MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED COMPLIANCE REPORT
2007/08
Table of Contents
Introduction ...... 1 Benchmark and Compliance Index ...... 2
Chapter 1: Supply Management ...... 4 Diversions Deliveries and Losses ...... 4 Irrigation Water Quality ...... 5 Supply Refurbishment & Review ...... 5 Telemetry ...... 7 Change of Ownership ...... 7 Water Trade ...... 8
Chapter 2: Stormwater Management ...... 9 Water Quality Analysis ...... 9 Pesticide Monitoring ...... 16 Chemical Use for Weed Control ...... 17 Blue-Green Algae Monitoring ...... 17 Pumping Drainage Water into Supply Channels ...... 17 Noxious Aquatic Weeds ...... 17 Impact on Receiving Waterways ...... 18
Chapter 3: Groundwater Management ...... 21 Wakool Tullakool Subsurface Drainage Scheme...... 21 Other Tubewell Pumping ...... 23 Trends in Regional Watertable Levels ...... 24
Chapter 4: On-Farm Management ...... 30 Climatic Conditions ...... 30 Landuse ...... 31 Irrigation Layout ...... 31 Water Use ...... 32 Risk of Salinity ...... 37 Soil Acidity ...... 37 Waterlogging ...... 39 Adoption of Best Management Practices ...... 39 Status of Native Vegetation ...... 39 Socio Economic Status ...... 39 Community Understanding of Best Management Practices ...... 39
Chapter 5: Murray Land and Water Management Plans ...... 40 LWMP Implementation ...... 40 Berriquin LWMP ...... 43 Cadell LWMP ...... 46 Denimein LWMP ...... 49 Wakool LWMP ...... 52 Stormwater Escape Channel Construction ...... 56 Murray LWMP R&D Program ...... 60
Appendices ...... 68 Appendix One: Published Documents ...... 68 Appendix Two: Stormwater Escape Water Quality Data ...... 69 Appendix Three: Landholder Chemical Usage Report ...... 77 Appendix Four: Murray LWMP Annual Landholder Survey ...... 85 Appendix Five: Hydrographic Data Ecowise ...... 194 Introduction
The Compliance Report 2007/08 is written to meet the reporting requirements of the two licences Murray Irrigation hold with the NSW Department of Water and Energy (DWE) and the NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change. (DECC).
At the time of writing, the licence with the Department of Water and Energy was undergoing a significant review. A new licensing package is being issued under the Water Management Act 2000,until this package is finalised the existing conditions on the Irrigation Corporation Water Management Works Licence (IC2) remain. In early 2008, during the discussions regarding the new licences, it was agreed between the Corporate Licensing Unit of DWE and Murray Irrigation that the reporting during 2007/08 would remain the same as previous years.
The Corporate Licensing Unit of DWE submitted a detailed assessment of the Murray Irrigation Compliance Report 2007/08. The majority of the issues outlined in the assessment are part of the discussion the new licensing package. Any items that could be easily addressed have been included in this report.
The NSW Department of Primary Industries (DPI) provided comment on the Compliance Report 2006/07. Murray Irrigation has included any suggestions from the comments that it considered to be relevant in view of the licences being under significant review.
The Environment Protection Licence 5014 issued by Environment Protection Authority is also due for renewal in late 2008. It is not anticipated there will be any significant changes to this licence as a result of the review. The major changes will involve the Murray Land and Water Management Plans reporting.
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 1 of 273 Benchmark and Compliance Index
The benchmarking program was developed at the beginning of the LWMPs by a committee comprising representatives of Murray Irrigation, the Murray LWMPs, DWE, NSW DPI and NSW DECC. The benchmarking component of the LWMPs was developed to monitor key environmental parameters to observe the impact the LWMPs were having on the local environment. The benchmarks were also developed to assist in the review and modification of LWMP initiatives to ensure the original objectives are achieved.
The benchmarks are as follows: Supply channel efficiency Supply water quality Farm water use efficiency Risk of salinity Rootzone salinity Soil acidity Waterlogging Discharge water quality Adoption of BMP Status of vegetation Socio-economic status, and Community understanding
Results from monitoring some benchmarks are providing good information, however others have proved more difficult. There has been success benchmarking supply channel efficiency, supply water quality and discharge water quality; however we have been unable to find an appropriate monitoring program for items such as rootzone salinity, the status of native vegetation and farm water use efficiency. In order to remedy this we began a review of the benchmarking program in 2004/05. Through this review we aimed to consolidate the benchmarking items by removing, modifying and adding new items as appropriate. A preliminary workshop was held in June 2005. From the preliminary workshop a number of items were marked for removal. Data for these items was not gathered for the 2004/05, 2005/06 or 2006/07 Compliance Reports. The benchmark program review has effectively ceased as a result of staff changes within the Department of Water and Energy and Murray Irrigation.
Table A: Location of the benchmark items in the report
Benchmark Item Location Page Number Delivery Efficiency Chapter 1: Supply Management 4 Supply Water Quality Chapter 1: Supply Management 4 Farm Water Use Efficiency Chapter 4: On-Farm Management 32 *Rootzone Salinity Chapter 4: On-Farm Management 37 Risk Of Salinity Chapter 4: On-Farm Management 37 *Soil Acidity Chapter 4: On-Farm Management 37 *Waterlogging Chapter 4: On-Farm Management 39 Discharge Water Quality Chapter 2: Stormwater Management 9 *Adoption of Best Management Practices Chapter 4: On-Farm Management 39 *Status of Native Vegetation Chapter 4: On-Farm Management 39 *Socio Economic Status Chapter 4: On-Farm Management 39 *Community Understanding of Best Management Practices Chapter 4: On-Farm Management 39 *: These benchmark items will not be included in the new Corporate Licensing Package
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 2 of 273 Table B : Location of compliance items in the report
Page Condition Issue Format Chapter Number Annual Environment All reporting requirements of LWMP A.1.1 Submitted Management Reporting & licences
A.1.2 LWMP Documentation Current reference list of reports, etc Appendix 4 68
A.2.2 Diversions, volume ML/month, trend Chapter 1: Supply Management 4 A.2.2 Diversion, salt load Ton/year Chapter 1: Supply Management 5 Loss % of diversion, ML/month lost A.2.2 Supply Efficiency Chapter 1: Supply Management 4 & delivered, trend
A.2.2 Channel Seepage ML/year, trend, measures, prevented Chapter 1: Supply Management 5
ML/month, trend, measures, A.2.2 Escape Flow/Loss Chapter 1: Supply Management 4 prevented Ha & ML/year delivery to crops, A.2.2 Crop Statistics Chapter 4: On-Farm Management 32 trend A.2.2 Blue Green Algae Counts, changes etc. Chapter 1: Supply Management 5 Chapter 2: Stormwater 17 Management Type, location, time, quantity, Chapter 2: Stormwater A.2.3 Chemical Contingency 16 measures, risk, etc Management Chapter 3: Groundwater A.3.3 Groundwater Levels 21 Management A.3.3 Groundwater Salinity Chapter 4: On-Farm Management 37 ML/year pumped, reused, exported, Chapter 3: Groundwater A.3.3/2.2 Groundwater Pumping 21 trend, salt load Management Groundwater Accession Type, measures, trend, Net Chapter 3: Groundwater A.3.3 21 Control groundwater accessions (estimated). Management Chapter 4: On-Farm Management 37 Groundwater Pollution, Type, location, concentration, risk, Chapter 3: Groundwater A.3.3 - events measures Management Type, location, concentration, risk, Groundwater Pollution, Chapter 3: Groundwater A.3.3 trend, measures when asked to do - status Management so. A.4.2 Flood Levels Exception report Chapter 1: Supply Management -
A.4.2 Floodplain Structures Asset dimension change and impact Chapter 1: Supply Management 6
Aquatic Environment Assets Any significant change, trend, and Chapter 2: Stormwater A.5.2 Condition & Management 9 Register of Activities Management Change Potential Management A.5.2 EIS, REF, SIS, Appendix 4 68 Impacts Type, extent, control measures Chapter 2: Stormwater A.5.2 Noxious Aquatic Weeds 17 within licensee infrastructure. Management A.6.4 Soil Salinity dS/m, class, location, trend, ha Chapter 4: On-Farm Management -
Effects of Licensee activities, health A.6.4 Remnant Vegetation Chapter 5: Murray LWMPs 40 of selected stands.
Notify/apply, EC level & load, Chapter 2: Stormwater A.7.1 Saline Discharge (summary) 9 dilution, duration Management
High Salinity Event Notify, EC level & load, location, Chapter 2: Stormwater A.7.1 9 (summary) duration, dilution, measures Management
Chapter 2: Stormwater A.7.3/2.2 Salt Export Ton/month, as per PC Licence 9 Management
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 3 of 273 Chapter 1: Supply Management Diversions, Deliveries and Losses
The water available to Murray Irrigation in 2007/08 was 175,295ML.
Table 1.1 shows monthly diversions, deliveries and losses. The negative losses refer to months when Murray Irrigation had stopped diverting water from the Mulwala Offtake but continued to discharge water from credited escapes or deliver to landholders.
Table 1.1 Summary of Diversions Deliveries and Losses (ML) by month during 2007/08
Nett Diverted Delivered (ML) Loss (ML) August 1,100 2,724 -1,624 September 25,581 2,635 22,946 October -879 502 -1,381 November 7,810 739 7,071 December 12,049 914 11,135 January 16,542 932 15,610 February 12,739 1,342 11,397 March 19,252 5,359 13,893 April 12,608 13,822 -1,214 May -17,562 432 -17,994 Totals 89,240 29,401 59,839
Figure 1.1 shows a breakdown of the water available, water diverted and credited escape releases during 2007/08.
Murray Irrigation supplied four towns (Berrigan, Finley, Wakool and Bunnaloo) with town water and a stock and domestic supply to landholders during 2007/08, 41% of the water delivered was used for stock and domestic purposes ( refer to Chapter 4: On-farm Management).
The carry over water in the available resource refers to the return of 90% of the suspended water from 2006/07. The water was returned in stages during 2007/08.
Figure 1.1: Diversions and Deliveries Flow Chart 2007/08
Total Gross Diversions Resource Available Net Diversions Delivered 149,352 ML ML 89,240ML 29,401ML Carried over 2006/07 0ML (Mulwala Canal, Wakool Canal) Allocation 2007/08 70,000ML Supplementary Water 0ML Escape Credits Net Transfers -12,623ML Conveyance Loss Escape Volume Snowy Advance 0ML 59,839ML Edward River 36,845ML Carry over Water 117,918ML 67% of Net Diversion Finley Escape 2,048ML Wakool River 13,653ML Yallakool Creek 6,709ML Carryover 2008/09 Pericoota Escape 857ML 86,055ML
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 4 of 273 Determining supply efficiency
Irrigation supply efficiency is measured in terms of the water delivered on farm expressed as a percentage of the water diverted.
Table 1.2 (a) shows the annual allocation to the Murray Irrigation area of operation and the delivery efficiency for the period 2002/03-2006-07, defined by:
Supply = Water Delivered x 100 Efficiency Water Diverted 1
Table 1.2 (a): Delivery efficiency of Murray Irrigation operations 2002/03-2007/08
Diversions Deliveries Loss Murray Irrigation Efficiency Year (ML) (ML) (ML) Announced Allocation (%) (%) 2002/03 529,329 399,740 129,589 8 76 2003/04 855,675 658,608 197,067 45 77 2004/05 834,784 651,240 183,544 42 78 2005/06 1,177,898 985,038 192,860 56 84 2006/07 322,488 222,688 99,800 0 69 2007/08 89,240 29,401 59,839 0 33 Average 634,902 491,119 135,831 25 69 Max 1,177,898 985,038 197,067 56 84 Min 89,240 29,401 59,839 0 33
Under National Water Initiative (NWI), governments have agreed to report on a nationally consistent performance indicators and definitions. The table from the Rural Reporting Handbook section E.4 supply delivery efficiency is presented in Table 1.2 (b).
Table 1.2 (b): Murray Irrigation National Performance Framework Reporting (E.4 Supply network delivery efficiency)
Other planned Delivery General *Unaccounted Gross On-farm deliveries Unaccounted supply Security water per km diversions deliveries (credited water efficiency Allocation of channel (ML) (ML) escape flows) (ML) (NWI) (%) ((ML/km) (ML) (%)
2002/03 8 1,094,415 399,740 523,923 170,752 84 58 2003/04 45 1,225,616 658,608 346,347 220,661 82 75 2004/05 42 1,284,693 651,240 429,440 204,013 84 69 2005/06 56 1,642,345 985,038 441,186 216,121 87 73 2006/07 0 755,538 222,688 401,660 131,190 83 44 2007/08 0 149,352 29,401 60,112 59,839 60 20 *:Unaccounted water includes unintended flows (eg. due to operational margins or errors), evaporation, seepage, leakage, measurement error and theft. (Reference: National Performance Framework: 2006-07 rural water performance reporting indicators and definitions)
Irrigation Water Quality
The quality of irrigation water (salinity and total phosphorus levels) delivered to Murray Irrigation is monitored at number of sites by different agencies. The quality of water at Yarrawonga Weir (Lake Mulwala) is measured by Goulburn-Murray Water at the weir headwall on the Murray River; Murray Irrigation monitors the Mulwala Offtake on Lake Mulwala. DWE monitors water diverted back into the Edward River from the Mulwala Canal at the Edward River Escape and the water quality in Stevens Weir on the Edward River. In 2004/05 DWE ceased measuring total phosphorus levels at Stevens Weir. The results for 2007/08 are shown in table 1.3.
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 5 of 273 Table 1.3: Quality of Irrigation Supply Water 2007/08
Murray River @ Mulwala Edward River Yarrawonga Escape into at Steven's Mulwala Lake @ Offtake (1) Weir Edwards River Weir (409023) (head gauge) (409029) (3) (3)
Total Salinity (EC) Phosphorus Salinity (EC) Salinity (EC) Salinity (EC) (mg/L)
Range 48 - 58 0.003 - 0.056 49 - 56 33 - 98 31 - 130 Average 52 0.016 53 69 69 Median 52 0.010 54 68 68
Source: (1) MIL (2) G-M Water (3) DWE Blue-Green Algae in the Supply System
Over the past few years new Australian Guidelines for Cyanobacteria in recreational waters and drinking water have been developed. The Scientific Subcommittee of the State Algal Advisory Group endorsed the interim use of these guidelines for NSW waters. Murray Irrigation is a member of the Murray Regional Algal Coordinating Committee which adopted these guidelines.
The presence of blue-green algae in the supply system is directly related to algal levels in Lake Mulwala. . Murray Irrigation tests for levels of blue-green algae when high level alert (red) has been declared for the Mulwala Lake. During 2007/08 the blue green algal levels in Lake Mulwala only reached amber, so no testing was undertaken buy Murray Irrigation. Supply Refurbishment & Review
During 2007/08, under the asset renewal program Murray Irrigation completed the construction of nine structures, three road culverts, five subways and one access culvert. Fencing associated with the Mulwala Canal at Lawsons Syphon and Edwards River Escape was also undertaken. Vibrating wire (geological) piezometers were installed to observe structure movement at both The Drop and Mulwala Canal Offtake. These are read weekly. These works were audited by Sinclair Knight Mertz, the independent auditor appointed by the NSW Government.
The asset database for company structures is now being constantly updated and entered into the GIS database for auditing purposes.
In 1995, Halliburton KBR (then Kinhill) began a review of Murray Irrigation’s maintenance and asset management practices. A five-year cyclic program of inspection commenced in 1996. This external annual review program has been revised, given the ongoing internal review of works. In July 2006 Halliburton KBR inspected sites as part of their external review of the maintenance and asset management program. Inspections focussed on assessing the reliability of the company’s maintenance activities. Results indicate that the maintenance program is achieving its required outcomes. It was determined that, based on the information reviewed from KBR, a review of all major structures would occur every five years with the next assessment to be carried out in the winter of 2011.
Maintenance & Operation of Floodplain Structures
In 2007/08 MIL operated and maintained floodplain structures in accordance with the ‘Guidelines for floodplain development – Stage 1-4’.
Seepage and Erosion Control
Seepage and erosion control works previously carried out as part of the asset renewal program are now undertaken by the Murray Irrigation Works Department. The seepage and erosion control works completed in 2007/08 are outlined in table 1.4. In 2007/08 the works included clay lining of channels and total bank restoration works for the full channel bed width.
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 6 of 273 Table 1.4: Murray Irrigation Works program seepage and erosion control works 2007/08 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 Seepage Control No. of Sites 12 118 153 117 Total Cost $14,000 $177,266 $45,400 $86,331 Erosion Control No. of Sites 43 43 39 11 Total Cost $427,000 $43,800 $44,800 $56,101
Telemetry
Murray Irrigation has over 250 sites in its telemetry system that can be either remotely controlled or monitored. The installation of 20 new regulators with telemetry is currently been undertaken as part of the mechanisation project.
A major upgrade of the SCADA backbone is being carried out with the installation of five new radio towers to increase data speed and allow for future expansion of the SCADA. Changes to Ownership
In 2007/08, 152 landholdings (or 6.36% of the total landholdings) changed ownership. The majority of these trans- fers occurred within Berriquin (Table 1.5), although the relative proportion was higher in the Denimein. Changes to ownership occurred through the following transfers: Change of Name, Death of Member, Landholding Sale and Subdivision.
Table 1.5: Summary of landholding transfers within Murray Irrigation 2002/03-2007/08 No. of Land Sales Proportion of landholdings (%) District 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 Berriquin 87 92 86 82 60 84 5.8 6.2 5.81 5.54 4.05 5.71 Deniboota 28 25 26 28 21 22 8 5.2 7.28 7.93 6.03 6.38 Denimein 9 10 15 20 19 24 4.7 7.1 7.89 10.31 9.79 12.83 Wakool 19 19 28 22 23 22 5 5 7.33 5.76 6.01 5.74 TOTAL 143 146 155 152 123 152 5.9 6.04 7.57 6.31 5.11 6.36
There were eight subdivisions and 60 amalgamations in 2007/08 (Table 1.6). Environmental assessments were made prior to approvals being granted. Environment assessment considers water use intensity, farm drainage and farm management. Landholdings can only be amalgamated when they have common ownership, a common boundary.
Table 1.6: Summary of subdivisions and amalgamations within Murray Irrigation 2002/03-2007/08
No. of Subdivisions No. of Amalgamations
2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 Berriquin 11 8 2 10 10 4 14 9 14 18 20 38 Deniboota 4 1 7 2 0 0 1 - 9 14 10 Denimein 3 1 - 2 2 1 2 - 1 - 4 16 Wakool 3 5 - 4 4 3 - 2 1 3 10 6 TOTAL 21 15 9 18 16 8 17 11 16 30 48 60
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 7 of 273 Water trade
Transfers
Permanent transfers (external)
There was one permanent external transfer of 166ML unit share components from the Water Access Licence during 2007/08.
Permanent transfers (internal)
Within Murray Irrigation, there were 49,413 entitlements internally transferred without land (including to government). There was 30,065 entitlements internally transferred with a change in beneficial ownership (listed on the Murray Irrigation website with a price per entitlement). There was 33,050 entitlements internal transferred to non-member accounts (non-landholding accounts) in 2007/08.
The net result of the transfers are summarised in Table 1.7 along with records back to 2002/03.
Table 1.7 Summary of internal permanent transfers 2002/03-2007/08
Net Transfer (Water Entitlements) District 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 Berriquin -618 1,030 495 2,024 -228 -12,004 Deniboota -5 -225 -445 -947 -4,202 -4,534 Denimein 837 - -55 -1,051 -1,180 -5,516 Wakool -214 -805 5 -986 -1,055 -10,996 Non-members - - - 960 6,665 33,050 TOTAL - - - 0 0 0
Temporary Transfers
During the 2007/08 irrigation season, a total of 937 ML was temporarily transferred into Murray Irrigation and 13,560 ML temporarily transferred out of Murray Irrigation. This resulted in net temporary transfers of 12,622ML out of Murray Irrigation as shown in table 1.8. This is the first time in the history of Murray Irrigation temporary transfers resulted in a net transfer out of Murray Irrigation.
Table 1.8: Net temporary transfers for the Murray Irrigation region 2002/03-2007/08
Year Volume (ML) 2002/03 97,017 2003/04 114,726 2004/05 65,873 2005/06 93,474 2006/07 42,127 2007/08 -12,622
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 8 of 273 Chapter 2: Stormwater Management
Water Quality Analysis
Water quality data has been analysed for three data periods: June 2007 to August 2007, September 2007 to Decem- ber 2007 and January 2008 to May 2008. The data for the January to May time period includes irrigation supply channel escape flows at the close of the irrigation season. This is consistent with the request made by the Depart- ment of Water and Energy (DWE) as part of the agency review in 1998, which enables a separate analysis of win- ter runoff, and runoff during the irrigation season. In 2007/08 water samples were collected on a weekly basis where flow exceeded 5ML/d for salinity and turbidity analysis. Nutrients (total phosphorus and total nitrogen) were analysed at least once a month. Water quality analysis was conducted at the Murray Irrigation laboratory in Finley. The laboratory holds National Association of Testing Authorities Australia (NATA) accreditation (no. 14844) for electrical conductivity, turbidity and total phosphorus analysis.
In July 2005 the contract for the maintenance of the continuous monitoring equipment was awarded to Ecowise after a tendering process. The continuous monitoring equipment records flow and salinity. All licensed sites are visited weekly to check gauge height readings and samples are taken if necessary. All sites are connected to radio telemetry allowing daily monitoring of gauge height and salinity.
During 2007/08 there were no incidents causing or threatening harm to the environment requiring reporting by Murray Irrigation to the Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC).
The continuation of the severe drought in the area and a zero allocation for a second year has seen the stormwater escape system remain dry for 2007/08. The stormwater escape channels (SEC) dried up and ceased to flow from October 2006. The SEC system was still dry at the end on the reporting period in May 2008.
A complete record of the data presented in this chapter is located in the Appendices. Only a summary of the water quality data is presented in the following pages.
Figure 2.1: Water quality monitoring sites
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 9 of 273 Flow
Summaries of the flow from the SEC system for each monitoring site are presented in table 2.1. Removing the Finley Escape, which is used to transport water to the Billabong Creek, the net flow discharging the area was 213 ML (refer to Appendix 2).
During the year, flows exceeding 5ML/d were recorded in the the Deniboota Canal Escape and Burragorrimma Stormwater Escape (SEC), after isolated thunderstorm events in summer. Burragorrima SEC recorded a flow of 5.9 ML/d in late December 2007 and the Deniboota Canal Escape recorded a flow of 11.6 ML/d in late January 2007.
A comparison of the total flow over the last five years and rainfall shows a correlation between rainfall and the total net flow (see figure 2.2). The total flows for 2007/08 are significantly lower than those recorded in 2002/03.
Comparisons of the flow at the individual sites over the last five years are presented in figure 2.3. The Finley Escape has been excluded to enable easier analysis of the flow at the other sites. Table 2.1: Summary of flow at the Murray Irrigation monitoring sites for 2007/08
% contribution Total flow (ML) Stormwater Escape Channel Site % contribution (excluding June ’07- May '08 credited flows)
Back Barooga BBR1 49 4.8 23.1 Berrigan Creek BIBE 0 0.0 0.1 Box Creek MOXM 0 0.0 0.0 Burraboi JIBU 0 0.0 0.0 Burragorrimma NMBR 68 6.6 31.7 DC 2500 East JIJS 0 0.0 0.0 Deniboota Canal Escape DBCE 89 8.7 41.7 Finley Escape BIFE (credited) 812 79.2 - Lalalty TUPJ 0 0.0 0.0 Murphys Timber WRMT 0 0.0 0.0 Niemur SEC TCND 0 0.0 0.0 North Deniliquin DENI 0 0.0 0.0 Pinelea TCPL 0 0.0 0.0 Wakool DRWK 0 0.0 0.0 West Warragoon TCWW 0 0.0 0.0 Wollamai East BIWE 0 0.0 0.0 Wollamai BIOW 7 0.7 3.4
Total 1,025 100.0 100.0 Figure 2.2: Comparison of total flow and rainfall at the Murray Irrigation monitoring sites for the period 2002/03-2007/08
Rainfall Total Flow (ML) Jan - May Sept - Dec Deniliquin (mm) 10000 Jun - Aug 450 rain 9000 400
8000 350 7000 300 6000 250 5000 200 4000 150 3000 2000 100 1000 50 0 0 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 Years
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 10 of 273 Figure 2.3: Total flow at each of Murray Irrigation’s monitoring sites for the period 2002/03 to 2007/08
Flow (ML) 2002/03 4,000 2003/04 3,000 2004/05 2005/06 2,000 2006/07 1,000 2007/08
0 Lalalty Niemur Pinelea Wakool Burraboi Box Creek Box Escape Escape DC 2500 East 2500 DC Back Barooga Back Berrigan Creek Creek Berrigan Burragorrimma Murphys TimberMurphys North DeniliquinNorth DenibootaCanal West Warragoon West Wollamai Escape Wollamai Wollamai East Escape East Wollamai
Salinity
Salinity levels within the SECs are variable; the highest daily recording was 1380 EC in the Deniboota Canal Escape. High salinity levels are associated with conditions of no or very low flows. Based on the daily flow and salinity recordings, the net salt load was approximately 71 t (refer to Appendix 2). There were no discharges from the Dry Creek into the Lalalty SEC in 2007/08.
