The Land and Biodiversity Implementation Committee (LABIC) of Glenelg Hopkins CMA have overseen development of this Strategy. A subcommittee of LABIC with additional technical expertise have been responsible for preparation of the Strategy.

SALINITY TECHNICAL COMMITTEE Laurie Norman Chairman, LABIC representative Peter Dahlhaus Vice Chairman Debbie Shea LABIC representative Glenn Whipp LABIC representative Mike Wagg Dept. Natural Resources and Environment, Catchment and Agricultural Services Peter Dixon Dept. Natural Resources and Environment, Catchment and Agricultural Services Malcolm McCaskill Dept. Natural Resources and Environment, Agriculture Victoria Gillian Holmes Glenelg Hopkins CMA Helen Anderson Executive Officer

Glenelg Hopkins CMA and the Land and Biodiversity Implementation Committee wish to acknowledge those who contributed to the development of this Strategy. Particular thanks go to: David Heislers Centre for Land Protection Research Dr Suzanne Wilson Wilson Land Management Services Keith Davis Land and Biodiversity Implementation Committee, Permaculture design consultant Andrew Sargeant Deakin University Student Melanie Sevior Glenelg Hopkins CMA Greg Campbell, Department of Natural Resources and Environment Dr Rod Bird Department of Natural Resources and Environment Yvonne Ingeme Department of Natural Resources and Environment Cathy Wagg Department of Natural Resources and Environment

Author: Helen Anderson (under contract from Dept Natural Resources and Environment)

Publisher: Glenelg Hopkins Catchment Management Authority Website: www.glenelg-hopkins.vic.gov.au Printed June 2002

Design and Production Cactus House Design

Printing Cactus House Design

INTRODUCTION...... 1 REGIONAL DESCRIPTION ...... 2 REGIONAL ASSETS AND VALUES ...... 3 Regional Assets...... 3 Values...... 3 Regional Social Values ...... 3 THE SALINITY PROBLEM...... 7 Forms of salinity...... 7 Sources of salt ...... 7 Causes of salinity ...... 7 Groundwater flow systems...... 8 IMPACT OF SALINITY ON ASSETS...... 9 Agricultural land ...... 9 Water ...... 9 Environment...... 9 Infrastructure ...... 9 Heritage ...... 10 Minerals...... 10 Air...... 10 SALINITY MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES FOR SOUTH WEST VICTORIA11 Recharge Management...... 11 Discharge Management...... 16 REGIONAL HISTORY OF SALINITY AND SALINITY PLANNING ...... 18 REVIEW OF THE ORIGINAL SALINITY STRATEGY ...... 19 RELATIONSHIP TO EXISTING FRAMEWORKS...... 21 Neighboring plans ...... 22 CURRENT EXTENT OF ASSET DEGRADATION...... 23 Water ...... 23 Environment...... 23 Agricultural land ...... 24 Infrastructure ...... 24 Heritage ...... 25 PREDICTED EXTENT OF ASSET DEGRADATION ...... 26 Water ...... 26 Environment...... 26 Agricultural land ...... 27 Infrastructure ...... 27 Heritage ...... 27 CURRENT AND PREDICTED COSTS OF SALINITY...... 28 THE WAY FORWARD...... 30 Vision ...... 30 Goal ...... 30 Catchments...... 30 PRIORITY AREAS ...... 32 TARGETS...... 34 Aspirational Targets ...... 34 Resource Condition Targets...... 34 Management Action Targets ...... 34 Salinity Strategy Programs...... 34

LAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ...... 36 CAPACITY BUILDING ...... 38 RESEARCH AND INVESTIGATION PROGRAM ...... 39 MONITORING PROGRAM ...... 40 Resource Condition...... 40 Management actions...... 40 COORDINATION PROGRAM ...... 41 STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT ...... 42 Consultation ...... 42 Development Process ...... 42 Links with other regional strategies ...... 43 STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION...... 44 Coordination Structures...... 44 Program Coordination...... 44 Stakeholders ...... 44 Partnerships ...... 44 Evaluation and Continuous Improvement...... 45 Resource Allocation and Cost Sharing ...... 45 Cost sharing...... 47 REFERENCES...... 49 Priority Areas ...... 57 Resource Condition Targets...... 57 Discharge management ...... 57 Recharge Management...... 57

Background

INTRODUCTION

The Glenelg Hopkins Region abounds in natural wealth. Our productive soils, rainfall and unique natural attractions combine to support a range of industries, which attract diverse communities through their economic prosperity and opportunities for lifestyle choice.

The economic, environmental and social values which attract communities and support our region are threatened however by processes degrading our natural resource base. Salinity is one of the most serious problems we face. Salinity currently costs us $44.3 million per year. It affects more than 27,000 hectares of land in the region impacting on our agricultural land, water, environmental, heritage and infrastructure assets.

Salinity is not a new issue for the region. In fact some areas were saline prior to European settlement. Since settlement, however, there has been significant land use change, including clearing for agricultural development, which has caused salinity to expand. Even today when we have recognised the threat and acted to reverse the trend, salinity continues to expand and degrade our assets.

Specific salinity management programs first began in the 1970's, however, it was not until 1994 that the first regional salinity strategy was released. This Glenelg Region Salinity Strategy initiated the first concerted effort by community and government to tackle the salinity problem.

Eight years on we have learnt a great deal about salinity management, the processes that control it and the opportunities to negate or reduce its impact. This salinity strategy incorporates these learnings and outlines the way forward in managing salinity in the Glenelg Hopkins Region.

In addition to direct salinity control benefits, the Salinity Management Strategy provides opportunity for multiple benefits to other regional land, water and vegetation programs. Accordingly our salinity management directions are implemented in a framework of integrated catchment management to ensure simultaneous generation of multiple environmental, social and economic benefits for the region. This integration of salinity outcomes is achieved through the Glenelg Hopkins Regional Catchment Strategy, which provides the overarching direction for natural resource management in the region.

The Glenelg Hopkins Salinity Management Strategy has been developed by local people with intimate knowledge of its impacts and the social economic and environmental benefits of control and represents the community’s response to the regional salinity challenge.

1 Background

REGIONAL DESCRIPTION

The Glenelg Hopkins region lies south of the Great Dividing Range in South West Victoria. The Glenelg Hopkins CMA region covers over 2.6 million hectares, extending from Ballarat in the east to the South Australian Border in the west, and from the southern coast of Victoria to the townships of Edenhope and Ararat in the north. Extensive undulating basalt plains punctuated by scoria cones and stony rises from a later phase of vulcanism dominates the region. In the north the Grampians ranges and steep sided Mounts Cole, Buangor and Langhi Ghiran provide upland relief. To the west the dissected Dundas and Merino tablelands give way to sand plains along the South Australian Border. Limestone, alluvial deposits and sand dunes feature along and inland from the coastal zone. The Glenelg, Hopkins and Portland Coast basins, all of which drain to the sea, control regional drainage. To the west the Glenelg River with its major tributary the Wannon drains 45 % of the region. In the east, the Hopkins River and its major tributaries Mt Emu Creek and Fiery / Salt Creek drain a further 38% of the region. The virtually flat landscape of the Portland Basin has resulted in numerous short river systems that exit directly to sea. Extensive clearing has resulted in remnant vegetation covering less than 13% of the region. Much of this is protected in public land reserves such as the Grampians National Park, Lower Glenelg National Park, and Cobbobonee forest. Wetlands and the diverse bird life associated with them are a regional feature. The Glenelg Hopkins region has a Mediterranean climate characterised by hot dry summers and cool wet winters. Average annual rainfall varies from 500mm to 910mm, while average annual temperatures range from 4 to 27 oC The estimated population of the region is 94,508 (ABS, 1997), with over half the population living around the four major regional centres of Warrnambool, Portland, Hamilton and Ararat. The region's economy is based on agriculture and the extensive grazing industries of sheep, beef and dairy cattle. The region is in a transition phase, however, with an increasing level of investment in land use changes that offer higher returns than traditional cropping and grazing. Significant enterprise conversions have occurred to cropping, private forestry (primarily bluegum plantations) and larger dairy ventures. The agricultural base is supported by a strong agribusiness service sector. In addition, there are a large number of smaller businesses and larger industries mostly located in the main population centres within the manufacturing, community services, wholesale and retail, and financial sectors. Service industries employ the large majority of the work force, however, they are in most cases very heavily influenced by the demands of the agricultural sector. The Region is increasingly acknowledging the value of tourism as a key employment provider. This is especially apparent along the coastal areas of the catchment (Warrnambool, Port Fairy and Portland) and in the Southern Grampians area. Value-adding to the region's agricultural produce includes milk processing and distribution, wine production, agricultural equipment manufacturing and the export of agricultural commodities including grain and live sheep via the Port of Portland.

Figure 1 Glenelg Hopkins CMA Region – Digital Elevation Model

2 Background

REGIONAL ASSETS AND VALUES

South West Victoria is a beautiful and productive part of Australia. Regular rainfall, productive soils and unique natural attractions underlie the competitive strength of the region. Aboriginal peoples lived and managed the land in the region for tens of thousands of years. European settlement of the region began with the arrival of the Henty Brothers from Van Diemens land 37 on November 19th 1834. Since then the landscape has changed dramatically. Regional Assets A Health of the Catchment report documents the major natural assets of the region, the threats that affect them, and their current condition. Key regional economic, social and environmental assets are identified in Table 1. Values Social values are a significant factor in determining government investment in natural resource management programs designed to protect and enhance our assets. The community values assets according to personal values and their understanding of the connection of the asset to their personal values. Their level of concern generally relates to their perception of the condition of the asset and its importance to them. A high level of concern indicates: it is important to them; awareness of perceived degradation; and a preference for improvement in condition of the asset. Often assets are not valued until they become degraded. Community social values tend to change with increased awareness, either through a perceived change in the condition of an asset they already value or through developing a greater understanding of the links between the things they value and the asset. For example, good health often rates highly as a personal value. Understanding that major developments in medicine have come from plant or animal extracts and that the biodiversity of our environment is in decline can increase the importance of biodiversity to them. Increased awareness may be triggered by a range of factors including education, personal financial, recreational or health impact from asset degradation, time of life or peer pressure. Regional Social Values At a national level there has been an overall decrease in level of concern about land degradation since 1991, although the level of concern in Victoria has increased. 26 At a regional level, Glenelg Hopkins CMA undertook a survey of community natural resource values in December 2001. Rivers, streams and estuaries were the most valued regional asset (51%), followed by agricultural land 30%, National Parks and Forests 28%, native plants and animals 26%, the air 26%, lakes and wetlands 22% and coastal areas 14%. 35 Salinity was perceived as the greatest threat to the state of the local environment and natural resources. The majority of respondents perceived that the current level of action is insufficient to address the threats to the local region. However, they also appear to be unaware of specific actions being undertaken to alleviate the impact of natural resource threats.

3 Background

Table 1 Environmental, Social and Economic Assets within the Glenelg Hopkins Region Environmental Asset - Air Description Air quality across the region is generally good. Some localised emission problems within Portland. Odor problems are often reported around urban centres. Seasonal burning off and bushfires cause significant regional smoke pollution. Threats Industry emissions, odors, bushfires, stubble and fire hazard reduction burning. Asset - Biodiversity Description The region contains many unique land and water based ecosystems, plants and animals. Some significant areas of remnant vegetation remain within bioregions and there are many rare or endangered species across the catchment. Threatened fauna includes Brolga, Red Tailed Black Cockatoo, Plains Wanderer, Hooded Plover, Little Tern, Rufous Bristlebird, Orange Bellied Parrot, Grey-crowned Babbler, Heath Mouse, Eastern Barred Bandicoot, Striped Legless Lizard, Southern Lined Earless Dragon, Brush-tailed Rock Wallaby, Spot Tailed Quoll, numerous species of frog, Smokey Mouse, Lewin’s Rail, Bush Stone Curlew, Powerful Owl, Magpie Goose, Great Egret and Swamp Skink. Threatened flora includes numerous species of grasses, trees, orchids, grevilleas, various other species and ecological vegetation classes.

Threats Habitat fragmentation, salinity, clearing, agricultural practices, pest plant and animal infestations. Asset - Coastal Areas Description Spectacular coastal formations such as towering cliffs and extensive dune systems are a feature of the regional coastline.

Threats Erosion, loss of landscape amenity, inappropriate development, loss of biodiversity, pest plant and animal invasion, urban encroachment. Asset - Wetlands Description Extensive wetlands are a feature of the Glenelg Hopkins region. Major wetlands include Long Swamp, Glenelg Estuary, Lake Bookar, Lake Linlithgow, Lindsay Werrikoo, Mundi Selkirk, Lower Merri River, Tower Hill, Yambuk, Lake Muirhead, Mount William, Lake Bolac, Lake Burrumbeet, Bryans Swamp, Myuna Lane Swamp, Chinamans Swamp, Lake Buninjon, Nerrin Nerrin Swamp.

Threats Drainage, pest plant and animal infestation, water diversion, unrestricted stock access, salinity, nutrient enrichment, chemical contamination, and off-road vehicles. Asset - Parks and Reserves Description The major parks found within the Catchment are the Bay of Islands Coastal Park, Cape Nelson State Park, Dergholm State Park, Discovery Bay Coastal Park, Grampians National Park, Lower Glenelg National Park, Mount Eccles National Park, Mount Napier State Park, Mount Richmond National Park, Crawford River Regional Park and the Tower Hill State Game Reserve. Numerous other Reference Areas, Wildlife Reserves, Streamside Reserves, Bushland Reserves, Coastal Reserves, Education Areas, Flora Reserves, Lake Reserves and Scenic Reserves are found across the region.

Threats Salinity, pest plant and animal invasion, increasing visitor numbers, pollution. Asset - Marine Environments Description Marine environments along the Glenelg Hopkins Coastline encompass deep coldwaters of the Southern Ocean. Abundant and diverse marine flora and fauna are typically coldwater temperate species. Marine Park proposed for Discovery Bay. Other marine environment assets to be protected through marine sanctuaries and special management areas Threats Poor quality catchment runoff, other pollution forms, and over-exploitation of resources. Asset - Rainfall Description Average rainfall across the region varies from 500mm per year to more than 910 mm per year.

Threats Climate change, drought.

4 Background

Table 1 Continued.... Social Asset - Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Description Numerous sites and places of significance can be found, principally these include middens, scarred trees, stone arrangements, mounds, stone engravings sites, rock paintings, surface scatters, fish traps, burial places, stone house sites and quarries.

Threats Lack of identification and understanding, erosion, salinity, pest plant and animal invasion, inappropriate development. Asset - European Cultural Heritage Description Numerous sites of European heritage such as historic buildings, infrastructure, avenues of honour, memorials, museums and places.

Threats Salinity, lack of identification and understanding, pest plants and animals, inappropriate development. Asset - Community Networks Description The region has 117 Landcare Groups supported by various structures. Country Fire Authority brigades, sporting clubs and various other community networks are found across the region.

Threats Burnout, funding availability, lack of support structure, loss of engagement, population decline and aging. Asset - Community support for environmental initiatives Description Extensive involvement in Landcare shows level of community support. Benchmarking survey identifies high levels of community support and willingness to change behaviour and be involved in natural resource management.

Threats Lack of progress, burnout, lack of recognition, lack of opportunities for involvement, lack of training opportunities, loss of engagement. Asset - Intellectual Capital Description Significant knowledge exists within the region regarding catchment processes and management. Landholders, industry and government organisations all have significant knowledge capital.

Threats Lack of capture processes. Lack of information transfer. Asset - Research Capacity Description There is extensive research capacity within the region found in Universities (Deakin, RMIT, University of Melbourne) and other Organisations (Pastoral and Veterinary Institute, NRE)

Threats Funding availability, lack of coordination, lack of training opportunities. Economic Asset - Agricultural Land Description Agricultural land is based on 9 main soil groups. Grey basalt soils, volcanic ash and stony rises soils, soils formed on sedimentary rock, sedimentary soils, red gum country soils, krasnozems and red basalt soils, red brown earths, black and grey cracking clays and sands. 60,800 ha of soils have been identified as highly capable of supporting wine grapes, 21,900ha for dairy and 15,300ha for bluegums. Approximately 175,000ha suitable for cropping with the benefits of raised beds has been identified.

Threats Salinity, erosion, soil acidification and productivity decline, compaction, loss of soil biota and heavy metal contamination.

5 Background

Table 1 Continued.... Economic Asset - Groundwater Description The region contains substantial reserves of groundwater with varying salinities. Groundwater is sourced from several major aquifers including the Otway, Murray and Highland aquifers and other flow systems for urban water supply, irrigation and general farm use. Poor surface water quality means the region has a heavy reliance on groundwater.

Threats Pesticide, animal waste contamination, over exploitation of resource, salinity. Asset - Surface water Description Within the region there are extensive reserves of surface water found in rivers, creeks, lakes, reservoirs, dams and wetlands which is used for urban water supply, irrigation and tourism.

Threats Salinity, nutrient enrichment, sedimentation, pollution, algal blooms Asset - Minerals and Energy Description Significant mineral reserves of gold and mineral sands and stone reserves of limestone, basalt, gravel and industrial clays are found across the region. The region contains significant reserves of renewable and non renewable energy sources such as wind, natural gas and geothermal energy.

Threats Rising water tables Asset - Biodiversity Description Regional biodiversity contributes economically to tourism and agriculture through the provision of freshwater, soil fertility, pollination of agricultural crops and pest plant and animal control.

Threats Chemical contamination, pollution, habitat fragmentation, pest plants and animals, water quality, salinity Asset - Commercial and Recreational Fisheries Description Commercial fishing is mainly based in marine environment. Significant commercial fishing fleet operates from local ports catching a variety of species. Abalone and rock lobster fishing occurs in shallower waters. Recreational fishing is popular across the catchment and in the marine environment.

