Wallpolla Island Floodplain Restoration Project

EPBC Act referral

Note: PDF may contain fields not relevant to your application. These fields will appear blank or unticked. Please disregard these fields. Title of proposal 2020/8750 - Wallpolla Island Floodplain Restoration Project Section 1 Summary of your proposed action 1.1 Project industry type Water Management and Use 1.2 Provide a detailed description of the proposed action, including all proposed activities The Wallpolla Island Floodplain Restoration Project aims to restore a more natural inundation regime across approximately 2,672 hectares (ha) of high-ecological-value Murray River floodplain within the broader Murray-Sunset National Park (refer Attachment 1a, 1b and 1c).

Wallpolla Island is located downstream of the junction of the Murray and Darling rivers and within the lower Murray River floodplain. The Wallpolla Island floodplain has an area of approximately 9,000 ha and extends 29 kilometres (km) from east to west and is approximately seven km in width. Wallpolla Island is an environmentally significant area that is critically important to the biodiversity of the entire Lower Murray region and is listed in the Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia (Environment, Australia 2001). The Murray River flow at Wallpolla Island has been significantly altered by storages, regulation and diversion upstream on both the upper Murray and Darling Rivers. This has caused a reduction in large winter and spring flow peaks and an increase of low summer flows on the floodplain. Locks and weirs have further altered the hydrology of the local floodplain by removing fluctuations in river levels. Using water from both natural flood events and pumping from the Murray River, the project aims to more closely align the frequency, duration and timing of future flood events, with the natural (pre-regulation) frequency, duration and timing of flood events experienced by targeted water regime classes within the managed inundation area.

The Wallpolla Island Floodplain Management Project comprises four main water management areas (WMAs): - Upper Wallpolla WMA – inundation of 866 ha to a flood level of 32 m AHD - Mid Wallpolla WMA – inundation of 1,074 ha to a flood level of 30 m AHD - South Wallpolla WMA – inundation of 620 ha to a flood level of 30.5 m AHD - Direct Local Pumping WMA – inundation of 112 ha to a flood level of 31 m AHD

The design, number and location of project structures and extent of access track upgrades will be refined through the project design process. The current design involves the construction of four large regulators (referred to as Regulators US1, US2, MS1 and MS2), 12 medium and small regulators, nine culverts; 14 containment structures and works to access tracks as discussed in the sections below (refer to Attachment 1a). Findings from on-site assessments will continue to be progressively fed into the design, with modifications made to avoid and minimise impacts. Design and construction of the project would need to comply with the mitigation measures outlined in Part 4 of this referral. Operation and water movement maps are provided in Attachment 1d.

Upper Wallpolla WMA - A large regulator (US1 on Wallpolla Creek) to allow water to pass into the Upper Wallpolla area either via flows in the Murray River exceeding 55,000 ML/d or through temporary bypass pumping - A second large regulator (US2) on Wallpolla Creek to retain water during a managed inundation event and to drain the floodplain at the end of the event into Mid Wallpolla WMA - A system of containment banks (ULB, ULH, ULJ, ULK, ULP, ULS and ULU) and medium and small regulators to contain water (USC, USF, USN, USO, USQ, USR and UST) Spillways and culverts (USA, USD, USE, USG, USL and USM) to secure local low points in the natural bank system and contain the water within the floodplain

Mid Wallpolla WMA - Regulator MS1 on Finnigans Creek to allow inflow either at elevated Murray River levels flows or via temporary bypass pumping - Regulator MS2 to allow draining of the floodplain, operating in concert with Regulator MS1 and Upper Wallpolla WMA - A system of containment banks (MLE and MLI) and medium and small regulators to contain water (MSA, MSD, MSF and MSH). MSH provides for the inundation of a private property in the west. - Spillways and culvert (MSC and MLG) to secure local low points in the natural bank system and contain the water within the floodplain

South Wallpolla WMA - Containment banks (SLA and SLB) and a medium sized regulator (SSC) - A culvert (SSD) and temporary sandbags are required to be placed at three separate locations to contain the water

Note: PDF may contain fields not relevant to your application. These fields will appear blank or unticked. Please disregard these fields.

Direct Local Pumping WMA - Three containment banks (PLA, PLB and PLC) would be constructed to contain and manage inundation events to 31 m AHD

Fish passage - The project includes provision for fish passage through regulator bays, across the spillways, and across the containment banks and natural ground when submerged. Fish passage is proposed within the four main regulators (US1, US2, MS1 and MS2). The design of all other regulators allows for movement of fish directly through the regulator structure, but no specific fish passage structures. Medium to small regulator structures would be operated either in fully open or fully closed position. When water is released with the regulator gate in fully open position, fish have passage through the regulator both in managed release and natural flood scenarios. Structures have been designed to have flow velocities appropriate for fish passage. During watering events, fish would be able to move across all submerged areas.

Pumping - Temporary pump hardstand areas are proposed at regulators US1 and MS1, at containment bank PLA, and between regulator MSF and spillway MLG. These sites would enable the setup of temporary pumping infrastructure to deliver environmental water into the Upper Wallpolla, Mid Wallpolla, South Wallpolla and Direct Local Pumping WMAs. Temporary pump infrastructure would include a trailer-mounted pump with bunded fuel storage, with suction pipes extending into the Murray River and an anabranch of Wallpolla Creek. The frequency and duration of pumping would depend on natural inundation and the shortfall of water in the floodplain needed to achieve environmental watering targets.

Containment banks and access tracks - Typically, access to the project structures during construction and operation would be provided via existing tracks (and double as containment banks for inundation). The locations of the proposed containment banks and access tracks are shown in Attachment 1b. The majority of these are existing tracks, however some of these tracks would need to be upgraded as part of the project, the extent of which would be confirmed following outcomes from ongoing investigations.

Borrow pits / quarry sites - Construction of the project would require the import of material (clay/rock). VMFRP is in the process of identifying possible borrow pits to acquire this material, with the objective of selecting locations as close as possible to the project, on cleared private land outside of the Parks Victoria portion of Wallpolla Island, while also avoiding and minimising impacts. It is expected that approximately 70,000 cubic metres of material would be required for the project and sourced from borrow pit sites. Rock beaching (approximately 2,000 cubic metres) for erosion protection works would be sourced from existing commercial quarries.

Other - No new power supply connections are required to facilitate operation of the project. Commercially sourced concrete for construction of the proposed works would be transported to the project area with no requirement for on-site concrete batching facilities. No redundant structures have been identified as requiring to be removed or decommissioned. 1.3 What is the extent and location of your proposed action? See Appendix B 1.5 Provide a brief physical description of the property on which the proposed action will take place and the location of the proposed action (e.g. proximity to major towns, or for off-shore actions, shortest distance to mainland) Wallpolla Island floodplain is located on the southern side of the Murray River, approximately 25 km west of Mildura. The floodplain forms part of the larger Lower Murray floodplain, 5 km downstream of the convergence of the Murray and Darling Rivers and is part of the Murray-Sunset National Park. The Wallpolla Island floodplain has an area of approximately 9,000 ha and extends 29 km from east to west and seven km in width. The island is listed as a nationally important wetland in Victoria, in the Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia

The project is located almost entirely in Mildura Rural City Council, with the temporary suction line for one temporary pumping area is in the NSW local government area of Wentworth Shire. Private land parcels in the southern portion of the project area (South Wallpolla and Direct Local Pumping WMA) are used for conservation purposes and non-irrigated farming. 1.6 What is the size of the proposed action area development footprint (or work area) including disturbance footprint and avoidance footprint (if relevant)? The action area provided in Section 1.3 shows the general location of the project. A targeted area of investigation of approx. 140 ha has been established within this action area, reflecting the project’s current design and has been subject to desktop assessment. The current construction footprint (disturbance footprint) is within the area of investigation and has an area of approx. 45 ha (including approx. 5 km of existing access tracks and 3 km of new access tracks). The construction footprint was used to assess impacts on native vegetation and habitat. The location and size of any borrow pits / quarry sites is yet to be determined but would be located on private land. Design of the project infrastructure is currently being refined as part of the design process and in response to environmental and cultural heritage studies. To the extent practicable, changes to the

Note: PDF may contain fields not relevant to your application. These fields will appear blank or unticked. Please disregard these fields. construction footprint would occur within the area of investigation. The proposed inundation area is approx. 2,672 ha. 1.7 Proposed action location Other - Murray-Sunset National Park, Wallpolla Island, 3490 1.8 Primary jurisdiction Victoria 1.9 Has the person proposing to take the action received any Australian Government grant funding to undertake this project? Y Yes N No 1.9.1 Provide detail

The project is being delivered as part of the Victorian Murray Floodplain Restoration Project (VMFRP). VMFRP is a regional partnership model between Lower Murray Water (LMW), Goulburn Murray Water , the Mallee Catchment Management Authority (Mallee CMA), North Central Catchment Management Authority and Parks Victoria, set up to deliver the VMFRP works on behalf of the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) - Water . LMW is the project proponent.

In early 2019, the VMFRP secured funding from the Australian Government via the Department of Agriculture to progress engagement with communities and the development of detailed designs and approvals for the following nine projects (listed in upstream to downstream order), which are designed to deliver Sustainable Diversion Limits offsets and reduce the requirement for water buybacks under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan: - Gunbower - Guttrum and Benwell - Vinifera - Nyah - Burra Creek - Belsar-Yungera - Hattah Lakes North - Wallpolla Island - Lindsay Island

Australian Government funding of the project was granted following a staged assessment of the following proposals by the Sustainable Diversion Limits Adjustments Assessment Committee: - Phase 1 Submission – Wallpolla Management Project – SDL Adjustment Supply Measure – submitted by Mallee CMA in 2013 - Phase 2 Submission – Wallpolla Island Floodplain Management Project – Supply Measure Business Case – submitted by Mallee CMA in 2014 1.10 Is the proposed action subject to local government planning approval? Y Yes N No 1.10.1 Is there a local government area and council contact for the proposal? Y Yes N No 1.10.1.0 Council contact officer details 1.10.1.1 Name of relevant council contact officer Damien Sutton, Statutory Planning Coordinator 1.10.1.2 E-mail [email protected] 1.10.1.3 Telephone Number (03) 5018 8100 1.11 Provide an estimated start and estimated end date for the Start Date 01/07/2022 proposed action End Date 30/06/2024 1.12 Provide details of the context, planning framework and state and/or local Government requirements Planning framework The project is situated in the Victorian local government area of the Rural City of Mildura (with the exception of a small area

Note: PDF may contain fields not relevant to your application. These fields will appear blank or unticked. Please disregard these fields. within NSW jurisdiction as discussed below) and is therefore subject to the provisions of the Mildura Planning Scheme. The following zones and overlay apply to land in the project area under the Mildura Planning Scheme: - Public Conservation and Resource Zone (PCRZ) - Farming Zone (FZ) - Road Zone, Category 1 (RDZ1) - Environmental Significance Overlay (Schedule 1 – Murray River Corridor) (ESO1) - Land Subject to Inundation Overlay (LSIO) - Bushfire Management Overlay (BMO) The project would require planning approval under the Mildura Planning Scheme and the Victorian Planning and Environment Act 1987 in relation to: use, buildings and works (including earthworks), and the removal, destruction or lopping of native vegetation.

A small part of the project area (associated with the temporary suction line for the temporary pumping area at regulator MS1) would extend into the NSW local government area of Wentworth Shire. The hardstand area for the temporary pumps would be located in Victoria and the temporary suction lines would extend into the Murray River in NSW. The proposed works are defined as ‘water reticulation system’ and would occur on land that is zoned W1 Natural Waterways under the Wentworth Local Environmental Plan 2011. No activities are permitted without development consent within the W1 zone. A review of relevant environmental planning instruments has determined that the project is permissible with the consent of the Wentworth Shire Council pursuant to Clause 126A of the Infrastructure SEPP (NSW). A development application would need to be submitted to the Wentworth Shire Council and this would need to be supported by a Statement of Environmental Effects that addresses section 4.15 of the NSW EP&A Act.

In addition to the local government requirements as discussed above, the following State and Commonwealth referrals, notifications and approvals are likely to be required for the project:

Commonwealth - Notification of a ‘future act’ under the Native Title Act 1993 for activities on Crown land that may affect native title rights and interests - Notification of the MDBA of a proposal which may affect the flow, use, control or quality of any water in the upper River Murray under clause 49 of Schedule 1 of the Water Act 2007

Victoria - Referral to the Minister for Planning (via DELWP) under the Environment Effects Act 1978 to determine whether or not an Environment Effects Statement is required for the project - A planning scheme amendment or planning permit under the Mildura Planning Scheme, pursuant to the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (as discussed in the section above) - A Cultural Heritage Management Plan approved by the Registered Aboriginal Party under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 and Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2018 - Approval from Parks Victoria / Minister for Environment, Energy and Climate Change under section 27 of the National Parks Act 1975 - A licence or lease from Parks Victoria under section 17 of the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978 - Licence to take and use water (s51) and licence to construct works (s67) to take water from Lower Murray Water under section 51 of the Water Act 1989 - Works on waterways permit from Mallee CMA of the Water Act 1989 - Permit to take protected flora on Crown land from DELWP under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988. - A work authority and work plan under the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act 1990 for borrow pit sites

New South Wales - Development consent under Part 4 of the NSW EP&A Act from Wentworth Shire Council as the consent authority. The development application would need to be accompanied by a Statement of Environmental Effects. - A licence to allow the use of Crown land under the Crown Lands Management Act 2016 - A permit for ‘dredging’ or ‘reclamation’ under section 201 of the Fisheries Management Act 1994 if not deemed exempt 1.13 Describe any public consultation that has been, is being or will be undertaken, including with Indigenous stakeholders The Mallee CMA and more recently VMFRP have worked with key stakeholders and interested community groups to develop the concept for the Wallpolla Island Floodplain Restoration Project over a period from 2012 to current. Communication and engagement activities have included:

- More than 200 face-to-face briefing sessions, meetings, presentations, on-site visits and consultations, engaging more than 500 people, which is reflective of the wide range of project stakeholders - Fact sheets, media releases, electronic communication (website, emails, newsletters), brochures and correspondence

Note: PDF may contain fields not relevant to your application. These fields will appear blank or unticked. Please disregard these fields. This direct approach to engagement has helped capture the views and local knowledge of key stakeholders and community members to directly integrate these into the project, including: - Materially-affected land managers such as Parks Victoria - Adjacent private landholders - Aboriginal stakeholders, including the First People of the Millewa-Mallee - Regional Development Australia and Regional Development Victoria – Loddon Mallee - Local government (Mildura Rural City Council) - Community groups including Discover Mildura, Sunraysia Branch Victorian Apiarists Association, Sunraysia Riverwatch, Murray Offroad Adventures and Yelta Landcare Group

Targeted, tailored consultation would continue to be conducted with key stakeholders throughout the project, aligning to project milestones, assessments and approvals processes where necessary and/or appropriate. This includes further face-to- face briefings, presentations, site visits and regular project updates via mail-outs and newsletters. Broader engagement via traditional and social media, community events and information displays would also continue.