A summary of the total salt load for each monitoring site is presented in table 2.2. Removing the Finley Escape, which is used to transport water to the Billabong Creek, the major contributor to the salt load was the Burragorrimma SEC.
Table 2.2: Summary of salt load at the Murray Irrigation monitoring sites during 2007/08 % contribution Total salt (tonnes) Stormwater Escape Channel Site % contribution (excluding credited June ’07 - May '08 flows) Back Barooga BBR1 15 13.6 21.4 Berrigan Creek BIBE 0 0.0 0.0 Box Creek MOXM 0 0.0 0.0 Burraboi JIBU 0 0.0 0.0 Burragorrimma NMBR 32 28.6 45.2 DC 2500 East JIJS 0 0.0 0.0 Deniboota Canal Escape DBCE 23 20.4 32.3 Finley Escape BIFE (credited) 41 36.6 - Lalalty TUPJ 0 0.0 0.0 Murphys Timber WRMT 0 0.0 0.0 Niemur TCND 0 0.0 0.0 North Deniliquin DENI 0 0.0 0.0 Pinelea TCPL 0 0.0 0.0 Wakool DRWK 0 0.0 0.0 West Warragoon TCWW 0 0.0 0.0 Wollamai East BIWE 0 0.0 0.0 Wollamai BIOW 1 0.7 1.1 Total 112 100.0 100.0
A comparison of the total tonnes of salt and rainfall over the last five years is presented in figure 2.4. The salt load in 2007/08 is lower than the previous year in 2006/07 with the continuing drought. The Box Creek monitoring site has been dry since October 2006. This has resulted in a significant reduction in the salt load within the Murray Irrigation area.
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 11 of 273 Figure 2.4: Comparison of total salt load and rainfall in the Murray Irrigation area for the period 2002/03 to 2007/08
Salt Jan - May Rainfall (tonnes) Sept - Dec Deniliquin (mm) 6000 Jun - Aug 450 rainfall 400 5000 350
4000 300
250 3000 200
2000 150
100 1000 50
0 0 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 Years
Total Phosphorus
Total phosphorus levels in the SECs are measured when the flow exceeds 5ML/d. With the significant reduction in flows observed in 2007/08 very few samples were collected. Samples were collected from the Deniboota Canal Escape after the thunderstorm in late January and the Finley Escape. The total discharge of Total Phosphorus from the Murray Irrigation area was 0.01t (refer to Appendix 2).
A summary of the total phosphorus load for each monitoring site is presented in table 2.3.
A comparison of the total tonnes of phosphorus over the last five years and rainfall is presented in figure 2.6.
Table 2.3: Summary of total phosphorus load at the Murray Irrigation monitoring sites in 2007/08
Total Phosphorus % contribution Stormwater Escape Channel Site (tonnes) % contribution (excluding credited June ’07 - May '08 flows)
Back Barooga BBR1 0.00 0.0 0.0 Berrigan Creek BIBE 0.00 0.0 0.0 Box Creek MOXM 0.00 0.0 0.0 Burraboi JIBU 0.00 0.0 0.0 Burragorrimma NMBR 0.00 0.0 0.0 DC 2500 East JIJS 0.00 0.0 0.0 Deniboota Canal Escape DBCE 0.01 16.7 100.0 Finley Escape BIFE (credited) 0.05 83.3 - Lalalty TUPJ 0.00 0.0 0.0 Murphys Timber WRMT 0.00 0.0 0.0 Niemur TCND 0.00 0.0 0.0 North Deniliquin DENI 0.00 0.0 0.0 Pinelea TCPL 0.00 0.0 0.0 Wakool DRWK 0.00 0.0 0.0 West Warragoon TCWW 0.00 0.0 0.0 Wollamai East BIWE 0.00 0.0 0.0 Wollamai BIOW 0.00 0.0 0.0 Total 0.06 100.0 100.0
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 12 of 273 Figure 2.6: Comparison of total phosphorus load and rainfall in the Murray Irrigation area for the period 2002/03 to 2007/08
Total Phosphorus Jan - May Rainfall (tonnes) Sept - Dec Deniliquin (mm) Jun - Aug 1.8 rainfall 450 1.6 400 1.4 350 1.2 300 1 250 0.8 200 0.6 150 0.4 100 0.2 50 0 0 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 Years
Nitrogen
Total nitrogen levels in the SECs are measured when the flow exceeds 5ML/d. With the significant reduction in flows observed in 2007/08 very few samples were collected. Samples were collected from the Deniboota Canal Escape after the thunderstorm in late January and the Finley Escape. The total discharge of total nitrogen from the Murray Irrigation area was 0.1t (refer to Appendix 2).
A summary of the total nitrogen load for each monitoring site is presented in table 2.4.
A comparison of the total tonnes of nitrogen over the last five years and rainfall is presented in figure 2.7.
Table 2.4: Summary of total nitrogen load at the Murray Irrigation monitoring sites in 2007/08
Total nitrogen % contribution Stormwater Escape Channel Site (tonnes) % contribution (excluding credited June ’07 - May '08 flows)
Back Barooga BBR1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Berrigan Creek BIBE 0.0 0.0 0.0 Box Creek MOXM 0.0 0.0 0.0 Burraboi JIBU 0.0 0.0 0.0 Burragorrimma NMBR 0.0 0.0 0.0 DC 2500 East JIJS 0.0 0.0 0.0 Deniboota Canal Escape DBCE 0.1 7.1 100.0 Finley Escape BIFE (credited) 1.3 92.9 - Lalalty TUPJ 0.0 0.0 0.0 Murphys Timber WRMT 0.0 0.0 0.0 Niemur TCND 0.0 0.0 0.0 North Deniliquin DENI 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pinelea TCPL 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wakool DRWK 0.0 0.0 0.0 West Warragoon TCWW 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wollamai East BIWE 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wollamai BIOW 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 1.4 100.0 100.0
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 13 of 273 Figure 2.7: Comparison of total nitrogen load and rainfall in the Murray Irrigation area for the period 2002/03 to 2007/08.
Total Nitrogen Jan - May Rainfall (tonnes) Sept - Dec Deniliquin (mm) Jun - Aug 9 rainfall 450 8 400
7 350
6 300
5 250
4 200
3 150
2 100
1 50
0 0 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 Years
Turbidity
Murray Irrigation revised their weed control strategies for SECs during 1998/99 to reduce the sediment load within the SEC system particularly during periods of low flow. Future management has involved the retention of vegeta- tion on batters and banks, and active revegetation of new SECs. Individual aquatic weed species such as cumbungi and sagittaria will continue to be spot controlled to minimise the spread of weeds.
Turbidity levels in the SECs are measured when the flow exceeds 5ML/d. With the significant reduction in flows observed in 2007/08 very few samples were collected. Samples were collected from the Deniboota Canal Escape after the thunderstorm in late January and the Finley Escape.
A summary of the turbidity results for each monitoring site is presented in table 2.5.
Table 2.5: Summary of the turbidity levels at the Murray Irrigation monitoring sites in 2007/08
Median Turbidity Stormwater Escape Channel Site (NTU) Back Barooga BBR1 114 Berrigan Creek BIBE * Box Creek MOXM * Burraboi JIBU * Burragorrimma NMBR * DC 2500 East JIJS * Deniboota Canal Escape DBCE 279 Finley Escape BIFE 284 Lalalty TUPJ * Murphys Timber WRMT * Niemur TCND * North Deniliquin DENI * Pinelea TCPL * Wakool DRWK * West Warragoon TCWW * Wollamai East BIWE * Wollamai BIOW * *: insufficient data
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 14 of 273 Other Monitoring
Council development consent conditions on some SECs require installation of flow and salinity monitoring equipment. These are; DC18 Lalalty SEC(LAL18) Warragoon North SEC (BCMS) Pinelea SEC (TUP1) The data for the council condition sites is presented in table 2.7.
Table 2.7: Summary of flow and salt load at the council consent conditions sites for 2007/08
Stormwater Escape Channel Site Total Flow (ML) Total Salt (tonnes)
DC18 Lalalty LAL18 0 0 Warragoon North BCMS 0 0 Tuppal Creek TUP1 0 0
Some of the more recently constructed SECs have a consent condition regarding the analysis of water quality following a rainfall event of over 25mm in 24hr. There were no rainfall events in 2007/08 meeting these criteria.
Three monitoring sites established prior to 1995 to record flow and salinity levels have been removed from the Environment Protection Licence. Murray Irrigation has chosen to continue to operate these sites for our own information. These sites are: Box Creek SEC at Conargo Rd (BOXC) Lalalty SEC at railway bridge (LAL1) Niemur SEC at Moulamein Rd (DRNM)
As part of the project for the refurbishment of the Box Creek two sites were installed in 2006/07 along the SEC. One of the sites is at Mayrung Rd (BOMA), which is an old site that has been upgraded. The second site is on Lindifferon Lane (BOLL).
A site has been established on the Tuppal Creek downstream of the Tocumwal 6 supply channel escape to enable Murray Irrigation to closely monitor the water quality in the Tuppal Creek (TULAL).
The data for the internal monitoring described above is presented in table 2.8. Table 2.8: Summary of flow and salt load at the internal monitoring sites for 2007/08
Total Flow Total Salt Stormwater Escape Channel Site (ML) (tonnes) Niemur (Barham/Moulamain Rd) DRNM 0 0 Lalalty (Railway bridge) LAL1 0 0 Tuppal Creek D/S Toc Esc TULAL 0 0 Box Creek (Conargo Rd) BOXC 0 0 Box Creek (Lindifferon Rd) BOLL 0 0 Box Creek (Mayrung Rd) BOMA 246 1179
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 15 of 273 Pesticide Monitoring
In 2007/08 the pesticide monitoring program was undertaken in accordance with Section M2 of the Environment Protection Licence from October to December 2007. A temporary variation to the licence was granted to waive the requirement to test for pesticides at the Finley Escape (DECC reference DOC07/36930), copy in the appendices.
There were no samples collected for pesticide analysis during 2007/08.
Pesticides monitoring program involves testing for molinate, thiobencarb and atrazine. Intensive monitoring commences in the first week of October and continues for six weeks, less intensive monitoring continues until the end of December. Samples are only collected when flow exceeds 5ML/d. The water quality limits for pesticides monitored are listed in Schedule 1 of the Environment Protection Licence. The schedule was changed significantly with the issuing of the revised licence in July 2003. All the data presented has been revised to reflect the changes. The schedule is presented in table 2.9.
Table 2.9: Water quality limits for pesticides, Environment Protection Licence (Schedule 1)
Environmental Notification Action Pesticide Guidelines (µg/L) Level (µg/L) Level (µg/L)
Molinate 2.5 3.4 14 Thiobencarb 1 2.8 4.6 Atrazine 2 13 45
Pesticide Analysis using ELIZA kits
The molinate ELIZA kits are used as an early detection tool to enable the implementation of the chemical contingency plan by Murray Irrigation staff. The use of the kits allows the rapid detection of molinate and enables Murray Irrigation to take immediate action in the event of the chemical being detected. The rapid response time allows staff to close down the SEC if needed and trace the source of the molinate. Without the use of these kits neither of these actions could be undertaken in an acceptable time frame. The identification of landholders releasing molinate would be difficult if samples had to be transported to external laboratories due to the time delays. Samples that showed results above the environmental limit were sent to the external laboratory for confirmation of the results.
There were no samples tested using the molinate ELIZA kits in 2007/08.
External Analysis
Murray Irrigation submits samples to an external NATA accredited laboratory for thiobencarb and atrazine analysis. Any samples that detected molinate above the environmental level using the molinate ELIZA kits are sent to the external laboratory for confirmation of the result.
In 2007/08 there were no samples sent to the external NATA accredited laboratories for thiobencarb, atrazine or molinate analysis. Figure 2.8: Summary of molinate levels at Murray Irrigation’s licensed monitoring sites
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 16 of 273 Chemical Use for Weed Control
Murray Irrigation controls weeds in the supply and SEC systems under a Chemical Control Plan as specified in the Environment Protection Licence. There were no significant changes in 2007/08 to the Chemical Control Plan submitted in May 2007 . This program also complies with the Pesticides Act (1978). Table 2.10 shows the trends in chemical usage 2003/04 - 2006/07. The significant reduction in the use of acrolein is the result of the dry season and no requirement for management of the aquatic weed elodea.
Table 2.10: Chemicals used for weed control by Murray Irrigation 2003/04-2007/08 Chemical 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 Dye L 17 250 45 95 60 Amitrole T L 160 740 2,900 200 0 Roundup CT L 640 1,460 2,040 1,540 735 Roundup Max* L 200 - - - 0 Roundup 360 L - - 540 80 25 Kamba L 200 320 540 380 0 Amicide* L - - - - 0 Roundup Biactive L 1,360 1,880 3,860 2,100 214 Grazon L 0 0 0 20 0 Surpass* L 680 - - - 0 Simazine L - - 200 120 0 Arsenal L - - 960 1,040 503 Acrolien Kg 5,880 5,350 7,392 187 334 * Chemical no longer in use
Blue-Green Algae Monitoring
Blue-green algae samples were taken from the DECC monitoring sites as required by the DWE Environment Management Conditions A.2.1.
There were no samples tested for blue-green algae due to no flow being recorded at the monitoring sites.
Pumping Drainage Water into Supply Channels
In 2007/08 there were no requests for pumping into supply channels.
Noxious Aquatic Weeds
The noxious aquatic weeds of the region are listed in table 2.11. There were no reported sightings of any of these aquatic weeds within either the supply or SEC system during 2007/08.
Table 2.11: Reported sightings of noxious aquatic weeds 2007/08
Reported Sightings Noxious Aquatic Weed 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08
Alligator Weed Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil
Water Hyacinth Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil
Golden Dodder Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil
Water Lettuce Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil
Salvinia Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 17 of 273 Impact on Receiving Waterways
During 2004/05 DWE revised their network of water quality monitoring sites and the tests undertaken at each of the sites. The outcome of the review was that a number of sites used by Murray Irrigation to assist in determining the impact on receiving waters have been removed from their water quality monitoring program. Total phosphorus testing has not been undertaken at any of the sites Murray Irrigation has used in the past to assist in determining the impact on the receiving waters. This year data has been obtained from the NSW provisional data to assist in deter- mining the impact on receiving waters of discharges from Murray Irrigation.
Billabong Creek
Water quality of the Billabong Creek has been summarised in table 2.12. In general, during 2007/08 the salinity in the Billabong Creek at Hartwood was less than the at Innes Rd bridge upstream of Jerilderie. Flow from the Murray Irrigation stormwater escape system had minimal impact on the salinity of the Billabong Creek.
Table 2.12: Water Quality recorded within the Billabong Creek and outfalls into the Billabong Creek 2007/08
Billabong Creek U/S Berrigan Creek SEC Wollamai East SEC Billabong Creek at Innes Rd bridge Finley Escape (3) (2) (4) Hartwood (410168) (5) (410170) (1)
Median Median Median Median Median Median Median Median Median daily Median daily daily daily daily daily Month daily flow daily flow daily flow flow (ML/ daily flow EC (uS/ EC (uS/ EC (uS/ EC (uS/ EC (uS/ (ML/day) (ML/day) (ML/day) day) (ML/day) cm) cm) cm) cm) cm) Jun 179 73 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Jul 213 88 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 147 68 Aug 372 80 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 161 66 Sep 500 88 0 0.00 111 0.11 0 0.00 215 68 Oct 281 113 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 213 52 Nov 263 134 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 323 58 Dec 162 184 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 270 74 Jan 584 171 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 287 74 Feb 513 232 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 213 106 Mar 412 444 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 168 159 Apr 61 367 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 120 138 May 6 122 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 95 91 Median daily EC and flow from continuous monitoring (1): Billabong Creek U/s Innes Rd. bridge Jerilderie, (410170) NSW provisional river data website (2): Berrigan Creek Outfall (BIBE), M.I.L (3): Finley Escape Outfall (BIFE), M.I.L (4): Wollamai East Outfall (BIWE), M.I.L. (5): Billabong Creek at Hartwood (410168) NSW provisional river data website
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 18 of 273 Edward River
There is very limited water quality data available for the Edward River. As a result, it is not possible to make a meaningful assessment of the impact of Murray Irrigation’s SEC system on the Edward River. It is difficult to de- termine the impact of the Box Creek SEC on the Edward River as the data for the Edward River at Moulamein includes the impact of discharges from the Yanko Creek, for which no water quality data is available. The flow from the Mulwala Canal Escape does not impact on the salinity in the Edward River as the salinity was lower or similar to the salinity downstream of Stevens Weir. Water Quality data for the Edward River has been summarised in Table 2.13.
Table 2.13: Water Quality recorded within the Edward River and outfalls into the Edward River 2007/08
Mulwala Canal Escape at Edward River D/S Stevens Box Creek SEC Outfall U/S Edward River at Moulamein
Edward River (409029) (1) Weir (409023) (2) Barratta Weir pool (3) (409014) (4)
Median daily Median daily Median daily Median daily Median daily Median daily Median daily Median daily Month flow (ML/ EC (uS/cm) EC (uS/cm) flow (ML/day) EC (uS/cm) flow (ML/day) EC (uS/cm) flow (ML/day) day)
Jun 0 0.00 Jul 56 30 41 1,500 0 0.00 97 615 Aug 64 4 46 978 0 0.00 92 1,188 Sep 58 88 66 200 0 0.00 88 239 Oct 64 28 77 203 0 0.00 122 202 Nov 75 2 94 204 0 0.00 139 208 Dec 73 58 74 471 0 0.00 122 316 Jan 75 98 77 707 0 0.00 119 573 Feb 67 204 66 554 0 0.00 112 628 Mar 70 202 71 481 0 0.00 110 517 Apr 60 179 64 473 0 0.00 99 463 May 60 32 56 402 0 0.00 104 640 Median daily EC and flow from continuous monitoring (1): Mulwala Canal escape at Edward River (409029) NSW provisional river data website (2): Edward River downstream Stevens Weir, (409023) NSW provisional river data website (3): Box Creek SEC upstream Barratta Weir pool (MOXM), M.I.L. (4): Edward River at Moulamein, (409014) NSW provisional river data website
Tuppal Creek
Water quality is measured in the Tuppal Creek at number of sites: downstream of the supply channel escape; upstream of the Pinelea SEC outfall; and, Aratula Rd.
The Lalalty SEC (TUPJ), the Pinelea SEC (TCPL) and the West Warragoon SEC (TCWW) outfall into the Tuppal Creek. Releases from the Lalalty SEC are controlled by Murray Irrigation. When the salinity in the Lalalty is above 800EC the flow is diluted to meet the salinity concentration condition of Murray Irrigation’s Water Manage- ment Works Licence. The dilution water is sourced from a Murray Irrigation supply channel that enters the creek between the Lalalty SEC outfall and the monitoring station in the Tuppal Creek downstream of the supply channel escape.
The discharge and salinity levels for the Tuppal Creek sites are presented in table 2.14.
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 19 of 273 Table 2.14: Water Quality recorded within the Tuppal Creek and Lalalty SEC 2007/08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Median daily flow (ML/day)
(409056) (6) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EC (uS/cm) Tuppal Creek at Rd. Aratula Median daily
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Median daily flow (ML/day)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 West Warragoon SEC (5) EC (uS/cm) Median daily
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Median daily flow (ML/day)
Pinelea SEC (4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EC (uS/cm) Median daily
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Median daily flow (ML/day)
SEC (3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 daily Median Tuppal Creek U/S Pinelea EC (uS/cm)
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Median daily flow (ML/day)
cape (2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EC (uS/cm) Tuppal Creek D/S Toc 6 Es- Median daily
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Median daily flow (ML/day) Lalalty SECLalalty (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EC (uS/cm) Median daily
Jul Oct Jan Apr Jun Feb Mar Sep Dec Nov Aug May Month Median daily EC and flow from continuous monitoring continuous and from monitoring EC flow daily Median (1): Lalalty SEC (TUPJ), M.I.L. Lalalty (1): (TUPJ), SEC M.I.L Escape(TULAL), Tuppal Creek 6 (2): downstream Toc M.I.L (TUP1), outfall SEC Pinelea Tuppal Creek (3): upstream M.I.L. Pinelea (4): (TCPL), SEC M.I.L. WestSEC Warragoon (5): (TCWW), website data river NSW provsional Rd.(409056), Tuppal Creek Aratula (6): at
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 20 of 273 Chapter 3: Groundwater Management
Wakool Tullakool Subsurface Drainage Scheme
The Wakool Tullakool sub-surface drainage scheme (WTSSDS) is a salt interception scheme that pumps highly saline groundwater into two evaporation basins (figure 3.1). The scheme protects approximately 50,000ha of farmland in the Wakool area from high watertables and salinity.
The scheme is owned and operated by Murray Irrigation. It was handed over to the company in 1995 as part of the privatisation process. The NSW state government continues to fund approximately 30% of the operation and maintenance of the scheme with the remainder paid by landholders through a system of levies. These levies are determined by the level of influence and benefit each landholder receives from the scheme.
In 1981 there were 19,200ha in the Wakool area with a watertable within 1.5m of the surface. The high watertable brought salt to the plant root zone with dramatic effects on agricultural productivity and biodiversity. To combat these problems, the interception scheme was built between 1978 and 1988 by the NSW Department of Water Resources and Public Works. Stage I commenced operation in 1984, and stage II in 1988. Additional pumps were added in 1992.
The scheme has successfully controlled shallow groundwater, with the watertable now stabilised below 2m over an area of around 25,000ha. Significant watertable control is detectable over a further 25,000ha. Groundwater control has resulted in significant environmental, social and community benefits for the area.
Figure 3.1: Wakool Tullakool Sub-Surface Drainage Scheme
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 21 of 273 2007/08 Operation
The WTSSDS continues to have a positive effect on watertables with only 299 ha of the 73,332ha area monitored having watertables within 2m of the surface in March 2008 (figure 3.2).
None of the pumping wells had watertables within 2m of the surface. The vast majority, 85%, registered watertable levels of 3m or greater.
In 2007/08, the scheme extracted a total of 2,885ML of saline groundwater between August 2007 and July 2008. This is the lowest volume extracted in a year since 1995. The amount of saline groundwater extracted in 2007/08 is significantly less than average.
Figure 3.3 shows the volume of water discharged from Stage 1 and Stage 2 pumps over the last year.
Figure 3.4 compares the total volume of groundwater discharged into the basins between 1997 and 2008.
Figure 3.2: WTSSDS Watertable levels March 2008
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 22 of 273 Figure 3.3: Volume of Water Discharged from Stage 1 and Stage 2 pumps into the WTSSDS Basins 2007/08
Volume pumped (ML) Stage 2 450 total 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Month Jul Oct Apr Jan Feb Jun Mar Sep Dec Nov Aug May
Figure 3.4: Volume of Groundwater Discharged into the WTSSDS Basins 1997-2008
Groundwater Discharge (ML) 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Year
In September 2007 groundwater salinity levels at the pump sites of Stages I and II were measured and are shown in table 3.1. Groundwater salinity ranges from 1,706 EC to over 55,000 EC with an average of 17,662 EC.
Other Tubewell Pumping
At privatisation in 1995 Murray Irrigation, in conjunction with landholders, have operated 17 tubewells in Berriquin to control groundwater levels. These tubewells were designed to discharge into the district supply system, or be used as an irrigation source on the neighbouring farms. In 2003/04 these tubewells were handed over to landholders. The rationale for handover included a reduced risk of shallow watertables causing salinity problems, difficulty in controlling pump operation and cost to the company given the benefits were generally local. The groundwater extraction volumes from the Murray Irrigation tubewells up until handover in February 2004 can be found in the 2003/04 Compliance Report.
