Soil Condition and Land Management in New South Wales

Soil condition and land management in New South Wales

Final results from the 2008-09 monitoring, evaluation and reporting program

Acknowledgements: This report was prepared by Jonathan Gray and Greg Chapman, Ecosystem Management Science Branch, Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH). Many current and former staff from OEH were involved in the development and undertaking of the NSW monitoring, evaluation and reporting soil and land programs, with assistance of staff from NSW Department of Primary Industries and the catchment management authorities. Constructive review comments were provided by Richard Greene (Australian National University).

Published by: Office of Environment and Heritage 59–61 Goulburn Street, Sydney PO Box A290, Sydney South NSW 1232 Phone: (02) 9995 5000 (switchboard) Phone: 131 555 (environment information and publications requests) Phone: 1300 361 967 (national parks information and publications requests) Fax: (02) 9995 5999 TTY: (02) 9211 4723 Email: [email protected] Website: www.environment.nsw.gov.au

ISBN 978 1 74359 644 9 OEH 2014/0389 September 2014

Preferred citation: OEH (2014). Soil condition and land management in New South Wales: final results from the 2008-09 monitoring, evaluation and reporting program , OEH Technical Report, NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, Sydney.

© Copyright State of NSW and the Office of Environment and Heritage NSW. The Office of Environment and Heritage and the State of NSW are pleased to allow this material to be reproduced in whole or in part for educational and non-commercial use, provided the meaning is unchanged and its source, publisher and authorship are acknowledged.

The Office of Environment and Heritage NSW (OEH) has compiled Soil condition and land management in New South Wales: final results from the 2008-09 monitoring, evaluation and reporting program in good faith, exercising all due care and attention. OEH does not accept responsibility for any inaccurate or incomplete information supplied by third parties. No representation is made about the accuracy, completeness or suitability of the information in this publication for any particular purpose. OEH shall not be liable for any damage which may occur to any person or organisation taking action or not on the basis of this publication. This document is subject to revision without notice and it is up to the reader to ensure that the latest version is being used. Readers should seek appropriate advice when applying the information to their specific needs.

Soil condition and land management in NSW: Summary There is a need for ongoing monitoring of NSW’s soil and land resources, as was declared by the NSW Natural Resource Commission in 2005 with natural resource management targets relating to (i) soil condition and (ii) land management within capability. These targets were the focus of a monitoring evaluation and reporting (MER) program by the NSW Department of the Environment, Climate Change and Water, now Office of Environment and Heritage, in 2008–09. Results from that MER program were presented at the catchment level in State of the Catchment reports and at the NSW level in the 2009 State of the Environment report. However, at the time of writing of those publications, full results from the MER programs were not available. Since then, however, data collection, laboratory analysis and database entry from the 2008–09 MER program have been completed. In addition, a need for modifications to the methodology and rule sets had become apparent. A reanalysis of the full MER data repository as at 2012 was considered necessary, the results of which are presented in this report. Results for both (i) soil condition and (ii) land management within capability are presented for each soil monitoring unit, catchment management authority and for the state as a whole. Results are also broken down by the eight individual soil condition/hazard indicators: sheet erosion, gully erosion, wind erosion, acidity, organic carbon decline, structure decline, acid sulfate soils and salinity. The overall indices for soil condition and land management within capability across the state, as derived from the updated MER data, both fall in the ‘fair’ range. However, some indicators in particular parts of the state are in an overall poor condition or land management state. For soil condition, 74% of soil monitoring units had ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’ ratings for at least one indicator; for land management within capability, 54% of sites had poor or very poor ratings for at least one hazard. The results suggest that on a state-wide basis for soil condition, low organic carbon and sheet erosion are moderate issues of concern, while for land management within capability, acidification, wind erosion, salinity/waterlogging and organic carbon decline are the issues of most concern. Recent data is also presented on (i) land use within capability preliminary mapping, (ii) Australian Bureau of Statistics land management survey data across the state, and (iii) ground cover, sheet erosion and wind erosion modelling. First approximation tables that indicate the range of sustainable land management practices for each capability class of land for each hazard are presented in Appendix 1.

final results from the 2008-09 MER program

Contents 1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Report deliverables ...... 1 2 Methods ...... 2 2.1 Overview of the monitoring, evaluation and reporting program for soil condition ... 2 2.2 Land management within capability ...... 3 2.3 Update process ...... 5 2.3.1 Soil condition update approach ...... 5 2.3.2 Land management within capability update approach ...... 5 3 Results ...... 6 3.1 Results and key findings by CMA ...... 6 3.1.1 Border Rivers – Gwydir CMA ...... 6 3.1.2 Central West CMA ...... 8 3.1.3 Hawkesbury Nepean CMA ...... 10 3.1.4 Hunter – Central Rivers CMA ...... 12 3.1.5 Lachlan CMA ...... 14 3.1.6 Lower Murray–Darling CMA ...... 16 3.1.7 Murray CMA ...... 18 3.1.8 Murrumbidgee CMA ...... 20 3.1.9 Namoi CMA ...... 22 3.1.10 Northern Rivers CMA ...... 24 3.1.11 Southern Rivers CMA ...... 26 3.1.12 Sydney Metro CMA ...... 28 3.1.13 Western CMA ...... 30 3.2 State-wide results and key findings ...... 32 3.2.1 Soil condition data ...... 32 3.2.2 Summary of soil condition across NSW, 2008–09 ...... 34 3.2.3 Land management within capability data ...... 35 3.2.4 Summary of land management within capability across NSW, 2008–09 ... 37 4 Complementary data ...... 38 4.1 Land use within capability map ...... 38 4.2 Australian Bureau of Statistics land management data ...... 39 4.3 Groundcover and sheet and wind erosion products ...... 39 4.3.1 Time series ground cover products ...... 39 4.3.2 Time series sheet erosion modelling...... 40 4.3.3 Wind erosion and DustWatch products ...... 42 4.4 Modelling of soil properties ...... 42 5 Conclusion ...... 44

Appendix 1: Management practices appropriate for each land and soil capability class for each hazard (first approximation) ...... 45 Appendix 2: Land management statistics by CMA from Australian Bureau of Statistics ...... 2009–10 survey ...... 55 References ...... 64

Soil condition and land management in NSW: Figures Figure 1: Overview of the soil condition assessment process ...... 3 Figure 2: Overview of the land management within capability assessment process. 4 Figure 3: Derivation of land management within capability indices ...... 4 Figure 4: Soil monitoring units in Border Rivers – Gwydir CMA ...... 7 Figure 5: Soil monitoring units in Central West CMA ...... 9 Figure 6: Soil monitoring units in Hawkesbury–Nepean CMA ...... 11 Figure 7: Soil monitoring units in Hunter – Central Rivers CMA ...... 13 Figure 8: Soil monitoring units in Lachlan CMA ...... 15 Figure 9: Soil monitoring units in Lower Murray–Darling CMA ...... 17 Figure 10: Soil monitoring units in Murray CMA ...... 19 Figure 11: Soil monitoring units in Murrumbidgee CMA ...... 21 Figure 12: Soil monitoring units in Namoi CMA...... 23 Figure 13: Soil monitoring units in Northern Rivers CMA ...... 25 Figure 14: Soil monitoring units in Southern Rivers CMA ...... 27 Figure 15: Soil monitoring units in Sydney Metro CMA ...... 29 Figure 16: Soil monitoring units in Western CMA ...... 31 Figure 17: Proportion of sites or soil monitoring units in each soil condition class .... 32 Figure 18: Dominant soil health issues within soil monitoring units ...... 33 Figure 19: Proportion of sites or soil monitoring units in each land management within capability class ...... 35 Figure 20: Dominant land management within capability issues within soil monitoring units ...... 36 Figure 21: Land use within capability map ...... 38 Figure 22: Baseline sheet erosion for NSW, 2000–10 ...... 41 Figure 23: Sheet erosion for NSW 2009 and 2010 ...... 41 Figure 24: Area of Murray–Darling CMA exceeding moderate wind erosion levels .. 42 Figure 25: Predictive map of topsoil organic carbon in Hunter – Central Rivers CMA43

Tables Table 1: Soil condition index classes ...... 3 Table 2: Soil condition indices for Border Rivers – Gwydir CMA ...... 6 Table 3: Land management within capability indices for Border Rivers – Gwydir CMA ...... 7 Table 4: Soil condition indices for Central West CMA ...... 8 Table 5: Land management within capability indices for Central West CMA ...... 9 Table 6: Soil condition indices for Hawkesbury–Nepean CMA ...... 10

final results from the 2008-09 MER program

Table 7: Land management within capability indices for Hawkesbury–Nepean CMA ...... 11 Table 8: Soil condition indices for Hunter – Central Rivers CMA ...... 12 Table 9: Land management within capability indices for Hunter – Central Rivers CMA ...... 13 Table 10: Soil condition indices for Lachlan CMA ...... 14 Table 11: Land management within capability indices for Lachlan CMA ...... 15 Table 12: Soil condition indices for Lower Murray–Darling CMA ...... 16 Table 13: Land management within capability indices for Lower Murray–Darling CMA ...... 17 Table 14: Soil condition indices for Murray CMA ...... 18 Table 15: Land management within capability indices for Murray CMA ...... 19 Table 16: Soil condition indices for Murrumbidgee CMA ...... 20 Table 17: Land management within capability indices for Murrumbidgee CMA ...... 21 Table 18: Soil condition indices for Namoi CMA ...... 22 Table 19: Land management within capability indices for Namoi CMA ...... 23 Table 20: Soil condition indices for Northern Rivers CMA ...... 24 Table 21: Land management within capability indices for Northern Rivers CMA .... 25 Table 22: Soil condition indices for Southern Rivers CMA ...... 26 Table 23: Land management within capability indices for Southern Rivers CMA .... 27 Table 24: Soil condition indices for Sydney Metro CMA ...... 28 Table 25: Land management within capability indices for Sydney Metro CMA ...... 29 Table 26: Soil condition indices for Western CMA ...... 30 Table 27: Land management within capability indices for Western CMA ...... 31 Table 28: Soil condition indices for each hazard by CMA ...... 32 Table 29: Percentage of SMUs in each CMA with poor or very poor soil condition rating ...... 33 Table 30: Land management within capability indices for each hazard by CMA ..... 35 Table 31: Percentage of sites in each CMA with poor or very poor land management within capability rating ...... 36

Abbreviations

ABS Australian Bureau of Statistics ASS acid sulfate soil CMA catchment management authority DECCW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water, NSW (now OEH) LMwC land management within capability LSC land and soil capability MER monitoring, evaluation and reporting

Soil condition and land management in NSW: NRC Natural Resources Commission OC organic carbon OEH Office of Environment and Heritage, NSW SMU Soil Monitoring Unit

final results from the 2008-09 MER program

1 Introduction The need for adequate monitoring of soil and land resources throughout Australia is now clearly recognised as vital to the ongoing protection of these valuable natural resources (McKenzie et al. 2002; Dixon et al. 2007; Campbell 2008; Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists 2008). NSW agencies commenced a program of monitoring, evaluation and reporting (MER) in 2008. It was initiated in response to the development of key natural resource management targets for NSW by the NSW Natural Resources Commission (NRC) (NRC 2005). These included: By 2015, there will be an improvement in soil condition. By 2015, there is an increase in the area of land managed within its capability. Intensive programs were carried out for these two targets in 2008 and 2009 by the then NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW), now Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH). Appropriate methodologies were developed and implemented, and by May 2009 approximately 850 monitoring sites had been established throughout the state’s 13 catchment management authorities (CMAs),1 with almost 500 having detailed associated land management data. Methodologies and broad state level results were presented in a number of technical reports (DECCW 2009a; Chapman et al. 2011; Gray et al. 2011) and the NSW 2009 State of the Environment report (DECCW 2009b). Catchment level results were presented in a series of State of the Catchment reports (e.g. DECCW 2010). At the time of writing of those publications, full results from the MER programs were not available. For example, not all laboratory analysis, entry of field surveys into appropriate databases or retrieval of land management surveys were complete. Since then, however, data collection, laboratory analysis and database entry from the 2008–09 MER program have been completed and a reanalysis of the full data repository was considered necessary. In addition, some modification to the methodology and rule sets was required to address particular problems and weaknesses that became evident during the initial analyses. 1.1 Report deliverables This report presents the results of the reanalysis of the full MER 2008–09 data sets. More specifically, it: • provides overviews of the assessment methodologies for soil condition and land management within capability (LMwC) themes, and details of the recent update process; it also includes updated LMwC rating tables (section 2 and Appendix 1) • presents updated results for both MER soil themes for each of the 13 CMAs (section 3.1) • presents updated results, summary charts and discussion for both MER soil themes for NSW as a whole (section 3.2) • reports on recent developments with associated MER activities such as (i) land use within capability analysis, (ii) application of Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) land management data, and (iii) advances in modelling of ground cover, sheet erosion and wind erosion (section 4).

1 The CMAs joined the Livestock Health and Pest Authorities and the Department of Primary Industries agriculture extension to form Local Land Services in January 2014. final results from the 2008-09 MER program 1

2 Methods The MER program carried out by DECCW in 2008–09 aimed to address the two natural resource management targets set by the NRC (NRC 2005) relating to soil and land management. It aimed to establish baselines for both (i) soil condition and (ii) land management within capability through the establishment of a permanent network of monitoring sites. The intention was to establish up to 10 monitoring sites within each of 10 SMUs in each of the 12 extensive rural CMA regions and four SMUs in the Sydney Metropolitan CMA – making a total target of 1240 sites. The SMUs were selected in conjunction with CMA staff on the basis of their importance, expected changes in use and number of soils issues present. Where possible, sites were paired on the same soil type but across different land uses, including undisturbed ‘reference’ sites where the soil is considered to be in an undisturbed pre-European natural state. A program of soil data collection, with laboratory analysis, was undertaken at each site, together with the collection of land management data. Each site consisted of a 25 m x 25 m quadrate. An overview of the MER process adopted by DECCW is provided in Protocols for soil condition and land capability monitoring (DECCW 2009a). That document includes details on the establishment of formal monitoring sites, soil sampling methodology, sample handling and storage, land management data collection and associated field assessment methodologies.

2.1 Overview of the monitoring, evaluation and reporting program for soil condition Soil condition is a product of numerous physical and chemical attributes and processes, so it was assessed using a number of key ‘indicators’: sheet erosion, gully erosion, wind erosion, soil acidity, soil organic carbon, soil structure, soil salinity and acid sulfate soils. Details of the 2008–09 MER program for soil condition are outlined in Monitoring Evaluation and Reporting of Soil Condition in NSW (Chapman et al. 2011). Rigorous protocols (DECCW 2009a), training and quality control checks were used to ensure that errors from field data collection, sample handling and laboratory testing were minimised as far as practical to ensure that future changes in the condition of these indicators could be detected. The concept was the evaluation of the key indicators at the individual sites against a reference condition. The more a soil indicator has deteriorated relative to the reference condition, the poorer is its condition. Each indicator was evaluated for each site and rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being at or better than reference condition, and one being severely deteriorated against reference condition, as shown in Table 1. For example, in relation to soil acidity, if a soil in a given region has a reference pH of 7.0 but the measured pH is now 4.0, it was allocated a soil condition index of 2 (poor condition). Tables with reference values are presented in Chapman et al. (2011). An overview of the process for assessing soil condition is presented in Figure 1. Soil condition indices were prepared by averaging the results for individual hazards at sites up to various spatial entities. The results were initially averaged for the individual sites, then up to SMU, CMA region and ultimately state-wide level. Results are presented for each indicator as well as the overall combined soil condition. By May 2009, data was available for 797 sites, but laboratory data for over 772 sites was preliminary only, being based on just one of the 10 subsamples from each site. Results were presented in the NSW 2009 State of the Environment report (DECCW 2009b) and in a series of State of the catchment reports (e.g., DECCW 2010).

2 Soil condition and land management in NSW :

Table 1: Soil condition index classes

5 Very good No loss of soil function. Either no deterioration or an improvement on reference condition. 4 Good Slight loss of soil function. Noticeable but not significant deterioration against reference condition. 3 Fair Noticeable loss of soil function. Noticeable deterioration against reference condition. 2 Poor Significant loss of soil function. Considerable deterioration against reference condition. 1 Very poor Profound loss of soil function. Severe deterioration against reference condition.

Figure 1: Overview of the soil condition assessment process

2.2 Land management within capability The LMwC process attempts to quantify the potential impacts of specific land management actions and compare these with the inherent physical capability of the land in relation to a range of land degradation hazards. Details of the 2008–09 MER program for LMwC are outlined in Land Management within Capability, a NSW Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Project (Gray et al. 2011). An overview of the assessment process is presented in Figure 2. The key concept is the comparison of the actual land and soil capability (LSC) (OEH 2012) at a site with the upper sustainable LSC for the land management, that is, the LSC above which the management is not sustainable. Rating tables that present the allowable LSC classes for various land management actions in relation to each of the main hazards guide this comparison (updated tables are presented in Appendix 1). From this comparison, LMwC indices of 1 to 5 are derived as shown in Figure 3, which also indicates ‘desired’ and ‘non- desired’ states from the resilience framework (Walker and Salt 2006). final results from the 2008-09 MER program 3

Figure 2: Overview of the land management within capability assessment process

Figure 3: Derivation of land management within capability indices

The LMwC indices were progressively combined to give indices for each site, SMU, CMA region and finally the whole state. The index indicates the degree to which land is being managed sustainably.

