LAND RESOURCES of the MAJOR CREEK AREA North Queensland
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DNRQ00046 LAND RESOURCES BULLETIN LAND RESOURCES OF THE MAJOR CREEK AREA North Queensland L G Rogers J B Musumeci 276 Land Resources Bulletin Land Resources of the Major Creek area North Queensland. L G Rogers J B Musumeci Department of Natural Resources Queensland 2001 DNRQ00046 ISSN 1327-5763 This publication was prepared for Department of Natural Resources and Mines officers. It may be distributed to other individuals and organisations. Support from the Department of Economic Development and Trade and the Townsville City Council is gratefully acknowledged. This report is intended to provide information only on the subject under review. There are limitations inherent in land resource studies, such as accuracy in relation to map scale and assumptions regarding socio-economic factors for land evaluation. Before acting on the information conveyed in this report, readers should ensure that they have received adequate professional information and advice specific to their enquiry. While all care has been taken in the preparation of this report, neither the Department of Natural Resources and Mines nor its officers or staff accepts any responsibility for any loss or damage that may result from any inaccuracy or omission in the information contained herein. State of Queensland, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2001 Department of Natural Resources and Mines Locked Bag 40 COORPAROO DC QLD 4151 Contents Page List of Figures iv List of Tables iv List of Photographs iv Index to soil profile class and map unit descriptions v Summary vi 1. Introduction 1 Previous soil reports 1 2. Description of study area 2 Climate 2 Geology\ landforms 3 Land use and history 4 3. Survey methods 5 4. Soils 8 5. Good quality agricultural land 10 6. Limitations to development 11 References 16 Glossary 18 Acknowledgments 21 Appendices I Description of soil types 23 II Reference sites and analytical methods 44 III Unique Mapping Area codes and data 88 IV Vegetation list 101 V Map legend 103 List of Figures Figure 1 Location of study area 1 Figure 2 Mean monthly rainfall for Townsville, Woodstock and Giru 2 Figure 3 Location of description sites and other surveys 5 Figure 4 Good Quality Agricultural Land 15 List of Tables Table 1 Monthly temperatures for Townsville 2 Table 2 Correlation of soil series and profile classes of adjoining surveys 8 Table 3 Rockiness of profile 9 Table 4 Depth to rock 11 Table 5 Reactivity of soil profile 11 Table 6 Erosion potential 11 Table 7 Erosion status 12 Table 8 Septic suitability 12 Table 9 Soil wetness 12 Table 10 Subsoil sodicity 12 Table 11 Soil Salinity status 13 Table 12 List of limitation attribute codes for soil types. 13 Table 13 Correlation of limitation codes with those described by Crossley (1996b) 14 List of Photographs Photo 1 Black spear grass/ Kangaroo grass native pasture in good condition under open Eucalypt woodland 23 Photo 2 Sandy alluvial soils of Major Creek are well drained and aresuitable for cropping 24 Photo 3 Pandanus is a good indicator of sandy soils 25 Photo 4 Lantana is a common weed is these landscapes 29 Photo 5 Subdued gilgai microrelief in cleared paddock 27 Photo 6 Intense summer rainfall can lead to erosion in cleared 28 areas where grass cover is low Photo 7 Rubber vine can form dense stands on lands adjacent to alluvial systems 33 Photo 8 Low limestone outcrop associated with soil 30 Photo 9 Cleared alluvial terrace of Spring creek, Mt Elliot in background 31 Photo 10 Grazed speargrass pasture (marginal condition) under Reid River Box 32 Photo 11 Bleached A2 horizon over sodic grey B horizon. Surface 34 becomes spewy when saturated Photo 12 Note deep cracks that allow rapid water entry on first 35 rains and friable nature of surface (strong structure) Photo 13 Ironbark and popular gum woodland (some thinning evident) 37 Photo 14 Dispersive nature of sodic subsoils and thin A horizon make this an erodable soil if disturbed 38 Photo 15 Inset shows earthworm casts under dense stand of 39 Kangaroo grass in lightly grazed paddock Photo 16 Rock outcrop and shallow soils are a feature of Stuart soil 43 v Index to soil profile class and map unit descriptions Name Area (ha) Mapping unit Reference profile page page Althaus Al 2270 20 43 Artillery Ay 1180 38 Black Bl 3020 21 44 Bullock Bu 50 38 45 Carse O’Gowrie CG 50 38 Clemant Cl 2400 22 46 Conolly Co 5390 38 Dalrymple Da 1130 23 Ewan Ew 2000 38 Flagstone Fl 470 38 Gillian Gi 2880 24 47 Goodbye Gb 3000 25 48 Granite Gr 2880 26 49 Limeview Li 2230 27 50 Magenta Ma 340 28 Moosie Ms 2420 29 51 Manton Mt 2400 30 52 Miscellaneous MD 20 Disturbed Miscellaneous MF 170 Flooded Mountainous MI 12000 Igneous Mountainous MM 3500 Metamorphic Mountainous MS 3500 Sedimentary Pall Mall Pm 440 39 53 Pennsfield Pf 630 39 54 Pinnacle Pi 530 39 Purono Pu 6620 31 55 Rangeview Ra 580 39 Ross Ro 520 39 56 Sachs Sh 2050 32 57 Scrubby Sc 2930 33 58 Serpentine Se 390 39 59 Stanley Sy 1810 34 60 Stockyard Sd 2870 35 61 Stockyard Loam Sl 4400 36 62 Stuart Su 4130 40 Thorpe Th 660 40 Walker Wa 940 37 63 Analysed profiles from Lansdown Research Station Murtha and Crack (1966). 