The Registered Aboriginal Party (RAP) for the area is the First People of the Millewa-Mallee Aboriginal Corporation. A Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP) is currently being prepared for the project in consultation with the RAP. 1.14 Describe any environmental impact assessments that have been or will be carried out under Commonwealth, State or Territory legislation including relevant impacts of the project A referral for the project is being submitted to the Victorian Minister for Planning (via DELWP) for a decision on whether or not an Environment Effects Statement is required for the project under the Victorian Environment Effects Act 1978.

A Statement of Environmental Effects would be prepared to support the development application for consent under Part 4 of the NSW EP&A Act. 1.15 Is this action part of a staged development (or a component of a larger project)? N Yes Y No 1.16 Is the proposed action related to other actions or proposals in the region? Y Yes N No 1.16.1 Identify the nature/scope and location of the related action (Including under the relevant legislation) The project is one of nine environmental works projects being undertaken as part of the VMFRP. Relative to the project, the eight other VMFRP projects are located: - Gunbower - approx. 400 km upstream in Gunbower National Park - Guttrum-Benwell - approx. 345 km upstream in Guttrum and Benwell State Forests - Vinifera - approx. 260 km upstream in Nyah-Vinifera Regional Park - Nyah - approx. 255 km upstream in Nyah-Vinifera Regional Park - Burra Creek - approx. 235 km upstream in the River Murray Reserve - Belsar-Yungera - approx. 170 km upstream in the proposed Murray River Regional Park - Hattah Lakes North - approx. 130 km upstream in Hattah-Kulkyne National Park and Murray-Kulkyne Regional Park - Lindsay - approx. 50 km downstream in Murray Sunset National Park Further details on the VMFRP can be found here - https://www.vmfrp.com.au/

Note: PDF may contain fields not relevant to your application. These fields will appear blank or unticked. Please disregard these fields. Section 2 Matters of national environmental significance 2.1 Is the proposed action likely to have any direct or indirect impact on the values of any World Heritage properties? N Yes Y No 2.2 Is the proposed action likely to have any direct or indirect impact on the values of any National Heritage places? N Yes Y No 2.3 Is the proposed action likely to have any direct or indirect impact on the ecological character of a Ramsar wetland? Y Yes N No Wetland Wallpolla Island is not located within or adjacent to any wetlands listed under the Ramsar Convention. However there are three Ramsar wetlands downstream of Wallpolla Island; Riverland (100 km downstream of Wallpolla); Banrock Station Wetland Complex (240 km downstream of Wallpolla); and The Coorong and Lakes Alexandrina and Albert Wetland (555 km downstream of Wallpolla). Impact The project would not result in an impact to these downstream Ramsar sites for the following reasons: - The project does not involve any works within a Ramsar wetland and therefore would not result in any areas of the wetland being destroyed or substantially modified.

- Due to the distance of the three Ramsar sites to the Wallpolla project and the relatively small volume of return flows expected compared to the magnitude of flow in the Murray River (discharges from the Wallpolla floodplain would occur over a four to six week period and the discharged volume of water to the Murray River after a managed inundation event would be significantly less than flows within the Murray River per day at the time of discharge) no substantial or measurable change in the hydrological regime of any downstream Ramsar site is expected to occur.

- The River Murray Operations Committee (RMOC) would be responsible for assessing and monitoring any upstream or downstream hydrological changes or impacts in the Murray River associated with the delivery of environmental water to the Wallpolla Island floodplain. This is part of RMOC’s responsibility to oversee the operation of the river which is managed by the Murray Darling Basin Authority on behalf of the relevant State and Commonwealth Governments. RMOC will assess changes as a result of this project in combination with other projects (upstream and downstream) to determine potential changes in flows, water quality and downstream impacts.

- The closest downstream Ramsar site to the Wallpolla project is the Riverland Ramsar, which is approximately 100 km downstream. It is not expected that any return flows from Wallpolla Island would result in a measurable change in water quality at the Ramsar site for the following reasons: - Considering the distance of the Wallpolla floodplain to the Riverland Ramsar site (100 km downstream), discharges from the Wallpolla floodplain would be sufficiently diluted by the time it reaches the Ramsar site. - Discharges from a floodplain after an inundation event, if not appropriately managed, have the potential to consist of elevated sediments and / or organic matter, elevated nutrients or high salinity. Possible processes such as blackwater, algae blooms and high loads of organic matter can cause low dissolved oxygen concentrations impacting the health of aquatic species and communities. For the Wallpolla project, these potential impacts would be managed and avoided through the monitoring of ground and surface water salinity and water quality before, during and after watering events to inform management strategies and real-time operational decision making.

Note: PDF may contain fields not relevant to your application. These fields will appear blank or unticked. Please disregard these fields. Wetland Wallpolla Island is not located within or adjacent to any wetlands listed under the Ramsar Convention. However there are three Ramsar wetlands downstream of Wallpolla Island; Riverland (100 km downstream of Wallpolla); Banrock Station Wetland Complex (240 km downstream of Wallpolla); and The Coorong and Lakes Alexandrina and Albert Wetland (555 km downstream of Wallpolla). Impact The project would not result in an impact to these downstream Ramsar sites for the following reasons: - The project does not involve any works within a Ramsar wetland and therefore would not result in any areas of the wetland being destroyed or substantially modified.

- The project does not involve any works within a Ramsar wetland and therefore would not result in any direct changes to habitat or lifecycle of native species, fauna and fish species within the Ramsar wetland nor would it result in introduction or spread of an invasive species, or other indirect impacts (through hydrological or water quality changes) for the reasons discussed above. 2.3.2 Do you consider this impact to be significant? N Yes Y No 2.4 Is the proposed action likely to have any direct or indirect impact on the members of any listed species or any threatened ecological community, or their habitat? Y Yes N No Species or threatened ecological community Buloke Woodlands of the Riverina and Murray-Darling Depression Bioregions Impact The EPBC Act listed ecological community Buloke Woodlands of the Riverina and Murray-Darling Depression Bioregions is consistent with one EVC modelled as occurring within the inundation area, EVC 98: Semi-arid Chenopod Woodland, which is a non-flood dependent community. EVC 98 is generally only observed at higher elevations above the floodplains where environmental water would not penetrate during periods of inundation.

A ground-truthing field assessment has confirmed that this EVC has been incorrectly mapped, with Semi-arid Woodland not observed to be occurring anywhere within or immediately adjacent to the mapped location. The vegetation present in these areas was found to be EVC 103 (Riverine Chenopod Woodland), EVC 808 (Lignum Shrubland) and occasionally EVC 810 (Floodway Pond Herbland). These EVCs are located on alluvial terraces and floodplains, and are prone to flooding and are

Note: PDF may contain fields not relevant to your application. These fields will appear blank or unticked. Please disregard these fields. likely to benefit from the proposed watering regime.

There was no vegetation identified within the portion of the inundation areas surveyed that met the criteria to be considered a listed community under the EPBC Act. Whilst the full extent of the inundation area was not assessed as a part of the EVC ground-truthing exercise, based on a desktop review of the available information and observations made during the fieldwork it is considered unlikely that any listed communities are present within the proposed inundation area. Species or threatened ecological community South-eastern Long-eared Bat (Nyctophilus corbeni) EPBC Act -Vulnerable Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (FFG Act) – Listed Impact An assessment against the significant impact criteria for the South-eastern Long-eared Bat is included in Appendix I of Attachment 3 - Flora and Fauna Assessment. The project is not likely to have a significant impact on the South-eastern Long- eared Bat.

This species has a scattered distribution in Victoria known from only four geographic locations all from the north-west of the state: Mopoke Tanks, Hattah, Yarrock and Bullock Creek. Victorian records are from E. gracilis mallee, Buloke and Black Box woodlands (Lumsden 1994).

Whilst desktop searches (VBA and PMST) have identified the South-eastern Long-eared Bat as having potential to be present or possibly occurring within the project construction footprint and inundation area, this species has not been recorded during fauna surveys at Wallpolla Island for over 20 years. The species is currently only an occasional visitor to the area having only been recorded within 10 km of the construction and inundation area twice.

As discussed in Section 5.3.1 in Attachment 3 – Flora and Fauna Assessment, this species inhabits a variety of tree vegetation types, including mallee, buloke (Allocasuarina leuhmanni) and box eucalypt dominated communities, but it is distinctly more common in box/ironbark/cypress-pine vegetation and is more abundant where vegetation has a distinct canopy and a dense cluttered understorey layer (Churchill 1998), likely to enable it to forage for non-volant species. Based on this, the areas of the project where it is possible that these species occur is in the dry woodland and shrubland communities. Preferred habitat is largely absent within the project area and while there is some habitat present the assessment area is unlikely to support an important population given its limited occurrence (Seran BL&A 2018).

Construction The proposed Construction Footprint areas represent less than 0.3% of the potential habitat for this species in the area (53.38 ha within 18,000+ ha of open woodland). As such, the disturbance to or loss of potential low-value habitat for this species, would not significantly reduce the area of occupancy of any potential population. In addition, it is noted that project infrastructure has largely been sited on and in proximity to existing disturbed areas to avoid fragmentation of habitat and measures such as pre-clearance fauna surveys would be implemented prior to removal of any remnant hollow-bearing trees.

Operation During operation the project would deliver environmental water to improve and maintain a large area of floodplain habitat. If external populations of this species use or recolonise the area, it is likely that these works may increase connectivity for this species across the landscape and Mallee region. There are no distinct genetic populations listed or reported and as such the project is unlikely to adversely impact on a genetically important population of this highly mobile species, as it is unlikely to impact any individuals of the species. Species or threatened ecological community Regent Parrot (Polytelus anthopeplus monarchoides) EPBC Act - Vulnerable FFG Act - Listed Impact An assessment against the significant impact criteria for the Regent Parrot is included in Appendix I of Attachment 3 - Flora and Fauna Assessment. The project is not likely to have a significant impact on the Regent Parrot.

Across the Murray Darling Basin of South Australia, New South Wales and Victoria, Regent Parrots are considered to form

Note: PDF may contain fields not relevant to your application. These fields will appear blank or unticked. Please disregard these fields. a single population estimated at approximately 1,500 individuals (Seran BL&A 2018).

River Red-gum woodlands within Wallpolla Island constitute habitat for this species though individuals have only been recorded within 10 km of the construction footprint and inundation area three times (most recently in 1998) and this species hasn’t been recorded for over 20 years (VBA: 1998). As such, this species is currently only an occasional visitor and there are no known nesting colonies within the area. While Wallpolla Island could support individuals if the population recovers, the area is not considered likely to support breeding for the species (Baker-Gabb and Hurley 2011 within Seran BL&A 2018).

Construction The proposed construction footprint has been specifically surveyed for evidence of Regent Parrot breeding (fieldwork undertaken in 2019) and found to not be used for breeding, and only to a limited extent for foraging and dispersal by this species. The habitats present at most construction locations are only suitable as occasional low quality foraging and dispersal habitats as they are comprised of open Black Box woodland and grassland and not the preferred mallee (foraging) or River Red-gum (nesting) habitats.

As such, the project would not result in the loss of preferred nesting habitat for the Regent Parrot, but may result in a loss of a small proportion of sub-optimal potential foraging and dispersal habitat only. The proposed construction footprint represents less than 0.3% of the potential foraging and dispersal habitat for this species (53.38 ha to be cleared within 18,000+ ha of high quality native floodplain vegetation within the surrounding area of Murray-Sunset National Park), surrounded by a much broader landscape (tens of thousands of ha) of potential feeding and dispersal habitat. In addition, as discussed in Appendix I and K of Attachment 3 - Flora and Fauna Assessment, an analysis of possible Regent Parrot habitat (i.e. EVC that are likely to support suitable large hollow-bearing River Red Gums) was undertaken, comparing potential habitat loss to habitat that might be improved through the project. The analysis returned a total area of 17.65 ha of potential habitat loss (noting that this is not preferred habitat), within 518.83 ha of EVCs within the project’s managed inundation area that are likely to support habitat suitable for Regent Parrot nest trees (Table 14 in Attachment 3 - Flora and Fauna Assessment).

Operation During operation, any Regent Parrot population using this area is likely to benefit from broadly improved potential feeding habitat condition following environmental watering and it is likely that under future climate change scenarios, river regulation and due to drought that works such as these would be essential at this site and others (where Regent Parrot populations are resident) to sustain the River Red-gums that comprise essential nesting habitat for this species. Species or threatened ecological community Painted Honeyeater (Grantiella picta) EPBC Act - Vulnerable FFG Act - Listed Impact An assessment against the significant impact criteria for the Painted Honeyeater is included in Appendix I of Attachment 3 - Flora and Fauna Assessment. The project is not likely to have a significant impact on the Painted Honeyeater.

The Painted Honeyeater is nomadic and occurs at low densities throughout its range. The species is sparsely distributed from south-eastern Australia to north-western Queensland and eastern Northern Territory. The greatest concentrations and almost all records of breeding come from south of 26ºS, on inland slopes of the Great Dividing Range between the Grampians, Victoria and Roma, Queensland (Higgins et al., 2001). During the winter it is more likely to be found in the north of its distribution.

This species generally uses the following habitats: - Inhabits Boree/ Weeping Myall (Acacia pendula), Brigalow (A. harpophylla) and Box-Gum Woodlands and Box-Ironbark Forests - A specialist feeder on the fruits of mistletoes growing on woodland eucalypts and acacias. Prefers mistletoes of the genus Amyema - Insects and nectar from mistletoe or eucalypts are occasionally eaten - Nest from spring to autumn in a small, delicate nest hanging within the outer canopy of drooping eucalypts, she-oak, paperbark or mistletoe branches

The species exhibits seasonal north-south movements governed principally by the fruiting of mistletoe, with which its breeding season is closely matched (Barea and Watson, 2007). Many birds move after breeding to semi-arid regions such as north-eastern South Australia, central and western Queensland, and central Northern Territory. Considering its dispersive habits, the species is considered to have a single population (Garnett et al., 2011).

Note: PDF may contain fields not relevant to your application. These fields will appear blank or unticked. Please disregard these fields.

The Painted Honeyeater has not been previously recorded within 10 km of the construction footprint or inundation area, but, is considered to have potential to utilise habitats within the proposed construction footprint and broader inundation area, albeit on a very infrequent basis and this species has not previously been recorded within 10 km of the construction footprint or inundation area, with the nearest record to the project area is being 20 km east (in 2006) and there are very few records across the broader landscape. However, the Painted Honeyeater is an extremely mobile nomadic species, which forages widely over large areas in pursuit of mistletoe and flowering eucalypts.

