
of flow-biota relationships within the SA MDB, through the development of hydro-ecological conceptual
models, and (ii) uses these models to identify key knowledge gaps. The conceptual models developed
summarise the response of a range of different ecosystem components to different flows. Ecosystem
components considered as part of the project were: 1) nutrients, carbon, biofilms and microbes, 2)
microbiota, 3) vegetation, 4) macroinvertebrates, 5) frogs, 6) fish and 7) birds. In developing the
conceptual models, the level of certainty associated with the anticipated ecological response to flow was
assessed. The responses with low levels of certainty were assessed as key information gaps.
Documented conceptual models are an essential basis of the draft decision flow charts described in Part
One of this project (see section 2 of this report), and the underlying science is used explicitly in steps 1, 2
and 3 (Figure 2-4, Figure 2-5 and Figure 2-6 respectively) – both part of the long term planning process.
3.2 Hydro-ecological models
3.2.1 Model development
Development of conceptual models followed a ‘flow band’ approach, in line with contemporary
approaches adopted by agencies involved in the management of e-water in the MDB (i.e. the MDBA and
CEWO). Conceptual models of response were developed for each ecosystem component for flows
representative of the following flow bands in the lower River Murray (Figure 3-1):
1) winter entitlement (~3,000 ML.day-1)
2) summer entitlement (~7,000 ML.day-1)
3) ‘freshes’ (~20,000 ML.day-1)
4) ‘bankfull’ (~40,000 ML.day-1)
5) ‘small overbank’ (~60,000 ML.day-1)
6) ‘large overbank’ (~80,000 ML.day-1)
Environmental conditions (i.e. within channel hydraulics, water level, inundation and salinity, as
appropriate) under each of the flow bands were described for two distinct regions of the SA MDB: 1) ‘The
lower River Murray channel and floodplain’ from the state border downstream to Wellington (this includes
all habitats – both instream and floodplain – below the 1956 flood level) and 2) ‘The Lower Lakes and
Coorong’: from Wellington to the Murray Mouth, including the Coorong lagoons. Conceptual models of
ecological response were developed for both regions.

Lower River Murray Research Requirements 14 | P a g e
Figure 3-1 Sketch diagram of different flow bands considered overlaid on river geomorphology (MDBA, 2011). Winter and
summer entitilement flows in the current project are representative of ‘base flow’ in the above diagram.
Experts were then asked to use the hydrologic/environmental information provided and their
understanding of the ecology of their assigned ecosystem components (using a provided compilation of
previous reviews of ecological response to flow, other relevant contemporary literature, expert opinion
and consultation with peers) to develop hydro-ecological conceptual models regarding patterns and
processes likely to occur at each of the proposed flow bands. Conceptual models were developed in the
form of statements or predictions of ecological patterns and processes that would occur under given flow
scenarios. Each statement was allocated a certainty score to reflect the level of confidence in that
prediction, as described in Table 3-1 . Assigning a measure of certainty to predictions of ecological
patterns and processes in relation to flow variability is vital for to determining knowledge gaps in
conceptual understanding. The conceptual models provided by each expert were then simplified and
synthesised as diagrams showing key patterns and processes occurring at each flow band.
Table 3-1 ‘Certainty’ scoring system used to define confidence in predictive statements of response to flow in the hydro-
ecological conceptual models.
Score
Class
Description
1
Very Uncertain
No available data. Expert opinion. Diverse views/conceptual understanding
2
Uncertain
No available data. Expert opinion. Strong consensus on conceptual understanding
3
Moderately Certain
Supported by indirect, observational or limited scientific data
4
Very Certain
Supported by direct or abundant scientific data. Published peer-reviewed literature
Conceptual models for the various ecosystem components of the SA MDB were developed using the same
general principles. Experts in components with relatively few species (e.g. frogs) typically took an
individual species approach, whilst experts in components with a relatively large number of species (e.g.
vegetation, birds and fish) utilised ‘guild’ approaches, grouping species based on similarities in life
histories, feeding modes, etc. Such an approach assumes that species with similar traits will respond in the
same manner to the same ecological conditions (Growns, 2004). Each ecosystem component a general
description of biology/ecology, and justification for the use of guilds or species approaches. Certain factors
were not considered explicitly in the development of the models, notably antecedent conditions (e.g.
sequences of flows), interactions between biotic groups or the response and impacts of non-native

