Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions Authored by: Cam Nicholson 1, Graeme Anderson 2 & Mike Stephens 3
1Nicon Rural Services, Queenscliff 2Department of Primary Industries, Geelong 3Mike Stephens & Associates Pty Ltd, Yendon
Corangamite Catchment Management Authority, 2003 Published by the Corangamite Catchment Management Authority, 2003 64 Dennis Street Colac Victoria 3250
Website: http://www.ccma.vic.gov.au
The National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry:
ISBN
ISSN
Cover photo: Untreated saline land, Meredith area. Photograph: Graeme Anderson
This document has been prepared for use by the Corangamite Catchment Management Authority by Mike Stephens & Associates Pty Ltd and has been compiled by using the consultants’ expert knowledge, due care and professional expertise. The Corangamite Catchment Management Authority, Mike Stephens & Associates Pty Ltd and other contributors do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for every purpose for which it may be used and therefore disclaim all liability for any error, loss, damage or other consequence whatsoever which may arise from the use of or reliance on the information contained in this publication.
Corangamite Salinity Action Plan 2003
Project team: Mike Stephens, Mike Stephens & Associates Pty Ltd Cam Nicholson, Nicon Rural Services Pty Ltd Peter Dahlhaus, Dahlhaus Environmental Geology Pty Ltd Graeme Anderson, Department of Primary Industries Roger Standen, Rendell McGuckian Pty Ltd Karlie Tucker, Rendell McGuckian Pty Ltd
Project management Tim Corlett, Corangamite CMA
Mike Stephens & Associates and Dahlhaus Environmental Geology Pty Ltd i Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
Summary
Asset manager consultation was based on a highly targeted approach, by speaking directly to those parties whose assets are directly affected by salinity or whose participation is required to implement proposed salinity treatment options. Discussions were based on a semi structure interview process, using the program logic approach developed by the Corangamite Salinity team in the mid 1990’s. This targeted consultation approach was endorsed by the Corangamite Catchment Management Authority in February 2003.
The main groups of asset managers consulted were: • Infrastructure managers
• Utility managers
• Agricultural land managers
• Water resources mangers
• Environmental groups, primarily Government Agencies
• Those responsible for cultural and heritage assets
Consultation allowed potential adoption rates for each treatment at each target location to be identified.
Analysis of the comments from asset managers clearly identified their preferred method of implementation and opportunities for potential partnerships. However to capitalise on these opportunities, several aspects needed to be considered including: • Adopting best practice delivery
• Creating meaningful partnerships by rewarding desirable actions
• Integrated delivery
• Customising delivery for each target location
• Devolving responsibility for implementation to the asset managers.
Each topic is explored in this document and provides valuable ‘market intelligence’ to help guide implementation.
During consultation a number of region wide themes and common issues also emerged. They included: • The need to manage expectations in priority and non priority areas.
• Appreciating the impact water management has on the effectiveness of salinity management actions
• Integrating salinity management with other environmental responsibilities
• The development of more profitable agricultural systems to help achieve adoption
• Appreciating the impact the current dry climatic pattern is having on stakeholder perceptions.
Common salinity issues included: • The need to expand the saline land treatment options available to land managers
• The opportunity for commercial forestry development to assist in achieving regional salinity outcomes
• The role of community education for regional education and salinity training programs
Mike Stephens & Associates, Nicon Rural Services and the Department of Primary Industries, Geelong ii Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
• Opportunities to increase the skills of road and infrastructure engineering staff with municipalities to better protect assets from salinity threats
• The ‘value’ of salinity management overlays and technical support for local government.
These are discussed in detail in the report.
The working notes from individual consultations are also included for future reference.
Mike Stephens & Associates, Nicon Rural Services and the Department of Primary Industries, Geelong iii Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
Table of Contents
SUMMARY II
1 INTRODUCTION 1
2 CONSULTATION APPROACH 3
3 CONSULTATION FINDINGS 6 3.1 Asset managers reaction to salinity process and the proposed salinity treatment options 6 3.1.1 Infrastructure managers 6 3.1.2 Utility managers 6 3.1.3 Agricultural land managers 7 3.1.4 Water resources 8 3.1.5 Environment 9 3.1.6 Cultural and Heritage 10 3.2 Analysis of asset managers’ comments. 10 3.3 Preferred method of implementation (the next actions) 16 3.3.1 Adopting best practice delivery 16 3.3.2 Creating meaningful partnerships by rewarding the actions you want 17 3.3.3 Integrated delivery 18 3.3.4 Customising delivery for each target location 18 3.3.5 Devolving responsibility to the asset managers. 18 3.4 Management actions for each target location 23 4 EMERGING ISSUES AND COMMON THEMES ACROSS THE CORANGAMITE REGION 26 4.1 Emerging issues 26 4.1.1 Managing expectation in priority and non priority areas. 26 4.1.2 The impact of water management on salinity 27 4.1.3 Our environmental responsibilities 27 4.1.4 Profitable agricultural systems 28 4.1.5 Climate change - the impact of the current dry climate pattern on stakeholder perceptions. 29 4.2 Common themes 29 4.2.1 Saline land management - expanding the options available to land managers. 29 4.2.1 Commercial forestry development for regional salinity benefits 30 4.2.3 Community education – regional education and salinity training program. 31 4.2.4 Road and infrastructure engineering 31 4.2.5 Municipal planning 32 APPENDIX A. PROGRAM LOGIC USED TO DEVELOP THE SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW PROCESS AND INTERPRETATION OF ASSET MANAGERS FEEDBACK 33
APPENDIX B. RESPONSE FROM INFRASTRUCTURE, UTILITIES, ENVIRONMENTAL AND WATER RESOURCE ASSET MANAGERS 35
APPENDIX C. RESPONSE FROM PRIVATE LAND MANAGERS 51
5 REFERENCES 85
List of Figures
Figure 1: Target locations 4 Figure 2: Higher level program logic developed by the Corangamite Salinity Team. 33
Mike Stephens & Associates, Nicon Rural Services and the Department of Primary Industries, Geelong iv Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
List of Tables
Table 1: Asset managers consulted at each target location 5 Table 2: Summary of asset managers’ response to proposed salinity treatment options, grouped by program logic 15 Table 3: Next actions and recommended delivery agent / partners 22 Table 4: Annual adoption of various treatment options for each location ( difference between the intervention and non intervention (do nothing) scenarios) 24 Table 5: Adoption of various treatment options for each location over 10 years – rounded to nearest 10 ha (difference between the intervention and non intervention (do nothing) scenarios) 25
Mike Stephens & Associates, Nicon Rural Services and the Department of Primary Industries, Geelong v Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
111 Introduction
This background report is presented in three parts.
Part one describes the community consultation process adopted as part of the development of the second generation salinity action plan (SAP) for the Corangamite region.
Part two describes the asset manager reactions to the proposed treatment options, their preferred method of implementation as well as an indication of the likely rates of treatment adoption. This information is critical to formulating benefit cost analysis and generating management action targets as well as creating implementation programs that meet the needs of asset managers in each target location. Failure to incorporate this ‘market intelligence’ into any possible future intervention program is likely to result in poorer rates of adoption by the target audience.
Part three draws together common themes and issues that have arisen from the targeted consultation process and have identified needs that would be better addressed on a regional basis. This part also presents several philosophical points regrading the way the authors believe intervention programs should be delivered in the future, based on asset manager feedback and previous experiences in the natural resource management area.
Mike Stephens & Associates, Nicon Rural Services and the Department of Primary Industries, Geelong 1
Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
222 Consultation approach
Community engagement was based on a highly targeted consultation approach, with one to one or group discussions conducted with parties whose assets are directly affected by salinity or by whose participation is required to implement proposed salinity treatment options. The identification of these target areas is described in previous documents (Dahlhaus, 2003a; Dahlhaus, 2003b) and their locations presented (Figure 1). These documents also identified the specific assets at risk which allowed the appropriate asset managers to be identified (Table 1).
Discussions were based on a semi structure interview process, using the program logic approach developed by the Corangamite Salinity team in the mid 1990’s and modified for this task (appendix A).
The targeted consultation approach was adopted for three reasons. Firstly, the adoption of appropriate salinity management requires acceptance and direct action by the person, authority or organisation who owns or manages the asset under threat or whose actions are contributing to the salinity hazard. Unless these parties are engaged successfully, the desired salinity management will not be achieved.
Secondly there was a need to create ownership of the problem and the solutions (the treatments). A direct approach was adopted, where the reasons for the salinity problem could be discussed, possible treatments examined and an implementation program formulated that best suited the needed of those particular asset managers in that specific area. This targeted approach recognised that each area was likely to have different needs. It also gave the ability for the asset manager to be recognised for the work that has been undertaken in the past decade and for this new plan to acknowledge and respect this activity.
Finally the consultancy team were fully aware of the considerable pressure that had already been placed on stakeholders from the Regional Catchment Strategy review and renewal process as well as the multitude on foundation projects under way as part of the National Action Plan foundation year. There was a real risk that further wide community consultation in the early stages of plan development would encounter stakeholder burnout. A further risk was the possible perception that the series of consultancies initiated by the Corangamite Catchment Management Authority consultancy was uncoordinated and repetitive. This was to be avoided where possible.
The targeted consultation approach was endorsed by the Corangamite Catchment Management Authority in February 2003.
Identification of the parties to consult in each target area was derived through four mechanisms:
• Those whose assets were at risk from salinity as identified through the Integrated Catchment Salinity Risk Prioritisation (ICSRP) project (Dahlhaus, 2003a) .
• Existing stakeholders who currently deliver salinity outcomes, either directly through targeted programs or indirectly where the outcomes from their current activities could have salinity benefits in a future program.
• Existing non-salinity programs that are currently delivering outcomes that have may salinity benefits in a future program.
• Additional stakeholders as identified by the Sustainable Agriculture and Land Management Implementation Committee of the Corangamite Catchment Management Authority.
3 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
Figure 1: Target locations
4 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
Target Location Assets identified at risk Asset managers consulted Upper Moorabool • Rising salinity trends in urban water • Central Highlands Water supplies Morrisons –Sheoaks • Rising salinity trends in urban water • Barwon Water supplies • Landholders Pittong • Water quality in the Woady Yaloak River • Landholders • Agricultural land Illabarook • Water quality in the Woady Yaloak River • Landholders • Agricultural land Lismore – Derrinallum • Agricultural land • Landholders • Municipal roads • Shire engineer, Corangamite Shire • Telephone cables • Telstra • Water quality flowing into Lake Tooliorook • Parks Victoria Corangamite • Lake Corangamite • Consultation pending drainage • Lake Gnarpurt, scheme review • Lake Martin Colac – Eurack • Agricultural land • Landholders • Shallow lakes and wetlands • Parks Victoria • Urban subdivision • Shire engineer, Environmental • Municipal roads planner, Colac Otway Shire • Telephone cables • Telstra • Public land • Crown Land (DSE) Warncoort • Roads • Vicroads – environmental engineer • Shire engineer, Colac Otway Shire • Rail lines • National Rail • Powerlines • Powercor • Telephone cables • Telstra • Gas pipeline • Gas • Agricultural land • Landholders Murdeduke • Agricultural land • Landholders • Municipal Roads • Shire engineer, Surfcoast Shire • Public land, VROTS Ramsar Lake • Parks Victoria Murdeduke • Telephone cables • Telstra Modewarre • Roads • Shire engineer, Surfcoast Shire • Agricultural land • Landholders • Public land • Catchment and Lake Committees • VROTS, Ramsar wetlands Geelong – Lake • Roads • City of Greater Geelong, wetland Connewarre • Public land and roads • VROTS, Ramsar wetlands • Parks Victoria • Field & Game • Agricultural land • DPI (Flora & Fauna) • Landholder survey Lara • Roads • VicRoads • Public land • Parks Victoria • VROTS, Ramsar wetlands • Cheetham Salt
Table 1: Asset managers consulted at each target location
5 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
333 Consultation findings
An intense period of consultation occurred with the selected asset managers between February and June of 2003. As expected the response to the salinity threat and the ability of each asset manager to respond was highly variable. This feedback confirmed the need for a location by location approach to any future intervention strategy. The notes for each target location are documented for the infrastructure, utility, environment and water resources managers (appendix B) and the agricultural land managers (appendix C). These notes provide a very useful insight into the enthusiasm, confidence and capacity of the various asset managers towards salinity management or prevention.
3.1 Asset managers reaction to salinity process and the proposed salinity treatment options
3.1.1 Infrastructure managers
The main infrastructure classes considered were roads, railway lines and towns. The intersection of these asset classes with the salinity hazard identified 36 km of sealed and unsealed roads and several sections of railway line. Colac was the only township identified, as the result of salinity encroachment on the south-west town limits.
Infrastructure managers were generally aware of the threat salinity posed to their assets and in most cases had adopted treatments to protect the asset. The engineering design associated with construction of major highways, gas pipelines and rail infrastructure is at a standard that negates issues such as high groundwater. These possible threats are taken into account and designed for in the original construction phase.
Rail managers suggested that most of their infrastructure is located in areas well above saline areas, however they do have some locations where they need to continually monitor signal and switch cabling. Basically they are aware of salt and the risk to their assets and they manage it.
The noticeable exception were the managers of municipal roads, where there was limited recognition of the role salinity was having in asset deterioration and/or limited appreciation of the treatments that could be used to minimise long term salinity impacts. This particularly applied to road maintenance crews who are assigned the task of patching crumbling road surfaces. As a consequence an ongoing maintenance program was adopted which treated the symptoms but often never addressed the underlying salinity or groundwater issues.
Despite that, most assets had been design to accommodate the salinity threat but all infrastructure managers said they would find accurate saline discharge mapping as a very useful tool for the future development and maintenance of their assets. They were particularly pleased to be considered in the consultation process.
Colac Otway Shire recognises they have a salinity ‘problem’. It is not currently perceived as an urgent issue and they are not equipped with the legislation, skills, time and funds to deal with the implications if they raised the salinity planning profile. The Shire would like to deal with the salinity but only if they are supported with the tools and capacity to properly respond to the issue. They see a salinity overlay as a good start, but further resourcing is needed for implementation and for infrastructure management.
3.1.2 Utility managers
Electricity, gas, water and telephone cables were the asset classes investigated. Numerous examples of salinity intersecting with these utilities was identified through the ISCRP process and later confirmed by physical site inspections (Dahlhaus, 2003a). However while the intersection of a utility with salinity does infer a threat, it does not necessarily follow that salinity is damaging the asset.
6 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
Each of the utility managers has their own strategy for protecting their asset against salt. For instance, gas pipelines are protected with plastic and have a cathotic protection with a slight charge connected to sacrificial anodes. Utility manager Gasnet Australia protects their assets in such a way. For electricity supplies PowerCorp use concrete instead of steel pylons in order to provide asset protection in salt effected areas. Telstra believe their assets are adequately protected because cables are sheathed in plastic and other telecommunication assets are above the ground.
3.1.3 Agricultural land managers
A significant amount of consultation resource was directed towards agricultural land managers. There were several reasons for this level of activity. These included:
• Nine of the target areas contained agricultural land affected by salinity. In total the area of saline agricultural land (primary and secondary) accounted for more than 6,700 ha. • The saline land is believed to contribute significant quantities of salt wash off, which in turn impact on the water quality in the regions waterways. • Some of the saline areas are primary in origin, but are located on freehold land. These naturally saline areas often have high biodiversity values and need to be appropriately managed to maintain and/or enhance these areas. • The original salinity plan focussed on agricultural land and there was a need to maintain continuity in the consultation process.
There was widespread support for the various groundwater models used to describe why salinity occurred in a target location and therefore why the suggested treatment options were being canvassed. Many anecdotal stories of recharge and discharge treatment confirmed the theoretical salinity processes used in the SAP. This was very encouraging.
Salinity was inadequately represented on the maps used during the consultation process. Asset managers were able to roughly update the areas of mapped discharge and therefore provide a more accurate (although incomplete) representation of the existing salinity. These discrepancies highlight the need to accurately determine where salinity is occurring before treatment is applied in any target location.
Seven treatment options were identified, although in each target location only some treatments were appropriate. The treatments discussed were:
1. High density tree planting on recharge areas – includes revegetation using indigenous vegetation and/or commercial forestry tree crops. Can be both broadacre or integrated in large belts or clumps across the landscape.
2. Tree planting interception belts on recharge areas – various width belts of indigenous and/or commercial forestry trees located periodically throughout the landscape. Typically alley farming type system with belts ranging from 50-300 metres apart.
3. Shallow surface drains to intercept lateral flow of perched groundwater – surface drains which cut into and collect shallow water seepage (<40cm deep) preventing intrusion into discharge areas lower in the landscape. Typically arranged across contour on minor grades for safe water carriage.
4. Tree planting adjoining or near saline discharge areas for watertable reduction/drawdown – targeted location of high density trees (indigenous or forestry) to areas where watertables are likely to be within reach of tree roots to enable drawdown of watertable directly.
5. Protection and management of discharge areas to allow natural vegetation recovery – involves landclass fencing and improved management of the area to allow natural vegetation to recover/establish. Can involve periodical grazing and weed control/removal.
6. Protection and management of discharge areas with establishment of additional vegetation - involves landclass fencing and improved management of saline areas. There are two sub treatments:
7 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
6a. Saline revegetation options which include native grasses/herbs, primarily for biodiversity values.
6b. Saline revegetation options which include improved pastures, fodder plants, trees (indigenous or forestry) productivity values.
Selection will be appropriate for each individual site.
7. Surface water management on discharge areas in conjunction with establishment of additional vegetative cover – involve planning and implementation of improved/altered surface water movement as a component of other saline land management activities. Can include surface drains, wetland creation, evaporation basins etc.
8. Surface water management to prevent fresh water ponding on saline areas – involves minimising the ponding of fresh surface water on saline areas, to avoid creating a waterlogging problem that prevents vegetation growth.
Acceptance of the treatment options varied between sites. In the three target areas where recharge control is suggested, there was some degree of scepticism about the efficacy and scale of the treatment. Treatments were either seen as unproven, such as treebelts or shallow surface drainage in the Pittong target location, or the quantity required to achieve control, if implemented, would dramatically alter the current land use. Both issues were a dis-incentive to adoption.
There was widespread surprise that deep-rooted perennial pastures were not included as a recharge treatment option as the explanation did not reconcile with local experience. Many stories were presented of perennial pastures drying the soil on areas that historically remained untrafficable in a normal winter. The lower than average rainfall of the past five years may be contributing to this observation, however further investigation of perennial pastures as a control option should be re-visited.
The proposed treatment of discharge control was well received. Many landholders had wanted to tackle the salinity directly but were unable to obtain the necessary financial and technical support in the past. Treatment of these areas is costly and without help landholders take on a significant financial risk, especially as the likely financial returns are small compared to the required investment. In some instances this has been complicated by the recognised need of the asset manager to address surface drainage issues whilst institutional arrangements have actively discouraged water management on discharge areas. This tension needs to be resolved to provide asset managers with the ‘community support’ to proceed.
There was also significant support by landholders for the use of trees to assist in general saline discharge management. Many landholders have used trees and shelter belts at the edge of discharge sites whilst land classing their saline areas. They suggest that the trees have played a useful role in drying out wet areas where the trees were successfully established. This suggests that use of salt tolerant trees and forestry does warrant continued investigation and support in areas with high watertables. Landholders observed that the process of improving soil conditions via mounding or surface drainage was a key aspect to growing trees successfully near or on discharge sites. Some landholders were keen to trial new salt tolerant forestry trees such as saltgrow eucalypts, but did not know where or how to go about getting the help they needed.
Management of primary saline areas for biodiversity was seen as a useful addition to general salinity control and in many cases landholders are seeking a wider range of land management solutions other then just sowing Tall Wheat Grass.
3.1.4 Water resources
Water storages used to supply Geelong, Ballarat and smaller towns were identified through the ISCRP process as under threat from salinity. Further investigation has indicated a significant and potentially serious threat to the quality of water supplied through the Moorabool system. The reasons for the apparent rise in salinity in this supply is unclear and in some cases speculative. However given the potential magnitude of the problem if rising salinity was causing a decrease in water quality, further investigation is urgently required, given this system supplies approximately 30 per cent of Geelong’s water.
8 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
The supply system is complex but in essence the water released from the Lal Lal Reservoir passes along the Moorabool River where it is withdrawn and treated at the Sheoaks water treatment facility, located below Meredith. The water for the township of Meredith and surrounds is taken directly from the Moorabool River prior to treatment at Sheoaks. During this transfer, the water released at Lal La reservoir almost doubles in salinity as it flows down the Moorabool River. To improve the quality of the increased salinity water, it is blended with lower salinity water before it is supplied to Geelong urban customers. However the township of Meredith is currently being supplied water that is beyond the standard limits considered suitable for human water supply in Australia.
