Murray Irrigation Limited · 2019-01-23 · Maintenance works on company structures were carried...

Compliance Report 2005/06 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED 1

MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED

COMPLIANCE REPORT

2005/06

Murray Irrigation LimitedA.C.N. 067 197 933

2 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED Compliance Report 2005/06

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Supply Management ............................................... 4Diversions Deliveries and Losses..................................................................... 4

Irrigation Water Quality ...................................................................................... 5

Supply Refurbishment & Review ...................................................................... 5

Telemetry ............................................................................................................. 7

Water Trade.......................................................................................................... 8

Chapter 2: Stormwater Management ...................................... 10Water Quality Analysis ..................................................................................... 10

Pesticide Monitoring......................................................................................... 20

Chemical Use for Weed Control ...................................................................... 21

Blue-Green Algae Monitoring .......................................................................... 22

Impact on Receiving Waterways ..................................................................... 23

Pumping Drainage Water into Supply Channels ........................................... 26

Noxious Aquatic Weeds ................................................................................... 26

Chapter 3: Groundwater Management ................................... 27Wakool Tullakool Subsurface Drainage Scheme........................................... 27

Other Tubewell Pumping .................................................................................. 30

Trends in Regional Watertable Levels ............................................................ 30

Chapter 4: On-Farm Management .......................................... 36Climatic Conditions .......................................................................................... 36

Landuse ............................................................................................................. 37

Irrigation Layout ................................................................................................ 38

Water Use ........................................................................................................... 38

Total Farm Water Balance ................................................................................ 42

Rice Water Use .................................................................................................. 42

Risk of Salinity .................................................................................................. 43

Rootzone Salinity .............................................................................................. 44

Waterlogging ..................................................................................................... 44

Farm Water Use Efficiency ............................................................................... 44

Adoption of Best Management Practices ....................................................... 46

Soil Acidity (Benchmark).................................................................................. 46

Status of Native Vegetation .............................................................................. 46

Socioeconomic Status...................................................................................... 46

Community Understanding of Best Management Practices ........................ 46


Chapter 5: Murray Land and Water Management Plans ....... 47LWMP Implementation ...................................................................................... 47

Reporting the LWMP Implementation Figures ............................................... 52

Berriquin LWMP ................................................................................................ 53

Cadell LWMP ..................................................................................................... 57

Denimein LWMP ................................................................................................ 64

Wakool LWMP.................................................................................................... 70

Murray LWMP R&D Program............................................................................ 74

Stormwater Escape Construction ................................................................... 85

APPENDICES ............................................................................ 89Appendix One: Benchmark and Compliance Index ...................................... 90

Appendix Two: Pesticide Summary ................................................................ 92

Appendix Three: Compliance Report Issues 2004/05....................................94

Appendix Four: Published Documents .......................................................... 95

Appendix Five: Landholder Chemical Usage Report .................................... 96

Appendix Six: Stormwater Escape Additional Information .......................... 97

Appendix Seven: Murray LWMP Annual Landholder Survey ..................... 101

Appendix Eight: Ecowise Environmental Report ........................................ 106


Chapter 1: Supply Management

Diversions Deliveries and LossesThe water available to Murray Irrigation in 2005/06 was 1,567,893ML including 979,901ML of annual allocation.

Table 1.1 shows monthly diversions, deliveries and losses.

Figure 1.1 shows a breakdown of the water available, water diverted and credited escape releases during 2005/06.

Determining supply efficiencyIrrigation supply efficiency is measured in terms of the net water delivered on farm expressed as a percentage of the

water diverted. Table 1.2 shows the water available to the Murray Irrigation area of operation and the delivery

efficiency for the period 2001/02 to 2005/06, defined by:

Supply = Water Delivered x 100

Efficiency Water Diverted 1

Figure 1.1: Diversions and Deliveries Flow Chart 2005/06

Gross Diversions Net Diversions Total Delivered

1,642,345ML 1,177,898ML 985,038ML

Carried over 2004/05 345,317ML (Mulwala Canal, Wakool Canal)

Allocation 2005/06 979,901ML

Supplementary Water 50,470ML

Net Transfers 93,474ML Conveyance Loss

Escape Volume Snowy Advance 98,731ML 192,860ML

Edward River 398,956ML 16% of Net Diversion

Finley Escape 34,608ML

Wakool River 25,781ML

Yallakool Creek 5,102ML Carryover 2006/07

Pericoota Escape 0ML 389,995ML

Escape Credits

Resource Available

1,567,893ML

Table 1.2: Delivery efficiency of Murray Irrigation operations 2001/02-2005/06

Year Diversions

(ML)

Deliveries

(ML)

Loss

(ML)

Murray Irrigation

Announced Allocation (%)

Efficiency

(%)

2001/02 1,509,356 1,239,536 270,356 86 82

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

Average 981,408 786,832 197,468 47 79

Max 1,509,356 1,239,536 270,356 86 84

Min 529,329 399,740 129,589 8 76

Table 1.1: Summary of Diversions, Deliveries and Losses (ML) by month

Diverted (ML) Delivered (ML) Loss (ML)

August 34,034 1,081 32,953

September 91,893 69,929 21,964

October 122,500 105,244 17,256

November 96,920 61,544 35,376

December 193,713 155,351 38,362

January 207,631 179,596 28,035

February 133,017 114,289 18,728

March 203,444 181,779 21,665

April 110,365 94,523 15,842

May -15,619 21,702 -37,321

Totals 1,177,898 985,038 192,860


Irrigation Water QualityThe 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, the Mulwala Offtake is located on Lake

Mulwala. Murray Irrigation monitors water diverted back into the Edward River from the Mulwala Canal at the

Edward River Escape. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) measures the water quality in Stevens Weir

on the Edward River. In 2004/05 DNR ceased measuring total phosphorus levels at Stevens Weir. The results for

2005/06 are shown in table 1.3.

Blue-Green Algae in the Supply SystemHistorically, blue-green algae have not affected the Murray River between the Hume Dam and Lake Mulwala.

However in 2002/03 the record low levels in the Hume Dam resulted in blue-green algae blooms in the Hume Dam

and these were transported downstream to Lake Mulwala and the Murray Irrigation supply system.

In 2005/06 blue-green algae was detected in Lake Mulwala at low levels and this was transferred through the

supply system.

Supply Refurbishment & ReviewIn 2005/06 Murray Irrigation, as per the asset renewal program, carried out works such as replacement of regula-

tors, pipe offtakes, offtakes, siphons, subways, road culverts and access culverts. These works were audited by

Sinclair Knight Mertz, the independent auditor appointed by the NSW Government, for review by DNR.

The following works were completed during the winter of 2006. Replacement of:

• 23 road culverts;

• one escape structure;

• six regulators;

• six pipe offtakes;

• six offtakes;

• 10 access culverts;

• 14 access culverts with regulator;

• one road bridge;

• one access bridge;

• one access bridge with regulator;

• replacement of the radial gates at the Drop;

• refurbishment of the Drop;

• one subway;

• one siphon;

• increased capacity of the Pericoota channel.

Table 1.3: Quality of Irrigation Supply Water 2005/06

Edward River at

Stevens Weir

(409023) (3)

Salinity (EC)

Total

Phosphorus

(mg/L)

Salinity (EC)

Total

Phosphorus

(mg/L)

Salinity (EC)

Range 50 - 75 0.017 - 0.064 48 - 66 0.001-0.057 41 -91

Average 57 0.034 57 0.015 62

Median 56 0.032 57 0.008 60

Source: (1) G- M Water (2) Murray Irrigation (3) DNR

Murray River @ Yarrawonga

Weir

(head gauge) (409216)(1)

Mulwala Escape into

Edward River (409029) (2)


In 1995, Halliburton KBR (then Kinhill) began a review of Murray Irrigation’s works 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. Initial results indicate that the maintenance program is achieving

its required outcomes.

Halliburton KBR also proposed that five major structures undergo a condition review in 2005/06:

• Lawson Syphon/Edward River Escape;

• Stevens Weir;

• Wakool Offtake road bridge and regulator;

• Mulwala Offtake road bridge and regulator, and;

• The Drop structure.

Maintenance works on company structures were carried out as required. The asset database for Murray Irrigation

structures is now being updated and entered into the GIS database for asset auditing purposes.

Maintenance & Operation of Floodplain StructuresIn 2005/06 Murray Irrigation replaced two subways as part of the asset renewal funding during 2005/06:

• a subway was replaced by a siphon on Northern Branch Canal adjacent to landholding W152 to maintain

the company’s compliance with the ‘Guidelines for floodplain development – Stage 1-4’;

• a subway was replaced on the Barooga 1 supply channel adjoining E059.

Seepage and Erosion ControlSeepage and erosion control works previously carried out as part of the asset renewal program are now undertaken

by the Murray Irrigation Work’s Department. The seepage and erosion control works completed in 2004/05 and

2005/06 are outlined in table 1.4. The discrepency in costs between 2004/05 and 2005/06 is the result of major

works being carried out on the main canal during 2004/05, however only routine works were undertaken in

2005/06.

2004/05 2005/06

Seepage Control

No of Sites 12 118

Total Cost $14,000 $177,266

Erosion Control

No of Sites 43 43

Total Cost $427,000 $43,800

Table 1.4: Murray Irrigation maintenance program seepage and erosion control works 2004/05-2005/06


TelemetryMurray Irrigation now has over 250 sites in its telemetry system that can be either remotely controlled or monitored

as shown in figure 1.3. Of these, 16 are now Environment Protection Licence monitoring sites while the remainder

are located within the supply or drainage systems.