Lower River Murray Research Requirements 15 | P a g e
species. These factors may have a large bearing on ecological response to flow, but were unable to be
considered due to resource constraints.
3.2.2 Models
Key aspects of the conceptual models were synthesised into diagrams the ‘The lower River Murray
channel and floodplain’ and the ‘Lower Lakes and Coorong’ for each flow band (Figure 3-2 to Figure 3-13).
Note macroinvertebrates aren’t discussed for the Lower Lakes and Coorong.

Lower River Murray Research Requirements 16 | P a g e
Figure 3-2 Synthesis diagram of hydro-ecological models for flows of 3,000 ML.day-1 in the ‘lower River Murray channel and floodplain’. Select vegetation symbols courtesy of the
Integration and Application Network (ian.umces.edu/symbols).

Lower River Murray Research Requirements 17 | P a g e
Figure 3-3 Synthesis diagram of hydro-ecological models for flows of 7,000 ML.day-1 in the ‘lower River Murray channel and floodplain’. Select vegetation symbols courtesy of the
Integration and Application Network (ian.umces.edu/symbols).

Lower River Murray Research Requirements 18 | P a g e
Figure 3-4 Synthesis diagram of hydro-ecological models for flows of 20,000 ML.day-1 in the ‘lower River Murray channel and floodplain’. Select vegetation symbols courtesy of the
Integration and Application Network (ian.umces.edu/symbols).

Lower River Murray Research Requirements 19 | P a g e
Figure 3-5 Synthesis diagram of hydro-ecological models for flows of 40,000 ML.day-1 in the ‘lower River Murray channel and floodplain’. Select vegetation symbols courtesy of the
Integration and Application Network (ian.umces.edu/symbols).

Lower River Murray Research Requirements 20 | P a g e
Figure 3-6 Synthesis diagram of hydro-ecological models for flows of 60,000 ML.day-1 in the ‘lower River Murray channel and floodplain’. Select vegetation symbols courtesy of the
Integration and Application Network (ian.umces.edu/symbols).

Lower River Murray Research Requirements 21 | P a g e
Figure 3-7 Synthesis diagram of hydro-ecological models for flows of 80,000 ML.day-1 in the ‘lower River Murray channel and floodplain’. Select vegetation symbols courtesy of the
Integration and Application Network (ian.umces.edu/symbols).

Lower River Murray Research Requirements 22 | P a g e
Figure 3-8 Synthesis diagram of hydro-ecological models for flows of 3,000 ML.day-1 in the ‘Lower Lakes and Coorong’. Select vegetation symbols courtesy of the Integration and
Application Network (ian.umces.edu/symbols).

Lower River Murray Research Requirements 23 | P a g e
Figure 3-9 Synthesis diagram of hydro-ecological models for flows of 7,000 ML.day-1 in the ‘Lower Lakes and Coorong’. Select vegetation symbols courtesy of the Integration and
Application Network (ian.umces.edu/symbols).

Lower River Murray Research Requirements 24 | P a g e
Figure 3-10 Synthesis diagram of hydro-ecological models for flows of 20,000 ML.day-1 in the ‘Lower Lakes and Coorong’. Select vegetation symbols courtesy of the Integration and
Application Network (ian.umces.edu/symbols).

Lower River Murray Research Requirements 25 | P a g e
Figure 3-11 Synthesis diagram of hydro-ecological models for flows of 40,000 ML.day-1 in the ‘Lower Lakes and Coorong’. Select vegetation symbols courtesy of the Integration and
Application Network (ian.umces.edu/symbols).