Construction The proposed construction footprint represents a very small, low quality area of foraging habitat for this highly mobile species, within an extensive area of potentially suitable, but largely marginal habitat. The area does not represent core habitat or range for this species. An analysis of possible Painted Honeyeater foraging habitat (i.e. EVCs across the inundation area that may support occasional foraging habitat which includes open woodland) was undertaken, specifically assessing the extent of Riverine Chenopod Woodland (EVC 103), Intermittent Swampy Woodland (EVC 813), Shrubby Riverine Woodland (EVC 818) and Lignum Swampy Woodland (EVC 823) within Wallpolla Island (refer Table 15 in Attachment 3 – Flora and Fauna Assessment). This analysis at least at a broad level demonstrates that project’s construction footprint (53.38 ha) represents relatively small isolated patches within a much broader intact landscape of woodland habitat (1,207.8 ha) that may support this species when the appropriate episodic conditions for mistletoe fruiting and flowing occur.

Operation Loyn and Dutson (2018) have been studying woodland bird habitat use, abundance and diversity in black box habitats during and after inundation events and have shown that frequently inundated sites may be more productive than sites which rarely flood, but are only useful to small birds, including rare species such as Black Honeyeater (Sugomel niger) when Noisy Miners are absent. There is some potential that the inundation proposed by the Wallpolla project may be beneficial to the Painted Honeyeater in the future, particularly in areas of habitat where Noisy Miners are absent. Species or threatened ecological community Growling Grass Frog (Litoria raniformis) EPBC Act – Vulnerable FFG Act - Listed Impact An assessment against the significant impact criteria for the Growling Grass Frog is included in Appendix I of Attachment 3 - Flora and Fauna Assessment. The project is not likely to have a significant impact on the Growling Grass Frog.

The Growling Grass Frog is widespread throughout Victoria and is also known to occur along the Murray River (Seran BL&A 2018). This species is mostly found amongst emergent vegetation (Robinson 1993), including Typha sp. (Bullrush), Phragmites sp. (reeds) and Eleocharis sp.(sedges), in or at the edges of still or slow-flowing water bodies such as lagoons, swamps, lakes, ponds and farm dams (NSW DEC 2005). The Growling Grass Frog can be found floating in warmer waters in temperatures between 18–25°C. Additionally, this species can occur in clays or well-watered sandy soils; open grassland, open forest, and ephemeral and permanent non-saline marshes and swamps. Growling Grass Frog specifically require areas of basking habitat (such as emergent aquatic vegetation or logs), breeding habitat (shallow freshwater lagoons) and refuge habitat (typically soil cracks, fallen timber and dense low vegetation).

The Growling Grass Frog is considered to have potential to utilise habitats within parts of the construction footprint and is known to be present within the broader inundation area, this species has been recorded 11 times previously within 10 km of the construction footprint and inundation area (nine times in VBA and once by Biosis (2013) and once in 2020). The closest known populations of this species are upstream close to Merbein (approximately 15 km east of the site, most recently recorded in 1994 (VBA)) and at Mulcra Island (approximately 20 km west of the site, most recently recorded in 1994 (VBA)). Based on the low numbers of records from the Wallpolla project area despite targeted surveys in the last 10 years, any permanent population of this species in the Wallpolla project area is likely to be very small and confined to permanent wetlands when there is no flooding. Any population in the Wallpolla project area is close to the northern or north-western limit of the species distribution, and may therefore be considered an important population as discussed in the National Recovery Plan for the Growling Grass Frog (Clemann and Gillespie 2012).

Construction A broad analysis of potential Growling Grass Frog habitat (i.e. EVCs that have potential to support this species) was undertaken and compared with the area of proposed vegetation losses. The analysis returned an area of 19.13 ha to be disturbed/ lost as a result of construction against a potential habitat of 1,402.05 ha to be maintained or improved. At a broad

Note: PDF may contain fields not relevant to your application. These fields will appear blank or unticked. Please disregard these fields. level this demonstrates that there is a very large area of potential habitat that may support this species when the appropriate episodic wetland conditions occur, and that the construction footprint represents a small isolated patch within this much broader intact landscape of potentially suitable habitat. As such, construction of the project would not adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of this species. Impacts from vegetation removal, works within waterways, and habitat loss would be managed through a Fauna Management Plan. Indirect impacts from the proposed works may include the introduction or spread of Chytrid Fungus which would be managed through a pest management and control program in consultation with Parks Victoria.

Operation Operation of the project to deliver environmental water to the Wallpolla floodplain has the potential to create and maintain a large area (1,402.05 ha) of potential Growling Grass Frog habitat. If local populations of this species recolonise otherwise dry areas, it is likely that this watering may increase connectivity for this species across the landscape and Mallee region. Species or threatened ecological community Murray Cod (Maccullochella peelii peelii) EPBC Act – Vulnerable FFG Act - Listed Impact An assessment against the significant impact criteria for the Murray Cod is included in Appendix I of Attachment 3 - Flora and Fauna Assessment. The project is not likely to have a significant impact on the Murray cod.

Murray Cod are frequently found in the main channels of rivers and larger tributaries. The species is, therefore, considered a main-channel specialist (DoE 2020c). Preferred microhabitat consists of complex structural features in streams such as large rocks, snags (pieces of large submerged woody debris), overhanging stream banks and vegetation, tree stumps, logs, branches and other woody structures. Such structures reduce or influence stream flows and provide Murray Cod with shelter from fast-flowing water (Koehn 2009). Murray Cod is likely to be present in the Murray River and moderate to fast flowing permanent creeks such as Dedmans Creek and may also be present in low numbers in slow-flowing creeks such as Wallpolla Creek. Previous surveys, carried out as part of The Living Murray (TLM) monitoring between 2008 - 2018 did not identify any species within Wallpolla Creek, but did record species in Dedmans Creek during this period (Henderson et al. 2010). Despite the species being known from only six records historically within Wallpolla Creek, the Murray Cod National Recovery Plan lists Wallpolla as having an important largely wild population.

Construction The use of coffer dams to allow for construction of regulator MS2 has the potential to restrict fish passage and impact water quality within Wallpolla Creek. Construction of regulator MS2 would occur in two stages: Stage 1 of construction would allow for fish passage and flows to pass; Stage 2 would require closure of the waterway (and hence no fish passage) which could be up to three months. Although Wallpolla Creek is not likely to provide optimal habitat for this species, any fish present would not be able to pass through Wallpolla Creek when the coffer dams are in place during Stage 2 of the construction. Measures to avoid and minimise impact to this species during MS2 construction include: avoiding fish passage barriers during breeding season; monitoring of water quality and depths; and flow-through pumping. Construction of regulator MS1 on Finnigans Creek also has the potential to limit fish passage, however Finnigans Creek only intermittently connects with the Murray River and typically exists as a series of pools that periodically decline into smaller isolated pools with extended duration since inflows. A temporary earthen bank within Finnigans Creek which was constructed as part of an existing environmental watering program already restricts fish passage in Finnigans Creek (this bank is removed after watering) and it is considered unlikely that the creek supports breeding habitat for Murray Cod. To minimise the likelihood of impacts due to poor downstream water quality the project would implement flow-through via pumping from upstream to downstream to maintain downstream water quality in Finnigans Creek. Other potential adverse effects on aquatic ecosystems and water environments could arise from dewatering, sediment runoff and erosion, management of chemicals and fuels and water manipulations. Such activities may lead to suspension of sediments and/or organic matter causing elevated nutrients, high turbidity and/or low dissolved oxygen levels. This may reduce food sources and possibly result in toxic algal blooms which could impact upon fish species and their habitat. A CEMP would be prepared and implemented to avoid and minimise these impacts during construction.

Operation Inundation of floodplain habitat during the operational phase of the project is likely to generally be beneficial to Murray Cod. Under the natural inundation and the proposed seasonal fresh scenarios (when all structures are opened to allow flows to pass) flows would increase in Finnigans, Dedmans and Wallpolla Creeks, which are likely to provide enhanced habitat conditions for Murray Cod. During managed inundation of the floodplain it is likely that reduced flows would occur in some sections of these creeks – potentially leading to conditions that are not preferred by Murray Cod in these sections and allowing

Note: PDF may contain fields not relevant to your application. These fields will appear blank or unticked. Please disregard these fields. for the proliferation of carp. The larger flood events would mimic natural inundation events and based on the draft Operating Plan (Attachment 9) would occur infrequently (i.e. the most frequent flood event to be captured is within Mid Wallpolla 2 – 3 times in a 10 years period). Key measures to be implemented include: tailoring water regimes to provide competitive advantage to native fish; drying wetlands containing large carp numbers; developing and implementing a fish exit strategy to manage drawdown to trigger native fish to move off the floodplain; and installation of carp screens (where suitable). These practices are currently being implemented by Mallee CMA across other environmental watering sites to manage these risks. Species or threatened ecological community Silver Perch (Bidyanus bidyanus) (Critically Endangered) EPBC Act – Critically Endangered FFG Act - Listed Impact An assessment against the significant impact criteria for the Silver Perch is included in Appendix H of Attachment 3 - Flora and Fauna Assessment. The project is not likely to have a significant impact on the Silver Perch. Silver Perch use main river channel habitats for feeding, refuge, spawning, survival and recruitment. They inhabit Lock 11- 26 reach of the Murray River because this encompasses the longest unregulated river reach on the main stem of the Murray River and thus provides 500+ km of their preferred flowing water habitat (DELWP, 2018). Silver Perch are present in the Murray River, Wallpolla Creek and Dedmans Creek on Wallpolla Island. Previous TLM monitoring has identified Silver Perch in low numbers in Wallpolla Creek and Dedmans Creek between 2008 and 2018.

Construction The use of coffer dams to allow for construction of regulator MS2 has the potential to restrict fish passage and impact water quality within Wallpolla Creek. Construction of Regulator MS2 would occur in two stages: Stage 1 of construction would allow for fish passage and flows to pass; Stage 2 would require closure of the waterway (and hence no fish passage), potentially for a three month period. Although Wallpolla Creek is not likely to provide optimal habitat for this species, any fish present would not be able to pass through Wallpolla Creek when the coffer dams are in place during Stage 2 of the construction. Water quality impacts associated with dewatering and sediment control for construction in Wallpolla Creek may also have an impact. The project is unlikely to lead to a long-term decrease in the size of the population due to restricted fish passage during construction of MS2 as the mitigation measures outlined in Section 4.1 would be implemented. This includes limiting fish passage restrictions during breeding season (October to February), implementing flow-through via pumping form upstream to downstream, monitoring of water quality and developing a construction specific aquatic fauna management plan. Construction of regulator MS1 on Finnigans Creek also has the potential to limit fish passage, although Finnigans Creek is an intermittent waterway and is already restricted during environmental watering. As such, it is unlikely that Finnigans Creek supports breeding habitat for Silver Perch. Other potential adverse effects on aquatic ecosystems and water environments could arise from dewatering, sediment runoff and erosion, management of chemicals and fuels and water manipulations. Such activities may lead to suspension of sediments and/or organic matter causing elevated nutrients, high turbidity and/or low dissolved oxygen levels. This may reduce food sources and possibly result in toxic algal blooms which could impact upon fish species and their habitat. A CEMP would be prepared and implemented to avoid and minimise these impacts during construction.

Operation Under the natural inundation and seasonal fresh scenarios (when all structures are opened to allow flows to pass) flows would increase in Finnigans, Dedmans and Wallpolla Creeks, which are likely to provide enhanced habitat conditions for Silver Perch. During managed inundation of the floodplain it is likely that some sections of these creeks would become inundated, that would reduce flow – potentially leading to conditions that are not preferred by Silver Perch in these sections. The larger flood events would mimic natural inundation events and based on the draft Operating Plan (Attachment 9) would occur infrequently (i.e the most frequent flood event to be captured is within Mid Wallpolla 2 – 3 times in a 10 years period). Inundation of floodplain habitat during the operational phase also has the potential to increase carp populations within wetland habitat and also in aquatic habitat that remains following flood events. Although already present on-site, increasing carp populations may be detrimental to native fish, including Silver Perch, as they can compete for habitat and food sources favoured by large-bodied native fish. Measures which would be implemented to control carp and minimise their colonisation include: installation of carp screens (where suitable); develop a native fish exit strategy to strand carp; and drying of wetlands with high carp density. The stranding of fish on floodplains is possible if fish do not have an escape route to Murray River. In this case fish may become trapped on the floodplain during drawdown events. A fish exit strategy would be developed and implemented to manage drawdown to trigger native fish to move off the floodplain. The Fish Management Plan (DELWP 2018) provides details of the recommended operational regime to minimise the risk of stranding during drawdown events.

Note: PDF may contain fields not relevant to your application. These fields will appear blank or unticked. Please disregard these fields. Species or threatened ecological community Australasian Bittern (Botaurus poiciloptilus) EPBC Act – Endangered FFG Act - Listed Impact The project is not likely to have a significant impact on the Australasian Bittern.

The Australasian Bittern occurs in terrestrial freshwater wetlands and rarely, estuarine habitats (Marchant and Higgins 2004). It favours wetlands with tall, dense vegetation, where it forages in still, shallow water up to 0.3 m deep, often at the edges of pools or waterways, or from platforms or mats of vegetation over deep water (Marchant and Higgins 2004). The species favours permanent freshwater habitats, particularly those dominated by sedges, rushes and/or reeds (e.g. Phragmites, Cyperus, Eleocharis, Juncus, Typha, Baumea, Bolboschoenus) or cutting grass (Gahnia) growing over muddy or peaty substrate (Marchant & Higgins 1990; within DoE 2016c).

In Victoria the species is recorded mostly in the southern coastal areas and in the Murray River region of central northern Victoria (Jaensch 2005, as cited in DSEWPaC 2011). The ebird database (accessed 11/6/20) identifies three main hotspots for this species in Victoria: along the south coast between Port Fairy and Portland, around Port Phillip Bay between Geelong and Carrum Downs and along the Murray River between Swan Hill and Yarrawonga.

Desktop searches (VBA and PMST) have identified that the Australasian Bittern has potential to occur within the project’s inundation area, but not within the construction footprint. The nearest record to the area of investigation is approximately 6 km to the north east at Wentworth (2010, Atlas of NSW), there are also two recent records from north and south of the Sturt Highway (2000 VBA) between 10 and 15 km away. All other records in the VBA and Atlas are over 20 years old. There are also three records in the ebird database in the vicinity of the area of investigation: Chowilla Game Reserve, South Australia, approximately 74 km to the north west, 2005; Martins Bend near Berri South Australia approximately 100 km to the south west, 2017; and Lake Culluleraine Recreation Reserve, Victoria approximately 12 km south west, 2018. Each of these records are of a single individual. As such, whilst there are sporadic records in the vicinity of the project, there is a distinct paucity of records for an area that has been heavily surveyed.