Threats Declining water quality, pest plant and animal infestation, pollution and over-exploitation of resources. Asset - Forests and Plantations Description Significant areas of native forest occur in the region. Extensive areas of pine and bluegum plantations.

Threats Salinity, disease, pest plant and animal infestation. Asset - Tourist Attractions Description Principal tourist attractions are coastal areas, national parks, towns and events

Threats Loss of environmental amenity, loss of landscape aesthetics, overuse. Asset - Infrastructure Regional infrastructure includes roads, bridges, railways, ports, buildings, plant and equipment, water conduits and energy transmission lines.

Threats Salinity, erosion, lack of maintenance.

6 Background

THE SALINITY PROBLEM

Secondary salinity has been identified as a threat to regional assets 37. The following section describes the salinity problem: why salinity is a cause for concern. The subsequent section 'Impacts of salinity on Assets' describes how salinity affects our assets. Chapter 2 quantifies the extent to which our regional assets have been degraded by salinity. Forms of salinity There are two main forms of salinity, Primary and Secondary. There are large areas of naturally saline soils in Australia. Our arid climate and internal drainage system have produced a large number and variety of salt lakes. These lakes, with their flora and fauna communities adapted to saline environments provide a history of salt in the landscape. These areas are considered areas of primary salinity and are not generally considered a 'problem', but rather require conservation management. Primary salting does occur in the Glenelg Hopkins region, with ten saline vegetation communities identified. Expansion of primary sites due to secondary salinisation processes has occurred in a number of instances. Secondary salting occurs when human induced changes to the water balance have caused groundwater levels to rise bringing 'stored' salt to the surface. It is generally divided into dryland (caused by clearing of native vegetation) and irrigation (caused by clearing and poor irrigation practices) salting. The Glenelg Hopkins Region is affected by dryland salinity. Sources of salt There are at least five sources of salt in the landscape. 1. Cyclic salt. Salt is carried inland from the sea by wind and deposited in rainfall. Some rain (containing salts) runs off the land surface, flowing into creeks and eventually back out to sea. For this reason it is often called cyclic salt. As would be expected, coastal rainfall has a higher salt concentration than further inland. 2. Depositional salt. Salts may be deposited with marine sediments (termed connate salt) or be accumulated by wind-blown salts from salt lakes, coastal flats, etc. Much of the Glenelg Hopkins region was once covered by a huge inland sea. When the sea retreated about 10 million years ago, it left behind sediments containing large quantities of salt. Recent studies suggest that dust storms during the arid conditions of the last glacial period contributed significant quantities of salt to eastern Australian landscapes. 3. Mineral dissolution. Salts present in rocks are released by weathering. Many rock types including marine sediments, granites and rhyolites contain high levels of sodium and potassium. 4. Groundwater evaporation. Almost all of the groundwater in the Australian landscape contains salts which can be concentrated by evaporation of discharge. Significant amounts can be added to the soil during centuries of groundwater discharge, even where the salt in the groundwater is present in low concentrations. 5. Anthropogenic. Salts can be added to the landscape through the application of fertilisers, stock manure and urine, irrigation waters, etc. Causes of salinity 2 Clearing of native vegetation has been common practice in Australia for nearly 200 years. The change from deep rooted perennial vegetation to shallow rooted annual crops and pastures with the advancement of agriculture also changed the water balance. In some landscapes this has resulted in increased soil waterlogging and lateral flow in the near-surface, while in other areas the extra water has been 'recharging' into the groundwater system, ultimately causing watertable levels to rise. When watertables rise they dissolve salts stored at depth in the soil profile and bring them to the surface. Once a watertable is within two metres of the surface, water and salts can move up through the soil spaces by capillary action. At the surface the water evaporates leaving the salts to concentrate in the soil. Recharge control for salinity management is based on increasing water use to 'restore the water balance'.

7 Background

2 Groundwater flow systems Groundwater flow systems play a major role in salinity processes. Their individual characteristics determine the expression of salinity in the landscape, the time lag between clearing and watertable rises, and their responsiveness to salinity mitigation works which may be undertaken. The National Land and Water Audit has established a framework for dryland salinity management in Australia based on Groundwater Flow Systems (adit2000). Twelve groundwater flow systems have been broadly identified at a National level on the basis of nationally distinctive geological and geomorphological character.10. Groundwater flow systems are described as local, intermediate or regional based on their hydrological character and response to hydrologic change.

Local flow systems respond rapidly to increased groundwater recharge. They also respond relatively rapidly to salinity management practices, and afford opportunities for dryland salinity mitigation through alternative land management practices. Local groundwater flow systems have recharge and discharge areas within a few kilometres of one another. They tend to occur within individual subcatchments, in areas of higher relief such as foothills to ranges. These systems exhibit dryland salinity within 30 to 50 years of clearing.

Intermediate flow systems have a greater storage capacity and permeability than local systems and take longer to 'fill' in response to increased recharge. Typically increased discharge may occur within 50 to 100 years of vegetation clearing. The extent and responsiveness of these groundwater systems offers much greater challenges for dryland salinity control. Intermediate groundwater flow systems are intermediate in extent between local and regional systems, generally occurring within individual catchments but also sometimes flowing between smaller subcatchments. They tend to occur in valleys, and typically occur over a horizontal extent of five to ten kilometres.

Regional groundwater flow systems have a high storage capacity, high permeability and take much longer to develop groundwater discharge than local or intermediate flow systems. Saline groundwater discharge may not occur for more than a hundred years after agricultural development. Regional systems occur on a scale that is so large as to make farm based catchment management options impractical. Salinity mitigation in these systems requires widespread community action related to issues of common concern, as well as engineering measures to protect high value assets and infrastructure, together with the adoption of living with salt strategies. Regional groundwater flow systems are characterised by laterally extensive aquifers, which may be thicker than 300 metres, and recharge and discharge areas separated by distances of fifty or more kilometres. They occur in areas of low relief such as alluvial plains. Aquifers in regional systems are usually wholly or partly confined, and can be overlain by local and intermediate flow systems.

In the Glenelg Hopkins region a groundwater characterisation workshop was held to consider groundwater flows systems in context with the new National Framework. Seventeen flow systems were identified. A detailed report on the groundwater flow systems operating in the Glenelg Hopkins Region is provided in the Background report "Glenelg Hopkins Groundwater Flow Systems"12. A summary is attached in Appendix B.

8 Background

IMPACT OF SALINITY ON ASSETS

Salinity has a significant impact on agricultural land, water, environment and infrastructure assets. Some impact is likely to occur to mineral, cultural and air assets, however these are currently unquantified. The following section describes the effect salinity has on assets. Quantification of the impact of salinity to assets in the Glenelg Hopkins Region is reported in Chapter 2.

Agricultural land Excessive salt in the soil surface limits plant growth. As salinity levels increase salt intolerant plants die out and are replaced by more salt tolerant, but often less productive plants. Some crops cannot be grown at all. The resultant loss of agricultural and forestry production through reduced carrying capacity and yield can be significant and is the key impact on agricultural land. Salinity also impacts agricultural land through:41 development of secondary land degradation such as erosion and soil structure decline damage to farm infrastructure such as roads and fencing creating additional farm management problems such as weed invasion; waterlogged areas; livestock management; farm drainage; decreased species options; and additional fencing requirements environmental degradation (loss of shelter and shade, loss of aesthetic value, reduced biodiversity, deterioration of farm wetlands and lakes) reduction in effective farm size potentially threatening the viability of some enterprises. reducing land values

Water Fresh surface and ground water reserves are critical for human use and the environment. Town water supply, reservoirs, irrigation, domestic home and garden, stock water and industry may all be adversely affected by increasing salinity levels, reducing its value for human use and limiting the development of new industries. As salinity levels increase aquatic biodiversity is reduced, eventually resulting in the transition to a new salt tolerant ecosystem and the disposition of plant and animal species higher in the food chain. Recently concerns have been raised that changing land use, including changes in farm enterprises and implementation of salinity control works such as extensive tree plantings, could potentially reduce surface water runoff to dams and reservoirs and recharge to groundwater aquifers, adversely affecting the amount of water available for human use. Further work is being undertaken to examine the likely impact of land use change on water availability.

Environment Areas of natural or 'Primary' salinity occur in the region. These areas support specific ecosystems and need to be protected. Concern arises when saline watertables rise, adversely affecting native vegetation communities not previously exposed to salinity. The results can be catastrophic and far reaching including: reduced biodiversity of stream fauna, riparian vegetation and wetlands; decline of native vegetation and loss of habitat; loss of nesting sites and decline in bird populations; loss of food source; increased soil and wind erosion; loss of wetland habitat; loss of aesthetic value; loss of recreational and tourism values; and damage to State/National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries.

Infrastructure Significant economic costs are incurred through use of saline water supplies (domestic / industrial /commercial) and the presence of a high watertables, which may or not be saline. 41 Corrosion reduces the lifespan and increases maintenance costs of plumbing and hot water systems, installation of residential rainwater tanks and domestic filters.

9 Background

Industries reliant on good quality water (food, beverage, hospitals, paper, electroplating and automotive painting) will incur additional water treatment costs or relocate. Companies face increased operating costs for cooling towers and boilers. Increased operating costs of municipal water treatment when salinities exceed 1600 EC

Damage to water supply infrastructure; roads including gutters, culverts and bridges; stone and brick buildings; footpaths driveways and other concrete structures; water stormwater and sewerage systems; powerlines; fences and other steel structures; and railway lines from high watertables. Damage to urban lawns and gardens, street trees, sporting fields and parklands from increased salt levels.

Heritage 41 Aboriginal sacred sites and other archaeological sites that contain buried pottery; quartz and metal artefacts are prone to damage from high watertables. High watertables and dryland salinity may also adversely affect historic buildings, due to use of more porous building materials and the frequent absence of effective damp proofing. Historic gardens may also be affected.

Minerals High watertables are the greatest threat to mining developments although poor water quality may influence commercial processing. Conversely mining developments may also impact groundwater systems in the area altering flow characteristics. High salt stores in clays cause difficulties for brick and tile making enterprises.

Air Dry saline lake beds are particularly prone to wind erosion. During summer, hot northerly winds generate dust storms which reduce air quality.

IMPACT OF SALINITY ON COMMUNITIES 16 Salinity has a significant impact on communities that goes far beyond its immediate obvious impact on agricultural land. Although difficult to clearly identify and measure, expansion of salinity may cause marginally profitable farmers to sell up or supplement their income with off farm work. Farmers may need to expand their scale of operation to maintain profitability or experience net declining incomes. They may also be required to adopt more conservative land management practices and enterprises to minimise fluctuations in net farm incomes and to spend less on goods and services. The multiplier effect of agricultural income in some small rural towns is as much as 10 to 1. The loss of agricultural income generates flow on effects on the outputs, incomes and workforce of rural towns. Business supplying agricultural goods and services may suffer declining incomes due to lower demand and this may result in job losses, business closure and population decline. Although difficult to quantify, government authorities noting these decline in population and business may reduce or remove services such as public schools, banks, post offices, libraries and hospitals to these rural centres. Declining populations have a range of other social effects. The capacity of rural communities to maintain self- sufficiency declines, as fewer people are available to volunteer for the maintenance of community owned sporting and cultural activities and facilities and for activities such as fire fighting. The standard of community owned infrastructure declines as the rating base of local government is eroded. Much of the attractiveness of rural lifestyles relates to the subtle social sporting and cultural networks that develop. As expanding salinity erodes these networks rural lifestyles become less attractive contributing to the drift of young people towards larger towns and cities. This affects farm inheritance patterns and may reduce the capacity of the farming community to deal with approaches to land management reflecting the greater average age of farmers. It is difficult to separate these social impacts of salinity from the impacts of declining commodity prices and structural changes in the agricultural and service economy. Never the less if salinity continues to expand, it will contribute to the decline of rural services, the viability of small rural councils will suffer further and the availability of young innovative farmers to take over the family farm will decline.

10 Background

SALINITY MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES FOR SOUTH WEST VICTORIA

Salinity management is divided into two key areas: management of recharge areas, and management of salt affected (discharge) areas.

Recharge Management When rain falls, the canopy intercepts some, where it evaporates. The remainder falls to the soil surface where it may soak in or travel overland as runoff into creeks and dams. Of the rain that soaks in, some is stored in the soil profile where it is used by plants, the remainder seeps down past the root zone. Beneath the root zone water may be partitioned to flow laterally through the soil or to continue vertically downwards to add to the underlying groundwater system. The amount of water that 'escapes' the surface to be added to groundwater storage is related to the soil characteristics and surface plant cover. Soil has a varying ability to hold or store water according to its composition. Generally soils 'fill up' over winter and are depleted over the ensuing spring, summer, and autumn periods by plants. Soil management practices are designed to deplete the soil store as far as possible each year to maximise the water storage space available for the coming winter’s rainfall. Surface plant cover is used to manage the depletion of soil water storage. Plant water use is related to leaf area index. In essence the more leaf a plant has the more water it can use. Generally actively growing trees use more water than shrubs > perennial grasses > annual grasses. Plant species and management practices such as fertilizer use, pest and disease control and grazing management can all influence the leaf area index and thus plant water use. In southern Australia under ideal conditions eucalypt forests may evapotranspire up to 1400mm/yr compared to crops and introduced grasses 700mm/yr) 32 Climatic variability or the cycle of 'wet' and 'dry' years has a significant impact on the success of recharge control practices. In the South West, 'wet years' of above average rainfall have been shown to override surface management practices. Significant rises have been recorded in local groundwater flow systems following wet years. It could be expected that similar accessions occur to intermediate and regional groundwater systems although their expression in groundwater monitoring are not as obvious. Recharge management is focused on reducing the amount of water reaching the groundwater system. While recharge is a natural process, essential for replenishing water supplies extracted for town or irrigation purposes, excessive recharge has led to the development of our current salinity problems. Recharge management for salinity control is based on management of surface plant cover and engineering options.

Options to manage recharge: Tree growing Perennial Pastures Modified cropping Engineering

Recharge Management Options A background paper 'Options for recharge control in the high rainfall zone’3 provides detailed analysis of current research. A summary of the options follows. Tree growing Trees have the capacity to use large quantities of water. Initially through evaporation of rainfall intercepted by the tree canopy, and secondly through extraction and transpiration of soil moisture. In comparison to crops and pastures, trees are evergreen and have a greater rooting depth enabling them to exploit water out of reach of grass roots and for a greater period of the year. In high recharge areas, trees are generally the only effective way of lowering watertables in the absence of engineering. Trees are particularly useful for reducing recharge in higher rainfall areas. Within the 600-800mm rainfall zone a common figure quoted for the control of groundwater in the higher rainfall environments is reafforestation of about 30% of a catchment.

11 Background

Findings to date related to tree water use: Trees use water that passes beyond the root zone of grasses during winter 3 In the 600-800mm annual rainfall zone about 30% reforestation is required to control groundwater3 Trees will access groundwater reserves under certain hydrological conditions3 The lateral extent of the influence of trees on the watertable and the effectiveness downstream is dependant on the capacity of the aquifer to transmit water. 3 Trees use more water than any other vegetation 32 Trees transpire more than crops and pasture due to their evergreen foliage and deeper roots 32 Tree canopies of eucalypt forests intercept up to 30% of gross rainfall 32. Tree roots can extend down to 15m, although they tend to use water from surface layers first 32. For effective recharge control 30 - 50% reafforestation may be required (more if harvesting) 3 It is some years after planting before watertable levels are affected, and longer before trees reach maturity to provide other desired benefits. Additional benefits include enhanced regional biodiversity, improved aesthetics, erosion wind control, windbreaks for stock, biological weed and pest controls and increased production (alley farming) 2 Apart from rainfall, the most important factor in improving tree growth in lower rainfall zones is soil depth 32 The most detrimental factors to tree growth are drought, waterlogging and salinity 32. Trees are most suitable for recharge control when 2 There are shallow soils (<5m) over weathered and fractured rock. Soils are deep sandy or permeable (<5m) Groundwater is close and fresh (<5m) The country is steep and broken The region was naturally treed prior to settlement

Plantations and Woodlots High-density tree plantings are rarely planted for salinity purposes alone. Most often they are established as woodlots or plantations. With adequate consideration to plantation design additional benefits for shade, shelter or biodiversity can be incorporated. The density of the canopy usually precludes the possibility of establishing pastures underneath. High-density trees are preferred option for recharge control of local and intermediate groundwater flow systems. Large scale (>20ha blocks) plantations of hardwood and softwood for sawlogs or wood chips are generally restricted to zones with greater than 650mm annual rainfall and less than 150km from port. Woodlots are typically established on land previously used for agriculture. Incorporated as part of the farm plan, woodlots may provide high value specialty timbers or lower value products such as posts and firewood. Multiple benefits including shelter, habitat, land protection and stream water quality can be incorporated with appropriate design. Grazing or cropping land generally has more stored soil water and a higher level of nutrients. Short rotation trees, particularly in lower rainfall zones where water would normally limit growth, can exploit this. As the resources are used stand productivity declines to a level sustainable by rainfall [modelled scenarios indicate recharge was eliminated within 1-5 years depending on soil type]. At this point the timber may be harvested and the land returned to pasture / crop (where soil moisture reserves will build up again) or the stand thinned to avoid tree deaths. Rotating the location of the woodlot within the farm serves to use water held at depth, reduce recharge and create a soil water deficit for a period after harvest. Short rotation woodlots may provide short-term pulp, foliage oil, activated carbon or firewood. The recharge and productivity advantage of short rotation woodlots depends on the optimal length of woodlot and pasture /crop phases. The length of enhanced tree phase is largely determined by tree rooting depth and soil

12 Background water holding capacity. In general, deeper profiles with heavy textured subsoils provide the best recharge value; very shallow or very sandy profiles require almost continuous protection using trees; woodlots over fresh watertables can be productive and sustainable with or without a pasture/crop phase; while woodlots over saline watertable are risky. Tree belts On grassed hill slopes with a local groundwater system, belts of trees are used to intercept surface and shallow subsurface water moving downslope. To be effective there needs to be sufficient slope, excess water to be captured, soils permeable enough for lateral water flow to occur and shallow enough to be captured by tree roots. Consideration needs to be given to the location of the belt on the slope inter-belt spacing and belt width. Alley farming Trees spaced in belts can access more water than those in woodlots due to reduced competition between trees. As a result they grow faster and have a greater impact on recharge reduction. Mixing pastures / crops with trees means fewer trees are needed to control recharge, however, as they are more likely to compete with pasture / crop for water. Design (density and arrangement of trees) is important to balance productivity and recharge management. Alley farming is most suitable in flatter terrain with little lateral water flow.

