Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (List of Threatened Ecological Communities (EC92)) Instrument 2026

This instrument, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (List of Threatened Ecological Communities (EC92)) Instrument 2026, amends the statutory lists administered under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 by inserting a newly declared ecological community into the category headed “ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES THAT ARE CRITICALLY ENDANGERED”. It is signed and dated by Murray Watt, Minister for the Environment and Water (dated 14 January 2026), and commences the day after registration (see ss 1-2 of the instrument). The legal authority cited for making the instrument is section 184 of the EPBC Act (s 3 of the instrument). Schedule 1 effects the amendment to the List of threatened ecological communities by inserting the entry: “River Murray downstream of the Darling River, and associated aquatic and floodplain systems” (Schedule 1, item 1). Schedule 2 supplies the descriptive particulars for that ecological community.

Mechanically, the instrument performs two discrete tasks. First, it amends the relevant EPBC Act list by adding the named ecological community in the appropriate position under the “Critically Endangered” heading (Schedule 1). Second, it provides a textual description of the boundary and composition of that ecological community (Schedule 2). The Schedule 2 description sets out the spatial extent in general terms, identifies six biogeographical sub-units along the main River Murray channel below the Darling confluence, specifies the “general boundary for most of the ecological community” as the 1956 flood line, and enumerates characteristic habitat types, dominant canopy species and the existence of fauna including nationally listed threatened species (Schedule 2).

The instrument does not itself include maps, coordinates, regulatory prescriptions, penalties, or operational compliance procedures. Its legal form is a ministerial instrument made under s 184; the Schedule headings and title also identify it as a “Declaration under s178, s181, and s183 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 , List of threatened species, List of threatened ecological communities and List of threatening processes” (instrument contents and Schedule 1 heading). The instrument therefore changes what is on the statutory list and provides the statutory description that will be the textual reference for that listed ecological community.

The instrument operates through two principal concepts: the act of listing an ecological community as “Critically Endangered” on the EPBC Act lists, and the provision of a textual delineation of that community.

Listing concept

• The document inserts a named ecological community into the EPBC Act’s list category “ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES THAT ARE CRITICALLY ENDANGERED” (Schedule 1). The form of the change is declaratory: the instrument places a specific assemblage of native organisms and habitats on the List by ministerial instrument made under s 184 (see ss 3, Schedule 1).
• The Schedule 1 heading and instrument title reference declarations under ss 178, 181 and 183 of the EPBC Act. Those references identify the instrument as one of the statutory instruments used to maintain the List of threatened ecological communities, though the instrument itself does not set out the text of ss 178, 181, 183 or explain the downstream legal mechanisms triggered by listing.

Description/delineation concept

• Schedule 2 provides the textual description to define scope and content of the newly listed ecological community. It defines the community as “the assemblage of native flora, fauna and other organisms associated with and dependent upon the River Murray lowland floodplain-river system, below the river's confluence with the Darling River, and downstream to the sea.”
• The description frames the community as a meta-ecosystem comprising interconnected aquatic, semi-aquatic and terrestrial habitats including the main river channel and estuary, lakes, tributaries, floodplain wetlands, woodlands/forests/shrublands and groundwater.
• Spatial structure is given by six named biogeographic sub-units (Top Valley Section; Murray Gorge Section; Lower Swamplands Section; Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges Watershed Section; Lower Lakes Section; Coorong and Murray Mouth Section). The general boundary for most of the ecological community is stated as the 1956 flood line.

Ecological character descriptors

• Vegetation structure descriptors identify typical overstorey dominants (Eucalyptus camaldulensis, Eucalyptus largiflorens), and an additional important canopy species (Acacia stenophylla). Habitat types across the floodplain are enumerated from forest and woodland through shrubland, herbland, sedgeland and grassland. The description also notes fringing native vegetation and potentially large stands of native aquatic vegetation (macrophytes).
• Faunal content is described generically as aquatic and terrestrial; the text expressly notes that the community includes functionally important species, endemic species and species that are listed as threatened at a national level.

Direct legal subject

• The instrument directly affects the legal content of the EPBC Act’s List of threatened ecological communities by adding one entry. The Minister who made the instrument is identified as Murray Watt, Minister for the Environment and Water (instrument heading and signature block).