Construction A broad analysis of potential Australasian Bittern habitat (i.e. EVC across that have the potential to support this species) was undertaken and compared with the area of proposed vegetation losses. The analysis returned an area of 19.13 ha to be disturbed/ lost as a result of construction against a potential habitat of 1,402.05 ha to be maintained or improved. This analysis at least at a broad level demonstrates that there is a very large area of potential habitat that may support this species when the appropriate episodic wetland conditions occur, and that the construction footprint represents very small isolated patches within this much broader intact landscape of potentially suitable habitat. Notwithstanding the analysis above, the likelihood of this species using the area of investigation more than an occasional visitor is considered low given that this area generally lacks the required habitat features for this species (tall, dense aquatic vegetation) and is comprised predominately of woodland and shrubland. Based on the paucity of records from the Wallpolla project area, it is considered highly unlikely that a permanent population of this species exists in the Wallpolla project area.

The Australian Painted Snipe is a rare, nomadic bird species that may turn up at any suitable wetland across Australia, when conditions are favourable. This species is widespread but rare throughout most of eastern Australia.

The Australian Painted Snipe generally inhabits shallow terrestrial freshwater (occasionally brackish) wetlands, including

Note: PDF may contain fields not relevant to your application. These fields will appear blank or unticked. Please disregard these fields. temporary and permanent lakes, swamps and claypans. They also use inundated or waterlogged grassland or saltmarsh, dams, rice crops, sewage farms and bore drains. Typical sites include those with rank emergent tussocks of grass, sedges, rushes or reeds, or samphire; often with scattered clumps of lignum Muehlenbeckia or canegrass or sometimes tea-tree (Melaleuca). The Australian Painted Snipe sometimes utilises areas that are lined with trees, or that have some scattered fallen or washed-up timber (Marchant & Higgins 1993 within DOE 2020b). The species is reported to have been mainly recorded in the Murray-Darling region however in Victoria and NSW, known records (VBA, Atlas of NSW and ebird) indicate this to be more accurate for the region east of Swan Hill (DOE 2020b). In the vicinity of the area of investigation there are very few records. The ebird database shows a vast area largely unoccupied by the species for 250 km or more in every direction with the exception of a single record at Merbein Common near Mildura from 2011. There are only a handful of other records in the area (west of Morkalla approximately 70 km south west from 1973, south of Red Cliffs approximately 34 km south east from 1910 and east of Wentworth from 2011) and this demonstrates the rarity of this species in the region.

Construction A broad analysis of potential Australian Painted Snipe habitat (i.e. EVC across that have the potential to support this species) was undertaken and compared with the area of proposed vegetation losses. The analysis returned an area of 19.13 ha to be disturbed/ lost as a result of construction against a potential habitat of 1,402.05 ha to be maintained or improved. This analysis at least at a broad level demonstrates that there is a very large area of potential habitat that may support this species when the appropriate episodic wetland conditions occur, and that the construction footprint represents very small isolated patches within this much broader intact landscape of potentially suitable habitat. Notwithstanding the analysis above, the likelihood of this species using the area of investigation more than an occasional visitor is considered low given that this area generally lacks the required habitat features for this species (tall, dense aquatic vegetation) and is comprised predominately of woodland and shrubland. Based on the paucity of records from the Wallpolla project area, it is considered highly unlikely that a permanent population of this species exists in the Wallpolla project area.

Operation Operation of the project to deliver environmental water to the Wallpolla floodplain has the potential to create and maintain a large area (1,402.05 ha) of potential Australian Painted Snipe habitat. If external populations of this species recolonise the area, it is likely that these works may increase connectivity for this species across the landscape and Mallee/lower Murray region. Species or threatened ecological community Flora species Solanum karsense (Menindee Nightshade) - Vulnerable Atriplex infrequens (Salt Bush) – Vulnerable Lepidium monoplocoides (Winged peppercress) - Endangered Pterostylis cheraphila (Floodplain Rustyhood) - Vulnerable Caladenia tensa (Greencomb Spider-orchid) - Endangered Swainsona murrayana (Slender Darling-pea) - Vulnerable Swainsona pyrophila (Yellow Swainson-pea) - Vulnerable Impact Of the seven EPBC Act listed flora species that were raised in the protected matters search tool search (10 km radius of the Area of Investigation), none were considered to have the potential to occur based on the habitat requirements of the species combined with habitats encountered in the area of investigation and previous records in the area: - Two are considered highly unlikely to occur as they are species only known to occur in NSW: Atriplex infrequens (Salt Bush) and Solanum karsense (Menindee Nightshade). - Three are considered highly unlikely due to the absence of suitable habitat within the construction footprint and/or area of inundation, and the lack of any records within 100 km of Wallpolla: Caladenia tensa (Greencomb Spider-orchid), Swainsona murrayana (Slender Darling-pea) and Swainsona pyrophila (Yellow Swainson-pea). - Two species considered unlikely to occur, as despite there potentially being suitable habitat present, Wallpolla Island is outside of their known distribution and the nearest known records are over 50 km away: Lepidium monoplocoides (Winged peppercress) and Pterostylis cheraphila (Floodplain Rustyhood).

No EPBC Act listed flora species were recorded during the 2013 flora census of the local area, the 2015 or the 2019 surveys of the construction footprint. No impact is likely to occur to these seven species.

A conservative approach to EPBC Act listed flora species has been taken for this assessment and all EPBC Act listed flora species (which were not identified as either present or as possibly occurring within the construction footprint and inundation

Note: PDF may contain fields not relevant to your application. These fields will appear blank or unticked. Please disregard these fields. area) have also been considered further. A significance assessment of impacts from the proposed construction and inundation is presented in Appendix F of Attachment 3 - Flora and Fauna Assessment.

2.4.2 Do you consider this impact to be significant? N Yes Y No 2.5 Is the proposed action likely to have any direct or indirect impact on the members of any listed migratory species or their habitat? Y Yes N No Migratory species Thirteen migratory species were identified through a PMST search as likely to occurring in the project area, or were recorded from previous surveys: - Actitis hypoleucos - Common Sandpiper - Apus pacificus - Fork-tailed Swift - Calidris acuminate - Sharp-tailed Sandpiper - Calidris ferruginea - Curlew Sandpiper - Calidris melanotos - Pectoral Sandpiper - Gallinago hardwickii - Latham's Snipe - Motacilla flava - Yellow Wagtail - Myiagra cyanoleuca - Satin Flycatcher - Numenius madagascariensis - Eastern Curlew - Pezoporus occidentalis- Night Parrot - Plegadis falcinellus - Glossy Ibis - Sterna caspia - Caspian Tern - Tringa nebularia - Common Greenshank Impact An assessment of the likelihood of occurrence of these species was undertaken (refer Appendix J of Attachment 3 – Flora and Fauna Assessment) and found that it is highly unlikely that the construction footprint supports habitat that would be considered important for migratory species foraging or breeding activity or support an ecologically significant proportion of a population of migratory species.

As such, most of these species are either highly unlikely to occur or would very rarely use airspace over these footprints, given the lack of habitat available (waterbodies, wetlands etc.), therefore adverse impacts to these species are not expected to occur as a result of the project.

However, reinstating historical environmental flows within the Wallpolla Island floodplain would improve the quality of habitat present for water dependant avifauna. Such habitat enhancements include increased productivity of floodplain vegetation communities, increased floral diversity and structure by reducing more dominant drought-tolerant species and increase overall health and integrity of the area to improve breeding, foraging and refuge resources for listed Migratory species, and other wetland-dependant bird species.

There is potential for the introduction of environmental water to lead to an increase in feral predators (cats, foxes), herbivores (e.g. goats) and omnivores (e.g. pigs) due to the associated increase in productivity of the floodplain. Predators such as cats and foxes could potentially prey on migratory waterbirds. Some of the species such as feral cats could potentially prey on migratory waterbirds, woodland birds, small mammals, reptiles and frogs that may respond to the application of water to floodplains/wetlands. An accompanying pest animal management and control program would be implemented within the inundation area, in consultation with Parks Victoria to expand current pest control programs within the park to target these areas during inundation events. 2.5.2 Do you consider this impact to be significant? N Yes Y No

Note: PDF may contain fields not relevant to your application. These fields will appear blank or unticked. Please disregard these fields. 2.6 Is the proposed action to be undertaken in a marine environment (outside Commonwealth marine areas)? N Yes Y No 2.7 Is the proposed action likely to be taken on or near Commonwealth land? N Yes Y No 2.8 Is the proposed action taking place in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park? N Yes Y No 2.9 Is the proposed action likely to have any direct or indirect impact on a water resource from coal seam gas or large coal mining development? N Yes Y No 2.10 Is the proposed action a nuclear action? N Yes Y No 2.11 Is the proposed action to be taken by a Commonwealth agency? N Yes Y No 2.12 Is the proposed action to be undertaken in a Commonwealth Heritage place overseas? N Yes Y No 2.13 Is the proposed action likely to have any direct or indirect impact on any part of the environment in the Commonwealth marine area? N Yes Y No

Note: PDF may contain fields not relevant to your application. These fields will appear blank or unticked. Please disregard these fields. Section 3 Description of the project area 3.1 Describe the flora and fauna relevant to the project area Wallpolla Island consists of a variety of habitats including river red gum, black box, lignum shrub land and saltbush. Wallpolla Island is an environmentally significant area that is critically important to the biodiversity of the entire Lower Murray region. The watercourses within the floodplain (refer Attachment 2 – Waterways and wetlands map) are lined by dense riparian vegetation that provides habitat for small fish and turtles, frogs and waterbirds. Low-lying meander loops near the river channel are frequently flooded by relatively small peaks in river flow and support river red gum woodland and forest. Wetlands within these areas, including the Lilyponds and Horseshoe Lagoon provide semi-permanent wetland habitat and can support breeding by significant numbers of waterbirds. Woodlands higher on the floodplain are dominated by black box woodland and provide a productive habitat for woodland birds, mammals and reptiles (Ecological, 2014).

Wallpolla Island has a diverse bird and bat population and also supports a range of woodland mammal species including Western Grey Kangaroo and Red Kangaroo that feed in grasslands and woodlands and benefit from the forage provided by wetland vegetation. Lignum shrublands provide a highly productive habitat, cover and a source of prey for small mammals and are the preferred habitat of Gile's Planigale (Ecological, 2014). A review of relevant databases and previous studies was undertaken as part of the Wallpolla Island Flora and Fauna Assessment (refer to Attachment 3) to identify native vegetation and listed flora and fauna species with potential to occur in the construction footprint and inundation area. Attachment 3 contains a summary of the methods and findings of the following previous studies undertaken for the project in relation to native vegetation, listed flora and fauna species: - Vertebrate fauna surveys of Wallpolla Island for SDL Offsets Project (Biosis, 2013) - Wallpolla Island Flora Census 2013 (Ogyris Ecological Research, 2013) - TLM Condition Monitoring at Lindsay, Mulcra and Wallpolla Islands (Wood et al., 2018 & Ecology Australia, 2019) - Wallpolla Island SDL Project – Ecological Assessment (GHD 2016) - SDL Fish Management Plan – Wallpolla Island (DELWP 2018)

Attachment 3 also documents the findings of targeted surveys completed in October 2019 - January 2020 for threatened flora and fauna listed under the Commonwealth EPBC Act and/or FFG Act.

Listed threatened flora species Desktop searches (VBA and PMST) identified seven EPBC Act listed flora species, and 14 FFG Act listed threatened flora species that have been recorded or have a possible likelihood of occurrence within 10 kms of the project construction and inundation area. The seven EPBC Act listed flora species are discussed in Section 2.4 of this referral. Of the seven EPBC Act listed flora species that were raised in the protected matters search tool search, none were considered to have the potential to occur within the construction footprint based on the habitat requirements of the species combined with habitats encountered and previous records in the area. No EPBC Act listed flora species were recorded during the 2013, 2015 and 2019 site investigations. During the surveys undertaken from 2013 - 2020, a total of 45 different flora species listed as protected under the FFG Act were recorded, however only three of these were identified during the 2019 surveys: Acacia oswaldii (Umbrella Wattle): Crinum flaccidum (Darling Lily): Eremophila maculata subsp. maculata (Spotted Emu-bush).

Listed threatened fauna and migratory species Desktop searches identified 65 listed threatened fauna species that have been recorded or have the potential to occur within the project area or recorded from previous studies. Of these species, 21 are listed under the EPBC Act, 49 are listed under the FFG Act. Each of these species was then assessed for their likelihood of occurrence, taking into account factors such as the habitat requirements of each species and comparing those to the habitats encountered within the study area. 39 of these species (2 mammals, 23 birds, 8 reptiles, 1 amphibian and 5 fish) are listed under the EPBC Act and/or FFG Act and are considered to have the potential to occur within construction footprint and or inundation area based on habitat requirements and number and recency of nearby records. Six of these species are EPBC Act listed threatened fauna species and identified as either present or as possibly occurring within the construction and/or inundation areas. Thirteen species listed as migratory under the EPBC Act are predicted to occur, or were previously recorded from previous surveys. However, it is highly unlikely that the construction footprint supports habitat that would be considered important for migratory species foraging or breeding activity or support an ecologically significant proportion of a population of migratory species. 3.2 Describe the hydrology relevant to the project area (including water flows) Surface water The Wallpolla floodplain is located on the southern side of the Murray River approximately 30 km west of Mildura, Victoria, downstream of the junction of the Murray and Darling Rivers and within the larger lower Murray floodplain. The main inlet creeks to the island are Finnigans Creek, Sandy Creek and Dedmans Creek, all which flow into Wallpolla Creek. Wallpolla

Note: PDF may contain fields not relevant to your application. These fields will appear blank or unticked. Please disregard these fields. Island, situated between Lock 9 and Lock 10 and adjacent to the Lake Victoria inlet, is located within a heavily regulated reach of the Murray River. The hydrology of the Murray River has significantly changed as a result of the storages, regulations and diversion on both the Murray and Darling Rivers. Modelling (Gippel, 2014; Water Technology, 2014, 2016) was undertaken to analyse the flow in the Murray River at Lock 10 under natural and current conditions (Ecological Associates, 2007) to understand the changes to the hydrology of the river and floodplain at Wallpolla Island. The results indicated that the median monthly discharge at Lock 10 have declined under current conditions, with the greatest impacts being in the higher flow months from June to December. Mapping by Water Technology (2014 and 2016) of the modelled extents of flooding under natural conditions is provided in Attachment 4 – Natural, Existing and Proposed Flood Extent Maps. The upstream connections of watercourses in the east of the island start to become active at Murray River flows exceeding 3,000 ML/d, but significant anabranch flow requires higher levels. Finnigans Creek becomes active at flows exceeding 8,000 ML/d and Sandy Creek flows when river discharge exceeds 33,000 ML/d (Mallee CMA, 2014). The upstream connection of Wallpolla Creek becomes active when river discharge exceeds 70,000 ML/d (Ecology Associates, 2014). Floodwater is largely confined within the wetlands and deeply incised channels until river flows exceed 70,000 ML/d at which point water spills into black box woodlands and lignum shrublands. Widespread floodplain inundation occurs at flows exceeding 90,000 ML/d (Ecology Associates, 2014).