Perennial Pastures With appropriate species and management deep-rooted perennial pastures use more water than annual pastures. They are considered to have a maximum recharge advantage of 40 mm/yr. Water use of this magnitude implies perennial pastures would be suited to controlling groundwater accessions in moderate to low recharge areas. Perennial pastures would not provide adequate recharge control in high recharge areas or in high rainfall zones and in these circumstances trees are likely to be necessary to maximise recharge control. Further to this, work by Clifton reports that most perennial pasture in the below 700mm rainfall zone acts as annual pasture with virtually no active growth from January onwards. Species selection and pasture management are therefore critical elements of effective recharge control using perennial pastures. Strongly summer active species or cultivars (eg Lucerne) should be used in preference to conventional winter active pastures such as phalaris. Perennial pasture establishment and persistence are key aspects influencing their effectiveness in recharge control. Without adequate management perennial pastures quickly decline, losing any recharge advantage, which may have been gained. Even with good pasture management a pasture renovation program is required periodically. Findings to date related to pastures: Potential maximum effect of perennial pastures on recharge 40mm per year 3 Grass roots occur mostly in the top 0.8m, but water extraction can occur up to 1.5m and up to 10m for Lucerne Perennial pastures have limited capacity to control recharge in areas above 600 mm annual average rainfall There is no significant recharge advantage of rotational grazing over set stocking (reported recharge advantage 3 - 12 mm/ yr). There is no significant reduction in recharge from upgrading pastures with high fertiliser application. (Reported recharge advantage 10 - 14mm/yr). Annual pastures intercept less than 7% of rainfall 32 In contrast to trees, pastures are relatively quick to establish and may achieve peak water use within 2-3 years of establishment.39 Perennial pastures decline quickly if they are neglected or poorly managed. Perennial pasture renovation is required every 5 to 20 years depending on management.

Perennial pastures have limited capacity to control recharge in areas above 600 mm annual average rainfall. This is particularly the case in areas with a winter rainfall pattern when potential evapo-transpiration is low, and where perennial pastures are set stocked. These conditions occur across the majority of the region. Perennial pastures are not considered a viable option for recharge control in this zone. 39 Summer active pastures have the potential to create a sufficient autumn soil water deficit to delay the onset of saturated soil conditions and reduce groundwater recharge 32. It is considered that perennial pastures have the capacity to reduce recharge by a maximum of 40mm / yr. 39

13 Background

Cropping Cropping is considered to have a similar water use pattern to annual pastures. That is they allow recharge to the groundwater system to occur, particularly in wet years. South West Victorian rainfall patterns provide most rainfall during winter and early spring. Crop water use during this period will be less than rainfall and recharge is likely to occur. The amount of recharge that occurs will depend on the soil water storage capacity. Once field capacity is reached, recharge will occur. As the season progresses, summer crop water requirements normally exceed rainfall and soil moisture reserves are depleted. Recharge during this period is likely to be negligible. Compared to annual pastures, crops use less water early in the season when the leaf area is low and more later in the season as the leaf canopy develops its full size, crops flower and mature. There are a number of measures to improve farming practice that can be used to maximise water use, but their effect is generally marginal. To have an impact, skilful management and widespread adoption is required. Findings to date related to cropping:2 Crops use no more water than annual pastures and less than perennial pastures and trees. When rainfall exceeds 600mm the scope for recharge control by modified agronomic practices in cropped areas is limited. Increasing annual plant water use is unlikely to have a significant impact on its own. Annuals don't use water that falls in intense or prolonged wet periods or outside the plants growing season Reducing recharge under annuals is difficult in well-drained, low fertility and waterlogged soils and in heavily grazed pastures. Continuous cropping practices may be unsustainable where soil structure decline, acidification and herbicide resistance occur.

Techniques for maximising crop water use; Raised bed cropping - has the potential to reduce recharge as a result of changed surface drainage from installation of the raised beds. Phase cropping involves the rotation of crops with perennial pasture (3-5 yrs continuous cropping then 3-5 years Lucerne). Lucerne helps to remove water that has escaped past the root zone in previous years. Opportunity or response cropping - occurs when favourable conditions such as soil moisture are used to determine sowing date. Alley cropping - sowing of crops between belts of perennials which provide shelter increased water use and depending on species - grazing, timber habitat. Improving agronomy - lifting yields of cereal and legume crops through improved management, better crop rotations and improved pasture management during the ley phase. Eliminating fallow - fallow is traditionally used to increase soil water stores thus improving productivity. However recharge is increased under fallow and can lead to more rapid degradation than if fields are continuously under vegetation cover. Fallowing is not common practice in the Glenelg Hopkins. Removing impediments to root growth / reduced tillage - may increase or decrease water use depending on soil type. Raise bed cropping is being widely promoted in South West Victoria as a technique which will enable agricultural land previously unavailable for cropping due to seasonal waterlogging to be cropped. Modification to surface drainage patterns as a result of the raised beds are likely to impact on recharge although further investigation is required to quantify levels.

14 Background

Engineering 6 Engineering strategies for salinity control are considered when agronomic solutions are not appropriate or do not offer protection within an acceptable timeframe. Capital and maintenance costs can be high and disposal of water is a significant issue. Disposal of water to streams is governed by Environment Protection Authority guidelines. Consideration also needs to be given to the catchment impact of changed water flow regimes if wide scale adoption occurs. Concurrent benefits such as flood management or waterlogging control can often be of greater significance than salinity control for a particular project. Engineering solutions for salinity control include the interception and redirection of surface or groundwater or groundwater pumping. Overall, engineering strategies are generally expensive to implement and are therefore usually only used when high value assets require protection. Vegetation strategies are often used in conjunction with engineering options. Surface drains are used to divert surface water flows. While they cause minimal disruption to land use and are relatively cheap to construct and maintain, they cannot be built in sodic soils, have limited value for controlling waterlogging in some areas and disposal of water high in salt or nutrients can be an issue. Groundwater drains or interception trenches can lower watertables sufficiently to bring unproductive land back into production. They are expensive however and only effective under specific conditions. Again disposal of water is an issue. Subsurface drains can effectively remove groundwater from waterlogged areas, lowering the watertable enough to enable increased pasture / crop growth. They are more expensive to install and maintain and disposal of water is an issue. Groundwater pumping can be used to lower the watertable over a specific area. Due to the high cost of installation and maintenance they are generally only used to protect high value assets such as towns. Pumping only treats the symptoms so asset protection is only afforded while pumping continues. Disposal of water is a significant issue requiring consideration.

15 Background

Discharge Management Saline discharge areas occur once a watertable is within one to two meters (depending on soil type) of the surface. At this distance, water and any salts it contains will move to the surface through capillary action. At the surface the water evaporates leaving the salts behind to concentrate in the topsoil. Areas affected by salinity exhibit a progressive loss of plant species and vegetation cover as salt concentration increases. This loss of cover is made worse by uncontrolled stock grazing. Stock, particularly sheep, are attracted to saline areas by salt and the cooler temperatures (due to evaporation), baring the site further. Surface evaporation increases as vegetation cover is reduced, increasing the rate of salinisation and leaving the site vulnerable to erosion. Soil salinity can be determined precisely by soil tests or subjectively through observation of salt tolerant plant species. Plant indicator species have been used to identify and map salinity in Victoria 20. Three classes are used to categorise saltland. Often sites may contain a combination of classes.

Class 1 - mild salting can be difficult to identify and is characterised by stunted pasture growth. Salt sensitive species such as subclovers will disappear. Class 2 - moderate salting. Patches of bare ground appear. Salt sensitive species disappear and more salt tolerant species become dominant Class 3 - severe salting. Only the most salt tolerant species remain. Large areas of bare ground will be apparent, often with salt stain visible during dry periods. Loss of topsoil from the site is common.

Restoration of discharge areas is based on two principles: 1. Limiting the expression and expansion of salinity 2. Improving the value or productivity of the site

Reduction in the spread and severity of salinity is based on lowering the rate of evaporation and thus capillary action. Maintaining cover on the site is the most effective way of achieving this. At low levels of salting, simply fencing the site to enable salt tolerant plant species (productive or otherwise) to establish and control stock grazing will achieve this. At higher levels of salting where the topsoil may have been lost leaving the hard subsoil exposed, artificial ground cover may be required. Dags from the woolshed or spoilt hay are two commonly used options to spread over bare saline ground to reduce evaporation and initiate the process of organic matter build up required for plants to re-establish. Care needs to be taken with this approach where watercourses are involved. Untreated valley floors are areas of net groundwater recharge. Modelling groundwater in a local catchment predicted establishment of Tall Wheat Grass in valley floor environments might substantially reduce salinity risk 29 Options to manage discharge: Biodiversity protection Saline agronomy Trees and shrubs Alternate industries: inland saline aquaculture, energy production and mineral harvesting

Discharge Management Options There are a number of options available to make the best use of saline land. A background paper 'Management options for saline sites' provides information on available options and their suitability for the Glenelg Hopkins region. A summary of the options follows.

Biodiversity protection The Glenelg Hopkins Region contains a significant number of Primary saline sites, or sites that have always been saline. Ten separate ecological vegetation classes (EVC's) are associated with these saline environments: permanent saline, semi-permanent saline, permanent saline lake, semi-permanent saline lake, saline lake mosaic, brackish lake mosaic, brackish lake, brackish wetland, brackish drainage line and brackish sedgeland. It is often difficult to clearly categorise sites as primary salting, due to the landuse changes that have occurred and lack of detailed historical information. Primary sites will also often have some secondary salinisation associated

16 Background with them. Where primary sites occur on public land, the plant communities remain relatively intact. On private land uncontrolled grazing has often led to the depletion or disappearance of these communities. Regardless of a site’s status as primary or secondary salinity, opportunities exist to enhance regional biodiversity through the protection or establishment of indigenous salt tolerant communities including trees, shrubs and grasses in line with the region’s biodiversity strategy. Adoption of the regional biodiversity protocol will ensure that native saltland vegetation is not inadvertently destroyed through adoption of other discharge management options.

Saline agronomy Opportunities exist to significantly improve the productivity of saline sites using productive salt tolerant pasture or shrub species. In addition to excessive salts, saline sites in the region are often affected by waterlogging, extremes of high or low pH and low fertility, which affect plant germination and establishment and need to be considered in selection of appropriate species. Salt tolerant pasture species such as Tall Wheat Grass, Tall Fescue, Strawberry Clover, Balansa Clover, and Persian Clover have been used with success in the region. Additional species are currently being considered in field trials and experiments. Salt tolerant fodder shrubs such as saltbush and bluebush have been trialled in the region. They have met with limited success due to their specific site requirements. Trees on shallow saline watertables 3,32 Trees planted over shallow watertables will use groundwater and lower the watertable. However if the watertable is saline (even 3000 EC) salt will accumulate in the root zone over time. Eventually levels increase until trees can no longer take up water reducing growth rates and perhaps killing the tree. The watertable then rises again. For this reason planting on shallow saline watertables is not a common recommendation. Success requires specific hydrological conditions shallow aquifers (< 5m), not too saline with some lateral flow to prevent salt accumulation. More commonly trees are planted around the margins of discharge zones in an effort to depress local watertables. Salt tolerant species such as River Red Gum, Swamp Yate, Swamp Mallet, Kangaroo Paperbark, Moonah, Grey Buloke, Swamp Paperbark, River She Oak or indigenous species should be used where appropriate.

Alternate industries Limited opportunities exist for inland saline aquaculture, horticulture, energy production and mineral harvesting. The Background Paper 'Management options for saline sites' discusses these opportunities in more detail. While technically possible, economics, marketing and infrastructure associated with these industries requires further detailed investigation before broad scale adoption will occur.

17 Background

REGIONAL HISTORY OF SALINITY AND SALINITY PLANNING

The earliest documented evidence shows that some streams were saline before European settlement. An unoccupied area of the Dundas Tableland surveyed in Spring 1842 shows that the Bryan Creek system and parts of the Wannon River were saline or brackish. Naturally, water quality was of paramount importance to the earliest settlers and casual references to saline streams, groundwater and springs were noted in their diaries and letters. The first records of significant salinisation of land were in the pre-purchase assessments of land for the Closer Settlement schemes of the 1890s and early Twentieth Century. A 1909 Department of Agriculture report identified over 4,000 acres of land on the Dundas Tablelands unsuitable for cropping because of excessive salt although it was not until 1916 that a report first refers to the salty watercourses and salt flats on the Dundas Tablelands as a problem. This identification of saline land more likely reflected the level of land assessment that came with the subdivision of pastoral estates, rather than new or secondary salinity. There is evidence that for some estates, tree cover had increased over this period and minimal pasture work had been completed. 22,23,24 Salinity was recognised as a process associated with the contemporary land degradation problem of soil erosion by the time that the Soil Conservation Authority (SCA) was founded in 1939. A landmark study 9 in 1958 undertaken by the SCA recorded over 10,000 acres of salted land, including parts of the Dundas Tablelands, the Pyrenees around Ararat and the area south of Lexton. In 1968 the Rocklands Reservoir study identified saline groundwater discharge as the main source of salt and recommended that the native vegetation be retained to mitigate discharge. Then in 1975 the Dundas Conservation Project was one of the first SCA projects to specifically target salinity as a problem. Tree planting became a priority to restore the hydrological balance of the area, although the project aimed simply at preventing further deterioration, as rehabilitation was considered technically impossible and practicably unfeasible. By 1979 rising groundwater was seen as the dominant cause of salinity. In April 1979, the Standing Committee on Soil Conservation, concerned at the degradation of Australia's soil resources, constituted a working party to report on the problem. The report 'Salting of non irrigated land in Australia 30 was released in 1982. The Dundas Tablelands, Coastal Plain and Volcanic plains of the Western District were cited as areas affected by salting in Victoria. Following the report’s release, the Victorian State Government initiated an enquiry into land and river salinity in Victoria. This led to the establishment of a Cabinet Task Force on Salinity in 1985 and government commitment to a Victorian Salinity Program 18 In February 1987 the draft Victorian Strategy for managing land and water salinity, Salt Action : Joint Action was released. The final State Strategy, released in May 1988, established the Glenelg Salinity Control Region (one of nine Statewide) and initiated the development of regional salinity control strategies. A forum of community and government representatives developed the strategy. The Glenelg Salinity Forum was established in September 1990 and launched its government endorsed strategy in July 1994. Subsequent to the launch of the Strategy, the Glenelg Salinity Forum was disbanded and in August 1995 the Glenelg Salinity Implementation Group was established to oversee its implementation. The Glenelg Hopkins Catchment Management Authority (GHCMA) was established in 1997 under the Catchment and Land Protection Act to advise government on natural resource management. In 1998 the Glenelg Salinity Implementation Group, managed by the Department of Natural Resources and Environment, was disbanded and the responsibility for advising government on salinity issues in the Glenelg Region transferred to the Soils Implementation Committee of the Glenelg Hopkins CMA. This committee has since broadened its area of interest to include biodiversity issues, and in 1999 became the Land and Biodiversity Implementation Committee. Victorian Salinity Management Framework was released in August 2000, replacing Salt Action : Joint Action as the State’s Salinity Strategy. A review of the regional salinity strategy was initiated in September 2000, culminating in the release of the Glenelg Salinity Strategy Review in 2002. This document updates the 1994 Glenelg Region Salinity Strategy.

18 Background

REVIEW OF THE ORIGINAL SALINITY STRATEGY

With the benefit of hindsight it has become apparent that implementation of the Glenelg Salinity Strategy would not achieve its objectives in terms of salinity control. It was written in a framework that took little account of the holistic nature of natural resource management and gave a high priority to maintaining the dominant land uses. Despite these shortcomings, the strategy, and the process by which it was written and implemented, has achieved a great deal in terms of both natural resource management and how government funded programs are implemented at the regional level. It has also shown that implementation agents and the funding provider need to be responsive to changes in knowledge and circumstances. In this regard the Glenelg Salinity Implementation Group demonstrated a great deal of responsiveness in providing the necessary flexibility in terms of the direction given for DNRE staff to extract good value from implementation activities. 40 The review made 23 comments, which have been considered during development of this Salinity Strategy. A list of the comments follows:

Coordination 1. Land Management Units may no longer be the most appropriate planning and prioritisation unit. Sub catchments are used in many other programs. 2. Extension on salinity control should be delivered as a part of an integrated natural resource management package based on whole farm planning and clearly identified environmental best management practices. 3. There is a need for more policy options where benefits of salinity control accrue to the community but costs are currently borne by individuals. 4. Greater consideration should be given to determining suitable targets for the program to be measured against and how measurement data is to be collected and reported. Also many of the projects funded under the salinity program have been written up as internal DNRE Reports. More emphasis should be given to publication in refereed scientific journals. 5. Local Government and Water authorities need to be involved in the development of future salinity plans and effort should be put towards investigating the cost of salinity to infrastructure. 6. Measuring the value of non-dollar benefits resulting from salinity management is often very difficult. However it is considered that their contribution to social welfare is such that methodologies for valuing these benefits of the plan should be explored in greater detail. 7. Changing land use has substantially altered the assumptions underlying the economic analysis of the salinity plan. 8. It is likely that the biggest factor to influence the spread of salinity into the future will be the amount of rainfall. 9. Other degradation issues such as soil conservation, biodiversity enhancement, acidification, soil structure and water quality have all been positively impacted on by implementation of the salinity plan. Any future plan needs to consider the value of these additional benefits. 10. This report has been written to conform to the "Draft Guidelines For Salinity Strategy Review" as set out by Catchment and Water, DNRE, Melbourne. As a result it has mainly dealt with work funded under the salinity plan and some other closely associated programs. Other work relevant to salinity control but not funded by the plan should be considered in future plan development. Research 1. Our understanding of groundwater flow systems across the region needs to be reviewed and knowledge gaps addressed. 2. The available predictions of the extent of salinity for the region are not suitable for use at the catchment scale. Finer resolution digital elevation models would allow the assessment of salinity risk to better reflect variability in the landscape and should provide a more accurate indication of the potential water table surface and salinity impacts.