4 Soil condition and land management in NSW :

As of May 2009, required data was available for only 497 sites. Results had to be based partly on expert opinion derived from DECCW and CMA staff. They were presented in the NSW 2009 State of the Environment report (DECCW 2009b) and in a series of State of the catchment reports (e.g. DECCW 2010).

2.3 Update process A reanalysis of all available MER data for both soil condition and LMwC themes was warranted in 2012. Previous results as had been reported in the State of the Environment and State of the Catchment reports had been based on incomplete data. Specifically, there had been incomplete laboratory analysis, data entry and return of landholder land management surveys, but by 2012 this data was substantially complete. Several problems and weaknesses in the methodologies and rule sets for both themes had been identified and needed to be addressed.

2.3.1 Soil condition update approach The update involved the following. • The master MER database was updated with the completed profile and laboratory data. As of February 2012 there were 866 sites, with full laboratory data available for 777 sites (based on 10 subsamples per site). • For acidity, structure decline and organic carbon (OC) indicators, the Excel spreadsheets were rerun with the updated data. • For sheet erosion, updated modelling using MODIS time series ground cover products was applied. • For acid sulfate soils, the assessment approach was rerun using data from additional sites (from 32 to 40 sites). • For gully and wind erosion no update was possible. • A slight adjustment to the description of different soil condition classes was applied, for example, poor is now defined as index 2.0 to 3.0 compared to 1.5 to 2.5 previously. New results were achieved for each site, SMU, CMA and for the state.

2.3.2 Land management within capability update approach The update involved the following. • The MER Master database was updated with complete profile and laboratory data as above and with the additional land management survey results and LSC determinations. By February 2012, there were 661 sites with all required data in the system, out of the total 866 sites visited. • Data was rectified and formatted as required for the Excel spreadsheets. For example, fertiliser and lime application rates were translated into consistent annual average rates; in cases where no application rate was recorded it was assumed there was zero application. • Rule sets in the Excel spreadsheets were updated as required to reflect the slightly modified methodology, LMwC rating tables (from Appendix 1) and definitions of LMwC index classes. Many of the modifications served to give a more realistic penalty in the rating system where land management actions were considered to be unsustainable relative to the LSC (inherent capability) of the site. For example, an index of 2 for a particular action was applied where upper sustainable LSC minus actual LSC was <0 rather than <–0.5. • The updated data sets were applied to the updated Excel spreadsheets to produce new LMwC results for each site, SMU, CMA and for the state.

final results from the 2008-09 MER program 5

3 Results

3.1 Results and key findings by CMA

3.1.1 Border Rivers – Gwydir CMA Soil condition (refer to Table 2) • Overall soil condition index: 4.0 (fair to good) • SMUs with at least one issue of concern (<3.0): 8 of 10 (80%) • Broad issues of concern: sheet erosion and wind erosion • Particular issues of concern: sheet erosion in SMUs 4, 6, 8 and 10; wind erosion in SMUs 1, 2, 3, and 5 Land management within capability (refer to Table 3) • Overall LMwC index: 3.7 (fair) • SMUs with at least one issue of concern (<3.0): 4 of 8 (50%) • Broad issues of concern: acidification • Particular issues of concern: acidification in SMUs 7, 8 and 9; wind erosion in SMU 7 and 9; salinity/waterlogging in SMU 3

Table 2: Soil condition indices for Border Rivers – Gwydir CMA

SMU Sheet Gully Wind OC Struct. Lowest SMU name Acidity ASS Salinity Average Worst hazard no. erosion erosion erosion decline decline score Lower Gwydir 1 4.2 5.0 2.6 5.0 3.7 3.1 – 4.3 4.0 2.6 wind erosion Floodplains Croppa Creek 2 3.8 4.9 2.6 5.0 3.7 3.6 – 3.8 3.9 2.6 wind erosion Outwash Boomi Whalan 3 4.1 4.9 2.6 5.0 4.3 2.9 – 4.0 4.0 2.6 wind erosion Floodplains 4 Inverell Basalts 2.6 3.5 4.5 5.0 4.8 3.8 – 4.0 4.0 2.6 sheet erosion 5 Rowena Floodplain 4.5 4.9 2.6 – – – – 4.5 4.1 2.6 wind erosion 6 Tenterfield Granites 2.1 3.5 4.0 – – – – 4.3 4.0 2.1 sheet erosion 7 Bundarra Granites 3.1 3.9 5.0 3.8 3.0 3.9 – 3.9 3.8 3.0 OC decline 8 Bingara Rises 2.6 3.0 5.0 5.0 4.6 4.4 – 3.6 4.0 2.6 sheet erosion Northern Tableland 9 3.2 4.0 5.0 – – – – 3.9 4.0 3.2 sheet erosion Basalts 10 Warialda Sands 2.7 4.0 3.6 4.6 3.1 3.4 – 4.6 3.7 2.7 sheet erosion Average 3.3 4.2 3.8 4.8 3.9 3.6 – 4.1 4.0 3.3 sheet eros ion

4.5-5.0 Very good No loss of soil function. Either no deterioration or an improvement on reference condition 4.0-4.4 Good Slight loss of soil function. Noticeable but not significant deterioration against reference condition 3.0-3.9 Fair Noticeable loss of soil function. Noticeable deterioration against reference condition 2.0-2.9 Poor Significant loss of soil function. Considerable deterioration against reference condition 1.0-1.9 Very poor Profound loss of soil function. Severe deterioration against reference condition - No data Not included for change monitoring

6 Soil condition and land management in NSW :

Table 3: Land management within capability indices for Border Rivers – Gwydir CMA

SMU Sheet Gully Wind Acidifi - OC Struct. Salinity/ Lowest SMU name ASS Average Worst hazard no. erosion erosion erosion cation decline decline waterlog score Lower Gwydir 1 4.2 4.2 3.8 5.0 4.0 4.2 - 4.0 4.2 3.8 wind erosion Floodplains Croppa Creek 2 4.4 4.4 3.0 4.7 3.6 3.7 - 3.1 3.8 3.0 wind erosion Outwash Boomi Whalan salinity/ 3 4.3 4.3 3.5 4.2 3.8 4.2 - 2.0 3.8 2.0 Floodplains waterlogging sheet/gully/ 4 Inverell Basalts 3.7 3.7 3.7 4.1 4.3 4.5 - 3.9 4.0 3.7 wind erosion 5 Rowena Floodplain ------6 Tenterfield Granites ------7 Bundarra Granites 3.6 3.6 2.3 2.2 4.8 4.8 - 4.9 3.7 2.2 acidification 8 Bingara Rises 3.3 3.3 4.1 2.5 3.4 3.4 - 4.0 3.4 2.5 acidification Northern Tableland 9 3.3 3.3 2.4 1.4 3.4 3.4 - 4.8 3.1 1.4 acidification Basalts 10 Warialda Sands 4.0 4.0 3.1 2.8 4.2 4.3 - 4.0 3.8 2.8 acidification Average 3.9 3.9 3.2 3.4 3.9 4.1 - 3.8 3.7 3.2 wind eros ion

4.5-5.0 Very good Managed well within capability, very low risk of soil and land degradation 4.0-4.4 Good Managed within capability, low risk of soil and land degradation. 3.0-3.9 Fair Managed at capability, acceptable risk of soil and land degradation 2.0-2.9 Poor Managed slightly beyond capability, high risk of soil and land degradation 1.0-1.9 Very poor Managed well beyond capability, very high risk of soil and land degradation - No data Not included for change monitoring

Figure 4: Soil monitoring units in Border Rivers – Gwydir CMA

final results from the 2008-09 MER program 7

3.1.2 Central West CMA Soil condition (refer to Table 4) • Overall soil condition index: 3.8 (fair) • SMUs with at least one issue of concern (<3.0): 6 of 10 (60%) • Broad issues of concern: sheet erosion, salinity • Particular issues of concern: sheet erosion in SMUs 1 and 7; salinity in SMUs 2 and 4; OC decline in SMU 5 Land management within capability (refer to Table 5) • Overall LMwC index: 3.8 (fair) • SMUs with at least one issue of concern (<3.0): 3 of 8 (40%) • Broad issues of concern: salinity/waterlogging, OC decline • Particular issues of concern: salinity/waterlogging in SMU 1; OC decline in SMU 6

Table 4: Soil condition indices for Central West CMA

SMU Sheet Gully Wind OC Struct. Lowest SMU name Acidity ASS Salinity Average Worst hazard no. erosion erosion erosion decline decline score 1 Hill End Trough 2.1 2.5 5.0 3.2 4.5 3.5 – 3.6 3.5 2.1 sheet erosion Cowra Trough Red 2 3.0 4.0 5.0 4.8 4.6 3.7 – 2.0 3.9 2.0 salinity Soils – Wellington Central Tablelands 3 2.9 3.5 4.8 3.9 3.0 3.6 – 3.9 3.6 2.9 sheet erosion Red Chromosols Ballimore – Curban 4 2.8 4.0 4.6 4.1 3.6 3.2 – 2.0 3.5 2.0 salinity Red Soils Girilambone Red 5 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 2.2 2.9 – 3.5 3.7 2.2 OC decline Soils 6 Bogan Sodic Soils 3.9 4.0 4.3 4.1 4.0 3.5 – 3.9 4.0 3.5 OC decline 7 Molong Rise 2.7 4.0 5.0 4.7 4.8 4.3 – 3.6 4.2 2.7 sheet erosion Carrabear Alluvial 8 4.1 5.0 3.8 4.0 3.5 3.2 – 3.3 3.8 3.2 struct. decline Soils Parkes Platform 9 3.4 4.0 5.0 – – – – 3.1 3.9 3.1 salinity Red Soils Central Tablelands 10 3.3 3.0 3.6 – – – – 4.2 3.5 3.0 gully erosion Tertiary Volcanics Average 3.2 3.8 4.6 4.1 3.8 3.5 – 3.3 3.8 3.2 sheet eros ion

8 Soil condition and land management in NSW :

Table 5: Land management within capability indices for Central West CMA

SMU Sheet Gully Wind Acidifi - OC Struct. Salinity/ Lowest SMU name ASS Average Worst hazard no. erosion erosion erosion cation decline decline waterlog score 1 Hill End Trough 3.4 3.4 4.4 2.6 3.8 3.8 – 2.0 3.3 2.0 salinity/w’log Cowra Trough Red 2 3.6 3.6 4.0 3.6 3.4 3.6 – 4.1 3.7 3.4 OC decline Soils – Wellington Central Tablelands sheet/gully/ 3 3.4 3.4 3.9 3.8 4.0 4.0 – 4.9 3.9 3.4 Red Chromosols wind erosion Ballimore – Curban 4 3.7 3.7 3.8 3.2 3.5 3.4 – 3.8 3.6 3.2 acidification Red Soils Girilambone Red OC decline/ 5 4.3 4.3 3.0 5.0 3.0 3.7 – 4.0 3.9 3.0 Soils wind erosion 6 Bogan Sodic Soils 4.0 4.0 3.9 4.0 2.4 2.6 – 3.4 3.5 2.4 OC decline sheet/gully 7 Molong Rise 3.6 3.6 4.0 4.3 5.0 5.0 – 3.7 4.2 3.6 erosion Carrabear Alluvial 8 5.0 5.0 2.8 4.3 3.3 3.7 – 3.7 4.0 2.8 wind erosion Soils Parkes Platform 9 – – – – – – – – – – – Red Soils Central Tablelands 10 – – – – – – – – – – – Tertiary Volcanics Average 3.9 3.9 3.7 3.9 3.6 3.7 – 3.7 3.8 3.6 OC decline

Figure 5: Soil monitoring units in Central West CMA

final results from the 2008-09 MER program 9

3.1.3 Hawkesbury Nepean CMA Soil condition (refer to Table 6) • Overall soil condition index: 3.7 (fair) • SMUs with at least one issue of concern (<3.0): 9 of 10 (90%) • Broad issues of concern: OC decline, salinity, sheet erosion • Particular issues of concern: salinity in SMUs 1 and 5; OC decline in SMUs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7; sheet erosion in SMU 2 Land management within capability (refer to Table 7) • Overall LMwC index: 3.5 (fair) • SMUs with at least one issue of concern (<3.0): 6 of 8 (75%) • Broad issues of concern: acidification • Particular issues of concern: acidification in SMUs 2, 3, 5 and 7; sheet and gully erosion in SMU 2; OC and structure decline in SMU 7

Table 6: Soil condition indices for Hawkesbury–Nepean CMA

SMU Sheet Gully Wind OC Struct. Lowest SMU name Acidity ASS Salinity Average Worst hazard no. erosion erosion erosion decline decline score Wianamatta Rural 1 3.2 4.7 5.0 4.0 3.4 4.4 – 1.5 3.7 1.5 salinity Fringe Coxs River Granite 2 2.4 4.4 5.0 3.3 2.5 4.6 – 3.8 3.7 2.4 sheet erosion Soils 3 Mid Wollondilly Lands 2.8 4.6 5.0 3.5 1.8 3.4 – 3.0 3.5 1.8 OC decline Upper Wollondilly 4 2.7 4.7 5.0 3.2 2.0 3.5 – 3.1 3.5 2.0 OC decline Lands Capertee and Wolgan 5 3.0 4.0 5.0 3.5 2.3 3.9 – 1.5 3.3 1.5 salinity Lower Slopes 6 Mulwaree Plains 3.3 5.0 5.0 4.1 2.1 4.0 – 3.3 3.8 2.1 OC decline 7 Nepean Alluvials 4.0 – 5.0 4.0 2.0 3.1 – 3.3 3.6 2.0 OC decline Sommersby Plateau 2.7 – 5.0 – – – – 4.3 4.0 2.7 sheet erosion 9 Wingecarribee Hills 3.3 – 5.0 3.5 3.8 4.3 – 4.3 4.0 3.3 sheet erosion 10 Robertson Basalts 2.9 – 5.0 – – – – 4.3 4.1 2.9 sheet erosion Average 3.0 4.6 5.0 3.6 2.5 3.9 – 3.3 3.7 2.5 OC decline

10 Soil condition and land management in NSW :

Table 7: Land management within capability indices for Hawkesbury–Nepean CMA

SMU Sheet Gully Wind Acidifi - OC Struct. Salinity/ Lowest SMU name ASS Average Worst hazard no. erosion erosion erosion cation decline decline waterlog score Wianamatta Rural 1 3.8 3.8 5.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 – 4.2 4.3 3.0 acidification Fringe Coxs River Granite acidification, 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.2 4.2 4.2 – 5.0 3.3 2.2 Soils sheet erosion 3 Mid Wollondilly Lands 4.0 4.2 2.7 1.7 4.0 4.0 – 4.5 3.6 1.7 acidification Upper Wollondilly 4 3.3 3.5 2.7 2.8 3.3 3.7 – 4.7 3.4 2.7 wind erosion Lands Capertee and Wolgan 5 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.5 3.8 3.8 – 2.8 3.4 1.5 acidification Lower Slopes 6 Mulwaree Plains 4.5 4.6 2.6 3.4 3.5 3.3 – 4.3 3.7 2.6 wind erosion 7 Nepean Alluvials 4.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 – 3.0 2.4 1.0 acidification 8 Sommersby Plateau – – – – – – – – – – – 9 Wingecarribee Hills 4.3 4.3 3.7 3.3 5.0 5.0 – 3.7 4.2 3.3 acidification 10 Robertson Basalts – – – – – – – – – – – Average 3.8 3.9 3.0 2.4 3.9 3.9 – 4.0 3.5 2.4 ac idificatio n

Figure 6: Soil monitoring units in Hawkesbury–Nepean CMA final results from the 2008-09 MER program 11

3.1.4 Hunter – Central Rivers CMA Soil condition (refer to Table 8) • Overall soil condition index: 3.7 (fair) • SMUs with at least one issue of concern (<3.0): 6 of 10 (60%) • Broad issues of concern: salinity, sheet erosion • Particular issues of concern: salinity in SMUs 1, 3, 4, 9 and 10; sheet erosion in SMUs 2, 3, 6, 7 and 9; OC decline in SMUs 4 and 9 Land management within capability (refer to Table 9) • Overall LMwC index: 3.8 (fair) • SMUs with at least one issue of concern (<3.0): 5 of 9 (55%) • Broad issues of concern: acidification, OC decline, structure decline • Particular issues of concern: OC and structure decline in SMUs 3 and 10; acidification in SMUs 1 and 5; sheet and gully erosion in SMU 7