Groundwater Attachment 5 - Desktop Groundwater Assessment describes that regional groundwater flow is to the south-west (O’Rorke et al 1992) and that groundwater is typically highly saline (>30,000 mg/L), freshening close to rivers (SKM 2010). Groundwater is shallowest (2-5 metres below surface) adjacent to the Murray River and its associated weir pools. Depth to watertable becomes deeper (5-10 m) south of the River and in the southern half of the project area. Perpendicular flow away from the Murray River between Locks 9 and 10 suggests that the Murray River is acting as a major recharge source to the Channel Sands watertable aquifer in this region. In addition, the relatively steep hydraulic gradients around Lock 10 and Lock 9 induce groundwater recharge upstream of the locks, and return flows to the river immediately downstream of the locks (SKM, 2008). At the eastern extent of the project area, the general direction of groundwater flow within the Channel Sands aquifer is in a westerly direction, whereas groundwater typically flows in a south-westerly direction across western Wallpolla Island.

There is potential for drawdown in groundwater levels from construction dewatering of excavations. Depending on the duration and timing of the works, this could have an impact on local groundwater dependant ecosystems (GDEs) by temporarily reducing the groundwater recharge. For the Wallpolla project generally dewatering during construction would not be required, except for installation of regulator MS1 near Horseshoe Lagoon and installation of regulator MS2 at Wallpolla Creek. The CEMP would outline measures to avoid and minimise impacts on GDEs during construction, including the requirement to minimise the total volume and rate of groundwater extracted for construction and to minimise dewatering, provide make-up of offset water for potentially affected vegetation.

During operation, there is potential for impact to GDEs as a result of the alteration of groundwater flow paths and levels from permanent below ground water barriers, although the likelihood of this is expected to be low (Attachment 5). There is likely to be a slight reduction in the salinity of the groundwater within the inundated area, which may have a net beneficial impact to ecosystems, although some areas on the fringe of the managed inundation area could be impacted through near- surface salinisation. This could impact on GDEs and further assessment is proposed to investigate this effect and potential for impacts to MNES. If further assessment identifies that changes to groundwater would adversely impact native vegetation, then additional mitigation measures would need to be developed and implemented as part of the project through the Operating Plan and Environmental Watering Management Plan (EWMP) and the Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting (MER) Framework (refer Section 4). 3.3 Describe the soil and vegetation characteristics relevant to the project area The project is located within the Coonambidgal Formation containing layers of loose or soft material, founded on the Monoman formation of alluvial grey sands and silty sands. Geotechnical investigations (Jacobs & SMEC 2017b) identified that the base of the proposed four major structures (Regulator MS1, MS2, US1 and US2) is close to or below the interface of the Coonambidgal and Monoman layers, with this zone generally consisting of thin layers of fine, loose sands interbedded in softer clays above the denser Monoman unit. Rainfall tends to percolate through cracking in the overlying clays and perches in these materials, charging them, and where this interface layer daylights in river or creek cuts, erosion tunnels are often seen. Jacobs & SMEC (2017b) summarised ground conditions at the proposed project infrastructure as follows: - The design of the four main regulators will need to consider the risk of piping/internal erosion at the interface of the Coonambidgal and Monoman layers and also the deeper permeable sands of the Monoman unit. Design of cut-offs is required to reduce the hydraulic gradients through these materials to a level below the critical erosion gradients. Deep cut- offs underneath the structure can be taken to the less permeable clay layer unit. Shallower cut-offs could be used to protect the structures from seepage around the abutments. Where the Coonambidgal and Monoman interface daylights in the incised creek/river alignments, well-graded gravels beneath rock erosion protection can be used as a filter media to prevent

Note: PDF may contain fields not relevant to your application. These fields will appear blank or unticked. Please disregard these fields. piping through these layers from continuing. - The interface layer of the Coonambidgal and Monoman formations has soft or loose material which may not have sufficient bearing capacity to support the major regulating structures. The four main regulating structures may need to be founded on piles. -The smaller regulators and containment banks are founded on the Coonambidgal formation. Given the low height of these structures /banks and the width of the footprint compared to its height, the seepage path would be long enough to limit the hydraulic gradients through the material to less than the critical erosion gradients with the normal cover of Coonambidgal materials. However, if the materials in the Coonambidgal / Monoman interface are exposed or have thin cover, the initiation of pipes may occur and possibly lead to enlarged pipes being formed in flood conditions. Localised treatment by placement of a gravel layer and beaching in these locations may be required. - The excavation required to construct the regulating structure at MS2 is below the water level maintained by Lock 9. Therefore cofferdams would be required upstream and downstream of the structure. Pumping would likely be required to routinely dewater the excavation, however suitable cut-offs would be required as the dewatering may cause piping under or around the cofferdams into the excavation. - Regulator MS1 and US1 may require upstream coffer dams to protect the excavations from rising river levels during construction. The risk of excessive seepage and piping/ internal erosion around the cofferdams into the excavation also exists. Suitable cut-offs would be required.

Findings and recommendations from Jacobs & SMEC (2017b) have been considered as part of the design process for the project and in particular the 2019/2020 design refinements.

No site-specific acid sulphate soil (ASS) investigations have been undertaken at this stage. A review of CSIRO’s Australian Soil Resource Information System (ASRIS) mapping has identified that the project is located within an area of ‘extremely low probability of ASS occurring’, with a level 4 confidence (provisional classification, inferred from surrogate data with no ground verification) (CSIRO, 2008). The MDBA have undertaken a regional hazard assessment of ASS throughout the Murray Darling Basin (MDBA, 2011). The results of this shows that that floodplain sediments in the Mildura to Wentworth area (to the east of the project) have a high to moderate potential of exhibiting an ASS hazard. Furthermore, and contrary to risk mapping, geomorphological, vegetation or groundwater conditions in the area of investigation suggest that ASS materials may be present (BOM, 2020 and VVG, 2020). This is consistent with previous investigations in the region which indicate ASS hazards are commonly present. Given this, it is considered that ASS materials may be present in the area of investigation and that these may be disturbed by project activities such as excavation and changes to water table height in response to augmented watering regimes. Prior to commencement of construction, the contractor would be required to undertake an ASS investigation and if potential ASS are identified and disturbance cannot be avoided, an ASS management plan would be developed to minimise potential effects. Section 3.5 describes vegetation characteristics. 3.4 Describe any outstanding natural features and/or any other important or unique values relevant to the project area The project presents a unique opportunity to protect and enhance an environmentally significant area that is critically important to the biodiversity of the entire Lower Murray region. The ecological significance of the Wallpolla Island floodplain complex is underpinned by its location, providing longitudinal connection to the River Murray and its floodplains, as well as lateral connection into the semi-arid Mallee environment. The floodplain forms part of the broader Murray-Sunset National Park, which extends 100 km to the west and south, encompassing 677,000 ha.

Wallpolla Island is listed in the Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia (DIWA) as a wetland of national significance (Environment Australia, 2001). It is also part of the Chowilla-Lindsay-Wallpolla Icon Site, one of six icon sites under The Living Murray for their high environmental values. There are three Ramsar wetlands downstream of Wallpolla Island; Banrock Station Wetland Complex (240 km downstream of Wallpolla); Riverland (100 km downstream of Wallpolla) and The Coorong and Lakes Alexandrina and Albert Wetland (555 km downstream of Wallpolla).

The floodplain of the Murray River has significant cultural heritage values for the local indigenous communities. It is well recognised as a traditional meeting place providing water, food and materials for medicines, shelter, clothing and tools. Many cultural heritage sites exist within the vicinity of the island, including many registered sites, containing shell middens, hearths, culturally scarred trees and other items of cultural significance (Bell, 2013). The area of the project adjacent to the Murray River is located within an Environmental Significance Overlay (ESO1). The ESO1 affects public and private land in non-urban areas and covers the length of the Murray River on land immediately adjoining the river. Some proposed works associated with construction banks, proposed regulators, temporary pump hardstands, and some access tracks would occur within the ESO1.

The ESO1 recognises the importance of the Murray River and its environs, being of local, regional, state, national and international significance and notes that the Murray River is an important water supply, tourism, recreation, landscape,

Note: PDF may contain fields not relevant to your application. These fields will appear blank or unticked. Please disregard these fields. cultural and environmental asset. The environmental objectives of the ESO1 seek to, amongst other things, protect the visual and environmental qualities of waterways, wetlands and lakes, restricting the use and development of land in these areas to maintain these qualities. 3.5 Describe the status of native vegetation relevant to the project area Native vegetation within the construction footprint or potentially impacted by construction has been mapped as the following EVCs, all within the Murray Scroll Belt Bioregion: EVC102 Low Chenopod Scrubland - Depleted EVC103 Riverine Chenopod Woodland- Depleted EVC806 Alluvial Plains Semi-arid Grassland- Vulnerable EVC808 Lignum Shrubland - Least Concern EVC810 Floodway Pond Herbland - Depleted EVC813 Intermittent Swampy Woodland - Depleted EVC818 Shrubby Riverine Woodland - Least Concern EVC823 Lignum Swampy Woodland - Depleted

Approximately 53.38 ha of native vegetation, including 286 large trees (112 large trees within the construction footprints of proposed structures and 174 large trees within the footprint of access tracks), may be impacted by construction, consisting of: - 32.27 ha of native vegetation potentially impacted by the construction of project infrastructure. The actual development footprint of infrastructure is approximately 13 ha and hence it is expected there would be further opportunity to avoid and minimise vegetation clearance associated with construction and to rehabilitate areas of the construction footprint following completion of construction. The current area estimate for native vegetation impact includes tree protection zones (tree canopies). These extend beyond the construction footprint – especially along the containment banks. Some trees (and the associated area of canopy) outside of the construction footprint have been included in the impact area estimate based on potential encroachment within the tree protection zone. - 21.11 ha is associated with access tracks. The scope and requirement for works along access tracks is still to be confirmed and would be designed to avoid and minimise native vegetation removal to the extent practicable. Works are expected to include maintenance activities such as grading and drainage, road base placement and formation of access tracks, lopping of trees, and tree removal only where necessary.

All areas of native vegetation that are proposed to be impacted are adjacent to existing vehicle tracks and areas of previous disturbance, and represent inferior areas of habitat to those which surround them. From a landscape perspective the proposed construction footprint represents small areas within a very large intact area of high quality native vegetation. In some instances the construction footprint and access track arrangements have changed post ecology field work being completed, and hence there are some gaps in field data. Further ecology field assessment is proposed to address gaps in native vegetation field data. The estimate of native vegetation and large tree impacts will be refined in response to this, as well as for the final construction footprint.

Inundation area The following EVCs are modelled to occur within the inundation area (based on DELWP 2005 modelled EVC mapping): 98, Semi-arid Chenopod Woodland - Depleted 102 Low Chenopod Shrubland - Depleted 103 Riverine Chenopod Woodland - Depleted 104 Lignum Swamp - Vulnerable 200 Shallow Freshwater Marsh - Vulnerable 806 Alluvial Plains Semi-arid Grassland - Vulnerable 808 Lignum Shrubland - Least Concern 810 Floodway Pond Herbland - Depleted 813 Intermittent Swampy Woodland - Depleted 818 Shrubby Riverine Woodland - Least Concern 819 Spike-sedge Wetland - Vulnerable 820 Sub-saline Depression Shrubland - Vulnerable 823 Lignum Swampy Woodland - Depleted 992 Water Body - Fresh 993 Bare Rock/Ground

As discussed in the Flora and Fauna Assessment (Attachment 3), the intent of the project is to restore a more natural inundation regime based on the water regime classes established by Ecological Associates (2014). Accordingly it is expected that the project would generally have a positive impact to vegetation within the floodplain. Of the EVCs modelled as occurring within the project’s managed inundation area, Semi-arid Chenopod Woodland (EVC 98) is the only one that is not flood-

Note: PDF may contain fields not relevant to your application. These fields will appear blank or unticked. Please disregard these fields. tolerant. Ground-truthing has confirmed that this EVC has been incorrectly mapped and it was not observed to be occurring anywhere within or immediately adjacent to the mapped location within the inundation area. The vegetation present in the mapped location of EVC 98 was found to be EVC 103 (Riverine Chenopod Woodland), EVC 808 (Lignum Shrubland) and occasionally EVC 810 (Floodway Pond Herbland). These EVCs are located on alluvial terraces and floodplains and are prone to flooding and are likely to benefit from the proposed watering regime. In addition, monitoring programs (such as the Living Murray) at Wallpolla Island have shown positive response of these EVCs to floodplain and wetland flooding, whether it be landscape-scale overbank flooding or smaller scale events, e.g. watering of creeks, floodrunners and low-lying wetlands. 3.6 Describe the gradient (or depth range if action is to be taken in a marine area) relevant to the project area The Wallpolla Island floodplain is relatively flat with elevations ranging between about 30 m AHD to about 32 m AHD. 3.7 Describe the current condition of the environment relevant to the project area Ecological condition The forests and woodlands of the Murray River floodplain have been declining rapidly in condition over the past two decades. The decline is associated with increasing regulation of the Murray River and extended periods of drought (Cunningham et al, 2011). During the recent drought, the condition of lignum communities across the Lindsay-Wallpolla Islands Icon Site was found to be poor, while approximately 25% of black box and 80% of river red gums were stressed or dying, with little recruitment observed (Henderson et al., 2008; Cunningham et al., 2006). In 2010, Cunningham et al (2011) found that 79% of the area covered by river red gum and black box communities across The Living Murray Icon Sites were stressed (Mallee CMA, 2014). High rainfall in 2010 (325 mm recorded over summer 2010-11 compared with a long term average of 60 mm at Werrimull (BOM, 2014, in Henderson et al., 2014)) provided some relief to the drought stressed plant communities of the Lindsay- Wallpolla Islands Icon Site (Mallee CMA, 2014). Specifically the following was observed at Wallpolla Island: - There was a significant improvement in the condition of River Red Gum from 2008 - 2012, evidenced by a threefold increase in the number of trees in good condition, and widespread establishment of river red gum seedlings following flooding in 2011 - 2012 (Henderson et al., 2013) - There was improvement in the condition of Black Box from 2009 - 2012, followed by a slight decline in 2013, however, despite the high rainfall and flooding events of 2011 and 2012, there has been no significant seedling establishment (Henderson et al., 2013) - Some improvement in the condition of lignum was recorded in association with the above average rainfall and flooding of 2010-11 and 2012; however the general condition of lignum is relatively poor (Henderson et al., 2014)

Past and current water management measures To prevent catastrophic ecosystem collapse at Wallpolla Island, an emergency environmental watering program was initiated in 2004-05 as an immediate response to the Island’s poor condition. Over six years, environmental water was delivered to low lying wetlands and creeklines via portable pumps and contained with temporary earthen levees. Bayes et al (2010), conclude that the environmental watering program made a significant contribution to increasing the resilience and therefore long-term viability of the plant communities and populations of threatened species at Wallpolla Island. Bayes et al (2010) notes that the that the environmental watering was of considerable benefit for maintenance of local frog populations as evidenced by breeding of one of the three frog species located during the survey. The watering provided habitat for an array of waterbird species, including the Victorian listed vulnerable Baillon’s Crake (Porzana pusilla) observed forging for invertebrates at Wallpolla Island in 2010. In 2012, the Mallee CMA developed an Environmental Water Management Plan (refer to Attachment 6 – Environmental Water Management Plan) for Wallpolla Island identifying ecological objectives and hydrological targets for the floodplain, consistent with Ecological Associates (2014a). These ecological objectives and targets have been refined as part of the VMFRP MER Plan and have been adopted for the Wallpolla Island Floodplain Management Project (as per the addendum to the EWMP included in Attachment 6).