Rising salinity is a recognised concern to Barwon Water and some of their customers. They recognise an urgent need to investigate the causes of the rising trends and apply the appropriate treatments. Barwon Water is currently supporting general revegetation projects within the Sheoaks-Moorabool sub catchment via the Moorabool River Gorge Recovery Program.
3.1.5 Environment
Environmental assets were classified as RAMSAR and significant wetlands, threatened species (VROTS) and public land. Unfortunately the data set used to identify the asset / salinity hazard intersection did not allow the individual threatened species to be identified. Ecological Vegetation Classes (EVC’s) were also not available at the time of this consultation.
Six of the twelve target areas contained RAMSAR and/or significant wetlands. Importantly these environmental assets feature salinity as a natural and integral component of the environmental system. Care must be taken not to assume simply because of an asset / salinity hazard intersection, that salinity is threatening the asset. Further the ‘dilution’ of salinity in a primary saline area may be as threatening as an increase in salinity in another location.
The ‘health’ of these wetlands and lakes was difficult to ascertain, given the complex interactions with groundwater and climatic influences. Nevertheless the authors have concern with the ‘health’ of several of the environmental asset identified.
The most prominent threat appears to be in the Corangamite target area, which contain Lake Corangamite, Lake Martin and Lake Gnarpurt. There is an extensive studies currently underway by consultants GHD Pty Ltd will provide recommendations on the best operational management plan for the Woady Yaloak Diversion Scheme and Lough Calvert Drainage Scheme and consequently the long term health of Lakes Corangamite, Martin and Gnarpurt. Given these investigations, no specific consultation was undertaken.
Other areas of concern were the Geelong – Lake Connewarre target location and the complex series of lakes in the Colac – Eurack target location. Consultation with these asset managers was made more difficult because of the shared management responsibility. The partners sharing the asset varied from location to location, often with day to day management responsibility being devolved to other organisations and in one instance private business (Cheetham Salt).
Parks Victoria, Department of Sustainability and Environment and several other management committees all recognised the need to apply ‘sympathetic’ management to these natural assets. Their limitations partly stem from a lack of resourcing to implement the desired program and included issues such as:
• More work to trial and develop saline land management options that are more sympathetic to natural saline systems. Suggestions include investigating the use of palatable native saline grasses and herbs in areas adjoining natural saline wetlands that could have dual roles for both biodiversity and production. It was recognised that occasional or well managed grazing on these sites can be beneficial to supporting the desired floristic and avifaunal diversity of some of these natural areas.
• Encouraging active management regimes on saline land (private and public) whether it be for biodiversity conservation, agricultural production or both. Many landowners believe that if a wet salty area can be turned into productive land, that is the most valuable use of the land and as a consequence some environmental issues are given secondary consideration.
9 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
• Capitalising on the enthusiasm of adjoining landholders seeking technical support in managing their wet and saline land. A key notion for areas with RAMSAR listed wetlands was that the whole wetland system was the asset, and there was much to be gained by better integration and cooperative networking between public and private land managers to assist managing these wetland systems as a “whole”.
• The rapid spread of Tall Wheat Grass across natural primary saline areas by managers of RAMSAR wetland areas. It was suggested programs will be required to actively reduce its spread in some areas on public land to protect biodiversity assets.
3.1.6 Cultural and Heritage
Aboriginal sites and natural heritage sites constituted the main assets considered in this class. As mentioned in previous reports (Dahlhaus, 2003a), the paucity of data made resulted in no salinity hazard intersections. As a result no contact was made with these asset managers in this initial targeted stage of consultation.
3.2 Analysis of asset managers’ comments.
Despite the variability in response, some common threads can be drawn together which can inform any future intervention strategy. This was compiled using the program logic as a framework. This resulted in each area being assessed for:
• The capacity of asset managers within each area to undertake the task
• The attitude (or motivation) of asset managers to want to address the salinity issue
• The availability of technologies and techniques to treat the salinity
• The ability for asset managers to target where salinity treatment actions need to occur.
A summary of this assessment has been made for each target location (Table 2). A five level scale has been adopted; low, low – moderate, moderate, moderate - high, high. Low represents an inability of the asset manager in the area to currently meet this need. By inference a low rating would suggest where intervention is required. Conversely a high rating implies a very strong degree of confidence by the asset manager that this aspect of the salinity treatment is adequately addressed. There should be no need to provide additional resourcing or intervention, other than what is already occurring. However changing circumstances such as the re-allocation of resourcing (for whatever reason) could easily change the current ratings.
The ratings are interpretations by the authors based on responses from the initial meetings and in some instances follow up discussion with the asset managers.
10 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions Target Asset manager Type of treatment option TARGETTED ACTION TECHNOLOGY ATTUTUDE CAPACITY location proposed (Ability to locate where the (Evidence the proposed (Asset managers attitude (Existing capacity of the treatment is required in the treatment option will to adopting the suggested asset managers to adopt landscape). manage salinity threat) treatment) the proposed treatment) Upper Water Authorities Unknown Low Low Moderate Low Moorabool (research required) (research required) (recognised need to (may involve other parties address the issue) support to implement Morrisons – Water Authorities Engineering – investigation High High Low Moderate-High Sheoaks of pipeline (link Lal Lal to Sheoaks (deliver water to Sheoaks (effects on Moorabool (if cost benefit proven) directly) at Lal Lal levels) River flows, community awareness low)
Landholders High density tree planting Moderate Moderate Low –Moderate Low on recharge areas (ground truthing required) (needs verification but (salinity awareness low – (financial, co-ordination (treatment 1) opportunity exists) new target area) and contractor incentive required) Tree planting adjoining or Moderate Moderate Moderate Low near saline discharge (ground truthing required) (Few local examples (Few local examples (co-ordination, labour areas for watertable available) available) support and 75% financial reduction / drawdown incentive required) (treatment 4). Protection and High Moderate Moderate Low management of discharge (reduce salt wash from (some landholders aware, (co-ordination, technical areas. (treatments 5, 6 & 7) exposed sites) others need encouraging) support and 75% financial incentive required) Pittong Landholders Tree planting interception Moderate Moderate Low Moderate belts on recharge areas (design assistance (participatory trialing ( 50% financial incentive, (treatment 2). required) required) and co-ordination required) Shallow surface drains to intercept lateral flows of perched watertables (treatment 3). Protection and High High High Low management of discharge (local examples available) (all landholders keen to (co-ordination, technical areas. (treatments 6 , 7 & address the issue) advice and 75% financial 8) incentive required) Illabarook Land Tree planting adjoining or Moderate Moderate – high High Low holders near saline discharge (ground truthing required) (local examples available) (co-ordination, labour areas for watertable support and 75% financial reduction / drawdown incentive required) (treatment 4).
11 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions Target Asset manager Type of treatment option TARGETTED ACTION TECHNOLOGY ATTUTUDE CAPACITY location proposed (Ability to locate where the (Evidence the proposed (Asset managers attitude (Existing capacity of the treatment is required in the treatment option will to adopting the suggested asset managers to adopt landscape). manage salinity threat) treatment) the proposed treatment) High density tree planting Moderate Low – moderate Low Low on recharge areas (ground truthing required) (few obvious local (until proven to achieve (commercialisation of trees (treatment 1). examples available) commercial return required) equivalent to existing enterprises) Protection and High Moderate – High Moderate Low management of discharge (local examples available) (many keen to address the (co-ordination, technical areas. (treatments 6 & 7) issue) advice and 75% financial incentive required) Lismore – Shire Appropriate road design Moderate High Low – moderate Low Derrinallum (Updated salinity discharge (Engineering technology (unaware of the (New skills required) maps required) exists) appropriate treatment) Landholders Protection and High Moderate Low – moderate Moderate management of discharge (current treatments only (unconvinced of the return (co-ordination, technical areas. (treatments 5, 6 & 7) marginally better than the for the investment) advice and 50% financial status quo). incentive required) Telstra Equipment protection Moderate High High High (would value updated discharge maps). Parks Victoria Unknown Low Low Low Low (research required) (research required) (unsure if a salinity threat (but may change when exists) actions are determined) Lake Consultation held over pending outcome of current reviews Corangamite Colac Parks Protection and Moderate Moderate High Low Eurack Victoria/DSE management of saline land (updated public/crown land (for reserve land but no (understand the (under resourced to Crown Land and reserves mapping required) influence on surrounding importance of these effectively manage all lands) reserves) areas) Landholders Protection and High Moderate Low – moderate Low-moderate management of discharge (current treatments only (unconvinced of the return (co-ordination, technical areas. (treatments 5, 6 & 7) marginally better than the for the investment) advice and 50% financial status quo). incentive required) Salinity planning overlay to High High Low Low prevent urban/rural (would limit subdivision and (would be financially subdivisions resale values) damaging)
12 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions Target Asset manager Type of treatment option TARGETTED ACTION TECHNOLOGY ATTUTUDE CAPACITY location proposed (Ability to locate where the (Evidence the proposed (Asset managers attitude (Existing capacity of the treatment is required in the treatment option will to adopting the suggested asset managers to adopt landscape). manage salinity threat) treatment) the proposed treatment) Telstra Equipment protection Moderate High High High (would value updated discharge maps). Shire Salinity planning overlay to High High Moderate Low prevent urban subdivisions (some need recognised) (Lack knowledge and finances to create the necessary overlays and planning procedures Engineering solutions to Low – moderate Moderate Low Low prevent watertable (investigation required) (theoretically possible) (potentially high cost for the (Need financial support to encroachment rate payers protected) make it cost effective) Appropriate road design Moderate High Low – moderate Low (Updated salinity discharge (Engineering technology (unaware of the (New skills required) maps required) exists) appropriate treatment) Warncoort Shire Appropriate road design Moderate High Low – moderate Low (Updated salinity discharge (Engineering technology (unaware of the (New skills required) maps required) exists) appropriate treatment) Landholders Protection and High Moderate Low – moderate Moderate management of discharge (current treatments only (unconvinced of the return (co-ordination, technical areas. (treatments 5 & 6) marginally better than the for the investment) advice and 50% financial status quo). incentive required) VicRoads Appropriate road design Moderate High High High (would value updated discharge maps). Telstra Equipment protection Moderate High High High (would value updated discharge maps). Powercor Equipment protection Moderate High High High (would value updated discharge maps). Rail Equipment protection Moderate High High High (would value updated discharge maps). Gas Equipment protection Moderate High High High (would value updated discharge maps).
13 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions Target Asset manager Type of treatment option TARGETTED ACTION TECHNOLOGY ATTUTUDE CAPACITY location proposed (Ability to locate where the (Evidence the proposed (Asset managers attitude (Existing capacity of the treatment is required in the treatment option will to adopting the suggested asset managers to adopt landscape). manage salinity threat) treatment) the proposed treatment) Murdeduke Shire Appropriate road design Moderate High Low – moderate Low (Updated salinity discharge (Engineering technology (unaware of the (New skills required) maps required) exists) appropriate treatment) Landholders Protection and High Moderate Low – moderate Low -Moderate management of discharge (wider range of treatments (some landholder keen, (co-ordination, technical areas. (treatments 5, 6 & 7) sought). others require advice and 75% financial encouraging) incentive required) Telstra Equipment protection Moderate – high High High High (would value updated discharge maps). Parks Victoria Improved management of Moderate - High Moderate High Low natural saline systems and (RAMSAR management (wider range of (understand the (External threats beyond adjoining lands. plan identifies sources of management regimes importance of the wetland) asset managers control. external threats. Saline sought for public and co-ordination, technical land categories need private land). advice and financial mapping) support required) Modewarre Shire Appropriate road design Moderate High Low – moderate Low (Updated salinity discharge (Engineering technology (unaware of the (New skills required) maps required) exists) appropriate treatment) Landholders Protection and High Moderate - High Moderate Low-Moderate management of discharge (local examples exist of (many have done work, (co-ordination, technical areas. (treatments 5, 6 & 7) well managed saline sites). some still need advice and 75% financial encouraging) incentive required) Parks Victoria / Unknown Low Low High Low – moderate Lake Modewarre (additional research (additional research (keen group with a (limited resources to management required) required) management plan) implement management plan) Geelong – Parks Victoria Improved management of Moderate - High Moderate High Low Lake natural saline systems and (RAMSAR management (wider range of (understand the (External threats beyond Connewarre adjoining lands. plan identifies sources of management regimes importance of the wetland) asset managers control. external threats. Saline sought for public and co-ordination, technical land categories need private land). advice and financial mapping) support required) Landholders Protection and High Moderate Moderate Low-Moderate management of discharge (wider range of treatments (evidence of keen (co-ordination, technical areas. (treatments 5, 6 & 7) sought). landholders if support is advice, time and 75% provided) financial incentive required)
14 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions Target Asset manager Type of treatment option TARGETTED ACTION TECHNOLOGY ATTUTUDE CAPACITY location proposed (Ability to locate where the (Evidence the proposed (Asset managers attitude (Existing capacity of the treatment is required in the treatment option will to adopting the suggested asset managers to adopt landscape). manage salinity threat) treatment) the proposed treatment) Shire Appropriate road design Moderate High Low – moderate Low (Updated salinity discharge (Engineering technology (unaware of the (New skills required) maps required) exists) appropriate treatment)
Lara Cheetham Salt / Protection and High High High High Parks Vic management of discharge (attitudes can vary) areas. (treatments 5 & 6) Parks Victoria Improved management of Moderate - High Moderate High Low natural saline systems and (RAMSAR management (wider range of (understand the (External threats beyond adjoining lands. plan identifies sources of management regimes importance of the wetland) asset managers control. external threats. Saline sought for public and co-ordination, technical land categories need private land). advice and financial mapping) support required) VicRoads Appropriate road design High High High High
Table 2: Summary of asset managers’ response to proposed salinity treatment options, grouped by program logic
15 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
3.3 Preferred method of implementation (the next actions)
The targeted consultation provided an opportunity to discuss with asset managers what they believe would be the most appropriate actions to commence implementation. This is described as the next actions, as identified by the asset managers (Table 3).
Discussions were also held with the asset managers to identify what might be the most appropriate parties to be involved in implementation. This varied from location to location.
In previous documents (Dahlhaus et al , 2005) 1, programs that deliver similar outputs to the desired salinity treatments, such as tree planting, were described (although these programs may be implemented to deliver different outcomes such as commercial timber, or biodiversity). The authors reviewed this list and after consideration have identified programs that offer immediate opportunity to explore integrated delivery. This is not to exclude the development of other partnerships but is intended to assist those responsible for implementation to identify program that could deliver rapid results. They are identified as immediate co-investment parties.
The insights from table 3 are vital to develop an appropriate implementation plan. The consultation provides a level of market research about the target audience (asset managers) that, if incorporated, should lead to a highly efficient delivery program.
However the authors wish to raise several issues related to implementation of the SAP that are believed to be fundamental to achieving successful intervention. The comments are based experience gained from successful intervention strategies, comments from the asset managers and review of current extension literature.
3.3.1 Adopting best practice delivery
Development of the new salinity plan has invested considerable resources in deciding what to do (eg tree planting for recharge control) and where to apply these technologies (eg priority locations within the region and then within the landscape). The suggested research needs listed in the review of the first salinity plan, Restoring the Balance (Nicholson et al , 2002) , are heavily weighted towards investigating the where and what of salinity investment. However the research priorities are not actively investigating improvements to how these technologies are delivered in the target location. This is a serious oversight and must be addressed.
Feedback from the asset manager consulted during the development of the SAP has highlighted the need to look at how to deliver salinity intervention programs. Put simply the current salinity extension needs of asset managers are not being served by the current support provided and a renewal of the extension program will be needed to deliver the new SAP. However comment was made that the salinity intervention in the early to mid 1990’s was well targeted and resourced. Given that the long term aim of the salinity program is adoption of new treatments and management techniques, programs that enhance the ability of asset managers to build knowledge and confidence should be identified and developed.
There are a number of (compelling) reasons to revisit how the salinity extension program is delivered. These include:
• The theoretical understanding of extension techniques has improved. Understanding how and why people adopt improved environmental practices is comprehensively summarised by Barr and Cary (2000) in their report entitled Influencing Improved Natural Resource Management on Farms – A guide to understanding factors influencing the adoption of sustainable resource practices. Any future program should be critiqued against the factors listed in his guide.
1 This background report was revised in October 2005 from the original June 2003 version and is cited correctly.
16 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
• Successful examples of this new extension paradigm already exist. In the past decade there has been a quiet revolution in the way intervention programs have been delivered. This has been led by industry based groups such as the Grains Research and Development Council and Meat and Livestock Australia and has been recognised externally 2. Development of partnerships with industry based groups should be a priority in those areas where the agricultural focus of asset managers is high.
• The growing desire for those individuals or organisations towards who the intervention is aimed, want to have a greater involvement. Increasingly in communities people are no longer content to have others choose what is best for them, they are calling for closer partnerships with extension deliverers. They are demanding to play a role in the design and delivery of the service. Devolving responsibility and resources to the key players at the local level allows the creation of programs that have ownership and meet local needs. This needs to be done on a community by community basis rather than a generic regional approach to salinity.
• Agricultural industries are having to actively embracing the environmental imperative. They are no longer side players; rather they have the dual environmental-productivity responsibility and focus. This is likely to only intensify in the future.
• The reliance on the traditional government delivered extension programs has changed over recent years. Partnerships with other stakeholders are embraced and the private sector is becoming a significant deliverer of new information and skills development. The results have been a positive response to diminishing funding and the demands for more cost-effective outcomes. However true partnerships are based on sharing, respect and trust. Many of the associations that are called partnership are nothing more than symbolic and significant changes need to be embraced if the true benefits of partnership arrangements are to be realised.
• Staff involved in delivery of the previous salinity extension programs have identified what they believe are key elements for success (Nicholson, 2002). Often these insights are not embraced in the current program, despite the extension theory supporting their importance.
• The consultation, as described in this document and summaries in tables 2 and 3, clearly describes what support is required and how the asset managers would like this to proceed. It is high value, strategic market research that must form the basis for design of the implementation program.
A key challenge is how best to oversee the design and delivery of salinity extension services provided throughout the region. There is a risk that those involved in overseeing implementation of this program may not possess the latest extension theory to meet this challenge. This is often further compromised by the assumption that whoever has historically delivered the service is applying the latest in their extension programs. That is, we trust who has delivered in the past to be practicing the latest. This may not always be the case. To ensure the adoption of best practice delivery in the future, a dedicated group with the appropriate skills should be established to help in the design and then oversee the evaluation of any intervention programs.
3.3.2 Creating meaningful partnerships by rewarding the actions you want
A high level of voluntary asset manager participation is required to achieve the outcomes of the SAP. One principle that should be adopted is to reward the desired behaviours or actions. This applies to designing cost share programs, technical support, establishing delivery networks, new partnerships or developing links with new investors – rewarding the desired behaviour is a principle that will build success. This guiding principal needs to be used to check that overuse of “guidelines
2 The Sustainable Grazing Systems Program funded by Meat and Livestock Australia won the Australian Pacific Extension Network best extension program award in 1999 and was one of five finalist in the National Banksia Environmental Awards of 2003.
17 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions or rules” does not negatively impact or impede on the program’s ability to achieve salinity outcomes.
This approach is aided by placing faith in co-investors, by trusting their abilities to deliver a joint project that will deliver the desired salinity outcomes. For meaningful partnerships to work, those responsible for the implementation of the salinity program must acknowledge and accept there are other organisations and stakeholders who can successfully deliver salinity outcomes.
3.3.3 Integrated delivery
There is also a need to ensure on ground delivery is integrated with other land management programs. The salinity program runs the risk of only considering the individual elements for which they were attempting to tackle. This consultation has made it abundantly clear that asset managers are demanding that the salinity program must be delivered in an integrated manner and accounts for the broader catchment and land management issues being tackled in target areas. All asset managers face the huge task of managing land, water, infrastructure and other assets for the full ranges of issues (salinity, water quality, soils, biodiversity, pests etc). In some instances they are also seeking to derive commercial return from their enterprise. On ground delivery of the salinity program must ensure that local asset managers have access to support that assists them to deliver a wider range of land management programs rather than just salinity alone.
3.3.4 Customising delivery for each target location
The consultation has highlighted the need to allow flexibility to deliver local salinity mitigation programs according to what will be most efficient and effective for each particular district. There is a temptation on the part of program managers to ‘standardise’ delivery and guidelines, in the quest for ease of implementation. Unfortunately this can seriously undermine the location by location approach needed and in the long run cost more in implementation because of the dis-incentive this creates at the local level. It needs to be accepted that ‘case-by-case’ program delivery is needed and will be adopted.
Where existing community groups or mechanisms for salinity support exist, the obvious choice in delivering an expanded salinity program is by working with these existing groups or agencies. In some instances it is recognised that new or renewed partnership programs will need to be developed and the first critical steps will involve formation and development of these new delivery mechanisms which has full and ongoing ownership of local asset managers and stakeholders.