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 23 of 273 Table 3.1: Groundwater salinity levels in WTSSDS pumps
Salinity Salinity Salinity Salinity Site No. (EC) Site No. (EC) Site No. (EC) Site No. (EC) Sept 07 Sept 07 Sept 07 Sept 07 1 4490 27 7790 24 55000 45 9522 2 8630 28 24800 30 19880 46 25392 3 7430 29 1706 33 5900 47 14283 4 10900 14 19370 34 5640 49 34914 5 28800 15 8390 35 5770 52 17457 6 7930 16 20100 36 4761 54 39675 7 31500 17 2710 37 42400 58 4761 8 5700 18 13890 38 24900 59 19044 9 17510 19 4390 39 11610 60 31740 11 31900 20 8380 40 15710 61 44436 12 20000 21 38400 41 10210 63 19044 13 6540 22 19250 42 30800 64 23805 26 17440 23 1900 43 14283
Trends in Regional Watertable Levels
Murray Irrigation undertakes biannual monitoring of a network of 1,500 shallow piezometers. This is undertaken in March (during the irrigation season) and in August (during the normal off-season, prior to refilling of the supply system). Figures 3.6-3.13 show spatially the areas with a shallow watertable in March and August 2008 for the four Murray Land and Water Management Plan (LWMP) regions. Figures 3.14 and 3.15 outline the trends in wa- tertable change for the entire LWMP region since groundwater monitoring began in 1995. Tables 3.2 and 3.3 show trends in watertable change for the entire LWMP region for 2002/03 -2007/08.
Table 3.2: Depth to watertable in the Murray LWMP area, March 2004-2008
Area (ha) March 0-2m 2-3m 3-4m >4m 2004 10,056 133,392 186,612 470,108 2005 8,447 NA NA NA 2006 14,334 123,335 169,670 663,015 2007 3,257 51,287 200,331 712,757 2008 346 15,394 136,250 806,423
Table 3.3: Depth to watertable in the Murray LWMP area, August 2004-2008
Area (ha) August 0-2m 2-3m 3-4m >4m 2004 7,704 111,308 192,468 485,208 2005 3,758 NA NA NA 2006 7,479 99,072 186,386 677,305 2007 3,747 30,426 189,135 730,532 2008 1,557 11,443 116,543 838,467
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 24 of 273 Figure 3.6: Depth to watertable in Berriquin LWMP area – March 2008
Figure 3.7: Depth to watertable in Berriquin LWMP area – August 2008
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 25 of 273 Figure 3.8: Depth to watertable in Cadell LWMP area – March 2008
Figure 3.9: Depth to watertable in Cadell LWMP area – August 2008
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 26 of 273 Figure 3.10: Depth to watertable in Denimein LWMP area – March 2008
Figure 3.11: Depth to watertable in Denimein LWMP area – August 2008
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 27 of 273 Figure 3.12: Depth to watertable in Wakool LWMP area – March 2008
Figure 3.13: Depth to watertable in Wakool LWMP area – August 2008
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 28 of 273 Figure 3.15: Change in regional watertable levels August 2007-August 2008
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 29 of 273 Chapter 4: On-Farm Management Climatic Conditions
Climate is a critical aspect of irrigated agriculture, with crop water demand determined by many factors including rainfall, solar radiation, temperature, wind, humidity, crop health and stage of growth. Weather data recorded by CSIRO at continuous weather recording stations at Finley (since 1986) and Tullakool (since 1996) has been used to characterise the climatic conditions in the region. The parameters logged at these stations are: rainfall, wind-run, solar irradiance, dry-bulb temperature, wet-bulb temperature (or relative humidity). This data is summarised below as monthly and annual rainfall and reference crop evapotranpsiration (ETo).
Over the whole year, rainfall was well below average at both Finley (55%) and Tullakool (70%). vapotranspiration during the 2006/07 season was above average at both Finley (123%) and Tullakool (113%). The data is presented in Table4.1 and figures 4.1 and 4.2.
Table 4.1: Weather data – 1st July 2007 to 30th June 2008, from CSIRO weather stations Finley Tullakool Total Rainfall (mm) 249.2 220.8
Average Rainfall (mm) 367.1 328.2 Rainfall Comparison* 67.9 67.3 Total Evapotranspiration (mm) 2,253.4 2,368.4 Average Evapotranspiration (mm) 1,902.1 2,098.8 Evapotranspiration Comparison* 118.5 112.8 *percentage based on data from 1986-2007 for Finley and 1996-2007 for Tullakool
Figure 4.1: CSIRO Finley Rain & Evapotranspiration 2007/08
Finley Rainfall (mm) Rainfall 400 350 ET 300 Average Rainfall 250 Average ET 200 150 100 50 0 Month Jul Jul Oct Jan Apr Feb Jun Mar Sep Dec Nov Aug May
Figure 4.2: CSIRO Tullakool Rain & Evapotranspiration 2007/08
Tullakool Rainfall (mm) Rainfall 400 ET 350 Average Rainfall 300 Average ET 250 200 150 100 50 0 Month Oct Apr Jul Jul Jan Feb Mar Jun Sep Aug Dec Nov May
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 30 of 273 Landuse
Murray Irrigation’s area of operations covers 748,000ha of farmland. In addition to this, 156,753ha outside of this area is included within the Cadell Land and Water Management Plan (LWMP) area. Landuse of the total area as summarised in table 4.2. Winter crops, including cereal and oilseeds, annual pastures, used for extensive sheep and cattle enterprises, and rice are the major commodities. There is also a significant dairy industry in the region. Table 4.2: Landuse in the Murray LWMP Region 2002/03-2007/08
Proportion of Total Area (%) Landuse 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 Dryland Pasture 10 15 14 12 19 Winter Irrigated Pasture 16 12 16 12 15 Winter Crops* 41 32 31 29 40 Rice - - - - - Rice Stubble / Fallow** 2 10 5 3 - Lucerne / Summer Pasture 3 5 6 19 3 Other Crops/Fallow 8 1 5 5 9 Native vegetation 14 9 10 11 9 Infrastructure / Other 6 16 13 10 5 * Includes winter cereal fallow and winter crops sown into rice stubble ** Includes rice and rice stubble Source: LWMP Annual Surveys NOTE: Comparisons of recordings between years for the minor landuses should be made with caution as the sample of landholders were not the same. The total may not equal 100% due to rounding of data. Irrigation Layout
Across the LWMP region approximately 51% of the land area has been developed for irrigation and the remaining 49% is dryland farming. Variation in irrigation development exists between areas. In the Cadell LWMP area, 60- 70% of the area is dryland farming. In contrast, the Berriquin area has approximately 70% of land developed for irrigation.
The area developed for irrigation has stabilised in recent years. The area irrigated in any single year depends on annual water availability and spring/autumn rainfall, and is commonly 30-50% of the area developed. Smaller proportions (20-30%) are irrigated on mixed cropping and rice farms and larger proportions (60-80%) are irrigated on dairy farms.
The focus of farm development is the improvement of existing irrigation layouts to enable improved irrigation efficiency and increased productivity. In 2007/08, $ 9.2 million was invested by landholders in landforming, $ 2.7 million in associated improvements to irrigation layouts and $ 4.8 million for irrigation recycling on-farm. This figure is for all holdings that did irrigation recycling and storage construction works, to our standards, and operation and maintenance for all irrigation recycling and storage systems.
Figure 4.3: Investment in improved irrigation layouts 2003/04-2007/08 (NOTE: Data from LWMP Annual Survey)
Investment ($million) $30 $25 $20 $15 $10 $5 $0 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 Year
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 31 of 273 Water Use
Murray Irrigation delivered 29,401ML of irrigation water on-farm in 2007/08 (figure 4.4). This is 6% of the five year average, 509,395ML. In the 2007/08 season 41% of the water delivered was used for stock and domestic and 33% was used on annual pasture.
Use of irrigation water has been classed into six major categories these include rice, annual pasture, perennial pasture, winter crops, other (including summer crops) and, stock and domestic. Murray Irrigation’s crop water use records are based on water orders placed by landholders. Table 4.5 shows the changes in water use for the four categories of landuse over time.
An analysis of the relative water use in 2007/08 compared to the previous five years shows record lows for all crop types. Figure 4.5 - 4.8 shows the change in water use for the four categories of landuse over time for the four Murray Irrigation geographic zones. Data from Murray Irrigation’s water ordering program.
Figure 4.4: Water deliveries to landholdings 2002/03-2007/08
Deliveries (ML) 1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
0 Year 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08
Table 4.3: Murray Irrigation water use 2003/04-2007/08
Annual Perennial Stock & *Total Winter Season Rice (ML) Pasture Pasture Other (ML) Domestic delivered Crops (ML) (ML) (ML) (ML) (ML) 2003/04 244,144 197,635 92,793 84,962 24,561 12,798 658,608 2004/05 196,843 239,085 87,477 130,577 25,430 14,848 651,212 2005/06 471,570 248,401 117,962 98,863 25,465 13,950 985,001 2006/07 10,277 69,452 42,136 67,838 18,512 14,443 222,685 2007/08 108 11,963 2,876 2,693 1,834 9,463 29,401 *: Total delivered includes water ordered for storage
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 32 of 273 Figure 4.5: Berriquin Crop Water Use 2003/04-2007/08
Percentage water used 2003/04 70.0% 2004/05 2005/06 60.0% 2006/07 2007/08 All Years 50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0% % Rice % Ann Pasture % Per Pasture % Cereals % Other % S&D Landuse category
Figure 4.6: Deniboota Crop Water Use 2003/04-2007/08
Percentage of water used 70.0% 2003/04 2004/05 60.0% 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 50.0% All Years
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0% % Rice % Ann Pasture % Per Pasture % Cereals % Other % S&D Landuse category
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 33 of 273 Figure 4.7: Denimein Crop Water Use 2003/04-2007/08
Percentage water used 70.0%
2003/04 2004/05 60.0% 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 50.0% All Years
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0% % Rice % Ann Pasture % Per Pasture % Cereals % Other % S&D Landuse category
Figure 4.8: Wakool Crop Water Use 2003/04-2007/08
Percentage of water used 70.00% 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 60.00% 2006/07 2007/08 50.00% All Years
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00% % Rice % Ann Pasture % Per Pasture % Cereals % Other % S&D Landuse Category
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 34 of 273 Deep bore water usage
Due to the zero allocation, groundwater use was significant in 2007/08.
Within the Murray Irrigation area the deep bores are licensed by the DWE. All records of water use from the deep bores are kept by the Department. For the 2007/08 season deep bore water use was recorded as either rice or other crops. Murray Irrigation requests this information each year to determine the volume of water used on rice in order to determine a landholders rice water use under the Murray Irrigation Rice Growing Policy. Murray Irrigation is not confident in the water use figures from sources other than Murray Irrigation’s water ordering records are an accurate assessment of the volume of water used for rice production due the process used to obtain the information. Hence the rice water use figures from deep bores have not been included in this report.
The lack of accurate information regarding deep bore water usage significantly limits Murray Irrigation’s capacity to implement our Rice Growing Policy and Total Farm Water Balance Policy effectively. Total Farm Water Balance
In 1997 Murray Irrigation introduced a Total Farm Water Balance (TFWB) policy as a result of concern about watertable rise and the associated threats of salinity. The TFWB policy aims to reduce accessions to the watertable, increase water use efficiency and encourage adoption of best management practices across our area of operations. The policy is based on research by CSIRO for the Murray Valley, indicating that the maximum water use intensity to achieve a farm water balance is between 1.5ML/ha and 5ML/ha depending on depth to watertable, soil type, landuse and rainfall. In short, the policy limits irrigation intensity to 4ML/ha. If certain ‘best management practice’ works have been implemented the limit may be increased up to 6ML/ha. No landholdings exceeded their TFWB limit in 2007/08.
For 2007/08 irrigation intensity was extremely low across the entire Murray Irrigation area due to the 0% allocation as shown in table 4.4. The irrigation intensity was the lowest on record. Table 4.4: Irrigation Intensity within MIL region 2003/04-2007/08
ML/ha District 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 Berriquin 1.07 1.22 1.65 0.50 0.06 Deniboota 0.55 0.56 0.85 0.10 0.02 Deinimein 0.67 0.71 1.16 0.11 0.03 Wakool 0.84 0.89 1.12 0.14 0.02 Region 0.84 0.97 1.31 0.29 0.04
Rice Water Use
Murray Irrigation has a rice growing policy aimed at reducing accessions to the watertable, increasing water use efficiency and encouraging best management practices. A component of this policy is a soil suitability criterion to select soils that minimise leakage to the watertable from irrigation of the rice crop. Rice cannot be grown on a field unless it has been tested and approved by Murray Irrigation as suitable for rice growing. Applications for rice growing are reviewed each year and the area of rice grown is usually quantified using satellite imagery.
There were three landholdings that grew rice in the 2007/08 season using deep bore water. The area sown to rice in 2007/08 was 160ha as seen in table 4.5. The area of rice grown in the Murray Irrigation region has been severely affected by drought. Figure 4.9 shows the spatial distribution landholdings growing rice in 2007/08 in the Murray Irrigation region and the water use of those rice crops.
The rice crop water use target, which is the maximum water use allowed on rice, was set at 16.6ML/ha for the eastern Murray Valley and 17.6ML/ha for the western Murray Valley area. The rice crop target use figure is determined by the agreed method of calculation from the Rice Environment Policy Advisory Group (REPAG) . There were no landholdings that exceeded the rice crop water use target in 2007/08 as shown in table 4.6.
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 35 of 273 Table 4.5: Area (ha) grown to rice 2003/04-2007/08
District 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 East Berriquin 6,916 5,833 14,975 554 0 West Berriquin 2,834 1,787 5,084 378 160 Denimein 1,462 992 3,266 26 0 Deniboota 3,344 1,898 5,580 170 0 Wakool 8,173 7,351 12,492 726 0 Total 22,729 17,863 41,397 1,854 160
Table 4.6: Number of landholdings who exceeded their rice water use limit 2003/04-2007/08
Number Year % exceeding exceeding 2003/04 26 4.6% 2004/05 5 1.2% 2005/06 5 0.6% 2006/07 0 0% 2007/08 0 0%
Figure 4.9: Farm rice water usage 2007/08
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 36 of 273 Farm Water Use Efficiency
Farm water use efficiency influences the potential level of groundwater accessions and the risk of downstream impacts caused by farm drainage. Three benchmark areas have been identified to assess farm water use efficiency: water use per crop type, rice water use efficiency and rice production.
Rice Water Use Efficiency
Rice water use efficiency is measured as the average water use per hectare expressed as a percentage of the crop water use requirement (crop evapotranspiration minus rainfall) as shown in figure 4.10.The rice water use efficiency has not been calculated in 2007/08 because there were only three growers.
Rice crop water use efficiency can also be expressed as the tonnage of rice grown per megalitre of water used. The tonnes of rice grown in the Murray Irrigation area is based on information from SunRice. This information has been matched to the volume of water applied to rice as recorded by Murray Irrigation’s Water Ordering System to derive a tonnes per megalitre figure for rice production. Water from sources other than Murray Irrigation’s water recording system is included, where the information is available.
Table 4.6: Rice production in the Murray Irrigation region (t/ML) 2003/04-2007/08
Year Tonnes/ML 2003/04 0.67 2004/05 0.60 2005/06 0.82 2006/07 1.29 2007/08 0.55
Dairy Water Use Efficiency
The review of the dairy water use efficiency benchmark has not been completed as a result of staff changes within Murray Irrigation and DWE.
Risk of Salinity
Area of Land with a Watertable within 0-4m
The watertable monitoring results are presented in figures 3.6-3.15 of this report.
Groundwater Salinity
The benchmark for groundwater salinity was determined to be the area of land with shallow groundwater salinity of greater than 5,000EC. Groundwater salinity was measured in 1997, 2000, 2003 and 2006.
The area of land with groundwater salinity greater than 5,000EC was 854,216ha in 2006, 927,200ha in 2003, 872,372ha in 2000 and 818,212ha in 1997. These results are not directly comparable due to the lower number of piezometers sampled in 1997. A map showing the groundwater salinity levels for 2006 is presented in Figure 4.10.
Area of Land with High Salinity Risk
A collaborative research project is being undertaken by CSIRO and Murray Irrigation to develop a method to assess salinity risk. The salinity risk assessment will involve a weighted ratio of groundwater salinity, watertable depth, soil type, landuse.
Rootzone Salinity
The review of the rootzone salinity benchmark has not been completed as a result of staff changes within Murray Irrigation and DWE.
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 37 of 273 Figure 4.10: Groundwater salinity from Murray Irrigation piezometers August 2006
Soil Acidity
Soil acidity is a key indicator of soil condition. The Murray Catchment Management Authority Catchment Action Plan 2006 has identified it to be a key catchment issue. The LWMP annual landholder survey collects information on lime applied to mitigate soil acidity. The landholder survey gathers information from 6% (prior to 2004/05 this figure was 10%) of the landholdings in the Murray LWMP region and extrapolates this information to get a picture of what is happening at the regional level. The results from 2002/03-2006/07 are presented in figure 4.11 and show that the application of lime has decreased in 2006/07 compared with previous two years.
Figure 4.11 Tonnes of lime applied for soil amelioration in Murray LWMP area, 2003/04-2007/08
Lime applied (tonnes) 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 Year
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 38 of 273 Waterlogging
The review of the waterlogging benchmark has not been completed as a result of staff changes within Murray Irrigation and the DWE.
Adoption of Best Management Practices
The review of the adoption of best management practices benchmark has not been completed as a result of staff changes within Murray Irrigation and DWE.
Status of Native Vegetation
There have been five benchmarks established for native vegetation: the area of remnant vegetation fenced, the area of trees planted, vegetation health, vegetation cover, and status of wetlands. The review of these benchmarks has not been completed as a result of staff changes within Murray Irrigation and DWE. Information on the area of remnant vegetation fenced and the number of trees planted can be found in chapter 5.
Socio Economic Status
The review of the socio economic status benchmark has not been completed as a result of staff changes within Murray Irrigation and DWE.
Community Understanding of Best Management Practices
The review of the community understanding of best management practices benchmark has not been completed as a result of staff changes within Murray Irrigation and DWE.
Information on the number of landholders attending IAC can be found in chapter 5.
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 39 of 273 Chapter 5: Murray Land and Water Management Plans
The Murray Land and Water Management Plans (LWMPs) are a natural resource management program developed around a strong community-Government partnership. The LWMP program has 15 years of Government funding with contributions from federal and state natural resource management programs and local government. The landholder contributions are in the form of levies on water fees, council rates, cash and in-kind contributions to works on their properties. Government-landholder cost shares vary from 100% landholder funded to 100% Government incentives based on public and private good.
Native vegetation incentives delivered through a drought bonus introduced by the Murray CMA allowed landholders to fully claim the costs through the LWMP program. This resulted in significant uptake of incentives before the expiry date of 18th January 2008. Works included fencing, control of weeds and vermin, installation of alternative watering points and revegetation. From February 2008 uncertainty regarding future funding accelerated the uptake of incentives to complete farm plans and wastewater storage systems. This resulted in record uptake in 07/08 for both outcomes achieved and incentive delivery for these on-farm programs.
LWMP Implementation
The 2007/08 achievements mark year 13 of the 15 years funded till 2010. Table 5.1 combines and summarises the achievements of the on-farm education and incentives program for the Berriquin, Denimein, Cadell and Wakool LWMP areas. The individual achievements for each area are presented in Table 5.3 for Berriquin, Table 5.4 for Cadell, Table 5.5 for Denimein and Table 5.6 for Wakool. In each of these tables the total achieved at June 2008 refers to the cumulative number of holdings or hectares achieved from the commencement of the program until June 2008 and the % achieved of target refers to the percentage achieved from the commencement of the program up to June 2008. The target milestone as of June 2008 refers to the total milestone figure to be achieved on June 2008 relative to the target that has been set at the commencement of the program and the target milestone % refers to the target milestone on June 2008 expressed as a percentage.
Table 5.2 outlines expenditure for the Murray LWMP region for 2007/08, this includes government and landholder cash contributions to the program as well as landholder in-kind contributions as recorded through the Annual LWMP Survey.
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 40 of 273 Murray Irrigation Limited Table 5.1: Murray LWMP On-Farm Implementation Summary 5.1: 2008Table Murray Implementation 1995June On-Farm to LWMP Total achieved Target Total target 07/08 % achieved Target Program Combined Target at 30 June Milestone at number achievements of target Milestone % 2008 30 June 2008
From 1995 to 2010, representatives from IIrrigation Accreditation Course commercial holding representatives will 1,865 18 1,464 78% 1,616 87% (IAC) complete the IAC.
From 1995 to 2010, commercial holdings will Farm Plan have completed an approved LWMP whole 1,639 177 1,229 75% 1,420 87% farm plan.
From 1995 to 2012, commercial landholdings Irrigation Recycling 1,639 127 934 57% 1,253 76% to have installed irrigation recycling systems.
Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 From 1995 to 2012, commercial holdings to Storage have a LWMP approved storage system with 1,538 143 689 45% 1,176 76% the minimum storage capacity.
From 2003 to 2013, 38,618 ha of existing Actively Manage Native Vegetation native broad vegetation types will be actively 38,619 6,269 17,344 45% 19,310 50% managed.
From 2003 to 2013, 16,306ha of under Restore & Regenerate Native represented broad vegetation types will be 16,305 1,832 5,254 32% 8,153 50% Vegetation restored and regenerated.
From 2003 to 2013, 658ha of riparian zones Riparian Zones 659 429 758 115% 330 50% will be actively managed.
From 2003 to 2013, 31ha of seed orchards will Seed Orchards 31 0 14.1 45% 16 50% be established.
From 2003 to 2013, 3,158ha of native Native Pastures 3,158 217 562 18% 1,579 50% pastures will be protected.
From 1995 to 2010, 70,542ha of vegetation to reduce salinity will be established. This Vegetation to reduce salinity 72,542 5,800 45,950 63% 61018 84% includes lucerne, saltbush and trees planted in Page 41 of273 salinity recharge areas. Table 5.2: Implementation expenditure for Murray LWMP 2007/08
Government Landholder Contribution Total 1 Funding Item Contribution LWMP Expenditure Levy2 ($) Additional 4 ($) ($) Incentives3 ($) ($) LWMP Programs Education $468,068 $52,008 $520,076 Research & Development $80,026 $20,007 $100,033 Monitoring $222,120 $55,530 $277,650 Administration $255,106 $63,777 $318,883 Sub total $1,025,320 $191,321 $1,216,641
LWMP Incentive Programs Farm Planning $2,393,845 $279,741 $824,275 $3,497,861 Irrigation Recycling Construction $7,866,315 $1,783,949 $1,961,285 $11,611,549 Native Vegetation $6,291,468 $12,212,850 $18,504,318 Vegetation to Reduce Salinity $191,473 $70,128 $261,601 Vegetation Management Payment $7,700 $7,700 Shallow Groundwater Pumping $180,754 $180,754 Sub total $16,743,101 $7,700 $2,063,690 $15,249,292 $34,063,783
Capital Works Program Green Gully Tile Drainage $45,025 $95,678 $140,703 Surface Drainage $2,134,653 $2,134,653 Surface Drainage O&M $636,384 $636,384 Subsurface Drainage O&M $368,618 $368,618 Wakool Stage 3 Subsurface Drainage $37,136 $9,284 $46,420 Subsurface Drainage O&M Stage 3 $0 $0 $0 Sub total $2,216,814 $1,014,286 $0 $3,326,778
Landholder Works Program Improved Irrigation Layouts $2,657,666 $2,657,666 Irrigation Recycling & Storage O&M $1,833,649 $1,833,649 Improved Irrigation Efficiencies $0 $0 Perennial Pastures $3,767,670 $3,767,670 Native Vegetation O&M $463,472 $463,472 Soil Management $2,464,838 $2,464,838 Channel Maintenance $959,408 $959,408 Landforming $9,298,187 $9,298,187 Crop Establishment Techniques $1,266,374 $1,266,374 Sub total $22,711,264 $22,711,264
TOTAL $19,985,235 $1,213,307 $2,063,690 $37,960,556 $61,222,788 Contribution to program 33% 2% 3% 62% 100%
1 The actual Government financial contribution to implementation of each component of the LWMP. 2 The direct levy charged to all landholders via their water accounts. 3 The actual landholder financial contribution to implementation of the LWMP program.
4 The additional landholder financial contribution to implementation of each component of the LWMP as recorded via the LWMP Annual Survey (2006/07) or the in-kind contribution from landholders following implementation of incentives for the Native Vegetation, Vegetation to Reduce salinity and Green Gully Tile Drainage programs.
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 42 of 273 Berriquin LWMP
The Berriquin LWMP area encompasses the East and West Berriquin Irrigation Districts, which covers an area of 341,546ha of farm land, consisting of 1,448 landholdings. Of these landholdings 1,124 are considered to be commercial, having greater than or equal to 50ha laid out for irrigation. A community working group develops implementation policies and sets priority actions. The Berriquin Working Group is comprised of 18 landholders, Murray CMA, NSW DPI, Jerilderie Shire and Murray Irrigation as the Implementation Authority.