Past and current land use Wallpolla Island was historically managed as a pastoral run and used for grazing cattle and sheep, as well as for timber cutting to supply river trade. In 1989, the Land Conservation Council recommendations resulted in a changed focus of land management at the island, from agriculture to conservation. Recent Victorian Environmental Assessment Council decisions (VEAC, 2008) have resulted in incorporation of a part of Wallpolla Island as River Murray Reserve, Murray River Park (Proposed) and Murray-Sunset National Park, managed by Parks Victoria. Today the region supports a range of recreational activities such as fishing, camping, boating, canoeing, bird and wildlife watching, photography, horse riding, motor biking and four-wheel driving. The area also forms part of the Murray River Trail for tourism and recreation purposes and provides direct access to the Murray River for water-based activities and river camping or caravanning.

Discussion on flora and fauna present within the project area is provided in Section 3.1 and 3.5. Discussion on soils and erosion is provided in Section 3.3.

Note: PDF may contain fields not relevant to your application. These fields will appear blank or unticked. Please disregard these fields. 3.8 Describe any Commonwealth Heritage places or other places recognised as having heritage values relevant to the project No places listed on the Victorian Heritage Register (VHR), Victorian Heritage Inventory (VHI), World Heritage List, National Heritage List or Commonwealth Heritage List are located within or adjoining the construction footprint or inundation area.

Similarly, there are no historical heritage places listed on the Mildura Planning Scheme Heritage Overlay (HO) within or adjacent to the construction footprint or inundation area.

Based on an assessment of aerial imagery and a review of relevant historical heritage assessments, there is low-moderate potential for previously unidentified historical heritage to be present within the area of investigation and the inundation area. Site types which may be identified in the area of investigation would be places associated with early agricultural or pastoral activities, logging, river shipping and water management practices. 3.9 Describe any Indigenous heritage values relevant to the project area The floodplain of the Murray River has significant cultural heritage values for the local indigenous communities. It is well recognised as a traditional meeting place providing water, food and materials for medicines, shelter, clothing and tools. The area contains numerous scar trees, middens, mounds, burial sites, surface scatters and other artefacts (Mallee CMA, 2014).

A search of the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register (VAHR) identified 23 total registered cultural heritage places (Aboriginal Places), containing a total of 67 individual components, located within the area of investigation and inundation area. Of these, 10 Aboriginal Places with 17 individual components are entirely within the project’s area of investigation.

The background review and VAHR search undertaken by R8 in 2019 which informed a predictive model, indicated that Aboriginal Places were most commonly found within 200 m of the Murray River, Wallpolla Creek, Boy Creek, Deep Creek, Mullaroo Creek, Lake Cullulleraine. As 10 registered Aboriginal Places are present within the activity area assessed, the Wallpolla Island region has high densities of Aboriginal archaeological sites. As such, there is a high potential for further, undiscovered Aboriginal cultural heritage to be present. The area would have been a favourable location for Aboriginal occupation and resource procurement given the availability of food and fresh water.

A Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP) is currently being prepared for the project and is the mechanism for assessing and managing impacts to Aboriginal cultural heritage. As a part of the CHMP process, consultation with the Registered Aboriginal Party (RAP), the First People of the Millewa-Mallee Aboriginal Corporation is ongoing. The CHMP will include a desktop assessment, standard assessment (field survey) and complex assessment (sub-surface testing). 3.10 Describe the tenure of the action area (e.g. freehold, leasehold) relevant to the project area The construction footprint includes both Crown and freehold land within Victoria, with the exception of a small portion of the footprint (associated with the pumping area at MS1) which extends into the Murray River (NSW). Crown land reserved includes the Murray River Regional Park and the Murray-Sunset National Park which are owned and managed by Parks Victoria. Works on freehold land includes construction of containment banks, culverts and access tracks on five land parcels. Two of these freehold parcels are subject to a caveat or covenants for conservation purposes.

The inundation area is entirely within Victoria. The majority of the inundation area is within Crown land, however five freehold parcels would be subject to inundation. One parcel is within the Mid Wallpolla and Direct Local Pumping WMAs and four are within South Wallpolla. VMFRP has consulted with landholders of private properties and approval in principle has been received for project infrastructure and inundation. 3.11 Describe any existing or any proposed uses relevant to the project area The project comprises of both Crown land and freehold land. All of the Crown land is associated with the Murray River Regional Park and the Murray-Sunset National Park. These are owned and managed by Parks Victoria in accordance with the objectives of the National Parks Act 1975. There are also a number of private land parcels in the southern portion of the project area (South Wallpolla and Direct Local Pumping WMA) that are used for conservation purposes and non-irrigated farming. The region supports a range of recreational activities such as fishing, camping, boating, canoeing, bird and wildlife watching, photography, horse riding, motor biking and four-wheel driving. The area also forms part of the Murray River Trail for tourism and recreation purposes and provides direct access to the Murray River for water-based activities and river camping or caravanning.

The project is within the Murray Darling wine region of Victoria. The region supports a major horticultural centre notable for its grape production and is considered the second largest wine region in Australia. The industry is highly reliant on the floodplains and irrigation systems that currently exist across the region.

Current public data indicates the location of 22 apiary sites located in proximity to the area of investigation. The hives are

Note: PDF may contain fields not relevant to your application. These fields will appear blank or unticked. Please disregard these fields. part of annual licence agreements that are dependent on seasonal flowering of River Red Gum forests. Bees rely on adequate water source to thrive, and it is expected that the objectives of the project would increase the regularity and reliability of flowering.

Note: PDF may contain fields not relevant to your application. These fields will appear blank or unticked. Please disregard these fields. Section 4 Measures to avoid or reduce impacts 4.1 Describe the measures you will undertake to avoid or reduce impact from your proposed action A draft Environmental Management Framework (EMF) (Attachment 7) has been prepared and describes the general mitigation measures that would be applied for construction and operation of all of the VMFRP projects. Measures specific to Wallpolla are outlined below:

Design and construction The project has undergone a comprehensive design process, with a number of design options considered (Attachment 8). During this process, measures to mitigate impacts on environmental values have been integrated into the design and would continue to be as further design refinements are made. In accordance with the draft EMF, the contractor would be required to prepare a CEMP for the project which would contain the measures described in Sections 2.4 and 2.5 of this referral to avoid and mitigate impacts to listed threatened and migratory species. In addition, the following mitigation measures would be implemented to minimise and avoid impacts to MNES in particular:

Construction - Removal of hollow-bearing trees within the construction footprint (if required) would occur outside the breeding season of hollow-dependant species where practicable. A protocol for tree removal would be developed prior to and implemented during construction requiring pre-clearance surveys prior to (within 24 hours) the hollow-bearing trees being removed. - To reduce the likelihood of impacts to threatened fish in Wallpolla Creek during construction of regulator MS2: - Limit fish passage restrictions during breeding season (October to February) - Target construction period during colder months (e.g. June to August) to avoid water quality impacts caused by algal blooms and stratification - Implement flow-through via pumping from upstream to downstream to maintain water quality, quantity and levels on both sides of the construction site - Monitor water quality and depths upstream and downstream of the MS2 construction site to maintain similar conditions on both sides of the construction site - During construction of regulator MS1: - Implement flow-through via pumping from upstream to downstream to maintain downstream water quality in Finnigans Creek during periods that the creek would otherwise be connected to the Murray River - Develop and implement a CEMP for the construction phase to further avoid or minimise indirect impacts such as erosion, sedimentation and the accidental spill of oils or other chemicals. - Develop and implement an Aquatic Fauna Management Plan as part of the CEMP to manage impacts to aquatic values with emphasis on threatened fish species and turtles. - Develop and implement a Flora and Fauna Management Plan as part of the CEMP to manage impacts to flora and fauna values, particularly threatened species and the habitat preclearance and clearance process.

Operation The Wallpolla Environmental Water Management Plan (EWMP) (Attachment 6) provides the framework for water planning, monitoring and consultation, and the Operating Plan (Attachment 9) outlines the processes for operation of the structures to meet key ecological objectives and comply with relevant legislative requirements.

In addition to the requirements in the draft EWMP and the Operating Plan, the following measures would be implemented to minimise and avoid impacts to MNES: - Pest animal management and control program to be implemented and funded within and surrounding the inundation area, in consultation with Parks Victoria to expand current pest control programs within the park during inundation events. - Implementation of a blackwater management measures and related water quality monitoring program on-site and within the Murray River to adaptively manage risks to the downstream aquatic environment. - Investigate the potential for native vegetation either within or immediately adjacent to the inundation area to be adversely impacted during the operation phase of the project due to changes in groundwater levels. If further assessment identifies that changes to groundwater would adversely impact native vegetation, then additional mitigation measures would need to be developed and implemented as a part of the project through the EWMP and the MER Framework. - Measures to reduce the proliferation of carp including tailoring water regimes to provide competitive advantage to native fish, drying wetlands containing large carp numbers, and developing and implementing a fish exit strategy to manage drawdown to trigger native fish to move off the floodplain, where possible, stranding carp. 4.2 For matters protected by the EPBC Act that may be affected by the proposed action, describe the proposed environmental outcomes to be achieved The project aims to restore a more natural inundation regime and improve ecological condition across approximately 2,672

Note: PDF may contain fields not relevant to your application. These fields will appear blank or unticked. Please disregard these fields. ha of high ecological value Murray River floodplain at Wallpolla Island which forms part of the broader Murray-Sunset National Park. Seven water regime classes, comprising multiple EVCs, have been specifically identified for restoration through this project as described by Ecological Associates (2014), Mallee CMA (2014); - Semi-permanent wetlands - Temporary wetland - Watercourses - Red Gum Forest and Woodland - Lignum Shrubland and Woodland - Black Box Woodland - Alluvial Plains Ecological Associates (2014) developed ecological objectives for the water regime classes identified for restoration by the project based on: - The environmental objectives set out in Chapter 5 of the Basin Plan 2012 - The expected environmental outcomes set out in the Basin-wide Environmental Watering Strategy (MDBA, 2014) - The ecological values identified through desktop and field-based baseline flora and fauna surveys - An ecological objectives workshop with an expert panel comprised of aquatic wildlife and restoration ecologists and key project stakeholders (DELWP, Mallee CMA) The specific ecological objectives of the project outlined in the EWMP are to: - Reduce high threat exotic plant cover - Maintain plant cover and diversity of target native vegetation groups - Maintain threatened native flora presence - Maintain the health of native trees - Increase native habitat for local populations of fauna by increasing the extent of wetland and riparian vegetation - Provide reliable native foraging and breeding habitat for waterbirds - Increase the abundance of native woodland birds - Maintain successful breeding for target bird species - Increase the abundance of bats as an indicator species of increased resources resulting from increased floodplain productivity - Protect and restore mammal populations - Increase the abundance of reptiles as an indicator species of increased resources resulting from increased floodplain productivity - Develop seasonal populations of small-bodied native fish - Maintain local populations of large-bodied native fish - Provide suitable habitat for thousands of waterbirds - Restore seasonal populations of native frogs. - Contribute to the carbon requirements of the River Murray channel ecosystem to support system productivity The Wallpolla Island Fish Management Plan (DELWP 2018) set the following opportunities for the site: - Recovery of small-bodied wetland generalist fish species. - Provide an experimental nursery habitat for naturally recruited golden perch larvae/fingerlings

Rather than being likely to have a significant adverse impact on listed threatened species or listed migratory species, the project is more likely to provide an overall benefit to these species as reflected through the ecological objectives. Avifauna (Regent Parrot, Painted Honeyeater, South-eastern Long-eared Bat, and Australasian Bittern) are likely to be benefitted through the proposed reinstatement of a more natural hydrological regime to Wallpolla Island floodplain, and associated improvements in the health and condition of floodplain vegetation communities, which provide potential foraging habitat for these species. Aquatic fauna (Growling Grass Frog, Silver Perch, Murray Cod) are also likely to be benefitted through the proposed reinstatement of a more natural hydrological regime to Wallpolla Island floodplain, through the expansion and improvement of short-term foraging habitat in floodplain wetlands likely to be created during inundation events.

To achieve the ecological objectives noted above, specific targets have been defined for the project to measure progress towards achieving the ecological objectives. Initially developed by Ecological Associates (2014), these objectives and targets are currently being refined by ARI as part of the development of the VMFRP Monitoring Evaluation and Reporting (MER) Framework (ARI, 2020), to provide more specific ecological targets against which progress can be measured and to support quantification of the degree of environmental benefit expected from the project. The timeframes specified in these ecological targets would apply from the actual commissioning date in the final Wallpolla Island EWMP and Operating Plan that would be submitted for approval by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) prior to environmental watering being undertaken.

Note: PDF may contain fields not relevant to your application. These fields will appear blank or unticked. Please disregard these fields. Section 5 Conclusion on the likelihood of significant impacts 5.1 You indicated the below ticked items to be of significant impact and therefore you consider the action to be a controlled action N World Heritage properties N National Heritage places N Wetlands of international importance (declared Ramsar wetlands) N Listed threatened species or any threatened ecological community N Listed migratory species N Marine environment outside Commonwealth marine areas N Protection of the environment from actions involving Commonwealth land N Great Barrier Reef Marine Park N A water resource, in relation to coal seam gas development and large coal mining development N Protection of the environment from nuclear actions N Protection of the environment from Commonwealth actions N Commonwealth Heritage places overseas N Commonwealth marine areas 5.2 If no significant matters are identified, provide the key reasons why you think the proposed action is not likely to have a significant impact on a matter protected under the EPBC Act and therefore not a controlled action For the reasons discussed in Section 2.4, the project is unlikely to have a significant impact to protected matters under the EPBC Act. Further discussion is provided below:

Ramsar sites The project is not likely to result in an impact to downstream Ramsar wetland sites. The closest downstream Ramsar site to the Wallpolla project is the Riverland Ramsar (100 km). Given the distance to the Ramsar site, discharges from Wallpolla would be sufficiently diluted by the time it reaches the Ramsar site. RMOC will assess changes as a result of this project in combination with other projects (upstream and downstream) to determine potential changes in flows, water quality and downstream impacts.