3.3.5 Devolving responsibility to the asset managers.
Devolution of responsibility to local communities and institutions is a fundamental concept in the success of local community programs. Commensurate with this devolved responsibility is to ensure local asset managers are given the full administrative and technical support to enable them to continue to make fully informed decisions and to carry these out effectively. Devolving responsibility means trusting local organisation and groups to implement these salinity outcomes in the best way they can – but give them the backup they need to undertake the task.
For example, if cost share programs are being developed to assist implementation of on-ground works, the process for linking individual landholders with support funds can easily be devolved so that local groups or implementation staff have the ability to deliver incentives direct to clients. Currently landholders seeking support for saline land management have to access grants centrally from the CCMA, which involves unnecessary additional paperwork and timelines for individual landholders and project officers making them less inclined to participate in the process. Devolving responsibility to local communities has been proven to work exceptionally well, especially if provided with clear parameters as to the salinity outcomes which are being sought by regional catchment investors.
18 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
Target Next actions Asset manager’s suggested delivery agent Immediate co-investment parties location Upper • Commence investigation of possible cause of rising • Central Highlands Water in conjunction with • Water quality - Central Highlands Moorabool salinity trend and possible treatment actions. appropriate consultants or research Water, Barwon Water, Corangamite organisations. CMA Waterways program, Southern • Commence resource condition monitoring • To be determined Rural Water. • Monitoring – Water Boards, Parks Victoria, DPI. Morrisons – • Commence investigation of possible cause of rising • Central Highlands Water in conjunction with • Water quality – Barwon Water, Sheoaks salinity trend and possible treatment actions appropriate consultants or research CCMA waterways program, • Refine recharge maps to allow farm scale application organisations. • Research – Ballarat University • Integrated farm planning and salinity technical support • University student mapping project • Forestry – DPI Farm Forestry Cost program share programs, Forestry • Commence saline discharge area revegetation • Moorabool River Gorge Recovery Program Companies, Greenhouse sink program (MRGRP) partnership between landcare, investors (Govt) • Commence tree planting work on areas Barwon Water, Moorabool Shire, CCMA & DPI. • Revegetation – Natural Heritage immediately above discharge sites Technical support by DPI . Trust and National action plan. • Commence saline spring protection and Industry program on productive use management • MRGRP with Agency Farm Forestry support of saline land. • Commence methods of making commercial forestry • Pest control – DPI. more attractive on recharge areas • MRGRP in conjunction with University and • Monitoring – Water Boards, Parks • Conduct PAR 3 trials on suggested recharge control hydrogeology monitoring. Victoria, DPI. treatments • MRGRP in partnership with DPI. • Implement rabbit control program. • To be determined. • Commence resource condition monitoring. Pittong • Refine recharge maps to allow for farm scale • University student mapping project • Research – Ballarat University application • Revegetation – Natural Heritage • Commence discharge management program, including • Woady Yaloak Catchment Group (WYCG), Trust and National action plan. technical advice on surface water management. through the neighbourhood group process but Industry program on productive use • Conduct PAR 4 trials on suggested recharge control with technical advice on drainage and water of saline land. treatments. management.. • Pest control – DPI. • WYCG in conjunction with University and • Monitoring – Water Boards, Parks hydrogeology monitoring. Victoria, DPI. • Implement rabbit control program. • WYCG in partnership with DPI. • Commence resource condition monitoring. • To be determined.
3 Participatory Action Research 4 Participatory Action Research
19 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
Target Next actions Asset manager’s suggested delivery agent Immediate co-investment parties location Illabarook • Refine recharge maps to allow for farm scale • University student mapping project. • Research – Ballarat University application • Forestry – DPI Farm Forestry Cost • Commence tree planting work on areas immediately • Woady Yaloak Catchment Group (WYCG), share programs, Forestry above discharge sites. through the neighbourhood group process. Companies, Greenhouse sink • Commence discharge management program, including • WYCG, through the neighbourhood group investors (govt) technical advice on surface water management. process but with technical advice on drainage • Revegetation – Natural Heritage and water management.. Trust and National action plan. • Investigate methods of making commercial forestry • Agency facilitated discussion between Industry program on productive use more financially attractive. commercial forestry interest and landholder of saline land. representatives. • Pest control – DPI. • Implement rabbit control program. • WYCG in partnership with DPI. • Monitoring – Water Boards, Parks • Commence resource condition monitoring. • To be determined Victoria, DPI. Lismore – • Training for municipal road engineers and crews. • Engineering consultants. • Research - Natural Heritage Trust Derrinallum • Commence Lake Tooliorook research • University post graduate projects and National action plan, • Commence limited discharge management program. • Lismore Land Protection Group (LLPG), with Universities. technical advice from DPI. • Revegetation – Natural Heritage • Conduct PAR trials to examine increasing profitability • Lismore Land Protection Group in partnership Trust and National action plan. from marginally saline land. with industry groups. Industry program on productive use • Commence resource condition monitoring. • To be determined of saline land. • Monitoring – Water Boards, Parks Victoria, DPI. Corangamite • Commence resource condition monitoring. • To be determined • Research - Natural Heritage Trust • Commence Lake Corangamite, Gnarpurt, Martin and • University post graduate projects and National action plan, Cundare pool research. Universities. • Other actions held over until current reviews are • Monitoring – Water Boards, Parks completed. Victoria, DPI. Colac Eurack • Training for municipal road engineers and crews • Engineering consultants • Colac Otway Shire • Create salinity overlay and procedural processes. • Colac Otway Shire in partnership with qualified • Parks Victoria consultant. • Research - Natural Heritage Trust • Investigate the engineering options to protect urban • Colac Otway Shire in partnership with qualified and National action plan, infrastructure from rising watertables. consultant. Universities, CCMA wetlands • Commence limited discharge management program. • Renewed Partnership Program is required to program. • Conduct PAR trials to examine increasing profitability include Landcare, DPI, CCMA and Parks Vic. • Revegetation – Natural Heritage from marginally saline land. Trust and National action plan. • Commence Lake Colac, Lough Calvert and Beeac • University post graduate projects Industry program on productive use research. of saline land. • Monitoring – Water Boards, Parks
20 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
Target Next actions Asset manager’s suggested delivery agent Immediate co-investment parties location • Commence resource condition monitoring. • To be determined Victoria, DPI.
Warncoort • Training for municipal road engineers and crews. • Engineering consultants • CCMA waterways program • Facilitate erosion control and drainage rules • Birregurra Creek Land Protection Group • Revegetation – Natural Heritage discussions. (BCLPG) and CCMA, in partnership with Trust and National action plan. drainage scheme operators. Industry program on productive use • Commence limited discharge management program. • BCLPG of saline land. • Commence resource condition monitoring • To be determined • Monitoring – Water Boards, Parks Victoria, DPI. Murdeduke • Training for municipal road engineers and crews • Engineering consultants • Wetland management - Parks • Support lake and riparian revegetation programs • Renewed Partnership Program required Victoria, CCVMA waterways and • Commence limited discharge management between Barwon Valley Landcare Group wetlands programs. program (BVLG), Parks Vic, Greening Aust, DPI, • Revegetation- CCMA waterways • Conduct PAR trials to broaden landuse options for Surfcoast Shire, CCMA and Leigh Catchments. program, Natural Heritage Trust and saline land National action plan. • Commence resource condition monitoring • To be determined • Monitoring – Water Boards, Parks Victoria, DPI. Modewarre • Training for municipal road engineers and crews • Engineering consultants • Revegetation – Natural Heritage • Implement revegetation programs and improved land • Renewed Partnership Program is required to Trust and National action plan. management of local lakes, wetlands and riparian include Thompson Ck Catchment Project, Lake Industry program on productive use areas. Modewarre Committee, Surfcoast Shire, DPI, of saline land. • Continue discharge site protection projects CCMA and Parks Vic . • Wetland management - Parks • Commence Lake Modewarre, Gherang and Browns • University post graduate projects Victoria, CCVMA waterways and swamp research. wetlands programs. • Commence resource condition monitoring • To be determined • Monitoring – Water Boards, Parks Victoria, DPI. Geelong – • Training for municipal road engineers and crews • Engineering consultants • Parks Victoria Lake • Support lake and riparian revegetation programs • Joint works programs delivered locally as • City of Greater Geelong environment Connewarre • Develop wetland network/partnership program for partnership between Parks Victoria, City of unit and stormwater management.. target area Greater Geelong, DPI, CCMA, Bellarine • Revegetation – Natural Heritage • Conduct PAR trials to broaden landuse options for Landcare, Greening Connewarre, Field and Trust and National action plan. saline land using natural species Game. Technical support via agency, where Industry program on productive use • Integrated farm planning and salinity technical appropriate. of saline land. support program. • Wetland management - Parks • Implement rabbit control program. • Joint program in partnership with DPI. Victoria, CCMA waterways and
21 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
Target Next actions Asset manager’s suggested delivery agent Immediate co-investment parties location • Commence resource condition monitoring • To be determined wetlands programs. • Pest control – DPI. • Monitoring – Water Boards, Parks Victoria, DPI. Lara • Commence limited discharge management program • Parks Vic, City of Greater Geelong, DPI, • Wetland management - Parks CCMA, Avalon Landcare, Victoria, CCMA waterways and • Support cooperative saline land /wetland protection • Joint works programs delivered locally as wetlands programs, Cheetham Salt. programs partnership project between above groups. • Monitoring – Parks Victoria, DPI. • Commence resource condition monitoring • To be determined
Table 3: Next actions and recommended delivery agent / partners
22 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
3.4 Management actions for each target location
Information gained from the targeted consultation allowed the authors to suggest likely adoption rates of the suggested treatments. These estimates have been made despite the concerns raised by asset managers regarding the accuracy of the designated recharge areas and the under representation of the areas of saline discharge. It is recommended the recharge and discharge be clarified before management action targets can be finalised.
Management actions are presented for each target area. On ground works and site specific actions are listed for annual (Table 4) and 10 year time frames (Table 5). These figures represent the difference between the intervention and no intervention (do nothing) scenarios. In some instances, the prediction of future adoption is based on the success of an initial trialing phase. This may not be the case and targets may need to be reviewed based on these experiences. In other cases, where the reasons for the threat are not well understood no on ground management actions have been set.
23 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
Target Recharge treatments (ha / yr) Discharge treatments (ha / yr) location 1. High 2. Tree 3. Shallow 4. Tree planting 5. Protection and 6. Protection and 7. Surface water 8. Surface water density tree planting surface drains adjoining or near management of management of management on management only planting on interception to intercept saline discharge discharge areas to discharge areas discharge areas in recharge belts on lateral flow of areas (for allow natural with establishment conjunction with areas. recharge perched watertable vegetation of additional establishment of areas groundwater reduction / recovery vegetation additional drawdown) vegetative cover Morrisons – SheOaks 128 34 5 (SS, private) Colac Eurack 50 (PS, public) 39 (SS, private) 38 (PS, private) Geelong – 79 (PS, public) 114 (PS, private) Lake Connewarre 5 (SS, public) 53 (SS, private) Pittong 148 148 22 (SS, private) 22 (SS, private) 90 (SS, private) Illabarook 153 18 27 (SS, private)
Lismore – Derrinallum 88 (SS, private)
Warncoort 28 (SS, private) Murdeduke 14 (PS, private) 29 (SS, private) Modewarre 11 (PS, private) 3 (SS, private) Lara 25 (PS, public) Lake Corangamite No on-ground targets set until research and investigations are completed Upper west Moorabool No on-ground targets set until research and investigations are completed
Legend: (PS) = Primary salinity, (SS) = Secondary salinity. Public / private refers to land tenure. Table 4: Annual adoption of various treatment options for each location ( difference between the intervention and non intervention (do nothing) scenarios)
24 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
Target Recharge treatments (ha / yr) Discharge treatments (ha / yr) location 1. High 2. Tree 3. Shallow 4. Tree planting 5. Protection and 6. Protection and 7. Surface water 8. Surface water density tree planting surface drains adjoining or near management of management of management on management only planting on interception to intercept saline discharge discharge areas to discharge areas discharge areas in recharge belts on lateral flow of areas (for allow natural with establishment conjunction with areas. recharge perched watertable vegetation of additional establishment of areas groundwater reduction / recovery vegetation additional drawdown) vegetative cover Morrisons – SheOaks 1280 340 50 (SS, private) Colac Eurack 500 (PS, public) 390 (SS, private) 380 (PS, private) Geelong – 790 (PS, public) 1140 (PS, private) Lake Connewarre 50 (SS, public) 530 (SS, private) Pittong 1480 1480 220 (SS, private) 220 (SS, private) 900 (SS, private) Illabarook 1530 180 270 (SS, private)
Lismore – Derrinallum 880 (SS, private)
Warncoort 280 (SS, private) Murdeduke 140 (PS, private) 290 (SS, private) Modewarre 110 (PS, private) 30 (SS, private) Lara 250 (PS, public) Lake Corangamite No on-ground targets set until research and investigations are completed Upper west Moorabool No on-ground targets set until research and investigations are completed
Legend: (PS) = Primary salinity, (SS) = Secondary salinity. Public / private refers to land tenure. Table 5: Adoption of various treatment options for each location over 10 years – rounded to nearest 10 ha ( difference between the intervention and non intervention (do nothing) scenarios)
25 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
444 Emerging issues and common themes across the Corangamite Region
The amalgamation of thoughts and ideas from the individual asset manager consultations has allowed identification of themes which are best dealt with on a region wide basis. Discussions have also highlighted some implementation issues that need to be considered when the SAP is implemented. The authors thought it prudent to provide some thoughts on the issues and suggestions on what could be done to meet these needs.
4.1 Emerging issues
4.1.1 Managing expectation in priority and non priority areas.
The review of Restoring the Balance (Nicholson, 2002) highlights the changing nature of the salinity program in the last decade. Importantly it identifies the legitimate use of salinity funding providing a spin-off benefit to a raft of other emerging natural resource management issues and programs.
The creation of the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality has re-focussed attention on the salinity issue. Part of this re-focussing has been the development of a transparent process to select priority areas for investment. Selection of the priority areas is based on the intersection of salinity hazard with regional asset (Dahlhaus, 2003a). The deficiencies in this process are well described and moves are underway to refine the data set used.
Whilst the data sets will improve the next selection process, new discoveries about the processes involved in salinity are likely to change currently held theories about cause, effect and therefore appropriate areas of investment. What was appropriate today may no longer be defensible in the future. In other words, the likelihood of priorities changing in the future is very real, will continue to occur beyond the next improvement in data sets and therefore must be managed.
There are several immediate issues those responsible for implementation of the salinity plan need to appreciate. Firstly, landholders see local problems that are immediate to them. Regionally they might be less important but to the individual they are the most important. Understandably it is hard for a landholder to reconcile why something that was legitimately seen as important in the past is no longer a priority. An appropriate response to those identified as no longer being in a priority area ranges somewhere between totally withdrawing support, at one end of the spectrum, to finding alternative funding through another program or source which has these activities as a priority.
Secondly those land managers who have received salinity support in the past do not have a clear understanding of what funding source has supported the works or co-coordinator. Nor do they really care. It is the outcome that landholders care about, not which program funded it. It would be too simplistic to conclude that if landholders were aware of where the funding was coming from this would solve the problem. It is our conclusion little if anything would be gained by investing resources to increase awareness of the funding source. It is a consequence that has to be accepted.
Thirdly the use of a single issue, asset protection model such as the one used in the development of this SAP, fails to include the social dimension. It could be argued the people are a regional asset, but it is not as simple as including all people, as this would negate any benefit from including the community as an asset layer.
The current approach of priority investment will inevitably change where money is invested. In the past decade, new initiatives have provided alternative sources for investment, so existing community based programs could continue to be supported. It is anticipated this will not be the case in the future. Focussed investment is likely to mean some previously funded projects will miss out in the future.
26 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
We believe it is legitimate to actively manage this transition and appropriate to continue investment over a phase out period. Most importantly the managers of the program need to demonstrate empathy for the consequences of these decisions. It is imperative they describe clearly the transition period that is being supported and the endeavours that are being made to seek alternative funding support. Both need to be actively, rather than passively managed.
To assist in this transition, it is suggested a small amount of funding be set aside for transitional support to non priority groups.
4.1.2 The impact of water management on salinity
In the development of the SAP it has become apparent that way in which water resources are managed can be the dominant influence on the salinity risk to assets. An obvious example is the increasing allocation (and extraction) of groundwater resources impacting on both groundwater dependant ecosystems (environmental assets) and baseflow to rivers and streams (urban water supply assets and environmental assets). In both cases the threat is that the extraction of (relatively) fresh groundwater causes watertables to fall resulting in springs, wetlands or rivers drying up or become more saline.
Similarly, surface water drainage installed for raised-bed cropping or discharge site rehabilitation changes the spatial and temporal distribution of soil water infiltration and groundwater recharge. Extracting or draining water from one part of the landscape to irrigate or store in another part of the landscape can have a far greater impact on when and where salinity occurs and has the potential to undo years of investment in salinity mitigation measures, such as biological control of recharge.
Water management by urban communities is equally important in the protection of assets from salinity risk. The spatial and temporal changes to the hydrologic balance created by urban development are far greater than that by agricultural land management. In urban development, some areas are hard paved (eg. roofs, carparks, industrial sites) forever denying that piece of land of groundwater recharge, whereas other areas are frequently irrigated (eg. lawns, gardens and septic effluent fields) to increase recharge by several hundred percent over a period of decades. The change in the components of the water balance can be graphically observed by the storm water runoff from urban areas following high-intensity precipitation events (flash-flooding). There is a much greater change in the hydrologic equilibrium resulting from expanding urban development than the change resulting from clearing native vegetation for farming, although the spatial scale is often smaller.
The facts are that the Corangamite CMA is the responsible authority for salinity management, but it is not the responsible authority for water management. A decision made by Southern Rural Water (SRW) about groundwater allocations, for example, may have a far-reaching impact on the salinity of water resource assets, capable of negating years of investment in tree-planting for salinity management. The responsible authority (SRW in this example) does not necessarily have incentive or capability to uphold the principles of integrated catchment management in their decision making. If the investment in protecting assets from salinity is to provide maximum benefit, then there is a need for the responsible authority (Corangamite CMA) to influence the decisions made by the authorities with responsibility for water management. These include Municipalities (storm water), Central Highlands Water, Barwon Water and South West Water (urban supply and wastewater), SRW (irrigation and farm allocations) and EPA (wastewater) among others.
It is recommended that the Corangamite CMA negotiate with DSE and the responsible authorities for water management to gain a greater influence in decisions which impact on the salinity of water quality assets.
4.1.3 Our environmental responsibilities
This SAP recognises the importance of the unique environmental assets in the region. Collectively these assets are among the most significant environmental sites in Australia, and many are listed
27 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions as assets of international importance. Their significance is due to the number of threatened species, migratory species and marine protected species which depend on the sites. Many are primary salinity lakes and wetlands which have formed as unique geomorphic features of the volcanic landscapes. The lakes and wetlands range from hypersaline to fresh and support very large numbers of waterbirds, including migratory visitors from the northern hemisphere.
The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 , which came into effect in July 2000, requires that any action that has, will have, or is likely to have a significant impact on a matter of National Environmental Significance (NES) is required to undergo an assessment and approvals process. Management of many of the environmental assets such as Lake Corangamite, Lake Gnarpurt, Lake Cundare, Lake Beeac, Lake Murdeduke, Lake Connewarre, Reedy Lake and the coastal wetlands at Lara are matters of NES, since they are subject to international environmental treaties. These include the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar Convention), the Convention on Migratory Species (Bonn Convention) and international migratory bird treaties with Japan (JAMBA) and China (CAMBA).
In addition to the international assets, the region has many environmental assets of National Importance in the salinity target areas, the majority of which are lakes and wetlands. These sites are also subject to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, which provides the legislative framework for the Commonwealth to manage environmental protection. The CMA responsibility lies with the Catchment and Land Protection Act which operates in conjunction with a range of other State legislation that also affect the management of the region’s environmental assets (eg Environment Protection Act; Water Act; Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act; Planning and Environment Act; National Parks Act; Forests Act; Land Act; and the Conservation, Forests and Lands Act). In managing the salinity risk to the regions environmental assets there are obvious legislative requirements that must be taken into consideration.
It is recommended that the implementation committee responsible for the salinity action plan work with the biodiversity and wetland programs of the CMA, to ensure that the management of the environmental assets at risk from salinity complies with regional strategies and State and Commonwealth requirements.
4.1.4 Profitable agricultural systems
Nine of the twelve suggested target locations identified in this SAP require the implementation of solutions on private land. In some instances, the desired treatments are on recharge areas and requires actions that have more dis-benefits that benefits to the individual owner. On discharge areas, the introduction of salt tolerant species is a significant investment and the potential returns are marginal, so understandably landholders are reluctant to treat these areas.
The extension literature clearly highlights the difficulty this poses in getting the treatment adopted, and as a consequence achieving the outcome of salinity program. Despite our altruistic desire that people will adopt for the greater community good, the reality is that on private land most land managers have to make a living from that asset and for their own wellbeing the profitability of their business is at the forefront of their actions.