Summary of Progress Landholder adoption of LWMP incentives has increased since commencement of implementation in 1995. During the 2007/08 financial year record levels of incentives were delivered with $7.56 million provided to farm planning, irrigation recycling and storage systems, vegetation to reduce salinity and native vegetation. This was matched with $0.76 million of landholder contributions to incentive works across 539 landholdings.
Berriquin landholders have made significant progress towards meeting the plan targets over the past 13 years of implementation. At the end of June 2008, a total of 691 commercial landholdings fully completed a whole farm plan, 499 have completed a recycle system and 377 have constructed their minimum storage requirement. A total of 3,339 ha of native vegetation has also been protected and enhanced.
Education
In 2007/08 the LWMP education program focused on one-on-one education and community meetings. This approach actively engaged and motivated landholders to complete LWMP related works on their farms. In addition to landholder extension activities four working group meetings were held to inform community representatives of natural resource management issues and to address LWMP issues.
A number of community meetings were held throughout Berriquin in 2007/08. These included: Three landholder meetings held at Logie Brae Hall, the Blighty Hotel and the Finley Bowls Club to explain the revised incentive program, and impending funding deadlines. Approximately 298 landholders attended these meetings. Three Rice Growers’ Association of Australia Environmental Champions cluster group meetings were held with an attendance of 35 landholders, and one Berriquin landholder completed the vegetation assessment component of the program with a LWMP Officer. Three community meetings that included the formation of a steering committee for the Tuppal Creek Management Plan, and two public meetings to explain the LWMP and its interaction with the business’ of the community with a total attendance of 83 people.
The education program continues to be adapted to better meet the needs of individuals and local groups. The ongoing co-operation and participation of landholders and other organizations in the education program is essential. The NSW DPI, Murray CMA and private industry continue to make significant contributions.
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 43 of 273 Table 5.3 (a): Berriquin LWMP progress against targets Total number of landholdings: 1,448 Total number of commercial landholdings: 1,124
Comments & results from the SurveyAnnual N/A Estimated completed Farm plan = 1019 Estimated no. of plans no incentive with & met LWMP guidelines = 0 Estimated expenditure on farm plans incentives)(exc = 0 Irrigation recycling system = 1,171 Estimated systems no incentive& met LWMP guidelines = 65 Estimated expenditure incentive) (no =$693,973 Operation & maintenance (O&M) estimated expenditure = $1,067,636 Estimated storages that meet minimum storage = 867capacity Estimated systems no incentive with that meet minimum storage = 22 capacity Estimated expenditure incentive) (no = $0 Estimated data from annual survey expenditure = $3,232,476 Estimated data from annual survey
% 87% 87% 76% 76% 87% 25% Target Milestone
974 778 687 644 2008 966ha Target at June 215,290 Milestone
% 1% 85% 77% 56% 45% 84% of targetof achieved
951 691 499 377 2008 40ha Total at June achieved 208,872ha
3 91 134 107 0ha 07/08 4,051ha achievements
898 898 842 Total 1,124 3,865 target target number 247,460ha - Target Target 1995From to 2010, a representative of all commercial holdings will have completed the Irrigation Accreditation Course. 1995From to 2010, 80% of commercial holdings will have completed an approved LWMP whole farm plan. From 1995From to 2012, 80% of commercial landholdings will have installed irrigation recycling systems. From 1995From to 2012, 75% of commercial landholdings will have constructed a storage a minimumwith of capacity 4ML per 100ha laid out to irrigation, where soil permit. types From 1995From to 2010, a total of 247,460ha bewill landformed with top soiling necessary. where 2003From to 2010, 3,865ha will be converted to spray irrigation. Program Irrigation Accreditation Course PlanFarm Irrigation Recycling Storage Landforming Improved Irrigation Efficiencies
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 44 of 273 Table 5.3 (b): Berriquin LWMP progress against targets (vegetation) Total number of landholdings: 1,448 Total number of commercial landholdings: 1,124
Estimated data from annual survey expenditure = $1,421,588 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Estimated data from annual survey Operation & maintenance expenditure = $63,243 Comments & results from the Annual Survey
% N/A 71% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% Target Milestone
26 4.5 N/A 198 609 4000 2008 4494 Target at June Milestone
% 6% 0% 11% 18% 21% 103% 265% of targetof achieved
1 0 17 139 1469 1870 2008 Total at June 19,230ha achieved
4 0 0 89 676 487 07/08 4,279ha achievements
9 53 277 Total 1,218 8,000 8,988 target target 18,743 number
From 1995From to 2010, 18,743ha of perennial pastures will be incorporated into annual pastures. From 2003From to 2010, 277ha of perennial vegetation will be established to reduce watertable recharge and minimise the effects of salinity in high tables,water saline and seepage areas. From 2003From to 2013, 9.1ha of seed orchards will be established. From 2003From to 2013, 52.5 ha of riparian zones will be actively managed. 2003From to 2013, 1,218ha of native pastures will be managed. From 2003From to 2013, 8,000ha of under represented broad vegetation types will be restored and regenerated. Target Target From 2003From to 2013, 8,988ha of existing native broad vegetation types will be actively managed. Perennial pastures Vegetation to reduce salinity Seed Orchards Riparian Zones Native Pastures Restore & Regenerate Native Vegetation Program Actively Manage Native Vegetation
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 45 of 273 Cadell LWMP
The Cadell LWMP area covers the Deniboota Irrigation District, and a number of smaller private irrigation districts and neighbouring dryland areas known as East Cadell. The Cadell LWMP area is 299,331ha with 1,028 landholdings, with 446 (43%) commercial irrigated holdings with greater than or equal to 50ha of irrigated area.
The Cadell LWMP has joint implementation authorities, Murray Shire Council and Murray Irrigation. In 1996/97, the Murray Shire Council formally contracted Murray Irrigation to implement the East Cadell component of the LWMP.
The Cadell Working Group comprises 12 landholder representatives, six each from Deniboota and East Cadell, representatives from Murray Irrigation, Murray Shire, NSW DPI and the Murray CMA. The working group is important for determining priority actions and ongoing community consultation.
Summary of Progress
Landholder adoption of LWMP incentives has increased since commencement of implementation in 1995. During the 2007/08 financial year record levels of incentives were implemented, with $4.67 million dollars provided for farm planning, irrigation recycling systems, vegetation to reduce salinity and native vegetation. This was matched with $2.2 million of landholder contributions to incentive works across 296 landholdings.
Cadell landholders have made significant progress towards meeting the plan targets over the past twelve years of implementation. At the end of June 2008, a total of 252 of commercial landholdings have fully completed a whole farm plan, 189 have completed a recycle system and 136 have constructed their minimum storage requirement. A total of 10,737ha of native vegetation and native grasses have also been protected and enhanced.
Education
In 2007/08 the LWMP education program focused on one-on-one education and field days. This approach actively engaged and motivated landholders to complete LWMP related works on their farms. In addition to landholder extension four working group meetings were held to inform community representatives of natural resource management issues and to address LWMP issues.
The formal component of the education program in Cadell is the four day Irrigation Accreditation Course (IAC). This course was attended by landholders representing three landholdings, bringing the total participation to 45% of commercial landholdings.
A community meeting was held in Cadell to update landholders on the LWMP and other drought funding available.
The education program continues to be adapted to better meet the needs of individuals and local groups. The ongoing co-operation and participation of landholders and other organisations in the education program is essential. The NSW DPI, Murray CMA and private industry continue to make significant contributions.
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 46 of 273 Table 5.4 (a): Cadell LWMP Progress against targets Total number of landholdings: 1,028 Total number of commercial landholdings: 446
Comments & results from the Annual Survey N/A Estimated completed farm plan = 569 Estimated no. of plans no incentive with & met LWMP guidelines = 44 Estimated expenditure on farm plans incentives)(exc = $864,275 rrigation recycling system = 416 Estimated systems no incentive& met LWMP guidelines = 66 Estimated expenditure incentive) (no =$1,241,871 Operation & maintenance (O&M) estimated expenditure = $287,392 Estimated storages that meet minimum storage capacity = 197 Estimated systems no incentive with that meet minimum storage capacity = 44 Estimated expenditure incentive) (no = $0 Estimated data from annual survey Estimated data from annual survey Estimated data from annual survey expenditure = $5,574,449 Estimated data from annual survey expenditure = $959,408 Estimated data from annual survey
% N/A N/A 87% 87% 76% 76% 90% 90% 71% 100% Target Milestone
32 309 309 273 238 N/A N/A 2008 Target at June 2,371ha 28,350ha 72,000ha Milestone
% 0% N/A 45% 71% 53% 44% 55% 38% 256% 138% of targetof achieved
12 160 252 189 136 N/A 0ha N/A 2008 Total at June 43,478ha achieved 204,533ha
3 0 16 17 12 191 0ha N/A 42ha 07/08 6,986ha achievements
32 357 357 357 312 349 392 Total target target 3,320ha number 31,500ha 80,000ha Target Target 1995From to 2010, a representative from 80% of commercial holdings will have completed the Irrigation Accreditation Course. 1995From to 2010, 80% of commercial holdingswill have completed an approved LWMP whole farm plan. From 1995From to 2012, 80% of commercial landholdings will have installed an irrigation recycling system. From 1995From to 2012, 70% of commercial landholdings will have constructed a storage a with minimum of capacity 11ML per 100ha laid out to irrigation, soil where types permit From 1995From to 2010, 80% of commercial landholdings will implement conservation farming techniques such as minimum tillageor direct drilling. 1995From to 2010, 31,500ha of irrigated land will have irrigation scheduling practices evaporation (e.g. daily figures or moisture probes, in particular annual pastures, Lucerne and summer crops) 1995From to 2010, an additional 80,000ha will be landformed to minimise waterlogging and reduce accessions. 2003From to 2010, 3,320ha converted to spray irrigation. 1995From to 2008, 80% of farms (downstream of Womboota township) will have produced a farm plan and implemented a drainage recycle system to reduce water entering Green Gully. From 1995From to 2005, 80% of commercial landholdings will use correct maintenance procedures for farm channels to ensure flow rates are not restrictetd the by build up of weeds or sediments.
-farm -farm Program Irrigation Accreditation Course PlanFarm Irrigation Recycling Storage Soil Management Irrigation Scheduling Landforming Improved Irrigation Efficiencies On Infrastructure On Infrastructure
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 47 of 273 Table 5.4 (b): Cadell LWMP Progress against targets (vegetation) Total number of landholdings: 1,028 Total number of commercial landholdings: 446
N/A N/A N/A Estimated data from annual survey Operation & maintenance (O&M) expenditure = $337,109 N/A Comments & results from the Annual Survey N/A Estimated data from annual survey = 13,197ha
% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 26% 87% Target Milestone
5 90 127 2008 6455 2461 1040 51016 Target at June Milestone
% 94% 58% 49% 69% 23% 131% 312% of targetof achieved
562 239 907 13.1 7518 2416 2008 Total 40758 at June achieved
0 s 97 217 157 736 2313 4886 07/08 achievement
10 180 255 Total 4,923 4,000 target target 12,910 58,865 number From 2003From to 2013, 10ha of seed orchards will be established. 2003From to 2013, 180ha of native pastures will be protected. From 2003From to 2013, 255ha of riparian zones will be actively managed. From 2003From to 2013, 12,910ha of existing native broad vegetation types will be actively managed. 2003From to 2013, 4,923ha of under represented broad vegetation types will be restored and regenerated. From 1995From to 2010, 11,773ha of irrigated pasture and 47,092ha of pasturedryland incorporate will lucerne or other native perennial grass species, resulting in a total of 58,865ha established. From 2002From to 2025, 4,000ha of saltbush for salinity control will be planted. Target Target Seed Orchards Native pastures Riparian Zones Actively Manage Native Vegetation Restore & Regenerate Native Vegetation Veg to reduce salinity- Perennial Species in Pastures Veg to reduce salinity- Saltbush Program
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 48 of 273 Denimein LWMP
The Denimein LWMP is the smallest of the four districts covering 53,379ha consisting of 182 holdings. Of these landholdings 122 are considered to be commercial, having greater than or equal to 50ha laid out to irrigation.
A community working group develops implementation policies and sets priority actions. The Denimein Working Group is comprised of seven landholders, representatives from the Murray CMA, NSW DPI and Murray Irrigation as the Implementation Authority.
Summary of Progress
Landholder adoption of LWMP incentives has increased since commencement of implementation in 1995. During the 2007/08 financial year record levels of incentives were taken up, with $1.75 million provided to farm planning, irrigation recycling, vegetation to reduce salinity and native vegetation. This was matched with 0.04 million of landholder contributions.
Denimein landholders have continued to make significant progress towards meeting LWMP targets. Since 1996, a total of 82 of commercial landholders have completed a farm plan, 67 have completed an irrigation recycling system and 43 have constructed their minimum storage requirement. A total of 1,146ha of native vegetation has been actively managed or restored and regenerated, including 647ha of native vegetation protected as part of the Box Creek project.
Education
In 2007/08 the LWMP education program focused on one-on-one education with individual landholders. This approach allows the implementation officer to actively encourage best management practices to match individual farm requirements. In addition to landholder extension, four working group meetings were held to inform community representatives of natural resource management issues and to address LWMP issues.
The formal component of the education program in Denimein is the four day Irrigation Accreditation course (IAC). This course was attended by 6 landholders, resulting in total participation of 96 commercial landholdings.
A community meeting was held to update landholders on the LWMP. Presentations and tours were also provided for European Union Delegates and the Vietnamese Department of Agriculture.
The education program continues to be adapted to better meet the needs of individuals and local groups. The ongoing co-operation and participation of landholders and other organizations in the education program is essential. The Murray CMA, NSW DPI and private industry continue to make significant contributions.
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 49 of 273 Table 5.5 (a): Denimein LWMP Progress against targets Total number of landholdings: 182 Total number of commercial landholdings: 122 Comments & results from the Annual Survey Estimated completed farm plan = 153 Estimated no. of plans no incentive with & met LWMP guidelines = 0 Estimated expenditure on farm plans incentives)(exc = 0 Estimated completed Irrigation recycling system = 122 Estimated systems no incentive& met LWMP guidelines = 0 Estimated expenditure incentive) (no =$0 Operation & maintenance (O&M) estimated expenditure = $40,172 Estimated storages that meet minimum storage capacity = 115 Estimated systems no incentive with that meet minimum storage capacity = 0 Estimated expenditure incentive) (no =0 Estimated data from annual survey = 377ML Estimated data from annual survey Expenditure = $491,262 Estimated data from annual survey Expenditure = $0 No landholders undertook channel sealing works in 2007/08. See Stormwater Escape Channel Construction Program page See Stormwater Escape Channel Construction Program page See Research & Development Program page
% N/A N/A N/A N/A 87% 87% 76% 76% 87% 87% 071% Target Milestone
95 95 84 84 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2008 15600 407ha Target at June 6,933ha Milestone
0% N/A N/A N/A N/A 87% 75% 61% 39% 44% 187% of targetof % achieved%
95 82 67 43 0ha N/A N/A N/A N/A 7915 Total 14,911ha June 2008June achieved at
6 6 8 10 107 0ha N/A N/A N/A N/A 07/08 616ha achievements
110 110 110 110 N/A N/A N/A N/A Total target target 570ha 8,000ha number 18,000ML Target Target From 1995From to 2010, a representative from 90% of commercial holdings will have completed the Irrigation Accreditation Course . 1995From to 2010, 90% of commercial holdings will have completed an approved LWMP whole farm plan. From 1995From to 2012, 90% of commercial landholdings will have installed an irrigation recycling system. 1995From to 2012, 90% of commercial landholdings will have constructed a storage a minimumwith of capacity 12ML per 100ha laid out to irrigation, soilwhere types permit. 1995From to 2010, 18,000ML of groundwater will be pumped. From 1995From to 2010, 8,000ha will be landformed. From 2003From to 2010, 570ha will be converted irrigation.to spray Identify areas of significant farm channel seepage and seal as appropriate Identify the requirements for upgrading the channel escape by system 2001 Construction based on target outcomes to be completed 2006 by Implement salinity control works in the Box Creek by 2008 Program Irrigation Accreditation Course PlanFarm Irrigation Recycling Storage Groundwater Pumping Landforming Improved Irrigation Efficiencies Farm channelFarm sealing Channel Escapes Channel Escapes Box Creek Upgrade
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 50 of 273 Murray Irrigation Limited Total number of landholdings: 182 Total number of commercial 1 landholdings: 5.5(b):Table Denimein (vegetation) LWMPagainsttargets Progress Total Target Total 07/08 % Target achieved Milestone Comments & results from the Program Target target achievement achieved Milestone at June at June Annual Survey number s of target % 2008 2008
Actively Manage Native From 2003 to 2013, 3,217ha of existing native Estimated Operation & Maintenance 3,217 190 697 22% 1608 50% Vegetation broad vegetation types will be actively managed. Expenditure (O&M)= $40,141
From 2003 to 2013, 732ha of under represented Restore & Regenerate broad vegetation types will be restored and 732 68 449 61% 366 50% Native Vegetation regenerated.
Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 From 2003 to 2013, 53ha of riparian zones will Riparian Zones 53 49 153 291% 26 50% be actively managed.
From 2003 to 2013, 2ha of seed orchards will be Seed Orchards 2 0 0 0% 1 50% established.
From 2003 to 2013, 260ha of native pastures will Native Pastures 260 0 0 0% 130 50% be managed.
Vegetation to reduce salinity From 2003 to 2010, 500ha of saltbush will be 500 0 6 1% 357 71% - Saltbush planted.
From 1995 to 2010, 5,900ha of unimproved Veg to reduce salinity- dryland pasture will incorporate perennial Estimated data from annual survey = Perennial Species in 5,900 67 2185 37% 5113 87% pastures or be managed to maintain a perennial 101ha Pastures mix. Page 51 of273 22
Wakool LWMP
The Wakool LWMP area begins 20km east of Wakool and concludes approximately 30km west of Moulamein, with the Edwards River being the northern boundary and the Wakool River the southern boundary. The Wakool district covers an area of 210,694ha of farm land consisting of 378 landholdings. Of these landholdings 343 are considered to be commercial, having greater than or equal to 50 hectares laid out for irrigation. A community working group develops implementation policies and sets priority actions. The Wakool Working Group is comprised of 15 landholders, representatives from the Murray CMA, NSW DPI ,Wakool Shire Council and Murray Irrigation as the Implementation Authority.
Summary of Progress
Landholder adoption of LWMP incentives has increased since commencement of implementation in 1995. During the 2007/08 financial year record levels of incentives were delivered, with $2.78million provided to farm planning, irrigation recycling systems, vegetation to reduce salinity and native vegetation. This was matched with $0.04 million of landholder contributions to incentive works across 166 landholdings.
Wakool landholders have made significant progress towards meeting the plan targets over the past 13 years of implementation. At the end of June 2008, a total of 204 commercial landholdings have fully completed a whole farm plan, 179 have completed a recycle system and 133 have constructed their minimum storage requirement. A total of 7,938ha of native vegetation has been actively managed or restored and regenerated .
Education
In 2007/08 the LWMP education program focused on one-on-one education. This approach actively engaged and motivated landholders to complete LWMP related works on their farms, approximately 150 landholders attended meetings held during 2007/08. In addition, four working group meetings were held to inform community representatives of natural resource management issues and to address LWMP issues.
Other formal aspects of the education program were held through field days, presentations and tours: A tour and presentation was provided on salinity management to Barham High school students and Marcus Oldham university students. There were three presentations to Wakool landholders on updated incentives and changes to LWMP guidelines. A presentation to the St Marys Primary School students on biodiversity and salinity management. A bus tour and presentation to Vietnamese Department of Agriculture delegates on the LWMPs and the Wakool Tullakool Subsurface Drainage Scheme. Presentation to landholders as part of the Irrigation Accreditation Course. There were two rounds of Jimaringle and Cockran Creek landholder meetings to discuss plan progress and findings. Two Jimaringle and Cockran Creek wildlife nights.
The education program continues to be adapted to better meet the needs of individuals and local groups. The ongoing co-operation and participation of landholders and other organisations in the education program is essential. The NSW DPI, Murray CMA, DECC and DWE continue to make significant contributions.
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 52 of 273 Table 5.6 (a): Wakool LWMP Progress against targets Total number of landholdings: 378 Total number of commercial landholdings: 343
Estimated data from annual survey Landforming = 0ha Expenditure = $0 Estimated data from annual survey Estimated data from annual survey Operation & maintenance (O&M) Expenditure = $0 Estimated storages that meet minimum storage capacity = 233 Estimated systems no incentive with that meet minimum storage capacity = 0 Estimated expenditure incentive (no ) = $0 Estimated completed Irrigation recycling system = 328 Estimated systems no incentive& met LWMP guidelines = 14 Estimated expenditure incentive)=$25,441 (no Operation & maintenance (O&M) estimated expenditure = $438,449 Estimated completed farm plan = 342 Estimated no. of plans no incentive with & met LWMP guidelines = 0 Estimated expenditure on farm plans incentives)(exc = 0 Comments & results from the Annual Survey N/A
% N/A N/A N/A N/A 71% 76% 76% 87% 87% Target Milestone
N/A N/A N/A 209 N/A 209 237 237 1104 2008 Target at June Milestone
0% N/A N/A N/A N/A 49% 65% 74% 94% of targetof % achieved%
N/A N/A 0ha N/A N/A 133 179 204 258 Total June 2008June achieved at
6 16 13 17 N/A N/A oha N/A N/A 07/08 achievements
N/A N/A N/A N/A 274 274 274 274 Total target target 1,545ha number The floodplain Management Strategy for Stage 4 to be completed Department by of Natural Resources 2001 by From 2003From to 2010, 1,545ha will be converted irrigation.to spray Conduct a detailed investigation of the high watertable area (0-2m) culminating in identification of priority pumping zones. Investigate, design and construct groundwater pumping and disposal schemes within the areaspriority All landholders are encouraged to improve internal drainage lines of rice layouts so that uninterrupted drainage is provided From 1995From to 2010, 90% of farm channels will be designed and maintained correctly. 80% of leaking on farm channel sites will be sealed 1995between and 2005. Landholders have the responsibility of upgrading and maintaining .their on-farm supply system From 1995From to 2012, 80% of commercial holdings will have a LWMP approved storage system with a minimum storage capacity of 6ML per 100ha laid out to irrigation. From 1995From to 2012, 80% of commercial landholdings will have installed irrigation recycling systems. From 1995From to 2010, 80% of commercial holdings will have completed an approved LWMP whole farm plan. Target Target 1995From to 2010, a representative from 80% of commercial holdings will have completed the Irrigation Accreditation Course. Floodplain Improved Irrigation Efficiencies Subsurface Drainage Improved Irrigation layouts Channel Maintenance Storage Irrigation Recycling Farm PlanFarm Program Irrigation Accreditation Course
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 53 of 273 Table 5.6 (b): Wakool LWMP Progress against targets (vegetation) Total number of landholdings: 378 Total number of commercial landholdings: 343
Target Target revised in December 2006 from total of 1,500ha to 3,000ha.
Comments & results from the Annual Survey Estimated data from annual survey expenditureO&M = $22,979
% 0% 0% 87% 50% 50% 50% Target Milestone
0 0 149 2008 2600 1325 6752 Target at June Milestone
% 0% 0% 69% 76% 35% 52% of targetof achieved
0 0 227 917 2077 7021 2008 Total at June achieved
0 0 746 134 349 3498 07/08 achievements
10 298 Total 1,500 3,000 2,650 target target 13,504 number
From 2003From to 2013, 1,500ha of native pastures will be managed. From 1995From to 2010, 3,000 hectares of perennial vegetation will be established to reduce watertable recharge and minimise the effects of salinity. From 2003From to 2013, 10ha of seed orchards will be established. From 2003From to 2013, 298ha of riparian zones will be actively managed. From 2003From to 2013, 13,504 ha of existing native broad vegetation types will be actively managed. 2003From to 2013, 2,650ha of underrepresented broad vegetation types will be restored and regenerated. Target Target Native Pastures Vegetation to reduce salinity Seed Orchards Riparian Zones Actively Manage Native Vegetation Restore & Regenerate Native Vegetation Program
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 54 of 273 Case Study: The Jimaringle and Cockran Creek Restoration Project
The Jimaringle and Cockran Creek Restoration Project aims to rehabilitate the Jimaringle and Cockran Creek to a system which closer to original state through strategic actions that are outlined in the Action Plan. The creek system is a floodway 60km west of Deniliquin near Wakool which links the Colligen Creek to the Niemur River. The recommendations given in the plan are supported by results from studies conducted by Murray Wildlife “Ecological Survey of the Jimaringle & Cockran Creek Systems: Terrestrial Vertebrate Wildlife (2008)”; Charles Sturt University and CSIRO “Jimaringle Creek Geophysical Investigations for Salinity Management (2008)” and MIL “Jimaringle and Cockran Creek Sulfidic Sediments Assessment (2008)”.