Buloke Woodlands This community was not identified within the construction footprint, however is consistent with EVC 98 which is modelled to occur in the inundation area. Ground-truthing field assessment has confirmed that EVC 98 is not present in any areas where it had been modelled as occurring or in any areas where modelled EVC data was not available. There was no vegetation identified within the portion of the inundation areas surveyed that met the criteria to be considered a listed community under the EPBC Act. Whilst the full extent of the inundation area was not assessed as a part of the ground-truthing, based on a desktop review of the available information and observations made during the fieldwork it is considered unlikely that any listed communities are present within the proposed area of inundation.

Flora species No EPBC Act listed species are considered to have the potential to occur based on the habitat requirements of the species combined with habitats encountered in the area of investigation and previous records in the area: No EPBC Act listed flora species were recorded during the 2013, 2015 and 2019 site investigations or would likely be significantly impacted by the project.

Fauna species Murray Cod and Silver Perch The project is unlikely to lead to a long-term decrease in the size of the population, reduce the area of occupancy, fragment an existing population into two or more populations, adversely affect critical habitat or disrupt the breeding cycle. An Aquatic Fauna Management Plan would be prepared and implemented during construction and operation to manage impacts to aquatic values. Measures outlined in Section 4.1 would be implemented during construction of regulator MS2. Operation of the project may benefit the fish species by providing expanded and improved habitat conditions following environmental watering, with short-term foraging habitat in floodplain wetlands likely to be created during inundation events. An ongoing invasive species control program would be implemented to reduce increased risks as a result of pest species.

South-eastern Long-eared Bat, Regent Parrot, Painted Honeyeater These species are only occasional visitors and the project area is unlikely to support an important population. While there is potential for localised impacts on these species due to the loss of vegetation and habitation, this loss represents less than 0.59% of the area of Murray Sunset National Park, which contains extensive potential habitat for these species. These species are highly mobile and suitable habitat is widespread and is unlikely to be adversely impacted by short and occasional periods of inundation

Note: PDF may contain fields not relevant to your application. These fields will appear blank or unticked. Please disregard these fields.

Growling Grass Frog Localised impacts to this species from the project are possible during construction, however it is noted that similar quality habitat is abundant in the surrounding area. Impacts from works within waterways and habitat loss would be managed through a Flora and Fauna Management Plan. A construction specific Aquatic Fauna Management Plan would also be developed as part of a CEMP for all works around waterways to avoid and minimise these impacts. The Growling Grass Frog is considered likely to benefit from expanded and improved habitat as a result of the managed inundation events provided by the project.

Migratory species It is highly unlikely that the construction footprint supports habitat that would be considered important for migratory species foraging or breeding activity or support a significant population of species. Most of these species are either highly unlikely to occur or would very rarely use airspace over these footprints, given the lack of habitat available (waterbodies, wetlands etc.), therefore adverse impacts to these species are not expected to occur as a result of the project. Introduction of environmental water may lead to an increase in feral predators due to the associated increase in productivity and such predators could potentially prey on migratory waterbirds. An accompanying pest animal management and control program would be implemented within the inundation area, in consultation with Parks Victoria.

Note: PDF may contain fields not relevant to your application. These fields will appear blank or unticked. Please disregard these fields. Section 6 Environmental record of the person proposing to take the action 6.1 Does the person taking the action have a satisfactory record of responsible environmental management? Explain in further detail Lower Murray Urban and Rural Water Corporation (LMW) is an urban and rural water authority operating in north-west Victoria in accordance with its function and powers established under the Victorian Water Act 1989. LMW oversees a substantial capital works program additional to the ongoing operations and maintenance of their urban and rural water networks. As detailed further in Section 6.2, LMW does not have any past or present proceedings under law for any capital works programs delivered in the rural water sector. 6.2 Provide details of any past or present proceedings under a Commonwealth, State or Territory law for the protection of the environment or the conservation and sustainable use of natural resources against either (a) the person proposing to take the action or, (b) if a permit has been applied for in relation to the action – the person making the application Pollution Abatement Notice (PAN) 90007586 – revoked on 3 March 2017. No other past or present proceedings are known at this time. 6.3 If it is a corporation undertaking the action will the action be taken in accordance with the corporation’s environmental policy and framework? Y Yes N No 6.3.1 If the person taking the action is a corporation, provide details of the corporation's environmental policy and planning framework Due to the scale and complexity of VMFRP, LMW has developed a project-specific Environmental Management Plan (EMP) that reflects the principles of ISO 14001 to guide delivery of the VMFRP projects.

The VMFRP EMP describes the principles and process for environmental management to be applied during the delivery of detailed design and approvals for the VMFRP projects, and would be amended following approvals of the projects to address environmental management requirements during construction and commissioning of the projects. Specifically, the purpose of the current VMFRP EMP is to detail the methods for achieving the key environmental objectives of the projects, including: - Establishing and implementing management strategies that address the environmental risks, safeguards and issues - Managing the design to comply with relevant Victorian, New South Wales, Commonwealth and Local Government requirements, statutory approvals/licences and project requirements - Implementing environmental planning procedures and practices as required

To complement the VMFRP EMP and to support referrals for the projects under the Victorian Environment Effects Act 1978 and Commonwealth Environment Protection Biodiversity and Conservation Act 1999, a draft Environmental Management Framework (Draft EMF) has been prepared. The Draft EMF provides an overview of the governance framework, processes and procedures that would be applied to manage environmental risks and impacts during construction and operation of VMFRP, including specific environmental management documentation to be prepared for construction and operation of the VMFRP.

The Draft EMF (see Attachment 7 – Draft Environmental Management Framework) is a ‘live’ document and would be updated throughout the design and approvals phase of the program to: - Incorporate findings from technical studies and design - Capture statutory requirements and approval conditions - Reflect environmental values and continuously improve protection measures through adaptive management - Address the needs and expectations of interested parties (including stakeholders, regulators and the community)

The Draft EMF contains general mitigation measures for the construction phase of the VMFRP. The primary environmental management documentation for managing environmental and heritage risks and impacts during construction of the project would be: - Construction Environmental Management Plan - Cultural Heritage Management Plan The primary environmental management documentation for managing environmental risks and maximising environmental benefits during operation of the project would be: - Wallpolla Island Environmental Water Management Plan (EWMP) - Wallpolla Island Operating Plan

A copy of the draft Wallpolla Island EWMP Addendum (VMFRP, 2020b) prepared to integrate the proposed environmental

Note: PDF may contain fields not relevant to your application. These fields will appear blank or unticked. Please disregard these fields. watering works into the current EWMP (MDBA, 2012) is provided in Attachment 7 – Environmental Watering Management Plan. A copy of the draft Wallpolla Island Operating Plan (VMFRP, 2020a) is provided in Attachment 9 – Draft Operating Plan. 6.4 Has the person taking the action previously referred an action under the EPBC Act, or been responsible for undertaking an action referred under the EPBC Act? Y Yes N No 6.4.1 EPBC Act No and/or Name of Proposal 2020/8647 – Lower Murray Urban and Rural Water Corporation/Water Management and Use/Nyah-Vinifera Park, Vinifera, Victoria, 3594, Australia/Victoria/Vinifera Floodplain Restoration Project

2020/8632 – Lower Murray Urban and Rural Water Corporation/Water Management and Use/Kulkyne Way, Red Cliffs/Victoria/Hattah Lakes North Floodplain Restoration Project

2020/8648 - Lower Murray Urban and Rural Water Corporation/Water Management and Use/Nyah-Vinifera Park/Victoria/Nyah Floodplain Restoration Project

2020/8686 - Lower Murray Urban and Rural Water Corporation/Water Management and Use/Murray River anabranch near Natya, Nyah, Swan Hill and Robinvale/Victoria/Burra Creek Floodplain Restoration Project

2020/8744 - Lower Murray Urban and Rural Water Corporation/Water Management and Use/ Belsar-Yungera floodplain complex, near Robinvale/Victoria/ Belsar-Yungera Floodplain Restoration Project

2002/693 - Lower Murray Water/Waste Management (sewerage)/Lake Boga/Victoria/Construction of wastewater treatment lagoons at Lake Boga, Victoria.

Note: PDF may contain fields not relevant to your application. These fields will appear blank or unticked. Please disregard these fields. Section 7 Information sources Reference source ARI (Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research) (Jenkin, A., Stuart, I. and Harrow, S.) (2018). SDL Fish Management Plan: Wallpolla Island, November 2018. Report prepared for Mallee Catchment Management Authority. Reliability Prepared by research institute Uncertainties Report based on information current at time of preparation. Reference source Bayes, E., Cook, D., Jolly, K., & Robertson, P. (2010). Lindsay–Wallpolla frog and aquatic vegetation surveys 2009–2010. Report for the Mallee Catchment Management Authority as part of Murray-Darling Basin Authority funded project MD1458 Reliability Prepared by consultant Uncertainties Consultant report based on information current at time of preparation. Reference source Bell (2013a). Mallee Environmental Watering Projects, Wallpolla Island Floodplain, Northwest Victoria: Due Diligence Assessment, Historical Archaeology. Report prepared by Jo Bell Heritage Services for the Mallee CMA. Reliability Prepared by consultant Uncertainties Consultant report based on information current at time of preparation. Reference source Bell (2013b). Watering the Wallpolla Island Floodplain, Northwest Victoria, Due Diligence Assessment. Report prepared by Jo Bell Heritage Services for the Mallee CMA. Reliability Prepared by consultant Uncertainties Consultant report based on information current at time of preparation. Reference source Biosis (2013). Vertebrate fauna surveys of Wallpolla Island for SDL Offsets Project. Report prepared for Mallee Catchment Management Authority. Reliability Prepared by consultant Uncertainties Consultant report based on information current at time of preparation.

Note: PDF may contain fields not relevant to your application. These fields will appear blank or unticked. Please disregard these fields. Reference source BOM (2020) Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems Atlas. Available at < http://www.bom.gov. au/water/groundwater/gde/map.shtml> Reliability Government publication Uncertainties Research paper based on information current at time of preparation. Reference source CSIRO (2008) Atlas of Australian Acid Sulphate Soils. CSIRO Land & Water. Reliability Prepared by research institute Uncertainties Report based on information current at time of preparation. Reference source Cullen et al. (2008) Atlas – Boundary Bend to Speewa, River Murray Corridor AEM Salinity Mapping Project Geoscience Australia. Reliability Prepared by research institute Prepared by consultant Uncertainties Consultant report based on information current at time of preparation. Reference source Cunningham, S., P. Griffioen, M. White, and R. MacNally (2011). Mapping the condition of river red gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) and black box (Eucalyptus largiflorens) stands in The Living Murray Icon Sites. Stand condition report 2010. Canberra: Murray-Darling Basin Authority, 2011. Reliability Prepared by consultant Uncertainties Consultant report based on information current at time of preparation. Reference source DELWP (2017). Guidelines for the removal, destruction or lopping of native vegetation. Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, East Melbourne, Victoria Reliability Prepared by consultant Government publication Uncertainties Consultant report based on information current at time of preparation. Research paper based on information current at time of preparation.

Note: PDF may contain fields not relevant to your application. These fields will appear blank or unticked. Please disregard these fields. Reference source DELWP (2018) SDL Fish Management Plan – Wallpolla Island. Report prepared for Mallee CMA Reliability Prepared by consultant Uncertainties Consultant report based on information current at time of preparation. Reference source DELWP (2020), Bioregions and EVC benchmarks, accessed at https://www.environment.vic.gov.au/biodiversity/bioregions- and-evc-benchmarks Reliability Government publication Uncertainties Research paper based on information current at time of preparation. Reference source DEPI (2014). Advisory List of Rare or Threatened Plants in Victoria - 2014. Victorian Department of Environment and Primary Industries, East Melbourne, Victoria Reliability Government publication Uncertainties Research paper based on information current at time of preparation. Reference source DoJCS - Department of Justice and Community Safety, 2020, accessed at https://www.justice.vic.gov.au/your- rights/native-title Reliability Government publication Uncertainties Research paper based on information current at time of preparation. Reference source Ecological Associates (2007) Floodplain options investigation: Lindsay, Mulcra and Wallpolla Islands. Report prepared for Mallee CMA. Reliability Prepared by consultant Uncertainties Consultant report based on information current at time of preparation. Reference source Ecological Associates (2014a) SDL Floodplain Watering Projects: Rationale and Outcomes, Report AL040-1-D. Report for the Mallee CMA. Reliability Prepared by consultant

Note: PDF may contain fields not relevant to your application. These fields will appear blank or unticked. Please disregard these fields. Uncertainties Consultant report based on information current at time of preparation.

Reference source Ecological Associates (2014b) SDL Floodplain Watering Projects: Monitoring and Evaluation. Ecological Associates report ALo45-1-B. Report for the Mallee CMA Reliability Prepared by consultant Uncertainties Consultant report based on information current at time of preparation. Reference source Environment Australia (2001). A directory of important wetlands in Australia. Canberra, ACT. Reliability Government publication Uncertainties Research paper based on information current at time of preparation. Reference source GHD (2016). Wallpolla Island SDL Project, Ecological Assessment. May 2016. Report prepared for Mallee Catchment Management Authority. Reliability Prepared by consultant Uncertainties Consultant report based on information current at time of preparation. Reference source GHD (2019). Lake Wallawalla Aquatic Ecosystem and Vegetation- Monitoring Program 2018-19. Report for Mallee CMA Reliability Prepared by consultant Uncertainties Consultant report based on information current at time of preparation. Reference source Gippel, C.J. (2014) Spells analysis of modelled flow for the River Murray from Swan Hill to the South Australia Border. Fluvial Systems Pty Ltd, Stockton. Mallee CMA November Reliability Prepared by consultant Uncertainties Consultant report based on information current at time of preparation.