There is an ongoing need to improve the profitability of the treatment options being promoted. The current approach is to ‘offset’ the cost of implementing the treatment by a once off payment that reduces the financial impost. Whilst important, this approach alone fails to recognise the natural driver an improved profitability component can make to adoption.
The Sustainable Grazing Systems program is an excellent example where the improved productivity and profitability benefits of a perennial based, rotationally grazed production system (that had significant natural resource management benefits also) has led to landholders wanting to adopt the practice (Meat & Livestock Australia, 2003).
Profit seems to be a ‘dirty word’ in natural resource management. Yet it is probably the biggest single driver in getting voluntary adoption of a practice or treatment by individuals on private land.
28 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
Voluntary adoption is funded from profits. Fortunately the agricultural industry groups that traditionally have been focussed on profitability are starting to embrace the wider natural resource management issues. Whilst their understanding is advancing in sophistication with each new program, their ‘comfort zone’ still remains on productivity and profitability. The need for more profitable agricultural systems which deal with the salinity (and other) natural resource management issues creates an opportunity that should be easily met. This opportunity is an exciting development given the need for agricultural industry groups to enter the natural resource management arena and the necessity for the salinity program to achieve adoption of treatments on private land.
However it is our conclusion that increased emphasis on improving the profitability aspects of salinity treatment options won’t happen quickly enough unless the process is managed. We suggest the notion of improving the profitability of treatment option on private land has to be embraced, and partnerships actively pursued with agricultural industry groups such as those mentioned above.
4.1.5 Climate change - the impact of the current dry climate pattern on stakeholder perceptions.
It is important to understand the climatic context under which this salinity plan has been developed. The consultation with asset managers has been undertaken during an extended dry period (five years) which has implications in terms of their perceptions and observations associated with salinity impacts. The recent dry has seen a general lowering of groundwater systems across the region. Under these conditions the noticeable spread of saline sites has not been observed by landholders and this will lower their perceived concerns with spreading salinity. This is in contrast to the wetter years of the early 1990’s when many saline areas were observed to be spreading which gave landholders cause for concern as they watched salinity spread on their farms. A return to a wetter climate cycle is likely to draw higher attention to land salinity than that currently expressed by landholders.
The current dry cycle has also possibly amplified the observed salinity impacts associated with surface water qualities due to the reduced freshwater component usually contributed by overland runoff. Runoff producing rainfall events have been few and far between in recent years and this has lead to an observed increase in surface water salinities which may not necessarily continue if wetter climate cycles return.
In fact, limited research in south west Victoria (eg. Jones, 1995; Coram et al. , 1998) has shown that changes in climate can be the dominant driver of hydrologic change, with far greater impact than land-use change. Predictions of climate change (greenhouse models) may have significant consequences for the expansion or mitigation salinity in the medium to long-term future and should be considered for future research projects in the Corangamite CMA.
The CMA should implement a research program within the first five years of the plan to review the affect of climate on the effectiveness of salinity investment.
4.2 Common themes
4.2.1 Saline land management - expanding the options available to land managers.
With vast areas of both primary and secondary saline land across the Corangamite region, the issue of managing saline land systems appropriately deserves much greater attention. Whether primary or secondary - saline land requires sensitive and appropriate management. Whether saline land requires complete revegetation and protection to reduce salt evaporation and soil erosion, or protection/reduced grazing pressure to allow recovery of natural saline plants for biodiversity benefit
29 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
– it appears landholders are requesting a much broader range of options for the management of their saline lands.
There is a need to provide expanded region wide technical support which focuses on: 1. Expanded research and development of saline land management for improved agricultural productivity and commercial returns 2. Developing active saline land recovery systems for improving biodiversity values of primary saline land systems
Such a program would provide technical and research coordination and support across the region and be undertaken in partnership to support the actions of all landholders and projects operating within the salinity target locations. This program would also ensure maximum gains are achieved via cooperative development of partnership research and development programs, including use of participatory action research processes.
It is recommended that two positions be created for region wide saline land “technical” programs. One position would focus on expansion of commercial agricultural options, and the other to expand saline land management for improved biodiversity outcomes.
4.2.1 Commercial forestry development for regional salinity benefits
Successfully supporting landholders towards greater adoption of deep rooted perennial vegetation systems such as trees has been well proven to be closely tied with the ability of the new land use to provide commercial returns to landholders.
Increased adoption of farm forestry can play an important role in accelerating the adoption of tree cover in target salinity areas. There are currently three target areas within the Corangamite region requiring greater use of farm forestry for broadacre recharge control. Given the rainfall characteristics of these areas and the proximity to domestic and export markets there is great scope to facilitate greater forestry adoption in these areas.
It also appears that there is interest and potential to use farm forestry to support landholders in areas where high watertables currently exist. Farm forestry plantings in these areas could be strategically placed throughout farms for watertable reduction as well as producing more immediate on farm benefits such as shelter. With the further development of suitable forestry species/hybrids and forestry systems for saline land there could be a significant role for forestry in restricting further spread of salinity in areas with high groundwater.
Of significance it appears that there is great potential for the salinity program to use forestry as a driver to attract and leverage increased outside investment towards implementation of the salinity revegetation from private, commercial and greenhouse investors. For this opportunity to be realised the region’s salinity program must invest in a facilitating role.
For proactive facilitation and development of forestry programs and systems to assist salinity mitigation in the region, a salinity focussed farm forestry role is warranted. Such a role would perform region wide tasks such as:
• facilitate partnerships and linkages with other forestry stakeholders and investors (including Greenhouse/Carbon investors) to build programs which leverage increased investment in farm forestry which is targeted to high benefit salinity areas • develop expanded forestry research and development programs for areas with high watertables and saline land • coordinate forestry training and technical support for targeted areas such as delivering Master Treegrower Programs and also ensuring targeted landholders have access to high quality economic and silvicultural information for their properties. This role supports the efforts of local salinity projects located within target areas
30 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
• develop partnership programs for delivery of regional cost sharing frameworks to attract farm forestry to salinity target zones • ensure appropriate linkages are maintained with the various stakeholders • ensure adoption of farm forestry systems within these target areas are done in a way which is sympathetic to and meets the needs of these local communities and landholders.
It is recommended that one position be created for region wide salinity-commercial forestry program.
4.2.3 Community education – regional education and salinity training program.
Wider community support for continued investment and adoption of salinity mitigation programs will rely on the broader community understanding and appreciating the salinity issues and impacts facing the Corangamite Region. Whilst current salinity actions for target areas has been outlined, there is a need for a wider program to ensure the large urban and regional populations within the Corangamite Region are informed of the salinity hazard, programs and investment that is required to address salinity impacts over the coming decades.
With Victoria’s largest regional population centres of Geelong, Ballarat and Colac there is merit in supporting a wider education campaign for salinity and catchment related issues in order to “bring the community with us” on the journey to improved catchment health across the region.
A salinity community education program could be delivered across the region for the purposes of: • coordinating and developing delivery of adult education programs that assist in implementation of best practice on ground works. A lead coordination role for delivery of farm planning, rural revegetation and best management practice training would provide critical support to assist the efforts of projects within the salinity target areas. Such a program would ensure that existing tertiary training programs and rural training schemes (and funding support) such as FarmBiz programs are being directed towards areas and communities where high salinity benefit can be obtained. • building urban population awareness and understanding of salinity impacts across the region, including risks associated with urban water supplies and river health • increasing the awareness and appreciation of the region’s RAMSAR areas and need for improved and coordinated protection programs which will require their support.
It is recommended that one position be created for region wide community education program.
4.2.4 Road and infrastructure engineering
A common theme emerging from the development of the salinity action plan has been the requirement to appropriately manage infrastructure assets, especially roads. However, the effect of salinity on infrastructure assets in the Corangamite CMA region has been poorly researched. A consequence of this is that the asset managers are generally unaware of the connection between the symptom – damage to assets - and the cause – shallow saline watertables. When repairs or remedial works are carried out the cause remains untreated and the symptoms reappear quickly.
In particular, road construction and repair does not take into account the salinity and can often exacerbate the problem. Compaction of road sub-bases and sub-grades can create hydraulic barriers to the flow of shallow watertables, resulting in an expansion of salinity on the ‘upstream’ side of the road. Appropriate engineering, such as the installation of sub-surface drains would greatly alleviate the problem and result in increasing the duration of the asset’s usefulness. In addition, the appropriate road engineering would prevent neighbouring assets (eg. agricultural land) from increasing salinisation.
31 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
It is recommended that the Corangamite CMA implement education and training programs to raise the awareness of the benefits of appropriate engineering and design of assets with the asset managers of all classes of infrastructure. Furthermore, the CMA should co-invest in appropriate projects to showcase examples of good design and construction practice.
4.2.5 Municipal planning
Salinity is a geological hazard increasing threatening urban and infrastructure assets managed by municipalities. For example, the City of Colac is encroaching into salinised land with peri-urban areas on the southern fringe of the city being subdivided for urban housing. Assets in this area are potentially at risk of being damaged by increasing secondary salinisation and the Shire is increasingly exposed to potential litigation for allowing development to proceed in hazardous areas.
Strategic Planning would be the appropriate action to minimise a municipality’s liability in granting planning permits in hazardous areas, yet very few have developed strategies to protect their assets from salinity risk. Although Statutory Planning is the core business of the municipalities, very few within the Corangamite CMA region have implemented the regulatory framework to protect assets (including environmental assets) from the impact of encroaching salinity.
The development of a salinity overlay has been proposed as a management action for the Colac Otway Shire, however all municipalities within the Corangamite CMA should have a salinity overlay in their planning schemes. To make them effective, salinity overlays should provide detailed procedural methods for the objective assessment of risk to assets when processing Applications for Planning Permits. The procedure should include an assessment of current and future risk of damage to assets and minimise the municipality’s liability in granting Planning Permits. Most importantly, the resultant planning action must be based on an objective, transparent and accountable decision-tree, which is defensible at VCAT hearings.
It is recommended that the CMA, in association with DSE and the municipalities, invest in the development and implementation of Salinity Overlays for each municipality in the region.
32 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
Appendix A. Program logic used to develop the semi structured interview process and interpretation of asset managers feedback The program logic model developed and later validated by the Corangamite Salinity Team in the late 1990’s was the basis for the semi structured interview or workshop discussion.
Program logic is a cause and effect model to achieve a higher order outcome. The model dictates that unless all the next lower order elements are being achieved, success with the higher order outcome will be diminished. The higher level framework described by the Corangamite Salinity Team is listed (figure 1):
No loss of assets to the community because of salinity
Adoption of remedial actions by those whose actions contribute to the salinity problem
High impact Remedial actions All target asset Mechanism for areas identified, that will impact on managers are asset managers within salinity willing and able to to adopt the landscapes (Technology) adopt remedial actions (targeted (Attitude) (Capacity) action)
Figure 2: Higher level program logic developed by the Corangamite Salinity Team. A description of the elements supporting the four key component of the program logic is presented.
Targeted action The high priority areas for salinity control were identified through the integrated catchment salinity risk prioritisation (ICSRP) process. This process identified the physical location to undertake focussed discussions with the asset managers. However within these high priority areas there will also be a need to target physical on-ground actions to locations that will have a direct impact on the salinity processes that are threatening the asset. In some cases these may not be well defined or the confidence in the location of treatments in the landscape may be unclear.
Technology A key requirement is to have actions (technologies) that, if implemented, will have an influence on the salinity processes that are operating. Seven discrete treatment options were identified and discussed. These were:
33 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
1. High density tree planting on recharge areas – includes revegetation using indigenous vegetation and/or commercial forestry tree crops. Can be both broadacre or integrated in large belts or clumps across the landscape.
2. Tree planting interception belts on recharge areas – various width belts of indigenous and/or commercial forestry trees located periodically throughout the landscape. Typically alley farming type system with belts ranging from 50-300 metres apart.
3. Shallow surface drains to intercept lateral flow of perched groundwater – surface drains which cut into and collect shallow water seepage (<40cm deep) preventing intrusion into discharge areas lower in the landscape. Typically arranged across contour on minor grades for safe water carriage.
4. Tree planting adjoining or near saline discharge areas for watertable reduction/drawdown – targeted location of high density trees (indigenous or forestry) to areas where watertables are likely to be within reach of tree roots to enable drawdown of watertable directly.
5. Protection and management of discharge areas to allow natural vegetation recovery – involves landclass fencing and improved management of the area to allow natural vegetation to recover/establish. Can involve periodical grazing and weed control/removal.
6. Protection and management of discharge areas with establishment of additional vegetation - involves landclass fencing and improved management of saline areas. There are two sub treatments:
6a. Saline revegetation options which include native grasses/herbs, primarily for biodiversity values.
6b. Saline revegetation options which include improved pastures, fodder plants, trees (indigenous or forestry) productivity values.
Selection will be appropriate for each individual site.
7. Surface water management on discharge areas in conjunction with establishment of additional vegetative cover – involve planning and implementation of improved/altered surface water movement as a component of other saline land management activities. Can include surface drains, wetland creation, evaporation basins etc.
8. Surface water management to prevent fresh water ponding on saline areas – involves minimising the ponding of fresh surface water on saline areas, to avoid creating a waterlogging problem that prevents vegetation growth.
Attitude Understanding the motivation of asset managers in high priority areas is crucial to developing a successful intervention program. The attitude is likely to vary depending on which priority area is being considered and the treatment option being discussed. The complexity of reasons that influence the attitude of any individual producer or group of people is well documented (Barr & Cary, 2000) and was used in when interpreting the asset managers’ response.
Capacity Capacity is a key ingredient to successful adoption of a program and relates to the human and physical capacity of any asset manager to engage in the desired treatments. The physical resources discussed included technical advice (how it should be delivered and by who), financial assistance, access to machinery and labour and the time available to undertake the necessary actions.
34 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
Appendix B. Response from Infrastructure, Utilities, Environmental and Water Resource asset managers
Asset Manager: SurfCoast Shire – roading infrastructure
Richard Bain – Senior Roading Engineer Contact details: Ph 03 52610600 Fax 03 52614527 Email: [email protected] Post: PO Box 350, Torquay 3228 Office: Grossmans Road, Torquay Vic.
Interviewed by Graeme Anderson 19/02/2003
The issue of the threat from salinity to road infrastructure within the Surfcoast Shire has not been given much consideration in the past. Whilst there is a general awareness of salinity occurrence within the shire there appears to be limited understanding as to how this is likely to impact on road and associated infrastructure.
Rather than provide information as to where the Shire had problems with salinity, they were keen to find out from us both where the problems were and what damage is likely to result from salinity. Copies of the road asset/salinity intersection maps for Modewarre, Murdeduke and Geelong (Breamlea) does provide evidence that the local implications may be much more than currently appreciated by the Shire (according to ICSRP maps - roads intersect with salinity discharge on at least 35 occasions).
Richard was keen to discuss the issue in more detail and said he would follow up with road maintenance staff to get a better picture on the issue.
Richard certainly welcomed the fact that the new regional salinity strategy is taking account of road/infrastructure issues. He suggested that there appeared to be a need to improve the awareness and understanding of the occurrence and impacts of salinity on infrastructure amongst shire staff. He also suggested that this could be further supported by providing training on the potential management techniques and options which can be utilised to better manage these impacts on local road infrastructure.
35 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
Asset manager: SurfCoast Shire – Strategic planning
Mark Harwood – Strategic Planning Contact details: Ph 03 52610600 Fax 03 52614527 Post: PO Box 350, Torquay 3228 Office: Grossmans Road, Torquay Vic.
Interviewed by Graeme Anderson 21/02/2003
Mark is not aware of any issues relating to salinity threatening planning/infrastructure. Whilst they do have salinity in the area they do not have the evidence to say it is creating planning problems. In a general sense the shire has supported - where it can - any programs to help works within their salinity hotspots, as well as ensuring minimal loss of native vegetation within the catchment.
Development of a salinity overlay was being planned for the Shire but this was never finalised and as such there is no salinity related overlay to aid in the local planning process. Often many buildings in rural zones may not require planning approvals and even if there was a salinity overlay this may not guarantee that all issues would be managed accordingly. He said in those zones where planning approval is required, the shire is unlikely to pick up salinity issues in the decision making process.
Mark suggests that gains could be made by assisting the Shire to better understanding where salinity occurs and the likely impacts and issues relating to development of infrastructure and building. The key challenge is to provide the right information on salinity and make sure that it is easily accessible and useable to the various decision making businesses within the local government arena.
36 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
Asset Manager: City of Greater Geelong – Asset Manager Road and Drain
Vicki Shelton Contact details: Ph 03 52270348
Interviewed by Graeme Anderson 20/02/2003
The CoGG is aware of the salinity threat at the Balliang salinity site (north of Geelong and just out of Corangamite Region) as well as the salinity issues that they face with roads, drains and bridges around all of the Geelong and Bellarine foreshore areas (primary salinity).
At present the CoGG does not undertake any extraordinary management of salinity related issues on roading, as road damage or maintenance is treated as routine maintenance and often the actual cause is not investigated. It is quite likely that salinity is causing some road problems but this has not been accurately identified as the cause.
Mention of the possible effects of salinity on roading in the Connewarre area does seem to ring true, although Vicki said she would be relying on feedback from maintenance crews to provide more information as to where roads are possibly being affected by salinity.
The CoGG is keen to take the issue further and would like to be involved in further work including investigating the possible impacts of salinity on roading infrastructure in their area, and what can be done about it.
37 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
Asset Manager: City of Greater Geelong – Works Engineer Operations
Kevin Garde Contact details: Ph 03 52270533
Interviewed by Graeme Anderson 20/02/2003
Kevin did not believe salinity was an issue in local roads. He said that to his knowledge they had not seen any signs of salt appearing in any of their road surfaces. As for the Connewarre area, Kevin suggested that apart from the main Geelong-Barwon Heads Road (which is now under Vicroads), all of the local government roads in that area are unsealed (gravel) roads and were not considered as being under threat from salinity. Also the dry conditions over the last 5 years have meant that waterlogging and associated issues have not been a problem.
He did mention that it may be worth speaking to the Parks Manager, Aub Platt 52270534 to see if salinity was affecting their parks areas.
38 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
Asset Manager: City of Greater Geelong – Subdivisions Manager
Ian Morris Contact details: Ph 03 52270420
Interviewed by Graeme Anderson 20/02/2003
Salinity was not an issue from a subdivision planning point of view. Ian stated that even most of the low lying areas around Connewarre were not issues due to the fact that these areas are zoned as either rural or floodplain zones and this means that subdivision or urban development does not encroach into these areas. This also applies to the Lara salinity area (Hovell’s Creek).
39 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
Asset Manager: Colac Otway Shire – Environment and infrastructure
Wendy Briggs, Environment Officer, 5232 9414 Mark Walker, Environmental Planner, Gary Dolan, Acting head of infrastructure management) – 5232 9482
Interviewed by Cam Nicholson on February 12th and Peter Dahlhaus on May 28 th and July 4 th .
Wendy was aware of the salinity issues within the Shire, especially the encroaching salinity close to the residential area of the City of Colac. The threat was described as high groundwater levels (as opposed to obvious increases in the extent of salinity). There was a lower level of recognition from the infrastructure manager citing other possible causes for possible asset failure (ie salinity may be only one of a number of causes). Buildings were mentioned although no examples were identified (although it was felt there would be some examples unearthed if we started to look). However there were examples where potential salinity threats to buildings had been avoided by rejecting subdivision applications in the Deans Creek Road area. This was through good luck rather than good management.
Roads were recognised by the environmental officer as the major asset at risk from salinity. Many examples were cited of road failure, which is believed to be linked to salinity5 (because of the indicator species present). The engineering Department felt salinity was having less of an impact on roads. Current treatment for roads is simply a matter of repairing the crumbling road surface (manage the cause and not the symptoms). The engineering group was not convinced salinity was the primary cause of the road failure although they were not investigating the possible cause.
Environmental assets (especially biodiverse areas of primary salting) were recognised by the environmental officer as having value and the threat to these areas was the desire to reduce the natural salinity rather than from salinity per se.
The Shire does not have a Salinity Overlay in their Planning Scheme. Wendy had put a business case to Council for the development of an overlay, but it had been deferred. Within the City of Colac, there have been no complaints about salinity from residents or ratepayers, so the Shire does not regard it as a pressing issue. There are occasional complaints from rural landholders about salt patches on their land.
Within the Shire, the planning and environment department recognises the need for a Salinity Overlay. An overlay needs to be delivered with the complete process for dealing with salinity, such as options to treat both the causes and symptoms. It should be a risk-based approach to fit with other hazard overlays and be defendable at VCAT. In general the Shire officers are pressed for time and the Shire is pressed for funding. Mark made the point that there are quite a few reports highlighting issues and making recommendations for action or implementation, but many are waiting funding. Even if they got a report highlighting the threat to the City of Colac and recommendations on how to deal with it, the Shire would still require the funds for implementation and infrastructure management.