Lower River Murray Research Requirements 26 | P a g e
Figure 3-12 Synthesis diagram of hydro-ecological models for flows of 60,000 ML.day-1 in the ‘Lower Lakes and Coorong’. Select vegetation symbols courtesy of the Integration and
Application Network (ian.umces.edu/symbols).

Lower River Murray Research Requirements 27 | P a g e
Figure 3-13 Synthesis diagram of hydro-ecological models for flows of 80,000 ML.day-1 in the ‘Lower Lakes and Coorong’. Select vegetation symbols courtesy of the Integration and
Application Network (ian.umces.edu/symbols).

Lower River Murray Research Requirements 28 | P a g e
3.3 Research recommendations
3.3.1 Overview
In total 71 knowledge gaps (i.e. predictive statements of ecological patterns and processes that were
assigned a ‘very uncertain’ or ‘uncertain’; Table 3-1) were identified for the seven biotic/abiotic
components across six ecological/biological themes (Table 3-2). The greatest numbers of knowledge gaps
were identified under the themes of trophic dynamics (40 knowledge gaps) and population dynamics and
community structure (23 knowledge gaps). Whilst the theme of trophic dynamics is broad, this result
highlights a substantial lack of understanding of diets and trophic pathways, in relation to flow and aquatic
ecosystems in the lower River Murray, and how they might influence the effectiveness of e-watering.
Furthermore, there appears a need for greater understanding of the life history of native biota in relation
to flow. Whilst all knowledge gaps identified represent priorities for future research, the high number of
knowledge gaps of these two general ecological/biological themes highlight their importance.
Table 3-2 Summary of the number of knowledge gaps identified as priorities for future research in relation to each ecosystem
component and ecological/biological theme
Ecological/biological
theme
Biotic/abiotic
component
Trophic
dynamics
Population
dynamics
and
community
structure
Distribution
Condition
Movement
Habitat
use
Total
Nutrients, carbon
33
33
Microbiota
7
7
Vegetation
4
1
1
6
Macroinvertebrates
2
2
Frogs
5
5
Fish
1
6
3
2
12
Waterbirds
1
4
1
6
Total
41
22
1
1
3
3
71
3.3.2 Management implications and future research
Key research questions aligned with both science knowledge gaps and management needs were
developed into the following project recommendations:
 The influence of small-volume increases in flow on primary productivity in the lower River Murray
channel.
 Recruitment dynamics of long-lived floodplain vegetation (i.e. amphibious fluctuation tolerator-
woody group) in relation to antecedent flow conditions.
 The effects of sequential flow events on the recruitment and distribution of river red gums and
black box.
 The effect of short-term inundation history (i.e. duration of inundation, inundation sequences) on
long-lived tree condition and recruitment dynamics of understorey vegetation.
 Duration of metamorphosis in frog species of the lower River Murray and influence of flow
duration and water level recession on egg survival and subsequent recruitment.

Lower River Murray Research Requirements 29 | P a g e
 What flow durations are required to illicit a positive response by flow-cued spawning fish (e.g.
golden perch) in relation to 1) transport into SA from upstream areas and 2) local spawning within
SA?
 Ground-truthing models of extent of inundation. How long does it take for maximum inundation
extent (as predicted by models) to be reached under given flows?
 Multi-site watering—how do QSA peaks relate to flows to the Lower Lakes and Coorong, and to
the longitudinal transport of nutrients, salt, sediment and plant/animal propagules?
 The influence of small-volume increases in flow on primary and secondary productivity in the
Coorong.