Table 8: Soil condition indices for Hunter – Central Rivers CMA

SMU Sheet Gully Wind OC Struct. Lowest SMU name Acidity ASS Salinity Average Worst hazard no. erosion erosion erosion decline decline score 1 Singleton Valley Floor 2.9 3.0 5.0 2.8 3.0 3.7 – 1.5 3.1 1.5 salinity 2 Merriwa Plateau 2.3 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.8 4.3 – 3.3 4.1 2.3 sheet erosion Muswellbrook Valley 3 2.5 3.5 5.0 5.0 1.6 3.2 – 1.5 3.2 1.5 salinity Floor OC decline, 4 Hunter Floodplains 4.1 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.3 3.2 – 2.3 3.8 2.3 salinity 5 Landsdowne Terraces 3.6 4.9 5.0 3.8 3.1 4.5 – 4.7 4.2 3.1 OC decline 6 Chichester Hills 2.0 4.0 5.0 – – – – 3.8 3.7 2.0 sheet erosion Cooplacurripa 7 2.0 4.8 5.0 3.8 2.8 3.5 – 3.8 3.7 2.0 sheet erosion Footslopes Goulburn River Valley 8 3.1 3.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.7 – 3.3 4.2 3.1 sheet erosion Floor 9 Mining Rehabilitation 2.7 5.0 5.0 4.8 2.1 3.0 – 1.5 3.4 1.5 Salinity 10 Acid Sulfate Estuaries 4.1 5.0 5.0 1.8 3.2 – 3.8 2.9 3.7 1.8 Acidity sheet erosio n, Average 2.9 4.3 5.0 4.1 3.1 3.8 3.8 2.9 3.7 2.9 salinity

12 Soil condition and land management in NSW :

Table 9: Land management within capability indices for Hunter – Central Rivers CMA

SMU Sheet Gully Wind Acidifi - OC Struct. Salinity/ Lowest SMU name ASS Average Worst hazard no. erosion erosion erosion cation decline decline waterlog score Singleton Valley 1 4.1 4.1 4.4 2.6 4.1 4.4 - 3.6 3.9 2.6 acidification Floor 2 Merriwa Plateau 3.5 3.5 3.2 4.0 4.9 4.9 - 4.7 4.1 3.2 wind erosion Muswellbrook Valley OC decline, struct. 3 3.6 3.6 5.0 3.7 2.4 2.4 - 3.4 3.4 2.4 Floor decline 4 Hunter Floodplains 4.4 4.4 4.8 3.3 3.9 3.9 - 4.0 4.1 3.3 acidification Landsdowne 5 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.3 3.7 3.9 - 4.0 4.1 2.3 acidification Terraces 6 Chichester Hills ------Cooplacurripa sheet/gully 7 2.4 2.4 4.8 3.6 3.8 3.8 - 4.4 3.6 2.4 Footslopes erosion Goulburn River 8 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.6 4.2 4.2 - 4.2 4.5 3.6 acidification Valley Floor 9 Mining Rehabilitation 4.3 4.3 4.5 4.3 3.8 4.3 - 4.1 4.2 3.8 OC decline Acid Sulfate OC decline, 10 5.0 5.0 3.4 2.8 1.0 1.1 3.4 1.0 2.8 1.0 Estuaries sal/wlg acidificat ion , Average 4.1 4.1 4.5 3.4 3.5 3.7 3.4 3.7 3.8 3.4 ASS

Figure 7: Soil monitoring units in Hunter – Central Rivers CMA

final results from the 2008-09 MER program 13

3.1.5 Lachlan CMA Soil condition (refer to Table 10) • Overall soil condition index: 3.8 (fair) • SMUs with at least one issue of concern (<3.0): 4 of 10 (40%) • Broad issues of concern: salinity • Particular issues of concern: salinity in SMUs 2,3 and 7 Land management within capability (refer to Table 11) • Overall LMwC index: 3.4 (fair) • SMUs with at least one issue of concern (<3.0): 3 of 3 (100%) • Broad issues of concern: insufficient results • Particular issues of concern: salinity/waterlogging in SMU 1, sheet and gully erosion in SMU 2; acidification in SMU 7

Table 10: Soil condition indices for Lachlan CMA

SMU Sheet Gully Wind OC Struct. Lowest SMU name Acidity ASS Salinity Average Worst hazard no. erosion erosion erosion decline decline score 1 Bland Riverine Lands 4.1 4.0 5.0 4.5 4.6 3.7 – 3.9 4.3 3.7 struct. decline Young Greenethorpe 2 3.4 4.0 5.0 3.7 3.8 3.4 – 2.8 3.7 2.8 salinity Earths Murringo Bevandale 3 2.5 2.5 5.0 – – – – 1.5 2.9 1.5 salinity Metasediments 4 Mid Lachlan Floodplain 4.2 5.0 3.9 – – – – 3.4 4.1 3.4 salinity 5 Ivanhoe Mallee 4.4 4.0 2.8 – – – – 3.8 3.8 2.8 wind erosion Tullibigeal – Naradhan 6 3.7 5.0 5.0 – – – – 4.0 4.4 3.7 sheet erosion Red Soils Cowra Trough Red 7 3.3 4.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 3.6 – 2.0 3.4 2.0 salinity Soils – Cowra 8 Trundle Red Soils 3.3 4.0 5.0 – – – – 3.7 4.0 3.3 sheet erosion 9 Humbug Creek Lands 3.5 3.0 4.9 – – – – 3.8 3.8 3.0 gully erosion Parkes Platform Red 10 3.3 4.0 5.0 – – – – 3.4 3.9 3.3 sheet erosion Soils Average 3.6 4.0 4.7 3.7 3.8 3.6 – 3.2 3.8 3.2 salinity

14 Soil condition and land management in NSW :

Table 11: Land management within capability indices for Lachlan CMA

SMU Sheet Gully Wind Acidifi - OC Struct. Salinity/ Lowest SMU name ASS Average Worst hazard no. erosion erosion erosion cation decline decline waterlog score 1 Bland Riverine Lands 4.0 4.0 2.8 4.5 2.8 2.8 – 2.5 3.3 2.5 salinity/wlg Young Greenethorpe sheet/gully 2 2.8 2.8 3.2 3.0 3.3 3.0 – 3.5 3.1 2.8 Earths erosion Murringo Bevandale 3 – – – – – – – – – – – Metasediments 4 Mid Lachlan Floodplain – – – – – – – – – – – 5 Ivanhoe Mallee – – – – – – – – – – – Tullibigeal – Naradhan 6 – – – – – – – – – – – Red Soils Cowra Trough Red Soils 7 4.0 4.0 4.3 2.8 3.5 3.5 – 3.5 3.7 2.8 acidification – Cowra 8 Trundle Red Soils – – – – – – – – – – – 9 Humbug Creek Lands – – – – – – – – – – – Parkes Platform Red 10 – – – – – – – – – – – Soils structure Average 3.6 3.6 3.4 3.4 3.2 3.1 – 3.2 3.4 3.1 decline

Figure 8: Soil monitoring units in Lachlan CMA

final results from the 2008-09 MER program 15

3.1.6 Lower Murray–Darling CMA Soil condition (refer to Table 12) • Overall soil condition index: 3.8 (fair) • SMUs with at least one issue of concern (<3.0): 6 of 10 (60%) • Broad issues of concern: OC decline • Particular issues of concern: OC decline in SMUs 2,3,6,8 and 10; wind erosion in SMUs 3 and 7 Land management within capability (refer to Table 13) • Overall LMwC index: 3.8 (fair) • SMUs with at least one issue of concern (<3.0): 4 of 4 (100%) • Broad issues of concern: wind erosion • Particular issues of concern: wind erosion in SMUs 1, 2, 3 and 4

Table 12: Soil condition indices for Lower Murray–Darling CMA

SMU Sheet Gully Wind OC Struct. Lowest SMU name Acidity ASS Salinity Average Worst hazard no. erosion erosion erosion decline decline score 1 Overnewton Flats 3.5 – 4.6 5.0 3.2 3.6 – 3.8 4.0 3.2 OC decline Lower Darling River 2 4.1 4.5 2.6 5.0 1.7 3.0 – 2.2 3.3 1.7 OC decline Alluvials Lower Murray River 3 4.1 4.5 2.6 4.9 2.7 3.0 – 2.9 3.5 2.6 wind erosion Alluvials 4 Arumpo Mallee Lands 4.1 – 4.9 5.0 4.5 4.0 – 3.7 4.4 3.7 salinity 5 Guthul Sand Plain 4.0 – 4.3 – – – – 3.3 3.9 3.3 salinity 6 East Pooncarie Sands 5.4 – 4.9 5.0 2.3 2.7 – 4.2 4.1 2.3 OC decline 7 Hatfield Plains 4.1 – 2.7 – – – – 3.8 3.5 2.7 wind erosion Southern Barrier 8 4.0 3.0 2.3 5.0 1.3 3.7 – 3.8 3.3 1.3 OC decline Range Footslopes 9 Roo Roo Plains 3.6 4.5 5.0 – – – – 3.2 4.1 3.2 salinity 10 Border Mallee Soils 4.3 – 5.0 4.3 1.3 3.7 – 4.2 3.8 1.3 OC decline Average 4.1 4.1 3.9 4.9 2.4 3.4 – 3.5 3.8 2.4 OC decline

16 Soil condition and land management in NSW :

Table 13: Land management within capability indices for Lower Murray–Darling CMA

SMU Sheet Gully Wind Acidifi - OC Struct. Salinity/ Lowest SMU name ASS Average Worst hazard no. erosion erosion erosion cation decline decline waterlog score 1 Overnewton Flats 3.8 4 1.4 4.6 3.4 3.6 – 3.2 3.4 1.4 wind erosion Lower Darling River 2 5 5 1 4 4 4.5 – 2.5 3.7 1.0 wind erosion Alluvials Lower Murray River 3 4.5 4.5 1 4.5 3.5 4 – 3.5 3.6 1.0 wind erosion Alluvials 4 Arumpo Mallee Lands 4.6 4.6 1.4 4.8 3.8 4.2 – 3.2 3.8 1.4 wind erosion 5 Guthul Sand Plain – – – – – – – – – – – 6 East Pooncarie Sands – – – – – – – – – – – 7 Hatfield Plains – – – – – – – – – – – Southern Barrier 8 – – – – – – – – – – – Range Footslopes 9 Roo Roo Plains – – – – – – – – – – – 10 Border Mallee Soils – – – – – – – – – – – Average 4.5 4.5 1.2 4.5 3.7 4.1 – 3.1 3.6 1.2 wind eros ion

Figure 9: Soil monitoring units in Lower Murray–Darling CMA final results from the 2008-09 MER program 17

3.1.7 Murray CMA Soil condition (refer to Table 14) • Overall soil condition index: 4.0 (good) • SMUs with at least one issue of concern (<3.0): 5 of 10 (50%) • Broad issues of concern: sheet erosion, salinity, structure decline • Particular issues of concern: sheet erosion in SMU 4, wind erosion in SMUs 7 and 10; salinity in SMU 6 Land management within capability (refer to Table 15) • Overall LMwC index: 3.4 (fair) • SMUs with at least one issue of concern (<3.0): 3 of 3 (100%) • Broad issues of concern: structure decline • Particular issues of concern: structure decline in SMU 1; salinity/waterlogging in SMU 5

Table 14: Soil condition indices for Murray CMA

SMU Sheet Gully Wind OC Struct. Lowest SMU name Acidity ASS Salinity Average Worst hazard no. erosion erosion erosion decline decline score 1 Grey Box Plains 4.7 4.9 4.6 4.4 4.2 3.5 – 3.3 4.2 3.3 salinity Mid-Murray 2 3.5 4.9 5.0 3.9 4.2 3.7 – 3.0 4.0 3.0 salinity Metasediments Tumbarumba Wet 3 2.3 4.0 5.0 3.4 4.5 3.5 – 4.3 3.9 2.3 sheet erosion Granodiorites 4 Khancoban Granites 1.8 3.5 5.0 – – – – 5.0 3.8 1.8 sheet erosion Mid-Murray Prior Streams 5 4.9 4.0 3.9 4.6 3.4 3.5 – 4.3 4.1 3.4 OC decline and Dunes 6 Coreinbob Low Hills 2.7 4.5 5.0 4.0 5.0 3.5 – 2.0 3.8 2.0 salinity Edwards River Red Gum 7 5.0 4.9 2.6 – – – – 4.4 4.2 2.6 wind erosion Floodways 8 Tooleybuc Mallee Sands 4.3 3.0 3.4 – – – – 4.3 3.8 3.0 gully erosion 9 Yerong Creek Plains 4.2 4.9 5.0 – – – – 3.6 4.4 3.6 salinity 10 Moulamein Plain 4.8 4.9 1.6 – – – – 3.8 3.8 1.6 wind erosion Average 3.8 4.4 4.1 4.1 4.2 3.5 – 3.8 4.0 3.5 struc t. decline

18 Soil condition and land management in NSW :

Table 15: Land management within capability indices for Murray CMA

SMU Sheet Gully Wind Acidifi - OC Struct. Salinity/ Lowest SMU name ASS Average Worst hazard no. erosion erosion erosion cation decline decline waterlog score 1 Grey Box Plains 4.8 4.8 3.5 – 2.5 2.1 – 2.6 3.4 2.1 structure decline Mid-Murray 2 – – – – – – – – – – – Metasediments Tumbarumba Wet acidification, 3 2.8 2.8 3.3 2.8 3.3 3.4 – 4.6 3.3 2.8 Granodiorites sheet/gully erosion 4 Khancoban Granites – – – – – – – – – – – Mid-Murray Prior salinity/ 5 5.0 5.0 3.3 – 3.5 3.0 – 2.5 3.7 2.5 Streams and Dunes waterlogging 6 Coreinbob Low Hills – – – – – – – – – – – Edwards River Red 7 – – – – – – – – – – – Gum Floodways Tooleybuc Mallee 8 – – – – – – – – – – – Sands 9 Yerong Creek Plains – – – – – – – – – – – 10 Moulamein Plain – – – – – – – – – – – struc t. decline, Average 4.2 4.2 3.4 2.8 3.1 2.8 – 3.2 3.4 2.8 acidification

Figure 10: Soil monitoring units in Murray CMA

final results from the 2008-09 MER program 19

3.1.8 Murrumbidgee CMA Soil condition (refer to Table 16) • Overall soil condition index: 3.9 (fair) • SMUs with at least one issue of concern (<3.0): 6 of 10 (60%) • Broad issues of concern: salinity, sheet erosion, wind erosion • Particular issues of concern: salinity in SMU 2, 3 and 6; wind erosion in SMU 1 and 4; sheet erosion in SMU 7 Land management within capability (refer to Table 17) • Overall LMwC index: 3.5 (fair) • SMUs with at least one issue of concern (<3.0): 7 of 8 (85%) • Broad issues of concern: acidification, OC decline, structure decline • Particular issues of concern: acidification in SMUs 3 and 5; OC decline in SMUs 4 and 6; structure decline in SMUs 1 and 9

Table 16: Soil condition indices for Murrumbidgee CMA

SMU Sheet Gully Wind OC Struct. Lowest SMU name Acidity ASS Salinity Average Worst hazard no. erosion erosion erosion decline decline score 1 Boree Plains 4.9 4.0 2.8 4.1 3.7 2.9 - 3.3 3.7 2.8 wind erosion Murrumburrah Harden 2 2.4 4.7 5.0 4.2 4.3 3.8 - 1.5 3.7 1.5 salinity Hills 3 Cullarin Metasediments 2.3 4.0 5.0 3.5 4.7 4.0 - 1.5 3.6 1.5 salinity 4 Lowbidgee Delta 4.5 5.0 2.6 5.0 4.2 3.0 - 4.3 4.1 2.6 wind erosion 5 Coolamon Plains 3.4 4.9 5.0 4.4 3.5 3.7 - 3.8 4.1 3.4 OC decline 6 Wantabadgery Rises 3.2 4.5 5.0 3.6 3.9 4.1 - 1.5 3.7 1.5 salinity 7 Murrumbidgee Alps 2.0 4.0 5.0 3.0 3.6 4.0 - 4.3 3.7 2.0 sheet erosion Ariah Park Plains 3.5 4.9 5.0 - - - - 4.0 4.4 3.5 sheet erosion 9 Murrumbidgee Alluvials 4.2 5.0 4.3 5.0 4.5 3.5 - 3.3 4.3 3.3 salinity Monaro Murrumbidgee 10 4.0 4.3 5.0 - - - - 4.7 4.5 4.0 sheet erosion Basalts Average 3.4 4.5 4.5 4.1 4.0 3.6 - 3.2 3.9 3.2 salinity

20 Soil condition and land management in NSW :

Table 17: Land management within capability indices for Murrumbidgee CMA

SMU Sheet Gully Wind Acidifi - OC Struct. Salinity/ Lowest SMU name ASS Average Worst hazard no. erosion erosion erosion cation decline decline waterlog score 1 Boree Plains 4.5 4.5 3.1 – 2.6 2.4 – 2.9 3.3 2.4 structure decline Murrumburrah Harden erosion, acidification, 2 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 – 4.5 3.6 3.5 Hills OC/struct. decline 3 Cullarin Metasediments 3.7 3.7 4.8 1.9 3.6 3.8 – 3.8 3.6 1.9 acidification 4 Lowbidgee Delta 4.5 4.5 3.1 – 2.3 2.4 – 2.8 3.3 2.3 OC decline 5 Coolamon Plains 4.3 4.3 4.8 1.0 2.8 2.5 – 3.8 3.4 1.0 acidification 6 Wantabadgery Rises 3.4 3.4 3.4 – 2.0 2.4 – 4.0 3.1 2.0 OC decline 7 Murrumbidgee Alps 4.0 4.0 4.1 2.9 4.3 4.1 – 4.7 4.0 2.9 acidification 8 Ariah Park Plains – – – – – – – – – – – 9 Murrumbidgee Alluvials 5.0 5.0 4.5 3.5 2.5 2.0 – 4.0 3.8 2.0 structure decline Monaro Murrumbidgee 10 – – – – – – – – – – – Basalts Average 4.1 4.1 3.9 2.6 3.0 2.9 – 3.8 3.5 2.6 acidificat ion