19 Background

3. The use of perennial pastures for controlling recharge to groundwater systems has failed in this environment with current species and management. Further research and development into appropriate species and management may improve this situation. 4. Saline agronomy has provided substantial economic and environmental benefits. Investigations into better species and management systems for salt affected areas should be given a high priority. 5. The contribution of groundwater baseflows to total stream flow is an area of possible future research as there are several sites where this interaction is thought to be significant.

Monitoring 1. Salt load and water quality impacts have been determined for the major rivers in Murray Basin catchments of Victoria. Performing similar calculations for streams in the Glenelg Hopkins Catchment would be of value, particularly in assessing in-stream environmental impacts of expansion in the area of land affected by salinity. 2. An improved network of groundwater monitoring bores should be established to observe trends in locations that currently do not have a salinity problem. This will provide benchmark data for future reference. 3. The large-scale bluegum plantations that have been established throughout the Glenelg Region provide an ideal opportunity to monitor the effects of high density tree planting and the effects on the watertable. Previously most tree planting has not been of sufficient size to have a catchment impact on watertables. 4. The use of marcophytes and macro-invertebrates has not been as successful in monitoring salinity change as first anticipated. A review of the timeframe of surveys needs to be considered, possibly extending the frequency to every three or five years. A greater number of wetlands need to be included in the monitoring program to get a better representation of wetland type with a broader spatial distribution. It would be advantageous to expand the number of remnant vegetation sites represented monitored sites to increase the overall representation of different vegetation types across the region. 5. Continuous monitoring is an effective means of recording stream flows and salinity at a macro scale in the catchments. Good data sets allow reliable trends to be determined. The current program should be maintained. 6. Monitoring within the salinity program should be integrated with other programs to achieve economies in logistics and scale.

20 Background

RELATIONSHIP TO EXISTING FRAMEWORKS

The Glenelg Hopkins Salinity Strategy sits within a context of Regional, State and National planning frameworks. The natural resource system is complex. Diverse linkages occur between soil, water, plant and animal communities. It is not possible to implement change on one aspect without expecting resultant change in linked areas. As such, salinity planning and implementation cannot be undertaken in isolation. Regional, State and National frameworks provide the mechanism through which due consideration of these other elements are taken into account. At a National level there are eight key documents providing broad direction for natural resource management: National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality; National Water Quality Management Strategy; National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia's Biological Diversity; National Local Government Biodiversity Strategy; National Weed Strategy; National Framework for the Management and Monitoring of Australia's Native Vegetation; ANZECC - Core Environmental Indicators National Forest Policies

At a State level, eight documents provide more specific directions on natural resource management within the context of Victorian landscapes. These are: Victorian Salinity Management Framework Victorian Biodiversity Strategy Victorian River Health Strategy (draft) Victoria’s Native Vegetation Management: A Framework for Action Management of Victoria’s Ramsar Wetlands Victorian Pest Management: A Framework for Action State Environment Protection Policy - Waters of Victoria Our Forests Our Future

At a Regional level the Glenelg Hopkins Regional Catchment Strategy provides the integrated catchment management framework for natural resources in the region. Specific issues based plans, including the salinity plan, sit under the Regional Catchment Strategy (RCS) and provide the detail required for strategic implementation. When implemented as a package, the RCS and its associated plans provide the mechanism through which integrated natural resource management will be achieved. The RCS has been developed in partnership with State Government and the community and provides a focus for on-ground actions and investment in land and water management within the region. The Strategy follows the principles of community involvement through partnerships with regional stakeholders and the integration of activities across policy development, investment, program implementation and outcomes. Local government also has a role in natural resource management at a regional level through their planning schemes. Alignment of the RCS and Regional Planning Schemes is occurring through a process of review currently underway.

21 Background

Neighboring plans The Glenelg Hopkins CMA is located in far South West Victoria and adjoins the South Australian Border, Wimmera CMA, Corangamite CMA and the North Central CMA. While regional expressions of salinity and subsequent control options vary between each region, shared resources such as groundwater, surface water in the case of diversion flows from the Glenelg River and ecological vegetation classes link the regions.

In Victoria, all Catchment Management Authorities have been established under the same processes. Each has its own RCS and specific issue based plans including a salinity plan. Issues of shared resources are discussed between CMA CEO's, and between technical staff at regular intervals. Glenelg Hopkins CMA has a particularly strong relationship with Corangamite CMA, which shares some similarities of climate, salinity management options and stakeholders. At a National level Glenelg Hopkins CMA and Corangamite CMA combine to form the Glenelg Corangamite Priority Region under the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality. The regions have signed an overarching agreement to support cooperative action on salinity and water quality issues.

There is no salinity plan for the area of South Australia immediately adjoining Glenelg Hopkins CMA. The area is not considered a high salinity risk area and there are currently no plans to develop a salinity management strategy for this area. A Cross Border Groundwater Committee has, however, been formed to discuss areas of mutual interest between Victoria and South Australia in relation to groundwater use and management.

22 Direction in Salinity Management

CURRENT EXTENT OF ASSET DEGRADATION

The Glenelg Hopkins Region contains 27,472 ha of secondary salting. Appendix A shows sites of saline discharge in the Glenelg Hopkins Region. The Regional Catchment Strategy, Native Vegetation Plan and River Health Strategy have all identified salinity as a threat to regional assets. Water Stream salinity levels in the region are relatively high. The median stream salinity from regional stream gauging stations varies from 3000 to 8000 EC. Flow weighted salinity, an indication of the usual salinity during higher flow periods, ranges from 1000 EC to 3500 EC and is generally much lower than the median salinity. This indicates streams in the region experience high salinity during long periods of low flow and much lower salinity during the relatively short high flow events. Such streams are subject to saline groundwater intrusions forming a base flow, which is diluted by fresher rainfall runoff. 27 Salinity is the major water quality issue in the Hopkins Basin, with poor water quality reported throughout the major streams. As a consequence surface water supplies are heavily supplemented with groundwater and surface water imports. Salinity levels are higher in Summer than Winter 41. The Hopkins River at Wickliffe is the most saline river in the region based on a median salinity level of 7300 EC 16. An investigation of salinity in the Hopkins river noted salinity levels above 5000 EC in 20 of 25 sites,25 while the stream gauging station at Wickliffe has recorded a maximum salinity level of 15600 EC 31. Two saline pools have been identified in the upper catchment of the Hopkins River. 16 These are likely to coincide with groundwater in-flows. There are high salinity levels in major streams and tributaries of the Glenelg River41. Levels continue to increase downstream to Dartmoor where the river becomes estuarine. Based on six year average 561,316 tonnes salt / year are exported from the Glenelg River system each year38. Salinity is variable within and between permanent streams in the Glenelg Basin, with highest salinity readings in Autumn (Waterway Project 1996). Recorded levels range from 70 to over 16000 EC 16, with salinity exceeding ANZECC guidelines in seven of eight stream gauging stations in the basin. 38 In the upland reach saline pools are a common feature in the Glenelg River. The majority of these pools are formed from overtopping saline water with fresh water releases from Rocklands Reservoir, although some are formed from direct groundwater discharge to streams4. The Wannon River, a major tributary of the Glenelg River delivers the highest salt load (1000 kg/day) to the Glenelg River during low flow periods. This is in part due to catchment size. On a per hectare basis Dwyers Creek yielded the highest salt load per hectare, at 2.5 g/ha/day during low flow while the Crawford River subcatchment recorded approximately twice the salt load per hectare of other sampled catchments during high flow periods. Based on Cottinghams index system for salinity Frenchmans creek is considered to have high salinity levels under both low and high flow conditions. 36. Groundwater quality is variable across the basin, generally declining towards the central north where it is saline. Most domestic, stock and irrigation is derived from groundwater resources40. Salinity is the principal water quality issue in the Portland basin, with poor surface water in all the major streams, except the Surry River which has slightly lower salinity levels. As a result nearly all irrigation, stock and domestic water requirements are supplied from groundwater which is marginal to brackish. Salinity levels are high in summer and low in winter. This is consistent with saline groundwater intrusion to the base flow of streams and minor dryland salting. 40 Town water supply in the region is mostly supplied from surface water runoff captured in reservoirs. Two reservoirs, Konongwootong and Rocklands have issues with increasing salinity levels. Konongwootong reservoir located north of Coleraine was built in the 1920's and supplies the townships of Coleraine, Casterton and Sandford. Between 1954 and 1968 the salinity of the Konongwootong reservoir increased from an average 900 EC to an average 1500EC. An increase of 3% per year for the 14-year period. In 2001 the reservoir reached 2400 EC just short of the maximum permissible salinity level for drinking water of 2500 EC. In 2002 the Glenelg Region Water Authority decided to invest in an alternate water supply for these townships due to the unacceptable levels of salt.

Environment Salinity is known to impact on biodiversity 33, although quantification of the extent of damage is difficult. Salinity affects ecosystems as well as individual species and the loss of one species due to high or rapidly fluctuating salinity will have ramifications for other species, (Native Vegetation Plan). Areas of salinity are known to occur on public land, although complete salinity mapping of public land has not been completed due to difficulties with the methodology. The Land and Water Resource Audit estimates 32 fauna and 13 flora species were affected by dryland salinity and/or shallow water tables in the region in 1998 8.

23 Direction in Salinity Management The overall poor condition of many of the region’s rivers and streams has been reported to be the consequence of a combination of salinity, nutrients, erosion, sedimentation, bacterial problems and lack of riparian vegetation 14. Associated issues of drainage and altered flow regimes have also acted to exacerbate the salinity problem in some areas. In the Glenelg Basin, analysis of water quality records from 1975 to 1990 found salinity levels at 17 of 23 monitoring sites were degraded (15 failed to meet ANZECC guidelines for the protection of aquatic ecosystems), although they were generally acceptable for watering livestock. Four were listed as good, one moderate and one poor 11. Wetlands are a unique part of the Glenelg Hopkins landscape. Some 44% of the Victorias wetlands occur in the region, 90% of which are on private land. Since European settlement there has been a large reduction in the number of wetlands as a result of drainage for agricultural development, particularly deep freshwater meadows and shallow fresh marshes (56% and 45% reduction)19 severely reducing available habitat for a range of bird species. Sixteen nationally important wetlands exist including: Lake Bookar (RAMSAR), Long Swamp, Lake Condah, Tower Hill, Lake Buninjon, Mt William Swamp, Lake Muirhead, Glenelg Estuary, Glenelg River (lower), Boilers Swamp System, Lower Merri Wetlands, Lake Linlithgow Wetlands, Dergholm (You pa yang), Woorndoo Hopkins Wetlands, Nerrin Nerrin Wetlands and Yambuk Wetlands. Increasing salinity levels and rising watertables threaten the health of existing wetlands. These threats appear to be significantly influenced by the effects of climate. Substantial regional evidence supports these assessments 13 including a 7.4% increase in the number of semi permanent saline wetlands since settlement 19. As salinity levels increase species richness changes and declines. Four critical salinity levels have been identified for aquatic macro invertebrate communities at which point species groups disappear. This has led to the development of recommendations to maintain or improve the salinity of wetlands below 7000 EC and to avoid increases in salinity in wetlands with less than 20,000 EC5. Wetland monitoring since 1996 has recorded significant fluctuations in salinity levels during the year (Lake Buninjon 3, 370 EC- 57, 915 EC) highlighting difficulties in assessment of condition change over time13. The land and water resource audit estimated that in 1998 some 1892km of streams and some 10% of the regions wetlands were affected by high watertables 8 While salinity negatively affects many vegetation communities, the Glenelg Hopkins Region also contains significant areas of primary salinity. Ten ecological vegetation communities associated with salinity occur in the region. Four of these brackish lakes and permanent saline lakes in the Volcanic Plan Bioregion; brackish drainage lines in the Dundas Tableland Bioregion and semi-permanent saline in the Warrnambool Plain Bioregion have been listed in the Glenelg Hopkins Vegetation Plan as priority areas for action.

Agricultural land The Glenelg Hopkins Region contains 27,472 ha of secondary salting, the majority of which occurs on agricultural land. The greatest proportion (82%) is Class 1 or low level salting although areas of Class 2 (16 %) and Class 3 (1%) salting exist 21. Salinity is widespread throughout the region although some areas are more severely affected than others. As a general rule the incidence of salinity increases north from the coast. Its expression in the landscape is largely controlled by local topography and its underlying geology and groundwater flow system. The Dundas Tablelands in the north west of the region has the highest incidence of salting with almost every drainage line affected. The volcanic plains with its broader valleys has fewer but much larger sites. The steeply dissected valleys of the merino tablelands largely confines salinity to the creek lines and hillside seeps. In 1998 shallow watertables were estimated to affect 144,500ha in the Glenelg Hopkins region. 8

Infrastructure Several regional towns, Ararat, Beaufort, Lake Bolac, Invermay, Casterton, Coleraine and Sandford are known to experience problems with dryland salinity, saline water supplies and/or rising watertables. High salinity levels in town water supplies contribute to the reduced lifespan and higher maintenance costs of infrastructure in these towns. Some 158 km of highways and major roads, 291 km of minor sealed roads, 217 of unsealed roads and 4.1 km of urban roads have been degraded by salinity. In addition, 1954 bridges including 19 on freeways and main roads, and 60km of railway line are affected by salinity or high watertables. 42

24 Direction in Salinity Management Heritage The Glenelg Hopkins region has a rich aboriginal heritage. Twenty sites have been spatially registered by the Australian Heritage Commission varying in scale from the Grampians National Park to local archaeological sites. This is in addition to other non-spatially registered sites that appear on the Register of the National Estate. Subcatchments G4, G6, H3 and P4 (see map 2) contain the greatest concentration of spatially registered aboriginal heritage sites in addition to the Grampians Ranges area generally. In particular, sites in G4 and H3 lie in the vicinity of areas affected by either salinity or high watertables. No information is available however on the extent of damage which may be occurring. European settlement of the Glenelg Hopkins region dates back to 1834 with the arrival and settlement of the Henty brothers at the site which is now the city of Portland. Historic homesteads, bridges and buildings abound throughout the region with 85 individual values spatially registered, and 13 towns with historic heritage listed by the Australian Heritage Commission. Some 86 of the total number of values (or structures) occur within urban centres and localities at risk from salinity (2030). Further investigation needs to be undertaken to determine whether damage is occurring.

25 Direction in Salinity Management

PREDICTED EXTENT OF ASSET DEGRADATION

Water The Victorian Water Quality monitoring network has 23 current and historic sites within the Glenelg River Basin the earliest of which were established in 1975. Eleven of these sites are still operational. Salinity levels have been recorded on a monthly basis over that time providing an excellent data set for analysis. 11 Analysis of electrical conductivity in 1995 classified 17 of 23 sites in the Glenelg Basin as degraded. Significant downward electrical conductivity trends were recorded at six sites (Wannon at Dunkeld, Jimmys Creek, Chetwynd River, Glenelg River at Big Cord, Moleside Creek and Henty Creek), with particularly strong declines recorded at the Chetwynd River and Henty Creek sites. 11 An analysis of all Victorian Water Quality Monitoring sites in the Glenelg Hopkins region with data records exceeding 10 years was undertaken in 1999. Thirty-two stations were analysed for salinity trends over the past 10 to 20 years. Eighteen stations revealed either a positive or negative trend, however only seven of these trends are statistically significant. A loose regional trend shows increasing salinity levels in southern and eastern areas and predominant decreasing salinity levels in the north west of the region. 28 Eight Glenelg basin stations had decreasing trends with the trend at three stations (Wannon at Dunkeld, Wando River at Wando Vale and Chetwynd River at Chetwynd) highly significant. Ten stations had increasing salinity trends, with two stations, Darlots Creek and the Eumeralla River in the Portland Basin highly significant, two (Hopkins River at Wickliffe and the Hopkins Falls, Hopkins Basin) moderately significant and six not significant. Fourteen stations showed trends neither upward nor downward. The projected change in stream salinity levels at the nine stream gauging stations with statistically significant trend information is provided in Table. The Hopkins River at Wickliffe is already recognised as having the highest median salinity of any regional river. A further predicted increase of 2205 EC carries serious consequences.

Table 2 Projected change in stream salinity levels at nine stream gauging stations in the Glenelg Hopkins Region with statistically significant trends.

Station Location Basin Annual Significance Projected salinity No EC Trend change over 30 years 236202 Hopkins River @ Wickliffe Hopkins 73.5 Medium 2205 236209 Hopkins River @ Hopkins Falls Hopkins 23.2 Medium 696 237205 Darlots Creek @ Homerton Bridge Portland 8.1 High 243 237206 Eumeralla River @ Codrington Portland 13.4 High 402 238204 Wannon @ Dunkeld Glenelg -9.2 High -276 238228 Wannon River @ Henty Glenelg - 5.1 Not Signif. 0 238208 Jimmy Crk @ Jimmy Crk Glenelg 0 High 0 238223 Wando River @ Wando Vale Glenelg -14.2 High -426 238229 Chetwynd River @ Chetwynd Glenelg -21.3 High -639 238231 Glenelg River @ Big Cord Glenelg 0 High 0 238202 Glenelg River @ Sandford Glenelg 0 Not Signif. 0

Accurate monitoring of salt loads is important for assessing the impact of salinity control works over the long term. Continuous salinity monitoring was established at six sites across the region in 1996. A period of time for data collection is required before trends can be established.