Primary geographic constituency

• The ecological community as described in Schedule 2 spans the River Murray lowland floodplain-river system below the Darling River confluence down to the sea. The description identifies six named sub-units spanning the river’s length from the Darling junction near Wentworth through the Murray Gorge, Lower Swamplands, Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges watershed, Lower Lakes and the Coorong and Murray Mouth. Specific named features included in the description are Ramsar-listed wetland complexes (the Riverland and Banrock Station) in the Top Valley Section, Reedy Creek in the Lower Swamplands Section, Lake Alexandrina and Lake Albert in the Lower Lakes Section, and the Coorong and Murray Mouth including islands and coastal sand dune systems.

Classes of land and water use likely to intersect the description

• Any landholders, water users, infrastructure operators, extractive industries, agricultural operators, local governments, and conservation managers whose activities, assets or responsibilities lie within the textual extent described in Schedule 2 will be the most directly relevant audience. The instrument itself identifies the community by geographic and ecological markers rather than by tenure or property identifiers; it therefore captures a mosaic of habitat types and jurisdictions across the river corridor and floodplain.

Administrative and scientific actors

• Agencies responsible for implementing the EPBC Act lists and for any subsequent actions that rely on the listing (the instrument does not list those actions) will use the Schedule 2 description as the authoritative textual reference for the listed ecological community. Scientific practitioners, ecological consultants and surveyors will need to work with the Schedule 2 descriptors and the 1956 flood line reference to assess whether a particular area falls within the listed community.

Note on distribution of effects

• The instrument is declaratory in form and does not itself assign costs or rights to particular parties in its text. The parties who will experience regulatory, administrative or compliance consequences (if any) are those whose activities or properties fall within the textual extent of the listed community. The instrument does not itself specify the mechanism by which any obligations or permissions will be applied.

Textual presence and absence

• The instrument adds a named ecological community to the statutory list and supplies its description (Schedule 1 and Schedule 2). It does not, within the text of the instrument, create new statutory duties, confer rights, set permitting criteria, or prescribe enforcement measures. It therefore performs a declaratory task rather than an operational one in respect of duties and rights.

Implications for duties/rights (as implied by the instrument’s form)

• Because the instrument functions to place a community on the EPBC Act list, the description in Schedule 2 will be the official textual reference against which questions of whether particular areas or assemblages are the listed community are assessed. That descriptive definition will therefore be the starting point for any subsequent administrative determinations, assessments or decision‑making that reference the EPBC Act list, although those subsequent mechanisms and their content are not provided in this instrument.

What the instrument specifies for determinations

• The Schedule 2 description identifies spatial indicators (six biogeographic sub-units; general boundary: 1956 flood line) and ecological indicators (assemblage of native flora and fauna, habitat types, dominant tree species Eucalyptus camaldulensis and/or Eucalyptus largiflorens, presence of Acacia stenophylla in some areas, macrophyte stands in open water). These are the factors that a decision maker or assessor must refer to in construing the scope of the listed community from this instrument alone.

Absence of procedural rights and duties

• The instrument does not itself set out notification, consultation, compensation, consent, referral, approval or permit processes, nor does it state that any new rights of access or restrictive duties arise by virtue of the listing. The instrument likewise does not state who bears the cost of compliance or monitoring. Those matters are not included in the text of this instrument.

Practical consequence for legal actors

• In practice, the Schedule 2 text will be the legal touchstone for determining whether a specified area is the named community. Parties who need to demonstrate that land or water is outside the listed community, or to demonstrate the condition of the community where an activity occurs, will need to reference the Schedule 2 elements. The instrument itself provides no procedural instructions for how such proofs are to be made.

Instrument content

• The instrument contains no provisions that create, specify or modify civil or criminal penalties, infringement notices, compliance powers, enforcement procedures or administrative sanctions. Its text is limited to amendment of the EPBC Act lists (Schedule 1) and the descriptive boundaries and ecological characteristics of the newly listed community (Schedule 2).

Consequences absent from the instrument

• The instrument does not identify who enforces obligations, how enforcement will occur, what enforcement standards or evidentiary thresholds apply, or what penalties attach to particular contraventions. It also does not include any timetables or compliance‑assurance activities, monitoring requirements, or administrative guidance on enforcement.