In summary the Shire know that they have a salinity ‘problem’. It is currently not an urgent issue and they are not equipped with the legislation, skills, time and funds to deal with it. They would like to deal with the salinity but only if they are given the ability to properly respond to the issue. A salinity overlay would be a good start, but it needs funding for implementation and for infrastructure management as well.
5 Additional locations included Tomahawk Creek, Murroon, Cororooke, Eliminyt, Princes Highway in Colac east of town (near shell service station).
40 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
Asset Manager: Corangamite Shire – Environment and infrastructure
Corie Jenkins, Environment Officer, 5593 7100
Interviewed by Cam Nicholson on February 21 st .
The environmental officer did not recognise any threats from salinity in relation to assets of native vegetation (her area of expertise).
It was suggested interviews be conducted with Paul Sam (Shire assets manager) and Kath Gosden (environment manager). Paul Sam is available on 24/2, Kath Gosden, 17/3
41 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
Asset Manager: VicRoads – Southwest Region
Richard Curwell – Environmental Officer Contact details: Ph 03 52252518
Interviewed by Graeme Anderson 20/02/2003
Richard believed that salinity was not a major issue for VicRoads within Corangamite. He said he knew there were salinity issues at Mt Moriac (due to salinity signs on the highway) but there was no noticeable impact on roading infrastructure that he could identify.
Another major area of salinity at Balliang (Bacchus Marsh-Geelong Rd just out of Corangamite Region) was noticeable but the road condition was considered to be fine and unlikely to be threatened.
Richard believes that the major roading works undertaken by VicRoads usually meant that wet or waterlogged areas such as salinity discharge sites were dealt with by increased activity on building higher foundations and extra road building works. He suggested that VicRoads roads are usually well elevated above wet areas and this tended to alleviate future roading issues. In contrast, local government roads that transected salinity may often not be built up to protect the surface from deterioration and were more likely to be impacted by salinity/waterlogged areas than major highways/freeways.
42 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
Asset Manager: GAS
Geoff Rippingdale, Manager of pipes etc Contact details: Ph 03 9361 7322 email [email protected]
Conducted by Mike Stephens 26 and 27 th February 2003
Geoff was of the belief that salinity is not an issue for gas pipelines because the pipelines are protected with (they have) a cathodic protection with a slight charge connected to sacrificial anodes and generally speaking they are wrapped in plastic. However, Geoff has asked to be kept in the loop, and was really pleased to be consulted and to know that the Catchment Authority was concerned with what’s happening with their assets.
Asset Manager: ELECTRICITY ( Powercorp)
Second interview with Graeme Fleming for Electricity 9683 4321 or 0417 384702 who also put me in touch with Daryl Powell 55632553
Daryl as the person in charge of Electricity infrastructure was aware that there were some assets at risk however the electricity authorities are monitoring them closely.
Also local manager Nick Reece 5563 2534
Asset Manager: RAIL ( Vic Track )
Glen Lyons at Transport House, 9619 8847, was surprised that anybody was concerned about salinity affecting railways, and believes that the railway lines are not at risk. However he now has his local managers checking on the other infrastructure, cabling, switching etc. in those areas which we have pointed out are an issue.
Asset Manager TELSTRA
The Telstra person, George Bakogianis, 5336 5530, believes that from a Telstra point of view they have their assets under control but has instructed local inspectors to inspect the situation and report back.
FINAL COMMENT
The overwhelming reaction of all the asset managers was that they were really pleased that somebody was talking to them about what was happening with the assets, and although it seems that most of them have things under control they were never-the-less pleased to be consulted and want to be kept in the loop.
43 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
Asset Manager: Barwon Water – Strategic Planning Unit
Mr Teng – Strategic Planning Unit Note: Paul Northey was on leave – Environmental Unit Manager. Contact details: Ph 03 52262568 (Teng)
Interviewed by Graeme Anderson 20/02/2003
Salinity is considered to be a threat within the Moorabool supply zone, more so than in the Barwon supply area.
Whilst the lower reaches of the Barwon River have higher salinities, the headwaters which provide supply into West Barwon are not considered to be threatened from salinity (although at times water quality aspects can be of concern). The Barwon supply area draws groundwater resources which currently do not appear to be threatened by salinity. Wurdi Buloc reservoir, located at Modewarre, is not considered to be under threat from salinity, even though it is located in a district where salinity occurs. The sighting of the reservoir high in the landscape is above any saline discharge areas and the water in the reservoir is harvested from Pennyroyal, Matthews, Gosling, Dewing and Callahan Creeks, as well as the East and West branches of the Barwon River upstream of Forrest.. All of these streams have low salinity levels.
Barwon Water does consider that there is greater threat from salinity in the Moorabool basin, especially from groundwater inflows along the Moorabool River’s catchment. This leads to an increase in the salinity of water that is released from Lal Lal (in the north) down to the Sheoaks off- take (south of Meredith). Salinities in this section of the Moorabool River can vary from season to season. This accumulated river salinity can create the need for excess flushing of fresh water prior to water being suitable for taking off at Sheoaks. Further if the resulting water after flushing remains relatively high in salinity, there are extra costs associated with blending this with fresher water from other sources (such as Upper Stoney Ck). To combat the high salinity, Barwon Water relies on a combination of timing of release flows, flushing and blending to deal with the problem.
Barwon Water also recognises the need for catchment works to reduce further salinity intrusions and have been actively involved in supporting revegetation and catchment projects in this section of the catchment. They also contribute and support the Moorabool River Gorge Recovery project which aims to undertake revegetation along sections of the river valley. It is likely that an increased focus on salinity occurrence and treatment within the catchment is required.
44 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
Asset Manager: Barwon Water – Water Supply Unit
Graeme Saddington – Water Supply Contact details: Ph 0352269112 (Graeme Saddington)
Interviewed by Graeme Anderson 20/02/2003
Graeme confirms that salinity is a definite issue to water quality in the Moorabool zone. To his knowledge the main salinity problems are associated with saline intrusions in the East Moorabool River branch, south of Ballan. Eclipse Creek, Tea-tree Creek and possibly Bungal Creek provide influxes of salt into the river system.
Barwon Water has undertaken some stream monitoring for water quality in that area since 1996. While they have some good data on salinities there is not enough history recorded to enable longer term trends for the salinities of these stations (ie. is it getting better or worse?).
In general the west branch of the Moorabool River is not considered to be under threat from salinity.
The impact of salinity within the East Moorabool system is that it pollutes the fresh water that is released from time to time from Lal Lal reservoir as it flows down to the Sheoaks off-take. In some instances the resultant water is highly saline and creates concerns for major urban industries such as Ford and Shell in Geelong. When this water is high in salt, it has can be blended with fresher water from either the upper Stoney Creek or Wurdi Buloc systems in order to bring salt level down to acceptable levels.
Salinity in the East Moorabool river also concerns water users who may need to draw water from the river in dry seasons. For example, one nursery often has to rely on saline river water after their own fresh water supplies have been exhausted. This creates problems for nursery plant health. It is reasonable to expect that detrimental impacts from salinity affect many water users in that section of the river.
Graeme considers that the saline springs that contribute salt to the East Moorabool river could be difficult to eradicate completely. Whilst they support the Moorabool River Gorge Recovery Program to assist in valley revegetation, other potential options include desalinising the water at Sheoaks. Graeme suggests that there is a need to investigate the Moorabool salinity issue further to ascertain exactly what can be done to improve the situation, where it is required and at what cost.
45 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
Asset Manager: Barwon Water – Water Supply
David Vaughan Contact details: Ph 03 52269124
Interviewed by Graeme Anderson 21/02/2003
David tracks water quality monitoring for Barwon Water’s supply operations. He has detailed water quality data relating to the Sheoaks/Moorabool Water Supply Zone which indicate that salinity is having a major impact on the water quality of Geelong.
At present the general water supply within Geelong is at approx 500EC units, which is considered high by Barwon Water standards and a figure of concern. Major water using industries within Geelong are expressing deep concern if the salinity in the water supplied was above 600EC.
Put into context, it seems that the water obtained at the Sheoaks/Moorabool off-take is currently an average of 970EC units which creates a major increased salinity burden on the whole Geelong water supply region. Presently the water obtained from Sheoaks (970EC) has to be blended with fresher water from other sources (Stoney Ck or Wurdi Boluc) to reduce the salinity levels to the 500EC mark.
At present the Sheoaks/Moorabool off-take supplies approximately 50megalitres/day or approx 30% of the total water for Geelong.
The water taken from the Sheoaks/Moorabool off take is a result of flows released from the Lal Lal Reservoir in the West Branch of the Moorabool River. Salinity intrusions as it makes it way down the river to the Sheoaks off-take (near Meredith) pollute this released water. Examples of this are shown in the table below:
Nov 1997 Sept 1998 Oct 2000 Dec 2001 Dolly Ck (West branch of 280 EC 660 EC 520 EC 270 EC Moorabool River) Morrisons (below junction of 630 EC 460 EC 870 EC 710 EC east and west branches) Sheoaks off-take (Moorabool River) 850 EC 670 EC 1400 EC 1000 EC
It appears the increased salinities are being caused by intrusions in the East Moorabool River and also salinity which enters the Moorabool between Morrisons and Sheoaks. Some extra salinity readings in this region can be found in the table below:
Maximum Minimum Average Moorabool River at 1500 EC 350 EC 704 EC Morrisons Tea Tree Creek 5200 EC 700 EC 2595 EC Eclipse Creek 4800 EC 220 EC 2630 EC Sheoaks off-take 1600 EC 480 EC 968 EC (Moorabool)
Since 1997, water quality data for Sheoaks shows an increasing salinity trend from near 600 EC to approx 1200 EC units. This period also shows a downward trend for the river flow as is to be
46 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions expected after such a dry period. Salinity is not the only degradation issue with water quality at Sheoaks, as turbidity and organic matter are also major pollutants and after rainfall events the pumps are literally switched off at Sheoaks due to poor water quality.
In addition to the major salinity impact for city of Geelong, it appears that the Moorabool River salinities are causing concerns for the water supplied to towns such as Meredith. The water supplied to Meredith and surrounding areas comes direct from the Moorabool River itself, and salinities have reached peaks of 1600 EC. Whilst ranging from 600-1600 EC, the figure over recent years is consistently above 1000 EC, which is deemed above the general figure considered suitable for human consumption.
From this initial investigation it certainly seems that there is an urgent need to further investigate salinity impacts within the Moorabool River supply area and to identify the associated impacts and costs. This is likely to warrant a much greater focus on dealing with salinity in this part of the region, given the importance of the water resource to Victoria’s largest regional city.
47 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
Asset Manager: Parks Victoria – RAMSAR Wetland Managers – Connewarre System
Wayne Hill – Chief Ranger Environmental Programs Contact details: Ph 0418 508167
Interviewed by Graeme Anderson 21/02/2003
Wayne suggests that the recent management plan completed for the Geelong RAMSAR Wetland areas should form the basis for outlining the key threats and issues facing these wetlands. An electronic copy of the plan is available from Ben Churchill on 131963. Wayne also suggests that for more detailed information on the Connewarre systems, local Ranger Steve McPhee at Queenscliff and assistant Lachie Jackson should be further involved.
In essence, the RAMSAR management plan outlines both altered water flow regimes and pest plant and animal invasion as to highest priority threats for these wetlands. Weed invasion from pasture species such as Spartina and Tall Wheat Grass of major concern to wetland managers. The use of Tall Wheat Grass by upstream catchment programs is considered a highly questionable practice. Invasion of Wheat Grass into RAMSAR wetlands is occurring and is difficult and expensive to remove or control. For this reason they would like to see greater care as to when Tall Wheat Grass is recommended, and suggest it should not be recommended near natural wetlands.
The management plan also identified poor farm management practices on adjoining private land which can threaten RAMSAR wetland areas. Areas of private land salinity which are managed poorly can lead to degradation which negatively affects the adjoining wetlands. Future salinity plans could do more to develop private land management programs which are more sympathetic to the biodiversity values of primary saline lake systems.
Altered water flows within the Barwon River are seen as major threats to the lake systems, and any salinity recommendations which affect flow regimes need to take into account the possible downstream impacts on these internationally significant wetlands. Upstream reallocations, diversions etc all have a direct impact on the Reedy Lake and Connewarre systems.
Wayne also suggests that it would be useful to improve mapping of the salinity problem, with emphasis on what type of salinity occurs and how it could be managed. For example, there may be three categories:
• natural (primary) salinity areas that have high value and need to be protected from damage • natural (primary) salinity areas that are degraded but should be rehabilitated with a biodiversity focus • secondary salinity areas which are degraded and should be rehabilitated with an agricultural/production and soil protection focus
Wayne suggested they are keen to continue discussions with the Corangamite salinity plan consultants in order to identify threats and propose improved management arrangements for salinity near and adjoining RAMSAR wetlands.
48 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
Asset Manager: Parks Victoria – RAMSAR Wetland Managers – Western District Lakes System
Will Cox – Chief Ranger Western Lakes - Apollo Bay Contact details: Ph 0352376889
Interviewed by Graeme Anderson 2/07/2003
Will and his staff are responsible for management of 9 Ramsar wetlands which occur in the region from lake Murdeduke through to lake Corangamite. Will says that parks are doing the best job they can with minimal resources. Key issues for the lake areas include weed and vermin spread and issues associated with poor land and water management on and adjoining the wetland areas. Even issues such as illegal grazing on public land are occurring and Parks Vic is attempting to tackle this issue along with a host of others to improve the management of these public land areas.
A very successful program has been the Borrell-a-Kandelop Project which is a partnership project between Parks Vic, Corangamite CCMA and Greening Australia. Basically Parks Vic ($130K) and CCMA ($130K) have co-invested to engage Greening Australia to undertake and implement riparian and lakeside revegetation programs to help improve land management on these areas. Works involve use of Greencorp teams and also includes weed and vermin control works, fencing, plus education activities which are helping to raise the profile of these lakes and these programs throughout the region. The project is also looking to attract corporate sponsors into this program to help protect these community assets.
Will suggests that this partnership is working well, with Greening Australia having the revegetation skills to better deliver this program than Parks Vic could themselves. A key concern for Will is that the project requires ongoing funding and increasing/expanding but with budgets currently declining projects like this are at risk.
Will also sees great advantage in expanding the networking between Ramsar land managers and the adjoining and upstream stakeholders that all impact on the health of the lakes. There is a great need to develop broader cooperative and networked projects around these lake systems to cover all key land management issues including salinity, but taking into account water quality, weeds, grazing, vermin, vegetation management etc.
Will says they currently have a $30K budget for weed control for all of the lake systems, and this could be spent on just one lake.
Will suggested that Evan McDowell of Parks Vic in Ballarat has completed a grasslands and wetlands plan report which could also be of use. There is also a Western Districts lakes Ramsar Sites Strategic Management Plan that provided key directions for management (NRE 2002).
He suggested we contact Greg Lease of Crown land management at Ballarat to find out more about all of the leased public land in these districts.
Will says it is difficult to appreciate all the various lakes and public land areas (including leased areas) and there was a need for a contract job to undertake an inventory to accurately map and assess the status and condition of all public lands in the lakes areas.
49 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
Asset Manager: Crown Land Management – Dept. Sustainability and Environment
Greg Leece – Property Manager - Ballarat Contact details: Ph 0353336730
Interviewed by Graeme Anderson 2/07/2003
Greg manages the Property Unit of Crown Land Management of DSE based in Ballarat and offered the following points in relation to the issues of leased/licensed public land related to the target areas within the Corangamite Salinity plan and Ramsar wetland areas.
Crown land is managed by a range of agents depending on the site. Parks Victoria, Corangamite CMA, various Committees of Management and the Crown Land Management agency all have roles in overseeing management of public land areas in these lake systems. Outside this the other land manager in DSE is Forests.
Grazing of public land generally occurs via the issue of a licence while in some instances illegal grazing also exists. In total proportion the percentage of public land that is tenanted for grazing purposes is only relatively small (eg Lake Corangamite may have around 30 licences for approx 300ha land). However, while the areas are not large, the environmental values associated with these areas can be quite high due to the fact they occur near lake margins and on sensitive areas not inundated by permanent water.
In essence, Greg suggests that grazing on public land should be viewed in a similar light to that on private. Where (and if) high value environmental assets exist that are at risk of damage by grazing, then a process for phasing out or restricting grazing on public land would seem to be a sensible leading role for government. It requires careful steps and appropriate negotiations with affected stakeholders.
Traditionally there has been much confusion between the relevant public land management parties as to who is specifically responsible for each piece of land, and this leads to a poor understanding of the condition and management of some parcels of public land.
An assessment of the values of this land would shed light on this topic, and areas of high values should be targeted for improved management and funding support.
50 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
Appendix C. Response from private land managers
Morrisons - Sheoaks interim target area
Discussions were undertaken with key representatives of the main asset classes affected by salinity. These were urban water supply Authorities, parties with interest in the health of the Moorabool River and private land managers (attachment 1).
District statistics summary Target area: 22,000ha Area secondary salinity: 63ha Area primary salinity: 17ha (est) Area suited to recharge control: 6,400ha Landholders in catchment: >50 Landuse: 60% wool, 20% prime lambs, 10% 1 st cross, 10% cattle, no cropping. Stocking rate: Approx 8 DSE/ha
Background/context for salinity management. This proposed salinity target area is new, with the previous salinity ‘hot spot’ being to the west of Meredith. However there is a history of activity in the area, arising from a number of programs. These include Barwon Water revegetation support, general landcare support via NRE and the Meredith Landcare Group and recently the development of the Moorabool River Gorge Recovery Project (with NRE, CMA, Moorabool Shire and Barwon Water, along with East Moorabool Landcare Group).
Response to suggested groundwater process There was some questioning why the current boundary excludes the upper East Moorabool branch of the river. The Bostock Reservoir was said to be originally located upstream of the saline springs which flow into the East Moorabool River below the Bostock dam.
Landholders suggest that historical evidence indicates the existence of many saline springs in this area prior to any clearing of trees. It was reported some farms can have over 20 springs, with varying salinities up to 2000 EC. It was felt any new program should look at how to best manage the outflows of these springs rather than try to dry them up by recharge actions.
Observations suggest that the salinity discharge areas in the Aston Creek have been expanding since the 1950’s. This expansion has occurred in the area below the Stoney Creek Reservoirs (established 1914) and suggests that salinity expansion is not caused completely by leakage from these water storages. Thus the concept of recharge control for nearby gravel caps does have merit however there was little local evidence to support or disprove this concept.
The estimated extent of salinity (land salting and saline springs) in the target area is listed (table 1).
Table 1: Suggested quantity of discharge works to be undertaken in the Morrisons - Sheaoks interim target area.
Target zone Total area Estimated area Estimated area still (ha) already treated (ha) to be treated (ha) Discharge Land salting 63 15 48 Saline springs 17 5 12 TOTAL 80 20 60
Comments in relation to discharge control options Some discharge areas have been successfully revegetated via previous programs with Tall Wheat Grass, Tall Fescue and Strawberry Clover. These was seen as a positive land use for these wet areas and was considered that further work could be done to trial and improve establishment for
51 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
Tall Fescue as it was preferred over Tall Wheat Grass as an all-round pasture. It was felt the absence of a diverse range of treatments for saline land was limiting the rate of adoption.
Discharge of saline water from local springs was an important management issue. Resources need to be directed to help landholders manage springs by removing grazing and often spiny rush and then revegetating with productive pastures to stabilise the soil and/or trees to soak up unwanted soil leakage and provide some shelter/habitat/forestry benefits.
From discussions it is anticipated 70 % of affected landholders would be willing to participate in land or saline spring rehabilitation work if adequate support was provided. It was suggested that the level of financial support should be in the range of 75% to increase discharge revegetation works.
Comments in relation to recharge control actions. The current Moorabool River Gorge Recovery Project has a major emphasis of large scale revegetation and supplies free indigenous trees and technical support to landholders in the area. The Recovery project has an aim to establish 100ha per annum, some of which fall with the interim salinity target area.
Overall landholders viewed the promotion of farm forestry as a positive step, and support to help plant more timber trees on farms is likely to be embraced if the right mechanism is used to deliver it. However there appears to be several themes that limit the likely rate of adoption of wide scale revegetation in this target area. These include:
Current revegetation grants require one for one cash contribution by landholders to be eligible for financial subsidies (ie. 50:50 material cost share). This was identified as a barrier to the number of landholders able to participate. It was felt adoption rates could be significantly increased if a better “reward” was offered to those that get involved in revegetation/forestry work, including more flexible grant guidelines.
Landholders do not like the idea of large forestry companies buying up local farms, they would much prefer integrated forestry (possibly leased) throughout existing farms. They further suggest that most forestry companies only wanted their best farming land, but farmers wanted to plant the forestry on their worst land – where their agricultural returns were poor.