Environment Little information is available on predicted environmental changes as a result of salinity. An environmental monitoring program was established in 1996 to quantify to effects of salinity on wetlands and remnant vegetation sites. To date (four years) there has been no clear trend in the data from both the macrophyte or macroinvertebrate surveys that would indicate increasing salinity levels. What has become apparent is that most changes in water quality are due to climatic events such as extended dry periods. The drying up of several wetlands has provided a rare opportunity to ascertain groundwater interactions within the wetlands. 39 Remnant vegetation is being monitored for composition change at four sites. It is expected that a minimum of seven years data is required to sufficiently account for seasonal variation 34 and that data should be collected three yearly over a period of 20 years. The land and water resources audit provides the best source of information. In the Glenelg Hopkins Region, the number of rare and threatened fauna species threatened by shallow watertables is predicted to increase from 32 to 64 by 2050, including eight endangered species. In a similar fashion the number of rare and threatened flora species is expected to rise from 13 in 1998 to 56 (includes 14 endangered species) in 2050. 26 Direction in Salinity Management The same audit predicts that by 2050 there will be a four fold increase (to 7,598 km) in the length of stream affected by rising watertables and that the number of regional wetlands affected will increase from 10% to 29%. Shallow watertables are expected to rise under more than 30,000 ha of land surrounding RAMSAR wetlands of the western district during the next 20 years.

Agricultural land The national land and water resources audit predicts the area of agricultural land with shallow watertables will increase 36.8% to 947,200 ha by 2050.

Table 3 Area (ha) and percentage of agricultural land predicted to have shallow water tables * 1998 2020 lower limit 2050 lower limit 2020 upper limit 2050 upper limit CMA Region Area % Area % Area % Area % Area % Glenelg-Hopkins 144.5 6.6 144.1 6.6 145.2 6.7 429.6 19.7 947.2 43.4

*The audit assessment using groundwater data has identified areas where dryland salinity impacts from shallow groundwaters are known or expected to occur. The hazard assessments have identified those areas where dryland salinity could potentially exist given changes in land use that affect the water balance. This information should not be interpreted as actual areas affected since the assessments are likely to overestimate areal extent particularly in dissected hilly landscapes. Rather they identify areas or regions within which dryland salinity occurs or should occur. 2

There are some 840 groundwater bores in the region, which are used to monitor groundwater levels. Much of this was initiated in the mid 1980's early 1990's and is now providing sufficient record for assessment of trends7. Most land systems have some observation bores although areas with little salinity have poorly represented bore network. Groundwater levels from a number of monitoring networks are now lower than at any other time during their monitored period. Bores show a range of fluctuations that encompass very wet or dry seasons where recharge in increased or reduced. Of the 50 monitoring networks, 15% exhibit distinct long-term falling trends, 10% show steady groundwater conditions (no change) whilst 5% show obvious rising trends7. Climate has been found to be a dominant factor influencing groundwater systems in the region, with the amount of recharge in any one year dependent on the winter / spring rainfall. 39 Long term trends cannot yet be determined in the remainder of the bores due to short monitoring records or complicated patterns of groundwater level variation. Sixty-eight representative bores have been selected to assist in the analysis and reporting of groundwater trends. 7 There is little information available to draw confident conclusions on expansion rates of discharge sites. Long-term discharge monitoring sites have been established for four areas to provide an indication of expansion rates in the region. The data record is currently insufficient to provide reliable information. Modelling used to forecast the future cost of salinity has therefore been based on nominal expansion rates of 0.5% per annum (considered to be a probable minimum) to 2% per annum (a likely maximum). In reality the rate will vary across the region.

Infrastructure Land and water resource audit predictions indicate some 10 towns/localities may be affected by rising watertables by 2050. A six-fold increase in the length of roads is predicted to occur, with railway lines, bridges and transmission lines also likely to be affected.

Heritage No information is currently available to enable an assessment of predicted extent of salinity damage.

27 Direction in Salinity Management

CURRENT AND PREDICTED COSTS OF SALINITY

Salinity has a significant economic, environmental and social impact on our regional assets. These impacts are described in more detail in the previous section. This section describes the economic cost of salinity to the region. It is accepted that there are environmental and social costs associated with salinity in the region, however there is currently no accepted methodology for placing a value on them and they have not been included in the analysis. The figures determined therefore underestimate the true cost of salinity to the region. The costs of salinity to affected stakeholders can be grouped into five categories 42. 1. Foregone agricultural income: The net loss of revenue due to the reduced capacity to use or charge for salinised infrastructure or services. Most commonly it involves the net value of agricultural production foregone on saline farmland and the associated lowering of land values 2. Repair and maintenance: The additional cost of maintaining assets in an undamaged state. 3. Reduced lifespan of infrastructure: The cost of having to replace infrastructure earlier than normal because of salt or water damage. 4. Increased cost of new infrastructure: may occur if higher-grade materials are required for the construction of new infrastructure. 5. Increased operating cost: costs associated with using additional goods and services to minimise the adverse impacts of saline water supplies or high saline watertables. Regional stakeholders were also grouped into five key categories; households, commerce and industry, government agencies and utilities, agricultural producers, and local government. An evaluation of significant impacts and an assessment of future costs assuming no new management strategies are implemented was then undertaken to determine what salinity will cost us if nothing more is done. This analysis is referred to as a 'No Plan' scenario. Table 4 presents a summary of the estimated current and future costs of salinity imposed on stakeholders located within the Glenelg Hopkins Region under two 'No-Plan' scenarios. Salinity currently costs regional stakeholders $44.30 million per annum. Costs to agricultural producers make the largest contribution to these total costs, at around 47 per cent. However, total costs to households and commerce / industry also makes a significant contribution, at around 19 per cent and 14 per cent, respectively. This annual cost is predicted to increase to between $49.96 million and $63.36 million per annum if salinity expands by 15% (a probable minimum) and 60% (a likely maximum) respectively over the 30 year planning timeframe.

Table 4 Summary of salinity costs under a 'No-Plan' scenario

Cost categories Current costs 2000 Predicted future costs2030 ($/yr) 15% expansion ($/yr) 60 % expansion ($/yr)

Costs to households 8.45 8.40 8.74 Costs to commerce & industry 6.39 6.31 6.32 Costs to agricultural producers 20.8 26.0 36.5 Costs to Local Government 3.97 4.16 5.51 Costs to government agencies & utilities 4.69 5.09 6.29 Costs to the environment Not quantified Not quantified Not quantified Costs to cultural heritage Not quantified Not quantified Not quantified

TOTAL COSTS $ 44.30 million $ 49.96 million $ 63.36 million

When a four per cent discount rate is applied, it is estimated that the total cost of salinity to all stakeholders in the Region has a net present value of between $837.4 million and $972.3 million over the period 2000 to 2030. This range in net present values declines to between $557.9 million and $653.2 million over the period 2000 to 2030 when an eight per cent discount rate is applied (see Table 5).

28 Direction in Salinity Management Table 5 Net Present Value of salinity costs to all stakeholders (2000 to 2030) No Plan Scenario 15 % expansion in salinity area 60 % expansion in salinity area NPV - 4% ($' million) NPV - 8% ($' million) NPV - 4% ($' million) NPV - 8% ($' million)

Costs to households $ 145.9 $ 98.8 $ 148.3 $ 100.1 Costs to commerce & industry $ 113.5 $ 76.8 $ 113.5 $ 76.8 Costs to agricultural producers $ 418.2 $ 274.8 $ 532.4 $ 362.1 Costs to Local Government $ 72.7 $ 49.0 $ 82.4 $ 51.1 Costs to government agencies $ 87.1 $ 58.5 $ 95.7 $ 63.1 & utilities Costs to the environment Not valued Not valued Not valued Not valued Costs to cultural heritage Not valued Not valued Not valued Not valued

Total NPV $ 837.4 million $ 557.9 million $ 972.3 million $ 653.2 million

The Background Report. Cost of salinity to the Glenelg Hopkins Region42 provides full details of the analysis.

29 Direction in Salinity Management

THE WAY FORWARD

There are no fast fix solutions for regional salinity control. Salinity control will only be achieved through long term commitment and investment by government and community. While salinity is one of the greatest natural resource management challenges in the region, it is not the only one. Opportunity exists for salinity management options to provide multiple benefits to other regional land, water and vegetation programs. Accordingly our salinity management directions are implemented in a framework of integrated catchment management to ensure simultaneous generation of multiple environmental, social and economic benefits for the region. Integration of salinity outcomes is achieved through the Glenelg Hopkins Regional Catchment Strategy, which identifies the following vision for the region.

Vision Striving towards healthy and sustainable relationships between the natural environment and the community's use of land and water resources. On the ground, practical integration of salinity management with other natural resource management issues occurs through the Land and Biodiversity Implementation Committee (LABIC) of the Glenelg Hopkins CMA. The Land and Biodiversity Implementation Committee oversee salinity management in the region, and have identified the following goal and principles for regional salinity management.

Goal To address the opportunities and issues associated with salinity in a way that meets the social, economic and environmental aspirations of the regional community, using available scientific knowledge and community wisdom.

Principles for salinity management Recognise and understand that saline ecosystems are a natural feature of the region; Minimise the risk of salinity to assets; Addressing salinity is undertaken in an integrated catchment management framework; Salinity management provides social, economic and environmental benefits for the region; To ensure flexibility and innovation through a process of continuous improvement.

Catchments The Glenelg Hopkins Region contains three major drainage basins; Glenelg, Hopkins and Portland Coast. These basins or catchments each contain a major river system and their tributaries. Each of these basins can be subdivided into smaller subcatchments centred on a smaller creek or waterway. At the lowest level of division, digital elevation modelling of the region has identified 134 base level subcatchments For planning purposes these base level subcatchments have been grouped into 32 subcatchments. These 32 subcatchments, identified in Table 6 will be the basis of regional natural management planning.

Table 6 Glenelg Hopkins River Basins and Subcatchments 30 Direction in Salinity Management

Basin Subcatchment Subcatchment name Base level Id. subcatchments

Glenelg G1 Glenelg Estuary G1.1-G1.6 G2 Lower Glenelg River G2.1-G2.9 G3 Mid Glenelg River G3.1-G3.10 G4 Glenelg River - Dundas Tablelands G4.1-G4.6 G5 Glenelg River and Mathers Creek G5.1-G5.5 G6 Glenelg River - Grampians Headwaters G6.1-G6.9 G7 Crawford River G7.1 G8 Stokes River G8.1 G9 Lower Wannon River G9.1-G9.4 G10 Wannon River - Dwyers Creek to Falls G10.1-G10.6 G11 Wannon River - Grampians Headwaters G11.1-G11.6 G12 Bryan Creek G12.1-G12.3 G13 Grange Burn G13.1-G13.5 Hopkins H1 Hopkins River / Brucknell Creek H1.1-H1.4 H2 Hopkins River / Blind Creek H2.1-H2.7 H3 Hopkins River / Muston Creek H3.1-H3.2 H4 Mid Hopkins River H4.1-H4.5 H5 Upper Hopkins River H5.1-H5.3 H6 Lower Mt Emu Creek H6.1-H6.5 H7 Mid Mt Emu Creek H7.1-H7.4 H8 Upper Mt Emu Creek H8.1-H8.2 H9 Burrumbeet Creek H9.1-H9.2 H10 Trewalla Creek H10.1-H10.2 H11 Lower Fiery and Salt Creek H11.1-H11.4 H12 Upper Fiery Creek H12.1-H12.5 H13 Merri River H13.1-H13.5 Portland P1 Portland and Wattle Creek P1.1 Coast P2 Surry River P2.1 P3 Fitzroy River P3.1 P4 Darlots Creek P4.1-P4.4 P5 Eumeralla River P5.1-P5.2 P6 Moyne River P6.1-P6.4

31 Direction in Salinity Management

PRIORITY AREAS

Resources are limited. To ensure the most effective and efficient use of community and government resources, they need to be directed to where the most benefit will accrue. Priority areas for salinity management have been determined for the 135 base level subcatchments after careful consideration of the salinity hazard, distribution of assets and opportunity for intervention. Four key steps were taken in the decision making process.

1.Salinity Hazard Land or water resources degraded by high levels of salt threaten regional assets. Salinity is widespread in the Glenelg Region but it is not uniform. Some areas are affected more than others. Salinity mapping has been completed for the region and along with information on groundwater salinity levels, % of shallow watertables, stream flow weighted salinity and land management, unit ranking has been used to determine which subcatchments are threatened by salinity. The salinity hazard was normalised to the subcatchment area, to ensure that subcatchments of different sizes were treated equally.

2. Asset Identification Protection of assets is fundamental to the sustainability of regional communities and maintenance of high standard of living. Agricultural land, environmental and infrastructure assets were located within each subcatchment.

3. Asset Risk Assessment Each asset type (agricultural land, environmental, infrastructure) was assessed against the appropriate hazard criteria to produce a normalised assessment of the risk of salinity to assets in the subcatchment. The expert judgement of the Salinity Technical Committee was used to qualify assessments when discrepancies occurred.

4. Technical feasibility of control Groundwater flow system characteristics influence the likely effectiveness of available management options, the scale of work required and the timeframe required to accrue benefits. A groundwater characterisation was completed for the region and the flow systems grouped according to their responsiveness to recharge management options. Groundwater flow system responsiveness is based on the fundamental assumptions that local groundwater flow systems are responsive to recharge management, while intermediate and regional flow systems are not.

Each of the region’s 134 base level subcatchments were assessed according to the criteria described above using the integrated catchment salinity risk and prioritisation (ICSRP) framework. This framework developed by the Centre for Land Protection Research uses GIS data sets to interrogate and relate data. The Background Paper 'Salinity Prioritisation in the Glenelg Hopkins Region' describes the decision making process in full. Subcatchments were grouped into one of five categories and broad management options assigned accordingly.

Priority A1 Salinity hazard, high/moderate value assets, groundwater system responds to recharge control activities Options Recharge management + Discharge Management + Engineering

Priority A2 Salinity hazard, high/moderate value assets, groundwater system does not respond to recharge control Options Discharge Management + Engineering

Priority B1 Salinity hazard, low value assets, groundwater system responds to recharge control activities Options Recharge Management + Discharge Management + Engineering

Priority B2 Salinity hazard, low value assets, groundwater system does not respond to recharge control Options Discharge Management + Engineering

Priority C No salinity hazard Options No salinity investment

32 Direction in Salinity Management

33 Direction in Salinity Management

TARGETS

Targets have been established to measure progression toward achievement of the goal. Three levels of targets will be set; Aspirational, Resource Condition and Management Action.

Aspirational Targets Aspirational targets are a statement about the desired condition of the region in relation to salinity in the longer term (50 years +). Actions within the plan have been developed with this long-term goal in mind and will progressively move the region towards achieving this goal. Aspirational Goal: That surface and groundwater salinity levels do not negatively impact on key regional assets,

Resource Condition Targets Resource condition targets also often referred to as end of valley targets provide specific, timebound, measurable targets for the medium term (10 - 20 years). The National Framework for natural resource management standards and targets identifies a minimum set of eight matters for which targets must be set in the region. Three of these relate to salinity management. Area of land threatened by shallow or rising watertables Surface water salinity; and Extent of critical assets identified and protected from salinity and degrading water quality. Establishment of appropriate targets requires prediction of trends, an assessment of risk to assets and values and agreement on the acceptable level of risk. Insufficient data currently exists in the region to enable appropriate targets to be set for all matters except surface water salinity. High priority actions have been identified in the Strategy to support development of appropriate targets in consultation with the community by December 2004. Interim Surface water salinity targets have been set for four catchment points. Targets indicate the maximum stream salinity level desired for these Rivers by 2012. Surface water targets assume that climate will follow existing patterns, discharge treatment will reduce salt wash off to rivers and that river flow is not reduced. Hopkins River at Wickliffe 15000 EC 90 % of the time Hopkins River at Hopkins Falls 7500 EC 90 % of the time Glenelg River at Sandford 3300 EC 90 % of the time Wannon River at Henty 5840 EC 90 % of the time Ideally resource condition targets will refine the location, type and scale of on-ground works undertaken. This of course is dependant on our understanding of impact of the on-ground works in altering the resource condition. Information that will enable us make this assessment is generally limited to specific activities (eg the impact of trees or pastures on salinity). Extrapolation to catchment scale, contexting within the integrated catchment management framework, and the extended timeframe over which actions may become effective or have an impact, add additional complexity. Modelling is a useful tool to overcome these difficulties and activities have been identified to build confidence in the link between works undertaken and changed resource condition.

Management Action Targets The Salinity Strategy identifies practical, achievable actions in five programs, which contribute to achieving the resource condition targets and our aspirational targets.