Lower River Murray Research Requirements 30 | P a g e
4 Part Three: Indigenous engagement framework
4.1 Overview
Ngarrindjeri Vision for Country
Our Lands, Our Waters, Our People, All Living Things are connected. We implore people
to respect our Ruwe (Country) as it was created in the Kaldowinyeri (the Creation). We
long for sparkling, clean waters, healthy land and people and all living things. We long
for the Yarluwar-Ruwe (Sea Country) of our ancestors. Our vision is all people Caring,
Sharing, Knowing and Respecting the lands, the waters and all living things.
(Ngarrindjeri Nation in MDBA (2014))
The Ngarrindjeri ‘Vision for Country’ encapsulates the Ngarrindjeri philosophy of being (Ruwe/Ruwar) at
the centre of Ngarrindjeri innovations in Natural Resource Management (NRM), Cultural Heritage
Management (CHM) and water management.
In South Australia, there are currently two different processes in place for indigenous engagement. The
Ngarrindjeri & Others Native Title Management Committee (NNTMC) is responsible for a Native Title Claim
that includes the River Murray to just north of Murray Bridge. The Ngarrindjeri Regional Authority (NRA) is
the peak regional Indigenous body represents the Ngarrindjeri Nation, including the Lower Lakes and
Coorong, the NNTMC, and the River Murray to Morgan through another member organisation – the
Mannum Aboriginal Community Association Inc. (MACAI). The NRA have developed a new form of
engagement - the contract law, Kungun Ngarrindjeri Yunnan Agreement (listen to what Ngarrindjeri have
to say - KNYA) strategy (discussed in more detail later).
The First Peoples of the River Murray and Mallee (FPRMM) have a consent determination applying to
lands and waters of the Upper Murray, including the Riverland, in South Australia The River Murray and
Mallee Aboriginal Corporation (RMMAC) is the native title representative body for the First Peoples of the
River Murray and Mallee Native Title Claim and the River Murray Indigenous Land Use Agreement (ILUA)
that has emerged from this claim. The FPRMM native title claim was first submitted as a Ngarrindjeri
claim, and was re-named during the late 1990s native title re-registration phase. Many members of the
Ngarrindjeri Regional Authority are FPRMM native title holders.
4.1.1 Kungun Ngarrindjeri Yunnan Agreement
An Indigenous-led innovative model for engagement between Indigenous people and the State has been
established in the SAMDB region. It is centred on what is characterised in Australia as Indigenous ‘Caring
for Country’ activities - a regime that addresses Indigenous rights, responsibilities and interests in their
lands and waters. The Ngarrindjeri Yarluwar-Ruwe (Sea Country – all Ngarrindjeri lands and waters) model
treats ‘Caring for Country’ as a holistic, nation-building project designed to create a healthy future. The
NRA has identified ‘caring for our people, lands, waters and all living things’ as a guiding principle for their
goals as the peak body for the Ngarrindjeri Nation. This unique Indigenous governance model, combined
with the high-level KNYA engagement strategy, provides this part of the MDB with well-developed
structures and practices designed to support just and effective Indigenous engagement in water research,