Note: PDF may contain fields not relevant to your application. These fields will appear blank or unticked. Please disregard these fields. Reference source Henderson, M., Campbell, C., McCarthy, B., Vilizzi, L., Wallace, T. and Sharpe, C. (2008). The Living Murray Condition Monitoring at Lindsay, Mulcra and Wallpolla Islands 2007/-08. Draft Report to the Mallee Catchment Management Authority, Victoria. Reliability Prepared by consultant Uncertainties Consultant report based on information current at time of preparation. Reference source Henderson, M., et al (2013). The Living Murray Condition Monitoring Report at Lindsay, Mulcra and Wallpolla Islands 2012- 2013 Part A – Main Report. Report prepared for the Mallee CMA. Reliability Prepared by consultant Uncertainties Consultant report based on information current at time of preparation. Reference source Henderson, M., Freestone, F., Vlamis, T., Cranston, G., Huntley, S., Campbell, C. and Brown, P. (2014). The Living Murray Condition Monitoring at Lindsay, Mulcra and Wallpolla Islands 2013–14 Part A – Main report. Draft report prepared for the Mallee Catchment Management Authority by The Murray-Darling Freshwater Research Centre, Reliability Prepared by consultant Uncertainties Consultant report based on information current at time of preparation. Reference source Institute (2020) Victorian Murray Floodplain Restoration Project Ecological Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Plan. Prepared for VMFRP, Arthur Rylah Institute Reliability Prepared by research institute Uncertainties Report based on information current at time of preparation. Reference source Jacobs & SMEC. (2017a). Wallpolla Island Structures - Supplementary Concept Advanced Concept Design. 2017. Reliability Prepared by consultant Uncertainties Consultant report based on information current at time of preparation. Reference source Jacobs & SMEC (2017b) Wallpolla Island Advanced Concept Design Geotechnical Investigations, Reliability

Note: PDF may contain fields not relevant to your application. These fields will appear blank or unticked. Please disregard these fields. Prepared by consultant Uncertainties Consultant report based on information current at time of preparation.

Reference source Jacobs (2019). Groundwater salinity monitoring bore specification for SDL project – Drilling specification. Report to Mallee CMA, May 2019. Reliability Prepared by consultant Uncertainties Consultant report based on information current at time of preparation. Reference source Lloyd Environmental (2014). SDL offsets projects – risks investigation, assessment and management strategy. Report for the Mallee CMA. Reliability Prepared by consultant Uncertainties Consultant report based on information current at time of preparation. Reference source Mallee CMA (2014). Sustainable Diversion Limit Adjustment Phase 2 Assessment Supply Measure Business Case: Wallpolla Island Floodplain Management Project Reliability Government publication Uncertainties Research paper based on information current at time of preparation. Reference source Mallee CMA (2016) Waterbird abundance and diversity at the Mallee Icon Sites. Mallee Catchment Management Authority, Irymple Reliability Government publication Uncertainties Research paper based on information current at time of preparation. Reference source MDBA (2010). Proposed Basin Plan. Murray-Darling Basin Authority, Canberra, ACT Reliability Government publication Uncertainties Research paper based on information current at time of preparation.

Note: PDF may contain fields not relevant to your application. These fields will appear blank or unticked. Please disregard these fields. Reference source MDBA (2011) Acid Sulfate Soils in the Murray Darling Basin. MDBA Publication No. 147/11, CSIRO Land and Water and the Murray–Darling Freshwater Research Centre. Reliability Prepared by research institute Uncertainties Report based on information current at time of preparation. Reference source MDBA, 2012. Lindsay-Mulcra-Wallpolla Environmental Water Management Plan, Canberra: MDBA. Reliability Prepared by research institute Uncertainties Report based on information current at time of preparation. Reference source MDBA (2015), Basin Salinity Management 2030 (BSM2030), MurrayDarling Basin Authority, Canberra, ACT Reliability Prepared by research institute Uncertainties Report based on information current at time of preparation. Reference source Newall, P., Lloyd, L., Gell, P. and Walker, K. (2009) Riverland Ramsar Site Ecological Character Description, Report for the South Australian Department of Heritage and Environment. Reliability Prepared by consultant Uncertainties Consultant report based on information current at time of preparation. Reference source Newall, P.R., Lloyd, L.N., Barton, A. and Cooling, M. (2014). SDL offsets projects – risks investigation, assessment and management strategy. Lloyd Environmental report to Mallee CMA. Lloyd Environmental Pty Ltd, Syndal, Victoria. Reliability Prepared by consultant Uncertainties Consultant report based on information current at time of preparation. Reference source O’Rorke, M., Bolger ,P., Thorne, R., and Chaplin, H. (1992). Swan Hill 1:250,00 scale Hydrogeological Map, Rural Water Corporation of Victoria. Reliability Prepared by consultant

Reference source R8 (2020a). Victorian Murray Floodplain Restoration Project -Lower Murray Urban and Rural Water Corporation – Desktop Groundwater Assessment – Wallpolla Island. Prepared for the Victorian Murray Floodplain Restoration Project. May 2020. Reliability Prepared by consultant Uncertainties Consultant report based on information current at time of preparation. Reference source R8 (2020b). Victorian Murray Floodplain Restoration Project -Lower Murray Urban and Rural Water Corporation – Flora and Fauna Assessment Report – Wallpolla Island. Prepared for the Victorian Murray Floodplain Restoration Project. May 2020. R8 (2020c). Victorian Murray Floodplain Restoration Project -Lower Murray Urban and Rural Water Corporation – Historical Heritage Assessment – Wallpolla Island. Prepared for the Victorian Murray Floodplain Restoration Project. May 2020 Reliability Prepared by consultant Uncertainties Consultant report based on information current at time of preparation. Reference source Seran, BL&A (2018). Basin Environmental Works – Screening of the potential impacts on threatened species and communities associated with the construction and operation of Victoria’s nine Basin Plan environmental works projects. Reliability Prepared by consultant Uncertainties Consultant report based on information current at time of preparation. Reference source SKM (2008). Broad Salt Accessions for the river reach between Locks 7 and 10, Mallee Catchment Management Authority, December 2008 Reliability Prepared by consultant Uncertainties Consultant report based on information current at time of preparation. Reference source SKM (2013). Preliminary Salinity Impact Assessment for Mallee Environmental Watering Projects, Other Sites. Report for Mallee Catchment Management Authority. SKM (2014). Preliminary Salinity Impact Assessment for Mallee Environmental Watering Projects. Report prepared for Mallee Catchment Management Authority.

Note: PDF may contain fields not relevant to your application. These fields will appear blank or unticked. Please disregard these fields. Reliability Prepared by consultant Uncertainties Consultant report based on information current at time of preparation. Reference source Sluiter, I. and Allen, G. (2013). Wallpolla Island Flora Census – November 2013. Ogyris Ecological Research. Report prepared for Mallee Catchment Management Authority. Reliability Prepared by consultant Uncertainties Consultant report based on information current at time of preparation. Reference source Water Technology (2014). Mallee CMA Sustainable Diversion Limit Offset, Water Resourcing Arrangement. Report prepared for the Mallee CMA. Reliability Prepared by consultant Uncertainties Consultant report based on information current at time of preparation. Reference source Water Technology (Arrowsmith, C. and Miller, A.) (2016). Wallpolla Island Modelling Report, March 2016. Report prepared for Mallee Catchment Management Authority. Reliability Prepared by consultant Uncertainties Consultant report based on information current at time of preparation. Reference source Parks Victoria (2018). River Red Gum Parks Management Plan (July 2018). Available: https://www.parks.vic.gov. au/search?search=river+red+gum+parks+management+ Reliability Government publication Uncertainties Research paper based on information current at time of preparation. Reference source VVG (2020) Visualising Victoria Groundwater, accessed at https://www.vvg.org.au/ Reliability Government publication Uncertainties Research paper based on information current at time of preparation.

Note: PDF may contain fields not relevant to your application. These fields will appear blank or unticked. Please disregard these fields. Reference source Wood D., Romanin L., Brown P., Loyn R., McKillop T. and Cheers G. (2018) The Living Murray: Annual condition monitoring at Lindsay, Mulcra and Wallpolla Islands Icon Site 2017–18. Part A. Final Report prepared for the Mallee Catchment Management Authority by the School of Life Sciences Albury–Wodonga and Mildura, SLS Publication 186 Reliability Prepared by consultant Uncertainties Consultant report based on information current at time of preparation.

Note: PDF may contain fields not relevant to your application. These fields will appear blank or unticked. Please disregard these fields. Section 8 Proposed alternatives Do you have any feasible alternatives to taking the proposed action? Yes Y No Note: PDF may contain fields not relevant to your application. These fields will appear blank or unticked. Please disregard these fields. Section 9 Person proposing the action 9.1.1 Is the person proposing the action a member of an organisation? Y Yes N No Organisation Organisation name LOWER MURRAY URBAN AND RURAL WATER CORPORATION Business name Lower Murray Water ABN 18475808826 ACN Business address 741 Fourteenth St, Mildura, 3500, VIC, Australia

Postal address

Main Phone number 03 5051 3400 Fax Primary email address [email protected] Secondary email address 9.1.2 I qualify for exemption from fees under section 520(4C)(e)(v) of the EPBC Act because I am: N Small business Y Not applicable 9.1.2.2 I would like to apply for a waiver of full or partial fees under Schedule 1, 5.21A of the EPBC Regulations * N Yes Y No 9.1.3 Contact First name Josh Last name White Job title Project Director - VMFRP Phone 0400 697 304 Mobile Fax Email [email protected] Primary address PO Box 1438, Mildura, 3502, VIC, Australia Address Declaration: Person proposing the action I, ______,Josh White declare that to the best of my knowledge the information I have given on, or attached to the EPBC Act Referral is complete, current and correct. I understand that giving false or misleading information is a serious offence. I declare that I am not taking the action on behalf or for the benefit of any other person or entity.

Signature: ...... Date: ...... 24/08/2020 I, ______,Josh White the person proposing the action, consent to the designation of ______Josh White as the proponent for the purposes of the action described in this EPBC Act Referral.

Signature:...... Date: ...... 24/08/2020 Note: PDF may contain fields not relevant to your application. These fields will appear blank or unticked. Please disregard these fields. Proposed designated proponent 9.2.1 Is the proposed designated proponent a member of an organisation? Y Yes N No Organisation Organisation name LOWER MURRAY URBAN AND RURAL WATER CORPORATION Business name Lower Murray Water ABN 18475808826 ACN Business address 741 Fourteenth St, Mildura, 3500, VIC, Australia

Postal address

Main Phone number 03 5051 3400 Fax Primary email address [email protected] Secondary email address 9.2.2 Contact First name Josh Last name White Job title Project Director - VMFRP Phone 0400 697 304 Mobile Fax Email [email protected] Primary address PO Box 1438, Mildura, 3502, VIC, Australia Address Declaration: Proposed Designated Proponent I, _____Josh White______,the proposed designated proponent, consent to the designation of myself as the proponent for the purposes of the action described in this EPBC Act Referral.

Signature: ...... Date: ...... 24/08/2020 Note: PDF may contain fields not relevant to your application. These fields will appear blank or unticked. Please disregard these fields. Referring party (person preparing the information) 9.3.1 Is the referring party (person preparing the information) a member of an organisation? Y Yes N No Organisation Organisation name LOWER MURRAY URBAN AND RURAL WATER CORPORATION Business name Lower Murray Water ABN 18475808826 ACN Business address 741 Fourteenth St, Mildura, 3500, VIC, Australia

Postal address

Main Phone number 03 5051 3400 Fax Primary email address [email protected] Secondary email address 9.3.2 Contact First name Josh Last name White Job title Project Director - VMFRP Phone 0400 697 304 Mobile Fax Email [email protected] Primary address PO Box 1438, Mildura, 3502, VIC, Australia Address Declaration: Referring party (person preparing the information) I, ______,Josh White declare that to the best of my knowledge the information I have given on, or attached to this EPBC Act Referral is complete, current and correct. I understand that giving false or misleading information is a serious offence.

Signature: ...... Date: ...... 24/08/2020

Note: PDF may contain fields not relevant to your application. These fields will appear blank or unticked. Please disregard these fields. Appendix A Attachment Document Type File Name action_area_images Attachment 1a_Project Location Map.pdf action_area_images Attachment 1b_Project structures construction and access. pdf action_area_images Attachment 1c_Managed Inundation Area.pdf action_area_images Attachment 2_Waterways and wetlands map.pdf action_area_images Attachment 1d_Operation and water movement maps.pdf supporting_tech_reports R8_Wallpolla Flora and Fauna Assessment_Rev 0- 20200717 - PART 1.pdf supporting_tech_reports R8_Wallpolla Flora and Fauna Assessment_Rev 0- 20200717 - PART 2.pdf supporting_tech_reports R8_Wallpolla Flora and Fauna Assessment_Rev 0- 20200717 - PART 3.pdf supporting_tech_reports R8_Wallpolla Flora and Fauna Assessment_Rev 0- 20200717 - PART 4.pdf supporting_tech_reports R8_Wallpolla Flora and Fauna Assessment_Rev 0- 20200717 - PART 5.pdf supporting_tech_reports R8_Wallpolla Flora and Fauna Assessment_Rev 0- 20200717 - PART 6.pdf supporting_tech_reports R8_Wallpolla Flora and Fauna Assessment_Rev 0- 20200717 - PART 7.pdf supporting_tech_reports R8_Wallpolla Flora and Fauna Assessment_Rev 0- 20200717 - PART 8.pdf supporting_tech_reports R8_Wallpolla Flora and Fauna Assessment_Rev 0- 20200717 - PART 9.pdf supporting_tech_reports R8_Wallpolla Flora and Fauna Assessment_Rev 0- 20200717 - PART 10.pdf flora_fauna_investigation R8_Wallpolla Flora and Fauna Assessment_Rev 0- 20200717 - PART 11.pdf flora_fauna_investigation R8_Wallpolla Flora and Fauna Assessment_Rev 0- 20200717 - PART 12.pdf hydro_investigation_files Attachment 4_Flood Extent Maps.pdf hydro_investigation_files Attachment 5_Desktop Groundwater Assessment.pdf impact_reduction_docs Attachment 6_Environmental Water Management Plan and Addendum_PART 1.pdf impact_reduction_docs Attachment 6_Environmental Water Management Plan and Addendum_PART 2.pdf impact_reduction_docs Attachment 7_Environmental Management Framework.pdf impact_reduction_docs Attachment 8_Options Development Summary.pdf impact_reduction_docs Attachment 9_Wallpolla Island Operating Plan.pdf corp_env_policy_docs Attachment 10_LMW Environmental Policy.pdf Appendix B Coordinates Area 1 -34.134370200206,141.89334304857 -34.157744096352,141.89131017689 -34.186131108523,141.86858851856 -34.179353387253,141.82261766407 -34.195420945642,141.73438974833 -34.195298146523,141.69163952676 -34.201782825493,141.64710691682 -34.169108297091,141.64722092525 -34.153772712773,141.66478784047 -34.135752817484,141.70657649278 -34.113360403705,141.71523343422 -34.109944070316,141.744061271 -34.117128672598,141.7668415156 -34.118292197689,141.79414384077 -34.125196936468,141.82275559712 -34.130126758104,141.83738815348

Note: PDF may contain fields not relevant to your application. These fields will appear blank or unticked. Please disregard these fields. -34.129766777122,141.85752952414 -34.134370200206,141.89334304857