In the 2005/06 season the following works were undertaken:

• Major refurbishing and upgrade of radio masts and the communication system;

• Continuing upgrade of SCADA software functionality;

• Remote monitoring of the West Warragoon and Murphy’s Timber Environment Protection Licence

monitoring sites plus ongoing upgrades to existing sites;

• Remote control of 15 sites.

Figure 1.3: Murray Irrigation remotely monitored and controlled structures 2005/06


District 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06

Berriquin 89 87 92 86 82 6 5.8 6.2 5.81 5.54

Deniboota 28 28 25 26 28 8 8 5.2 7.28 7.93

Denimein 9 9 10 15 20 4.7 4.7 7.1 7.89 10.31

Wakool 19 19 19 28 22 5 5 5 7.33 5.76

TOTAL 145 143 146 155 152 6 5.9 6.04 7.57 6.31

No. of Transfers Proportion of landholdings (%)

Table 1.6: Summary of landholding transfers within Murray Irrigation 2005/06

Table 1.5: Summary of internal permanent transfers 2001/02-2005/06

District

Transfers In

(entitlements)

Transfers Out

(entitlements) 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06

Berriquin 2,289 265 -100 -618 1,030 495 2,024

Deniboota 0 947 -10 -5 -225 -445 -947

Denimein 5 1,056 - 837 - -55 -1,051

Wakool 390 1,376 110 -214 -805 5 -986Non-members 960 0 - - - - 960

TOTAL 3,644 3,644 - - - - 0

2005/06 Transfers Net Transfer (entitlements)

01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06

Berriquin 3 11 8 2 10 23 14 9 14 18

Deniboota 2 4 1 7 2 - 1 - 9

Denimein - 3 1 - 2 - 2 - 1 -

Wakool 2 3 5 - 4 - - 2 1 3

TOTAL 7 21 15 9 18 23 17 11 16 30

No. of AmalgamationsNo. of Subdivisions

Table 1.7: Summary of subdivisions and amalgamations within Murray Irrigation 2001/02-2005/06

Water Trade

Permanent TransfersThere were seven permanent external transfers out of the Murray Irrigation area during 2005/06, which totalled

1,362 Murray Irrigation entitlements. This resulted in 1,130 NSW General Security entitlements leaving our licence.

There were no external transfers into Murray Irrigation during 2005/06.

Within Murray Irrigation, permanent transfers totalling 3,644 entitlements occurred in 2005/06. The majority of

these transfers were to or within the Berriquin District. The net result of the transfers are summarised in Table 1.5

along with records back to 2001/02.

From February 1, 2006, as a result of changes to Murray Irrigation’s constituation, individuals can own Murray

Irrigation water entitlements without owning land in the Murray Irrigation region as can be seen in table 1.5

(nonmember transfers).

Changes to OwnershipIn 2005/06, 152 landholdings (or 6.3% of the total landholdings) changed ownership. The majority of these trans-

fers occurred within the Berriquin District (Table 1.6), although the relative proportion was higher in the Denimein

District. Changes to ownership occurred through the following transfers: Change of Name, Death of Member,

Landholding Sale and Subdivision.

There were 18 subdivisions and 30 amalgamations in 2005/06 (Table 1.7). 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 or be operated by the

same registered business, a common boundary and a supply and/or drainage system linkage between landholdings.


Table 1.8: Net temporary transfers for the Murray Irrigation region 2001/02-2005/06

Year

Volume

(ML)

2001/02 85,819

2002/03 97,017

2003/04 114,726

2004/05 65,873

2005/06 93,474

Temporary TransfersA total of 126,347ML was temporarily transferred into Murray Irrigation during the 2005/06 irrigation season

(excluding Snowy Advance) and 32,873ML were transferred out. This resulted in net temporary transfers of

93,474ML. A Snowy advance of 98,731ML was also transferred into Murray Irrigation in 2005/06.

The major sources of transfer water outside of the Murray Valley were Murrumbidgee Valley, Western Murray and

South Australia. An increasing number of transfers are being made from Victoria.


Chapter 2: Stormwater Management

Water Quality AnalysisThe locations of Murray Irrigation water quality monitoring sites are shown in figure 2.1.

Water quality data has been analysed for three data periods; June to August 2005, September to December 2005 and

January to May 2006. The data for the January to May time period includes irrigation supply escape flows at the

close of the irrigation season. This is consistent with the request made by DNR as part of the agency review in

1998, which enables a separate analysis of winter runoff, and runoff during the irrigation season. In 2005/06 water

samples were collected on a weekly basis where flow exceeded 5ML/day 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.

After a tendering process in July 2005 the contract for the maintenance of the continuous monitoring equipment

was awarded to Ecowise Environmental. 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 (except

DC2000 East) are connected to radio telemetry allowing remote daily monitoring of gauge height and salinity.

During 2005/06 there were no incidents causing or threatening harm to the environment requiring reporting by

Murray Irrigation to the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC).

Figure 2.1: Water Quality Monitoring sites


FlowSummaries of the flow from the stormwater escape 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 major contributors to the

stormwater escape flows were the Box Creek Stormwater Escape contributing 35%, the Berrigan Creek Escape

12%, the Neimur Stormwater Escape 10% and Burragorrimma Stormwater Escape contributing 9%.

The highest daily flows were recorded in November after a significant rainfall event, the Box Creek Stormwater

Escape recorded 138ML/day and the Berrigan Creek Escape recorded 51ML/day.

A comparison of the total flows over the last five years shows a correlation between rainfall and the total net flow

(see figure 2.2). The total net flows remained similar to the two previous years, 2003/04 and 2004/05, which also

recorded similar rainfall to 2005/06. In 2005/06 a significant rainfall event was recorded in November and is

reflected in the increased flows for the September to December time period. In 2004/05 the rain fell in February and

the increased flows are seen for the January to May time period. In 2003/04 the rain fell in July and August and the

Table 2.1: Summary of flow at Murray Irrigation monitoring sites for 2005/06

Stormwater Escape Site

Total flow

discharged (ML)

June ’05- May '06

%

contribution

Back Barooga Stormwater Escape BBR1 285 0.7

Berrigan Creek Escape BIBE 1,076 2.6

Box Creek Stormwater Escape MOXM 2,986 7.2

Burraboi Stormwater Escape JIBU 207 0.5

Burragorrimma Stormwater Escape NMBR 815 2.0

DC 2500 East Stormwater Escape JIJS 29 0.1

Deniboota Canal Escape DBCE 702 1.7

Finley Escape BIFE (credited) 33,088 79.3

Lalalty Stormwater Escape TUPJ 443 1.1

Murphys Timber Stormwater Escape WRMT 0 0.0

Neimur Stormwater Escape TCND 856 2.1

North Deniliquin Stormwater Escape DENI 589 1.4

Pinelea Stormwater Escape TCPL 40 0.1

Wakool Stormwater Escape DRWK 102 0.2

West Warragoon Stormwater Escape TCWW 4 0.0

Wollamai East Stormwater Escape BIWE 201 0.5

Wollamai Stormwater Escape BIOW 310 0.7

Total 41,733 100.0

Net Flow* 8,645

*This is the net flow removing the credited flows for the Finley Escape


increased flows are seen in the July to August time period. The flows in 2000/01 are associated with emptying the

supply system following a higher allocation year. The exceptionally dry conditions experienced in 2002/03 resulted

in the stormwater escape system essentially ceasing to flow.

A comparison of the flow at the individual sites over the last four years is presented in figure 2.3. The Finley

Escape, the major contributor to flows at the DEC monitoring sites, has been excluded to enable easier analysis of

the flow at the other sites. The flow in the Berrigan Creek Escape remained constant in 2004/05 and 2005/06. Flows

in the Lalalty Stormwater Escape and the Back Barooga Stormwater Escape decreased between 2004/05 and 2005/

06. There were significant increases in flows in 2005/06 in the Box Creek Stormwater Escape and North Deniliquin

Stormwater Escape compared to 2004/05.

Figure 2.3: Total flow at each of Murray Irrigation’s monitoring sites for the period 2002/03 to 2005/06

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Back B

aro

og

a

SE

C

Berr

igan

Cre

ek

Escap

e

Bo

x C

reek

Bu

rrab

oi S

EC

Bu

rrag

orr

imm

a

SE

C

DC

2500 E

ast

Den

ibo

ota

Can

al E

scap

e

Lala

lty S

EC

Mu

rph

ys

Tim

ber

SE

C

Neim

ur

SE

C

No

rth

Den

iliq

uin

SE

C

Pin

ele

a S

EC

Wako

ol S

EC

West

Warr

ag

oo

n S

EC

Wo

llam

ai E

ast

Escap

e

Wo

llam

ai

Escap

e

Flow

(ML)2002/03

2003/04

2004/05

2005/06

Figure 2.2: Comparison of total volume discharged and rainfall from Murray Irrigation’s area for the period 1998 to 2006

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 Years

Net Flow (ML)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Rainfall

Deniliquin (mm)Jan - May

Sept - Dec

Jun - Aug

rain


SalinitySalinity levels within the stormwater escapes is variable, the highest daily recording was 8,620EC in the Box Creek

Stormwater Escape with median levels of between 96-1,900EC. High salinity levels are associated with conditions

of no or very low flows. Low salinity levels were recorded in the stormwater escapes at times when irrigation

supply escape water was being discharged. There were no flows from the Dry Creek Stormwater Escape into the

Lalalty Stormwater Escape in 2005/06.