Lower River Murray Research Requirements 31 | P a g e
policy development and management. Importantly, this re-shaping of the contemporary ‘contact zone’ has
produced opportunities for Ngarrindjeri contributions to water research, policy and planning.
The following provides a basic summary of key elements of the NRA’s strategy for engaging with ‘Caring
for Country’ – a strategy that emphasises the importance of not separating environmental water
management from NRM, CHM and Ngarrindjeri wellbeing:
 KNYA Strategy – contract law used to make formal agreements and frameworks for engagement;
 NRA Yarluwar-Ruwe – building Ngarrindjeri capacity;
 Cultural knowledge protection regime – using clauses in contract law agreements;
 Integrated Natural and Cultural ‘Resource’ Management – Ngarrindjeri Ruwe/Ruwar philosophy of
‘all things connected’;
 Statement of Commitments – using formal SOCs to create frameworks for engagement that
operationalise the KNYA strategy;
 Co-management – working with all interested parties in the development of a KNYA approach to
respectful co-management of Ngarrindjeri lands and waters and all living things;
 Policy and Management Planning Renewal – re-writing policies and management plans to reflect
the commitments made in the KNYA 2009 and an integrated approach based on Ngarrindjeri
Ruwe/Ruwar;
 Ngarrindjeri Character Descriptions: development of Ngarrindjeri character descriptions that serve
as a benchmark for incorporating Ngarrindjeri values and interests and working towards co-
management;
 Indigenous research – Ngarrindjeri to develop and conduct research and to be partners in research
related to Ngarrindjeri Ruwe/Ruwar;
 Native title claim development and negotiation – this process is moving into a consent
determination/negotiation phase;
The KNYA Water Workshop 2014 (DEWNR & NRA 2014), developed in coordination with this project
bought together representatives from Aboriginal nations along the South Australian River Murray
(Murrundi) as well as representatives from State and Commonwealth governments, private industry and
Flinders University. It had the following aims:
1. To consider how better to accommodate Ngarrindjeri interests into water policy and planning;
2. To develop an agreed engagement strategy to implementing relevant parts of the MDB Plan; and
3. To continue the two way capacity building process between Government and Ngarrindjeri, related
to water.
Currently, State government environmental water planning uses a series of decision-making ‘tools’ that
are only beginning to connect with the existing KNYA engagement strategy. It is important that Indigenous
interests, knowledge and perspectives are recognised in these decision-supporting ‘tools’ and are brought
into the context at an early stage. This early engagement is being practiced in the KNYA Taskforce, but is
not reflected in the existing science-based regional models that support government water management.
Using the KNYA strategy it is now possible to support Ngarrindjeri engagements with scientific research
projects that continue the process of increasing non-Indigenous recognition of the value of Ngarrindjeri
knowledge. It is also important for the State Government to support Ngarrindjeri-led ‘environmental’
research that brings scientific research together with Ngarrindjeri research. Collaborative research, where
Indigenous leaders are members of research teams, is the NRA’s preferred model. Indigenous and non-

Lower River Murray Research Requirements 32 | P a g e
Indigenous researchers have recognised that Indigenous capacity is crucial to Indigenous engagement in
NRM and water management. DEWNR is working with the Ngarrindjeri Regional Authority to develop an
overarching agreement to support the input of Indigenous values and knowledge in the development of
Water Resource Plans for the SAM-DB. This work is an extension of the developing Indigenous partnership
with the State of South Australia, emerging from the Kungun Ngarrindjeri Yunnan Agreement (2009).
4.1.2 Decision flow chart linkages
Indigenous engagement can be strengthened through these inclusions in the decision flow charts
presented in section 2.3. More specifically:
 Indigenous targets could be added alongside ecological targets (Step 2 - Figure 2-5, Step 3 - Figure
2-6 and Step 5 - Figure 2-7). The NRA has in the past formally supported SA’s ecological targets in
particular contexts.
 Indigenous guiding principles could be developed and included in guiding principles for use (see
Step 2 - Figure 2-5).
 When assessing the balance of risk and benefit (see Step 2 - Figure 2-5) Indigenous targets, values
and knowledge could be addressed via KNYA, NRA’s Yarluwar-Ruwe program and in response to
State’s requirements to address Aboriginal heritage and native title implications of decisions.
Similarly, they could be addressed when identification of the hazards and respective mitigation
strategies associated with that management action will require Indigenous engagement to
consider impacts.
 In developing and implementing monitoring program(s) (Steps 3 and 4 - Figure 2-6), Indigenous
research and monitoring should be included, potentially using the existing Statement of
Commitment and formal working party in place, including an approvals process that addresses
potential heritage implications.
 Formal support of the annual Watering Plan (Step 5 - Figure 2-7) by the NRA has been provided in
past; the support includes recognition of Ngarrindjeri values and knowledge and the KNYA
process.
4.2 Further work
Indigenous knowledge of the relationship between flow regimes and ecosystem components is a
potentially valuable addition to scientific knowledge of flow-biota relationships within the SA MDB. The
developing KNYA Indigenous Engagement Framework is providing the mechanism for projects that bring
Indigenous values and knowledge into the ‘models’ and processes that support environmental water
management in the SA MDB.
Indigenous knowledge of Ruwe/Ruwar (lands, waters, people and all living things) can contribute answers
to the kinds of questions posed by scientists. Ngarrindjeri are conducting research into the knowledge held
within the Ngarrindjeri nation and its relationship to the developing knowledge of the non-Indigenous
community. Knowledge of the ecological condition prior to colonisation is held within Ngarrindjeri
traditions and informs Ngarrindjeri values associated with Country.
Immediate further work includes:
 The NRA’s approach to water-related policy research has led to a collaboration between DEWNR,
the South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Natural Resource Management Board and other