What the instrument provides as an enforcement reference

• The Schedule 2 description supplies the defining elements that will be relied on by any enforcement authority or decision maker to identify whether a place, habitat or assemblage is the listed ecological community. The clearest operational datum provided by the instrument that could be used in enforcement is the textual delimitation of the community and the reference to the 1956 flood line as the general boundary for most of the community.

Implication for enforcement practice

• Because the instrument furnishes a descriptive definition without maps or coordinates, enforcing agencies and regulated parties will need to translate the textual descriptors into operational boundaries and ecological characterisations to support any compliance or enforcement action. The instrument does not itself set standards for that translation or identify accountable enforcement entities.

Express statutory references

• The instrument is made under section 184 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (s 3 of the instrument). The Schedule 1 heading describes the instrument as a “Declaration under s178, s181, and s183 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 - List of threatened species, List of threatened ecological communities and List of threatening processes.” Those textual references connect the instrument to the statutory scheme that establishes and maintains the EPBC Act lists.

Absence of express cross‑references

• The instrument does not itself set out express interactions with other federal, state or local statutes, nor does it include cross‑references to other administrative instruments, rules, or State statutory provisions. It does not, for example, reproduce or quote provisions of the EPBC Act beyond citing s 184 as authority to make the instrument.

Practical interoperability considerations raised by the text

• The Schedule 2 description names interlinked habitats and places that are also subject to other regulatory or statutory regimes, for example Ramsar-listed wetlands (the text identifies Riverland and Banrock Station as Ramsar-listed wetland complexes). Because the Schedule 2 description explicitly incorporates features that are recognised under other international or domestic conservation classifications, those other designations will be part of the factual matrix to which regulated parties and administering agencies must attend when applying the Schedule 2 definition in practice. The instrument itself does not set how these designations are to be reconciled.

Administrative dependencies

• The instrument will be used within the administrative framework that governs the EPBC Act lists. The text of the instrument does not set out administrative procedures, but its descriptive material will intersect with any administrative instruments, policies, guidance documents, regional plans or agreements that reference the EPBC lists. None of those interactions is specified in the instrument itself.

This instrument’s record

• The instrument is titled “Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (List of Threatened Ecological Communities (EC92)) Instrument 2026” and is dated 14 January 2026. It contains standard statutory form provisions for name, commencement, authority and schedules (ss 1-4).

Nature of the amendment

• The amendment made by the instrument is narrowly focused: Schedule 1 inserts a single ecological community into the EPBC Act list under the “ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES THAT ARE CRITICALLY ENDANGERED” heading (Schedule 1, item 1). Schedule 2 sets out the detailed descriptive particulars for the newly listed community. The instrument does not repeal any prior entries or otherwise restructure the lists.

Prior instruments or repeals

• The instrument does not identify any earlier instrument it repeals or varies other than the explicit addition described in Schedule 1. Schedule 4 of the instrument’s contents states the ordinary rule that each instrument specified in Schedule 1 is amended or repealed as set out in the applicable items, and any other item has effect according to its terms (s 4). There are no further amendment entries for prior instruments within the text supplied.

Versioning and commencement

• The instrument commences on the day after it is registered (s 2). The instrument does not include transitional provisions, sunset clauses or staged commencement for parts of the textual description.

Interpretive notes and updates

• No further interpretive notes, explanatory memoranda, or amendment schedules appear within the instrument text supplied. The descriptive Schedule 2 stands as the current textual definition for the added ecological community as of the instrument’s commencement date.

Document contents

• The instrument text supplied does not mention any litigation, legal challenges, dispute resolution outcomes, or judicial interpretations related to the instrument, the listed community, or the EPBC Act lists more generally.

Implication for legal research

• There is no litigation history recorded in the instrument itself. Any court decisions or judicial review proceedings that might arise from the listing, its application to particular projects, or disputes over the mapping and boundaries of the listed community are not referenced in the instrument and are therefore not part of the instrument’s textual content.