Median salinity levels remained similar or decreased compared to previous years in all the stormwater escapes

except the Box Creek Stormwater Escape. The median salinity levels in the Box Creek Stormwater Escape increased

from 1,370EC in 2004/05 to 1,900EC 2005/06. In the Deniboota Canal Escape the median salinity level decreased

from 539EC in 2004/05 to 211EC in 2005/06 and the Wakool Stormwater Escape decreased from 493EC in 2004/05

to 297EC in 2005/06.

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 contributors to the salt load were the Box Creek

Stormwater Escape contributing 74% and the Lalalty Stormwater Escape contributing 5%. Based on the daily flow

and salinity recordings, the net salt load was approximately 3,317 tonnes.

A comparison of the total tonnes of salt and rainfall over the last five years is presented in figure 2.4. The salt load

increased slightly from 2004/05 to 2005/06. The salt load in the spring period of September to December increased

in 2005/06 compared to previous years and is a reflection of increased flows following rainfall in early November.

The salt load in the winter period, July to August, was similar in 2005/06 to the previous year.

A comparison of the salt load at the individual sites over the last four years is presented in figure 2.5. The major

contributor to overall loads from the DEC licensed sites is the Box Creek Stormwater Escape. The salt load in the

Box Creek Stormwater Escape increased in 2005/06 from 2004/05 and was similar to 2003/04.

Table 2.2: Summary of salt load at Murray Irrigation monitoring sites during 2005/06


Total salt

discharged (tonnes)

June ’05 - May '06

%

contribution

Back Barooga Stormwater Escape BBR1 69 1.4

Berrigan Creek Escape BIBE 84 1.7

Box Creek Stormwater Escape MOXM 2,512 51.2

Burraboi Stormwater Escape JIBU 52 1.1

Burragorrimma Stormwater Escape NMBR 110 2.2

DC 2500 East Stormwater Escape JIJS 12 0.2

Deniboota Canal Escape DBCE 118 2.4

Finley Escape BIFE (credited) 1,498 30.5

Lalalty Stormwater Escape TUPJ 178 3.6

Murphys Timber Stormwater Escape WRMT 0 0.0

Neimur Stormwater Escape TCND 92 1.9

North Deniliquin Stormwater Escape DENI 80 1.6

Pinelea Stormwater Escape TCPL 3 0.1

Wakool Stormwater Escape DRWK 7 0.1

West Warragoon Stormwater Escape TCWW 2 0.0

Wollamai East Stormwater Escape BIWE 48 1.0

Wollamai Stormwater Escape BIOW 44 0.9

Total 4,909 100.0

Net Salt Load* 3,411.0

*This is the net salt load removing the credited flows for the Finley Escape


0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

Back B

aro

og

a

SE

C

Berr

igan

Cre

ek

Escap

e

Bo

x C

reek

Bu

rrab

oi S

EC

Bu

rrag

orr

imm

a

SE

C

DC

2500 E

ast

Den

ibo

ota

Can

al E

scap

e

Lala

lty S

EC

Mu

rph

ys

Tim

ber

SE

C

Neim

ur

SE

C

No

rth

Den

iliq

uin

SE

C

Pin

ele

a S

EC

Wako

ol S

EC

West

Warr

ag

oo

n S

EC

Wo

llam

ai E

ast

Escap

e

Wo

llam

ai

Escap

e

Salt

(tonnes) 2002/032003/04

2004/052005/06

Figure 2.5: Total salt load at each of Murray Irrigation’s sites for the period 2002/03 to 2005/06

Figure 2.4: Comparison of total salt load and rainfall from the Murray Irrigation area for the period 2001/02 to 2005/06

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 Years

Net Salt Load

(tonnes)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Rainfall

Deniliquin (mm)

Jan - May

Sept - Dec

Jun - Aug

rainfall


Total PhosphorusTotal phosphorus levels in the stormwater escapes ranged from of 0.004mg/L to 1.000mg/L in 2005/06. High levels

of total phosphorus were associated with the rainfall in November. The median total phosphorus levels remained

similar to the previous year, the Box Creek Stormwater Escape and the Lalalty Stormwater Escape increased from

the previous year, while the Berrigan Creek Escape and Neimur Stormwater Escape decreased from the previous

year.

The total phosphorus load for each stormwater escape is calculated using the total monthly flows from the continu-

ous recording equipment and the total phosphorus concentration from the monthly sample (the median value is used

if more than one sample for the month).

A summary of the total phosphorus load for each monitoring site is presented in table 2.3. Removing the Finley

Escape, which is used to transport water to the Billabong Creek, the major contributors to the phosphorus loads

were the Box Creek Stormwater Escape contributing 47% and the Berrigan Creek Escape contributing 22%. The

Lalalty Stormwater Escape contributed 10% and the Neimur Stormwater Escape contributed 9%. Based on the daily

flow and total phosphorus recordings, an estimate of the total phosphorus loads can be calculated. The net total

phosphorus load was approximately one tonne.

A comparison of the total tonnes of phosphorus and rainfall over the last five years is presented in figure 2.6. The

relationship between the total phosphorus load and rainfall is dependent on the timing of the rainfall. The large

increase in the total phosphorus load in the September to December time period for 2005/06 was the result of a

significant rainfall event in November. In 2004/05 there were significant total phosphorus loads in the summer/

autumn period corresponding to rainfall in February and April. In 2003/04 there were significant total phosphorus

loads in the winter period, corresponding to rainfall in July and August. In 2001/02 the total phosphorus load for

January to May is related to escape flows at the end of the irrigation season and high autumn rainfall.

Table 2.3: Summary of phosphorus load at Murray Irrigation monitoring sites during 2005/06


Total Phosphorus

Load (tonnes)

June ’05 - May '06

%

contribution

Back Barooga Stormwater Escape BBR1 * 0.0

Berrigan Creek Escape BIBE 0.22 9.7

Box Creek Stormwater Escape MOXM 0.47 20.7

Burraboi Stormwater Escape JIBU * 0.0

Burragorrimma Stormwater Escape NMBR 0.02 0.9

DC 2500 East Stormwater Escape JIJS * 0.0

Deniboota Canal Escape DBCE 0.04 1.8

Finley Escape BIFE (credited) 1.27 55.9

Lalalty Stormwater Escape TUPJ 0.10 4.4

Murphys Timber Stormwater Escape WRMT * 0.0

Neimur Stormwater Escape TCND 0.09 4.0

North Deniliquin Stormwater Escape DENI 0.06 2.6

Pinelea Stormwater Escape TCPL * 0.0

Wakool Stormwater Escape DRWK * 0.0

West Warragoon Stormwater Escape TCWW * 0.0

Wollamai East Stormwater Escape BIWE 0.00 0.0

Wollamai Stormwater Escape BIOW 0.01 0.4

Total 2.27 100

Net Total Phosphorus Load* 1.00

*This is the net total phosphorus load removing the credited flows for the Finley Escape


Total NitrogenTotal nitrogen levels in the stormwater escape system ranged from of < 0.5 mg/L to 2.6 mg/L across the region in

2005/06. High levels of total nitrogen were associated with the rainfall in November. The median total nitrogen

levels increased in the Box Creek Stormwater Escape compared to the previous year and decreased in the Berrigan

Creek Escape, Lalalty Stormwater Escape and Deniboota Canal Escape.

The total nitrogen load for each stormwater escape is calculated using the total monthly flow from the continuous

recording equipment and the total nitrogen concentration from the monthly sample (the median value is used if

more than one sample for the month).

A summary of the total nitrogen load for each monitoring site is presented in table 2.4. Removing the Finley Escape,

which is used to transport water to the Billabong Creek, the major contributors to the nitrogen load were the Box

Creek Stormwater Escape contributing 44%, Berrigan Creek Escape contributing 14%, the Lalalty Stormwater

Escape and Neimur Stormwater Escape contributing 12% each.

A comparison of the total tonnes of nitrogen and rainfall over the last five years is presented in figure 2.7. As with

phosphorus, the relationship between the total nitrogen load and rainfall is dependent on the timing of the rainfall.

The large increase in the total nitrogen load in the September to December time period for 2005/06 was the result of

a significant rainfall event in November. The total nitrogen load in the January to May time period for 2004/05 was

the result of a significant rainfall event in February. In 2003/04 there were significant total nitrogen load in the

winter period, corresponding to rainfall in July and August. In 2001/02 the total nitrogen load for January to May is

related to escape flows at the end of the irrigation season and high autumn rainfall.