Figure 11: Soil monitoring units in Murrumbidgee CMA

final results from the 2008-09 MER program 21

3.1.9 Namoi CMA Soil condition (refer to Table 18) • Overall soil condition index: 3.9 (fair) • SMUs with at least one issue of concern (<3.0): 8 of 10 (80%) • Broad issues of concern: sheet and wind erosion, salinity, OC decline • Particular issues of concern: salinity in SMU 5; sheet erosion in SMUs 1, 6, and 9; wind erosion in SMUs 3 and 9; OC decline in SMUs 8 and 10; structure decline in SMU 10 Land management within capability (refer to Table 19) • Overall LMwC index: 3.5 (fair) • SMUs with at least one issue of concern (<3.0): 6 of 9 (65%) • Broad issues of concern: salinity/waterlogging, wind erosion, OC decline • Particular issues of concern: salinity/waterlogging in SMUs 3 and 10; wind erosion in SMUs 8, 9 and 10; OC decline in SMU 4

Table 18: Soil condition indices for Namoi CMA

SMU Sheet Gully Wind OC Struct. Lowest SMU name Acidity ASS Salinity Average Worst hazard no. erosion erosion erosion decline decline score Liverpool Plain Red 1 2.7 5.0 3.7 4.5 3.9 3.6 – 3.1 3.8 2.7 sheet erosion Earths 2 Duri Hills 3.0 3.5 4.5 4.8 3.9 – – 3.3 3.8 3.0 sheet erosion 3 Doreen Plain 4.2 5.0 2.6 5.0 3.5 3.0 – 4.0 3.9 2.6 wind erosion 4 Cryon Plain 4.0 5.0 1.7 5.0 2.9 3.7 – 4.5 3.8 1.7 wind erosion 5 Liverpool Black Plains 3.9 4.8 4.1 5.0 4.9 3.9 – 1.5 4.0 1.5 salinity Liverpool Black 6 2.8 4.0 4.9 5.0 4.9 4.1 – 3.4 4.2 2.8 sheet erosion Footslopes 7 Burburgate Alluvials 4.1 4.8 4.7 4.9 4.4 3.6 – 3.2 4.2 3.2 salinity 8 Pilliga Outwash 3.6 4.8 4.4 4.1 2.4 3.3 – 3.1 3.7 2.4 OC decline Maules Creek valley sheet and wind 9 2.6 4.5 2.6 4.9 4.5 3.7 – 4.3 3.9 2.6 floor erosion Come by Chance OC and struct. 10 3.8 5.0 4.7 5.0 2.7 2.8 – 5.0 4.1 2.7 Plain decline sheet eros ion , Average 3.5 4.6 3.8 4.8 3.8 3.5 – 3.5 3.9 3.5 struct. decline, salinity

22 Soil condition and land management in NSW :

Table 19: Land management within capability indices for Namoi CMA

SMU Sheet Gully Wind Acidifi - OC Struct. Salinity/ Lowest SMU name ASS Average Worst hazard no. erosion erosion erosion cation decline decline waterlog score Liverpool Plain Red 1 3.4 3.4 3.6 2.4 3.4 3.2 – 3.2 3.2 2.4 acidification Earths 2 Duri Hills – – – – – – – – – – – 3 Doreen Plain 3.4 3.5 3.4 4.9 3.3 3.6 – 2.4 3.5 2.4 salinity/wlg 4 Cryon Plain 4.3 4.3 3.5 4.9 2.5 2.9 – 3.0 3.6 2.5 OC decline 5 Liverpool Black Plains 4.3 4.3 3.7 4.2 3.7 3.8 – 3.0 3.9 3.0 salinity/wlg OC decline, Liverpool Black 6 3.6 3.6 4.8 4.9 3.6 3.7 – 3.9 4.0 3.6 sheet/gully Footslopes erosion struct. decline, 7 Burburgate Alluvials 4.3 4.3 4.0 3.5 3.3 3.0 – 3.0 3.6 3.0 salinity/wlg 8 Pilliga Outwash 3.4 3.4 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 – 2.8 3.1 2.8 wind erosion Maules Creek valley 9 2.9 3.0 2.7 3.6 2.8 3.0 – 4.2 3.2 2.7 wind erosion floor Come by Chance 10 3.8 3.8 2.8 5.0 2.9 3.1 – 2.1 3.4 2.1 salinity/wlg Plain Average 3.7 3.7 3.5 4.0 3.2 3.3 – 3.1 3.5 3.1 salinity/wlg

Figure 12: Soil monitoring units in Namoi CMA

final results from the 2008-09 MER program 23

3.1.10 Northern Rivers CMA Soil condition (refer to Table 20) • Overall soil condition index: 3.6 (fair) • SMUs with at least one issue of concern (<3.0): 10 of 10 (100%) • Broad issues of concern: OC decline, sheet erosion, acidity • Particular issues of concern: OC decline in SMUs 1 and 5; sheet erosion in SMUs 3, 4, 7 and 9; acidity in SMU 10 Land management within capability (refer to Table 21) • Overall LMwC index: 3.8 (fair) • SMUs with at least one issue of concern (<3.0): 6 of 10 (60%) • Broad issues of concern: salinity/waterlogging, sheet and gully erosion • Particular issues of concern: salinity/waterlogging in SMUs 6 and 10; sheet and gully erosion in SMU 7

Table 20: Soil condition indices for Northern Rivers CMA

SMU Sheet Gully Wind OC Struct. Lowest SMU name Acidity ASS Salinity Average Worst hazard no. erosion erosion erosion decline decline score 1 North Coast Floodplains 3.6 5.0 5.0 3.6 1.1 4.0 – 4.4 3.8 1.1 OC decline Dorrigo-Comboyne 2 2.7 4.0 5.0 – – – – 5.0 4.2 2.7 sheet erosion Plateau 3 Alstonville Plateau 2.2 4.0 5.0 3.9 4.0 4.6 – 5.0 4.1 2.2 sheet erosion 4 Casino Alluvials 2.4 4.0 3.1 3.9 3.2 3.1 – 4.1 3.4 2.4 sheet erosion 5 Walcha Metasediments 2.9 3.5 5.0 3.7 2.1 3.4 – 3.0 3.4 2.1 OC decline 6 Clarence Sodic Soils 2.9 2.0 4.0 3.1 2.6 3.7 – 4.2 3.2 2.0 gully erosion 7 Kempsey Hills 2.5 2.5 5.0 2.7 2.7 4.0 – 5.0 3.5 2.5 sheet erosion sheet erosion, 8 Granite Borderlands 2.8 3.0 3.0 3.5 2.8 4.1 – 3.8 3.3 2.8 OC decline 9 Wauchope Low Hills 2.4 4.0 5.0 3.9 3.5 4.3 – 4.7 4.0 2.4 sheet erosion North Coast Acid Sulfate 10 3.7 5.0 5.0 2.2 3.3 5.0 3.0 5.0 4.0 2.2 acidity Soils sheet eros ion , Average 2.8 3.7 4.5 3.4 2.8 4.0 3.0 4.4 3.6 2.8 OC decline

24 Soil condition and land management in NSW :

Table 21: Land management within capability indices for Northern Rivers CMA

SMU Sheet Gully Wind Acidifi - OC Struct. Salinity/ Lowest SMU name ASS Average Worst hazard no. erosion erosion erosion cation decline decline waterlog score 1 North Coast Floodplains 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.0 4.4 4.4 – 4.9 4.1 3.0 acidification Dorrigo-Comboyne 2 2.9 2.9 4.4 3.3 5.0 5.0 – 5.0 4.1 2.9 sheet/gully erosion Plateau 3 Alstonville Plateau 2.8 2.9 4.2 3.3 4.8 5.0 – 5.0 4.0 2.8 sheet erosion 4 Casino Alluvials 4.7 4.7 4.8 3.2 4.2 4.2 – 4.6 4.3 3.2 acidification 5 Walcha Metasediments 2.8 2.8 4.0 2.9 3.1 3.1 – 3.8 3.2 2.8 sheet/gully erosion 6 Clarence Sodic Soils 3.8 3.8 4.7 2.2 3.2 3.3 – 1.7 3.2 1.7 salinity/wlg 7 Kempsey Hills 1.7 1.7 4.7 3.7 4.7 4.7 – 4.7 3.7 1.7 sheet/gully erosion 8 Granite Borderlands 4.5 4.7 4.6 3.0 4.6 4.4 – 5.0 4.4 3.0 acidification sheet/gully erosion , 9 Wauchope Low Hills 3.0 3.0 4.5 3.0 4.1 4.1 – 4.9 3.8 3.0 acidification North Coast Acid Sulfate 10 4.9 4.9 2.6 2.3 1.4 1.7 3.7 1.0 2.7 1.0 salinity/wlg Soils Average 3.5 3.6 4.3 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.7 4.1 3.8 3.0 acidificatio n

Figure 13: Soil monitoring units in Northern Rivers CMA

final results from the 2008-09 MER program 25

3.1.11 Southern Rivers CMA Soil condition (refer to Table 22) • Overall soil condition index: 3.8 (fair) • SMUs with at least one issue of concern (<3.0): 9 of 10 (90%) • Broad issues of concern: sheet erosion, salinity, OC decline • Particular issues of concern: sheet erosion in SMUs 3, 4 and 5; salinity in SMU 1; OC decline in SMUs 2 and 6 Land management within capability (refer to Table 23) • Overall LMwC index: 3.3 (fair) • SMUs with at least one issue of concern (<3.0): 7 of 7 (100%) • Broad issues of concern: acidification, salinity/waterlogging • Particular issues of concern: acidification in SMUs 4 and 5; salinity/waterlogging in SMU 9; wind erosion in SMUs 2 and 9

Table 22: Soil condition indices for Southern Rivers CMA

SMU Sheet Gully Wind OC Struct. Lowest SMU name Acidity ASS Salinity Average Worst hazard no. erosion erosion erosion decline decline score 1 Bungonia Tablelands 3.0 4.9 5.0 3.4 3.6 3.5 – 1.5 3.6 1.5 salinity 2 Jindabyne Hills 2.7 4.1 5.0 4.7 2.2 3.4 – 5.0 3.9 2.2 OC decline 3 Bega Valley 2.3 5.0 5.0 3.8 2.5 3.6 – 4.1 3.8 2.3 sheet erosion 4 Ulladulla Coast 2.2 2.0 5.0 2.3 2.8 3.7 – 4.7 3.2 2.0 gully erosion 5 Upper Shoalhaven Valley 2.5 4.7 5.0 3.9 2.6 3.8 – 3.7 3.7 2.5 sheet erosion 6 Braidwood Granites 2.9 4.9 5.0 3.2 2.7 3.5 – 3.7 3.7 2.7 OC decline 7 Moss Vale Plateau 2.8 5.0 5.0 – – – – 3.9 4.2 2.8 sheet erosion 8 Bombala Metasediments 2.9 4.8 5.0 – – – – 4.3 4.3 2.9 sheet erosion 9 Monaro Basalts 2.9 4.6 5.0 4.7 3.8 4.2 – 4.7 4.3 2.9 sheet erosion Nowra Shoalhaven 10 3.9 4.0 5.0 – – – – 4.7 4.4 3.9 sheet erosion Floodplain Average 2.8 4.4 5.0 3.7 2.9 3.7 – 4.0 3.8 2.8 sheet eros ion

26 Soil condition and land management in NSW :

Table 23: Land management within capability indices for Southern Rivers CMA

SMU Sheet Gully Wind Acidifi - OC Struct. Salinity/ Low est SMU name ASS Average Worst hazard no. erosion erosion erosion cation decline decline waterlog score 1 Bungonia Tablelands 2.7 2.7 3.4 3.1 3.9 4.3 – 2.5 3.2 2.5 salinity/wlg 2 Jindabyne Hills 3.4 3.5 2.5 3.0 3.8 4.1 – 4.8 3.6 2.5 wind erosion 3 Bega Valley 4.0 4.0 2.6 2.9 3.7 3.7 – 4.4 3.6 2.6 wind erosion acidification, wind 4 Ulladulla Coast 3.8 3.8 2.4 2.4 4.4 4.6 – 3.4 3.5 2.4 erosion Upper Shoalhaven 5 3.0 3.0 3.3 1.8 3.3 3.8 – 4.5 3.2 1.8 acidification Valley 6 Braidwood Granites 3.6 3.6 3.3 2.9 4.2 4.2 – 4.0 3.7 2.9 acidification 7 Moss Vale Plateau – – – – – – – – – – – Bombala 8 – – – – – – – – – – – Metasediments 9 Monaro Basalts 3.8 4.0 2.8 – 4.2 4.2 – 1.8 3.5 1.8 salinity/wlg Nowra Shoalhaven 10 – – – – – – – – – – Floodplain Average 3.5 3.5 2.9 2.7 3.9 4.1 – 3.6 3.5 2.7 acidificatio n

Figure 14: Soil monitoring units in Southern Rivers CMA final results from the 2008-09 MER program 27

3.1.12 Sydney Metro CMA Soil condition (refer to Table 24) • Overall soil condition index: 3.8 (fair) • SMUs with at least one issue of concern (<3.0): 3 of 4 (75%) • Broad issues of concern: salinity, OC decline • Particular issues of concern: salinity in SMUs 3 and 4; OC decline in SMUs 1 and 4; sheet erosion in SMU 3 Land management within capability (refer to Table 25) • Overall LMwC index: 3.7 (fair) • SMUs with at least one issue of concern (<3.0): 2 of 3 (65%) • Broad issues of concern: salinity/waterlogging, acidification • Particular issues of concern: salinity/waterlogging in SMU 2; acidification in SMUs 2 and 4

Table 24: Soil condition indices for Sydney Metro CMA

SMU Sheet Gully Wind OC Struct. Lowest SMU name Acidity ASS Salinity Average Worst hazard no. erosion erosion erosion decline decline score Sydney Urban Fringe 1 2.7 – 5.0 2.8 1.8 3.4 – 4.7 3.4 1.8 OC decline Bushland Urban Acid Sulfate 2 5.0 – 5.0 5.0 3.0 – 5.0 4.0 4.5 3.0 OC decline Estuaries Wianamatta Urban 3 2.5 4.0 5.0 – – – – 1.7 3.3 1.7 salinity Fringe 4 Madden Wetlands 3.0 4.0 5.0 1.7 2.1 4.2 – 4.0 3.4 1.7 acidity Average 3.3 4.0 5.0 3.2 2.3 3.8 5.0 3.6 3.8 2.3 OC decline

28 Soil condition and land management in NSW :

Table 25: Land management within capability indices for Sydney Metro CMA

SMU Sheet Gully Wind Acidifi - Struct. Salinity/ Lowest SMU name OC decline ASS Average Worst hazard no. erosion erosion erosion cation decline waterlog score Sydney Urban Fringe 1 5.0 5.0 4.0 3.2 5.0 5.0 – 5.0 4.6 3.2 acidification Bushland Urban Acid Sulfate 2 5.0 5.0 3.8 1.8 1.3 1.5 3.7 1.0 2.8 1.0 salinity/wlg Estuaries Wianamatta Urban 3 – – – – – – – – – – – Fringe 4 Madden Wetlands 5.0 5.0 3.9 2.7 3.0 3.5 – 4.0 3.9 2.7 acidification Average 5.0 5.0 3.9 2.6 3.1 3.3 3.7 3.3 3.7 2.6 acidificatio n

Figure 15: Soil monitoring units in Sydney Metro CMA

final results from the 2008-09 MER program 29

3.1.13 Western CMA Soil condition (refer to Table 26) • Overall soil condition index: 3.5 (fair) • SMUs with at least one issue of concern (<3.0): 10 of 10 (100%) • Broad issues of concern: wind erosion, OC decline, structure decline • Particular issues of concern: wind erosion in SMUs 4, 6 and 8; OC decline in SMUs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7; structure decline in SMUs 3 and 9 Land management within capability (refer to Table 27) • Overall LMwC index: 4.0 (good) • SMUs with at least one issue of concern (<3.0): 5 of 10 (50%) • Broad issues of concern: wind erosion, acidification • Particular issues of concern: wind erosion in SMUs 2, 6, 8 and 10; acidification in SMU 3