Landholders are often limited by both funding and time constraints – thus the rollout of a larger revegetation/farm forestry program could be well boosted if extra co-ordination of on-ground works/contractors etc was provided. This can have a two fold effect. Firstly, it reduces landholder time commitment and secondly it reduces unit costs via the improved co-ordination of on ground works (bulk order fence materials, seedlings, contract planting etc). While smaller or individual tree orders can buy a seedling for 60-70 cents each, a larger coordinated project can deliver a tree seedling that is also contract planted for the same price.
Some questions over whether the suggested revegetation treatment really works? An opportunity exists to monitor the effects of large scale revegetation, with a 1500ha farm in the target area recently having been purchased by a plantation company to plant to forestry. Approx. 30% of this farm contains recharge zones and will be planted over the next 5 years. This represents a great opportunity to establish some groundwater monitoring sites to follow the effect of forestry on nearby salinity.
Whilst landholders agreed that while more support is needed, it is critical that each participating landholder feels ownership of the works undertaken on their farms to ensure ongoing management, so some financial contribution to projects by landholders was seen as important to maintain ownership.
The involvement of commercial timber companies was also look upon favourably if forestry schemes supported plantations on poorer farming land and caused minimal time/financial disruptions for landholders.
52 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
Radiata Pine is considered by landholders to be the best commercial option for the target area, with Blue Gums for ideal sites and other species such as Sugar and Spotted Gum where frost is not too severe. There is great scope to look at trialing a much wider range of timber species, including some locally indigenous species.
Other issues Landholders were surprised that deep rooted perennial pastures were not considered to be a recharge control option. Most had seen positive effects on drying the soil profile by high performing pastures. The consensus was that “not everyone loves trees” and there was a need to offer deep rooted pasture development alongside revegetation programs. The concept of integrating perennial pastures on the more productive soils and allowing more revegetation/forestry on the poorer land would help balance overall farm management practices. An integrated plan (including pest plant and animals control) was recognised as being essential.
Lucerne has been grown on river flats, but tends to die out in wet periods. The consensus was that while there had been a number of attempts to establish lucerne in the district there was never much success with it due to waterlogged soils. This was the same reason given for the absence of cropping in the district.
Overall landholders considered that there was very low adoption of deep rooted pastures in the district. Low returns from wool, reductions in fertiliser used, run down pastures have all combined to result in a lower than average occurrence of good pastures in the region. There does not appear to be the confidence to invest in creating high quality pastures.
Adequate skills to adopt the treatment options both in revegetation and pasture management were seem as limiting future adoption.
Interpretation of asset managers response and where to next. The Moorabool River Gorge Recovery Project has significant momentum at present and the rollout of a broader catchment/salinity control program in this area would be a significant addition to previous programs, and welcomed by most landholders. To increase the uptake of revegetation/forestry in the area it would be essential to build upon such existing projects to assist them in increasing the adoption of catchment revegetation rather than implement a stand alone salinity program. There is a strong biodiversity ethic in the area so revegetation has opportunity to deliver multiple benefits.
The emerging success of the Recovery Project has been the investment in establishing strong relationships between key stakeholders within the program and the support provided to landholders. This investment, when coupled with adequate skills development, technical advice and financial support holds the key to the level of adoption.
If commercial timber companies can be encouraged to plant trees on poorer farming land, the rate of adoption is likely to be increase further.
The assumed adoption rates and therefore targets for each treatment option is listed (table 2). Several scenarios are considered.
Table 2: Level of adoption of various salinity treatment works over the next 10 years.
53 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
Treatment Estimated area to Assumed level of Assumed area be treated adoption treated per year (ha) (%/yr) (ha) Recharge High density tree planting 5120 3% 154 on recharge areas with commercial forestry High density tree planting 5120 0.5% 26 on recharge areas without commercial forestry (No intervention) Tree planting adjoining or 1280 3% 38 near saline discharge areas for watertable reduction / drawdown (No intervention) 1280 0.3% 3.8 Discharge Protection and 60 8% 5 management of discharge areas with establishment of additional vegetation (No intervention) 60 0% 0
The question regarding the value of deep-rooted perennial pastures in influencing salinity recharge remains unresolved. For landholders the current justification for exclusion of pastures does not fit with their experiences. This uncertainty tends to undermine the confidence landholders have in adopting the other treatment methods.
Suggested Actions: • Renewed partnership program with the Moorabool River Gorge Recovery Program, East Moorabool and Meredith-Bamganie Landcare Groups, Barwon Water, DPI, Moorabool Shire and CCMA to expand current activities to encompass a new targeted program aimed at salinity mitigation. • Increase investigation as to likely causes of increasing salinity trends in the area • Investigate groundwater and recharge processes of the gravel caps • Increase development of targeted farm forestry development on the gravel caps areas for recharge control.
Attachment 1: Consultation occurred with: Jim Seager – property manager Emly Park and East Moorabool Landcare Peter Macdonald – landholder Astons Creek Daryl Bayard – landholder Moorabool River Graeme Saddington – Barwon Water catchment program Ralph Cotter – Moorabool River Gorge Recovery Program Officer - DPI
54 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
Pittong interim target area
A community meeting of landholders in the Pittong interim target area was held at Alice and Kevin Knights on the 20/05/03.
The landholders present (attachment 1) represented an estimated 4,300 ha of the 6,300 ha in the target area. This excludes properties sold for bluegum plantations (330 ha) and any areas of public land. The main agricultural enterprises are wool sheep (63%), first cross lambs, (13%), cattle (12%) and crop (12%). Average stocking rate is 11.9 DSE/ha, with average crop yields for wheat of 3.4 t/ha, barley 3.8 t/ha, oats 4.1 t/ha and canola 2.1 t/ha.
Background/context for salinity management. This proposed salinity target area was recognised in the first salinity plan as part of the Upper Woady Yaloak hot spot. In the early 1990’s recharge activity was high, with many substantial tree plantations being established in the area through DNRE programs and the Woady Yaloak catchment project. Additional research was undertaken in measuring tree evapotranspiration (DNRE) and the opportunities for sub surface drainage on recharge land (University of Ballarat). However no activities were directed at the discharge areas. In more recent years salinity extension support has diminished. The establishment of deep rooted perennial pasture was a major focus of the Woady Yaloak Catchment Project. Lately private forestry agreements have driven large scale commercial tree planting activities by some landholders.
Community response to the groundwater process explanation The explanation of recharge and sub surface interflow of moderately fresh water coupled with discharge associated with water ponding was well received by the group. Many could describe practical examples of the issues of lateral flow on the ‘recharge’ areas (eg when it gets wet the sub soil is just like soup ...”, That’s why the bottom third of my paddocks go sour in most winters...” The explanation struck a chord with the group.
The discharge explanation of surface water ponded on the surface for many months combined with the lateral interflow was also supported. However the group felt the presence of spiny rush (fed by the lateral flow water) was underestimated in contributing to the salinisation of these areas. They believed the spiny rush was concentrating salt on the soil surface and killing off other vegetation between the plants. They all believed the areas of discharge had increased in both extent and severity over the past decade (will be able to estimate from map).
It was readily agreed that discharge control by itself would be of limited value unless the interflow (recharge) was also addressed.
Community response to the maps The discharge areas on the map were incomplete. Landholders indicated where additional salting was present. Using these supplementary discharge areas, the total area of discharge estimated in the Pittong area increased from 122 ha (mapped in 1988) to approximately 238 ha currently. This is close to a doubling of the saline area. It is suggested the current data set was incomplete (as some areas saline in 1988 were not mapped) however landholders could indicate where some saline areas have increased in size during the past decade.
There was also concern about the de-lineation of the recharge and discharge areas on the map. Some ‘recharge’ areas were considered in need of drainage and other ‘discharge’ areas well drained. However it was accepted the boundaries would need to be refined on a ‘case by case’ basis.
Comments in relation to discharge implementation. Surface drainage was seen as essential to successful treatment of discharge areas. However the initial control of spiny rush was seen as even more critical.
55 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
There were several examples where spiny rush control had been implemented by landholders and shallow surface drainage installed. Both were successful and led the group to have a high degree of confidence in the control options being proposed.
Landholders indicated where discharge treatment had occurred. From the maps it is estimated 50 ha of discharge land has been treated (to some extent) on three properties.
The responsible disposal of the drainage water and community attitudes (especially Departmental views) to drainage on discharge areas were seen as needing to be addressed.
A target of FULL treatment of ALL discharge areas was deemed achievable over the next 10 years. Estimated works required are listed (table 1).
Table 1: Suggested quantity of discharge works to be undertaken in the Pitting interim target area.
Target zone Total area Already treated Still to be treated (ha) (ha) (ha) Discharge Waterlogging 901 0 901 Saline 238 20 218 TOTAL 1139 20 1119
Financial support would need to be in the order of 75% for this quantity of works to occur (simply because of the cost compared to the returns). This would include design, weed removal, drain installation, revegetation and sowing. However if a lesser incentive was offered, the group believed it should be directed to design, weed removal and drainage (ie. the preparation phase) rather than for the latter revegetation phase, which would be at the landholders expense. The group stressed the need for drainage design offered as a 1:1 service ‘in the paddock).
Comments in relation to recharge implementation. Landholders were interested in the recharge options but not totally convinced of their efficacy. It was suggested several trials be undertaken to establish the merits of the work. Overall there was more interest in the drainage treatment option than the trees (as these were seen as more easily reversed if the treatment did not work).
Question that would need to be addressed in the ‘trailing phase’ included: • Suspected problems with the steepness of the terrain for drainage • Potential erosion problems with the drains • Location of the drains in the farm system • Drain design for vehicle and stock traffic. • Alley farming of trees may reduce wind speed and therefore the drying out topsoil in winter (a critical aspect for cropping operations). • The commercial return from the tree planting (the group agreed this style of tree planting would only be attractive if sown as a commercial crop that could be harvested). • Would bigger plantings at wider spacings have the same effect. • Achieving establishment at minimal cost.
However the over-riding issues were the ability of landholders to adopt drains and/or tree planting into their farming system with minimal disruption. “We don’t want to lose easy working of the farm”.
Landholders indicated where trees had been established on the designated recharge zones. From the maps it is estimated 750 ha or 18.5 % of trees have been established as block planting on the recharge zones and a further 20 ha in tree belts. Assuming a small treatment impact from the edge of these treebelts, it is calculated a further 3,280 ha needs to be treated with recharge options (trees or pastures).
From the conversation with landholders, it is suggested trials over 10% of the remaining recharge land be established (654 ha) and monitored for two years before other sites are considered.
56 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
However if the trials proved successful (ie. the questions listed above are adequately addressed), it is feasible all the recharge area could be treated over the next 8 years.
Financial support would needed to conduct the trials (as there is considerable risk in adopting an unproven technology). It is suggested the full cost of the trial work be provided and if successful, a reduced rate of 50% be discussed for remaining implementation of the treatment option.
For large tree planting projects, labour support would be required.
Other issues. Questions were raised regarding the following: • What effect has the recent bluegum plantings had of groundwater? • Why not investigate some of the deeper rooted perennial herbs as they are more aluminium tolerant and the rainfall is only slightly above 600 mm/yr?
Interpretation of community response and where to next: The meeting attracted all but one of the landholders in the target area. These landholders are involved in the Woady Yaloak Catchment Project and therefore implementation could commence immediately, using the existing mechanism of the Catchment group.
There is a high level of motivation to treat the discharge areas and to be actively involved in recharge control trials. The outcome of the trialing will determine the likely future adoption of the recharge treatment.
The assumed rate of adoption (and therefore targets for each treatment option) is listed (table 2).
Table 2: Level of adoption of various salinity treatment works over the next 10 years.
Treatment Estimated area to Assumed rate of adoption Assumed area be treated (% / yr) treated per year (ha) (ha) Recharge Tree planting interception 1639 10% if successful trialing of 164 belts on recharge areas trees. 1639 1 % (established primarily as 16 windbreaks) if unsuccessful trialing of trees. (No intervention) Surface drains to intercept 1650 10% if successful trialing of 164 lateral flow of perched drains. groundwater 1650 1 % if unsuccessful trialing of 16 drains. (No intervention) Discharge Surface water 218 10 % 22 management on discharge areas in conjunction with establishment of additional vegetative cover (No intervention) 218 0% 0 Surface water 901 10% 90 management only (No intervention) 901 0% 0
57 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
Attachment 1: Attendees
Kevin and Alice Knight, Harry and Coralie Kennedy, John Kennedy, Ken and Dianne McBeath, Tim, Jan and Suzie Cooke, Ken and Dianne McBeath, Michael Collins, Maureen Holding, Don, Pat? And Robert Phillips Bob and Jenny? Vagg Richard Kerr (Apology)
58 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
Illabarook interim target area
A community meeting of landholders in the Illabarook interim target area was held at the Cape Clear Hotel on the 27/05/03.
The landholders present (attachment 1) represented an estimated 3,900 ha of the 20,492 ha in the target area. However if the area of treed public land and areas planted to forestry timber is considered, the landholders present represented approximately half the private land in the catchment. The main agricultural enterprises are wool sheep (57%), cattle (19%), crop (14%) and first cross and prime lambs, (9%). The average stocking rate was calculated at 12.2 DSE/ha and typical crop yields for the main crops were: wheat 3.8 t/ha, barley 3.5 t/ha, oats 3.7 t/ha and canola at 2.1 t/ha. Rainfall varies from 525 mm/yr to 600 mm/yr.
Background/context for salinity management. This proposed salinity target area was recognised in the first salinity plan as the ‘hill country of the upper Woady Yaloak hot spot”. The recharge was believed to be occurring on the rocky outcrops and at the crest of the hills, with only moderate infiltration on the gravel caps. High density tree planting was recommended for the tops of the hills, with a combination of trees and pastures on the gravel caps.
Significant pasture improvement work was conducted in this area as part of the Woady Yaloak Catchment Project, with the introduction of deep rooted perennial species such as phalaris, cocksfoot and in some areas lucerne. It is estimated approximately 1500 ha of pasture was sown. There was no direct investment is pastures through the salinity program as soon after implementation of the first plan, pasture were deemed to not be effective. No resources were invested into discharge areas, except for a few demonstration sites. More recently forestry agreements have driven large scale commercial tree planting activities by some landholders.
Community response to the groundwater process explanation The explanation of recharge across the gravel caps, with discharge at the junction of the gravels and the sedimentary rock were well received by the group. Examples were cited of discharge ‘half way up a hill’ and spiny rush appearing in patches not always at the bottom of the slope. Another example was quoted where the result of a large fire in the Enfield State Forest appeared to be linked to the 50% increase in several springs down slope from the timbered area.
Spiny rush as seen by the group as a contributor to the salinity process. Where it appeared the soil gradually became more saline, with other vegetation being killed off by the perceived salt accumulation at the soil surface.
The area of discharge is believed to have only increase marginally in the past decade.
Community response to the maps The discharge areas on the map were updated, with landholders indicating where additional salting was present. Using these supplementary discharge areas, the total area of discharge estimated in the Illabarook area increases from 375 ha to 470 ha.
There was some questioning about the boundary of the gravel caps with the less pervious sedimentary soils. Although no attempt was made to improve the current boundary, further groundtruthing would be recommended before investment occurred.
Comments in relation to discharge implementation. There were very few examples of direct discharge management. Early demonstrations conducted by DNRE in the early 90’s using best bet discharge treatment (trees and saltbush planted in the salty areas) failed. Only recently have landholders had success with planting saline areas. Surface drainage was seen as essential to successful treatment.
59 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
One interesting observation was that most of the salting seemed to appear in the 1930’s and 1940’s and this occurred on ‘virgin country’ that had not be sown or fertilised. In some cases the pasture cover was improved once direct treatment to the saline area was applied.
Spiny rush appearing in the base of streams and waterways posed another problem. Without treatment the spiny rush ‘chokes the creek’ causing the flows in a rainfall event to be pushed sideways. Much of the active erosion in these waterway appears directly linked to heavy infestations of spiny rush. Landholders have successfully treated the spiny rush by spraying with a herbicide and allowing the plants to rot away ‘in situ’. This minimised the erosion problems that could be caused if plants were mechanically removed.
The overall consensus was that discharge in the Illabarook target areas was quite variable and site specific. In the past decade a good deal of practical treatment knowledge has been accumulated within the community that should be utilised in any future program. The examples given during the consultation were enough to give the landholders a good degree of confidence that discharge can be managed in the control options being proposed are flexible enough to cater for individual circumstances..
Landholders indicated where discharge treatment had occurred. From the maps it is estimated that 88 ha of discharge land has been treated (to some extent), with the majority of this treatment occurring as part of forest plantations.
A target to treatment the majority of discharge was deemed achievable over the next 10 years. Estimated works required are listed (table 1).
Table 1: Suggested quantity of discharge works to be undertaken in the Illabarook interim target area.
Target zone Total area Estimated area Estimated area still (ha) already treated to be treated (ha) 6 (ha) 7 Discharge 468 88 380
Financial support would need to be in the order of 75% for this quantity of works to occur (simply because of the cost compared to the returns). This would need to cover a host of treatment options as sites were different, however possible items for consideration include surface water drainage design, weed removal, drain installation, revegetation and sowing.
It was stressed as many discharge areas cross farm boundaries, a neighbourly approach was required.
Comments in relation to recharge implementation. Landholders had mixed feelings about the recharge treatment options being proposed.
The idea of planting belts of trees above the discharge area (described as 10 row plantations for the purposes of discussion) had a high degree of credibility, although the effect on the discharge areas appears to take at least five years to have an impact after treatment. Landholders establishing trees in the past few years reported very little change to the discharge areas unless direct works of the saline land also occurred. However landholders with well established belts of trees around saline areas reported improved vegetative cover and less visual salt accumulation of the soil surface. Some participants quoted 20 year old plantations having a major impact on the discharge areas down slope.
6 Estimated from farm surveys and scaled up to represent the whole target area. 7 Estimated from base salinity maps and including recent data from landholders.
60 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
Not surprisingly the majority of landholders expressed a strong desire to adopt this treatment option. The majority (90%) of landholders were willing to establish these as native trees for biodiversity and environmental benefits rather than for commercial timber production. An incentive of up to 75% was suggested and in some instances, the need to access labour teams or commercial operators to establish the trees was raised.
The broader recharge option of large scale tree planting over the cleared paddocks was not well received. There were several concerns. These include:
• the social disruption caused by large scale tree planting, with direct experience coming from the Mt Mercer area. • The ‘quality of the soils’ and extent of rainfall to grow a commercially viable tree crop. Several had investigated tree growing with commercial companies to be told the land was marginal for tree growing. This was further exacerbated by the remnant effects of the previous gold mining period where poorer quality soils were brought to the surface. • A lack of proof that the treatment would really work for salinity control. • The limited variety in timber species available. • Once harvested, the salinity benefits would be lost unless the trees were replaced.
The general feeling was larger tree planting had to be significantly better returning than existing agricultural enterprises for this treatment to be adopted. In other words the timber enterprise had to noticeably increase farm productivity and profitability to make it attractive. Tree planting of this nature would need to be established as a ‘crop’ involving commercial tree growing companies, with adoption dependent on the profitability of the trees.
Landholders indicated where large block tree planting or native bush exists on the designated recharge zones. From the maps it is estimated 1524 ha of high density trees already exist in the designated recharge zones.
Other issues. The group was surprised that deep-rooted perennial pastures were not identified as a control option for salinity control. Numerous examples were cited where the establishment of perennial species appeared to increase the trafficability of the land. By inference it was suggested the pastures must be drying the soil profile. The group would be keen to investigate the effect previously established perennial pastures are having on the recharge in the area.
Interpretation of community response and where to next: This area contains a high proportion of landholders who are actively involved in the Woady Yaloak Catchment Project and therefore implementation could commence immediately, using the existing mechanism of the Catchment group.
There is a high level of motivation to treat the discharge areas, in conjunction with planting wide belts of vegetation above the saline areas. Motivation to conduct broader scale tree planting is currently low.
The assumed rate of adoption (and therefore targets for each of the treatment option) is listed (table 2).
Table 2: Level of adoption of various salinity treatment works over the next 10 years.
Treatment Estimated area to Assumed rate of Assumed area be treated adoption treated per year (ha) (% / yr) (ha) Recharge High density tree planting on 8510 2% if commercial 170 recharge areas ‘value’ established
61 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
8510 0.2% if no 17 commercial value established (No intervention) Tree planting adjoining or near 260 7.5% 19.5 saline discharge areas for 260 0.5% 1.3 watertable reduction / drawdown (No intervention) Discharge Surface water management on 380 7.5% 28.5 discharge areas in conjunction with establishment of additional 380 0.5% 2 vegetative cover (No intervention)
Attachment 1: Attendees
Tim and Jane Archer Dennis Banks Tina and Reno Bugeja Bill and Iris Callagahan Tony and Marie Curtis Peter Donnovan Robert and Helen Everett Don and John Fagg Graeme Fagg Les Fagg Geoff and Joanne Griffith Lex Hadler Ross, Bronwyn and Ashley Hadler Ted and Emily Jones Danny Laffan Don and Jill McKenzie Bluey Smith Beryl Young Bev Chatham (apology) Doug and Judy Hucker (apology) George and Helen McKenzie (apology)
62 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
Lismore - Derrinallum interim target area
A community meeting of landholders in the Derrinallum interim target area was held at the Lismore hotel on the 21/05/03.