The Action Plan highlights the need for reducing the impacts of salinity and sulfidic sediments with shallow saline groundwater control, removing flow impediments to prepare for floods and environmental flows, enhancing and restoring native vegetation cover and improving habitat for native fauna by controlling weeds, excessive grazing and vermin. The aim is to complete the action plan October 2008. The action plan has been developed with the cooperation and active involvement of the key stakeholders in this project, especially the landholders along the creeks. The plan will include a number of recommendations for action and further investigations.
Implementation of the majority of the action plan will be dependent on funding availability and allocation from State and Commonwealth governments.
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 55 of 273 Stormwater Escape Construction
Stormwater escape construction is a significant salinity control component of the Murray LWMPs for the Berriquin, Cadell and Wakool districts.
Since the commencement of implementation of the LWMPs in 1995, a large proportion of the stormwater escape construction program has been completed. This, combined with dry seasons and improved practices, has assisted in reducing watertable levels. As a result, the region is in a much stronger position to cope with future large rainfall events.
Berriquin
The following progress was made during 2007/08 in construction and refurbishment of stormwater escapes:
Box Creek
Works on the Box Creek in 2007/08 have included: The construction of approximately 95 drainage inlets along the length of the creek to allow for controlled inflows. Upgrade of the Barratta Weir structure 43kms of fencing has been completed. Alternate watering points have also been an important component of our works to holdings affected by fencing off the creek, works include solar pumps, stock and domestic bore, poly and troughs as well as stock dams of varying sizes. Boundaries stockstops have been replaced. Mesh on bridge boundaries have been replaced, where applicable. Desilting has also been completed for the all sections as far as Barratta. A small area of revegetation using tube stock was started but unfortunately cancelled half way through due to the dry conditions
Warragoon Stage II.
In 2007/08 the earthwork and structure designs were finished for Warragoon Stage II. A Development Application was submitted and approval was granted to commence construction. Construction of the Warragoon Stage II is on hold until funding has been approved.
The Berrigan Creek Escape.
In 2007/08 works on Stage 1 (11 kms upstream of the end of the creek) were completed and work commenced on Stage 2 (18kms upstream of Stage1 to Hayfield Rd.). At time of writing, 45% of the earthworks in Stage II had been completed. The design of earthworks and structure for the four lateral escapes leading into the Berrigan Creek shall be finished in July.
Broughshane Lane.
The design of earthworks for Broughshane’s Lane have been completed. The Environmental Impact Statement has been received and a Development Application shall be applied for when funding becomes available.
Table 5.12 outlines Berriquin stormwater escape construction up to 30th June 2008. Figures 5.2 and 5.3 show landholdings with access to formal district drainage in 2006/08 and pre 1995 respectively.
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 56 of 273 Table 5.7: Summary of the Berriquin Drainage Programs at the 30th June 2008
Stormwater Landholder Drilling Environmental Design Construction Operating Escape Negotiations Surveying Approval
Nth Deniliquin Drain completed completed completed completed completed operational
Stage 4 completed completed completed completed completed operational
Warragoon North completed completed completed completed completed operational
Warragoon Stage II completed completed completed completed
West Warragoon completed completed completed completed completed operational
Back Barooga Stage 1 completed completed completed completed completed operational
Back Barooga Stage 2 completed completed completed completed completed operational
Oddy’s completed completed completed completed completed operational
Pinelea completed completed completed completed completed operational
DC Lalalty 18 completed completed completed completed completed operational
Wollamai East completed completed completed completed completed operational
Cosgrove completed completed completed completed completed operational
West Moonee Swamp completed completed completed completed completed operational
Wollamai North completed completed completed completed completed operational
Wollamai West completed completed completed completed completed operational
Willeroo completed completed completed completed completed operational
Logie Brae completed completed completed completed completed operational
Logie Brae Extensions completed completed completed completed completed operational
Booroobanilly completed completed completed completed completed operational
Mundiwa completed completed completed completed completed operational
Green Swamp 95% completed 75%
Wunnumurra 95% completed 75% Berrigan Creek completed completed completed completed 70% Escape
Box Creek Escape 90% completed completed completed 70%
Broughshane Lane completed completed 50%
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 57 of 273 Figure 5.1: Berriquin holdings with access to formal district drainage 2007/08
Figure 5.2: Berriquin holdings with access to formal district drainage 1995
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 58 of 273 Cadell
No stormwater escape construction works were carried out in Cadell during 2007/08 as the program was com- pleted in 2004. No further funding is available for stormwater escape construction in Cadell.
Table 5.8: Summary of the Cadell Drainage Program 1995/96 – 2007/08 Landholder Environmental Drain Survey Design Construction Operational Negotiations Approval Yaloke Stage 2 completed completed completed completed completed operational
Sth Deniliquin completed completed completed completed completed operational
Murphy’s Timber completed completed completed completed completed operational
Denimein
The focus of the Denimein LWMP stormwater management program is on-farm storage and reuse. This includes the ability to store all irrigation runoff and 12mm/100ha of rainfall runoff from the irrigated area on-farm. It is in- tended that excess stormwater would then be disposed off-farm via existing gravity drainage or by pumping into the Murray Irrigation supply system. As part of this process a major upgrade of the Moulamein 8 and 12 escapes was undertaken.
There were six escape anomalies presented to the working group for upgrade and construction (table 5.8)
Table 5.9: Supply Channel Escapes to be upgraded within Denimein
Landholder Environmental Escape Survey Design Construction Operational Negotiations Approval Moulamein 1 completed completed completed completed completed operational
Moulamein 2 completed completed completed
Moulamein 4a completed completed completed
Dahwilly Channel completed completed completed
Dahwilly 3 completed completed completed
Moulamein 8 & 12 completed completed completed completed completed operational
Wakool
The stormwater escape construction program in Wakool . There was no stormwater escape construction in 2007/08. Parts of Wakool have sub-standard private drainage systems or systems in a floodway. Resolution of how these systems can be upgraded to meet Murray Irrigation’s DECC’s and DWE’s licence requirements is not resolved. The most significant system is the Bunna private drainage system.
For details on progress in Wakool surface drainage see table 5.15.
Table 5.10: Summary of the Wakool Drainage Program.
Landholder Environmental Escape Survey Design Construction Operational Negotiations Approval DC 2005Ext completed completed completed completed completed operational Yallakool No 3 completed completed completed completed completed operational
Burragorrimma completed completed completed completed completed operational
Niemur Upgrade completed completed completed completed completed operational Burraboi completed completed completed completed completed operational DC2500 West completed completed completed completed completed operational Bunna # 75% completed 15%
# Denotes private drainage system.
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 59 of 273 Murray LWMP R&D Program
The Murray LWMP R&D program is a dynamic and innovative program addressing a wide range of issues with the objective of improving the environmental knowledge and actions of landholders. Strong linkages have been maintained between research organisations to enhance specific, locally-based research outcomes.
A formal, elected committee presides over the implementation of the R&D program. Coupled with this formal committee structure, a strategic plan has been developed to focus R&D efforts into disciplines which will directly impact on the sustainability of the Murray LWMP area.
Since implementation of the LWMPs first commenced in 1995, 41 projects have been funded and 29 completed. More information on past projects is available on our website www.murrayirrigation.com.au. During 2007/08 14 projects were conducted with the support of the R&D program. No new projects were approved or commenced in the last 12 months. Two research projects were completed in 2007/08.
The compilation and publication of a booklet for the full R&D program providing project summaries and CD insert of full reports has been proposed by the LWMP Working Groups as a requirement for extension. This requirement was approved by the R&D Committee in the January 2008 meeting and a tender request has been prepared for submission to appropriate scientific publishers. Submission of the tender request is awaiting funding approval.
Completed Projects
Inland Saline Aquaculture – NSW DPI (Fisheries)
This project investigated the viability of commercial opportunities for farming a variety of fish species using saline groundwater, including examining optimum stocking strategies and market acceptance. Research was undertaken by the NSW Department of Primary Industries (DPI) at the Inland Saline Aquaculture Research Centre (ISARC) in Wakool using groundwater sourced from the Wakool Tullakool Sub-Surface Drainage Scheme (WTSSDS). Water quality preferences have been determined for a number of species however the main challenge was identified as the extremes of climate the researchers faced at Wakool.
Aquaculture is becoming increasingly important in the supply of fish to our markets as the commercial fishery is static and the human population continues to increase. In 2007, global aquaculture production increased to a point where it equalled that of the commercial fishery for the first time. Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) is one of the most popular aquaculture species with world production exceeding 500,000 tonne/year. In Australia, 2,000 tonne/year of rainbow trout is produced from land based freshwater farms with an additional 490 tonne/year from seacages in Tasmania. Rainbow trout are cultured in both freshwater and seawater, have a fast rate of growth and are robust osmoregulators.
Rainbow trout emerged from 6 years of research trials at ISARC as the best performing species. A market size of 600 g was reached after only 3-6 months with a food conversion ratio of 1.1:1. This species displayed rapid growth rates in all ranges of salinity trailed, including fish as small as 10 g. The fish displayed a strong appetite and high levels of feed intake. Rainbow trout had very high levels of survival while remaining tolerant of high density, handling and fluctuating salinity. The best method of production was identified as semi-intensive flow-through pond culture.
Rainbow trout were reared to market size over 4 consecutive seasons during 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 through the project. Approximately 1,700 kg of Rainbow trout have been sold fresh and smoked through local butchers, cafes and supermarkets averaging 600 g per fish. Consumer acceptance is very high.
A commercial inland saline rainbow trout farm was proposed for construction within the WTSSDS in 2008. The farm plan and financial model have been established using data from rainbow trout grown at ISARC.
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 60 of 273 Risk Based Irrigation Management using Ocean Based Short to Medium Term Forecasts – Charles Sturt University
The availability of water for urban, agricultural and industrial uses is highly dependent on seasonal and longer term climate conditions. In an agricultural context, the reliability of supply is a critical influence on investment decisions both in the short and long term.
This project aimed to: identify and classify ocean influences on meteorological events responsible for significant rainfall and catchment runoff in the south-east Murray-Darling Basin; integrate understanding of ocean-influenced climate processes with river management to provide climate information and forecasts to reduce rainfall-based irrigation delivery rejection, maximise crop returns and provide mechanisms for well informed water trading; promote adoption of climate-based forecasting.
More than 100 years of data on global sea surface temperatures (SST), climate variability indicators and seasonal general security water allocations have been gathered and analysed. Modern statistical techniques such as Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) and Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) were applied to discover the underlying relationships between the ocean surface temperatures, climate indices and river flows. The six most significant variables to forecasting February allocations have been identified as: SST at three highly correlated regions in the Pacific ocean, Southern Oscillation Index, NINO3, seal level pressure at Tahiti, August allocations and a risk factor for February allocations (arbitrary).
A MLR model has been constructed and validated for 2000/01-2005/06 giving satisfactory results in terms of predicting water allocations for the Murray Irrigation region up to six months in advance (August to February). This user-friendly tool for farmers includes an economic module to allow optimisation of crop mix based on water availability and profitability, and allows for water trading to be considered as a viable option. Reporting for this project was finalised in September 2007.
Current Projects
Quantification of runoff quantity and quality from irrigated farms in the Murray Valley – Murray Irrigation Limited Determining the quantity (both from irrigation and rainfall) and quality of runoff from irrigation farms in the Murray valley is an important factor in determining the efficiency of resource use. At the farm level, these results will be used to assist irrigators to make better management decisions about water storage and recycle pump requirements, fertiliser application rates, methods and types.
The project ran for eight years with data on runoff volumes collected for the entire period and water quality data collected intermittently over three years.
RMCG have been commissioned to analyse the data to extract correlations between runoff and rainfall or irrigation events. To date the data on one farm has been analysed with some runoff events correlating with rainfall and others with irrigation, depending on the time of year.
The water quality data has not been collected frequently enough to enable a statistically significant determination of any relationship between rainfall or irrigation events and changes in water quality parameters. Preliminary observations of the data reveal the following trends: Some accumulation of nitrogen and phosphorus which is not harmful to the farming system. The dairy farm exhibited the highest nutrient levels; Salt could potentially be an issue if the reuse water from some farms was not shandied prior to use on crops/pastures. All salinity levels were however below 800EC; Turbidity was generally within MIL’s expected range (<200NTU) except in a limited number of circumstances where stock had access to storages.
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 61 of 273 Economic and hydrologic appraisal of regional groundwater and salinity management actions in the Murray valley – CSIRO Land and Water
Building on past work this project is evaluating the hydrologic and economic merit of LWMP groundwater management options.
The objectives of the project are: Hydrologic and economic evaluation of existing LWMP regional groundwater and salinity management options; Hydrologic and economic analysis of alternative management options to achieve regional vertical and lateral recharge rates by incorporating surface water-aquifer interactions; Provide support for ongoing implementation of SWAGMAN Farm, on the basis of policy options determined from the existing project.
A variety of analyses have been undertaken to gain a better understanding of the dynamics of the regional groundwater including analysis of pump test data, watertable and soil information. The groundwater model of the Murray LWMP region is close to complete. Preliminary calibrations have been carried out with more required for the model to meet Australian standards. Once it is operational it will be validated against historical data and run in simulation mode for a variety of scenarios. This will allow for the prioritisation of future groundwater and salinity management actions, to identify potential salinity risk zones, and to determine the downstream impacts of the various management actions. Final reporting for this project is scheduled for late 2008.
Managing Sodic Soils and Groundwater Irrigation in Murray Irrigation Regions – University of Adelaide
Shallow groundwater pumping has been used as a method to combat rising saline watertables in the Murray LWMP area. However local groundwater is often saline and dominated by sodium salts. These sodium salts can interact with the soil, changing its properties to become more saline and sodic. An increase in soil sodicity and salinity can reduce the productivity and long-term sustainability of the region. If the problem becomes widespread, then groundwater pumping will cease to be a feasible management option for the region.
This project aims to develop new, simple methods for testing soil sodicity and establish an education program to raise awareness of sodic soil processes, the impact of groundwater irrigation on soils and best practices for managing soils.
All soil analysis for the project has been completed. Final reporting is required including development of extension tools by DPI.
Water use and yields under centre pivot irrigation in the Southern Riverina – NSW DPI (Agriculture)
The number of centre pivot and linear move irrigation systems in the Murray valley has been increasing over the past five years, driven in part by low irrigation allocations and the need to find irrigation systems that require less water. These systems require significant capital investment and are not suited to all soil types so objective information is needed when assessing their purchase. This information is currently not available for irrigators and, in some cases, inappropriate and costly decisions have been made. By providing objective information on achievable yields, suitable soil types and water use, those considering purchasing a centre pivot or linear move system will have industry data for their region to base their decisions on. Also, benchmarking current practice will allow irrigators who currently own the systems to assess their performance and identify areas for improvement.
The study was conducted in 2005 and 2006 with six co-operators in each year. The sites were spread across the Murray LWMP region, included both red-brown earth (RBE) and non-self mulching clay (NSMC) soils, and wheat was grown at all sites. Data collected for each site included: volume of irrigation water applied, rainfall, crop area and yield. Crop growth was monitored from sowing to harvest. Soil water content and soil water potential were monitored at each site.
Wheat grain yields varied from 2-6.9t/ha for both years. In general, yields over 6t/ha were achieved from fully irrigated crops on RBE soils. Crops which experienced some degree of moisture stress or were grown on NSMC soils yielded around 4t/ha.
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 62 of 273 The study found that the amount of irrigation water required to grow a given yield of crop can be determined from the French & Schultz (1984) water use efficiency equation: Total water requirement (mm) = Yield (kg/ha) + 110 20
For example, a 6t/ha crop requires approximately 410mm of water to grow (6000/20 + 110 = 410), including both growing season rainfall and irrigation.
The report recommended storages where the landholding is on a channel system to allow best use of the centre pivot/linear move systems in autumn and early spring in case of conditions being dry and the irrigation season being delayed.
The three key factors that contribute to achievable yields have been identified as follows: 1. Heavy clay and sodic soils – are predisposed to waterlogging and hence reduced yield; 2. Timing of irrigations – particularly where a store of soil moisture is not present in the sub-soil, the timing of irrigations are critical to ensure water stress is limited. Sites that were fully irrigated had the highest yields at 6.6t/ha; 3. Agronomic management – a greater level of crop management is required with centre pivot/linear move systems due to their high capital and operating costs to maximise the benefits.
Economic analyses have been finalised by RMCG and final reporting by the DPI is required.
Dealing with the reliability of irrigation allocations in the Murray Irrigation region – RMCG
Recent years of low allocations due to a prolonged period of below average rainfall has had a large impact on irrigation businesses in the Murray region. Making the most effective decisions on how to best use the limited water resource is critical to the future viability of farms in the region.
This project is capturing real life lessons through case studies with farmers to find out how they have managed low allocations over recent seasons. This will then be used to outline the key issues associated with water management in both the short and long term, to identify/develop tools to help farmers in decision making regarding water, and to identify risk management strategies for the future.
The focus group sessions concentrated on information sources used, how it is used, how it is interpreted, how it can be improved and any gaps in the information available. It was revealed that irrigators use information from a range of sources in determining the likely allocation available although Murray Irrigation’s Talking Water fax stream was rated as the most used information source. Two key gaps in information available were identified: the impact of carry over water on future allocations and the rules governing how water is allocated.
The case studies aimed to learn about the strategies implemented during periods of low allocations from the past experiences of farmers. There was an enormous amount of variation observed in the risk management strategies employed with those with taking larger risks placing more effort on their management. Key areas that would improve farm management decisions in response to low allocations are: Increasing level of understanding of the factors influencing water allocations and water markets; Good understanding of the profitability of different enterprise types to improve decision making with regard to how to use the water that is available; Developing farm business plans to help identify key strengths and weaknesses within a business.
The next phase of this project has been put on hold until allocations improve.
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 63 of 273 Improving the performance of basin irrigation layouts in the southern Murray-Darling Basin – NSW DPI (Agriculture) and the Cooperative Research Centre for Irrigation Futures
Basin irrigation layouts that are ideal for the production of rice, a major crop in the Murray LWMP region, are not suited to many other crops that are included in our farming systems. Previous research demonstrated the benefits of bed farming in basin layouts for this purpose however there is reluctance in the Murray valley to make this shift. This is because most cropping enterprises use large tractors, dual tyres and wide-line machinery which are not suited to cropping on beds. The choice of machinery is driven by the high proportion of dryland and unirrigated areas on most farms in the district. As a result there is a need for flexible layouts suited to the machinery and scale of cropping enterprises in the Murray LWMP region that are capable of being used to produce high yields from upland crops as well as rice. This project aims to: determine the current state of knowledge, practice and tools for basin irrigation design and performance evaluation; develop clear recommendations for ‘best practice’ basin irrigation design based on hydraulic and economic performance; develop tools and techniques to evaluate basin irrigation performance; train irrigation surveyors and designers in the use of recommended design and evaluation tools.
The scoping study reviewed past research and current practices to identify research, development and extension needs regarding basin irrigation layouts in the Murray valley. This included liaison with a range of stakeholders through a local project steering committee, interviews with irrigation designers, and a review of existing basin irrigation design models and software. The following areas were highlighted: advantages and disadvantages of basin irrigation layouts; causes of waterlogging and preventative measures; strategies for improving the irrigated productivity of flat slopes with high clay content and high sodicity; options for increasing the profitability of basin systems; approaches to improve the irrigation efficiency of basin layouts; best practice design for contour basin systems; scope for improving contour basin systems in the Murray valley – half are still in natural, unlasered contours; economic data is required to guide decision making and to provide benefit:cost information regarding upgrading contour systems; labour and time constraints to improving efficiency; requirement for simple design model and tools for evaluating performance.
Effective weed management in direct seeded native vegetation – Agropraisals Pty Ltd
Previous research conducted through the LWMP R&D program highlighted weed management as the most significant limiting factor in the establishment of direct seeded native vegetation in the region. Agropraisals Pty Ltd has been commissioned to carry out trials of different herbicides and herbicide application methods to develop effective weed management strategies for direct seeded native vegetation. This includes looking at modifying the current direct seeding machine to better incorporate chemical application at sowing.
To date the project has conduct initial seeding and spraying trials. The modification of the direct seeding machine has also been undertaken with a field demonstration held in August 2008. The project is also well supported by the Murray Catchment Management Authority. Final reporting is currently being completed with the project scheduled for conclusion by the end of 2008.
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 64 of 273 Box Creek Box Creek Salt Mitigation Scheme Scoping Study – URS Australia Pty Ltd
Box Creek is a highly modified natural waterway that acts as an escape-water drain for the Denimein and Berriquin Irrigation areas north and east of Deniliquin. Intense irrigation and limited natural drainage within the irrigation areas over many decades has caused the watertable below the irrigation areas to rise, bringing saline groundwater to within metres of the ground surface. Over much of the course of the creek, the shallow watertable has risen to a level whereby the creek intersects the watertable, allowing saline groundwater to drain into the creek. During periods low surface water runoff into the drain, such as the extended period of below average rainfall experienced in Southern Australia over the past decade, groundwater inflows dominate the water quality profile in the creek, resulting in high salinity water flowing in the creek, albeit at low volumes. The large variability in both flows and salinity in the creek and the cyclical pattern in the variations has resulted in a degraded riparian environment along much of the creek.
Over the past five years, studies have been conducted to consider options available to Murray Irrigation for mitigating saline groundwater inflows in Box Creek. There are a number of options available but given the length of the creek affected by high watertables, the capital and operation and maintenance costs to implement most of the options are prohibitive. Murray Irrigation is interested in testing a relatively low cost salinity control option involving the principal of ‘hydraulic barrier’. Murray Irrigation has decided upon the concept of maintaining the water level within the creek at or just above the adjacent shallow groundwater table levels thereby forming an effective barrier for the movement of saline groundwater into the creek by eliminating the direction of the hydraulic gradient from the groundwater environment to the creek.
The current Scoping Study is being conducted by URS with the understanding that any alteration works on the ‘creek’ will involve the preparation of a Development Application (DA). A concept design for the hydraulic barrier on Box Creek is being prepared with a sufficient level of detail for Murray Irrigation to hold informal discussions with the local council, NSW Department of Primary Industries (DPI Fisheries) and DWE representatives to determine what precursor conditions may be required for the trial or subsequent implementation of a system covering approximately 70 km of the Box Creek alignment.
Two sites were short-listed as appropriate for the installation of a Salt Mitigation Barrier. A review of current reduced groundwater levels from the two series of piezometers has been undertaken. Since their installation, the groundwater levels have been in decline reflecting the recent low rainfall and irrigation allocation years. At the current levels at both trial sites, a hydraulic barrier would not be required to control saline inflows. A barrier would only be required if and when groundwater levels begin to rise, either from a return to successive normal/high rainfall years or a return to normal irrigation allocation years.
The most optimal location for a trial salt mitigation barrier based on the assessment is a site at Lindifferon Lane. This location provides for historic water table levels within the low flow channel section, has existing piezometers downstream for monitoring, and has good access and minimal site constraints. The recommended mitigation barrier is a pre-fabricated concrete barrier due to life cycle cost, operational durability and functionality. The draft scoping study has been provided to Murray Irrigation and the reporting is due to be finalised in August 2008.
Salinity management options for the Jimaringle Creek Catchment – Charles Sturt University
The Jimaringle Creek, in the west of the Murray LWMP region, has shown signs of salinisation which are affecting the local environment. The area has been highlighted as a priority for intervention and rehabilitation by the Wakool LWMP working group.
As part of the rehabilitation efforts, Charles Sturt University (CSU) is investigating the groundwater dynamics along the creek. This is being carried out using historical data, geophysics technology and piezometers to assess the options for management of saline groundwater intrusions along the creek. The researchers will provide recommendations for the feasibility of using groundwater pumps, along the most severely affected sections of the creek, to link into the WTSSDS. The draft report has been reviewed by LWMP staff and is awaiting finalisation by CSU.
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 65 of 273
Ongoing Projects under extension
An Irrigation Layout BMP Manual for the Murray LWMP region – RM Consulting Group (RMCG)
Local landholders identified the need for a manual outlining best management practices (BMPs) for farm irrigation layouts i.e. bank heights, channel sizing and outlet types. This manual aims to compile the wealth of information available on irrigation layouts into a simple, user friendly guide that landholders can be use when dealing with designers to achieve the best outcome for their property and the surrounding environment when developing and implementing a whole farm plan.