Table 26: Soil condition indices for Western CMA

SMU Sheet Gully Wind OC Struct. Lowest SMU name Acidity ASS Salinity Average Worst hazard no. erosion erosion erosion decline decline score 1 Cobar Peneplain Flats 4.2 – 4.1 4.2 2.3 2.8 – 3.9 3.6 2.3 OC decline Murray–Darling 2 3.5 3.0 2.6 5.0 2.3 3.3 – 4.3 3.4 2.3 OC decline Depression 3 Cobar Peneplain Rises 3.6 2.0 4.9 3.3 2.3 2.5 – 3.7 3.2 2.0 OC decline 4 Wanaaring Sandplains 3.6 3.0 1.6 3.0 2.2 – – 5.0 3.1 1.6 wind erosion Mid-Darling River 5 3.3 – 2.6 5.0 3.7 2.9 – 5.0 3.7 2.6 wind erosion Coolabah 6 Broken Hill Fans 4.9 4.0 1.6 5.0 1.8 3.2 – 5.0 3.6 1.6 wind erosion 7 Bree Clay Grasslands 3.9 – 2.2 5.0 2.4 3.2 – 4.1 3.5 2.2 wind erosion Simpson Strezlecki 8 4.7 – 1.0 5.0 1.2 3.4 – 5.0 3.4 1.0 wind erosion Swales Old Western Darling 9 3.7 – 5.0 5.0 3.0 2.8 – 4.0 3.9 2.8 struct. decline Floodlands 10 White Cliff Gibber Rises 4.4 4.0 2.6 5.0 1.7 3.4 – 4.2 3.6 1.7 OC decline Average 4.0 3.2 2.8 4.6 2.3 3.0 – 4.4 3.5 2.3 OC decline

30 Soil condition and land management in NSW :

Table 27: Land management within capability indices for Western CMA

SMU Sheet Gully Wind Acidifi - OC Struct. Salinity/ Lowest SMU name ASS Average Worst hazard no. erosion erosion erosion cation decline decline waterlog score OC decline, acidifi- 1 Cobar Peneplain Flats 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 – 5.0 4.6 4.0 cation, struct. decline Murray–Darling 2 4.6 4.6 2.6 3.4 3.2 3.4 – 3.0 3.5 2.6 wind erosion Depression 3 Cobar Peneplain Rises 3.0 3.3 4.8 2.5 3.3 3.0 – 4.0 3.4 2.5 acidification wind erosion, 4 Wanaaring Sandplains 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 – 5.0 4.7 4.0 acidification Mid-Darling River OC and struct. 5 3.5 3.5 4.5 4.3 3.3 3.3 – 3.8 3.7 3.3 Coolabah decline 6 Broken Hill Fans 4.3 4.3 1.0 4.7 3.7 4.0 – 3.0 3.6 1.0 wind erosion 7 Bree Clay Grasslands 5.0 5.0 4.4 5.0 4.4 4.2 – 3.6 4.5 3.6 salinity/wlg Simpson Strezlecki 8 5.0 5.0 1.3 3.5 4.8 4.8 – 3.0 3.9 1.3 wind erosion Swales Old Western Darling 9 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 3.8 4.0 – 3.5 4.4 3.5 salinity/wlg Floodlands 10 White Cliff Gibber Rises 3.2 3.2 2.6 4.2 3.2 3.8 – 2.8 3.3 2.6 wind erosion Average 4.3 4.4 3.5 4.0 3.9 4.0 – 3.7 4.0 3.5 wind eros ion

Figure 16: Soil monitoring units in Western CMA

final results from the 2008-09 MER program 31

3.2 State-wide results and key findings 3.2.1 Soil condition data A summary of soil condition indices for each hazard for each CMA is presented in Table 28. The proportion of sites or SMUs that fall into each class for each hazard is presented in Figure 17.

Table 28: Soil condition indices for each hazard by CMA

CMA Sheet erosion Gully erosion Wind erosion Acidity Organic carbon Structure ASS Salinity Average Border – Rivers Gwydir 3.3 4.2 3.8 4.8 3.9 3.6 – 4.1 4.0 Central West 3.2 3.8 4.6 4.1 3.8 3.5 – 3.3 3.8 Hawkesbury –Nepean 3.0 4.6 5.0 3.6 2.5 3.9 – 3.3 3.7 Hunter – Central Rivers 2.9 4.3 5.0 4.1 3.1 3.8 3.8 2.9 3.7 Lachlan 3.6 4.0 4.7 3.7 3.8 3.6 – 3.2 3.8 Lower Murray –Darling 4.1 4.1 3.9 4.9 2.4 3.4 – 3.5 3.8 Murray 3.8 4.4 4.1 4.1 4.2 3.5 – 3.8 4.0 Murrumbidgee 3.4 4.5 4.5 4.1 4.0 3.6 – 3.2 3.9 Namoi 3.5 4.6 3.8 4.8 3.8 3.5 – 3.5 3.9 North Coast 2.8 3.7 4.5 3.4 2.8 4.0 3.0 4.4 3.6 Southern Rivers 2.8 4.4 5.0 3.7 2.9 3.7 – 4.0 3.8 Sydney Metro 3.3 4.2 4.4 3.2 2.3 3.8 5.0 3.6 3.7 Western 4.0 3.2 2.8 4.6 2.3 3.0 – 4.4 3.5 State 3.4 4.2 4.3 4.2 3.3 3.7 3.4 3.6 3.8

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% Percentage 30% 20% 10% 0% ASS OrgC Acidity Salinity Structure Wind eros Gully eros Sheet eros

Very poor Poor Fair Good Very good

Figure 17: Proportion of sites or soil monitoring units in each soil condition class Note: Acidity, OC, structure decline and acid sulfate soils based on site data; others based on SMU results.

32 Soil condition and land management in NSW :

The percentage of SMUs in each CMA that have poor or very poor ratings (indices <3.0) for each hazard is shown in Table 29. The dominant soil health issues in each SMU are presented in Figure 18.

Table 29: Percentage of SMUs in each CMA with poor or very poor soil condition rating

Sheet Gully Wind Organic ASS Lowest ranked CMA 1 Acidity Structure Salinity 2 erosion erosion erosion carbon n/a hazard Border Rivers – Gwydir 40 0 40 0 0 14 0 80 Central West 40 10 0 0 13 13 20 60 Hawkesbury–Nepean 50 0 0 0 75 0 20 90 Hunter – Central Rivers 60 0 0 22 44 0 50 80 Lachlan 10 10 10 0 0 0 30 40 Lower Murray–Darling 0 0 40 0 71 29 20 60 Murray 30 0 20 0 0 0 10 50 Murrumbidgee 30 0 20 0 0 13 30 60 Namoi 30 0 30 0 30 20 10 80 Northern Rivers 80 20 0 22 56 0 0 100 Southern Rivers 80 10 0 14 71 0 10 90 Sydney Metro 50 0 0 67 67 0 25 75 Western 0 20 70 0 80 44 0 100 State (percentage of 38 6 19 7 41 12 17 74 SMUs in state) 1 Indicates, for example, that in Border Rivers – Gwydir, 40% of SMUs have sheet erosion rated as poor or very poor. 2 Indicates, for example, that in Border Rivers – Gwydir, 80% of SMUs have one or more hazards rated as poor or very poor.

Figure 18: Dominant soil health issues within soil monitoring units

final results from the 2008-09 MER program 33

3.2.2 Summary of soil condition across NSW, 2008–09 From Table 28 and Figure 17 it is evident that, on a state-wide basis, soils in NSW are assessed as being in fair condition. On average, there has been a noticeable and moderately significant decline in the condition of NSW soils relative to their reference condition, that is, their condition at the time of European arrival. There has been a moderate loss of soil function for ecosystem services and agricultural productivity. The overall index for soil condition across the state, as derived from updated MER data, is 3.8, indicating overall fair soil condition. Some parts of the state and some particular soil condition indicators, however, have overall poorer condition, and a significant loss of soil function. Of the 124 SMUs examined, 74% had poor or very poor ratings for at least one hazard (Table 29). The results suggest that on a state-wide basis, low organic carbon and sheet erosion are moderate issues of concern, with soil structure and salinity also being of concern. Acid sulfate soils are of significant concern in some coastal and drying inland riverine areas. A brief summary of the each of the soil condition indicators across NSW for the 2008–09 period is given below, based on Tables 28 and 29 and Figures 17 and 18. • Organic carbon is assessed as being a moderate issue of concern across the state with an index of 3.3 (fair). Thirty-four per cent of sites and 41% of SMUs have indices in the poor or very poor range. It is a significant concern (poor in 25% or more of SMUs) in eight of the 13 CMA regions. • Sheet erosion is also assessed as a moderate issue of concern across the state, with a soil condition index of 3.4 (fair). Thirty-eight per cent of SMUs have indices in the poor or worse range. It is a significant concern (poor in 25% or more of SMUs) in 10 of the 13 CMA regions. • Salinity is assessed as being a slight issue of concern with an index of 3.6 (fair). Fifteen per cent of sites and 17% of SMUs have indices in the poor or worse range and it is a significant concern in four CMA regions. • Acidity has an overall current state-wide soil condition index of 4.2 (good). Ten per cent of sites and 7% of SMUs have indices in the poor or worse range. It is a significant concern in just one CMA region. • Soil structure is also a slight issue of concern, with an index of 3.7 (fair). Fifteen per cent of sites and 12% of SMUs have indices in the poor or worse range. It is a significant concern in just one CMA region and is a particular issue in areas with sodic surface soils. • Acid sulfate soils, potentially hazardous soils, are in overall fair condition but in some locations they are in poor condition, with an index of 3.4. Twenty-three per cent of sites have indices in the poor or worse range. • Gully erosion is a concern in several areas. It has a soil condition index of 4.2 (good). Just 6% of sites and SMUs have indices in the poor or worse range and it is not rated a significant concern in any CMA regions. • Wind erosion has a soil condition index of 4.3 (good); however, the index for the Western CMA region is only 2.8 (poor). Nineteen per cent of SMUs have indices in the poor or worse range. It is a significant issue of concern in four of the western-most CMA regions.

34 Soil condition and land management in NSW :

3.2.3 Land management within capability data A summary of LMwC indices for each hazard by CMA is shown in Table 30. The proportion of sites or SMUs that fall into each class for each hazard is shown in Figure 19.

Table 30: Land management within capability indices for each hazard by CMA

Sheet Gully Wind Acidifi - OC Structure Salinity / CMA ASS Index erosion erosion erosion cation decline decline waterlog Border Rivers – Gwydir 3.9 3.9 3.2 3.4 3.9 4.1 – 3.8 3.7 Central West 3.9 3.9 3.7 3.9 3.6 3.7 – 3.7 3.8 Hawkesbury–Nepean 3.8 3.9 3.0 2.4 3.9 3.9 – 4.0 3.5 Hunter – Central Rivers 4.1 4.1 4.5 3.4 3.5 3.7 3.4 3.7 3.8 Lachlan 3.6 3.6 3.4 3.4 3.2 3.1 – 3.2 3.4 Lower Murray–Darling 4.5 4.5 1.2 4.5 3.7 4.1 – 3.1 3.3 Murray 4.2 4.2 3.4 2.8 3.1 2.8 2.5 3.2 3.3 Murrumbidgee 4.1 4.1 3.9 2.6 3.0 2.9 – 3.8 3.5 Namoi 3.7 3.7 3.5 4.0 3.2 3.3 – 3.1 3.5 Northern Rivers 3.5 3.6 4.3 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.7 4.1 3.8 Southern Rivers 3.5 3.5 2.9 2.7 3.9 4.1 3.5 3.6 3.5 Sydney Metro 5.0 5.0 3.9 2.6 3.1 3.3 4.7 3.3 3.9 Western 4.3 4.4 3.5 4.0 3.9 4.0 – 3.7 4.0 State 3.9 3.9 3.6 3.3 3.6 3.7 3.6 3.7 3.6

Figure 19: Proportion of sites or soil monitoring units in each land management within capability class

The proportion of SMUs in each CMA that have poor or very poor ratings for each hazard is shown in Table 31. The dominant land management within capability issues in each SMU are presented in Figure 20.

final results from the 2008-09 MER program 35

Table 31: Percentage of sites in each CMA with poor or very poor land management within capability rating

Lowest Sheet Gully Wind Acidifi- OC Structure Salinity/ CMA 1 ASS ranked erosion erosion erosion cation decline decline waterlogging 2 hazard Border Rivers – Gwydir 13 13 31 37 11 9 0 7 52 Central West 5 5 5 4 9 5 0 11 29 Hawkesbury–Nepean 15 15 33 51 10 10 0 5 62 Hunter – Central Rivers 7 7 9 19 19 16 30 15 40 Lachlan 7 7 14 7 14 14 0 36 43 Lower Murray–Darling 14 7 86 0 7 0 0 14 86 Murray 25 25 14 7 25 36 0 18 61 Murrumbidgee 4 4 20 20 38 36 0 24 60 Namoi 10 9 16 7 21 15 0 23 33 Northern Rivers 18 18 11 24 22 21 12 29 52 Southern Rivers 18 16 36 35 4 0 0 31 73 Sydney Metro 0 0 15 55 45 40 0 20 70 Western 11 8 33 8 19 8 0 8 56 NSW 13 12 23 23 20 16 15 20 54 1 Indicates, for example, that in Border Rivers – Gwydir, 13% of sites have sheet erosion rated as poor or very poor. 2 Indicates, for example, that in Border Rivers – Gwydir, 52% of sites have one or more hazards rated as poor or very poor.

Figure 20: Dominant land management within capability issues within soil monitoring units

36 Soil condition and land management in NSW:

3.2.4 Summary of land management within capability across NSW, 2008–09 The analysis of land management within capability was carried out over 662 sites over the 13 CMA areas of NSW. On a state-wide basis, the results as presented in Tables 30 and 31 and Figures 19 and 20 suggest that land in NSW is overall being managed at a level in accordance with its inherent physical capability; however, there are widespread issues of concern. The overall index for LMwC is 3.6, suggesting overall fair land management relative to capability; however, individual hazards are being unsustainably managed over many areas. Of the examined sites, 54% had a poor or very poor rating (with index <3) for at least one hazard. In these areas, there is a risk of ongoing land degradation from particular hazards that are currently not being adequately managed. The results suggest that on a state-wide basis, acidification, wind erosion, salinity/ waterlogging and organic carbon decline are the land degradation issues that are being managed the least sustainably. A brief summary of each land degradation issue in terms of management relative to land and soil capability as revealed by the LMwC assessment process is given below. • Acidification – management is poor relative to the capability of the land over extensive areas of the state, being a widespread concern over the majority of CMA regions. It has an average index of 3.3 (fair). The index fell in the poor or very poor range in 23% of sites. It is a significant issue of concern (>25% of sites) in five CMAs. • Wind erosion – poor management of this issue is common across much of the state. It has an index of 3.6 (fair). Indices fell in the poor or very poor range over 23% of the sites. It is a significant issue of concern (>25% of sites) in five CMAs. • Salinity/waterlogging – this is subject to poor management relative to capability for extensive parts of the state. It has an index of 3.7 (fair). Indices fell in the poor or very poor range over 20% of the sites. It is a significant issue of concern (>25% of sites) in three CMAs, with two others borderline. It is most critical in certain parts of the state, particularly those areas with sodic surface soils. • Organic carbon decline – poor management of this issue relative to capability is common throughout the state. It has an index of 3.6 (fair). Indices fell in the poor or very poor range over 20% of the sites. It is a significant issue of concern (>25% of sites) in three CMAs. • Soil structure decline – poor management of this issue relative to capability is common throughout the state. It has an index of 3.7 (fair). Indices fell in the poor or very poor range over 16% of the sites. It is a significant issue of concern (>25% of sites) in three CMAs. • Sheet and gully erosion – management of these issues relative to capability is typically fair; however, it is poor in some areas, particularly where there are moderate slopes. They both have an index of 3.9 (fair) with indices falling in the poor or very poor range over 12–13% of the sites. It is a significant issue of concern (>25% of sites) in just one CMA. • Acid sulfate soils – the assessment suggests most of the coastline is managed within capability for this issue, but areas of concern remain. It has an index of 3.7 (fair). Indices fell in the poor or very poor range over 15% of the sites. It is a significant issue of concern (>25% of sites) in one of the three coastal CMAs examined. Poor management of these soils is also now a problem in some inland areas along the Murray–Darling River system.

final results from the 2008-09 MER program 37

4 Complementary data 4.1 Land use within capability map This broad-scale preliminary map indicates areas where land may be being used within and potentially beyond capability (Figure 21). It deals with broader land use data rather than more detailed land management data. It is based on assumptions of the upper sustainable land and soil capability (LSC) class of each land use, that is, the LSC class beyond which a given land use is considered unsustainable and liable to cause land degradation. For example, standard cropping is generally considered unsustainable at LSC classes beyond 4 and standard grazing unsustainable above LSC class 6. This preliminary land use within capability map was derived by overlaying a NSW land-use layer (with associated upper sustainable limit values) against the NSW LSC map (OEH 2012). The land use was derived from the 2000–07 NSW land use mapping program, generally at scales of 1:25 000 or 1:50 000. Where the upper sustainable LSC class for a particular land use is within LSC shown on the LSC map, land use is considered as at or above capability; in other words it is sustainable. Where the upper sustainable LSC class for the land use exceeds the mapped LSC by one class, then the land use within capability map will show a slight risk of land degradation. As the gap between the upper sustainable limit for a land use and the mapped LSC grows, the risk of land degradation increases. The land use within capability map provides another avenue for scoping which areas require close attention to address possible land degradation issues and the possible need for land use change. This preliminary map is suitable only for first order approximations due to the broad assumptions of upper sustainable LSC classes made for the different land uses, and its reliance on the broad scale LSC map, with its scale-related drawbacks. It complements the land management within capability maps and data which are, in contrast, based on specific site soil and land management data.