The landholders present (attachment 1) represented an estimated 11,700 ha of the 16,400 ha in the target area. A further five landholders from the neighbouring north west corner of the Corangamite target area also attended as their salinity issues and treatment options were similar.
The main agricultural enterprises are wool sheep (37%), crop (31%), cattle (17%), prime and first cross lambs (15%). Average stocking rate is 12.9 DSE/ha. Average crop yields were estimated to be wheat 4.1 t/ha, barley and oats 3.6 t/ha and canola 2.2t/ha.
Background/context for salinity management. This proposed salinity target area was recognised in the first salinity plan. The recommended treatment was tree planting on the recharge areas, coupled with perennial pasture establishment. Trials of salt tolerant vegetation (pastures, saltbush and trees) were also established in the early 1990’s. However given the difficulty in identifying recharge areas and subsequently the confidence in treatment options, salinity extension advice was reduced.
The reduction in pro-active salinity advice coincided with increased activity of the Lismore Land Protection Group. The group has been, and still remains, the focal point for revegetation, land and waterway protection in the district. A significant number of projects have encompassed areas deemed to be saline of saline and waterlogged without direct resourcing from the salinity program.
Community response to the groundwater process explanation The group supported the explanation surrounding the complexity of the various groundwater systems and how they ‘collided’ in the Lismore area. Most were very familiar with the description of the land deemed saline also being inundated with water during the wetter months of the year. Landholders readily recognised the more salt and waterlogging tolerant indicator species on these areas.
The group did not believe salinity had increased in the past decade. This observation is supported by data from recent mapping of Gardiner (2001) that suggested the discharge areas in the region had not increased significantly in size and if anything the severity of the saline sites had reduced. Farmers though the type of vegetation on these areas had improved in the past decade.
It was also raised that salinity was probably an inherent part of the landscape before recent European settlement and that many wet / saline areas have been present in the landscape ‘as long as people can remember’. This concept of primary and secondary salting was endorsed, with many not accepting that all the salinity in the area was of suggested to be of secondary origin.
Community response to the maps The discharge areas on the map were incomplete. These maps failed to contain the updated information from Gardiner (2001) which may have made them more representative of the current situation. Landholders indicated where additional salting was present and these have been captured for future reference.
A ‘snapshot’ survey conducted during the consultation would suggest nearly 200 ha or 25% of discharge in the target area has been treated. This is above the average area of discharge treated for other areas of the Corangamite region (Gardiner, 2001). A summary of this new data is provided (table 1).
Table 1: Estimated quantity of discharge works to be undertaken in the Derrinallum interim target area.
63 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
Target zone Total area Already treated Still to be treated (ha) (ha) (ha) Discharge 1704 109 1595
Comments in relation to discharge implementation. There was a mixed response to the immediate need to treat the other saline areas. Only about 20% of landholders indicated their desire to undertake further discharge work in the immediate future. A number of possible explanations were raised as reasons for this response:
• The ‘worse’ areas have been treated in the past decade and now only the more marginal areas remain untreated. The survey suggested 78% of landholders had address some saline areas on their property already.
• There has not been a dramatic change in the amount of saline land effected in the past decade. If anything the severity of salting on the discharge areas have improved.
• The past six years have been drier than average and watertables have fallen in the area.
• These marginal areas are ‘productive’ despite them being saline. Whilst not as productive as the non saline areas, the value comes from out of season pasture growth and the fire break these areas create across the farm. Several farmers suggested ‘these areas are not causing a problem or any harm…’
• Some of the areas are small so they are not really worth the effort.
• The inherent biodiversity values were also recognised by some producers as having ‘value’ in its own right and therefore should not be altered.
• The gains to be made from the financial investment are believed to be marginal. This means other needs attract the resources before the saline areas.
These are all legitimate reasons for ‘non participation’ and are supported in the extension literature (Barr & Cary, 1984).
It is clear the possible benefits from treating the remaining discharge areas, or for improving treated saline areas with new more productive species, has not yet been established in the minds of the majority of landholders. There was strong support for a series of local group trials to examine the benefit cost of various treatment options. Suggestions included:
• Measuring the gains from revegetation of ‘semi productive’ saline land with salt tolerant species.
• The use of surface drainage to aid in the establishment and/or improvement of existing production on the saline areas.
• The ‘oversowing’ of previously treated saline land with more productive species (given the salt levels in the soil have dropped and now would be capable of supporting less salt tolerant species).
• Treatment of possible sodicity and other soil health issues at these sites.
The landholders present indicated a keen desire to take a lead role in this trialing and evaluation. A Participatory Action Research (PAR) model was described.
Other issues. Questions were raised regarding the following:
What impact has the changes in cropping had on the water balance?
Decline soil structure and soil sodicity seem to have a far greater impact on farm profitability (and possibly the water balance as well).
64 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
Interpretation of community response and where to next: The meeting attracted the majority of landholders in the target area. These landholders are involved in the Lismore Land Protection Group activities and therefore implementation could commence immediately, using the existing mechanism of the Land Protection Group.
Approximately 20% of landholders said they were motivated enough to undertake discharge treatment work in the immediate future. It is suggested a two part approach be adopted in the early stage of the salinity program. This involves:
• Incentive for the motivated 20% to continue with activities.
• Investment in a series of trials conducted by landholders addressing the various treatment techniques identified previously.
It is anticipated the outcome of the trialing will determine the likely future adoption of the discharge treatment.
Given the previous discussion, targets have been established on the basis of two scenarios. The first scenario suggests immediate participation by 20% of landholders with other activities undertaken after successful outcomes of the PAR trialing (table 2). A second scenario is described where the PAR trailing does not show significant benefits and therefore does not lead to increased adoption.
Table 2: Suggested quantity of discharge works to be undertaken.
Target zone Estimated area Assumed Assumed area to be treated rate of treated per year (ha) adoption (ha) (% / yr) Discharge Surface water management 1595 6 96 on discharge areas in conjunction with establishment of additional vegetative cover (successful PAR results) Surface water management 1595 0.5% 8 on discharge areas in conjunction with establishment of additional vegetative cover (unsuccessful PAR results) (No intervention)
Financial support would need to be similar to previous grants program to achieve involvement. This has been on a 50 /50 cost share arrangement and administered through the Lismore Land Protection Group, with the group deciding on the level of incentive for various components of the project. Landholders at the meeting suggested this level of incentive should be continued.
The group stressed the integral role the co-ordinator of the Lismore Land Protection Group played in achieving the previous level of works. There was unanimous support for the current delivery structure be continued if salinity funding was provided. Additional technical support may also be required.
Attachment 1: Attendees Lismore Derrinallum area Ross and Jenny Barr Steve Bignel Lyall Bond Trevor and Marg Cooke
65 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
Tom and Monica Dennis Val and Chris Lang Gavin and Judy Mitchell Gilbert and Leanne Murdoch John Savage and partner Henry and S Shapiro Brian and Sandra Wilson 2 reps Mt Elephant Station Corangamite area Jill and David Dean Rick Horsepole A and L Mc Bean Nick McClelland Lauraine Mc Kenzie Two Flemming Brothers (Tom and Barry ???) Kevin Mathews Paul Marshman
66 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
Colac - Eurack interim target area
A small meeting of landholders from the Colac – Eurack target area was held at Bondy’s Colac East Hotel on 20/05/03. Ten landholders were invited (attachment 1) but only two were able to make the appointment, primarily because of the short notice.
The main agricultural enterprises are wool sheep (37%), crop (31%), cattle (17%), prime and first cross lambs (15%). Average stocking rate is 12.9 DSE/ha. Average crop yields were estimated to be wheat 4.1 t/ha, barley and oats 3.6 t/ha and canola 2.2t/ha.
Background/context for salinity management. This proposed salinity target area is an amalgam of several salinity hot spots and interim target areas recognised in the first salinity plan. This was one of the few areas where discharge management was deemed appropriate and as a consequence significant trialing of salt tolerant species were conducted in the 1990’s. Much of this work was initiated in conjunction with the Beeac – Eurack Landcare Group.
Community response to the groundwater process explanation The two landholders present were located in the eastern part of the interim target area. This part of the interim target area involves treatment that relies on ‘living with salt’. The two landholders present accepted this approach as appropriate and believed this was a commonly held view of neighbours.
Community response to the maps The salinity maps highlighted the interaction between areas of primary and secondary salting on private land and the access by landholders of saline public land. This created tension as the inherent value of naturally saline land has to be considered along side the potential productivity gain of revegetation with salt tolerant species. The need to accurately differentiate primary and secondary salting was an issue.
Significant revegetation work has been undertaken in the area however it was impossible to quantify from the landholders present.
Comments in relation to discharge implementation. The landholders present described the motivation to control salinity falling into two groups. The first group were those that recognised existing saline land was unproductive and could be improved by revegetation. These landholders had confidence the treatment option would be successful and would provide a financial return. In some cases works would be undertaken irrespective of whether financial incentive was provided. When activity occurs is highly dependent on commodity prices and economic circumstances. However it was acknowledged financial assistance would increase the overall rate of adoption.
The second group were categories as those who lacked the confidence to undertake the treatment options. The up front investment, for the perceived return was too great to motivate them to adopt. To make discharge work attractive close one to one in paddock advice, along with a high level of financial incentive (75%) would be required.
Irrespective of which group is described, saline land is only seen as a small (and sometimes irritating) component of the whole farm system. It rarely is the main issue and therefore addressing discharge must be done in the context of the whole farm operation. The allocation of time and resources is highly dependant on the profitability of the farm business.
Where it is possible to bring saline land to levels of production which are comparable with non saline land the concept of managing saline land for its environmental or biodiversity value was of secondary importance.
67 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
Interpretation of community response and where to next: As the meeting only attracted two landholders it is difficult to draw conclusions as to the next steps with a high degree of confidence. Nevertheless the authors believe the following will occur on saline private land:
Scenario 1: No intervention. This will result in a proportion of saline land being revegetated by landholders under their own free will. Under this situation it is estimated 2% of the private land will be revegetated each year and no biodiversity management will occur.
Scenario 2: Intervention program, involving a 75% incentives, technical advice, along with PAR trial sites for revegetation and biodiversity. This will lift the rate of revegetation to 6% per year and biodiversity to 4% per year.
These are summarised in table 1.
There was no preferred delivery structure mentioned by those present except the suggestion that extension should be privatised . Further discussions would need to be held to determine the most appropriate way to deliver scenario 3 if deemed feasible.
Table 1: Suggested quantity of discharge works to be undertaken on private land.
Target zone Estimated Assumed Assumed area to be rate of area treated treated adoption per year (ha) (% / yr) (ha) Scenario 1 Protection and management of 1672 0 0 (No intervention) discharge areas to allow natural vegetation recovery – Public land Protection and management of 939 0 0 discharge areas to allow natural vegetation recovery – Private land Protection and management of 990 2 20 discharge areas with establishment of additional vegetation – private land Scenario 2 Protection and management of 1672 3 50 PAR trials, in discharge areas to allow natural combination with vegetation recovery – public land technical advice Protection and management of 939 4 38 and a 75% discharge areas to allow natural incentive for works. vegetation recovery – Private land Protection and management of 990 6 59 discharge areas with establishment of additional vegetation – private land
Attachment 1: Attendees
Richard Bondy (Apology), Alan Carew (Apology), John Carew (Apology), Scott Chirnside (Apology), David Kininmonth, Donald Lang, Robert Missen (Apology), Chris Stewart (Apology), Dan Wood (apology).
68 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
69 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
Warncoort interim target area
A community meeting of landholders in the Warncoort interim target area was held at the Royal Mail Hotel, Birregurra on the 28/05/03. The landholders present (attachment 1) represented about one third of the target area. They represented a mix of members of the Birregurra Creek Land Protection Group, the Barwon Rivercare group and landholders not associated with these organisations.
The main agricultural enterprises are wool sheep (37%), crop (31%), cattle (17%), prime and first cross lambs (15%). Average stocking rate is 12.9 DSE/ha. Average crop yields were estimated to be wheat 4.1 t/ha, barley and oats 3.6 t/ha and canola 2.2t/ha.
Background/context for salinity management. This proposed salinity target area was recognised in the first salinity plan as an interim target area however no specific treatment options were proposed. Nor was specific salinity extension advice targeted in the area.
The Birregurra Creek Land Protection Group has initiated most activity in the area, with their focus on the health and repair of the Birregurra Creek and surrounds. This activity has been prompted because of the imposed use of the Creek as a conduit for diversion from the Lough Calvert Drainage Scheme. Operation of the scheme has seen changes in salinity and flow regimes. Further demonstration trials were also established by the Barwon Valley Farm Trees Group along the middle reaches of the creek.
Community response to the groundwater process explanation The group supported the explanation that recharge control was very difficult. For this reason landholders have targeted the salinity and erosion problems along the Creeks. The group believed the operation of the drainage scheme had significantly changed the Birregurra Creek, more so than the underlying groundwater problems. A report on the Birregurra Creek (Dennis 2002) provides an insight into the salinity issue and how landholders perceive the salinity problem.
“Originally the Birregurra Creek was a shallow meandering watercourse with substantial, vegetated flood plains. The creek was previously used for stock watering, however with the increase in salinity this is no longer possible. The present flows (because of the drainage scheme) are far more saline than would have existed naturally and …salt is now a permanent fixture within the creek system as even when no water is being released from the Lough Calvert, the flow within the Creek is saline as it mobilises salts that are stored within the creek flats from previous flows”.
However it is erosion along the Creek that has galvanised the landholders into action, not salinity per se. They are concerned about ‘slugs of salt’ moving own the Creek and therefore they believe much of the solution to the problem is outside their control. They are simply trying to manage the impacts of external influences.
Community response to the maps The discharge areas on the map were incomplete. Landholders indicated where additional salting was present and these have been captured for future reference. This additional mapping would suggest a further 100 ha from the maps is present in the target area.
Significant work has been undertaken in the past decade to address the degradation of the Birregurra Creek. Indications by landholders would suggest 200 ha of salt affected land in the target area has been treated. A summary of this new data is provided (table 1).
70 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
Table 1: Estimated quantity of salt affected land treated in the Warncoort interim target area.
Target Type of salting Total area Already treated Still to be treated zone (ha) (ha) (ha) Discharge Primary salting 86 21 65 Secondary salting (private land) 424 144 280 Secondary salting (public land) 14 4 10 TOTAL 524 169 355
Comments in relation to discharge implementation. The group believed much of the work to manage the creek and the adjacent land has already occurred. Only three landholders expressed a strong need to conduct further work and this was in relation to erosion control (Dennis, 2002). Further fencing and revegetation was seen as a lower priority and would only be undertaken if financial and other assistance was provided. This rate of adoption may increase if it could be proven that further remedial works would provide an economic return.
Saline areas, not adjacent to the Birregurra Creek, were not viewed as a major problem. It was recognised they were less productive than non saline land, however the potential gain for the required investment did not justify the initial expense. It was felt these areas were less productive due to waterlogging rather than salinity.
Other issues. The operating rules for the Lough Calvert and Lake Colac drainage scheme are foremost in landholders’ minds. They believe the degradation with the Creek is simply a function of the drainage scheme. Salinity caused by groundwater flows is insignificant compared to the perceived impact of external effects.
Interpretation of community response and where to next: The meeting attracted a proportion of landholders in the target area. However because of the recent consultation as part of the Birregurra Creek Rehabilitation Plan (Dennis, 2002) landholders were able to accurately represent the feelings of other landholders who were not present.
There is very little motivation to continue with salinity discharge treatment until the perceived externalities of the drainage scheme are addressed to the satisfaction of the concerned landholders. These concerns relate to the operating rules and the need for erosion control works along the Creek. Landholders with saline land away from the creek appeared happy to ‘live with the problem’ unless significant benefits from treatment can be established.
Given the previous discussion, targets have been established on the basis of two scenarios. The first scenario suggests participation to treat 15% of the remaining saline land along the creek per year after satisfactory conclusions to the erosion and drainage operating rule issues (table 2). A second scenario is described a situation where the erosion and operating rules are not addressed. Assuming this scenario a 5% rate of adoption is predicted.
Table 2: Suggested quantity of discharge works to be undertaken.
Target zone Estimated Assumed Assumed area to be rate of area treated treated adoption per year (ha) (% / yr) (ha) Scenario 1 Protection and management of 379 10 38 Erosion / flow issues discharge areas with addressed establishment of additional vegetation
71 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
Scenario 2 Protection and management of 379 2 8 Erosion / flow issues discharge areas with not addressed establishment of additional (No intervention) vegetation
If discharge control works did proceed, a financial incentive would need to be similar to previous grants program to achieve involvement. This has been on a 50:50 cost share arrangement and administered through the Birregurra Creek Land Protection Group.
References
Dennis S (2002) Birregurra Creek Land Protection group 2001/2002 – Final draft
Attachment 1: Attendees
Russell Beach James Dennis Paul Drewry Doug Jones Shirley Leak Darren Wilkie
72 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
Murdeduke interim salinity target area
Background/context for salinity management. This proposed salinity target area received hotspot status under the previous salinity strategy. While general revegetation was promoted, most activity related to discharge treatment and management. There was a salinity hotspot in the upper catchment of Lake Murdeduke which has not been included in this plan (Mia Mia Creek). The district is primarily farming based with a few smaller properties located within it. The area has many fresh and saline wetlands.
District statistics summary Target area: 15,000 ha Area secondary salinity: 379 ha Area primary salinity: 242 ha Area suited to recharge control: none Landholders in catchment: approx 30 Landuse: 50% wool, 10% prime lambs, 0% 1 st cross, 10% cattle, 30% cropping. Stocking rate: approx 7-8 DSE
Response to suggested groundwater process The concept that the groundwater relates to climate and lake levels seems to meet local observations. In 1950-51 there was a very wet season with major flooding in the area. One landholder can recall that many areas went saline after that event – areas that were growing crops in 1949 have never since been suitable for crops (due to salinity). In one area even a stand of mature Sugar Gums were drowned out. Much of the area is flat and tends to pond water after rains.
The area has both freshwater and saline wetlands. There appears to be more wetlands/swamps in the area than are marked on the current saline discharge maps. Question were also raised about the changes in river salinity…the salinity of the Barwon River rises approx 400EC units in this section of river.
Response to suggested salinity management actions It was accepted that the salinity was more to do with longer term climate cycles, and revegetation with trees would do little to change the salinity problems. There was support in some cases for the use of trees in conjunction with discharge site revegetation. Including some trees in rehabilitation projects does act as a driver for those keen on trees and shelter.
The area requiring discharge treatment is presented (table 1)
Table 1: Estimated quantity of discharge works to be undertaken in the Murdeduke interim target area.
Target zone Total area Already treated Still to be treated (ha) (ha) (ha) Discharge Primary salting 242 92 150 Secondary salting 379 94 285 TOTAL 621 186 435
Landholders described how they thought Tall Wheat Grass had been very useful in turning previously “useless” areas into paddocks that are now quite productive and allow for valuable grazing during summer/autumn periods. They had observed improved soil structure and soil organic matter as a result of discharge revegetation and sites had improved to the point where clover species could be added. Surface water drainage was seen as a key first step. Also early technical help and guidance from agency staff on sowing rates, fertilisers, timing, and management was seen as very beneficial.
73 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
Some landholders expressed a desire to do some active trial work looking for new pasture options and revegetation options for saline areas (they mentioned use of saltgrow eucalypts or woodlots for saline areas).
It was estimated that approximately 30% of saline sites have had some form of treatment over the last ten years.
There was also support for the use of trees in conjunction with discharge site revegetation. Trees combined with fencing and drainage works have been proven to grow on some very saline sites in the area. Landholders feel that this can be a good option which improves the looks and value of their saline areas.
Wetland creation could be supported if there was more incentive. Extra support such as for rate rebates would assist in this process. Some landholders suggested that some land is not of much use for grazing, and a well reasoned program to present landholders with alternative options for these areas would be useful if it provided sufficient technical and financial support.
A common point was that if nothing else, at least having a landclass fence around saline land can vastly improve the condition of the site by enabling more control of grazing (how and when).
From the consultation the following adoption rates for the various treatments have been suggested (table 2).
Table 2: Level of adoption of various salinity treatment works over the next 10 years.
Treatment Estimated area Assumed rate of Assumed area to be treated adoption treated per year (ha) (% /yr) (ha) Discharge Protection and management 150 10 % 15 of discharge areas to allow natural vegetation recovery (No intervention) 150 1% 1.5 Protection and management 285 10 % 28.5 of discharge areas with establishment of additional vegetation (No intervention) 285 0% 0 Past programs have assisted rehabilitation of over 30% of saline land and it is expected that a renewed saline land management project complete with technical support financial incentives (75%) would result in all saline areas rehabilitated within a ten year period.