Practical consequence

• Because no litigation history is supplied in the instrument, stakeholders will need to consult external legal sources, court records and administrative review decisions (not included in this instrument) to identify any contested interpretations or judicial treatment of this specific listing or of comparable listings under the EPBC Act. The instrument itself provides only the declaratory insertion and descriptive text.

Absence of maps or coordinates

• Schedule 2 supplies a descriptive boundary and names six biogeographic sub-units, but it does not include maps, GIS coordinates, parcel identifiers or an explicit spatial dataset. The only explicit boundary metric is the “1956 flood line” which is referenced as the general boundary for most of the community. Reliance on a dated flood line as the primary cartographic anchor introduces ambiguity for practitioners who must determine the listed area on the ground; the instrument does not specify who is to interpret the 1956 flood line or which source map or survey is authoritative.

Variable descriptive language

• The Schedule 2 text uses terms such as “associated”, “dependent upon”, “meta-ecosystem”, “in nature” and “may contain expansive and permanent stands” of macrophytes. Those qualitative and probabilistic phrases establish ecological character rather than precise thresholds. Practitioners needing to demonstrate inclusion or exclusion of specific parcels or waterbodies will have to translate these qualitative descriptors into operational criteria; the instrument supplies no protocol for doing so.

Spatial complexity and jurisdictional mosaic

• The described community spans multiple named sub-units and landscape features. This creates potential for overlapping administrative jurisdictions (local governments, state water authorities, protected area designations, and Ramsar listings are all signalled in the description). The instrument does not identify responsible administrative coordination mechanisms, leading to potential uncertainty about which agency takes the lead in particular circumstances.

Ramsar and other overlays flagged

• Schedule 2 explicitly identifies two Ramsar-listed wetland complexes within the Top Valley Section. The presence of internationally recognised wetland sites is likely to be relevant to decision makers and stakeholders, but the instrument does not say how Ramsar obligations or other designations interact with the listing.

Ecological heterogeneity within the listed area

• The description highlights substantial variation in vegetation and habitat types (from river channel and estuary to forest, shrubland, sedgeland and grassland). That heterogeneity can complicate assessment and monitoring because measures that are appropriate for one habitat type may be inappropriate for another. The instrument does not provide habitat‑specific condition thresholds or indicators.

Establish whether a site or activity intersects the listed community

• Use the Schedule 2 descriptive elements as the primary legal text. Determine whether the area of interest lies below the confluence of the River Murray and the Darling River and down to the sea, and whether it falls within one of the six named sub-units (Top Valley; Murray Gorge; Lower Swamplands; Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges Watershed; Lower Lakes; Coorong and Murray Mouth). The Schedule 2 text and the 1956 flood line reference are the only spatial anchors provided in the instrument.

Map the 1956 flood line and the named sub-units to an operational layer

• The instrument specifies the 1956 flood line as the “general boundary for most of the ecological community.” To operationalise that textual boundary, obtain authoritative cartographic sources or historical flood mapping that show the 1956 flood extent and overlay that with cadastral, tenure and infrastructure layers. Because the instrument itself does not supply the map, record the provenance of any map used to support a compliance position.

Conduct ecological surveys against the Schedule 2 descriptors

• Assessments should document the assemblage of native flora, fauna and other organisms present, and identify whether the assemblage is consistent with the habitat types listed in Schedule 2 (main river channel, estuary, lakes, tributaries, floodplain wetlands, woodlands/forests/shrublands, groundwater‑dependent habitats). Specifically document the presence of the named canopy dominants (Eucalyptus camaldulensis and/or Eucalyptus largiflorens) and Acacia stenophylla where relevant, evidence of macrophyte stands in open water, and the occurrence of fauna that the Schedule 2 text categorises as functionally important, endemic or nationally threatened. The instrument does not provide species lists or threshold abundance measures, so survey protocols and expert interpretation will be necessary to demonstrate alignment with the Schedule 2 description.

Document tenure and overlapping designations

• Identify whether the area includes Ramsar-listed wetlands (the text identifies Riverland and Banrock Station in the Top Valley Section) or other statutory designations. Record interactions with state and local licences, water entitlements, land zoning, and protected area status, noting that the instrument does not itself resolve jurisdictional overlaps.

Prepare contemporaneous evidence and provenance statements