Lower River Murray Research Requirements 33 | P a g e
government agencies to develop an agreement to frame water allocation planning in the SAMDB.
This approach relies on the KNYA strategy and in many ways represents a form of co-management
in water resource planning. This agreement needs to be finalised to further support Indigenous
water-related research to be conducted.
 Research innovations in Indigenous engagements in ecological character descriptions of Ramsar-
listed wetlands. The development of this proposal is bringing Ngarrindjeri, scientists and planners
together to discuss knowledge, values and potentially shared understandings. The NRA is focusing
research on Indigenous ‘character’ descriptions and ‘cultural health’ assessments for areas such as
the Lower Lakes, Coorong and Murray Mouth and wetlands along the River Murray south of
Morgan.
 SAM-DB regional Indigenous research strategies and directions relating to water planning continue
to take a holistic approach linking all living things through the Ngarrindjeri Ruwe/Ruwar
philosophy. This has been applied at the local level through wetland management planning and is
connecting with Ngarrindjeri cultural knowledge programs and the development of Ngarrindjeri
cultural and seasonal calendars.
 The Ngarrindjeri philosophy (Ruwe/Ruwar) rests on an understanding that ‘all things are
connected and that the lands and waters are a living body’. Ngarrindjeri share research interests
that focus on the identification of key species that both act as environmental health markers and
rely on the connectivity of the River Murray, Lakes and Coorong.

Lower River Murray Research Requirements 34 | P a g e
5 Future research
This report has summarised knowledge gaps in three areas of e-water provision within the SA MDB:
 research required to assist transparent, science-based allocation and delivery;
 research required for the development of conceptual models of ecological responses to flow
bands; and
 research required for the development of an indigenous engagement framework.
The Goyder Institute for Water Research have developed three initial research projects, that take into
consideration the results of this report (knowledge gaps), management needs and resource availability.
The outcomes of these initial research projects will inform future research requirements, and are expected
to be used for continual refinement of adaptive management actions. The initial projects are:
 Effective and efficient monitoring of outcomes from watering River Murray floodplains and
wetlands. This project will develop a monitoring framework to establish the direction for
monitoring the SA MDB over the 5 year period of the joint Commonwealth Environmental Water
Holder /state monitoring and beyond. The ability to demonstrate environmental outcomes
achieved through the delivery of the environmental water under the Basin Plan will be a key
measure of success for implementation of the Basin Plan in South Australia. It will also improve
understanding of the implications of management actions, and is a vital step for adaptive
management. This project is associated with steps 3 and 4 outlined in the draft decision flow
charts (Figure 2-6), and was listed as a key information gap in Section 2.4. The monitoring
framework will incorporate Indigenous values and knowledge through the Indigenous engagement
framework identified in this report.
 Investigation of productivity, microbiota community structure and trophic dynamics in the
Coorong estuary in relation to low volume freshwater discharge. This project aims to elucidate the
role of low-volume (<10,000 ML.day-1) freshwater flow in subsidising trophic webs in the Coorong.
The project will investigate several knowledge gaps identified through the development of hydro-
ecological conceptual models in the current project (see Section 3) and aligns with several
management questions provided by DEWNR. Conceptual models are a critical part of steps 1, 2
and 3 of the simulated decision flow charts (Figure 2-4 to Figure 2-6), underpinning decision on e-
water allocation and delivery. The objective of the project is to provide empirical data, which will
form a quantitative basis to inform/justify the provision of environmental water to the Coorong.
Specifically, in relation to low-volume freshwater discharge to the Coorong in 2014/15, the
project will utilise a range of techniques and past data, from both drought and high flow periods,
to investigate:
o Primary productivity (phytoplankton community structure and biomass);
o Microbiota community structure and abundance;
o The abundance and diet of sandy sprat (Hyperlophus vitattus); and
o Assimilation of organic matter of riverine origin through the trophic web (zooplankton and
sandy sprat) using stable isotope analysis.
 Development of a River Operations Decision Support System for DEWNR River Murray Operations.
This project will provide assistance to planning and real-time decisions through an integrated tool
to inform (i) future management of flow and structures and (ii) risks associated with specific