64-84 vi Summary This study was undertaken to map the soils and landforms of 66,000 ha. in the Major Creek area, north Queensland. A soil map at 1:100,000 scale accompanies the report. Soil and land attributes were assessed for physical constraints to urban development and classification of good quality agricultural land. A total of 32 soil types were identified. Good quality agricultural land (cropping and marginal cropping lands) comprised 13% of the study with land suitable for grazing covering 67% and mountainous non-agricultural lands covering 20%. Limitations to development include rocky soils, shallow soils, wet areas, reactive soils, salinity and soil erosion. Rocky soils covered 25% of the area and were confined to hilly and mountainous areas. Shallow soils covered 17% of the area were found in similar terrain and on a few units of undulating rises. Imperfectly drained and poorly drained soils covered 35% and 8% respectively and were dominated by sodic duplex soils and cracking clays. Reactive soils (soils with shrink/swell potential) occupied 43% of the area with 8% having cracking clay soils which make foundation construction for structures more expensive. Many soils had sodic subsoils which lead to poor structure and drainage and soils with severe sodicity (ESP >15%) was estimated to occur over 14% of the area. High sodicity levels in the subsoil can corrode metal footings and cause tunnel erosion and scouring around structures designed to control water flow. Salinity was not generally a problem however of the soil profiles tested (155 total), 46% had slight and 44% moderate subsoil salinity levels. Soil erosion was observed at many sites although most occurrences had resulted in minor scalds or sheet erosion. A total of 8% of the area was affected by severe erosion (sheet erosion, scalds or gullies). Much of the sheet erosion and resulting scalds are due to high grazing pressures and clearing of native vegetation on erosive soils. Theses areas will require exclusion of stock over the growing season and low grazing pressures for the remained of the year to allow re-establishment of pastures and an increase in grass basal area. Gully erosion was limited and confined to footslopes and hillslopes mainly where earthworks associated with roads and tracks had concentrated surface water flow. Stream bank erosion was evident in areas where tree clearing had occurred across drainage lines and any further clearing should be discouraged. Erosion potential following disturbance (tree clearing and exposed topsoil) was estimated from landform, soil type and soil dispersion data with 32% of the area with moderate potential and 25% severe. Soils unsuitable for septic systems (trench) covered 34% of the study with the majority of this area severely limited by steep and rocky slopes. Potential for agricultural development is limited by availability of water for irrigation. Potential exists for furrow and spray irrigation along Major and Double barrel creeks and for trickle irrigation on the sandy footslopes and fans of Mt. Elliot. Limited water harvesting is carried out on Major creek and expansion of agricultural activities would require augmentation of supplies from the Burdekin irrigation scheme. Urban development is currently restricted to Woodstock. Future urban development is not likely to occur however there is a demand for rural/residential land in the Townsville region. This development has occurred at Woodstock, Major Creek and Calcium and along the Woodstock-Giru road and the Flinders highway between Woodstock and Calcium. Any future development should be directed away from class A and B agricultural land, alluvial landscapes and the footslopes of Mt Elliot. 1 1. Introduction The cities of Townsville and Thuringowa have experienced rapid population growth for the last 10 years with increasing demands placed on existing infrastructure to meet the growing demands from urban, rural\ residential and industrial land uses. The urban and industrial development pressures of the Townsille area have led to requests for land resource information to determine physical constraints to urban development and classification of good quality agricultural land. The study area lies to the south of Townsville (Figure 1) and covers 66,000 ha in the Major Creek area, north Queensland. Prior to March 1994 the area was administered by the city of Thuringowa and is currently administered by both Townsville City and Burdekin Shire Councils after an external boundary review recommended by the Local Government Commissioner.