Figure 2.6: Comparison of total phosphorus load and rainfall in the Murray Irrigation area 2001/02 to 2005/06

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 Years

Net Total

Phosphorus

(tonnes)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Rainfall


Sept - Dec

Jun - Aug

rainfall


Figure 2.7: Comparison of total nitrogen load and rainfall from the Murray Irrigation area for the period 1998 to 2006

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 Years

Net Nitrogen Load

(tonnes)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Rainfall


Sept - Dec

Jun - Aug

rainfall

Table 2.4: Summary of nitrogen load at Murray Irrigation monitoring sites 2005/06


Total nitrogen

discharged (tonnes)

June ’05 - May '06

%

contribution

Back Barooga Stormwater Escape BBR1 0.1 0.8

Berrigan Creek Escape BIBE 0.6 4.8

Box Creek Stormwater Escape MOXM 1.9 15.2

Burraboi Stormwater Escape JIBU * 0.0

Burragorrimma Stormwater Escape NMBR 0.0 0.0

DC 2500 East Stormwater Escape JIJS * 0.0

Deniboota Canal Escape DBCE 0.2 1.6

Finley Escape BIFE (credited) 8.2 65.6

Lalalty Stormwater Escape TUPJ 0.5 4.0

Murphys Timber Stormwater Escape WRMT * 0.0

Neimur Stormwater Escape TCND 0.5 4.0

North Deniliquin Stormwater Escape DENI 0.3 2.4

Pinelea Stormwater Escape TCPL * 0.0

Wakool Stormwater Escape DRWK * 0.0

West Warragoon Stormwater Escape TCWW * 0.0

Wollamai East Stormwater Escape BIWE 0.1 0.8

Wollamai Stormwater Escape BIOW 0.1 0.8

Total 12.5 100

Net Total Nitrogen Load* 4.3

*This is the net total nitrogen load removing the credited flows for the Finley Escape


TurbidityMurray Irrigation revised their weed control strategies for stormwater escapes during 1998/99 to reduce the

sediment load from stormwater escapes into receiving waters particularly during periods of low flow. Management

involves the retention of vegetation on batters and banks, and active vegetation of new stormwater escapes.

Individual weed species such as cumbungi and sagittaria continue to be spot controlled to minimise the spread of

weeds.

The turbidity levels were extremely variable in the stormwater escapes throughout the year. Low turbidity levels

were recorded when salinity levels were high. High turbidity levels (above 200NTU) were recorded with high flow

rates following the rain in November. The median turbidity levels in the Box Creek Stormwater Escape, Deniboota

Canal Escape, Lalalty Stormwater Escape and Neimur Stormwater Escape increased in 2005/06.

A summary of the turbidity results for each monitoring site is presented in table 2.5.

Other MonitoringCouncil development consent conditions on some stormwater escapes require installation of flow and salinity

monitoring equipment. These are:

· DC18 Lalalty Drain (LAL18);

· Warragoon North (BCMS);

· Pinelea Drain (TUP1).

The data for the council condition sites is presented in table 2.6.

Table 2.5: Summary of the turbidity levels at Murray Irrigation monitoring sites during 2005/06

Stormwater Escape Site Mean Median Max. daily Min. dailyNumber of

samples

Back Barooga Stormwater Escape BBR1 * * * * 1

Berrigan Creek Escape BIBE 108 100 190 61 6

Box Creek Stormwater Escape MOXM 82 100 215 12 17

Burraboi Stormwater Escape JIBU * * * * 0

Burragorrimma Stormwater Escape NMBR * * 654 206 2

DC 2500 East Stormwater Escape JIJS * * * * 0

Deniboota Canal Escape DBCE 614 632 891 301 4

Finley Escape BIFE 118 78 314 5 20

Lalalty Stormwater Escape TUPJ 120 78 190 31 4

Neimur Stormwater Escape TCND 472 447 609 267 6

North Deniliquin Stormwater Escape DENI 153 99 302 57 3

Pinelea Stormwater Escape TCPL * * * * 0

Wakool Stormwater Escape DRWK * * * * 0

Wollamai East Stormwater Escape BIWE * * 639 92 2

Wollamai Stormwater Escape BIOW 400 227 871 101 3

*: insufficient data

Turbidity (NTU)

Table 2.6: Summary of flow and salt load at the council consent condition sites for 2005/06

Stormwater Escape Site Total Flow (ML) Total tonnes salt

DC18 Lalalty Stormwater Escape LAL18 51 7

Warragoon North Stormwater Escape BCMS 288 48

Tuppal Creek TUP1 1770 467


Some of the more recently constructed stormwater escapes have a consent condition regarding the analysis of water

quality following a rainfall event of over 25mm in 24 hours. Water samples were collected following rainfall events

that meet these criteria and the results are presented in table 2.7.

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 Stormwater Escape at Conargo Rd. (BOXC)

• Lalalty Stormwater Escape at railway bridge (LAL1)

• Neimur Stormwater Escape at Moulamein Road (DRNM)

As part of the project for the refurbishment of the Box Creek Stormwater Escape two new sites were installed. One

of the sites is the Box Creek at Mayrung Road (BOMA), which is an old site that has been upgraded. The second

site is a new site, the Box Creek on Lindifferon Lane (BOLL). A new site has also 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 2.7: Summary of event based monitoring for council consent conditions for 2005/06

Stormwater Escape Date of Rainfall Rainfall (mm)

Date

sample

taken

Flow

(Ml/day)

Salinity (EC)

(uS/cm)

Turbidity

(NTU)

Total

Phosphorus

(mg/L)

Total

Nitrogen

(mg/L)

Woodbury North Laterals 2 and 3 11-Jun-05 26.8 14-Jun-05 0

30 +31 Oct 05 32.6 1-Nov-05

7-Nov-05 27.6 8-Nov-05 < 5

Willeroo Stormwater Escape 11-Jun-05 26.8 14-Jun-05 < 1

30 + 31 Oct 05 32.6 1-Nov-05 < 5

7-Nov-05 27.6 8-Nov-05 > 5 711 132 0.213 0.9

Oddy's Stormwater Escape 11-Jun-05 26.8 14-Jun-05 < 1

30 + 31 Oct 05 32.6 1-Nov-05 < 5

7-Nov-05 27.6 8-Nov-05 < 5

Wollamai West Stormwater Escape 11-Jun-05 26.8 14-Jun-05 < 1

30 + 31 Oct 05 32.6 1-Nov-05 < 5

7-Nov-05 27.6 8-Nov-05 > 5 103 185 0.131 0.9

DC Lalalty Stormwater Escape 10 + 11 Jun 05 27 (2 days) 14-Jun-05 < 1

29 + 30 Oct 05 24.4 (2 days) 1-Nov-05 0.1

7-Nov-05 41.9 8-Nov-05 7 64 321 0.298 0.4 (<0.5)

Table 2.8: Summary of discharges and salt load at the internal sites for 2005/06

Stormwater Escape SiteTotal Flow

(ML)

Total tonnes

salt

Neimur Stormwater Escape (Barham/Moulamain Rd) DRNM 466 54

Lalalty Stormwater Escape (Railway bridge) LAL1 1220 807

Box Creek Stormwater Escape (Conargo Rd) BOXC 2570 4100

Box Creek Stormwater Escape (Lindifferon Rd) * BOLL 877 1470

Box Creek Stormwater Escape (Mayrung Rd.)* BOMA 1370 2320

*: commenced monitoring Feb. 06


Pesticide MonitoringIn 2005/06 the pesticide monitoring program was undertaken in accordance with condition M2 of the Environment

Protection Licence from October to December 2005. Pesticides monitored during this period were molinate,

thiobencarb and atrazine. Intensive monitoring commenced in the first week of October and continued for six

weeks, less intensive monitoring continued until the end of December. Samples were only collected when flow

exceeded 5ML/day. 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 ammended to reflect the changes. The schedule is presented in table 2.9.

The pesticide monitoring program results are dominated by a significant rainfall event in early November 2005.

Following the detection of chemicals at notification and action levels at the licensed monitoring sites the Murray

Irrigation chemical contingency plan was implemented for the stormwater escape systems involved. DEC were

notified and informed of all actions taken as required by the Environment Protection Licence and Murray Irrigation

chemical contingency plan.

The construction of on farm irrigation recycling and storage systems should reduce the number of exceedences after

spring rainfall events in future years. Education of the landholders in the management of these systems is also

required. All landholdings on stormwater escape systems need to have drainage inlets installed. The implementation

of these measures should result in a reduction in the likelihood of chemical detection in future years.

Pesticide Analysis using ELISA kitsThe molinate ELISA kits are used as an early detection tool to enable compliance with the company’s chemical

contingency plan. They allow Murray Irrigation to close down the stormwater escapes 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.

There were a total of 58 tests carried out using the molinate ELISA kits on the licensed monitoring sites during

2005/06. Where molinate was detected above the environmental limit samples were sent to the external laboratory

for confirmation of the results. A number of other molinate ELISA tests were undertaken to identify the source of

the molinate detected at the monitoring sites.

PesticideEnvironmental

Guidelines (µg/L)

Notification

Level (µg/L)

Action Level

(µg/L)

Molinate 2.5 3.4 14

Thiobencarb 1 2.8 4.6

Atrazine 2 13 45

Table 2.9: Water quality limits for pesticides, Environment Protection Licence (Schedule 1)


External AnalysisMurray 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 ELISA kits were sent to the

external laboratory for confirmation of the result. In 2005/06 a total of 53 tests were undertaken for thiobencarb, 39

tests for atrazine and 51 tests for molinate.

All the samples tested for thiobencarb during 2005/06 were below the level of detection. There has been no thioben-

carb detected at a licensed monitoring site for the last five years.

In 2005/06 atrazine was detected at a notification level for the first time at a licensed monitoring site since monitor-

ing commenced in 1996. Atrazine was detected in two samples from the same monitoring site, the first sample was

at notification level and the second sample was at an environmental level. The detection of atrazine was following

the rainfall event in early November.

Molinate was detected at four monitoring sites during 2005/06 following the rainfall event in early November.