Figure 21: Land use within capability map

38 Soil condition and land management in NSW :

4.2 Australian Bureau of Statistics land management data Land management data from the ABS 2009–10 Agricultural Resource Management survey is available. In addition to the data at CMA level currently available on the ABS website, as presented in Appendix 2, further data subdividing the state into nine LSC management zones is being supplied to OEH by the ABS under a contractual arrangement. These zones spatially group areas with similar LSC signatures, that is, those that require similar land management. This land management data may be further subdivided into individual CMAs depending on ABS confidentiality requirements. The data includes answers to 22 key land management questions such as the nature of tillage, stubble management and lime addition practices. Results will be analysed by OEH and made available to the CMAs, possibly in MCAS data layer format. The ABS data (publically available and OEH contracted data) represent a potential wealth of land management data for each CMA. It may potentially be important in: • assisting in identifying areas where land management issues require the greatest attention; for example, results may reveal that particular CMAs and subregions have high rates of multiple tillage or low rates of lime application, suggesting that the CMA may need to address these causes of structure decline and soil acidification • deriving LMwC indices and thereby assessing the immediacy of reaching tipping points in the resilience framework • providing a focus for ongoing MER activity, as the quantitative results can be compared with similar results in future years. There are a number of issues to be aware of when using this data. • ABS census responses are considered to be biased as landholders tend to provide aspirational views of their land management. • There may be information gaps where data cannot be reported due to respondent spatial density issues. • The land management zones layer is very broad. • The approach is experimental and untested. Publicly available data down to the CMA level is available from the ABS Agricultural Resource Management (ARM) survey, as presented in Appendix 2 (for 2009–10) with more recent data provided on the Land Management and Farming in Australia ABS website.2

4.3 Groundcover and sheet and wind erosion products 4.3.1 Time series ground cover products MODIS-derived time series fractional vegetation cover products at 500 m pixels are available from February 2000 on an 8-daily basis to December 2010 and are expected to be ongoing (Guerschman et al. 2009, 2012). Monthly fractional cover metrics were constructed by OEH for NSW and the CMAs including percentage of bare soil, green vegetation and non-green vegetation. These time series products are important for management of soil erosion, soil carbon, soil salinity and pH. As a time series this can be particularly useful for identifying chronically low ground cover and areas where land is not being managed within capability. It may be particularly useful as an overall assessment and monitoring tool. Some issues to note include the large pixel size and the fact they are not yet masked for snow, urban or disturbed terrain. The methodology is not fully calibrated for NSW conditions

2 www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/productsbytitle/A311E8F2D1E2FDFFCA2575C40017D718?OpenDocument final results from the 2008-09 MER program 39

and does not work well on some soil types, for example grey clays. The results may be unreliable if using discrete thresholds near moderate cover levels but are reliable when identifying low ground cover and high ground cover.

4.3.2 Time series sheet erosion modelling Advanced sheet erosion modelling products have been recently developed by OEH. They use a Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) raster model with the best available NSW DEM (SRTM – space shuttle radar) for slope and slope length (LS factor); NSW LSC map Great Soil Groups for soil erodibility (K factor); daily time step rainfall for rainfall erosivity (R factor) and time series ground cover from MODIS for cover factor (C factor). The final products use 50-m pixels. Surfaces are now available for every month from February 2000 to December 2011 and onwards. Data has also been compiled into a 10-year baseline and three-year reporting periods. Annual updates are expected. The modelling represents a major advance on any previous sheet erosion prediction; see Yang et al. (2011). Some examples of the available products are given in Figures 22 and 23. Their uses include to: • identify chronic sheet erosion locations and seasons (e.g. summer) • assess critical ground covers and priority seasons to prevent erosion beyond sustainable limits • identify potential areas with water quality problems due to high delivery of nutrients and suspended turbid materials • provide neighbourhood peer comparisons, that is, in areas with the same land use, soil map unit and landscape position, to compare sheet erosion from 10 years of data to identify best and poorest soil managers. The model appears to be reliable and sensible according to sheet erosion experts and relative to long-term measured losses from Soil Conservation Service erosion plots (now discontinued). Further validation methods are being explored. Further work will include assessments of which areas donate the largest amounts of nutrients and suspended sediments. Note that the modelling does not work for pixels close to the coast, for urban areas, or for snow-covered ground. Ground cover does not take into account surface covering of coarse fragments.

40 Soil condition and land management in NSW :

Figure 22: Baseline sheet erosion for NSW, 2000–10

Figure 23: Sheet erosion for NSW 2009 and 2010

final results from the 2008-09 MER program 41

4.3.3 Wind erosion and DustWatch products Numerical modelling of wind erosion that offers the capacity to monitor the extent, severity and trends in wind erosion has been carried out. The CEMSYS5 wind erosion and dust transport model was used to produce national and NSW maps which identify key areas where investment in land management practices can reduce wind erosion and give the biggest environmental benefit. The CEMSYS model has been run at 10-km resolution within the NSW domain for five consecutive years. The data has been cut to each NSW CMA on monthly time steps and suggested target levels of erosion given for each CMA. The concept is that if there is significant wind erosion in a catchment, there is inadequate ground cover, the land is being used beyond capability and therefore land management practices could be improved. For each month, the area of each CMA where moderate erosion (i.e., where the average monthly erosion rate is >80 mg/m/s) was calculated. Arc grids were used for the calculations. The grids are available for both monthly and annual (July to June) time periods. An example of a time series plot for the Murray–Darling CMA is given in Figure 24 (see Leys et al. 2012).

Figure 24: Area of Murray–Darling CMA exceeding moderate wind erosion levels

Data from the DustWatch program is being made available. Approximately 25 DustWatch nodes (instrumented sites) set up at priority locations throughout NSW (and another nine in other states) provide objective measurements of dust activity throughout the state. Targets for dust levels for each CMA may be set, based on the premise that dust levels should not exceed the dust level for ‘average’ rainfall years. Data to assist this target setting is provided; see Leys and Heidenreich (2012). All CMAs in NSW apart from Sydney Metro are covered by the CEMSYS data which extends back to June 2000. The data can assist in identifying: • the extent of wind erosion and dust problems in each CMA • suitable targets for dust levels • appropriate ground cover and land management recommendations • ongoing monitoring of wind erosion and dust levels.

4.4 Modelling of soil properties Tools to understand and predict the behaviour and spatial distribution of soil carbon, pH, nutrients and other soil properties in the landscape at local, regional and national levels is being undertaken by OEH and other scientists using a number of approaches. These

42 Soil condition and land management in NSW : include: • quantitative soil property modelling and mapping – developing multiple regression models that describe the relationship of soil carbon and other properties to key soil forming factors (climate, lithology, topography and land use) from data mining of available soil databases in NSW and eastern Australia (Gray et al. 2012; Gray et al. (accepted). These relationships can be easily applied with readily available data and used in (i) prediction of soil property levels over specific sites and areas, (ii) broader modelling programs, and (iii) preparation of predictive soil property maps such as shown in Figure 25. • soil carbon benchmark matrices – developing a matrix of key environmental, land use and land management factors influencing soil carbon to allow preparation of maps with zones of expected soil carbon content . The matrices have been developed for the Central West, Lachlan and Hawkesbury Nepean CMAs (Murphy et al. 2010; Keith et al. 2013 ). These products will improve our knowledge, understanding and predictive ability of soil property variation throughout the NSW landscape under different management systems. They can form the basis of assessment of soil condition at individual sites relative to an expected modelled condition. The soil carbon products could reduce costs of on-site soil carbon measurements and provide a framework for participation by farmers in potential carbon trading schemes. They may assist in identifying areas of potential low soil carbon and the land management practices needed to improve soil carbon levels.

Figure 25: Predictive map of topsoil organic carbon in Hunter – Central Rivers CMA

final results from the 2008-09 MER program 43

5 Conclusion This report finalises the MER program for the soil and land themes over the 2008–09 period. For both the (i) soil condition theme and the (ii) land management within capability (LMwC) theme it has presented final results for each of the 13 CMA areas and for the state as a whole. It has presented other more recent sources of additional data that can be incorporated into future soil and land monitoring programs. The results reveal that soil condition and LMwC across the state may generally be classed as fair during that 2008–09 monitoring period. However, there are particular issues of concern over many areas. For soil condition, almost three-quarters of SMUs had poor or very poor ratings for at least one indicator; for LMwC, over half of all sites had poor or very poor ratings for at least one hazard. The results suggest that, on a state-wide basis, soil condition, low organic carbon and sheet erosion are moderate issues of concern, while for LMwC, acidification, wind erosion, salinity/waterlogging and organic carbon decline are the issues of most concern. The results provide an important summary of the status of soil condition and land management sustainability throughout NSW and its CMA areas over the 2008–09 period. They reveal particular issues and locations that require additional attention to avoid further degradation to NSW’s valuable soil and land resources. They provide a benchmark of conditions which can be compared to conditions revealed in the future.

44 Soil condition and land management in NSW :

Appendix 1: Management practices appropriate for each land and soil capability class for each hazard (first approximation)

The tables are essentially a reformat of data presented in Appendix 2 of Gray et al. (2011).

Table A1-1: Management practices and allowable land and soil capability classes for water erosion (first approximation) Table A1-2: Management practices and allowable land and soil capability classes for wind erosion (first approximation) Table A1-3: Management practices and allowable land and soil capability classes for soil structure decline (first approximation) Table A1-4: Management practices and allowable land and soil capability classes for acidification (first approximation) Table A1-5: Management practices and allowable land and soil capability classes for salinity (first approximation) Table A1-6: Management practices and allowable land and soil capability classes for organic carbon decline (first approximation) Table A1-7: Management practices and allowable land and soil capability classes for mass movement hazard (first approximation) Table A1-8: Management practices and allowable land and soil capability classes for acid sulfate soil hazard (first approximation)

final results from the 2008-09 MER program 45

Table A1-1: Management practices and allowable land and soil capability classes for water erosion (first approximation)

Allowable LSC Land use Impact Land management actions classes

Cropping Very high Class 1 >2 crops per year Very long fallow (>3 months) Multiple tillage (4 or more passes) Stubble – hot burn, heavy grazing, ploughed in Cultivation equipment – very high disturbance (e.g. rotary hoe) High Classes 1 and 2 2 crops per year Long fallow (1–3 months) Multiple tillage (2–3 passes) Stubble – cold burn, light grazing, baled Cultivation equipment – high disturbance (e.g. one-way disc) Moderate Classes 1–3 1 crop per year Short to moderate length fallow (1– 28 days) Single tillage (1 pass) Stubble – left intact, killed with chemicals Cultivation equipment – moderate disturbance (e.g. two-way disc, narrow or wide-spaced tine) Moderate erosion controls (e.g. contour banks, cultivation along contour) Low Classes 1–4 1 crop per 2–4 years No fallow (<1 day) No tillage Stubble – slashed, mulched High erosion controls (e.g. pasture cropping) Very low Classes 1–5 1 crop per 5 or more years (fodder or pasture establishment) Other actions as above Grazing High Classes 1–4 Moderate ground cover (50–60% average, significant periods with low cover) Perennial or annual grasses No erosion controls Moderate Classes 1–5 Moderate ground cover (60–70% average, minor periods with low cover) Predominantly perennial grasses Moderate erosion controls (e.g. occasional control banks) Low Classes 1–6 High ground cover (>70% average, no periods with low cover) All perennial grasses High erosion controls (e.g. frequent control banks) Horticulture High Classes 1–3 Low ground cover between rows (<50%) Tillage between rows Erosion controls Moderate Classes 1–4 Moderate ground cover between rows (50–70%) Tillage between rows Erosion controls Low Classes 1–5 High ground cover between rows (>70%) Tillage between rows Erosion controls Forestry High Classes 1–5 Woody vegetation and ground cover – average cover 60–70% High ground disturbance by vehicles and equipment Moderate Classes 1–6 Woody vegetation and ground cover – average cover 70–80% Moderate ground disturbance by vehicles and equipment Low Classes 1–7 Woody vegetation and ground cover – average cover >80% Low ground disturbance by vehicles and equipment

46 Soil condition and land management in NSW :

Table A1-2: Management practices and allowable land and soil capability classes for wind erosion (first approximation)

Allowable Land use Impact Land management actions LSC classes Cropping Very high Class 1 Low ground cover (<30% average) Very long fallow (>3 months) Multiple tillage (4 or more passes) Stubble – hot burn, heavy grazing, ploughed in Cultivation equipment – very high disturbance (e.g. rotary hoe) High Classes 1 and Low–moderate ground cover (30–50% average) 2 Long fallow (1–3 months) Multiple tillage (2–3 passes) Stubble – cold burn, light grazing, baled Cultivation equipment – high disturbance (e.g. one-way disc) Poor or no effective wind breaks Moderate Classes 1–3 Moderate ground cover (50–70% average) Short to moderate length fallow (1– 28 days) Single tillage (1 pass) Stubble – left intact, killed with chemicals Cultivation equipment – moderate disturbance (e.g. two-way disc, narrow- or wide-spaced tine) Moderately effective wind breaks Low Classes 1–4 Good ground cover (>70% average) No fallow (<1 day) No tillage Stubble – slashed, mulched Low disturbance cultivation equipment (e.g. wide-spaced tine) or no cultivation Effective wind breaks Very low Classes 1–5 1 crop per 5 or more years (fodder or pasture establishment) Other actions as above Grazing High Classes 1–4 Moderate ground cover (50–60% average, significant periods with low cover) Perennial or annual grasses Moderately effective wind breaks Moderate Classes 1–5 Moderate–good ground cover (60–70% average, minor periods with low cover) Predominantly perennial grasses Moderate erosion controls (e.g. occasional control banks) Effective wind breaks Low Classes 1–6 Good ground cover (>70% average, no periods with low cover) All perennial grasses Very effective wind breaks Horticulture High Classes 1–3 Low ground cover between rows (<50%) Tillage between rows No effective wind breaks (apart from crop trees) Moderate Classes 1–4 Moderate ground cover between rows (50–70%) Tillage between rows Moderately effective wind breaks (apart from crop trees) Low Classes 1–5 High ground cover between rows (>70%) Tillage between rows Effective wind breaks (apart from crop trees) Forestry High Classes 1–5 Woody vegetation and ground cover – average cover 60–70% High ground disturbance by vehicles and equipment Moderate Classes 1–6 Woody vegetation and ground cover – average cover 70–80% Moderate ground disturbance by vehicles and equipment Low Classes 1–7 Woody vegetation and ground cover – average cover >80% Low ground disturbance by vehicles and equipment

final results from the 2008-09 MER program 47

Table A1-3: Management practices and allowable land and soil capability classes for soil structure decline (first approximation)

Allowable Land use Impact Land management actions LSC classes

Cropping Very high Class 1 Very high frequency of cropping (with tillage), >2 per year Multiple tillage (4 or more passes) Very high disturbance cultivation equipment (e.g. rotary hoe Stubble removal by very hot burn Very long fallow (>3 months) No traffic control, frequent traffic in wet conditions High Classes 1 and High frequency of cropping (with tillage), 2 per year 2 Multiple tillage (3 passes) High disturbance cultivation equipment (one way disc) Stubble – hot burn, heavy grazing, ploughed in Long fallow (1–3 months) No traffic control, moderate traffic in wet conditions Moderate Classes 1–3 Moderate frequency of cropping (with tillage), 1 per year Minor tillage (2 passes) Moderate disturbance cultivation equipment (e.g. two-way disc, narrow-spaced tine) Stubble management – cold burn, baling, light grazing Moderate fallow (1–4 weeks) Minor traffic control, rare traffic in wet conditions Low Classes 1–4 Low–moderate frequency of cropping (with tillage), 1 per 2–3 years Minimum or no tillage (one or no passes) Low disturbance cultivation equipment (e.g. broad-spaced tine) Stubble management – slashed/mulched, killed with chemicals Short fallow (<1 week) Traffic control, no traffic in wet conditions Minor addition of gypsum for sodic problems Very low Classes 1–5 Low frequency of cropping (with tillage) 1 per 4 years or more Zero tillage Stubble management – left intact No fallow Traffic control, no traffic in wet conditions Significant addition of gypsum for sodic problems Grazing High Classes 1–4 High grazing intensity leading to low–moderate ground cover Shallow rooted perennial pastures Regular stock trampling in wet conditions Moderate Classes 1–5 Moderate grazing intensity leading to moderate ground cover Predominantly long term deep rooted perennial pastures Occasional stock trampling in wet conditions Low Classes 1–6 Low grazing intensity leading to good ground cover Deep rooted perennial pastures No stock trampling in wet conditions Horticulture High Classes 1–3 Low ground cover and biomass between rows High compaction between rows by vehicles and stock, regular movement in wet conditions Moderate Classes 1–4 Moderate ground cover and biomass between rows Some compaction between rows by vehicles and stock, occasional movement in wet conditions Low Classes 1–5 High ground cover and biomass between rows Minor compaction between rows by vehicles and stock, no movement in wet conditions Forestry High Classes 1–5 Some compaction by vehicles and stock, occasional movement in wet conditions Relatively low ground cover for forests (25–50%) Moderate Classes 1–6 Minor compaction by vehicles and stock, no movement in wet conditions Moderate ground cover for forests (50–70%) Low Classes 1–7 No compaction by vehicles and stock, no movement in wet conditions Relatively high ground cover for forests (>70%)

48 Soil condition and land management in NSW :

Table A1-4: Management practices and allowable land and soil capability classes for acidification (first approximation)