The manual is complete and is currently being reviewed prior to preparation for publishing for distribution to shareholders and stakeholders in 2008/09.
Maintaining the productivity of soils under continuous intensive cropping – DPI, Victoria
This project was initiated in response to growers concerns about the sustainability of continuous cropping systems, due to a decline in soil structure and soil health. The project is addressing these concerns by investigating how different organic matter inputs effect soil physical, chemical, and biological properties, and how changes in these soil properties influence crop performance. This knowledge can be used to develop practical agronomic practices to improve management of soil organic matter, and ensure soils remain healthy and productive.
This project has taken the approach of using farmers paired paddocks to determine how management affects soil health. Rotational histories and soil measurements were taken from 16 paired paddocks across northern Victoria and southern NSW. Each pair of paddocks consisted of one paddock with higher organic matter inputs and the other with lower organic matter inputs.
Results from the project have demonstrated that: Increasing the amount of organic matter (OM) throughput (rate at which OM is added to the soil to be broken down and recycled) over several years will boost soil organic carbon levels; The percentage of soil carbon can be increased by 0.4% by increasing the amount of above and below ground OM by 2 t/ha/yr for 10 years; The amount of soil carbon can explain approximately 60% of the variation in soil structure; When soil carbon levels are less than 2%, small increases in soil carbon will result in substantial improvements to soil structure; Higher OM systems are likely to result in equal or better yields; The role of different forms of carbon in the soil is likely, in the future, to offer greater understanding of how OM influences crop production; Monitoring the cumulative OM input of a paddock is an easy way for a farmer to monitor improvements in soil health.
The final project report has been provided and we are awaiting completion of booklets by the DPI, Victoria for conclusion of the project.
Stubble/soil organic matter management – processes, practices and improvements – CSIRO Plant Industry/ Charles Sturt University/EH Graham Centre
The management practices of post-harvest stubble can have a major impact on the soil properties and therefore crop yield. Current practices generally centre on the burning or removal of stubble. This project investigates alternative options for stubble management and their potential benefits in terms of organic matter management. At four local sites on typical soils different strategies have been analysed for their effect on soil characteristics and yield. Ultimately this project aims to educate landholders about best practices for local conditions.
Previous results however have shown that with the correct management, retention of heavy stubble loads can: Provide small but reasonably consistent increases in yield; Reduce greenhouse gas emissions; Increase the number of nitrogen fixing bacteria in the soil; Increase the efficiency of nitrogen use; Improve soil structure; Decrease the amount of power required to cultivate; and,
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 66 of 273 No work has been undertaken on this project in 2007/08 due to a changeover of organisation for the principal re- searcher and the drought resulting in no water being available on farms. The project contract has subsequently been terminated.
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 67 of 273 Appendix One: Published documents
Ewington, D and Mathers, L (2008) “Jimaringle and Cockran Creek Sulfidic Sediments Assessment”. Murray Irrigation Limited, Deniliquin
Herring, M and McGregor, H (2008) “Ecological Survey of the Jimaringle and Cockran Creek Systems: Terrestrial Vertebrate,”.Murray Wildlife, Albury (to be released in October 2008)
Mathers, L (2008) “The Jimaringle and Cockran Creek Restoration Project: Action Plan”. Murray irrigation Limited, Deniliquin (to be released in in October 2008)
Rana, T,Saeed Z and Khan, S (2008) “Jimaringle Creek Geophysical Investigations for Salinity Management (2008)”. Charles Sturt University and CSIRO
Tasker, J (2007) “Statement of environmental effects of Green Gully tile drainage project at ‘Tarrington & Green Slopes”. Murray Irrigation Limited, Deniliquin.
Ewington, D. (2007) Channel Seepage Data Summary, Preliminary Conclusions and Recommendations: Murray Irrigation Area of Operations”. Murray Irrigation Limited, Deniliquin
NGH Environmental (2008) “Proposed Broughshane Lane Stormwater Escape Channel, Jerilderie LGA Environmental Impact Statement.” Prepared by Budde, E. and Simpson, K., NGH Environmental, Wagga Wagga, NSW.
NGH Environmental (2007) “Proposed New Drainage Channel at Marshes Road, Berrigan NSW Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment”. Prepared by Currey, A., NGH Environmental, Wagga Wagga, NSW.
Habitat Planning (2007). “Environmental Impact Statement Stormwater Escape Channel Warragoon Stage 2”. Prepared by Habitat Planning in association with EarthTech and NGH Environmental, Albury-Wodonga, NSW.
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 68 of 273 Appendix Two: Stormwater Escape Additional Information
Appendix 2.1: Exceedence levels of Molinate and Thiobencarb
Molinate Thiobencarb
(ug/L) (ug/L) No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of exceedence exceedence No. of exceedence exceedence exceedence Year of of exceedence of of environmental of of environmental notification notification action levels levels action levels levels levels levels 1995 -1996 1 1 3 * * * 1996 - 1997 2 6 0 * * * 1997 - 1998 0 0 0 * * * 1998 - 1999 0 1 0 0 0 0 1999 - 2000 1 0 0 0 0 0 2000 - 2001 6 18 2 8 1 1 2001 - 2002 0 1 1 0 1 0 2002 - 2003 0 0 0 0 0 0 2003 - 2004 0 0 0 0 0 0 2004 - 2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005 - 2006 0 8 2 0 0 0 2006 - 2007 0 0 0 0 0 0 2007 - 2008 * * * * * * *: tests not required
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 69 of 273 Appendix 2.2: Monthly turbidity and nutrient data for Murray Irrigation monitoring sites 2007/08
Turbidity Total Phosphorus Total Nitrogen Site Date EC (uS/cm) (NTU) (mg/L) (mg/L)
Back Barooga SEC BBR1 11-Sep-07 216 BBR1 25-Sep-07 330 BBR1 18-Dec-07 619 BBR1 22-Jan-08 305 12 0.092 0.4 (<0.5) BBR1 29-Jan-08 473 41 0.109 0.7 BBR1 05-Feb-08 423 186 0.115 0.5 BBR1 12-Feb-08 197 BBR1 19-Feb-08 315 275 0.057 1.0 BBR1 26-Feb-08 438 BBR1 04-Mar-08 613 Berrigan Escape SEC BIBE 06-Feb-08 71 332 0.246 0.6 Finley Escape BIFE 04-Sep-07 203 206 BIFE 11-Sep-07 92 0.097 0 (< 0.5) BIFE 25-Sep-07 63 69 0.031 0 (<0.5) BIFE 06-Feb-08 152 1084 0.2 (< 0.5) BIFE 26-Feb-08 144 284 0.084 0.3<0.5> BIFE 04-Mar-08 92 BIFE 27-May-08 97 346 0.031 0 (<0.5) Wollamai East Escape BIOW 11-Apr-08 128 Deniboota Canal Escape DBCE 22-Jan-08 111 439 0.161 0 (<0.5) DBCE 29-Jan-08 268 84 0.28 0.7 DBCE 05-Feb-08 257 164 0.092 1.7 DBCE 19-Feb-08 559 393 0.078 1.3
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 70 of 273 Appendix 2.3 Summary of total flow at Murray Irrigation monitoring sites 2007/08
Flow (ML/day) Total Flow (ML) Total Max. Min. June '07 - Sept.'07- Jan. '08 - Stormwater Escape Channel Site Mean Median June '07 – Daily Daily Aug. '07 Dec.'07 May '08 May '08
Back Barooga SEC BBR1 0.13 0.04 1.95 0.00 2.97 28.74 17.16 49.15 Berrigan Creek Escape BIBE 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 Box Creek MOXM * * * * 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Burraboi SEC JIBU * * * * 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Burragorrimma SEC NMBR 0.19 0.00 5.92 0.00 0.00 42.83 24.43 67.53 DC 2500 East JIJS * * * * 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Deniboota Canal Escape DBCE 0.25 0.00 11.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 88.93 88.93
Finley Escape BIFE 2.42 0.00 168.5 0.00 0.00 1.42 810.3 811.8
Lalalty SEC TUPJ * * * * 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Murphys Timber SEC WRMT * * * * 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Neimur SEC TCND * * * * 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 North Deniliquin SEC DENI * * * * 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pinelea SEC TCPL * * * * 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Wakool SEC DRWK * * * * 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 West Warragoon SEC TCWW * * * * 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Wollamai East Escape BIWE * * * * 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Wollamai Escape BIOW 0.02 0.00 1.37 0.00 0.00 6.82 0.05 7.35 Sub total 1,025 Credited Escapes: Finley Escape (BIFE) 812 Net Discharges 213
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 71 of 273 Appendix 2.4: Salinity levels at Murray Irrigation monitoring sites 2007/08
EC (uS/cm) Total Tonnes Salt Jan. '08 Total Stormwater Escape Chan- Max. Min. June '07 - Sept.'07- Site Mean Median -May June '07 nel daily daily Aug. '07 Dec.'07 '08 –May '08 Back Barooga SEC BBR1 392 414 1060 0 0.83 9.27 5.04 15.14 Berrigan Creek Escape BIBE * * * * 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 Box Creek MOXM * * * * 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Burraboi SEC JIBU * * * * 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Burragorrimma SEC NMBR 62 0 883 0 0.00 20.29 11.64 31.93 DC 2500 East JIJS * * * * 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Deniboota Canal Escape DBCE 192 105 1380 0 0.00 0.00 22.80 22.80 Finley Escape BIFE 11 0 164 0 0.00 0.10 40.77 40.87 Lalalty SEC TUPJ * * * * 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Murphys Timber SEC WRMT * * * * 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Neimur SEC TCND * * * * 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 North Deniliquin SEC DENI * * * * 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pinelea SEC TCPL * * * * 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Wakool SEC DRWK * * * * 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 West Warragoon SEC TCWW * * * * 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Wollamai East Escape BIWE * * * * 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Wollamai Escape BIOW 63 0 799 0 0.00 0.79 0.02 0.81 Sub total 112 Credited Escapes: Finley Escape (BIFE) 41 Net Discharges 71
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 72 of 273 Appendix 2.5: Total phosphorus levels within MIL stormwater escape system 2006/07 –
4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total May '08May June '07 June
4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 May '08May Jan. '08 -
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dec.'07 Number of samples Sept.'07-
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Aug. '07Aug. June '07 June - – 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 Total May '08May June '07 June 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sub total May '08May Jan. '08 -
Discharges Net 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 : Finley Escape (BIFE) Dec.'07 Sept.'07-
Total Phosphorus (tonnes)
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Aug. '07Aug. June '07 June -
* * * * * * * * * * * * * Credited Escapes Min. daily 0.057 0.078 0.031
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * Max. daily 0.115 0.280 0.097
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * 0.101 0.127 0.058 Median
Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * 0.093 0.153 0.061 Mean
Site JIJS JIBU BIFE BIBE DENI TUPJ TCPL BIWE BBR1 BIOW TCND DBCE NMBR DRWK MOXM WRMT TCWW
Stormwater Escape Channel Back Barooga SEC Berrigan Creek Escape Box Creek Burraboi SEC Murphys Timber SEC Burragorrimma SEC SECNeimur DC 2500 East North Deniliquin SEC Deniboota Canal Escape EscapeFinley SECLalalty Pinelea SEC Wakool SECWakool West Warragoon SEC (1) Wollamai East Escape Wollamai Escape *: insufficient data
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 73 of 273 Appendix 2.6: Total Nitrogen levels within MIL stormwater escape system 2007/08 –
5 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 0 Total May '08May June '07 June
3 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 0 May '08May Jan. '08 -
2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dec.'07 Sept.'07- Number of samples
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Aug. '07Aug. June '07 June - – 1.4 1.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total May '08May June '07 June 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sub total May '08May Jan. '08 -
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Net Discharges : Finley Escape (BIFE) Dec.'07 Sept.'07- Total Nitrogen (tonnes)
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Aug. '07Aug. June '07 June -
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * Credited Escapes 0.0 0.0 0.4 Min. daily
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * 0.3 1.7 1.0 Max. daily
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * 0.0 1.0 0.5 Median
Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * 0.1 0.9 0.6 Mean
Site JIJS JIBU BIFE BIBE DENI TUPJ BIWE TCPL BBR1 BIOW DBCE TCND NMBR DRWK MOXM WRMT TCWW
Stormwater Escape Channel Lalalty SECLalalty Finley EscapeFinley Wollamai Escape Deniboota Canal Escape Wollamai East Escape DC 2500 East West Warragoon SEC (1) Burragorrimma SEC SECWakool Burraboi SEC Pinelea SEC Box Creek North Deniliquin SEC Berrigan Creek Escape SECNeimur Back Barooga SEC Murphys Timber SEC *: insufficient data
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 74 of 273 Appendix 2.7: Turbidity levels at Murray Irrigation monitoring sites 2007/08
Turbidity (NTU)
Stormwater Escape Channel Site Mean Median Max. daily Min. daily Number of samples
Back Barooga SEC BBR1 129 114 275 12 5
Berrigan Creek Escape BIBE * * * * 1
Box Creek MOXM * * * * 0
Burraboi SEC JIBU * * * * 0
Burragorrimma SEC NMBR * * * * 0
DC 2500 East JIJS * * * * 0
Deniboota Canal Escape DBCE 270 279 439 84 4
Finley Escape BIFE 398 284 1084 69 5
Lalalty SEC TUPJ * * * * 0
Murphys Timber SEC WRMT * * * * 0
Neimur SEC TCND * * * * 0
North Deniliquin SEC DENI * * * * 0
Pinelea SEC TCPL * * * * 0
Wakool SEC DRWK * * * * 0
West Warragoon SEC (1) TCWW * * * * 0
Wollamai East Escape BIWE * * * * 0
Wollamai Escape BIOW * * * * 0
*: insufficient data
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 75 of 273 Appendix 2.8: Copy of letter from EPA regarding temporary variation to the licence for pesticide monitoring
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 76 of 273 Appendix 3: Landholder Chemical Usage Report 2007/08
Within the four Murray Land and Water Management Plan (LWMP) areas (Cadell, Berriquin, Denimein and Wakool), a wide range of chemicals are used for a variety of purposes. Chemical usage has the ability to impact upon receiving waterways through contaminated runoff. Murray Irrigation, the implementation authority for the Murray LWMPs, has procedures in place to minimise the environmental impact of chemical usage in our region.
We have an Environment Protection License issued by the NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC), which outlines a monitoring program and procedures to follow where surface water is discharged from the Murray Irrigation area into receiving waterways. The DECC requested Murray Irrigation to investigate chemical usage within the Murray LWMP area with a view to modifying the Environment Protection License. Landholder usage of chemicals is ascertained from the Murray LWMP Annual Landholder Survey. Landholders are required to indicate which agricultural chemicals have been used and in what situation. Each year 6% or 169 Murray LWMP landholdings are surveyed. Table 1 provides a summary of the major chemical usage within the Murray LWMP areas during 2007/08. These numbers are based on the raw survey data and are not extrapolated to represent the whole Murray LWMP region. The results indicate glyphosate to be the most commonly used chemical.
Table 1 Summary of major chemical usage by landholders – 2007/08
Landholder usage (no. of positive Situation Chemical used responses to use of the chemical)
2,4 D 8 Bifenthrin 6 Chlorsulfuron 30 Glyphosate 105 MCPA 7 Winter Crops Omethoate 55 Oxyfluorfen 4 Pendimethalin 3 Simazine 3 Triasulfuron 39 Trifluralin 51 Atrazine & 1 S-metolachlor Summer Cropping/ Chlorsulfuron 1 pasture Ioxynil octanoate 1 Methabenzthiazuron 1 2,4 D 7 Diuron 4 Channels/ Drains Glyphosate 60 Imazpyr 2 Winter Pasture MCPA 1 Bromoxynil 4 Annual Pasture Dimethoate 15 MCPA 7 2,4 D 3 Native Vegetation Glyphosate 5 2,4 D 6 Perennial Pasture Trifluralin 5 Carfentrazone-ethyl 2 Copper sulphate 2 Diquat 2 Vineyard Pyraclostrobin 2 Pyrimethanil 2 Sulphur 2
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 77 of 273 The following results are provided on the basis of LWMP drainage basin area. The location of each of these drainages basins is outlined in Appendix 2.
Summer Winter Annual Channels/ Perennial Native Vege- Crops/ Crops/ Other Vineyard Pasture Drains Pasture tation Pasture Pasture DC Murphys Timber Pendimethalin 1 Trifluralin 1 Booroobanilly SEC 2,4 D 1 Chlorsulfuron 3 Glyphosate 5 6 MCPA 1 Omethoate 5 Triasulfuron 5 Trifluralin 4 DC Box Creek 2,4 D 2 1 1 Chlorsulfuron 4 Dimethoate 1 Diquat 1 Glyphosate 6 16 2 4 MCPA 1 3 Metasulfuron 1 1 2 Omethoate 9 Oxyfluorfen 1 1 Pendimethalin 1 Triasulfuron 6 Triclopyr 1 Trifluralin 1 3 DC West Warragoon Glyphosphate 1 Omethoate 1 Trifluralin 1 DC Deniboota Escape Amitrole 1 Glyphosphate 1 DC Niemur 2,4 D 1 2 Chlorosulfuron 1 Diuron 1 Glyphosate 4 4 Omethoate 2 Oxyfluorfen 1 Trifluralin 2 DC 2500 East SEC 2,4 D 1 Diquat 1 Glyphosate 3 1 Omethoate 1 Triasulfuron 1 Trifluralin 1 Lalalty SEC Dimethoate 2 Diuron 1 Chlorsulfuron 4 Glyphosate 6 11 Omethoate 9 Triasulfuron 5 Trifluralin 7
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 78 of 273 Summer Winter Annual Channels/ Perennial Native Vege- Crops/ Crops/ Other Vineyard Pasture Drains Pasture tation Pasture Pasture Logie Brae SEC Bromoxynil 2 Chlorsulfuron 3 Imazapyr 1 Glyphosate 4 1 10 MCPA 1 1 2 Omethoate 1 5 Triasulfuron 5 Trifluralin 1 4 North Deniliquin SEC Chlorsulfuron 1 Diquat 1 Diuron 1 Glyphosate 1 3 Omethoate 1 Triclopyr 1 Trifluralin 1 Pinelea SEC Chlorsulfuron 1 Dimethoate 1 Glyphosate 1 1 MCPA 1 Omethoate 1 Wakool SEC 2,4 D 1 Glyphosate 1 1 Triasulfuron 1 Trifluralin 1 Wollamai SEC Glyphosate 1 Triasulfuron 1 Trifluralin 1
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 79 of 273 Murray LWMP Annual Survey (2007/08) – Chemical Usage Question
9: Chemical use
9.1 What chemicals have you used on this holding in 2007/08? (Please tick)
Winter Crops Tick Glean, Lusta or Tackle Roundup (Glyphosphate) Logran, Nugran, Lonestar Treflan, Triflur X (Trifluralin)
Bifenthrin Le-Mat (Omethoate) Other …………….. Rice Londax MCPA Ordram (Molinate) Lorsban (Chlorpyrifos) Other …………….. Annual pasture (winter) Bromicide Dimethoate Other …………….. Perennial pastures (summer) 2,4-D Treflan, Triflur X (Trifluralin) Other ……………..
Summer crops / vegetables / fruit / vines Primextra Gold Other …………….. Channels / Drains 2,4 D Diuron Roundup (Glyphosphate) Other …………….. Other Other …………….. Other ……………..
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 80 of 273 Location of the 28 formal drainage basins within the Murray LWMP area
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 81 of 273 Trends in recorded chemical usage in the Murray LWMP area 2003/04—2007/08
Number of landholdings 2003/04 400 2004/05 350 2005/06 300 250 2006/07 200 2007/08 150 100 50 0 D - 2,4 MCPA Diuron Molinate Imazapyr Trifluralin Omethoate Glyphosate Triasulfuron Bensulfuron Tralkoxydim Chlorpyrifos Thiobencarb Chlorsulfuron
Diquat Diquat + Paraquat Chemical used
Trends in Chemical Usage by Enterprise Type 2003/04-2007/08
Number of positive Rice Chemical Usage responses 2003/04 100 2004/05 Note: 2007-08,no chemical 2005/06 usage recorded for rice 80 2006/07 2007/08 60
40
20
0 MCPA Molinate Benzofenap Bensulfuron Thiobencarb
Chloropyrifos Active Constituent
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 82 of 273 Number of positive responses Winter Crops Chemical Usage 200 2003/04 180 2004/05 160 2005/06 2006/07 140 2007/08 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 - MCPA methyl Atrazine Diclofop Simazine Trifluralin Bifenthrin Clopyralid Omethoate Glyphosate Dimethoate Triasulfuron Tralkoxydim Chlorsulfuron Active Constituent
Winter Pasture Chemical Usage Number of positive responses 2003/04 100 2004/05 90 2005/06 80 2006/07 70 2007/08 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 MCPA Simazine Omethoate Diflulenican Active Constituent
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 83 of 273 Number of positive 2003/04 responses Summer Cropping/Pasture Chemical Usage 10 2004/05 2005/06 9 Note: 2007-08,no chemical usage recorded for listed chemicals for 2006/07 8 Summer Cropping/Pasture 2007/08 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 MCPA Diquat + Diquat Paraquat Trifluralin 2,4 D esterD 2,4 Omethoate Omethoate Endosulfan Glyphosate Active Constituent
Number of positive Channels and Drains Chemical Usage responses 2003/04
160 2004/05 140 2005/06 120 2006/07 2007/08 100 80 60 40 20 0 MCPA Diuron Amitrole Imazapyr 2,4 D esterD 2,4 Endosulfan Glyphosate Active Constituent
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 84 of 273
Murray LWMP Annual Survey 2007/08
Name: ______(Please Print)
Holding Reference No.: ______
Farm area: ______(hectares)
LWMP District: Berriquin
Date of interview: ____/____/ 2008
Interviewer’s Name: ______(Please Print)
Please note – questionnaire is for financial period 2007/08
MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED JUNE 2008 Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 85 of 273 1 SURVEYOR NOTE: For completing tables please see General Notes 1-3 (2008 Surveyors Notes page 1)
1: Enterprise type and land use 2. Farm Planning
1.1 What is the main enterprise on this holding? 2.1 Do you have a surveyor designed irrigation Please tick one: or drainage plan? Mixed enterprises – rice ...... Yes No Mixed enterprises – no rice ...... 2.2 What is the area laid out to irrigation on this Mixed enterprises – livestock ...... holding? Dairying ...... ...... ha Horticulture ...... Other ...... 2.3 What proportion of this holding’s irrigated area is represented on the plan? ...... % 1.2 What were the land uses on this holding as at 30th June 2008? 2.4 Did you undertake farm planning activities SURVEYOR NOTE: Total area Land use table must equal size of holding (irrigation surveying and / or design) in 2007/08, and have not and do not intend to access an LWMP incentive? Land use Area (ha) Yes No If No, then go to Q 3.1. Irrigated annual pasture 2.5 What was the purpose of the 2007/08 farm Irrigated perennial pasture (including lucerne) planning? Dryland pastures a) Introduce changes to an existing plan
Winter crops Yes No b) Commence a farm plan. Horticulture - perennial (Fruit, vine and nuts) Yes No Horticulture – annual (Vegetables) c) Develop part of the farm (paddock scale surveying). Native vegetation (grass / tree / shrub) Yes No Fallowed land d) Other (please summarise) Stubble ...... Dryland ......