There were eight samples at notification level and two samples at action levels. A summary of the number of

samples that exceed the environmental, notification and action levels since 1998/99 as shown in figure 2.8.

Chemical Use for Weed ControlMurray Irrigation controls weeds in the supply and stormwater escape systems under a chemical control plan as

specified in the Environment Protection Licence. This program also complies with the Pesticides Act (1978). Table

2.10 shows the trends in chemical usage 2001/02-2005/06.

0

5

10

15

20

1998/9

9

1999/0

0

2000/0

1

2001/0

2

2002/0

3

2003/0

4

2004/0

5

2005/0

6

Year

Number

No. of exceedence of molinate

environmental levels No. of exceedence of molinate

notif ication levels No. of exceedence of molinate action

levels

Figure 2.8: Summary of molinate levels at Murray Irrigation’s licensed sites

Table 2.10: Chemicals used for weed control by Murray Irrigation 2001/02-2005/06

Chemical 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06

Propon Kg 250 400 0 0 -

Dye L 35 25 17 250 45

Amitrole T L 1940 0 160 740 2900

Roundup CT L 1360 420 640 1460 2040

Roundup Max L 640 0 200 0 -

Roundup 360 L 540

Kamba L 0 200 200 320 540

Amicide L 1000 40 0 0 -

Roundup Biactive L 4700 920 1360 1880 3860

Grazon L 80 0 0 0 -

Surpass L 600 0 680 0 -

Simazine L 200

Arsenal L - - - - 960

Acrolien Kg 7235 0 5880 5350 7392


Blue-Green Algae MonitoringSamples were taken for blue-green algae analysis from the DEC monitoring sites as required by the DNR Environ-

ment Management conditions A.2.1. The results are presented in table 2.11.

The presence of blue-green algae at the Finley Escape is a direct result of contaminated water in the supply system

being transferred through the escape to the Billabong Creek, to supplement river flows. The presence of blue-green

algae at the Deniboota Canal Escape is also a result of contaminated water in the supply system being transferred

through it and low flows allowing water to pond and stagnate.

Table 2.11: Summary of Blue-Green Algae for the Murray Irrigation area 2005/06

Date Blue- Green Algae (cells/ml)

Site: BIBE Berrigan Creek Escape

10-Oct-06 none detected

Site: BIFE Finley Escape

13-Dec-05 none detected

10-Jan-06 none detected

07-Feb-06 < 1000

07-Mar-06 1738

Site: MOXM Box Creek Stormwater Escape

13-Dec-05 none detected

10-Jan-06 none detected

07-Feb-06 none detected

07-Mar-06 none detected

Site: DBCE Deniboota Canal Escape

07-Feb-06 < 1000

07-Mar-06 4641


Impact on Receiving WaterwaysDuring 2004/05 DNR undertook a review of its network of water quality monitoring sites and the tests undertaken

at each of the sites. As a result, a number of sites used by Murray Irrigation to determine our impact on receiving

waters are no longer monitored. In addition, DNR did not carry out total phosphorus testing at any of the sites.

Due to the lack of data, this year Murray Irrigation sourced data from the NSW provisional dataset on the http://

waterinfo.dlwc.nsw.gov.au/wq/index.html to assist in determining the impact on receiving waters of discharges from

Murray Irrigation.

Billabong CreekWater quality of the Billabong Creek has been summarised in table 2.12. The salinity of water in the Billabong

Creek does not change significantly between the Innes Road Bridge upstream of Jerilderie (and our outfalls into the

system), and downstream of the Murray Irrigation outfall at Hartwood.

At the time when the Murray Irrigation stormwater escapes (shown in table 2.12) were flowing into the Billabong

Creek the salinity of our water was generally less than the salinity in the creek. Flows from the Murray Irrigation

stormwater escape system have 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 2005/06

Month

Median

daily

EC

(uS/cm)

Median

daily

discharge

(ML/day)

Median

daily

EC (uS/cm)

Median

daily

discharge

(ML/day)

Median

daily

EC

(uS/cm)

Median

daily

discharge

(ML/day)

Median

daily

EC

(uS/cm)

Median daily

discharge

(ML/day)

Median

daily

EC (uS/cm)

Median daily

discharge

(ML/day)

Jun 40 285 137 0.3 138 1.0 341 0.0 63 82

Jul 90 287 161 0.4 184 0.9 298 0.0 64 145

Aug 254 586 176 0.6 109 14.6 227 0.0 265 218

Sep 223 791 168 1.7 175 5.4 530 0.0 260 427

Oct 267 810 145 2.9 176 33.6 495 0.6 222 608

Nov 348 480 172 15.4 153 48 480 4.1 327 323

Dec 287 270 91 1.9 63 195 587 0.0 178 87

Jan 212 323 72 3.9 67 240 0.0 158 99

Feb 165 388 114 2.0 71 261 0.0 129 247

Mar 96 378 130 1.5 77 269 0.0 109 322

Apr 45 290 119 2.4 157 12.6 0.0 106 112

May 66 220 134 2.6 83 14.5 78 1.9 78 124

Median daily EC and discharge values from continuous monitoring

(1): Billabong Creek U/s Inees 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

Billabong Creek U/S

Innes Rd bridge

(410170) (1)

Billabong Creek at

Hartwood (410168) (5)

Berrigan Creek Escape

(2)Finley Escape (3)

Wollamai East Escape

(4)


Edward RiverThere is limited water quality data available for the Edward River. As a result, it is not possible to make a meaning-

ful assessment of the impact of Murray Irrigations stormwater escape system on the Edward River. It is difficult to

determine the impact of the Box Creek on the Edward River as the data for the Edward River at Moulamein

includes the impact of flows from the Yanko Creek, for which no water quality data is available. The flows from the

Mulwala Canal Escape do not impact on the salinity in the Edward River as the salinity was consistently less than or

equal to the salinity downstream of Stevens Weir. The water quality data that is available for the Edward River is

shown in table 2.13.

Table 2.13: Water Quality recorded within the Edward River and outfalls into the Edward River 2005/06

Mulwala

Canal at

Deniliquin

(1)

Month EC (uS/cm)

Median

daily

EC (uS/cm)

Median

daily

discharge

(ML/day)

Median

daily

EC (uS/cm)

Median

daily

discharge

(ML/day)

Median

daily

EC (uS/cm)

Median daily

discharge

(ML/day)

Median daily

EC (uS/cm)

Median daily

discharge

(ML/day)

Jun 0 0 62 276 2660 0.5 106 328

Jul 0 0 53 1374 4220 1.5 94 1667

Aug 54 1364 50 2910 4340 1.2 94 2159

Sep 53 55 219 46 2876 2250 2.6 139 3145

Oct 48 53 45 52 2169 865 8.3 145 2516

Nov 66 60 42 74 5326 586 32.7 135 3323

Dec 60 57 49 84 3003 1890 6.7 121 2357

Jan 52 2387 78 1898 1820 6.8 96 1504

Feb 57 53 2410 70 2989 2330 5.6 111 2619

Mar 56 57 2391 67 2517 2560 6.3 98 2651

Apr 58 2467 54 2617 1790 12.0 89 2648

May 62 122 48 2332 823 13.1 93 2904


(1): Mulwala Canal at Deniliquin (MLAW), M.I.L

(2): Mulwala Canal escape at Edwards River (409029) NSW provisional river data website

(3): Edward River downstream Stevens Weir, (409023) NSW provisional river data website

(4): Box Creek upstream Barratta Weir pool (MOXM), M.I.L.

(5): Edward River at Moulamein, (409014) NSW provisional river data website

Box Creek Outfall U/S

Barratta Weir pool (4)

Mulwala Canal Escape

at Edward River

(409029) (2)

Edward River D/S

Stevens Weir (409023)

(3)

Edward River at Moulamein

(409014) (5)


Tuppal CreekWater quality is measured in the Tuppal Creek at number of sites:

• downstream of the supply channel escape;

• upstream of the Pinelea Stormwater Escape outfall;

• Aratula Road.

The Lalalty Stormwater Escape (TUPJ), the Pinelea Stormwater Escape (TCPL) and the West Warragoon Stormwa-

ter Escape outfall into the Tuppal Creek. Releases from the Lalalty Stormwater Escape are totally controlled by

Murray Irrigation. When the salinity in the Lalalty Stormwater Escape is above 800EC the flow is diluted with

supply channel water in order to meet the salinity concentration condition of Murray Irrigation’s water management

works licence. The dilution water is sourced from a Murray Irrigation supply channel that enters the creek between

the Lalalty Stormwater Escape 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.