Lower River Murray Research Requirements 35 | P a g e
management actions and possible mitigation actions. It will consider water security, water quality
(dissolved oxygen, algal blooms and salinity), infrastructure operating scenarios, and mitigation
measures at different flows. The Decision Support System could potentially be used at different
timescales: during the planning for describing the available management actions (as described by
long-term planning step 2 (Figure 2-5) and annual planning step 6 (Figure 2-8)), and during real-
time events, based on current hydrological conditions (step 7 (Figure 2-9). This Decision Support
System could potentially connect with Indigenous values and knowledge through the KNYA
Indigenous Engagement Framework.

Lower River Murray Research Requirements 36 | P a g e
6 References
Bice, C., Zampatti, B., Aldridge, K., Furst, D., Kilsby, N., Maxwell, S., Nicol, J., Oliver, R., Rogers, D., Turner,
R. and Wallace, T. (2014). An assessment of the research requirements to support effective provision
of environmental water allocation in the South Australian Murray-Darling Basin - Development of
hydro-ecological conceptual models and identification of knowledge gaps in current understanding of
flow‒biota relationships. Goyder Institute for Water Research Technical Report Series, A., South
Australia.
CEWO (2013). Framework for determining commonwealth environmental water use May 2013.
DEWNR (2012). Riverine Recovery: Weir pool manipulation – vegetation and wetland inundation.
DEWNR (2013). 2013-14 Annual Environmental Watering Plan.
Growns, I. (2004). A numerical classification of reproductive guilds of the freshwater fishes of south-
eastern Australia and their application to river management. Fisheries Management and Ecology 11:
369-377.
Hemming, S. and Rigney, D. (2014). Indigenous engagement in environmental water planning, research
and management: innovations in South Australia's Murray-Darling Basin region. Goyder Institute for
Water Research Technical Report Series, A., South Australia.
Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Ecological
Systems 4: 1-23.
Kilsby, N. N., Szemis, J. A. and Wallace, T. A. (2014). An assessment of the research requirements to support
effective provision of environmental water allocation in the South Australian Murray-Darling Basin -
An overview of decision processes and information gaps. Goyder Institute for Water Research
Technical Report Series, A., South Australia.
MDBA (2011). The proposed “environmentally sustainable level of take” for surface water of the Murray-
Darling Basin: Methods and outcomes MDBA publication no: 226/11, Murray-Darling Basin Authority
(MDBA), Canberra.
MDBA (2012). Guideline for the method to determine priorities for applying environmental water.
Canberra, Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA).
MDBA (2013a). The Living Murray Annual Environmental Watering Plan 2013-2014, MDBA Publication No
16/13.
MDBA. (2013b). "www.mdba.gov.au/what-we-do/environmental-water/ewp/ewp_ch3#ch_3.1. Accessed
November 2013.".
MDBA (2014). Lower Lakes, Coorong and Murray Mouth Environmental Water Management Plan.
Canberra.
Overton, I. C., Bryan, B. A., Higgins, A. J., Holland, K., King, D., Lester, R. E., Nolan, M., Hatton MacDonald,
D., Oliver, R., Lorenz, Z. and Connor, J. D. (2010). Integrated modelling of river management and
infrastructure options to improve environmental outcomes in the Lower River Murray, CSIRO: Water
for a Healthy Country National Research Flagship. Technical report prepared for the South Australian
Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation.

The Goyder Institute for Water Research is a partnership between the South Australian Government through the Department of
Environment, Water and Natural Resources, CSIRO, Flinders University, the University of Adelaide and the University of South
Australia.