Salinity Strategy Programs 1. Land Management Program 2. Capacity Building Program 3. Research and Investigation Program 4. Monitoring Program 5. Coordination Program

34 Direction in Salinity Management Each of the programs lists a series of management actions, which require implementation over the 30 year life of the plan. Timeframes and priorities are associated with each action to enable progress to be monitored. The on-ground works actions of the Land Management Program have specific targets associated with them. These targets are reported in Table 7

Table 7 Land Management Program on-ground works targets Land Management Groundwater Flow System Priority Area 30 yr Target Annual Target Program Actions

Discharge Revegetation All systems A1 9273 309 (ha) A2 8785 293 B1 418 14 B2 737 24 Fencing discharge (km) All systems A1 1890 63 A2 1245 41 B1 107 4 B2 125 4 Perennial Pasture(ha) Woorndoo, fractured paleozoic, A1 28479 949 deeply weathered Paleozoic

Accelerated Groundwater Flow System Priority Area 30 yr Target Annual Target Annual Target Actions (10yrs) (10-20yrs)

Trees Blocks (ha) deeply weathered paleozoics, A1 6310 315 158 fractured paleozoics, deeply weathered granite, fractured granite, merino tablelands, Pliocene sand Tree Belts (km) western Dundas tablelands, A1 406 20.3 10 eastern Dundas tablelands, fractured granite, deeply weathered granite, Woorndoo B1 22 1 0.6 Fencing Tree Belts western Dundas tablelands, A1 813 41 20 (km) eastern Dundas tablelands, fractured granite, deeply weathered granite, Woorndoo B1 43 2 1.2 Lucerne(ha) Woorndoo deeply weathered A1 1452 73 36 Paleozoic

35 Direction in Salinity Management

LAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

Successful salinity control requires changes to the way we manage the land. The Land Management Program outlines a series of activities which when implemented will contribute to salinity control over the long term and reduce the social, environmental and economic impact of salinity in the region. Salinity management actions recommended are based on the most recent technical information available. OUTCOMES: Improvement in surface water quality Protection of high value assets from salinity and degrading water quality Reduction of the economic, environmental and social impact of salinity on regional assets. Multiple benefits to waterways, biodiversity, pest plant and animal control.

Table 8 Land Management Program

Land Management Action Implementation Timeframe Priority Program Responsibility 1. Saline and 1.1 Fence A1 and A2 saline discharge sites Landholders / DNRE Ongoing High waterlogged according to land class fencing principles. land 1.2 Fence B1 and B2 saline discharge sites Landholders / DNRE Ongoing Medium according to land class fencing principles 1.3 Revegetate A1 and A2 saline land using. Landholders / DNRE Ongoing High productive salt tolerant species 1.4 Revegetate B1 and B2 saline land using. Landholders / DNRE Ongoing Medium productive salt tolerant species 1.5 Revegetate around A1 and A2 saline Landholders / DNRE Ongoing High sites using indigenous tree / shrub species 1.6 Revegetate around B1 and B2 saline sites Landholders / DNRE Ongoing Medium using species indigenous tree / shrub

2 Engineering 2.1 Investigate the impact of surface and CMA Yrs 1-5 Medium subsurface drainage on catchment scale water movement in the western Dundas tablelands, deeply weathered paleozoic, fractured granite, eastern Dundas tablelands and Woorndoo flow systems 2.2 Investigate groundwater pumping for the CMA Within 30yrsLow protection of high value assets.

3 Trees 3.1 Establish tree belts on the A1 groundwater Landholders / DNRE Ongoing High flow systems (western Dundas tablelands, eastern Dundas tablelands, fractured granite, deeply weathered granite, and Woorndoo) 3.2 Establish tree belts on the B1 groundwater flow Landholders / DNRE Ongoing Medium systems ( western Dundas tablelands, fractured granite, deeply weathered granite, and Woorndoo) 3.3 Establish block tree plantings on the A1 Landholders / DNRE Ongoing High groundwater flow systems (deeply weathered paleozoics, fractured paleozoics, deeply, weathered granite fractured granite, merino tablelands and Pliocene sand) 3.4 Establish block tree plantings on the Landholders / DNRE Ongoing Medium B1 groundwater flow systems (deeply weathered paleozoics, fractured, paleozoics, deeply weathered granite, fractured granite merino tablelands and Pliocene sand)

4 Pasture 4.1 Promote the use and management of perennial DNRE Ongoing Medium pastures in combination with trees on the Woorndoo, fractured paleozoic, deeply weathered paleozoic flow systems where rainfall is less than 600 mm. 4.2 Promote the use and management of Lucerne in DNRE Ongoing Medium the Woorndoo, and deeply weathered paleozoic flow systems

36 Direction in Salinity Management

Land Management Action Implementation Timeframe Priority Program Responsibility 5 Cropping 5.1 Water use and incorporate Lucerne during leys on the deeply weathered paleozoics, western Dundas tablelands, deeply weathered granite and Woorndoo flow systems.

5.2 Promote phase farming and alley farming DNRE Ongoing Medium on the deeply weathered paleozoics, western Dundas tablelands, deeply weathered granite and Woorndoo flow systems.

6 Biodiversity 6.1 Apply biodiversity protocols to on-ground works DNRE / CMA Ongoing High 6.2 Utilise appropriate indigenous species mixes DNRE / CMA Ongoing High in tree plantations 6.3 Protect high priority saline ecological vegetation Landholders / DNRE Ongoing High classes 6.4 Protect remnant vegetation Landholders / DNRE Ongoing High /CMA 6.5 Discourage clearing of remnant vegetation in DNRE / Shires Ongoing High particular on the fractured paleozoic, Grampians colluvium, and deeply weathered paleozoic flow systems 6.6 Promote retention and appropriate management DNRE Ongoing Medium of deep rooted native grasses on recharge sites in low responsive systems as a means of low cost management. 6.7 Investigate the use of planning scheme overlays DNRE / Shires Ongoing High for protection of vegetation and limit vegetation removal from inappropriate areas in the landscape

37 Direction in Salinity Management

CAPACITY BUILDING

Salinity control relies on action from a diverse range of stakeholders including farmers, government agencies, non-government organizations, educational institutes, industry and the wider community. Their ability to contribute is reliant on their understanding of the need for action, knowledge and skills, and availability of labour and funding resources. The Capacity Building Program outlines actions, which will contribute to overcoming factors limiting the adoption of the Salinity Strategy actions.

OUTCOMES: Increased community understanding of salinity and the need for action Implementation of salinity management program actions

Table 9 Capacity Building Program

Capacity Building Action Implementation Timeframe Priority Program Responsibility

1. Understanding 1.1 Promote salinity and best management practice DNRE/CMA Ongoing High in regional media / Landholders 1.2 Ensure stakeholders are aware of the process CMA Yrs 1-5 Medium for continuous improvement of the Salinity Strategy 1.3 Implement salinity aspects of the Regional CMA Yrs 1-5 Medium Communications Strategy 1.4 Increase community understanding and DNRE / CMA Ongoing Medium awareness of salinity 1.5. Provide educational material on salinity and its DNRE / CMA Ongoing Medium management within the region 1.6 Encourage community participation in monitoring CMA Ongoing Low of resource condition through the Saltwatch Program

2. Knowledge 2.1 Provide technical advice on land program DNRE Ongoing High and Skills actions 2.2 Provide technical information on salinity DNRE Ongoing High management 2.3 Provide farm planning advice to landholders DNRE Ongoing High 2.4 Promote the farming systems approach of DNRE Ongoing High sustainable production with reduced footprint for salinity management 2.5 Utilise demonstration sites and field days to DNRE Ongoing High build implementation skills 2.6 Integrate salinity management into other asset CMA/ DNRE/ Shire Yrs 1-5 High management programs 2.7 Provide details of economic benefits of sound DNRE Yrs 1-5 Medium land management practices for salinity control vs. potential losses incurred if land becomes saline. 2.8 Support Landcare Groups through the Regional CMA Ongoing High Landcare Facilitator and support staff by providing access to technical information, assistance with demonstration sites, advice on monitoring and evaluation practices to provide greater involvement of the community in the processes and control methods for salinity management.

3. Funding and 3.1 Provide appropriate cost sharing incentives for CMA Ongoing High Labour Resources land management practices for the control of salinity 3.2 Provide appropriate cost sharing incentives for CMA Ongoing Low engineering practices for the protection of high value assets from salinity impacts.

38 Direction in Salinity Management

RESEARCH AND INVESTIGATION PROGRAM

Research and investigation is essential for successful salinity control. Salinity management actions recommended in this strategy are based on the most recent technical, social, environmental and economic information available. Considerable progress has been made in our knowledge and understanding of salinity management since the original salinity strategy was released in 1993. Findings have been integrated into this current strategy and are discussed in the 2001 review of the salinity strategy. Even so many assumptions have made when knowledge gaps occur. Continued research and investigation is vital to fill knowledge gaps and enable refinement of recommended salinity management programs in the future. Directions for salinity research were identified in the ' “Directions for salinity and water quality research in the Glenelg Corangamite Priority Region” Strategy. Integration of information as it emerges has been an important consideration in the development of the strategy.

OUTCOMES: Increased understanding of salinity processes Salinity management practices and which are economically, environmentally and socially beneficial Increased confidence in the impact of implementation programs on natural resource condition. Greater understanding of community capacity to implement actions High quality decision making based on progression of scientific knowledge.

Table 10 Research and Investigation Program

Research and Action Implementation Timeframe Priority Investigation Program Responsibility Investigation Program 1. Coordination 1.1 Support research directions as identified in CMA Yr 1-5 High the 5 yearly Research and Investigation Strategy 1.2 Provide for greater involvement of community CMA / Research Yr 1-5 Medium and staff in salinity management through active organisations participation in collaborative research programs. 1.3 Prepare an annual list of regional salinity CMA Ongoing High knowledge gaps to support selection of relevant projects by university students. - to be posted on the Glenelg Hopkins CMA website. 1.4 Design and implement a process for collection CMA Yr 1-5 High and assessment of research findings related to salinity management and investigate opportunities for co-investment 2. Management 2.1 Investigate native and introduced species for Research organisations Yr 1-5 High of Assets at Risk productive use of saline areas 2.2 Improve techniques for management Research organisations Yr 1-5 High of production / biodiversity aspects of saline areas. 2.3 Develop techniques for management of assets Research organisations Yr 1-5 High other than agricultural land 3.Capacity Building 3.1 Improve the understanding of groundwater flow Research organisations Yr 1-5 High systems and their impact/relationship to salinity management in the region. 3.2 Improve our understanding of the impact of Research organisations Yr 1-5 High vegetation/ management practices on salinity control 3.3 Undertake 'willingness to adopt' surveys in Research organisations Yr 1 High priority subcatchments to refine messages and mechanisms for adoption of salinity management practices. 3.4 Undertake modelling to determine the scale, Research organisations Yr 1-2 High timeframe and impact of on-ground works on resource condition targets 3.5 Improve the quality of agricultural land, CMA / DNRE Yr 1-5 High water, infrastructure, environment and heritage asset information. 3.6 Investigate the impacts of climate change Research organisations Yr 1-5 High on salinity management

39 Direction in Salinity Management

MONITORING PROGRAM Monitoring is the process through which the effectiveness of the Salinity Strategy will be assessed and progress will be reported. As such monitoring is divided into two areas: Achievement of resource condition and management actions.

OUTCOMES: Measurement of changes in nationally agreed natural resource condition outcomes. Assessment of progression towards achievement of targets

Resource Condition Ultimately salinity management is measured by an improvement in the health of our natural resources with subsequent enhancement of community social, economic and environmental values. Salinity is a significant factor contributing to the health of the region, however it is not the only one. Time is also critical, actions implemented today may take years or even tens of years to be fully effective. A long term monitoring program is required, firstly to benchmark current condition and secondly to assess change in catchment health over time through evaluation of long term trends. The Glenelg Hopkins monitoring strategy integrates the monitoring requirements of all natural resource management issues provides directions and arrangements for effective regional monitoring.

Management actions The Salinity Strategy identifies five programs through which salinity management will be achieved. Each program identifies a number of actions for implementation. Management actions are planned for the 30 year life of the plan, with targets identified for the amount of on-ground work required. Implementation occurs on an annual basis. Monitoring the annual progression towards targets enables the Glenelg Hopkins CMA to effectively manage implementation of the salinity strategy by modifying implementation arrangements as required to ensure long term goals are achieved.

Table 11 Monitoring Program

Monitoring Action Implementation Timeframe Priority Program Responsibility 1. Resource 1.1 Establish appropriate resource CMA Yr1-2 High Condition condition targets for salinity by Dec 2004 1.2 Implement salinity aspects of the CMA / DNRE Yr 1-2 High Glenelg Hopkins Monitoring Program including: * Establish an effective monitoring network for assessment of regional resource condition related to salinity including the establishment of new sites or the abandonment of inappropriate sites as recommended by the Monitoring Strategy. * Expand the monitoring program to cover parts of the region that have inadequate information on groundwater movement, salinity processes and stream monitoring. * Collect data on surface water, groundwater, environmental and long term discharge sites at frequencies recommended in the Monitoring Strategy * Establish an effective monitoring program for nationally significant wetlands in the region to assess changes in salinity and watertable levels. 1.3 Analyse monitoring results once a sufficient CMA Ongoing Medium data record has been collected

2. Management 2.1 Design an appropriate regional process CMA Yr1 High Actions for annual reporting on management action targets 2.2 Collect adequate information on implementation of DNRE / CMA Ongoing High management actions 2.3 All on-ground works funded through incentives CMA Ongoing High programs to be recorded on CAMS

40 Direction in Salinity Management

COORDINATION PROGRAM This program describes the coordination of the plan and supports the Glenelg Hopkins CMA in assessing and evaluating implementation. Coordination arrangements are discussed more fully in the Strategy development and implementation section.

OUTCOMES: Effective and efficient implementation of the Salinity Strategy Financial accountability and timely reporting of implementation actions Strong partnerships between stakeholders involved in natural resource management Implementation of salinity programs within an integrated catchment management framework Evaluation and continuous improvement strategy directions and priorities

Table 12 Coordination Program

Coordination Action Implementation Timeframe Priority Program Responsibility 1. Implementation 1.1 Coordinate implementation of the Salinity CMA Ongoing High Strategy including: * Develop program budgets addressing priority actions and ensure financial accountability of projects * Initiate and maintain partnerships with stakeholders * Develop appropriate cost sharing arrangements for land management program activities * Provide incentives for Land Management Program actions and administer their equitable distribution according to Strategy priorities. * Integrate salinity objectives with related stakeholder programs 1.2 Develop targeted projects annually to address CMA / DNRE / Partners Ongoing High specific program actions for inclusion in the Regional Management Plan. 2. Reporting 2.1 Fulfil government reporting requirements for CMA / DNRE Ongoing High financial accountability and progression towards targets. 2.2 Establish timelines and processes for CMA Yr1 High stakeholder reporting of project milestones, financial acquittals and achievement of targets 3. Evaluation 3.1 Evaluate regional reporting processes and establish CMA Yr1-2 High effective program and project monitoring and evaluation processes 3.2 Ensure evaluation of CMA and partner CMA / Partners Ongoing High programs and projects at appropriate intervals 4. Continuous 4.1 Develop and implement a process for CMA Ongoing High Improvement continuous improvement of the Salinity Strategy including the Land and Biodiversity Implementation Committee

41 Strategy Development and Implementation

STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT

Consultation The Salinity Strategy represents the community's response to the regional salinity challenge. It has been developed by local people with intimate knowledge of its impacts and the social economic and environmental benefits of control. A forum of community and government representatives developed the original salinity strategy over two years. Following its release as a draft, public comment was sought during a further three-month consultation period. The Salinity Forum considered submissions and amendments were incorporated prior to government endorsement. Stakeholder consultation continued during implementation of the strategy through the Glenelg Salinity Implementation Group. Once again this group comprised both community and government representatives. The Glenelg Salinity Implementation Committee was the mechanism through which continuous improvement of the strategy occurred. New information was considered and priorities and program modified where appropriate. Following establishment of Glenelg Hopkins CMA, responsibility for implementation was transferred to the Land and Biodiversity Implementation Committee (LABIC) also made up of community and Government representatives. LABIC is responsible for development of the salinity strategy and has overseen is development through a Salinity Technical Committee established specifically for this purpose. A draft Salinity Strategy approved by the Salinity Technical Committee and LABIC will be released for public comment from July to September 2002. Feedback will be considered in finalisation of Salinity Strategy prior to endorsement by the CMA. In addition to the consultation provided by existing CMA structures the following consultation actions were undertaken: Recognition by LABIC that the original Glenelg Region Salinity Strategy was developed with extensive regional community participation and consultation. A review of the existing Salinity Strategy sought feedback from regional stakeholders. The review provided input to the development of the second generation salinity strategy. A survey of over 600 regional residents in early 2002 established community values related to salinity, waterways and biodiversity. Key stakeholders not represented through the existing CMA structures were invited to submit relevant information during development of the draft salinity plan and advised of the opportunity to comment on the plan during the public consultation phase. Development of the strategy and opportunities for input were promoted through local media and advertising. Glenelg Hopkins CMA established a process for communication and public consultation of draft plans in the Glenelg Hopkins region.

Development Process Guided by the State Salinity Strategy - Salt Action : Joint Action, the original Glenelg Hopkins Salinity Strategy - salt assault was launched in 1994 after two years of concerted effort by a forum of community and government representatives. Since that time much has been learnt about management of salinity. Release of Victoria's Salinity Management Framework in 2000, followed by a review of the Glenelg region salinity strategy in 2001, and the Auditor General’s report on managing Victoria's growing salinity problem, all identify opportunities to advance salinity management. The National Land and Water Resources Audit - dryland salinity assessment 2000, identifies salinity as a significant issue for the Glenelg Hopkins Region in a national context, predicting major expansion of salinity in the next 50 years. The current strategy builds on the work initially undertaken and integrates learnings to provide directions for salinity management in the Glenelg Hopkins Region based on the best information available. A Salinity Technical Committee of community and government representatives with technical expertise was established to guide this process. To ensure the availability of the most up to date scientific information in the formulation of the plan, the Committee sought the preparation of a series of specific background reports and papers. These papers and reports listed below were used to support the decision making process and have been collated as background papers to the Salinity Strategy.