Table 2.14: Water Quality recorded within the Tuppal Creek and Lalalty Stormwater Escape 2005/06

Month

Median

daily

EC (uS/cm)

Median daily

discharge

(ML/day)

Median daily

EC (uS/cm)

Median daily

discharge

(ML/day)

Median

daily

EC (uS/cm)

Median daily

discharge

(ML/day)

Median

daily

EC (uS/cm)

Median daily

discharge

(ML/day)

Median

daily

EC (uS/cm)

Median daily

discharge

(ML/day)

Median daily

EC (uS/cm)

Median daily

discharge

(ML/day)

Jun 1460 0.0 71 0.1 227 0.1 140 0.0 * 0.0

Jul 984 0.0 161 0.0 208 0.0 240 0.0 * 0.0

Aug 1450 0.0 218 0.0 0.0 226 0.0 * 0.0

Sep 539 0.0 162 0.7 123 0.6 188 0.3 * 0.0

Oct 729 11.5 323 21.7 426 21.2 139 0.4 * 0.0

Nov 913 3.3 541 22.8 563 26.0 248 0.6 * 393 18.5

Dec 550 0.3 309 0.1 438 0.6 410 0.0 276 0.0 491 0.1

Jan 223 0.2 242 0.9 356 0.2 0.0 267 0.0 0.0

Feb 187 0.3 265 0.9 266 0.8 0.0 245 0.0 0.0

Mar 207 0.9 170 2.3 276 2.0 0.0 242 0.0 0.0

Apr 306 0.0 297 0.5 271 0.4 0.0 509 0.0 0.0

May 150 0.0 65 5.4 115 5.9 0.0 556 0.1 0.0


(1): Lalalty SEC (TUPJ), M.I.L.

(2): Tuppal Creek downstream Toc 6 Escape(TULAL), M.I.L

(3): Tuppal Creek upstream Pinelea SEC outfall (TUP1), M.I.L

(4): Pinelea SEC (TCPL), M.I.L.

(5): West Warragoon SEC (TCWW), M.I.L. commenced momitoring Dec 2005

(6): Tuppal Creek at Aratula Rd.(409056), NSW provsional river data website

Lalalty SEC (1)Tuppal Creek U/S Pinelea

SEC (3)Pinelea SEC (4)

Tuppal Creek at Aratula Rd.

(409056) (6)

Tuppal Creek D/S Toc 6

Escape (2)West Warragoon SEC (5)


Pumping Drainage Water into Supply ChannelsIn 2005/06 four requests for pumping into supply channels were received. All the requests were received after

rainfall. All the samples were below 800EC, with variable turbidity and total phosphorus concentrations. All the

requests were approved.

Noxious Aquatic WeedsThe noxious aquatic weeds of the region are listed in table 2.15. There were no reported sightings of any of these

aquatic weeds within either the supply or stormwater escape system during 2005/06.

Noxious Aquatic Weed Reported Sightings

Alligator Weed Nil

Water Hyacinth Nil

Golden Dodder Nil

Water Lettuce Nil

Salvinia Nil

Table 2.13: Reported sitings of noxious aquatic weeds in the Murray Irrigation area 2005/06


Chapter 3: Groundwater Management

Wakool Tullakool Subsurface Drainage Scheme

OverviewThe 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 the 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


2005/06 OperationThe WTSSDS continues to have a positive effect on watertables with only 2,930ha of the 73,332ha area monitored

having watertables within two meters of the surface in March 2006 (figure 3.2). Only two of the 54 pumping wells

had watertables within two meters of the surface. The vast majority, some 41 of 54 pumping wells, registered

watertable levels of three meters or greater.

In 2005/06, continued optimisation of pump rates in response to dry conditions meant pump operation remained

lower than prior to the 2002/03 drought. Up to 27 pump sites were switched off with 50 sites operating throughout

the year, although most were working in a reduced capacity as shown in figure 3.3. As a result, in the past 12

months, the scheme extracted a total of 3,449ML of saline groundwater. Figure 3.3 shows the volume of water

discharged from individual pump sites over the last year. Figure 3.4 compares the total volume of groundwater

discharged into the basins between 1995 and 2006.

Figure 3.2: WTSSDS Watertable levels March 2006


0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

1.0

3.0

5.0

7.0

9.0

11.0

13.0

15.0

17.0

19.0

21.0

23.0

26.0

28.0

30.0

34.0

36.0

38.0

40.0

42.0

45.0

47.0

51.0

54.0

59.0

61.0

63.0

Pump sites

To

tal

vo

lum

e p

um

pe

d (

ML

)

Figure 3.3: Volume of Water Discharged from each Pump Site into the WTSSDS Basins 2005/06

Figure 3.4: Volume of Groundwater Discharged into the WTSSDS Basins 1995-2006

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Time (years)

Gro

un

dw

ate

r D

isch

arg

e (

ML

)


Other Tubewell PumpingSince privatisation in 1995 Murray Irrigation, in conjunction with landholders, have operated 17 tubewells in the

Berriquin district 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 localised. The

groundwater extraction volumes from the Murray Irrigation tubewells up until handover in February 2004 can be

found in the 2003/04 Compliance Report.

Trends in Regional Watertable LevelsMurray 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 August 2005 and March 2005 for the

four land and water management plan (LWMP) regions. Figures 3.14 and 3.15 outline the trends in watertable

change for the entire Murray LWMP region since groundwater monitoring began in 1995.

Figure 3.6: Depth to watertable in Berriquin LWMP area – March 2006


Figure 3.7: Depth to watertable in Berriquin LWMP area – August 2006

Figure 3.8: Depth to watertable in Cadell LWMP area – March 2006


Figure 3.10: Depth to watertable in Denimein LWMP area – March 2006

Figure 3.9: Depth to watertable in Cadell LWMP area – August 2006


Figure 3.12: Depth to watertable in Wakool LWMP area – March 2006

Figure 3.11: Depth to watertable in Denimein LWMP area – August 2006


Figure 3.13: Depth to watertable in Wakool LWMP area – August 2006

Figure 3.14: Change in regional watertable levels July 1995-August 2006


Figure 3.15: Change in regional watertable levels August 2005-August 2006


Chapter 4: On-Farm Management

Climatic ConditionsClimate 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 evapotranspiration (ETo).

Above average rainfall was experienced during winter and spring 2005 for both stations. The period between

December 2005 and June 2006, however, was very dry, with the exception of reasonable falls in April. Over the

whole year, rainfall was below long-term averages* at both Finley (84%) and Tullakool (98%).

In the 2005/06 irrigation season supplementary water was made available in September to all shareholders and

again in October and November for Wakool only. Conditions have remained largely dry since December 2005. The

2005/06 rice growing season experienced favourable conditions, with hot, dry weather. Evapotranspiration during

2005/06 was slightly above average at both Finley (109%) and Tullakool (101%).

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

July August September October November December January February M arch April M ay June

(mm

)

Rainfall ETo Average Rainfall Average ETo

Figure 4.1: CSIRO Finley Rain & Evapotranspiration 2005/06

Table 4.1: Weather data – 1st July 2005 to 30th June 2006, from CSIRO weather stations

Finley Tullakool

Total Rainfall (mm) 321.2 342

Average Rainfall* (mm) 381.5 349.1

Long-term Rainfall Comparison* 84% 98%

Total Evapotranspiration (mm) 2035.8 2059.5

Average Evapotranspiration* (mm) 1863.1 2046.5

Long-term Evapotranspiration Comparison* 109% 101%

* Based on data from 1986-2006 for Finley, and from 1996-2006 for Tullako


LanduseMurray 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 area. Landuse of the total area as summarised

in table 4.2, demonstrates the diverse nature of agriculture within the region. 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.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

July August September October November December January February M arch April M ay June

(mm

)

Rainfall ETo Average Rainfall Average ETo

Figure 4.2: CSIRO Tullakool Rain & Evapotranspiration 2005/06

Table 4.2: Landuse in the Murray LWMP Region

1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06

Dryland Pasture 31 34 34 24 10 7 5 10 15 14

Winter Irrigated Pasture 20 20 18 19 16 15 14 16 12 16

Winter Crops* 18 21 26 25 32* 36* 43 41 32 31

Rice 10 6 6 5 - - - - - -

Rice Stubble / Fallow** 6 4 2 2 8** 5** 0.3** 2 10 5

Lucerne / Summer

Pasture4 2 7 6 4 3 3 3 5 6

Other Crops/Fallow 2 2 1 9 1 1 1 8 1 5

Native vegetation 5 3 4 4 22 17 23 14 9 10

Infrastructure / Other 4 7 5 5 11 16 11 6 16 13

* Includes winter cereal fallow and winter crops sown into rice stubble** Includes rice and rice stubbleSource: LWMP Annual Surveys

NOTE:

LanduseProportion of Total Area (%)

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 LayoutAcross the Land and Water Management Plan area 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 between 30% and 50% of the area devel-

oped. 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 2005/06, $11.3 million was invested by landholders in landforming, $6.6

million in associated improvements to irrigation layouts and $8.2 million for irrigation recycling on-farm. This

figure is for all holdings that did irrigation recycling and storage works, not just commercial holdings, to our

standards.

Water UseMurray Irrigation delivered 985,038ML of irrigation water on-farm in 2005/06 (figure 4.4). This represents 125% of

the 5 year average of 786,832ML which includes three years of historically low annual allocations.

Usage 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. The crop water use records are

based on water orders placed by landholders. Figure 4.5 shows the changes in water use for the four categories of

landuse over time.

An analysis of the relative water use in 2005/06 compared with water use prior to the 2002/03 drought shows that

rice has recovered to its status as the principal irrigated crop on a regional scale. Consumption of water on annual

pastures remained steady from 2004/05 to 2005/06, perennial pastures rose slightly and cereals decreased.

$0.0

$5.0

$10.0

$15.0

$20.0

$25.0

$30.0

$35.0

$40.0

1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06

Inve

stm

en

t in

im

pro

vin

g irr

iga

tio

n la

yo

uts

($

milli

on

)

Figure 4.3: Investment in improved irrigation layouts 2001/02-2005/06.