Infrastructure 2.6 What was spent on farm planning in Other 2007/08? Total Item Amount ($)
a) Surveyor / Designer
b) Soil drilling c) Own time (hours @ $20 per hour)
d) Other …………….
e) Total
MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED JUNE 2008
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 86 of 2732 SURVEYOR NOTE: For completing tables please see General Notes 1-3 (2008 Surveyors Notes page 1)
3: Irrigation recycling and Storage
3.1 Do you have an irrigation recycling system 3.7 What was spent on constructing the irrigation on this holding? recycling system in 2007/08? Yes No If No, then go to Q 4.1. (e.g.: drains, sump, recycle channels and associated equipment) 3.2 What volumes of water can be stored in: Item Amount ($)
a) Materials / equipment a) Sump/Main Drains …………ML b) Fuel b) Storage …………ML c) Contractors
d) Own time (hours @ $20 per hour
3.3 Has the Sump and/or Storage been drilled or e) Other ………………………
seepage tested? f) Total Yes No
3.4 What proportion of the entire holding can be 3.8 What was spent on constructing the storage in drained to a recycle point/s? 2007/08? ...... % Item Amount ($)
3.5 What proportion of the irrigated area within a) Materials / equipment the holding can be irrigated with recycled b) Fuel water? ...... % c) Contractors
d) Own time (hours @ $20 per hour) 3.6 Did you undertake irrigation recycling and/or e) Other ……………………… storage works in 2007/08, and have not and do not intend to access an LWMP incentive? f) Total Yes No If No, then go to Q 3.9. 3.9 What was spent on operating and maintaining the irrigation recycling system in 2007/08? (e.g.: drains, sump, recycle channels and associated equipment)
Item Amount ($) a) Materials / equipment
b) Fuel / electricity
c) Contractors
d) Own time (hours @ $20 per hour)
e) Other ………………………
f) Total
MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED JUNE 2008 Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 87 of 273 3 SURVEYOR NOTE: For completing tables please see General Notes 1-3 (2008 Surveyors Notes page 1)
4: Irrigation development 5: Soil management
4.1 What area of this holding is landformed 5.1 Did you apply lime to pasture or cropping (laser graded)? paddocks in 2007/08? a) Total area landformed on holding ...... ha Yes No If No, then go to Q 6.1.
b) Area landformed in 2007/08 ...... ha 5.2 If yes, what was the application rate? 4.2 Of the area landformed in 2007/08, what was previously dryland? a) Application rate ...... tonnes/ha (e.g. never been irrigated) ...... ha b) Area ...... hectares
4.3 Did you undertake any paddock improvements, 2007/08? (Not incl. landforming, but including conversion to side ditch, installing permanent bay outlets etc) Yes No If No, then go to Q 4.5.
4.4 If Yes, what was spent on paddock improve- 6: Pasture ments in 2007/08?
SURVEYOR NOTE: It is not essential that pastures be included in the land Item Amount ($) use table (Q1.2) to respond to this question
a) Contractors 6.1 Did you sow perennial species (e.g., lucerne, b) Own time (hours @ $20 per hour) phalaris) into annual pastures on this holding
c) Fuel in 2007/08? Yes No If No, then go to Q 6.4. d) Fencing / structures
e) Other ……………………… 6.2 If Yes, was the pasture paddock: f) TOTAL a) Irrigated Yes No.
4.5 Did you convert an area of flood irrigation to a b) Dryland Yes No pressurised irrigation system on this holding in 2007/08? (e.g, Micro Irrigation, Centre Pivot) 6.3 What was the rate of sowing and area sown to perennial species? Yes No If No, then go to Q 4.8.
4.6 If Yes, how many hectares was converted to a a) Irrigated pasture pressurised system? Seeding rate (kg/ha) Area sown (ha)
(Note: Exclude land that was previously dryland)
.………………..ha
4.7 What type of pressurised system was in- stalled? b) Dryland pasture ……………………………………………………… Seeding rate (kg/ha) Area sown (ha)
4.8 Did you undertake EM 31 surveying in 2007/08?
Yes No If No, then go to Q 5.1.
4.9 If Yes, what was the area surveyed?
...... ha
MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED JUNE 2008
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 88 of 2734 SURVEYOR NOTE: For completing tables please see General Notes 1-3 (2008 Surveyors Notes page 1)
7: Native vegetation 9: Chemical use
7.1 Did you carry out any maintenance of 9.1 What chemicals have you used on native vegetation on this holding during this holding in 2007/08? (Please tick)
2007/08 (both remnant and planted areas Winter Crops Tick >10 meters wide), and have not and do not intend to access an LWMP incentive? Glean, Lusta or Tackle Roundup (Glyphosphate) Yes No If No, then go to Q 8.1. Logran, Nugran, Lonestar 7.2 If Yes, what did you spend on maintaining Treflan, Triflur X (Trifluralin) native vegetation in 2007/08? Bifenthrin Item Amount ($) Le-Mat (Omethoate)
a) Materials Other …………….. Rice b) Own time (hours @ $20 per hour) Londax
c) Contractors MCPA Ordram (Molinate) d) Chemicals Lorsban (Chlorpyrifos) e) Other Other ……………..
f) TOTAL Annual pasture (winter) Bromicide
Dimethoate Other ……………..
8: Groundwater pumping Perennial pastures (summer)
2,4-D
8.1 Do you have a groundwater bore pump/ Treflan, Triflur X (Trifluralin)
bore pumps in operation on this holding? Other …………….. (not stock and domestic bores) Summer crops / vegetables / Yes No If No, then go to Q 9.1. fruit / vines
Primextra Gold
8.2 If Yes, what are the number of bores: Other ……………..
Item Number of Channels / Drains bores 2,4 D a) Shallow (less than 10 metres) Diuron
b) Deep (more than 10 metres deep) Roundup (Glyphosphate) Other ……………..
Other
8.3 What volume did you pump from the shallow Other …………….. bore/s in 2007/08? Other ……………...... ML
Thank you for your time in completing this questionnaire.
MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED JUNE 2008 Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 89 of 273 5
Murray LWMP Annual Survey 2007/08
Name: ______(Please Print)
Holding Reference No.: ______
Farm area: ______(hectares)
LWMP District: Cadell
Date of interview: ____/____/ 2008
Interviewer’s Name: ______(Please Print)
Please note – questionnaire is for financial period 2007/08
MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED JUNE 2008 Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 90 of 273 1 SURVEYOR NOTE: For completing tables please see General Notes 1-3 (2008 Surveyors Notes page 1)
1: Enterprise type and land use 2. Farm Planning
1.1 What is the main enterprise on this holding? 2.1 Do you have a surveyor designed irrigation Please tick one: or drainage plan? Mixed enterprises – rice ...... Yes No Mixed enterprises – no rice ......
Mixed enterprises – livestock ...... 2.2 What is the area laid out to irrigation on this Dairying ...... holding? Horticulture ...... …………...ha
Other ...... 2.3 What proportion of this holding’s irrigated area is represented on the plan? 1.2 What were the land uses on this ...... % holding as at 30th June 2008?
2.4 Did you undertake farm planning activities SURVEYOR NOTE: Total area Land use table must equal size of holding (irrigation surveying and / or design) in 2007/08, and have not and do not intend to
access an LWMP incentive? Land use Area (ha) Yes No If No, then go to Q 3.1. Irrigated annual pasture
Irrigated perennial pasture (including lucerne) 2.5 What was the purpose of the 2007/08 farm planning? Dryland pastures a) Introduce changes to an existing plan Winter crops Yes No Horticulture - perennial b) Commence a farm plan. (Fruit, vine and nuts) Yes No Horticulture – annual (Vegetables) c) Develop part of the farm (paddock scale sur- Native vegetation (grass / tree / shrub) veying). Yes No Fallowed land d) Other (please summarise) Stubble …………………………… Dryland
Infrastructure 2.6 What was spent on farm planning in 2007/08? Other Item Amount ($) Total a) Surveyor / Designer
b) Soil drilling
c) Own time (hours @ $20 per hour
d) Other …………….
e) Total
MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED JUNE 2008
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 91 of 2732 SURVEYOR NOTE: For completing tables please see General Notes 1-3 (2008 Surveyors Notes page 1)
3: Irrigation recycling and Storage
3.1 Is there an irrigation recycling system on this 3.8 What was spent on constructing the storage in holding? 2007/08?
Yes No Item Amount ($) If No, then go to Q 3.10. a) Materials / equipment
3.2 What volumes of water can be stored in: b) Fuel a) Sump/Main Drains …………ML c) Contractors c) Storage ...……….ML d) Own time (hours @ $20 per hour)
e) 0ther ………… 3.3 Has the Sump and/or Storage been drilled or seepage tested? f) Total Yes No
3.9 What was spent on operating and maintaining 3.4 What proportion of the entire holding can be the irrigation recycling system in 2007/08? drained to a recycle point/s? (e.g.: drains, sump, recycle channels and ...... % associated equipment)
3.5 What proportion of the irrigated area within Item Amount ($)
the holding can be irrigated with recycled a) Materials / equipment water? b) Fuel / electricity ...... % c) Contractors 3.6 Did you undertake irrigation recycling and/or d) Own time (hours @ $20 per hour)
storage works in 2007/08, and have not and e) Other ……………………… do not intend to access an LWMP incentive? f) Total Yes No If No, then go to Q 3.9. 3.10 Did you carry out any maintenance of supply 3.7 What was spent on constructing the irriga- channels on this holding in 2007/08? tion recycling system in 2007/08? Yes No If No, then go to Q 4.1. (e.g.: drains, sump, recycle channels and
associated equipment) 3.11 What was spent on maintaining supply Item Amount ($) channels in 2007/08? a) Materials / equipment Item Amount ($) b) Fuel a) Contractors c) Contractors b) Own time (hours @ $20 per hour) d) Own time (hours @ $20 per hour c) Fuel
e) Other ………….. d) Desilting
f) Total e) Chemicals
f) Other …………………….
g) Total
MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED JUNE 2008 Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 92 of 273 3 SURVEYOR NOTE: For completing tables please see General Notes 1-3 (2008 Surveyors Notes page 1) 4: Irrigation development 5: Irrigation management
4.1 What area of this holding is landformed 5.1 Did you apply any of the following tech- (laser graded)? niques to schedule irrigations in 2007/08? a) Total area landformed on holding ...... ha If No, then go to Q 6.1.
b) Area landformed in 2007/08 ...... ha a) External evaporation and rainfall data (MIL, CSIRO, Bureau of Meteorology)? 4.2 Of the area landformed in 2007/08, Yes No what was previously dryland?
(e.g. never been irrigated) ...... ha b) On-farm evaporation and rainfall data?
Yes No 4.3 Did you undertake any paddock improvements, 2007/08? (Not incl. landforming, but including conversion to c) Soil moisture equipment side ditch, installing permanent bay outlets etc) (Tensiometer, Gopher, EnviroSCAN)? Yes No If No, then go to Q 4.5. Yes No
4.4 If Yes, what was spent on paddock d) Other (please explain) improvements in 2007/08?
Item Amount ($) ......
a) Contractors ...... b) Own time (hours @ $20 per hour) c) Fuel 5.2 On what land uses did you practise irrigation scheduling and what area was laid out to d) Fencing / structures those land uses? e) Other ……………. Land use (e.g. pastures) Area (ha) f) TOTAL
4.5 Did you convert an area of flood irrigation to a
pressurised irrigation system on this holding
in 2007/08? (e.g. Micro Irrigation, Centre Pivot) Yes No If No, then go to Q 4.8.
4.6 If Yes, how many hectares were converted to a pressurised system? (Note: Exclude land that was previously dryland).
...... ha
4.7 What type of pressurised system
was installed?
......
4.8 Did you undertake EM 31 surveying in 2007/08? Yes No If No, then go to Q 5.1.
4.9 If Yes, what was the area surveyed?
...... ha
MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED JUNE 2008
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 93 of 2734 SURVEYOR NOTE: For completing tables please see General Notes 1-3 (2008 Surveyors Notes page 1)
6: Soil management & farming systems 7: Pasture
6.1 Did you practice any conservation farming SURVEYOR NOTE: It is not essential that pastures be included in the land use table (Q1.2) to respond to this question on this holding in 2007/08? Yes No 7.1 Did you sow perennial species (e.g., lucerne, If No, then go to Q 6.4. phalaris) into annual pastures on this holding in 2007/08? 6.2 What crop / pasture establishment Yes No If No, then go to Q 8.1. techniques did you apply?
Crop / pasture establishment technique Area (ha) 7.2 If Yes, was the pasture paddock: a) Irrigated Yes No. Direct drilling of pasture paddock b) Dryland Yes No Direct drilled, ie no cultivation, winter crop into 2006/2007 rice stubble 7.3 What was the rate of sowing and area Direct drilled, ie no cultivation, winter crop into other crop stubble, eg soybeans or barley sown to perennial species?
Other techniques, eg one cultivation a) Irrigated pasture
Other: Seeding rate (kg/ha) Area sown (ha)
Other:
6.3 How did you manage your previous crop residues / stubble? (tick whichever applies) b) Dryland pasture Management Winter Rice Summer crops method crops Seeding rate (kg/ha) Area sown (ha)
Grazing
Burning
Baling Mulching
Other
6.4 Is dryland wheat or barley normally grown on this holding? Yes No If No, then go to Q 6.6.
6.5 Were either canola, field peas, lupins or vetch grown in 2007/08 as a dryland break crop for wheat or barley? Yes No
6.6 Did you apply lime to pasture or cropping paddocks in 2007/08? Yes No If No, then go to Q 7.1. 6.7 If yes, what was the a) application rate ...... tonnes/ha b) area ...... ha
MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED JUNE 2008 Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 94 of 273 5 SURVEYOR NOTE: For completing tables please see General Notes 1-3 (2008 Surveyors Notes page 1)
8: Native vegetation 9: Chemical use
8.1 Did you carry out any maintenance of 9.1 What chemicals have you used on native vegetation on this holding during this holding in 2007/08? (Please tick) 2007/08 (both remnant and planted areas >10 meters wide), and have not and do not Winter Crops Tick intend to access an LWMP incentive? Glean, Lusta or Tackle
Yes No If No, then go to Q 9.1. Roundup (Glyphosphate)
Logran, Nugran, Lonestar
8.2 If Yes, what did you spend on maintaining Treflan, Triflur X (Trifluralin) native vegetation in 2007/08? Bifenthrin Item Amount ($) Le-Mat (Omethoate) a) Materials Other ……………..
Rice b) Own time (hours @ $20 per hour) Londax c) Contractors MCPA
d) Chemicals Ordram (Molinate) Lorsban (Chlorpyrifos) e) Other ……………. Other …………….. f) TOTAL Annual pasture (winter)
Bromicide Dimethoate
Other …………….. Perennial pastures (summer)
2,4-D
Treflan, Triflur X (Trifluralin) Other ……………..
Summer crops / vegetables / fruit / vines Primextra Gold
Other ……………..
Channels / Drains 2,4 D
Diuron Roundup (Glyphosphate)
Other …………….. Other
Other ……………..
Other ……………..
Thank you for your time in completing this questionnaire.
MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED JUNE 2008
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 95 of 2736
Murray LWMP Annual Survey 2007/08
Name: ______(Please Print)
Holding Reference No.: ______
Farm area: ______(hectares)
LWMP District: Denimein
Date of interview: ____/____/ 2008
Interviewer’s Name: ______(Please Print)
Please note – questionnaire is for financial period 2007/08
MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED JUNE 2008 Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 96 of 273 1 SURVEYOR NOTE: For completing tables please see General Notes 1-3 (2008 Surveyors Notes page 1)
1: Enterprise type and land use 2. Farm Planning
1.1 What is the main enterprise on this holding? 2.1 Do you have a surveyor designed irrigation Please tick one: or drainage plan? Mixed enterprises – rice ...... Yes No Mixed enterprises – no rice ......
Mixed enterprises – livestock ...... 2.2 What is the area laid out to irrigation on this Dairying ...... holding? ...... ha Horticulture ...... Other ...... 2.3 What proportion of this holding’s irrigated area is represented on the plan? 1.2 What were the land uses on this ...... % holding as at 30th June 2008? 2.4 Did you undertake farm planning activities
SURVEYOR NOTE: Total area Land use table must equal size of holding (irrigation surveying and / or design) in 2006/07, and have not and do not intend to access an LWMP incentive? Land use Area (ha) Yes No If No, then go to Q 3.1.
Irrigated annual pasture
Irrigated perennial pasture, 2.5 What was the purpose of the 2007/08 farm including lucerne planning? Dryland pastures a) Introduce changes to an existing plan
Winter crops Yes No b) Commence a farm plan. Horticulture - perennial (Fruit, vine and nuts) Yes No Horticulture – annual (Vegetables) c) Develop part of the farm (paddock scale surveying). Native vegetation (grass / tree / shrub) Yes No Fallowed land d) Other (please summarise) Stubble ......
Dryland ......
Infrastructure 2.6 What was spent on farm planning in 2007/08? Other Item Amount ($) Total
a) Surveyor / Designer
b) Soil drilling c) Own time (hours @ $20 per hour)
d) Other …………….
e) Total
MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED JUNE 2008
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 97 of 2732 SURVEYOR NOTE: For completing tables please see General Notes 1-3 (2008 Surveyors Notes page 1)
3: Irrigation recycling and Storage
3.1 Do you have an irrigation recycling system 3.7 What was spent on constructing the on this holding? irrigation recycling system in 2007/08? Yes No (e.g.: drains, sump, recycle channels and If No, then go to Q 4.1. associated equipment)
3.2 What volumes of water can be stored in: Item Amount ($) a) Materials / equipment a) Sump/Main Drains …………ML b) Fuel
c) Contractors b) Storage …………ML d) Own time (hours @ $20 per hour
e) Other ……………………… 3.3 Has the Sump and/or Storage been drilled or seepage tested? f) Total Yes No
3.8 What was spent on constructing the storage in 3.4 What proportion of the entire holding can be 2007/08? drained to a recycle point/s? ...... % Item Amount ($)
3.5 What proportion of the irrigated area within a) Materials / equipment the holding can be irrigated with recycled b) Fuel water? c) Contractors ...... % d) Own time (hours @ $20 per hour) 3.6 Did you undertake irrigation recycling and/or e) Other ………………………
storage works in 2007/08, and have not and f) Total do not intend to access an LWMP incentive? Yes No If No, then go to Q 3.9. 3.9 What was spent on operating and maintaining the irrigation recycling system in 2007/08? (e.g.: drains, sump, recycle channels and associated equipment)
Item Amount ($) a) Materials / equipment
b) Fuel / electricity
c) Contractors
d) Own time (hours @ $20 per hour)
e) Other ………………………
f) Total
MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED JUNE 2008 Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 98 of 273 3 SURVEYOR NOTE: For completing tables please see General Notes 1-3 (2008 Surveyors Notes page 1)
4: Irrigation development 5: Soil management
5.1 Did you apply lime to pasture or cropping 4.1 What area of this holding is landformed paddocks in 2007/08? (laser graded)? a) Total area landformed on holding ...... ha Yes No If No, then go to Q 6.1.
b) Area landformed in 2007/08 ...... ha 5.2 If yes, what was the application rate?
4.2 Of the area landformed in 2007/08, a) Application rate ……………..tonnes/ha what was previously dryland? (e.g. never been irrigated) ...... ha b) Area …………………………..hectares
4.3 Did you undertake any paddock improvements, 2007/08? 6: Pasture
(Not incl. landforming, but including conversion to SURVEYOR NOTE: It is not essential that pastures be included in the land side ditch, installing permanent bay outlets etc) use table (Q1.2) to respond to this question Yes No If No, then go to Q 4.5. 6.1 Did you sow perennial species (e.g., lucerne, phalaris) into annual pastures on this holding 4.4 If Yes, what was spent on paddock improve- in 2007/08? ments in 2007/08? Yes No If No, then go to Q 6.4. Item Amount ($) a) Contractors 6.2 If Yes, was the pasture paddock: b) Own time (hours @ $20 per hour) a) Irrigated Yes No. c) Fuel b) Dryland Yes No
d) Fencing / structures 6.3 What was the rate of sowing and area e) Other ……………………… sown to perennial species? f) TOTAL a) Irrigated pasture
4.5 Did you convert an area of flood irrigation to a Seeding rate (kg/ha) Area sown (ha) pressurised irrigation system on this holding in 2007/08? (e.g, Micro Irrigation, Centre Pivot)
Yes No If No, then go to Q 4.8.
4.6 If Yes, how many hectares was converted to a b) Dryland pasture pressurised system? Seeding rate (kg/ha) Area sown (ha) (Note: Exclude land that was previously dryland)
.………………..ha
4.7 What type of pressurised system was in-
stalled? ……………………………………………………… 6.4 What techniques are applied to achieve a balanced pasture comprised of perennial and 4.8 Did you undertake EM 31 surveying in annual species? (tick appropriate box) 2007/08? a) No specific intervention Yes No If No, then go to Q 5.1. b) Strategic interventions
4.9 If Yes, what was the area surveyed? i) Rotational spelling and grazing ii) Set stocking rate throughout year …………….ha iii) Grazing and or slashing of dry residue
MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED JUNE 2008
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 99 of 2734 SURVEYOR NOTE: For completing tables please see General Notes 1-3 (2008 Surveyors Notes page 1)
7: Native vegetation 9: Groundwater pumping
7.1 Did you carry out any maintenance of 9.1 Do you have a groundwater bore pump/ native vegetation on this holding during 2007/08 (both remnant and planted areas bore pumps in operation on this holding? >10 meters wide), and have not and do not (not stock and domestic bores) intend to access an LWMP incentive? Yes No If No, then go to Q 10.1. Yes No If No, then go to Q 8.1. 9.2 If Yes, what are the number of bores:
7.2 If Yes, what did you spend on maintaining Item Number of native vegetation in 2007/08? bores a) Shallow (less than 10 metres) Item Amount ($) b) Deep (more than 10 metres deep) a) Materials b) Own time (hours @ $20 per hour) c) Contractors 9.3 What volume did you pump from the shallow bore/s in 2007/08? d) Chemicals ...... ML e) Other ……………………. 9.4 What volume did you pump from the deep f) TOTAL bore/s in 2007/08? ...... ML
8: Vegetation to reduce salinity 9.5 Did you install or upgrade a deep bore/deep bores in 2007/08?
SURVEYOR NOTE: This question's focus is upon establishing saltbush or lucerne/ native grasses in dryland areas, specifically for the purpose of salinity management Item Amount ($)
8.1 Did you establish saltbush or lucerne/native a) Drilling/Construction grasses in dryland areas on this holding, or were trees planted along seeping channels, b) Pumps and associated equipment
and have not and do not intend to access an c) Other ……………………. LWMP incentive? Yes No If No, then go to Q 9.1. d) TOTAL
8.2 If Yes, what was spent on establishing vegeta- tion to reduce salinity in 2007/08?
Item Amount ($)
a) Seed/Seedlings
b) Own time (hours @ $20 per hour)
c) Fuel
d) Contractors
e) Fences
f) Other ………………………
e) TOTAL
MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED JUNE 2008 Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 100 of 273 5 SURVEYOR NOTE: For completing tables please see General Notes 1-3 (2008 Surveyors Notes page 1)
10: Chemical use
10.1 What chemicals have you used on this holding in 2007/08? (Please tick)
Winter Crops Tick
Glean, Lusta or Tackle
Roundup (Glyphosphate)
Logran, Nugran, Lonestar Treflan, Triflur X (Trifluralin)
Bifenthrin Le-Mat (Omethoate)
Other …………….. Rice
Londax
MCPA Ordram (Molinate)
Lorsban (Chlorpyrifos) Other ……………..
Annual pasture (winter) Bromicide
Dimethoate Other ……………..
Perennial pastures (summer)
2,4-D
Treflan, Triflur X (Trifluralin)
Other …………….. Summer crops / vegetables / fruit / vines
Primextra Gold
Other …………….. Channels / Drains
2,4 D Diuron
Roundup (Glyphosphate) Other ……………..
Other
Other ……………..
Other ……………..
Thank you for your time in completing this questionnaire.
MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED JUNE 2008
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 101 of 2736
Murray LWMP Annual Survey 2007/08
Name: ______(Please Print)
Holding Reference No.: ______
Farm area: ______(hectares)
LWMP District: Wakool
Date of interview: ____/____/ 2008
Interviewer’s Name: ______(Please Print)
Please note – questionnaire is for financial period 2007/08
MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED JUNE 2008 Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 102 of 273 1 SURVEYOR NOTE: For completing tables please see General Notes 1-3 (2008 Surveyors Notes page 1)
1: Enterprise type and land use 2. Farm Planning
1.1 What is the main enterprise on this holding? 2.1 Do you have a surveyor designed irrigation Please tick one: or drainage plan? Mixed enterprises – rice ...... Yes No. Mixed enterprises – no rice ...... 2.2 What is the area laid out to irrigation on this Mixed enterprises – livestock ...... holding? ...... ha Dairying ...... Horticulture ...... 2.3 What proportion of this holding’s irrigated Other ...... area is represented on the plan? ...... % 1.2 What were the landuses on this holding as at 30th June 2008? 2.4 Did you undertake farm planning activities
(irrigation surveying and / or design) in SURVEYOR NOTE: Total area Land use table must equal size of holding 2007/08, and have not and do not intend to access an LWMP incentive?
Yes No If No, then go to Q 3.1. Land use Area (ha)
Irrigated annual pasture 2.5 What was the purpose of the 2007/08 farm Irrigated perennial pasture (including lucerne) planning?