Further comments Some further comments were made during consultation with land managers included: • What about users of the river water…was this included in the asset classes of the salinity plan?
• What will the impact be of more raised bed cropping areas?
• Frank Carland and Michael Sayers (former DPI and Salinity Link staff) were a big help to getting things happening in this area. We need that type of support again to get things happening.
• In general, people are busy and they need more help and support if they are to get involved
• The landcare group was once active, but isn’t currently (folded last year)
• Barwon Rivercare Group gets some help for projects from Darren Wilkie
• The Mia Mia Creek and some other waterways which feed into the Lake could do with some work, and some landholders had areas and projects they would be keen to revegetate. There
74 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
are areas with mud and stock getting bogged is an issue for landholders. It was suggested landholders would be happy to fence areas off for this reason.
• Landholders need a local coordinator to assist them in getting projects undertaken each year. Helping with organisational tasks plus some funding has been shown to get people involved.
• Some Greening Australia works have been done near the Lake but some adjoining landholders were unsure of what was being undertaken, suggesting room for increased communication.
• Raised beds can help with surface water issues and possibly allow plants like lucerne to grow on areas where it originally couldn’t. Growing lucerne on beds could an area where more works needs to be done.
Actions: • Renewed partnership program which can reinvigorate activity in the area. The partnership program requires key involvement from landholders, Barwon Valley Landcare, DPI, Parks Vic, CCMA, Greening Aust, Surfcoast and Leigh Catchment Group to determine the most appropriate delivery structure.
• Technical support for expanding and implementing saline land management options is required on a number of properties and returning agency support would be welcomed by landholders.
• Biodiversity/wetland and Lake margins management also requires technical support, possible by Parks Vic/Greening Australia but should fit in with wider salinity management program in the district.
Consultation occurred with: Tony Hill – landholder Peter McConachy - landholder Bob Lubcke – local farmer Mrs Lubcke – local farmer Bruce Wilson – local farmer Judy Wilson – local farmer Colin Peel – local farmer Noel Lubke – local farmer Michael Sayers – former Rural Urban Facilitator in area
75 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
Modewarre interim target area
Background/context for salinity management. The Modewarre district has been a salinity target area for over ten years (Moriac Hotspot). The district has an increasing number of smaller rural lifestyle properties and property values have increased beyond that considered acceptable for traditional agriculture. The projects delivered in the area have revegetated over 35% of local waterways and around 60% of salinised land has already been treated. Some ongoing waterway and vegetation projects occurring via the Thompson Creek Catchment Committee, with technical salinity agronomy via NRE Geelong.
District statistics summary Target area: 23,600ha Area secondary salinity: 338 ha Area primary salinity: 111 ha Area suited to recharge control: none Landholders in catchment: >200 Landuse: 40% wool, 25% prime lambs, 0% 1 st cross, 20% cattle, 15% cropping. Stocking rate: approx 8 DSE
Response to suggested groundwater process All agree that the groundwater description tends to make sense, with observations that much of the salinity would remain even if large areas were revegetated. Most suggest that the approach to tackle saline areas is one that was increasingly adopted in the latter half of the previous salinity extension program, namely discharge control and trees surrounding discharge areas. There was some need to further investigate the groundwater systems drive the local lake and wetland areas.
Response to suggested salinity management actions Recharge control is not recommended for the area. This seemed to make sense although some had observed that trees can dry out areas that were wet, suggesting maybe trees have a role in soaking up excess water near discharge sites. Over recent years most salinity revegetation projects have undertaken to plant some trees to provide a best bet or some shelter as well.
It was generally considered that trees are good because of their habitat value, and many smaller properties like to plant some trees rather than just do straight saline pasture works.
The quantity of saline land still to be treated is presented (table 1).
Table 1: Estimated quantity of discharge works to be undertaken in the Modewarre interim target area.
Target zone Total area Already treated Still to be treated (ha) (ha) (ha) Discharge Primary salting 111 26 64 Secondary salting 338 274 85 TOTAL 449 300 149
Saline pasture establishment and or land class fencing are considered to be the key aspects of previously successful projects. It was observed that fencing alone was of great value in improving management of saline land or wetland areas.
In the Moriac area there are many discharge areas which occur near or along waterways, and general waterway revegetation works go hand in hand with salinity control. It was suggested that the preferred approach is to tackle salinity/water quality issues in a combined program.
There was evidence of local roads breaking up from salinity, and the concept of supporting Surfcoast Shire in looking at ways to reduce these impacts was considered sensible.
76 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
The general comment was made that the last few years have been very dry and there has not been any spread in salinity affected land. There was some discussion that when wet years return there may be more salinity expansion.
The comment was also made that there is a need more technical options for landholders on how best to make use of saline lands with a broader range of options
The Lake Modewarre Committee of Management has just recently finalised a management plan for the lake and surrounds and included in the actions is a call for rehabilitation of the major primary salinity area which forms a backwater of the lake. In general the committee and the strategy seeks increased technical and financial support to assist implementation of their management plan in the catchment.
Based on these consultations, the following adoption rates are suggested (table 2):
Table 2: Level of adoption of various salinity treatment works over the next 10 years.
Treatment Estimated area Assumed rate of Assumed area to be treated adoption treated per year (ha) (% /yr) (ha) Discharge Protection and management of 270 10 % 27 discharge areas to allow natural vegetation recovery (No intervention) 270 1% 3 Protection and management of 160 10 % 16 discharge areas with establishment of additional vegetation (No intervention) 160 0% 0
It was considered that if effective financial support for saline land management (75%) plus good technical support was offered that all remaining saline areas could be revegetated within the next 10 years. With no pro-active support it was expected that very few new areas would be rehabilitated.
Further comments. There were a number of other related issues discussed including: • Cape Otway Rd has new Blue Gums planted near a salinity area where there are existing bores – are these still being monitored and where are the results?
• Thompson Ck Catchment Committee is continuing with a part time project officer but as a group the committee have not met this year. The Group is worn out and suggest it is time for renewal of the project in some form.
• The district needs some quality extension and technical support delivered with well trained people to continue the catchment works in the area. Who delivers it wasn’t important (Shire, DPI etc). It was considered important to run new field days, trials, and active learning programs to keep things fresh and keep the local community actively involved – these types of activities have largely stopped apart from the work done via SurfCoast Shire’s Donna Groves (biodiversity incentives program) running courses helped by DPI staff.
• Farm Planning – need DPI staff technical support – have found that one to one advice is the best way to get changes in land management
• Thompson Ck Catchment Committee has previously taken on role of attracting funds, running projects, administration hassles and employment but this has worn them out – too much strategy/paperwork and committee members are losing interest
• The local Landcare group was once very active but has been largely inactive sense the larger catchment committee took over most projects and grants.
77 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
• Providing support to a landcare group does not automatically get you access to that local community – many landholders in the area (the majority) are not members of landcare.
• After 10 years there are still a few people undertaking landcare works, but the process now is a slow and steady ongoing program. Not a large number of new projects each year…but a number of years of continuous landcare support has now made a big impact as you drive around you can see hundreds of landcare projects throughout the local landscape.
• There is a five year old Blue Gum Plantation planted around existing watertable monitoring bores on Dean Snow’s property near Forest Road…is anyone still monitoring these? This type of information is surely valuable.
• This district has many smaller/lifestyle landholders which require new and innovative ways to get them involved. Often they need technical help, assistance with skills and labour/time.
• Lifestyle landholders not as concerned with productivity issues
• Landcare cannot always get through to everyone, but significant change has been achieved by partnership projects with community group support
• Real estate value is an issue and landcare works can help increase values
• There are around 1100 landholders in the Thompson Ck catchment, possibly over 200 in the target area
• Some landholders worried that fencing areas off can allow Government to have a greater say on what happens on their place and may account for some who have not been involved to date.
• Gorse control is a problem that needs longer term maintenance on landcare projects
• We are fortunate to have good local nurseries and contractors who now do some of the planting/advisory work on trees.
• We like farm forestry plantings in the area, where they are integrated into the landscape. They can play a role adjoining saline areas
• There should be more done to measure the results and impacts of what previous landcare works have achieved
• The local school is busy – needs education support to help promote the landcare message and get more Moriac township people involved
• According to the SurfCoast Biodiversity Program, rate relief is not having a substantial impact
• Regular landcare newsletters have stopped, even those done by NRE. Why is this?
Action required: • Renew and develop a partnership catchment program involving the Thompson Ck Catchment Committee, Lake Modewarre Committee, DPI, CCMA, and Surfcoast Shire to set up an integrated delivery program for the target area.
• Continue technical support for saline land management via DPI Geelong where existing linkages, landholder contacts have been established over previous program.
• Continue on ground revegetation project support and investigate broader support for local landcare program working with expanding Moriac community.
• Further investigate local groundwater systems, and risks to township/urban development.
Consultation occurred with: Sandi Allen – Chair Thompson Ck Catchment Committee Brian Gane – landholder and Lake Modewarre Committee Andrew Boyle – landholder and Thompson Ck Project Officer Michael Sayers – landholder and past Rural Urban Coordinator Paul Whinney – DPI Salinity Officer
78 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
Geelong – Lake Connewarre interim salinity target area
Background/context for salinity management. This proposed salinity target area is new. However there is a history of environmental programs relating to protecting these RAMSAR wetlands. It appears that landholders would participate on programs if well supported, but some have seen previous short term projects come and go they’ll believe it when they see it!
There is growing recognition of the importance of this wetland system and a need to facilitate improved networking between the myriad of key stakeholders, and to develop cooperative programs to assist all land managers within this area. There are a large number of important project partners who will need to be effectively networked to deliver a successful program.
District statistics summary Target area: 12,922ha Area secondary salinity: 880 ha (private), 165ha (public) Area primary salinity: 1,012 ha (private), 2,462 (public) Area suited to recharge control: None Landholders in catchment: >100 Landuse: 20% wool, 20% prime lambs, 0% 1 st cross, 50% cattle, 10% cropping. Stocking rate: approx 7 DSE
Response to suggested groundwater process Salinity in the area is considered natural. There is some confusion when using the term “salinity” in this area, as salinity is does not require controlling but rather “managing”.
It was agreed that more needs to be known about the hydrology of the local lake and groundwater systems. Much of the area is very low lying (close to sea level), and human activities have changed many of the natural flow patterns. It was suggested that the salinity mapping done for the Connewarre area is not accurate as there are areas of public land and wetlands not currently marked on the current salinity mapping. There was an overall view that there was a need for the development of accurate mapping to assist with planning and implementation activities (to scale 1:10,000). Maps which show salinity areas (primary and secondary) and boundaries of public and private land would be seen as very valuable.
Response to suggested salinity management actions There is no reliable information to suggest what proportion of saline land has been treated or rehabilitated in this target area. This would need to be assessed as part of developing a new program within the area to further refine targets.
A recent survey of landholders found that there is currently 10km of wetland frontage landholders who would participate in establishing indigenous revegetation buffers on their properties- pending suitable on ground coordination and incentives. Getting local landholder involvement via group activities and providing/sharing knowledge and support will go a long way to increasing on ground activity as has already been experienced by the Greening Connewarre landholders which operate in the south-eastern section of the Lake in the area between Connewarre and Breamlea.
The appropriate management of saline land is the key issue in the area. It is recognised that whether the land was in public or private ownership it still needs “active management”. There is more required than just “fencing and forgetting” sums up the response for most.
Currently Field and Game and City of Greater Geelong are working with some landholders to investigate opportunities for improved wetland management of very low lying land which is currently on private land. Investigation of future options such as leasing or longer term land purchase is an option which has much merit for protecting area of high biodiversity value. Wetland creation and or
79 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
management is an option which can suit some landholders as a use for “useless” land, but needs active support and technical guidance.
There are very few full time farmers in the area, with an increasing number of smaller properties which often have people who are keen to be involved in landcare but don’t know where to start. Time and skills are an issue for many landholders. Any landcare programs in the area will have to deal with a large number of landholders.
Tall Wheat Grass has been previously been used as a saline pasture but there are concerns that it is expanding throughout the wetland system. There are calls to develop programs to halt the further spread of the weed on public land areas as well as developing more sensitive land management on adjoining saline pasture land. It was agreed that there is a need for more technical information on this issue, as well as developing improved technical options for saline land management using native salt tolerant species such as the native Distichlis .
It was also believed that Parks Victoria requires greater support to effectively manage the public land areas. Some areas of public land boundary fence allow stock to enter the reserve, so a fencing assistance program would receive support if it did not place too many extra costs or labour for landholders. Even the issue of fencing and landclassing on private land is an issue that can be vastly improved with currently many fences running straight though the middle of wetlands and saline land rather than being fenced to landclass. Farm planning and support for landholders with fencing (labour plus materials) will get more involved.
Pest plant and animal control is also an issue for most landholders adjoining the public land areas, and the region is a priority area for rabbit control for DPI pests program.
The suggested impact of an active salinity program on the on ground works completed are listed (table 1).
Table 1: Level of adoption of various salinity treatment works over the next 10 years.
Treatment Estimated area to Assumed rate of Assumed area be treated adoption treated per year (ha) (% / yr) (ha) Discharge Management of discharge 1892 6% 114 areas with establishment of additional vegetation – private land, primary salting (No intervention) 1892 0% 0 Protection and management 2627 3% 79 of discharge areas to allow natural vegetation recovery – public land, primary salting (No intervention) 2627 0% 0 Management of discharge 880 6% 53 areas with establishment of additional vegetation – private land, secondary salting (No intervention) 880 0% 0 Protection and management 165 3% 5 of discharge areas to allow natural vegetation recovery – public land, secondary salting (No intervention) 165 0% 0
80 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
With effective on ground support for landholders, it was anticipated that 60% would undertake works to rehabilitate private saline lands so long as both technical, coordination and financial support (75%) were offered. Public saline land management will involve occasional fencing/grazing removal with improved weed control for natural saline areas.
Further comments There was a range of comments relating to land management in this target area as described below:
• Siltation within the Lake is currently seen as the biggest issue for adjoining landholders. Any new program should consider researching the origins of this silt (is it from local entry points?) to enable targeted actions. Most agree that any new program must develop partnerships with local community first by assisting with their key issues before moving solely into ‘salinity’ issues. It was also highlighted that establishing protective buffers surrounding the lake would assist in reducing siltation as well as delivering improved saline land management outcomes.
• Increasing stormwater inputs into the whole of the wetland system is a growing issue as nearby areas (Grovedale, Marshall) expand towards Mt Duneed. The move towards water sensitive urban design systems is encouraged, but requires a need to consider wetland and local groundwater hydrological impacts.
• Basic farm planning and fencing assistance would be a good start with one to one help with landholders.
• Reedy Lake (upper) area has fresher water than the more saline Lake Connewarre. Would it tolerate fresher stormwater flows than the more saline areas?
• All agree that need to commit to a longer term program to undo damage of previous short term projects “Community relationships take time!”
• There is a role for a key, high profile “Integrated Catchment Project” making the wetland system an icon project for Geelong. A coordinator/facilitator role is required to bring together all stakeholders in the area to develop a longer term partnership program.
• There is a role for 2 on ground support staff to work closely with landholders to deliver on ground actions such as fencing, indigenous vegetation works, wetlands, weed/vermin programs etc
• The is a further role for community education to build profile of environmental assets and bring urban community into the picture. A large number of potential partners for research and project works exist if linkages are made.
• A recent National Action Plan funding proposal was put in for the Connewarre wetlands, coordinated by Lisa Miller of DPI. This proposal basically describes already the views of what local stakeholders require for the area.
Actions required: • Key ICM project leader, with steering committee of CMA, DPI, etc based from CoGG.
• 2 full time on ground works coordinators. Key partners DPI, Parks Vic, CoGG. Need good technical farm planning/property management revegetation support plus parks/biodiversity/wetlands focus.
• Works budget for fence, revegetation, trials, wetlands.
• Technical/scientific support for both biodiversity, wetland and pasture management.
• Develop resource condition targets and set up monitoring project/programs.
Consultation occurred with: Craig Billows – Recently surveyed and visited 16 landholders adjoining the Connewarre Reserve in 2003 report with plans for action.
81 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
Alex Shackleton – NAP Wetlands Coordinator Steve Findlay – Greening Connewarre Lachlan Jackson – Parks Vic Ian McLoughlin – Field & Game Assoc. Bernie Cotter – City of Greater Geelong Richard Boekel - DSE David Lean – Bellarine Landcare (130 members) Tracey Walker – CMA/DPI Stormwater Technical Officer Lisa Miller – DPI – NAP proposal for Connewarre area Donna Boyle – DPI Wallington priority rabbit control area Paul Whinney – DPI Salinity Officer
82 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
Lara
Background/context for salinity management. The Lara area has areas of natural primary salinity which include RAMSAR wetlands of international significance. The area also contains the Cheetham Saltworks evaporators, which are used to harvest salt for commercial production – $1.6M per annum. The nearby spreading township of Lara and associated infrastructure of the Melbourne Freeway, Avalon Airport, quarries and aquaculture businesses all suggest a potential for risk if salinity is spreading in this area. While current observations suggest that salinity is predominantly natural and not spreading, there may be a need to investigate and confirm this.
Response to suggested groundwater process Cheetham Salt continue to conduct a long term and extensive salinity and groundwater monitoring program as a part of their overall operations. They believe they have a very good appreciation of the salinity of the area and do not feel that their enterprise or the area is at risk from spreading or changing salinity conditions.
There have been previous suggestions from a neighbouring landholder that Cheetham Salt has contributed to local salinity. Cheetham Salt was able to document to landowners aerial photography from the 1940’s which showed that the salinity was evident even then, and was probably naturally existing….and thus was not caused by the saltworks. Cheetham Salt then advised the landholder to remove grazing from the area and it has successfully regenerated.
Cheetham Salt suggest that the key to salinity management in the area is to manage saline areas appropriately by not overgrazing and making sure a good vegetative cover exists on the sites. They believe they know a great deal about salinity and how it needs to be managed, long before government programs had taken action on saline land management. They have detailed environmental management plans which work within the ISO 14000 accreditation framework.
Adjoining natural primary saline areas on public land are considered to be under the similar pressures of the Bellarine RAMSAR wetlands with issues ranging from weed invasions, pest animal impacts and adjoining land management.
Some revegetation works have been undertaken by the Avalon Airport as part of a wider Avalon Landcare Group which principally has the larger corporate landowners as members. This group has been supported by DPI David Lean and could form a useful alliance in combination with public land managers to help improve land management in the area.
Response to suggested salinity management actions Cheetham Salt believes that they have a lot of monitoring in place to determine if salinity poses any increased threat to the area. Therefore they do no propose any further salinity work. However there is a need for active management of the public saline land. The quantity of works to be undertaken are listed (table 1).
Table 1: Level of adoption of various salinity treatment works over the next 10 years.
Treatment Estimated area of Proposed saline land amount to treat (ha) (ha) Discharge Private saline land areas 73 0 (majority is Cheetham saltworks) Protection and management of 79 79 public saline land areas (100%) (No intervention on public land) 79 8 (10%)
83 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
Action required: It is suggested that any program that focuses on salinity management in the area form partnerships with key organisations such as Parks Victoria, City of Greater Geelong, Cheetham Salt, Avalon Airport and DPI. Such partnership programs should look at collective management, continue revegetation projects and investigate stimulus for local landcare support program working with Avalon Landcare Group.
It is unclear if changes to the local groundwater systems would place the township of Lara and urban development at risk, although current data would suggest this is unlikely.
Consultation occurred with: Mark Shelley – Cheetham Salt
84 Corangamite CMA Salinity Action Plan. Background Report No.4. Asset manager consultation, preferred methods of implementation and management actions
References
Barr N & Cary J (2000) Influencing Improved Natural Resource Management on Farms – A guide to understanding factors influencing the adoption of sustainable resource practices . Bureau of Resource Studies. Canberra.
Dahlhaus P.G. 2003a. Process for the initial selection and validation of target areas for salinity management. Corangamite Salinity Action Plan background report No. 2. Corangamite Catchment Management Authority.
Dahlhaus P.G. 2003b. Salinity target areas: assessment, trends, resource condition targets and management options. Corangamite Salinity Action Plan, Background report No. 3 . Corangamite Catchment Management Authority.
Dahlhaus P.G, Nicholson, C, Anderson G, Shovelton M and Stephens M. 2005. Regional Overview and development considerations. Corangamite Salinity Action Plan background report No.1 . Corangamite Catchment Management Authority.
Meat and Livestock Australia. 2003. Farmer to Farmer – Producer observations and learning from the SGS regional sites. Meat and Livestock Australia.
Nicholson C. 2002. Review of the Corangamite Salinity Strategy "Restoring the Balance". Consulting report by Nicon Rural Services , Corangamite Catchment Management Authority.
85