0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06

Vo

lum

e (

ML

)

Rice Annual Pasture Perennial Pasture Cereals

Figure 4.5: Regional crop water use 2001/02 – 2005/06

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06

Deli

veri

es (

ML

)

Figure 4.4: Water deliveries to landholdings 2001/02 – 2005/06


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

% Rice % Ann Pasture % Per Pasture % Cereals % Other % S&D

Landuse Category

Perc

en

tag

e o

f w

ate

r u

sed

2001/02

2002/03

2003/04

2004/05

2005/06

All Years

Figure 4.7: Deniboota Crop Water Use 2001/02-2005/06

Figure 4.6: Berriquin Crop Water Use 2001/02-2005/06

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%


Landuse Category

Pe

rcen

tag

e o

f w

ate

r u

se

d

2001/02

2002/03

2003/04

2004/05

2005/06

All years


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%


Landuse Category

Perc

en

tag

e o

f w

ate

r u

sed

2001/02

2002/03

2003/04

2004/05

2005/06

All Years

Figure 4.9: Wakool Crop Water Use 2001/02-2005/06

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%


Landuse Category

Perc

en

tag

e o

f w

ate

r u

sed

2001/02

2002/03

2003/04

2004/05

2005/06

All Years

Figure 4.8: Denimein Crop Water Use 2001/02-2005/06


Table 4.4: Area (ha) grown to rice 2001/02 – 2005/06

District 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06

East Berriquin 21,407 382.9 6,916 5,833 14,975

West Berriquin 5,869 184.8 2,834 1,787 5,084

Denimein 4,078 119.9 1,462 992 3,266

Deniboota 8,394 483.1 3,344 1,898 5,580

Wakool 15,402 374.3 8,173 7,351 12,492

Total 55,150 1,545 22,729 17,863 41,397

2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06

(ML/ha) (ML/ha) (ML/ha) (ML/ha) (ML/ha)

Berriquin 2.15 0.77 1.07 1.22 1.65

Deniboota 1.23 0.31 0.55 0.56 0.85

Deinimein 1.59 0.37 0.67 0.71 1.16

Wakool 1.46 0.34 0.84 0.89 1.12

Region 1.74 0.53 0.84 0.97 1.31

District

Table 4.3: Irrigation Intensity within MIL region 2001/02 – 2005/06

Total Farm Water BalanceIn 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, that indicated 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, land

use 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.

For 2005/06 average irrigation intensity ranged from 1.65ML/ha in the Berriquin District to 1.16ML/ha in the

Denimein District as shown in table 4.3. The regional average irrigation intensity of 1.31ML/ha was an increase

from the previous year and is the third highest since 1999/00.

After taking into account the limits set for individual landholdings and making allowances for the volume of

shallow groundwater pumped, 20 landholdings exceeded their TFWB limit. Penalties will be applied and the

volume that the limit was exceeded by will be deducted from next year’s limit.

Rice Water UseMurray 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 can not be grown on a field

unless it has been tested and approved by Murray Irrigation as suitable for rice growing.

Rice water use accounted for approximately 48% of the total water delivered by Murray Irrigation during 2005/06.

The area sown to rice in 2005/06 was 41,397ha (table 4.4) which is a significant increase on the three previous

season. Figure 4.10 shows the spatial distribution of rice grown in the Murray Irrigation region and the water use of

those rice crops.

The average rice water consumption for the 2005/06 season was 12.2ML/ha (which includes irrigation water

supplied and estimates of groundwater used). The target rice water use figure was set at 17ML/ha for all districts

this season, in line with the Rice Environment Policy Advisory Group (REPAG) agreed method of calculation.

There were five landholdings that exceeded the target rice water use volume in 2005/06 as shown in table 4.5. These

growers will be required to retest their fields using the latest sodicity criteria prior to growing rice on that area

again.


Table 4.5: Number of landholdings who exceeded their rice water use limit 2001/02 – 2005/06

Year Number exceeding % exceeding

2001/02 27 2.50%

2002/03 0 0%

2003/04 26 4.60%

2004/05 5 1.20%

2005/06 5 0.60%

Figure 4.10: Farm rice water usage 2005/06

Risk of SalinityArea of Land with a Watertable within 0-4mThe watertable monitoring results are presented in figures 3.6-3.13 of this report.

Groundwater SalinityThe 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 and 2003.

The area of land with groundwater salinity greater than 5,000EC was 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 2003 is presented in Figure 4.11.

Area of Land with High Salinity RiskA 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.


Figure 4.11: Groundwater salinity in Murray Irrigation piezometers 2003

Rootzone SalinityThe rootzone salinity benchmark is currently under review. A decision is pending on its future inclusion in the

Murray LWMP benchmarking program.

WaterloggingThe waterlogging benchmark measured the area of surface ponding each year. This benchmark is currently under

review. A decision is pending on its future inclusion in the Murray LWMP benchmarking program.

Farm Water Use EfficiencyFarm 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. Information on water use per crop type can be

found in figures 4.5 to 4.9.

Rice Water Use EfficiencyRice water use accounted for approximately 47% of the total water used within the Murray Irrigation area during

2005/06. 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 4.12.

The efficiency of rice crop water use varies considerably. The apparent efficiency levels above 100% are caused by

the lower water use requirement of short season varieties used on some landholdings, measurement inaccuracy of

water supplied from river pumps and deep bores and the impacts of high watertable levels in some areas.

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.

Murray Irrigation believes the water use values attributed to rice production from sources other than Murray

Irrigation’s water ordering records in 2002/03 significantly underestimate the amount of water that was applied to

rice.


0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

120.0%

140.0%

2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

Ric

e w

ate

r u

se e

ffic

ien

cy

(%

)

Eastern Murray Valley Western Murray Valley

Figure 4.12: Rice crop water use efficiency 2001/02 – 2005/06

Dairy Water Use EfficiencyThe dairy water use efficiency benchmark is currently under review. A decision is pending on its future inclusion in

the Murray LWMP benchmarking program.

Year 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06

Tonnes/ML 0.67 1.38 0.67 0.6 0.82

Table 4.6: Rice production in the MIL region (t/ML) 2001/02 – 2005/06


0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

2001/2002 2002/2003 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006

Lim

e a

pp

lie

d (

ton

nes

)

Figure 4.13: Tonnes of lime applied for soil amelioration in Murray LWMP area, 2001/02-2005/06

Adoption of Best Management PracticesThe adoption of best management practices benchmark is currently under review. A decision is pending on its future

inclusion in the Murray LWMP benchmarking program.

Soil Acidity (Benchmark)Soil acidity is a key indicator of soil condition. The Murray Catchment Blueprint 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 2001/02-2005/06 are presented in figure 4.13 and show that between 2001/02 and 2004/05

the application of lime steadily increased.

Status of Native VegetationThere 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. These benchmarks are currently under

review. A decision is pending on their future inclusion in the Murray LWMP benchmarking program.

Information on the area of remnant vegetation fenced and the number of trees planted can be found in chapter 5.

Socioeconomic StatusThe benchmark established examines selected farm financial indicators including debt/equity ratios. A farm finan-

cial survey was established in 1993/94 and again in 1997/98. Details of the previous surveys were reported in the

1997/98 Environment Report.

The socioeconomic status benchmark is currently under review. A decision is pending on its future inclusion in the

Murray LWMP benchmarking program.

Community Understanding of Best Management PracticesThe benchmark established is the cumulative percentage of farmers attending the Irrigation Accreditation Course

(IAC). The community understanding of best management practices benchmark is currently under review. A

decision is pending on its future inclusion in the Murray LWMP benchmarking program. Information on the number

of landholders attending IAC can be found in chapter 5.


Chapter 5: Murray Land and Water Management Plans

The Murray Land and Water Management Plans (LWMPs) is 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. The landholder contributions are

in the form of levies on water fees, council rates, and 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.

LWMP ImplementationTable 5.1 outlines the achievements where incentives are available and progress against targets. This information is

presented in terms of landholdings that have accessed LWMP incentives to date. 2005/06 marked year 11 of the 15

year Government funded program.

1 Commercial holdings are defined in Berriquin, Denimein and Wakool as greater than or equal to 50ha and greaterthan or equal to 50ML entitlements. For Cadell commercial holdings are defined as greater than 50ha andirrigated.2 Defined as fully approved whole farm plans.3 Defined as farms that have recycling systems in place but not necessarily the minimum storage requirements.4 Defined as farms meeting the minimum LWMP storage requirements.5 Mostly saltbush (includes lucerne for Wakool).NB: total works completed may vary from year to year due to amalgamations and subdivisions.

In 2005/06 a total of $7.6 million of Government funding and $5.7 million of cash and in-kind contributions from

landholders was spent on LWMP initiatives. Landholders spent another $45.8 million on non-incentive LWMP

items, as indicated by the annual landholder survey.

Details of this expenditure is outlined in tables 5.2-5.5.