42 Strategy Development and Implementation

Background Papers to the Salinity Strategy: Review of the Glenelg Region Salinity Strategy39 Salinity Prioritisation in the Glenelg Hopkins Region (in preparation) Land and Water Resource Audit Predictions for the Glenelg Hopkins region Groundwater Flow Systems in the Glenelg Hopkins Region 12 Options for Recharge Control in the High Rainfall Zone. 3 Management Options for Saline Areas Engineering Options for Salinity Control in the Glenelg Hopkins Region 6 Cost of Salinity to the Glenelg Hopkins region 42 The decision making process for the selection of priority areas involved a comprehensive analysis of available information. The salinity hazard, regional assets and technical feasibility of control were all taken into account. This is explained in more detail in the section on Priority areas and is described fully in the background paper 'Salinity Prioritisation in the Glenelg Hopkins Region'.

Links with other regional strategies Salinity is one of many issues in natural resource management. Similar to salinity, many of these other issues also have regional strategies providing direction for their management. Salinity is often listed as a specific threat in these strategies. Salinity management practices also provide opportunities for multiple benefits. For example, where the salinity strategy recommends tree planting, utilisation of appropriate species will also increase biodiversity values sought by the Native Vegetation Plan. The following outlines the relationship between programs in this strategy and other regional strategies. Glenelg Hopkins Regional Catchment Strategy The regional catchment strategy sits above all other regional plans and strategies including the Salinity Strategy. It establishes the overall direction of natural resource management in the region and coordinates integration between these plans.

Glenelg Hopkins Native Vegetation Plan Land Management Program - protection and enhancement of native vegetation and biodiversity values Capacity Building Program - building knowledge of salinity impacts on regional biodiversity assets and values

Glenelg Hopkins River Health Plan Land Management Program - improvement of surface water quality for regional lakes, wetlands and rivers - protection and enhancement of riparian vegetation Capacity Building Program - building knowledge of salinity impacts on surface water assets and values Glenelg Hopkins Weed Action Plan Land Management Program - weed control Glenelg Hopkins Rabbit Action Plan Land Management Program - rabbit eradication prior to revegetation Glenelg Hopkins Landcare Strategy Capacity Building Program - support for stakeholders implementing actions Glenelg Hopkins Monitoring Strategy Monitoring Program - assessment of catchment health indicators, progress towards targets - coordination of regional natural resource management monitoring Glenelg Hopkins Communications Strategy Capacity Building Program - coordination of natural resource management communication messages - coordination of natural resource management community education programs - building knowledge of stakeholder dynamics

43 Strategy Development and Implementation

STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION

Coordination Structures At a State level, the Catchment and Water Division of the Department of Natural Resources and Environment manage salinity. At a regional level, Glenelg Hopkins CMA is responsible for managing salinity. A Board comprised of ten Ministerially appointed community members from across the region manages Glenelg Hopkins CMA. Members are selected based on their experience and knowledge of water resource management, floodplain management, conservation, primary industry, local government, business and financial management. They are directly responsible for the development of strategic direction for land and water management in the Region. The Land and Biodiversity Implementation Committee (LABIC) of the Glenelg Hopkins CMA, through the Glenelg Hopkins CMA Board of Directors, sets the strategic direction in relation to salinity and other land degradation issues and provides advice to government on salinity.

Program Coordination The Regional Catchment Strategy, developed by the Glenelg Hopkins CMA, provides the framework for Integrated Catchment Management within the region and is the mechanism through which salinity control activities are integrated with other land management issues. The Land and Biodiversity Implementation Committee of the Glenelg Hopkins CMA will coordinate implementation of the salinity strategy. Actions identified in the strategy will be implemented by a diverse range of stakeholders through symbiotic partnerships.

Stakeholders Successful salinity control occurs through, and relies on, input and support from a range of stakeholders. The following list identifies groups contributing to salinity management in the region. Farmers and land managers Department of Natural Resources and Environment Glenelg Hopkins CMA Landcare groups Federal, State and Local Government Regional Water Authorities and Coastal Boards Parks Victoria Department of Planning and Infrastructure Environment Protection Authority Educational Institutes (eg universities, schools, TAFE, RIST) Non-government organizations (eg VFF, Greening Australia) Industry (eg Dairy, fertiliser, stock agents etc) Wider community (urban communities, business, utilities)

Partnerships The core role of the Glenelg Hopkins CMA is to coordinate natural resource management. In recognising the range of stakeholders influencing salinity management, the Glenelg Hopkins CMA also recognises that these same stakeholders also input to management of other natural resource management issues. Partnerships are the mechanism through which effective engagement of key stakeholders will occur in a coordinated way. They provide mutual benefits and the opportunity to greatly enhance the effectiveness of individual actions. Development of partnerships with key stakeholders is vital to the successful implementation of the Glenelg Hopkins Salinity Strategy. The Department of Natural Resources and Environment has a vital role in implementation of the Salinity Management Strategy. A strong partnership between Glenelg Hopkins CMA and the Department is instrumental to the achievement of Strategy outcomes.

44 Strategy Development and Implementation

Likewise, local government has an important role influencing the implementation and effectiveness of program actions and partnerships initiated need to be consolidated and grown. Ultimately however it is the active participation of landholders that ensures the implementation of actions on- ground and thus achievement of desired improvements in the condition of our natural resource assets. The relationship between landholders, Glenelg Hopkins CMA, local government and the Department of Natural Resources and Environment is of paramount importance and must be actively fostered to achieve success.

Evaluation and Continuous Improvement The salinity strategy is based on scientific information available at the time of development. The Salinity Technical Committee acknowledge shortcomings in data quality and methods available, however, over time our knowledge of salinity and community expectations in relation to management will increase. Assumptions will be tested through research, the impact of activities evaluated through analysis of monitoring results, regional assets will be defined more fully, stakeholder capacity enhanced and community values in relation to natural resource management will change. Incorporation of new knowledge is critical to support sound decision-making processes for implementation of salinity management in the Glenelg Hopkins Region. As the body responsible for coordinating implementation of the Salinity Strategy, the Glenelg Hopkins CMA has a commitment to continuous improvement. Continuous improvement is based on the cycle of planning, implementation, monitoring, evaluation, review and improvement. Salinity management in the Glenelg Hopkins Region has passed through one rotation of this cycle already with the development, implementation, monitoring, evaluation and review of the original Glenelg Region Salinity Strategy - Salt Assault. This Strategy incorporates these learnings to outline the way forward for strategic management of the region’s salinity problem. Evaluation of both projects and programs is an important step. There has been a long-standing commitment to evaluation of projects in the region, the results of which are consolidated for input to the annual reporting process. As the body responsible for implementation of the Salinity Strategy Glenelg Hopkins CMA will coordinate timely evaluation of projects and programs based on program logic using Bennetts Hierarchy. Processes for continuous improvement of the Salinity Strategy will be implemented through the Land and Biodiversity Implementation Committee.

Resource Allocation and Cost Sharing Resources are limited. To ensure the most effective and efficient use of community and government resources they need to be directed to where the most benefit will occur. The process of priority setting, discussed earlier, takes account of the salinity hazard, assets effected and responsiveness of groundwater systems in determining where activity should occur. The level (program /project) of investment in recommended activities relates to who (private / public) will benefit.

Benefits Implementation of the salinity strategy will result economic, social and environmental benefits. It is accepted that there are social and environmental benefits associated with salinity implementation, however there is currently no widely accepted methodology available to value these benefits in dollar terms. Environmental and Social benefits have therefore not been attributed a dollar value in the strategy, but have been described in Table 13. As a consequence the economic benefits defined in the economic analysis will underestimate the full benefit associated with implementation of the Salinity Strategy.

45 Strategy Development and Implementation

Table 13 Non-Costed Economic Benefits of Salinity Management Protection of Tourism Social Protection of natural recreational opportunities such as boating, fishing, bushwalking and bird watching. Protection of landscape aesthetics Protection of Aboriginal and European cultural heritage sites Community health and well-being Contributing factor to farm profitability and thus supports: Sporting and cultural networks Viability of community services Associated agricultural service industries Reduced need for off farm work Increase in terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity Improved water quality Protection of threatened ecological vegetation classes Protection of remnant vegetation Protection of fauna food sources and habitat Protection of soil asset Meeting International JAMBA / CAMBA / RAMSAR obligations

Benefit: Cost analysis. An economic analysis of the Salinity Strategy was undertaken and is reported in detail in the Background paper 'Cost of Salinity to the Glenelg Hopkins Region'. With a 4 percent discount rate the benefit/cost ratio of implementing the salinity strategy is 1.28. Overall the recommended 30-year program of works is likely to generate a net present value of approximately $12.29 million ( 4 % discount rate). The economics are expected to improve further; once the net private and public benefits from encouraging landholders to adopt improved cropping practices are incorporated. Expected benefits fall under a 8 per discount rate, however the benefit: cost ratio of 1.11 and the net present value is still positive at around $1.34 million. Table 14 presents a summary of the total net present values of implementing the 30-year program of on-ground works recommended in the Strategy. Full details of the public and private costs and benefits that would flow from the implementation of this program for each subcatchment are presented in Table 15.

46 Strategy Development and Implementation

Table 14 Net Present Values & cost: benefit ratios for the 30-yr program of on-ground works (2000-2030)(Wilson2002)

Environmental Net Present Value Cost: Benefit Ratio (Cultural) benefits ($ millions) Private Public 4% 8% 4% 8% Treatment in discharge areas

Saline and Low-Med Med-High 4,433,213 - 373,882 1.35 0.93 waterlogged and treatment

Treatment of recharge areas

Perennial pasture Low 6-9% protection 12,498,729 6,521,734 3.87 3.62 establishment

Lucerne establishment Low <1% protection 859,888 508,355 12.41 11.36

Tree belt establishment High 5-8% protection 9,117 -439,796 1.00 0.85

Tree block High 4-6% protection -5,478,580 -4,877,744 0.76 0.67 establishment

Promotion of cropping n.a. b n.a. n.a. n.a. systems

TOTAL 12,290,357 1,338,667 1.28 1.11 a: Assumes only 30% of trees are harvested b: The economic impact of promoting cropping systems that maximise water use was not estimated in this study.

Cost sharing Victorian Government investment is based on the principle 'beneficiary pays'. According to this principle costs for on-ground works are shared between stakeholders in proportion to the benefits they derive from the works. There are two components of the Beneficiary Pays method that assist in its application. These are described below 42 User pays - all people that benefit from on-ground works should contribute to the cost of the works. A defining principle for this component is that works impart clear advantages to individuals who own, or choose to use, land and water resources.

Beneficiary compensates - all people who are the beneficiaries of high quality environments pay for the additional costs to landholders for maintaining those environments. For example, the application of this component is most applicable for works that contribute to biodiversity, aesthetic and tourism values.

Government may share in the cost to facilitate the uptake of salinity management so that the broader environmental and social objectives are met.

47 Strategy Development and Implementation

Table 15 Economic costs and benefits from the recommended 30-year program of works (2000-2030, 4% discount rate)

Sub Subcatchment Name Treatment PV Cost PV Private PV Public Total Net Benefit: catchment (To be implemented over Benefit Benefit Present Value Cost ratio 30 years) (4%)($) (4%)($) (4%)($) G1 Glenelg Estuary NONE - - - - n.a. G2 Lower Glenelg River NONE - n.a. G3 Mid Glenelg River Tree Belts 25 km 181,656 45,413 129,378 -6,865 0.96 Tree blocks 841 ha 2,984,358 1,621,780 435,290 -927,288 0.69 Discharge areas 385 ha 311,562 143,962 - -167,600 0.46 G4 Glenelg River - Dundas Tree Belts 34 km 252,402 63,048 261,011 71,657 1.28 Tablelands Tree blocks 479 ha 1,698,171 922,831 315,600 -459,740 0.73 Discharge areas 754 ha 510,892 291,130 - -219,762 0.57 G5 Glenelg River Tree Belts 140 km 1,031,156 257,576 788,648 15,068 1.01 and Mathers Creek Tree blocks 538 ha 1,909,912 1,037,897 532,592 -339,423 0.82 Discharge areas 2,615 ha 1,841,402 1,064,468 - -776,934 0.58 G6 Glenelg River - Tree Belts 50 km 366,291 91,497 252,373 -22,421 0.94 Grampians Headwaters Discharge areas 825 ha 612,220 338,981 - -273,240 0.55 G7 Crawford River Discharge areas 269 ha 131,853 158,413 - 26,560 1.20 G8 Stokes River NONE - n.a. G9 Lower Wannon River Tree Belts 5 km 38,113 10,403 8,089 -19,622 0.49 Tree blocks 564 ha 2,000,065 1,086,889 239,494 -673,683 0.66 Discharge areas 130 ha 202,570 23,897 - -178,673 0.12 G10 Wannon River - Tree Belts 191 km 1,403,604 350,611 302,363 -750,630 0.47 Dwyers Creek to Falls Tree blocks 616 ha 2,184,345 1,187,031 329,416 -667,898 0.69 Discharge areas 2,928 ha 2,199,044 1,337,727 - -861,317 0.61 G11 Wannon River - Discharge areas 1,110 ha 554,689 886,572 - 331,883 1.60 Grampians Headwaters G12 Bryan Creek Tree Belts 43 km 320,640 81,638 190,752 -48,250 0.85 Tree blocks 229 ha 812,549 441,561 92,192 -278,796 0.66 Discharge areas 468 ha 464,829 174,372 - -290,457 0.38 G13 Grange Burn Discharge areas 1,559 ha 760,099 1,018,512 - 258,412 1.34

H1 Hopkins River NONE - - - - - n.a. /Brucknell Creek H2 Hopkins River Discharge areas 862 ha 442,324 2,028,066 - 1,585,741 4.59 /Blind Creek H3 Hopkins River Tree Belts 54 km 394,729 99,152 624,325 328,748 1.83 / Muston Creek Tree blocks 1,126 ha 3,996,568 2,171,841 902,952 -921,775 0.77 Discharge areas 1,556 ha 1,067,762 2,099,900 - 1,032,138 1.97 Lucerne 1,452 ha 75,332 518,757 416,463 859,888 12.41 Perennial 12,117 ha 1,949,864 4,089,589 2,849,955 4,989,680 3.56 pasture H4 Mid Hopkins River Tree Belts 4 km 31,761 8,669 38,059 14,967 1.47 Discharge areas 1,102 ha 569,954 1,117,471 - 547,517 1.96 H5 Upper Hopkins River Tree Belts 8 km 58,483 14,609 20,267 -23,608 0.60 Tree blocks 897 ha 3,182,513 1,729,462 886,890 -566,161 0.82 Discharge areas 673 ha 372,917 715,538 - 342,621 1.92 Perennial 6,977 ha 1,122,759 2,354,843 1,716,785 2,948,869 3.63 pasture H6 Lower Mt Emu Creek Discharge area 667 ha 281,841 1,519,278 - 1,237,437 5.39 H7 Mid Mt Emu Creek Discharge areas 1,133 ha 760,855 1,614,638 - 853,783 2.12 H8 Upper Mt Emu Creek Discharge areas 68 ha 75,758 80,597 - 4,840 1.06 H9 Burrumbeet Creek Discharge areas 46 ha 26,935 35,459 - 8,524 1.32 H10 Trewalla Creek Tree Belts 18 km 130,818 32,678 45,019 -53,122 0.59 Tree blocks 676 ha 2,399,649 1,304,033 668,482 -427,134 0.82 Discharge areas 235 ha 195,267 106,027 - -89,240 0.54 Perennial 5,260 ha 846,573 1,775,577 2,285,868 3,214,873 4.80 pasture H11 Lower Fiery and Discharge areas 611 ha 271,024 591,781 - 320,757 2.18 Salt Creek H12 Upper Fiery Creek Tree Belts 10 km 75,462 18,887 559,773 503,197 7.67 Tree blocks 344 ha 1,219,591 662,758 340,152 -216,681 0.82 Discharge areas 321 ha 254,996 211,424 - -43,572 0.83 Perennial 2,674 ha 430,260 902,415 873,153 1,345,308 4.13 pasture H13 Merri River Discharge areas 360 ha 261,659 692,730 - 431,071 2.65

P1 Portland and Wattle Creek NONE P2 Surry River Discharge areas 11 ha 10,467 8,024 - -2,443 0.77 P3 Fitzroy River NONE - - - - n.a. P4 Darlots Creek Discharge areas 131 ha 70,941 135,713 - 64,772 1.91 P5 Eumeralla River Discharge areas 191 ha 102,809 395,285 - 292,477 3.84

TOTAL $ 43.67 m $ 39.85 m $ 16.11 m $ 12.29 m 1.28

Note: Only the economic costs and benefits that have been valued in this study are included in this table. Excluded from this table are the likely economic costs and benefits from changing cropping practices to maximise soil water utilisation, and the non-market environmental and cultural heritage impacts associated with the implementation of the various components of the recommended salinity management plan. While the overall likely impact of implementing the recommended program of works on environmental and cultural heritage assets across the Region as a whole were discussed in the main body of the report, it was not possible to break down the likely impacts in each sub-catchment due to the project team being unable to secure sufficient environmental detail at the sub-catchment scale by the critical cut-off date.

48 References

REFERENCES

1. Acworth, R.I. & Jankowski J. (2001). Salt source for dryland salinity - evidence from an upland catchment on the Southern Tablelands of New South Wales. Australian Journal of Soil Research 39, pp.39-59.

2. Australian Dryland Salinity Assessment (2000), National Land and Water Resources Audit, Land and Water Australia, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

3. Bird, R., Feehan, T., Hollier, C. and Jackson, T., (2001) Options for recharge control in the high rainfall zone, Background paper for the Glenelg Hopkins Salinity Strategy, Agriculture Victoria, Hamilton, Victoria.

4. Cameron, M & Jekabsons, M (1992),Salinity in the Glenelg and Wannon Rivers, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Portland Region.