Allowable LSC Land use Impact Land management actions classes Cropping Very high Class 1 Annual legume pastures in cropping rotations Removal of biomass in large quantities (frequent removal of hay and plant material) Stubble removal by very hot burn Very high use of nitrogen based fertilisers (in relation to crop requirements) Very high irrigation levels with deep soil drainage High Classes 1 and 2 Annual legume pastures in cropping rotations Removal of biomass (removal of hay and plant material) Stubble removal by hot burn, heavy grazing, baling High use of nitrogen based fertilisers (in relation to crop requirements) High irrigation levels with some deep soil drainage Moderate Classes 1–3 Perennial pastures in cropping rotation Ground cover managed to maintain water use and minimise nitrate leaching Stubble removal by cold burn, light grazing Limited removal of biomass (grain and animal products) Moderate use of nitrogen based fertilisers (in relation to crop requirements) Moderate irrigation with minimal deep drainage Low Classes 1–4 Perennial pastures in cropping rotation Special management practices (e.g. pasture cropping) to manage ground cover to maintain water use and minimise nitrate leaching Limited removal of biomass (grain and animal products) Stubble left intact, killed with chemicals, ploughed in Low use of nitrogen based fertilisers (in relation to crop requirements), most fertilisers are non-acidifying Balanced irrigation for crops with no deep drainage High use of lime Very low Classes 1–5 Use of acid tolerant species Perennial pastures in cropping rotation Special management practices (e.g. pasture cropping) to manage ground cover to maintain water use and minimise nitrate leaching Very limited removal of biomass (grain and animal products) Very low use of nitrogen based fertilisers (in relation to crop requirements), fertilisers are non-acidifying Balanced irrigation for crops with no deep drainage Very high use of lime Grazing High Classes 1–4 Annual legume pastures High grazing intensity leading to low–moderate ground cover High use of nitrogen fertilisers, in relation to pasture requirements High irrigation levels for pasture with some deep soil drainage Moderate Classes 1–5 Predominantly long term perennial pastures Moderate grazing intensity leading to moderate ground cover managed to maintain water use and minimise nitrate leaching Minimal use of nitrogen fertilisers, in relation to pasture requirements Moderate irrigation for pasture with minimal deep drainage Low Classes 1–6 Long term perennial pastures Low grazing intensity leading to good ground cover to maintain water use and minimise nitrate leaching Fertilisers are non-acidifying Balanced irrigation for pasture with no deep drainage

Continued over

final results from the 2008-09 MER program 49

Allowable LSC Land use Impact Land management actions classes Horticulture High Classes 1–3 Low ground cover and biomass between rows High use of nitrogen based fertilisers, in relation to crop requirements High irrigation levels for crop with some deep soil drainage Moderate Classes 1–4 Moderate ground cover and biomass between rows Minimal use of nitrogen fertilisers, in relation to crop requirements Moderate irrigation for crop with minimal deep drainage Low Classes 1–5 High ground cover and biomass between rows Very low use of nitrogen based fertilisers (in relation to crop requirements), most fertilisers are non-acidifying Balanced irrigation for crop with no deep drainage Forestry High Classes 1–5 Extended periods with low ground cover and tree growth Moderate Classes 1–6 Moderate ground cover and tree growth Low Classes 1–7 Continuous high ground cover and tree growth

50 Soil condition and land management in NSW :

Table A1-5: Management practices and allowable land and soil capability classes for salinity (first approximation)

Allowable LSC Land use Impact Land management actions classes Cropping Very high Class 1 Clearing of native vegetation Very long fallow (>3 months) Low yielding crops Very low ground cover (<20% average) Very high irrigation levels with deep soil drainage High Classes 1 and 2 Long fallow (1–3 months) Low yielding crops Long term annual based pastures in rotation Low ground cover (20–30% average) High irrigation levels with some deep soil drainage Moderate Classes 1–3 Moderate fallows (1–4 weeks) Moderate yielding crops Low–moderate ground cover (30–50% average) Cropping rotations with pastures Moderate irrigation with minimal deep drainage Low Classes 1–4 Short fallow (<1 week) Moderate to high yielding crops Moderate ground cover (50–60% average) Low crop frequency, rotations with perennial pastures Full adoption of advanced conservation tillage principles Balanced irrigation with little deep drainage Very low Classes 1–5 No fallows High yielding crops Moderate–good ground cover (60–70% average) Very low crop frequency, rotations with perennial pastures Full adoption of advanced conservation tillage principles Balanced irrigation with no deep drainage Grazing High Classes 1–4 Moderate ground cover and biomass for long periods (50–60% average cover) Low–moderate proportion of perennial grasses (>50%) Moderate Classes 1–5 Moderate to good ground cover and biomass (60–70% average cover) High proportion of perennial grasses (50–80%) Low Classes 1–6 High levels of ground cover and biomass maintained (>70% average cover) Very high proportion of perennial grasses (>80%) Horticulture High Classes 1–3 Low ground cover and biomass between rows (<50% average) Regular tillage between rows Moderate Classes 1–4 Moderate ground cover and biomass between rows (50–70% average cover) Occasional tillage between rows Low Classes 1–5 High ground cover and biomass between rows (>79% average) No tillage between rows Forestry High Classes 1–5 Woody vegetation and ground cover – average cover 60–70% High ground disturbance by vehicles and equipment Moderate Classes 1–6 Woody vegetation and ground cover – average cover 70–80% Moderate ground disturbance by vehicles and equipment Low Classes 1–7 Woody vegetation and ground cover – average cover >80% Low ground disturbance by vehicles and equipment

final results from the 2008-09 MER program 51

Table A1-6: Management practices and allowable land and soil capability classes for organic carbon decline (first approximation)

Allowable LSC Land use Impact Land management actions classes Cropping Very high Class 1 Very high frequency of cropping (with tillage) Multiple tillage (4 or more passes) Very high disturbance cultivation equipment (e.g. rotary hoe) Stubble removal by very hot burn Very long fallow (>3 months) Excessive use of herbicides High Classes 1 and 2 High frequency of cropping (with tillage) Multiple tillage (3 passes) High disturbance cultivation equipment (one way disc) Stubble – hot burn, heavy grazing, ploughed in Long fallow (1–3 months) Large use of herbicides Moderate Classes 1–3 Moderate frequency of cropping (with tillage) Minor tillage (2 passes) Moderate disturbance cultivation equipment (e.g. two-way disc, narrow-spaced tine) Stubble management – cold burn, baling, light grazing Moderate fallow (1–4 weeks) Moderate to high use of herbicides Low Classes 1–4 Low frequency of cropping (with tillage) Minimum or no tillage (one or no passes) Low disturbance cultivation equipment (e.g. broad-spaced tine) Stubble management – slashed/mulched, killed with chemicals Short fallow (<1 week) Moderate use of herbicides Very low Classes 1–5 Very low frequency of cropping (with tillage) Zero tillage Stubble management – left intact No fallow Low use of herbicides Grazing High Classes 1–4 High grazing intensity leading to low–moderate ground cover and biomass Shallow rooted perennial pastures Moderate Classes 1–5 Moderate grazing intensity leading to moderate ground cover and biomass Predominantly long term deep rooted perennial pastures Low Classes 1–6 Low grazing intensity leading to good ground cover and biomass Deep rooted perennial pastures Horticulture High Classes 1–3 Low ground cover and biomass between rows Moderate Classes 1–4 Moderate ground cover and biomass between rows Low Classes 1–5 High ground cover and biomass between rows Forestry High Classes 1–5 Relatively low ground cover for forests (25–50%) Moderate Classes 1–6 Moderate ground cover for forests (50–70%) Low Classes 1–7 Relatively high ground cover for forests (>70%)

52 Soil condition and land management in NSW :

Table A1-7: Management practices and allowable land and soil capability classes for mass movement hazard (first approximation)

Allowable LSC Land use Impact Land management actions classes All uses Very high Class 1 Concentration of water flows and seepage flows Increased deep drainage Very large loads on soils (e.g. very heavy vehicles and equipment) Removal of trees and stabilising vegetation Cutting of high batters (>8 m) High Classes 1 and 2 Concentration of water flows and seepage flows Increased deep drainage Large increased loads on soils (e.g. heavy vehicles and equipment) Removal of trees and stabilising vegetation cutting of high batters (<8 m) Moderate to Classes 1–3 Controlled concentration of water flows and seepage flows high Controlled increases in deep drainage Moderate increases in load on soils (e.g. large standard vehicles and equipment, heavy stock) Partial removal of trees and stabilising vegetation cutting of high batters (<5 m) Moderate Classes 1–4 Small controlled concentration of water flows and seepage flows Small increases in deep drainage Controlled moderate increases in load on soils (e.g. standard vehicles and equipment, stock) Minor removal of trees and stabilising vegetation Cutting of high batters (<3 m) Moderate to Classes 1–5 Very small controlled concentration of water flows and seepage flows low Small increases in deep drainage Minor increases in load on soils (stock) cutting of high batters (<2 m) Low Classes 1–6 No concentration of water flows and seepage flows Very minor increases in deep drainage Very minor increases in load on soils (e.g. small stock) Cutting of high batters (<1 m) Very low Classes 1–7 Insignificant modification or movement on the site Nil Classes 1–8 No modification or movement on the site

final results from the 2008-09 MER program 53

Table A1-8: Management practices and allowable land and soil capability classes for acid sulfate soil hazard (first approximation)

Allowable LSC Land use Impact Land management actions classes Cropping Very high Class 1 Soil disturbance to any depth Drains to any depth High density of drains High Classes 1 and 2 Soil disturbance to >5 m Drains to >5 m High density of drains Moderate to Classes 1–3 Soil disturbance to 4 m high Drains to 4 m High density of drains Moderate Classes 1–4 Soil disturbance to 2 m Drains to 2 m Moderate density of drains Moderate to Classes 1–5 Soil disturbance to 1 m low Drains to 1 m Moderate density of drains Low Classes 1–6 Soil disturbance to 0.5 m Drains to 0.5 m Low density of drains Very low Classes 1–7 No disturbance or drainage Nil Classes 1–8 No active land use

54 Soil condition and land management in NSW :

Appendix 2: Land management statistics by CMA from Australian Bureau of Statistics 2009–10 survey Tables A2-1 to A2-9 have been extracted from Land Management and Farming in Australia, 2009–10 survey.3 Figure A2-1 is taken from the 2007–08 survey.4

Table A2-1 Major agricultural activity by CMA, 2009–10 Table A2-2: Land use on agricultural holdings by CMA, 2009–10 Table A2-3: Land management for environmental protection by CMA, 2009–10 Table A2-4: Land preparation for crops and horticulture by CMA, 2009–10 Table A2-5: Land preparation for pastures by CMA, 2009–10 Table A2-6: Fertiliser use by CMA, 2009–10 Table A2-7: Fertiliser application rates by CMA, 2009–10 Table A2-8: Ground cover monitoring by CMA, 2009–10 Table A2-9: Crop residue management practices by CMA, 2009–10 Figure A2-1 Agricultural businesses applying lime or dolomite to prevent or manage soil acidity 2007–08

Table A2-1 Major agricultural activity by CMA, 2009–10

Total Cropping Horticulture Grazing CMA no. no. no. no. Border Rivers – Gwydir 2,822 959 69 2,625 Central West 5,405 2,814 419 5,115 Hawkesbury–Nepean 3,131 1,400 1,301 1,788 Hunter – Central Rivers 3,660 772 585 3,204 Lachlan 5,228 3,079 264 4,574 Lower Murray–Darling 568 393 343 231 Murray 3,073 1,989 173 2,542 Murrumbidgee 5,483 3,509 919 4,143 Namoi 3,319 1,501 43 3,034 Northern Rivers 7,476 2,280 1,619 5,765 Southern Rivers 2,186 360 206 2,035 Sydney Metro 246 120 117 68 Western 631 94 7 606 NSW 43,228 19,269 6,067 35,730

3 www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Latestproducts/4627.0Main%20Features12009-10 4 www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/7CAF008176640264CA2575C40017E313/$File/46270_2007-08.pdf final results from the 2008-09 MER program 55

Table A2-2: Land use on agricultural holdings by CMA, 2009–10

Border Hawkes - Hunter – Lower Central Murrum- Northern Southern Sydney NSW Rivers – bury– Central Lachlan Murray– Murray Namoi Western West bidgee Rivers Rivers Metro Gwydir Nepean Rivers Darling Agricultural businesses and land area Agricultural businesses (no.) 43,228 2,822 5,405 3,131 3,660 5,228 568 3,073 5,483 3,319 7,476 2,186 246 631 Area of holding (ha) 58,588,455 4,378,770 6,396,495 416,812 1,164,480 7,126,825 6,039,593 3,312,728 5,657,477 3,616,901 1,644,714 724,039 26,810 18,082,810 Land use on agricultural holdings (%) Land use for agricultural production Crops 16.1 36.9 25.5 9.5 5.8 27.7 3.2 35.0 25.6 25.3 5.9 1.7 26.6 1.5 Grazing Improved pasture 24.0 32.6 34.7 54.6 51.1 30.2 14.7 31.2 31.7 30.7 54.1 48.0 79.0 7.4 Other grazing land 55.1 24.0 34.6 15.0 35.9 35.7 77.1 28.9 35.7 37.9 29.3 36.5 11.2 89.9 Forestry plantation 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.7 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 Other agricultural purposes 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 Land use not for agricultural production Land set aside for 2.2 2.6 1.3 9.0 4.7 3.2 3.8 2.3 3.0 2.2 4.1 6.2 19.3 0.7 conservation/protection purposes Other land not used for agricultural 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.4 2.9 3.0 1.3 2.7 1.9 2.3 2.9 3.4 8.8 0.4 production Total 99.7 99.3 100.5 92.2 100.5 100.0 100.1 100.6 98.8 98.6 96.9 96.0 144.9 99.9

Table A2-3: Land management for environmental protection by CMA, 2009–10

Hawkes - Hunter – Lower Border Rivers – Central Northern Southern Sydney NSW bury– Central Lachlan Murray– Murray Murrumbidgee Namoi Western Gwydir West Rivers Rivers Metro Nepean Rivers sDarling Protection of the natural environment Agricultural businesses Agricultural businesses 43,228 2,822 5,405 3,131 3,660 5,228 568 3,073 5,483 3,319 7,476 2,186 246 631 Native vegetation on 29,607 2,287 3,890 1,797 2,568 3,878 283 2,050 3,148 2,449 4,799 1,759 167 534 holding Wetlands on holding 4,249 153 526 247 297 301 53 470 414 190 1,099 159 Rivers or creeks on holding 24,865 1,979 3,197 1,362 2,650 2,818 180 1,384 2,501 1,858 5,022 1,473 75 365 Undertook activities to protect natural environment areas (%) Protected native vegetation 51 43 47 52 38 56 51 68 60 48 49 55 31 27 Protected wetland areas 54 57 53 72 51 34 64 55 57 39 32 Protected river or creek 50 53 45 55 46 50 59 47 56 45 59 38 banks

56 Soil condition and land management in NSW :

Table A2-4: Land preparation for crops and horticulture by CMA, 2009–10

Border Hawkes - Hunter – Lower Central Murrum- Northern Southern Sydney NSW Rivers– bury– Central Lachlan Murray Murray Namoi Western West bidgee Rivers Rivers Metro Gwydir Nepean Rivers Darling Agricultural businesses and land area Agricultural businesses (no.) 43,228 2,822 5,405 3,131 3,660 5,228 568 3,073 5,483 3,319 7,476 2,186 246 631 Agricultural businesses preparing land for 18,915 1,316 3,129 772 764 3,337 260 2,074 3,280 1,879 1,574 393 44 91 crops and horticulture (no.) Total area of land prepared for crops and 6,971,859 1,378,372 1,312,479 19,840 38203 1,255,410 122,114 898,033 996,275 728,531 39,851 10,037 3,619 169,094 horticulture (ha) Land prepared for crops and horticulture Agricultural businesses preparing land (no.) No cultivation 10,616 866 1,750 228 358 2,015 85 1,603 1,920 931 633 152 12 63 One or two cultivations only 9,845 745 1,752 403 330 1,930 110 837 1,847 990 600 253 15 34 Three or more cultivations 2,622 161 247 228 216 217 81 145 311 418 557 24 17 0 Area prepared (ha) No cultivation 4,739,588 910,690 902,288 9,930 24279 782,347 23,747 763,942 678,119 486,453 17,398 6,466 2,614 131,316 One or two cultivations only 1,831,926 407,470 368,154 8,019 9,005 382,888 51,509 110,211 280,110 160,941 11,501 3,370 970 37,778 Three or more cultivations 400,346 60,213 42,037 1,891 4,919 90,175 46,859 23,880 38,047 81,137 10,953 202 35 0