Dryland pastures a) Introduce changes to an existing plan Yes No Winter crops b) Commence a farm plan. Horticulture - perennial Yes No (Fruit, vine and nuts) c) Develop part of the farm Horticulture – annual (Vegetables) (paddock scale surveying). Native vegetation (grass / tree / shrub) Yes No Fallowed land d) Other (please summarise)
Stubble ...... Dryland 2.6 What was spent on farm planning in Infrastructure 2007/08? Other Item Amount ($)
Total a) Surveyor / Designer
b) Soil drilling
c) Own time (hours @ $20 per hour)
d) Other …………….
e) Total
MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED JUNE 2008 Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 103 of 2732 SURVEYOR NOTE: For completing tables please see General Notes 1-3 (2008 Surveyors Notes page 1)
3: Irrigation recycling and Storage
3.1 Do you have an irrigation recycling system 3.7 What was spent on constructing the on this holding? irrigation recycling system in 2007/08? Yes No (e.g.: drains, sump, recycle channels and If No, then go to Q 4.1. associated equipment)
3.2 What volumes of water can be stored in: Item Amount ($) a) Materials / equipment a) Sump/Main Drains …………ML b) Fuel
c) Contractors c) Storage ...……….ML d) Own time (hours @ $20 per hour
e) Other ……………………… 3.3 Has the Sump and/or Storage been drilled or seepage tested? f) Total Yes No
3.8 What was spent on constructing the storage in 3.4 What proportion of the entire holding can be 2007/08? drained to a recycle point? ...... % Item Amount ($)
a) Materials / equipment 3.5 What proportion of the irrigated area within b) Fuel the holding can be irrigated with recycled water? c) Contractors ...... % d) Own time (hours @ $20 per hour)
e) Other ……………………… 3.6 Did you undertake irrigation recycling and/or storage works in 2007/08, and have not and f) Total do not intend to access an LWMP incentive? Yes No If No, then go to Q 3.9. 3.9 What was spent on operating and maintaining the irrigation recycling system in 2007/08? (e.g.: drains, sump, recycle channels and associated equipment)
Item Amount ($)
a) Materials / equipment
b) Fuel / electricity
c) Contractors
d) Own time (hours @ $20 per hour)
e) Other ………………………
f) Total
MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED JUNE 2008 Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 104 of 273 3 SURVEYOR NOTE: For completing tables please see General Notes 1-3 (2008 Surveyors Notes page 1)
4: Irrigation development 5: Soil management
4.1 What area of this holding is landformed 5.1 Did you apply lime to pasture or cropping (laser graded)? paddocks in 2007/08? a) Total area landformed on holding ...... ha Yes No If No, then go to Q 6.1.
b) Area landformed in 2007/08 ...... ha 5.2 If yes, what was the application rate? 4.2 Of the area landformed in 2007/08, what was previously dryland? a) Application rate ...... tonnes/ha (e.g. never been irrigated) ...... ha b) Area ...... hectares
4.3 Did you undertake any paddock improvements, 2007/08? (Not incl. landforming, but including conversion to side ditch, installing permanent bay outlets etc) Yes No If No, then go to Q 4.5.
4.4 If Yes, what was spent on paddock improve- 6: Native vegetation ments in 2007/08?
Item Amount ($) a) Contractors 6.1 Did you carry out any maintenance of
b) Own time (hours @ $20 per hour) native vegetation on this holding during 2007/08 (both remnant and planted areas c) Fuel >10 meters wide), and have not and do not d) Fencing / structures intend to access an LWMP incentive? e) Other ……………………… Yes No If No, then go to Q 7.1. f) TOTAL
6.2 If Yes, what did you spend on maintaining 4.5 Did you convert an area of flood irrigation to a native vegetation in 2007/08? pressurised irrigation system on this holding Item Amount ($) in 2007/08? (e.g, Micro Irrigation, Centre Pivot) a) Materials Yes No If No, then go to Q 4.8.
b) Own time (hours @ $20 per hour) 4.6 If Yes, how many hectares was converted to a pressurised system? c) Contractors (Note: Exclude land that was previously dryland) d) Chemicals .………………..ha e) Other ………………………
4.7 What type of pressurised system was in- f) TOTAL stalled? ………………………………………………………
4.8 Did you undertake EM 31 surveying in 2007/08? Yes No If No, then go to Q 5.1.
4.9 If Yes, what was the area surveyed?
...... ha
MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED JUNE 2008 Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 105 of 2734 SURVEYOR NOTE: For completing tables please see General Notes 1-3 (2008 Surveyors Notes page 1)
7: Chemical use
7.1 What chemicals have you used on this holding in 2007/08? (Please tick)
Winter Crops Tick Glean, Lusta or Tackle
Roundup (Glyphosphate) Logran, Nugran, Lonestar
Treflan, Triflur X (Trifluralin) Bifenthrin
Le-Mat (Omethoate)
Other …………….. Rice
Londax MCPA
Ordram (Molinate) Lorsban (Chlorpyrifos)
Other …………….. Annual pasture (winter)
Bromicide Dimethoate
Other ……………..
Perennial pastures (summer) 2,4-D
Treflan, Triflur X (Trifluralin) Other ……………..
Summer crops / vegetables / fruit / vines
Primextra Gold Other ……………..
Channels / Drains 2,4 D
Diuron Roundup (Glyphosphate)
Other ……………..
Other Other ……………..
Other ……………..
Thank you for your time in completing this questionnaire.
MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED JUNE 2008 Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 106 of 273 5
URRAY M Murray Irrigation Limited A.B.N. 23067 197 933 Land and Water Management Plans
MURRAY LWMP ANNUAL SURVEY
SURVEYORS NOTES
June 2008
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 107 of 273 INTRODUCTION
Background. The Murray Land and Water Management Plans (LWMPs) are a natural resource management program aimed at ensuring the sustainability of the mid-Murray region. The LWMPs were developed between government and the local community. The costs of works relating to the LWMPs are shared between government and the community. Some of the community costs are in-kind contributions and cash contributions that cannot be tracked by the LWMP accounting, however they are still required to be accounted for. We therefore have the LWMP annual survey to capture the additional money spent by the community in implementing the LWMPs.
Survey period. The responses from landholders are for the financial year 2007/08 where the commencing date is 1 July 2007 and the concluding one is 30 June 2008.
The Notes are presented in the same order as the questions.
Completing the form. When completing the form please: Use a black / blue pen; Leave boxes blank if not applicable, eg tick only yes or no; Show whole dollars only; Where a landholder revises their response ensure the revised response is clear; Include totals where sought.
Surveying landholders. When you attend a landholders home and are conducting the interview please ensure you cover the following points: Explain the purpose of the survey (see ‘Background’ section); Remind the landholder that all survey responses are confidential and will only be published in a summarised form for the whole LWMP district; Ensure data you are recording is as accurate as possible; Ensure the entire survey is completed before leaving the landholders property.
Returning survey forms. Please return surveys as you complete them (i.e. on weekly/fortnightly basis). Please do not complete all surveys before returning any forms.
Re-surveying landholders. If you require a landholding to be re-surveyed, please record the reason why the landholder could not be surveyed.
Common conversions. Please note the following conversions as they may be useful to you in completing the survey forms: 1 hectare = 2.471 acres ML = megalitres = 1,000,000L = 1,000m3
Photographs and Figures. These have been sourced from a range of publications (pg. 9).
GENERAL NOTE 1: Ensure $ VALUES are SPLIT across available categories in the TABLES provided (i.e. do not provide just totals)
GENERAL NOTE 2: Where the ‘OTHER’ category is selected and the expenditure is GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO $2,500 a note on TYPE OF EXPENDITURE IS REQUIRED
GENERAL NOTE 3: All items of expenditure are to be recorded EXCLUSIVE of GST and other rebates
1 Surveyors notes 2008 Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 108 of 273 SURVEY THEME COMMENTS 1. HOLDING ENTERPRISES AND LAND USES Responses to reflect a typical year on this holding.
1.1 Holding Enterprises are the businesses of the holding, eg the growing of rice for enterprises sale; dairying is the milking of cows. Mixed enterprises are farms where the land produces two or more major sources of income, e.g. rice, wheat, cattle.
Mixed enterprises – cropping / rice. Where rice income represents in a ‘normal’ year 25% or higher from the survey holding. Other enterprises may include winter crops (wheat, barley, oats, canola), sheep and cattle.
Mixed enterprises – cropping / no rice. When rice is not normally grown on this mixed enterprise holding.
Mixed enterprises – livestock. Where 75% of the income is from the running of cattle and or sheep on pastures, with the remaining 25% sourced from cropping, e.g. oats or wheat.
Dairying. Where the principal use of the holding is for milking or dry cows or for raising bobby calves.
Horticulture. Principal income is from the growing of trees for fruit or nuts, grapevines, vegetables etc.
Other. Examples are piggery, cattle feedlot, fish farming (aquaculture).
1.2 Land uses Irrigated annual pasture. Where the dominant species germinate each year from seed, e.g. subterranean clover and rye grass (Sub and Rye). Must be grown in an area laid out for irrigation but does not have to have been watered in 2007/08.
Perennial pasture. Where the dominant species grow all year round but produce mostly in either the winter / spring (phalaris) or summer (paspalum, kikuyu). Other species generally a legume such as sub. clover or white clover.
Dryland pastures. Dryland paddocks (not laid out to irrigation) that have a predominance of sown species, eg sub. clover, medics, lucerne with minor species being native species or rye grass and wild oats.
Winter crops. Crops grown for grain, hay or grazing but principally for grain such as wheat, barley, oats, triticale, canola, faba beans, field peas.
Summer crops. Crops grown for grain, hay or grazing but principally for grain such as maize (corn), sorghum, millet, forage sorghums, soybeans, adzuki beans.
Fallowed land. A paddock that was prepared for a crop but wasn’t sown (insufficient water) or is being made ready for growing a summer crop in 2007/08.
Stubble. Straw remains standing from a recently harvested crop, e.g. 2006/07 rice or wheat. Sheep or cattle may have grazed. Include as stubble paddocks those where straw has been baled.
Dryland. Areas not laid out to irrigation, not used for dryland cropping or pasture. Predominately grazing areas.
Infrastructure. Roads, channels, sheds, yards, storage dam etc.
2 Surveyors notes 2008 Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 109 of 273 SURVEY THEME COMMENTS 2. FARM PLANNING
2.2 Area laid out to Use aerial photograph to determine the area laid out to irrigation. irrigation
2.4 Farm planning The aim of this question is to determine whether or not the landholder is activities – access to undertaking works, outside of the LWMPs. Please ensure that the landholder LWMP incentives never intends to claim LWMP incentives before answering yes to this question.
Works that fall under farm planning activities are desktop planning, surveying, and soil testing for the purpose of irrigation design and layout.
2.5 Purpose of farm Having established that the landholder is doing works outside of the LWMPs, planning we need to determine the purpose/extent of the activity to determine if the plan would still meet LWMP surveyor-designed standards. If they have only surveyed and designed one or two paddocks then the plan would not meet LWMP standards.
3. IRRIGATION RECYCLING AND STORAGE
An irrigation recycling and storage system drains irrigation tail water off paddocks, moves it through drains to a storage system or sump, and this water is then able to be used to irrigate the paddocks again.
3.1 Irrigation Answer to question can be yes even if system does not service the entire recycling system holding and the storage does not meet LWMP requirements.
3.2 Storage volumes Volume (m3)= Length (m) x Width (m) x Depth (m)
Drain storage volume – when calculating the storage capacity of drains, just measure the main drain, not the small paddock drains that feed into it.
If the main storage is a dam/sump, do not include storage volumes in drains.
2.4 Irrigation Before ticking the box that the irrigation recycling works will not be funded recycling activities – through the LWMPs, please enquire as to whether or not they intend to claim access to LWMP their works through the plans in the future, or if they have exhausted their incentives funds or do not wish to access funds to ensure you are answering the question correctly.
3.5 Recycled water Check: Area irrigated cannot be greater than land laid out to irrigation (Q2.2).
3.7 & 3.8 Irrigation Materials / equipment. Include purchase of pump or motor; extension of Recycling & Storage electricity; provision of fuel tank construction materials
3.10 Operation and Materials / equipment. Include purchase of replacement pump or motor. maintenance
3 Surveyors notes 2008 Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 110 of 273 SURVEY THEME COMMENTS 4. IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT
4.1 Landforming Landforming. Landforming includes such activities as laser grading, landplaning and activities that involve moving soil from one area of a paddock to another. The aim of landforming is usually to produce an even surface or a set grade to assist in irrigation efficiency. Note: Landforming does not include lasering within natural contoured layouts. Check: Area landformed cannot be greater than land laid out to irrigation (Q2.2).
4.3 Paddock Paddock improvements. Paddock improvements are not to include Improvements landforming. However, lasering within natural contour layouts can be included as a paddock improvement. Other paddock improvements include: roof topping, side and centre ditches and permanent bay outlets.
Situations where conversion to a pressurised system has occurred are addressed in Section 4, Irrigation Development (questions 4.5-4.7).
Fencing becomes a paddock improvement when it is used to protect infrastructure/assets e.g. dairy farmers fencing off a channel to prevent stock access.
4.3 Paddock Roof-topping Improvements
Side ditch
4 Surveyors notes 2008 Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 111 of 273 SURVEY THEME COMMENTS 4.3 Paddock Centre ditch Improvements (continued)
Traditional contour – reference purposes
4.5 Pressurised Pressurised irrigation. Common names Irrigation are spray irrigation, sprinkler, travelling irrigators, centre pivot (see picture), lateral move.
4.5 Micro Irrigation Micro irrigation. Comprise either small sprinklers and microjets or drippers designed to apply small volumes of water, for example 4, 8, 12 or more litres per hour, over an 8 to 10 hour period. The small sprinklers and microjets operate a few centimetres above ground level and the dripper lines are laid on the soil. This system is ideal for orchards, and selected vegetable and flower crops.
4.8 EM31 Electromagnetic soil survey. The EM machine is usually attached to a 4-wheel motorbike. Local contractors include Lloyd Angove (Finley based) and Ken Bates (Deniliquin based).
5 Surveyors notes 2008 Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 112 of 273 SURVEY THEME COMMENTS 5. CADELL LWMP – IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT
5.1 Cadell LWMP – On-farm evaporation /rainfall On-farm evaporation Irrigation management
Gopher soil moisture Gypsum blocks (similar to monitoring tensiometer)
5.2 Land uses for The land uses included here do not need to match the land use table in Q1.2. irrigation scheduling
6. CADELL LWMP – SOIL MANAGEMENT
6.2.1 Conservation Direct drilling. Any technique which involves the drilling of seed directly into Tillage undisturbed soil. See photographs below. Operations may involve one of the following: Disc drill and / or spray Triple disc and / or spray Sod seed and / or spray Modified combine and / spray
Check: If answering no to this question, make sure you don’t miss Q6.4 to 6.7.
Reduced tillage. Any series of operations that is substantially less than the normal conventional cultivation. Operations may involve one of the following: Cultivate / sow Cultivate / spray / sow Skim plough / sow and / spray
Direct drilling – sowing boot Direct drilling – pastures
5.1/6.6 Lime Note: Gypsum is NOT lime. (Gypsum is calcium sulfate and lime is calcium carbonate) (Dolomite is a lime with some magnesium in it’s structure and can be considered lime for this question)
6 Surveyors notes 2008 Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 113 of 273 SURVEY THEME COMMENTS 6/7 Pastures NOTE: It is not essential that pastures be included in the Land use table (N/A for Wakool) (Q1.2) to respond to this question. This allows for those farmers who, within the financial year, have sown a perennial pasture into an annual pasture, or under-sown beneath a winter crop.
Perennial species / varieties Annual species / varieties 1. Grasses 1. Grasses Phalaris (Australian II); Annual ryegrass (Progrow); Perennial ryegrass (Avalon, Tetraploid italian ryegrass (Galaxy); Victorian, Kangaroo Valley, Matilda) 2. Legumes Kikuyu Subterranean clover (Goulburn , Paspalum Junee) White clover (Victorian Irrigation, 2. Legumes Grasslands Prestige) Lucerne (Aurora, Aquarius, Strawberry clover (Palestine) Pioneer brand L34 HQ ) Balansa clover (Paradana); Berseem clover (Carmel [‘Multicut’]); Note: if the pasture paddock is a Persian clover (Maral [Shaftal]) pure lucerne stand, it cannot be counted in this section.
6.4 Denimein LWMP Rotational grazing. Stock are moved in accordance with the stage of growth – Pasture of the pasture and its productivity. Extensively practiced by dairy farmers. management Set stocking. Stock remain in the paddock throughout the year at approximatly the same rate per hectare.
6/7/8 Native Maintaining native vegetation can include: Vegetation replacement of trees pest weed control e.g. boxthorn pest animal control e.g. rabbits fencing monitoring wetland watering
Remnant vegetation = natural areas of native vegetation. Check: Ensure that if costs for maintenance of native vegetation stated that there is an area of native vegetation in Q1.2.
7. Chemical Usage Ensure that chemicals referred to throughout the survey i.e. O&M of irrigation recycling and storage systems or native vegetation, are included in this section.
8. Denimein LWMP – The Vegetation to Reduce Salinity program provides incentives for the Vegetation to establishment of saltbush, lucerne and native grasses. These deep rooted Reduce Salinity perennials are ideal groundwater pumps, effective in controlling watertable recharge (especially after summer rains) and reducing shallow watertables. In turn, they provide a valuable source of feed, and when managed correctly, saltbush provides shelter for stock and habitat for native birds and animals.
Refer to the Denimein Vegetation to Reduce Salinity Guidelines for detail, relevant Essential Criteria for incentives are: A permanent stock proof fence has been erected where required. Site preparation has been completed and meets requirements. Plant establishment has been successful. Only dryland lucerne and lucerne planted into sub clover is eligible for a rebate. Summer watered crops are not eligible.
7 Surveyors notes 2008 Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 114 of 273 CHEMICALS
PRODUCT NAMES ACTIVE INGREDIENT(S) WINTER CROPS Herbicides (weed killers) Glean, Lusta and Tackle Chlorsulfuron Roundup, Wipeout Glyphosphate Logran,Nugran, Lonestar Triasulfuron Treflan, Triflur X Trifluralin Sprayseed Paraquat + Diquat
Insecticides (insect killers) Bifenthrin Bifenthrin Le-Mat Omethoate Fastac Duo Cypermethrin
Fungicide (disease suppressants) Turret Triadimefon
RICE Herbicides (weed killers) Londax Bensulfuron methyl MCPA Gulliver Azimsulfuron Ordram Molinate
Insecticides (insect killers) Lorsban Chlorphyrifos
ANNUAL PASTURE (WINTER)
Herbicides (weed killers) Bromicide Bromoxynil
Insecticides (insect killers)
Dimethoate
PERENNIAL PASTURE (SUMMER) Herbicides (weed killers) 2,4-D Treflan Triflaralin Bromicide Bromoxynil
Insecticides (insect killers) Dimethoate
SUMMER CROPS / VEGETABLES / FRUIT / VINES Herbicides (weed killers) Primextra Gold
CHANNELS / DRAINS Herbicides (weed killers) 2, 4-D Diuron Roundup Glyphosate
8 Surveyors notes 2008 Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 115 of 273 PHOTOGRAPHS AND FIGURES
PHOTOGRAPH AND/OR REFERENCE FIGURE Landforming Htpp://www.sunrice.com.au/rice/paddocktoplate-farmplan.asp Roof Topping Farmers’ Newsletter, Large Area Edition, No. 161, Spring 2002, page 17 Side ditch Salt Action Information Sheet, No. 10, First Edition, March 1994, page 9 Centre ditch Salt Action Information Sheet, No. 10, First Edition, March 1994, page 8 Traditional contour Salt Action Information Sheet, No. 10, First Edition, March 1994, page 8 Pressurised irrigation Irrigation & Water Resources. Autumn 2005, page5 Micro Irrigation South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board, Fact Sheet Land and Water 3 EM 31 Surveying MIL photo library On-farm evaporation Irrigation Management and Systems Choice – a guide for dairy farmers. Dept. Primary Industries, Rutherglen. 2004, page19 Gopher soil moisture monitoring Farmers’ Newsletter, Large Area Edition, No 152, August 1999, page 28 Gypsum blocks Farmers’ Newsletter, Horticulture Edition, No 183, June 1999, page 13 Direct drilling – sowing boot Direct drilling pastures. Dept. Agriculture NSW. Agfact P2.2.5. Second Edition 1984 Direct drilling – pastures Direct drilling pastures. Dept. Agriculture NSW. Agfact P2.2.5. Second Edition 1984
9 Surveyors notes 2008 Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 116 of 273
ATTACHMENT: Full Checklist for Surveyors
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 117 of 273 Initial Surveyor’s Checklist A checklist of things that we will be providing you that you will need prior to surveying is:
Briefing Session and Training Notes Surveyor’s Notes Survey Forms List of landholders to be surveyed with contact details (and amended list as needed following you booking the surveys with landholders) Maps showing holdings to be surveyed, roads, holding numbers and area in hectares overlaid on satellite images
Notes for making Survey Bookings Survey Purpose The survey provides us with detailed information on the important works our shareholders are completing on their farms. The costs of works relating to the Murray Land and Water Management Plans are shared between government and the community. The LWMP annual survey captures the additional money spent by the community in implementing the LWMPs, including in-kind and cash contributions that cannot be tracked by the LWMP accounting. Results of the survey then form important components of our annual reporting and compliance reporting that is a requirement of State Government for us to continue our operations. Most importantly it allows us to highlight to both the State and Federal government that our community is committed to the ongoing sustainability of the Murray region, maximising the potential for support from those bodies.
It is noted that: All survey responses are confidential and will only be published in a summarised form for the whole LWMP district. We are required to survey 6 per cent of landholders each year, however some areas and size categories are sampled at varying rates based on statistical calculations that allow for the most accurate representation of data. A small number of holdings have been surveyed previously (some more than once) however the survey is run using a strict set of regulated guidelines that ensures selection is completely random.
Full Surveyor Checklists Page 1 of 2
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 118 of 273 Survey Checklist (note: have map and Surveyors Notes available during survey):
During training – familiarise yourself with ‘farm planning activities’ definition on Page 3 of Surveyors Notes and with ‘landforming’ and ‘paddock improvements’ definitions on Page 4-5 of Surveyors Notes Before start – look at the map with the landholder and confirm a cross road or holding boundary road/laneway appears correctly in relation to the holding discussed (e.g. the north east corner of this holding appears to be the corner of Smith and Jones Street, does that sound right to you?) Before start – Run through the survey section headings with the landholder 1. Enterprise type and land use, 2. Farm planning, 3. Irrigation recycling and Storage etc. Discuss with the landholder briefly the difference between sections: a) Irrigation recycling and Storage (covers drainage and dams or sumps associated with irrigation recycling systems only) b) Irrigation development (covers landforming, paddock improvements, conversion to pressurised system and EM31) c) Irrigation management (covers irrigation scheduling through rainfall/evaporation data, soil moisture testing or other) Start of survey while filling in front page – ask the landholder to confirm that the farm area (hectares) appears correctly on the page and also on the map During survey (if possible) – choose one landmark discussed (e.g. a particular paddock, a drain, a sump or storage, a landformed area, a patch of native vegetation, a groundwater bore/pump) and point it out on the map, asking the landholder to confirm that this is what you are discussing. If a phone interview, you may need to describe the feature in some detail (e.g. there looks to be a large storage dam on the eastern boundary, is that the one you are talking about?) During survey – where the ‘other’ category is used in Question 2 (Farm Planning) and Question 4 (Irrigation development) ensure the activities fit within the definitions for ‘farm planning activities’ ‘landforming’ and ‘paddock improvements’ During survey – ensure Question 4 (Irrigation development) areas landformed quoted and Question 6/7/8 (Native vegetation) areas quoted (even if nil) match areas on the map image (as best can be estimated) During survey – observe carefully questions with Yes/No qualifiers that are worded ‘If No, then go to Q-.-.’ (Note: these are questions 2.4, 3.1 and 3.6 for all areas, extras 5.1, 6.1 and 6.4 for Cadell and extras 7.1 for Denimein) and cross out (put a line through) questions missed on that basis During survey – where questions require hectare values, wherever possible ask the landholder to point it out on the map for you to a quick check (e.g. can you show me the area that has been laser graded? It looks like that is about half of your irrigation area?) At end of survey – ask the landholder to quickly check that all $ values provided are During survey – when asking questions 3.7-3.9 (all areas) inform the landholder that these 3 questions ask for separate expenditure for ‘construction’ versus ‘operation and maintenance’ At end of survey – check Sections 2 (Farm Planning), 4 (Irrigation development) and sections (varying numbers) (Irrigation management), (Soil management and farming systems) and (Pasture), so that hectares stated make sense and that they check against ‘Land Use’ Table 1.2
Full Surveyor Checklists Page 2 of 2
Murray Irrigation Limited Annual Compliance Report 2007-08 Page 119 of 273
Murray Land & Water Management Plans
Audit of Landholder Survey 2007/2008