5. Cameron, M (1991), A report on the effects of salinity upon the biota of a number of lakes in the Western District of Victoria, including an investigation of groundwater - wetland relationships, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Hamilton

6. Campbell G, (2002), Engineering Options Paper, Background paper for the Glenelg Hopkins Salinity Strategy, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Hamilton unpublished.

7. Centre for Land Protection Research, ( 1997), Groundwater monitoring update for the community of the Glenelg Salinity Region, Department of Natural Resources and Environment,

8. Clifton, C. (2000) National Land and Water Resources Audit: Theme 2 - Dryland salinity, Extent and impact of dryland salinity in Victoria, Sinclair Knight Merz, Bendigo.

9. Cope, F. (1958), Catchment Salting in Victoria, Soil Conservation Authority Victoria

10. Coram, J, Dyson, P. Houlder P and Evans W (undated) Australian Groundwater Flow Systems contributing to Dryland Salinity, A Project for the National Land and Water Resources Audit's Dryland Salinity Theme, Bureau of Rural Sciences, Australia

11. Cottingham, P. (1995), An analysis of Existing Water Quality Data for the Glenelg Basin. Water Ecoscience Report No. 28/9

12. Dahlhaus, P. (2002), Draft Groundwater Flow Systems, Background report to the Glenelg Hopkins Salinity Strategy. Glenelg Hopkins CMA, Dahlhaus Environmental Geology, Report No: Glenelg Hopkins CMA 02/01

13. Dixon, P (2000), Environmental monitoring in the Glenelg Hopkins Region with reference to Salinity in wetlands and remnant vegetation sites, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Hamilton, ISBN: 0 731147 16 2

14. Dixon, P., Wagg, M. and Armitharajah, M. (1998), Aspects of environmental conditions in the Glenelg Hopkins region with particular reference to salinity and nutrients in river, wetlands and remnant vegetation, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Hamilton,

15. Glenelg Hopkins Catchment Management Authority (2000), Draft Glenelg Hopkins Native Vegetation Plan, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Victoria. ISBN 0 7594 10003

16. Glenelg Salinity Forum (1993), Salt Assault, The Glenelg Region Salinity Strategy, Government of Victoria, Hamilton 17. Glenelg Waterways Team (1996), A series of reports on stream health - salinity, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Hamilton

18. Government of Victoria (1988), Salt Action: Joint Action, Department of Conservation Forests and Lands, Melbourne, Victoria. Pg12

49 References

19. Government of Victoria, (1992 ) An assessment of Victoria's Wetlands, Department of Conservation and Environment, Office of the Environment, Melbourne. ISBN 0 7306 3087 0

20. Matters, J. and Bozon, J. (1995), Spotting soil salting: A Victorian Field Guide to salt indicator plants, Catchment and Land Management Division, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Melbourne.

21. Munro, M.(2000), Salinity Discharge in the Glenelg Hopkins CMA Region, State of Victoria, Dept. Natural Resources & Environment, Hamilton ISBN 0731147073

22. Nathan, E. (1998), Dundas Landscapes and Dryland Salinity. M.App.Sci. thesis (unpublished). University of Ballarat.

23. Nathan, E. (1999), Dryland Salinity on the Dundas Tableland: a historical appraisal. Australian Geographer, 30/3, pp.295-310 24. Nathan, E. (2000), Giving salt some history and history some salt. Journal of Australian Historical Studies.

25. Price, R (1994), The occurrence of saline pools in the non-estuarine section of the Hopkins River, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, South West Area

26. Reeve, I. (2001), Australian Farmers Attitudes on Rural Environmental Issues: 1991-2000, Draft report to Land and Water Australia, Institute for Rural Futures, University of New England, Armidale.

27. Sinclair Knight and Merz, (1997), Surface water Salinity and Catchment Processes in the Glenelg Region, Volume1: Report, Glenelg Salinity Implementation Group, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Melbourne.

28. Sinclair Knight Merz (undated) Victorian Water Quality Monitoring Network Trends Analysis - Glenelg Hopkins CMA, Department of Natural Resources and Environment.

29. Sinclair, Knight and Merz (1999), South West Victorian water balance modelling project - Final report; Assessment of salinity management options for the Glenthompson Area, ISSN 1328 - 4495.

30. Standing Committee on Soil Conservation (1982), Salting of non-irrigated land in Australia, Working Party on Dryland Salting in Australia, Soil Conservation Authority, Victoria

31. State Rivers and Water Supply Commission of Victoria (1984), Victorian surface water information to 1982, Vol 2, Drainage division II River Basins 29-39, Government Printer, Melbourne.

32. Stirzaker, R. Vertessy, R. and Sarre, A. (eds), (2002), Trees, Water and Salt: An Australian guide to using trees for healthy catchments and productive farms, Joint Venture Agroforestry Program, RIRDC publication no 01/086, ISBN: 0 642 58308 0.

33. Taskforce on Salinity and Biodiversity (2001), Implications of Salinity for Biodiversity Conservation and Management, Standing Committee on Conservation, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

34. Tonkinson, D, Crowther, D, Lieschke J. (2000) Glenelg Salinity Management Plan Region - Report on Monitoring 1999/2000, Victorian Statewide Salinity Monitoring Strategy, Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Heidelberg.

35. TQA Research (2002), Communications Research Wave 2, unpublished report, Glenelg Hopkins CMA, Hamilton

36. Vinall, G. and Kew P. (1999), Identifying Nutrient Hot-Spots from selected Subcatchments in the Glenelg, Deakin University, Warrnambool.

37. Volders, A. (2002), Glenelg Hopkins Regional Catchment Strategy, Glenelg Hopkins CMA, Hamilton

50 References

38. Wagg, C. (1997), A summary of water quality in the Glenelg Catchment, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Hamilton

39.. Wagg, M. (2002), Glenelg Salinity Strategy Review, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Hamilton, Victoria.

40. Water Victoria (1989), Water Victoria: A resource Handbook, Department of Water Resources Victoria, Melbourne ISBN: 0 7241 8377 9

41. Wilson, S. (1999), Dryland salinity: what are the impacts and how do you value them, An Ivey ATP and Wilson Land Management Services report prepared for the Murray-Darling Basin Commission and the NDSP, Canberra.

42. Wilson, S. (2002), Cost of Salinity to the Glenelg Hopkins Region, Background Report to the Glenelg Hopkins Salinity Strategy. Wilson Land Management Services and Ivey ATP, Canberra.

43. Heislers, D. Centre for Land Protection Research (2002) Salinity Prioritisation in the Glenelg Hopkins Region, Background report for the Glenelg Hopkins Salinity Strategy. (in preparation)

44. Land and Water Resource Audit Predictions for the Glenelg Hopkins Region (2002), Background paper for the Glenelg Hopkins Salinity Strategy in preparation

45. Options for saline areas (2002), Background paper for the Glenelg Hopkins Salinity Strategy in preparation

51 Appendix

Appendix A Glenelg Hopkins Groundwater Flow Systems 12

52 Appendix

Appendix B Glenelg Hopkins Groundwater Flow Systems 12

Ground flow system Dominant Flow Responsiveness Soil salinity Water salinity Groundwater Hazard hazard salinity Fractured Palaeozoic Intermediate Mod. Low High 1000 -8000

Description and Management A fractured rock flow system. A high recharge area which is thought to feed other flow systems (basalts/deep leads/alluvials). Block revegetation will be required to reduce recharge. In the depressions between rock outcrops perennial pastures could be sown although access and establishment are issues. Little discharge occurs within the system but sites should be fenced and revegetated to reduce severity and improve biodiversity and productivity.

Ground flow system Dominant Flow Responsiveness Soil salinity Water salinity Groundwater Hazard hazard salinity Deeply weathered Local High Mod. High 1000-8000 Palaeozoic

Description and Management Dominant vertical recharge indicates treatment needs to be broad scale to be effective. Control will be proportional to the are under trees / lucerne. Aquifer yields are generally low and quality poor. Cropping systems should incorporate ley systems utilising Lucerne. Short rotation woodlots to mine soil moisture held at depth and timberbelt /alleys would be effective. Discharge sites should be fenced and revegetated to reduce evaporation and severity, biodiversity and productivity increases. Groundwater pumping could be used to protect high value assets. Discharge utilisation will require careful consideration.

Ground flow system Dominant Flow Responsiveness Soil salinity Water salinity Groundwater Hazard hazard salinity

Fractured Granite Local High Mod. High 3000 -10000

Description and Management Fractured granite containing a local flow system. Vertical recharge is slow due to sparse and tight fractures in the granite. Lateral flow is expressed as springs and salinity appears around the margins where clearing has occurred. Vegetation cover on a large proportion of the area is protected as forest reserves and this should be maintained. Where discharge occurs it should be fenced and treated to reduce evaporation rates and increase biodiversity and productivity. Trees as blocks or belts upslope and surface/subsurface engineering could be used to control lateral flow.

Ground flow system Dominant Flow Responsiveness Soil salinity Water salinity Groundwater Hazard hazard salinity

Deeply weathered Local Mod. – High High High 5000-10000 Granite

Description and Management Initial vertical recharge is partitioned at depth to vertical and lateral flow. Tight granite at depth reduces deep percolation but has filled the landscape with water. Water moves to the discharge area where it exacerbates the salinity problem. 30 - 40% of the flow system will need to be planted to trees/Lucerne. Cropping systems should incorporate ley systems utilising Lucerne. Short rotation woodlots to mine soil moisture held at depth and timberbelt / alleys would be effective. Discharge sites should be fenced and revegetated to reduce evaporation rates severity and increase biodiversity and productivity. Surface drainage, perennial pastures and cropping are considered recharge neutral.

Ground flow system Dominant Flow Responsiveness Soil salinity Water salinity Groundwater Hazard hazard salinity

Grampians Sandstone Local Low Low 500- 1500

Description and Management Not a concern for salinity management.

Ground flow system Dominant Flow Responsiveness Soil salinity Water salinity Groundwater Hazard hazard salinity

Grampians Colluvium Local High Low High offsite 500 -1500

Description and Management Potential recharge source for adjoining aquifers. Majority of vegetation pre-European settlement remains intact - limited scope for improving the status quo.

53 Appendix

Ground flow system Dominant Flow Responsiveness Soil salinity Water salinity Groundwater Hazard hazard salinity

Eastern Dundas Local Mod. High High 1500-15000 Tablelands

Description and Management Primary salinity fed from the saline regional groundwater system discharges salt into the drainage lines and springs. The local groundwater system supplies excess (fresher) water via lateral flow to the discharge areas resulting in their expansion. Mopping up the lateral flow to reduce the size of the discharge site could be achieved using tree belts in strategic locations, or surface engineering to manage runoff. Further investigation is needed to consider catchment scale effects of changed drainage patterns from implementation of the latter. Subsurface drainage could catch lateral flow although research has shown low draw down necessitates narrow drain spacings (high cost). Pipes must not be slotted in the discharge areas. Treatment of discharge areas provides major advantages for the reduction in evaporation and severity, biodiversity and productivity increases. The regional vegetation plan identifies brackish drainage lines as high priority ecological vegetation classes. Protection of sites through application of biodiversity protocols and reestablishment offers multiple benefits.

Ground flow system Dominant Flow Responsiveness Soil salinity Water salinity Groundwater Hazard hazard salinity

Western Dundas Local Mod. – High Mod. - High High 3000-7000 Tablelands

Description and Management It is suspected that similar process operate to the Dundas East, although without the regional component. Soils provide evidence of seasonal water logging as a usual occurrence, indicating a full system prior to settlement. The local groundwater system supplies excess (fresher) water via lateral flow to the discharge areas resulting in their expansion. Mopping up the lateral flow to reduce the size of the discharge site could be achieved using tree belts in strategic locations, or surface engineering to manage runoff. Further investigation is need in relation to catchment scale effects of changed drainage patterns from implementation of the latter. Treatment of discharge areas provides major advantages for the reduction in evaporation and severity, biodiversity and productivity increases. The Regional Vegetation Plan identifies brackish drainage lines as high priority ecological vegetation classes. Protection of sites through application of biodiversity protocols and reestablishment offers multiple benefits.

Ground flow system Dominant Flow Responsiveness Soil salinity Water salinity Groundwater Hazard hazard salinity

Woorndoo Complex Local Mod. Mod. - High Mod. - High 120-15000

Description and Management Large numbers of wetlands occur in this area and much of the salinity problem is associated with expansion from these sites. Flow system has been well studied, with tree belts to intercept lateral flow and use of Lucerne during cropping leys considered effective. The regional vegetation plan identifies brackish lakes and permanent saline lakes as high priority ecological vegetation classes. Protection of sites through application of biodiversity protocols and reestablishment offers multiple benefits.

Ground flow system Dominant Flow Responsiveness Soil salinity Water salinity Groundwater Hazard hazard salinity

Volcanic Plains Local High Low Low <1000 (late phase)

Description and Management Contains a valuable freshwater resource. Well drained. Discharge on margins may be fed from additional recharge considered to be happening now through the stony rises., which may also be feeding underlying aquifers. System may be having a positive impact by diluting base flow to streams and wetlands.

Ground flow system Dominant Flow Responsiveness Soil salinity Water salinity Groundwater Hazard hazard salinity

Quaternary Alluvium Local High High High 3000-10000 and coastal deposits

Description and Management Inflows from adjoining systems are likely to influence waters levels in the alluvials. Drainage is difficult due to lack of slope.

Ground flow system Dominant Flow Responsiveness Soil salinity Water salinity Groundwater Hazard hazard salinity

Merino Tablelands Local High Mod. ~High 3000-7000

Salinity occurs as hillside seeps and along creek lines on the valley floor. The Regional Vegetation Plan identifies brackish drainage lines as a high priority ecological vegetation class. Protection of sites through application of biodiversity protocols and reestablishment offers multiple benefits. Strategic tree planting could help with seeps.

54 Appendix

Ground flow system Dominant Flow Responsiveness Soil salinity Water salinity Groundwater Hazard hazard salinity

Pliocene Sands Intermediate Low Mod. Mod. 1000-10000

Description and Management A thin but extensive sand sheet under the basalt and outcropping. Salinity occurs predominantly in northern outcrops, much of this area has recently experienced a land use change to Blue Gum plantations.

Ground flow system Dominant Flow Responsiveness Soil salinity Water salinity Groundwater Hazard hazard salinity

Volcanic Plains Regional Low High High 500- 10000 (earlier phase)

Description and Management Salinity expression is not consistent across the whole of the basalts and it is suspected that sub-systems operate. It is suspected that the groundwater system was full prior to settlement (large number of wetlands). There is a low level of confidence in what has caused the change and subsequently effective recharge management options are unclear. Further investigation is required to clarify processes. Protection of sites through application of biodiversity protocols and reestablishment offers multiple benefits. There is a high degree of confidence in discharge management options for the basalts and large areas provide significant opportunity to mitigate the affects on and offsite. The regional vegetation plan identifies brackish lakes and permanent saline lakes as high priority ecological vegetation classes.

Ground flow system Dominant Flow Responsiveness Soil salinity Water salinity Groundwater Hazard hazard salinity

Sand Plains Regional Low Low Low 500-2000

Description and Management Not a concern for salinity management.

Ground flow system Dominant Flow Responsiveness Soil salinity Water salinity Groundwater Hazard hazard salinity

Port Campbell Regional nil nil Fresh Limestone

Description and Management Not a concern for salinity management.

Ground flow system Dominant Flow Responsiveness Soil salinity Water salinity Groundwater Hazard hazard salinity

Dilwyn Formation Regional nil nil Fresh

Description and Management Not a concern for salinity management

55 Appendix

Appendix B Groundwater Flow Systems

56 Appendix Appendix C Assumptions

Planning horizon is 30 years Government funding will be available for 30 years Annual management action targets are derived by dividing the 30-year target by 30. Accelerated programs where 50% works in first 10 years and 50 % works in second 20 years will be undertaken for Block tree planting, tree belts, fencing tree belts and Lucerne.

Priority Areas That Infrastructure, Agricultural land and Environmental assets have equal value. That local groundwater systems are responsive to available recharge management options That intermediate and regional groundwater systems are not responsive to available recharge management options.

Resource Condition Targets Surface water targets assume that climate will follow existing patterns, discharge treatment will reduce salt wash off to rivers and that river flow is not reduced.

Discharge management There will be an 80% change in land management practice over 30 year life of the plan. That expansion rates are between 0.5% and 2% per annum That some discharge areas have already been treated as a result of previous implementation programs. This is estimated to be 3812ha. Of the area already treated (3812 ha) 50% is located in A1 areas, 40% in A2, 2% in B1 and 8% in B2

Recharge Management There will be a 70% change in land management practice over the 30-year life of the plan. Of these: 70% will implement if it is a modification to practice, 30% will implement if it is a major landuse change Block tree plantings will be an effective recharge control option on the deeply weathered paleozoics, fractured paleozoics, deeply weathered granite, fractured granite, merino tablelands and Pliocene sand flow systems and that 30% tree cover is adequate for recharge control. That block tree planting is a major land use change That tree density for block tree plantings is greater than 625 trees per hectare Tree belts will be effective for control of lateral flow on the western Dundas tablelands, eastern Dundas tablelands, fractured granite, deeply weathered granite, and Woorndoo groundwater flow systems. That tree belts are a major land use change That the length of tree belts required is equivalent to the perimeter of discharge zones. Tree belts would be a minimum 20 metres (2 trees/metre) Perennial pastures will be effective on responsive flow systems (Woorndoo, fractured paleozoic, deeply weathered Paleozoic) where annual rainfall is < 600mm That perennial pasture is a modified land use Phase farming Lucerne will be effective on responsive flow systems (Woorndoo, and deeply weathered Paleozoic) That phase farming Lucerne is a major land use change. That 50% of flow system is cropped and suitable for Lucerne, and 50% of this is in ley (5 year rotation) Promotion of cropping systems, which maximize water use in responsive A1 subcatchments That modified cropping practice is a modified land use That 25% of the flow system is cropped

57