Table A2-5: Land preparation for pastures by CMA, 2009–10 Border Hawkes - Hunter – Lower Central Murrum- Northern Southern Sydney NSW Rivers – bury– Central Lachlan Murray– Murray Namoi Western West bidgee Rivers Rivers Metro Gwydir Nepean Rivers Darling Agricultural businesses and land area Agricultural businesses (no.) 43,228 2,822 5,405 3,131 3,660 5,228 568 3,073 5,483 3,319 7,476 2,186 246 631 Agricultural businesses reporting land for 31,351 2,120 4,420 1,633 2,818 4,252 85 2,468 3,817 2,583 4,923 1,938 109 187 pastures (no.) Total area of land prepared for pastures (ha) 1,147,304 210,058 44,677 61,113 158,634 129,091 153,028 105,198 99,233 53,309 754 653 Land prepared for pastures Agricultural businesses preparing land (no.) No cultivation 8,933 441 1,076 529 860 991 1,018 1,253 669 1,474 571 37 One or two cultivations only 4,768 465 602 190 485 704 0 471 454 685 Three or more cultivations 982 75 134 69 227 79 0 25 65 212 88 0 Area prepared (ha) No cultivation 830,434 141,499 37,928 43,873 112,458 105,145 122,783 79,621 43,460 574 One or two cultivations only 280,408 47,923 60,597 4,900 14,096 42,043 0 21,856 26,443 17,534 Three or more cultivations 36,462 4,430 7,962 1,850 3,143 4,133 0 2,089 3,802 6,738 2,078 0

final results from the 2008-09 MER program 57

Table A2-6: Fertiliser use by CMA, 2009–10 Border Hawkes - Hunter – Lower Central Murrum- Northern Southern Sydney NSW Rivers – bury– Central Lachlan Murray– Murray Namoi Western West bidgee Rivers Rivers Metro Gwydir Nepean Rivers Darling Agricultural businesses Agricultural businesses (no.) 43,228 2,822 5,405 3,131 3,660 5,228 568 3,073 5,483 3,319 7,476 2,186 246 631 Agricultural businesses reporting 25,288 1,644 2,982 1,615 1,902 3,658 341 2,241 3,680 1,979 4,055 1,001 134 57 fertiliser use (no.) Agricultural businesses reporting 58.5 58.3 55.2 51.6 52.0 70.0 60.0 72.9 67.1 59.6 54.2 45.8 54.5 9.0 fertiliser use (%) Types of fertiliser used (%) Urea 27 34 11 32 30 14 52 38 24 40 30 24 12 38 Ammonium sulfate 5 6 7 5 5 4 4 14 2 Urea ammonium nitrate 3 1 5 1 16 2 4 5 4 0 Anhydrous ammonia 2 6 0 1 0 1 11 0 0 0 Single superphosphate 32 35 27 21 45 35 35 38 21 25 43 14 Double/triple superphosphate 8 2 11 3 5 13 8 11 11 5 6 36 Muriate of potash/sulfate of potash 4 2 3 6 11 7 1 1 1 7 Potassium nitrate 3 0 1 21 1 3 21 0 1 3 Ammonium phosphates 33 21 51 12 14 51 36 61 46 22 10 12 18 36 All other manufactured fertiliser 22 32 15 33 27 8 30 9 12 25 42 28 19 5 Animal manure 14 9 5 46 22 7 4 6 14 25 18 26 Total 151.0 147.7 130.1 181.7 156.1 137.2 169.5 165.0 148.4 157.2 153.1 125.4 87.8 114.5

Table A2-7: Fertiliser application rates by CMA, 2009–10

Border Hawkes - Hunter – Lower Central Murrum- Northern Southern Sydney NSW Rivers – bury – Central Lachlan Murray– Murray Namoi Western West bidgee Rivers Rivers Metro Gwydir Nepean Rivers Darling Urea Urea – area (ha) 1,382,147 427,054 84,987 6,903 26,099 115,779 9,513 226,365 144,937 263,717 41,534 21,498 Urea – tonnes applied (t) 243,643 59,428 61,871 1,917 5,994 9,944 1,101 23,818 20,044 39,833 12,132 4,037 Urea – application rate 0.18 0.14 0.73 0.28 0.23 0.09 0.12 0.11 0.14 0.15 0.29 0.19 (t/ha) Ammonium sulfate Ammonium sulfate – area 258,525 37,772 48,774 19,960 15,804 21,078 17,891 94,117 1,011 (ha) Ammonium sulfate – 37,994 4,890 6,152 409 1,654 1,809 20,793 125 tonnes applied (t) Ammonium sulfate – 0.15 0.13 0.13 0.02 0.10 0.10 0.22 0.12 application rate (t/ha) Urea ammonium nitrate Urea ammonium nitrate – 105,613 7,172 7,511 188 5,475 9,661 20,651 40,823 0 area (ha)

58 Soil condition and land management in NSW :

Border Hawkes - Hunter – Lower Central Murrum- Northern Southern Sydney NSW Rivers – bury – Central Lachlan Murray– Murray Namoi Western West bidgee Rivers Rivers Metro Gwydir Nepean Rivers Darling Urea ammonium nitrate – 13,215 859 414 29 563 2,371 2,486 2,065 3,652 0 tonnes applied (t) Urea ammonium nitrate – 0.13 0.12 0.06 0.15 0.10 0.26 0.10 0.09 0.00 application rate (t/ha) Anhydrous ammonia Anhydrous ammonia – area 227,218 87,657 2,391 3,991 0 6,740 107,117 0 0 0 (ha) Anhydrous ammonia – 27,917 10,209 389 371 0 954 13,566 0 0 0 tonnes applied (t) Anhydrous ammonia – 0.12 0.12 0.16 0.09 0.00 0.14 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 application rate (t/ha) Single superphosphate Single superphosphate – 1,544,762 242,468 157,581 33,191 83,003 286,770 109,458 336,041 102,333 156,133 area (ha) Single superphosphate – 202,609 27,018 12,711 19,244 36,367 15,592 43,016 13,263 23,262 6,351 tonnes applied (t) Single superphosphate – 0.13 0.11 0.08 0.23 0.13 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.15 application rate (t/ha) Double or triple superphosphate Double or triple 623,917 8,905 83,912 893 27,865 180,551 103,929 101,464 60,780 25,471 superphosphate – area (ha) Double or triple superphosphate – tonnes 75,395 457 7,471 3,155 21,058 6,888 26,382 6,215 2,205 42 applied (t) Double or triple superphosphate – 0.12 0.05 0.09 0.11 0.12 0.07 0.26 0.10 0.09 application rate (t/ha) Muriate of potash or sulfate of potash Muriate of potash or sulfate 40,960 4,950 3,979 3,024 10,091 943 696 4,309 4,455 of potash – area (ha) Muriate of potash/sulfate of 3,959 647 412 337 657 83 54 91 352 795 potash – tonnes applied (t) Muriate of potash or sulfate of potash – application rate 0.10 0.13 0.10 0.11 0.07 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.18 (t/ha) Potassium nitrate Potassium nitrate – area 25,078 219 568 1,577 509 7,223 2,086 2,257 55 10,099 (ha) Potassium nitrate – tonnes 3,122 6 318 62 596 216 1,534 13 253 applied (t)

final results from the 2008-09 MER program 59

Border Hawkes - Hunter – Lower Central Murrum- Northern Southern Sydney NSW Rivers – bury – Central Lachlan Murray– Murray Namoi Western West bidgee Rivers Rivers Metro Gwydir Nepean Rivers Darling Potassium nitrate – 0.12 0.03 0.20 0.12 0.08 0.10 0.68 0.23 0.03 application rate (t/ha) Ammonium phosphates Ammonium phosphates – 3,790,706 291,612 709,870 10,998 23,694 1,038,490 61,965 750,222 763,241 112,667 12,281 7,610 2,818 5,238 area (ha) Ammonium phosphates – 268,378 15,045 51,816 1,085 1,947 64,796 2,798 60,467 58,212 7,538 2,901 894 531 351 tonnes applied (t) Ammonium phosphates – 0.07 0.05 0.07 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.24 0.12 0.19 0.07 Application rate (t/ha) All other manufactured fertiliser All other manufactured 851,637 166,541 150,610 7,302 39,909 67,802 59,711 74,283 126,921 89,966 10,215 144 fertiliser – area (ha) All other manufactured 151,099 34,145 10,711 4,491 20,358 32,007 7,082 8,822 10,002 15,627 3,370 27 fertiliser – tonnes applied (t) All other manufactured fertiliser – application rate 0.18 0.21 0.07 0.62 0.51 0.47 0.10 0.08 0.17 0.33 0.18 (t/ha) Animal manure Animal manure – area (ha) 192,448 13,682 36,172 6,574 16,682 25,524 17,723 29,874 31,324 7,917 159 Animal manure – tonnes 523,410 73,277 37,470 41,668 55,469 26,429 53,222 126,852 70,629 16,398 145 applied (t) Animal manure – 2.72 5.36 5.70 2.50 2.17 3.00 4.25 2.25 2.07 0.91 application rate (t/ha) Total all types Total all types – area (ha) 9,043,010 1,288,031 1,286,353 70,733 256,849 1,748,351 145,058 1,300,591 1,445,506 922,541 413,097 80,477 15,656 69,766 Total all types – tonnes 1,550,742 225,981 160,155 51,198 94,559 222,907 21,773 144,682 216,572 240,491 131,580 31,058 1,457 8,330 applied (t) Total all types – application 0.17 0.18 0.12 0.72 0.37 0.13 0.15 0.11 0.15 0.26 0.32 0.39 0.09 0.12 rate (t/ha)

60 Soil condition and land management in NSW :

Table A2-8: Ground cover monitoring by CMA, 2009–10

Border Hawkes - Hunter – Lower Central Murrum- Northern Southern Sydney NSW Rivers – bury– Central Lachlan Murray– Murray Namoi Western West bidgee Rivers Rivers Metro Gwydir Nepean Rivers Darling Agricultural businesses Agricultural businesses (no.) Agricultural businesses 43,228 2,822 5,405 3,131 3,660 5,228 568 3,073 5,483 3,319 7,476 2,186 246 631 Monitor ground cover in paddocks 31,351 2,120 4,420 1,633 2,818 4,252 85 2,468 3,817 2,583 4,923 1,938 109 187 Have a minimum target for pasture ground 12,366 961 1,952 647 919 1,725 38 897 1,196 1,245 1,987 664 63 72 cover levels Agricultural businesses grazing stock (%) Monitor ground cover in paddocks 73 75 82 52 77 81 15 80 70 78 66 89 44 30 Have a minimum target for pasture ground 39 45 44 40 33 41 45 36 31 48 40 34 58 39 cover levels Main method for monitoring ground cover (%) Visual estimates 87 88 85 87 88 89 87 88 87 87 Step pointing 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 Photo monitoring standards 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Counting number of plants in a defined area 2 1 0 4 2 2 7 0 0 Satellite imagery and remote sensing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other 1 0 1 0 0 2 None 9 8 12 12 9 5 9 8 9 3 Total 100 96 99 0 99 99 0 100 99 99 98 98 0 0

final results from the 2008-09 MER program 61

Table A2-9: Crop residue management practices by CMA, 2009–10

Border Hawkes - Hunter – Lower Central Murrum- Northern Southern Sydney NSW Rivers – bury– Central Lachlan Murray– Murray Namoi Western West bidgee Rivers Rivers Metro Gwydir Nepean Rivers Darling Agricult ural businesses (no.) Agricultural businesses 43,228 2,822 5,405 3,131 3,660 5,228 568 3,073 5,483 3,319 7,476 2,186 246 631 Agricultural businesses managing crop residue 17,044 1,254 2,996 422 550 3,193 175 1,984 2,946 1,797 1,284 337 19 88 Crop residu e management practices used (%) Stubble was left intact (no cultivation) 49 68 52 14 21 51 24 59 52 49 32 84 Most stubble or trash removed by baling or 24 16 23 24 31 27 7 32 29 20 22 6 heavy grazing Stubble or trash removed by a hot burn (early 3 1 4 0 5 4 4 0 season) Stubble or trash removed by a cool burn (late 8 3 0 7 0 17 17 5 3 0 season) Stubble or trash was ploughed into the soil 34 35 36 55 39 30 58 21 25 45 54 25 90 16 Stubble or trash was mulched 10 13 6 17 21 7 18 6 8 10 22 38 0 5 Total 128 137 117 110 110 126 107 139 135 129 114 84 90 109 Area of crop residue management (ha) Stubble was left intact (no cultivation) 4,646,300 1,009,927 813,387 5,297 9,415 781,049 10,356 638,557 637,697 507,838 11,702 215,599 Most stubble or trash removed by baling or 585,592 30,068 102,835 3,452 145,292 8,145 132,695 119,953 1,239 1,000 heavy grazing Stubble or trash removed by a hot burn (early 66,207 19,008 11,144 0 10,555 11,836 799 0 season) Stubble or trash removed by a cool burn (late 163,276 11,894 0 22,951 0 46,434 66,304 7,839 2,190 0 season) Stubble or trash was ploughed into the soil 1,050,670 196,154 268,839 4,157 3,563 207,171 94,579 52,288 91,173 102,341 11,446 426 60 18,474 Stubble or trash was mulched 330,538 83,786 58,451 428 3,047 54,086 1,684 18,430 30,885 51,490 8,200 3,065 0 16,986

62 Soil condition and land management in NSW :

Figure A2-1 Agricultural businesses applying lime or dolomite to prevent or manage soil acidity 2007–08

Source: ABS Land Management and Farming in Australia 2007–08, 2009, 4627.0, Australian Bureau of Statistics. 5

Note: tabulated data (for 2007–08 or 2009–10) not available on the website.

5 www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/7CAF008176640264CA2575C40017E313/$File/46270_2007-08.pdf

final results from the 2008-09 MER program 63

References Campbell A 2008, Managing Australia’s Soils: A policy discussion paper , prepared for the National Committee on Soil and Terrain through the Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council. Chapman GA, Gray JM, Murphy BW, Atkinson G, Leys JF, Muller R, Peasely B, Wilson BR, Bowman, G, McInnes-Clarke SK, Tulau MJ, Morand, DT and Yang X 2011, Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting of Soil Condition in New South Wales: 2008 program , Department of the Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW, Sydney. DECCW 2009a, Protocols for Soil Condition and Land Capability Monitoring, Department of the Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW, Sydney. DECCW 2009b, NSW State of the Environment 2009 , Department of the Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW, Sydney. DECCW 2010, State of the Catchments 2010: Land management within capability, Hunter – Central Rivers catchment , Department of the Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW, Sydney. Dixon J, McKenzie NJ, Crawford D, Gazey C, Grose C, Hughes B, Merry R, Moody P and Wilson B 2007, Soil Acidification, in Monitoring Soil Condition Across Australia – Recommendations from the Expert Panels to the National Committee on Soil and Terrain Information and the National Land and Water Resources Audit Advisory Council , Canberra, ACT. Gray JM, Chapman GA and Murphy BW 2011, Land Management within Capability, a NSW Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Project , Technical Report, NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, Sydney. Gray JM, Bishop TA, Smith PL, Robinson N and Brough D 2012, A pragmatic quantitative model for soil organic carbon distribution in eastern Australia, in Digital Soil Assessments and Beyond , B Minasny, BP Malone and AB McBratney (eds), pp. 115– 20, CRC Press/Balkema: The Netherlands. Gray JM, Bishop TFA and Yang X, Pragmatic models for prediction and digital mapping of soil properties in eastern Australia, accepted by Soil Research . Guerschman JP, Hill MJ, Renzullo LJ, Barrett DJ, Marks AS and Botha EJ 2009, Estimating fractional cover of photosynthetic vegetation, nonphotosynthetic vegetation and bare soil in the Australian tropical savanna region upscaling the EO-1 Hyperion and MODIS sensors, Remote Sensing of Environment 113, 928–45. Guerschman JP, Oyarzábal M, Malthus T, McVicar TR, Byrne G, Randall L and Stewart J 2012, Evaluation of the MODIS-based vegetation fractional cover product , CSIRO, Canberra. Keith H, Carter L, Murphy B and Greene R 2013, Report to the Hawkesbury – Nepean Catchment Management Authority , FSES, ANU. Leys JF and Heidenreich S 2012, Using DustWatch Node Data For CAP Review , NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, Sydney. Leys JF, Yang X and Butler H 2012, Modelled Wind Erosion Data (CEMSYS 5) for CAP Review , NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, Sydney. McKenzie NJ, Henderson B and McDonald WS 2002, Monitoring soil change: Principles and practices for Australian conditions , Land and Water Technical Report 18/02, CSIRO, Canberra. Murphy B, Wilson B and Rawson A 2010, Development of a soil carbon benchmark matrix for central west NSW, in 19th World Congress of Soil Science, Soil Solutions for a Changing World , 1–6 August, Brisbane.

64 Soil condition and land management in NSW :

NRC 2005, Recommendations: State-wide standards and targets , NSW Natural Resources Commission, Sydney. OEH 2012, The Land and Soil Capability Scheme – A general rural land evaluation scheme for NSW, Second approximation, Technical Report, Office of Environment and Heritage NSW, Sydney. Walker B and Salt D (2006) Resilience thinking: Sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing world, Washington, DC: Island Press. Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists 2008, Accounting for Nature – A model for building the National Environmental Accounts for Australia , Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, www.wentworthgroup.org/blueprints/accounting-for-nature-a- model-for-building-the-national-environmental-accounts-of-australia. Yang X, Chapman G and Yeomans R 2011, Soil erosion risk assessment after severe bushfires in New South Wales, Australia, using RUSLE and MODIS, 7th International Symposium on Digital Earth , 23–25 August, Perth.

final results from the 2008-09 MER program 65