Table 5.1: LWMP On-Farm Implementation Summary 1995 to 30 June 2006

Total

Landholdings 3,244

Commercial Landholdings1 2,167

Incentive Item Works

Completed

Target

Achievement

Works

Completed

Target

Achievement

Works

Completed

Target

Achievement

Works

Completed

Target

Achievement Total

Irrigation Accreditation Course 1,013 85% 176 n/a 126 n/a 263 n/a 1,578

Farm Plans 2 567 60% 227 57% 74 61% 181 65% 1049

Irrigation Recycling Systems3 420 44% 168 43% 61 50% 156 56% 805

Storages 254 29% 120 35% 34 28% 113 40% 521

Vegetation to reduce Salinity5 5ha 2% 774ha 19% 6ha 1.20% 1,598.4ha 107% 2,383.4ha

Actively Manage Native Vegetation 902.8ha 10% 3,879ha 30% 320.6ha 10% 3,373.4ha 25% 8,475.8ha

Restore & Regenerate Native

Vegetation 492.9ha 6% 1,264ha 26% 90.76ha 12% 298ha 11% 2,145.7ha

Actively Manage Riparian Zones 0ha 0% 19.2ha 8% 20ha 38% 27ha 9% 66.2ha

Establish Native Veg Seed Orchards1ha 11% 13.1ha 131% 0ha 0% 0ha 0% 14.1ha

Actively Manage Native Pastures 0ha 0% 97ha 54% 0ha 0% 0ha 0% 97ha

Perennial Vegetation n/a n/a 31,458 53% 2,079ha 35% n/a n/a 33,537ha

Groundwater Pumping n/a n/a n/a n/a 7,171ML 40% n/a n/a 7,171ML

1,188 494 135 350

1,481 1016 190 382

Berriquin Cadell Denimein Wakool


Table 5.2: Implementation of the Berriquin LWMP 2005/06

Berriquin

Funding Item

LWMP Programs Levy 3 LWMP Incentives 4 Additional 5

Research & Development 50,012.94$ 50,012.94$

Monitoring 74,105.76$ 74,105.76$

Administration 37,008.90$ 37,008.93$

Education 90,784.94$ 90,784.94$

Sub Total 251,912.54$ 251,912.57$

LWMP Incentive Programs Whole Farm Plans 391,291.25$ 98,173.08$ 141,166.00$

Drainage Reuse Construction 1,128,931.61$ 1,206,523.64$ 194,477.00$

Drainage Reuse O&M 3,557,941.00$

Actively Manage Native Vegetation 115,031.69$ 239,348.63$

Restore & Regenerate Native Vegetation 88,835.69$ 172,445.75$

Vegetation to Reduce Salinity 331.20$ 331.20$

Native Vegetation O&M 355,736.00$

Sub-Surface Drainage O&M 181,592.47$

Sub Total 1,724,421.44$ 1,716,822.30$ 4,430,912.47$

Capital Works ProgramDrainage Works Program 1,358,660.21$ 554,945.74$

Drainage Program O & M -$ 168,982.44$

Sub Total 1,358,660.21$ 723,928.18$

Landholder Works Program Landforming 9,368,643.00$

Improved Pasture Management 2,323,264.00$

Additional Landholder Works 1 2,877,916.06$

Sub Total 14,569,823.06$

Total 3,334,994.19$ 975,840.75$ 1,716,822.30$ 19,000,735.53$

Contribution to Program 13% 4% 7% 76%

1 Includes items such as improving irrigation layouts, EM31 surveying and lime application2 Actual government financial contribution to implementation of each component of the LWMP program3 Direct levy charged to all landholders via their water accounts4 Actual landholder financial contribution to works on their properties5 Additional landholder financial contribution to LWMP initiatives as recorded via the annual landholder survey 2005/06

Landholder Contribution Government

Contribution 2


Table 5.3: Implementation of the Cadell LWMP 2005/06

Cadell

Funding Item



Monitoring 35,939.02$ 35,939.02$

Administration 24,583.17$ 24,583.17$

Education 82,485.66$ 82,485.66$

Sub Total 194,977.27$ 194,977.27$


Drainage Reuse Construction 713,963.08$ 241,599.74$ 654,593.00$

Drainage Reuse O&M 840,279.00$

Perennial Pastures 166,132.50$ 166,132.50$ 5,529,140.00$



Vegetation to Reduce Salinity 9,824.00$ 9,824.00$


On-Farm Infrastructure 840,279.00$

Sub Total 1,621,384.06$ 1,427,051.30$ 8,098,124.69$

Capital Works ProgramDrainage Works Program 238,695.93$ 42,122.83$


Sub Total 238,695.93$ 69,282.28$


Improved Irrigation Layouts 1,695,439.00$

Additional Landholder Works 1 6,746,584.00$

Sub Total 13,445,811.00$

Total 2,055,057.26$ 264,259.55$ 1,427,051.30$ 21,543,935.69$


1 Includes items such as conservation tillage, EM31 surveying and lime application2 Actual government financial contribution to implementation of each component of the LWMP program3 Direct levy charged to all landholders via their water accounts4 Actual landholder financial contribution to works on their properties5 Additional landholder financial contribution to LWMP initiatives as recorded via the annual landholder survey 2005/06


Contribution 2


Table 5.4: Implementation of the Denimein LWMP 2005/06

Denimein

Funding Item



Monitoring 54,783.05$ 54,783.05$

Administration 15,489.02$ 15,489.02$

Education 36,722.45$ 36,722.45$

Sub Total 158,200.91$ 158,200.91$


Drainage Reuse Construction 485,197.08$ 170,524.11$ -$


Farm Channel Sealing

Shallow Groundwater Pumping 4,178.78$ 13,978.00$

Perennial Pastures 3,050.80$ 3,050.80$ 102,239.00$




Sub Total 651,303.71$ 4,178.78$ 243,964.71$ 284,004.00$

Capital Works ProgramDrainage Works Program 71,783.72$ 17,945.94$

Drainage Program O & M -$ -$

Sub Total 71,783.72$ 17,945.94$

Landholder Works Program Landforming 569,881.00$

Improved Irrigation Layouts 547,736.00$

Additional Landholder Works 1 49,132.04$

Sub Total 1,166,749.04$

Total 881,288.34$ 180,325.63$ 243,964.71$ 1,450,753.04$


1 Includes items such as EM31 surveying and lime application2 Actual government financial contribution to implementation of each component of the LWMP program3 Direct levy charged to all landholders via their water accounts4 Actual landholder financial contribution to works on their properties5 Additional landholder financial contribution to LWMP initiatives as recorded via the annual landholder survey 2005/06


Contribution 2


Table 5.5: Implementation of the Wakool LWMP 2005/06

Funding Item



Monitoring 37,635.19$ 37,635.19$

Administration 23,922.12$ 23,922.12$

Education 52,126.73$ 52,126.73$

Sub Total 167,673.28$ 167,673.28$

LWMP Incentive Programs Whole Farm Plans 156,466.16$ 41,716.14$

Drainage Reuse Construction 764,763.77$ 223,661.07$ 120,332.00$


Sub Surface Drainage - New 362.40$ 90.60$

WTSSDS O & M 58,316.54$



Vegetation to Reduce Salinity 62,551.50$ 62,551.50$


Sub Total 1,126,754.86$ 58,316.54$ 623,839.34$ 1,063,278.00$

Capital Works ProgramDrainage Works Program 1,069.92$ 416.08$


Sub Total 1,069.92$ 47,198.30$


Improved Irrigation Layouts 1,475,519.00$

Additional Landholder Works 1 92,489.63$

Sub Total 3,620,954.63$

Total 1,295,498.06$ 273,188.12$ 623,839.34$ 4,684,232.63$


1 Includes items such as EM31 surveying and lime application2 Actual government financial contribution to implementation of each component of the LWMP program3 Direct levy charged to all landholders via their water accounts4 Actual landholder financial contribution to works on their properties5 Additional landholder financial contribution to LWMP initiatives as recorded via the annual landholder survey 2005/06


Contribution 2


Reporting the LWMP Implementation FiguresEach LWMP has a number of targets to complete and reporting against these targets is generally broken down into

four segments. These are explained as follows:

Target: This is the target that was set for the program usually indicated as a percent or number to be achieved by a

certain date. For example: “By 2010, 80% of holdings to have installed commercial recycle systems.”

2005/06 Progress: reports on the number completed in the financial year between 1st July 2005 and 30th June 2006.

For example: “43 farm plans were completed and approved in 2005/06.”

Total Implementation: Is a cumulative figure for the total number of units to achieve relative to the target, this may

be in number of farm plans, recycle systems or hectares of vegetation. Comparisons are made in relation to the total

target with indications how far behind or ahead achievement is in individual programs. For example: “As of June30, 2006 a total of 1,264ha of native vegetation has been restored and regenerated which is 26% of the total restoreand regenerate target of 4,923ha. This is 213ha behind the 2005/06 milestone of 30% or 1,477ha.”

Survey Results: This is the results of the annual landholder survey conducted in July 2006 that captures landholder

activity related to targets set by the LWMP program. Figures used in the survey results are additional landholder

costs and exclude LWMP incentives. For example: “The landholder survey indicated that 121 landholdings had anirrigation recycling system, eight of which met LWMP guidelines and did not access an incentive. These landhold-ings invested $41,149 carrying out these works. A total of $91,695 was also spent on operating and maintainingirrigation recycling systems in 2004/05.”

The survey samples 6% of landholdings and extrapolates their responses to give a picture of activity at the regional

level. Due to the potential for errors inherent with extrapolation, this data cannot be combined with the actual

LWMP database figures to calculate total implementation.


Berriquin LWMPThe Berriquin LWMP area encompasses the East and West Berriquin Irrigation Districts, which covers an area of

341,546ha of farm land consisting of 1,659 landholdings. Of these landholdings 1,188 are considered to be com-

mercial being greater than or equal to 50ha, with 50 or more Murray Irrigation Water Entitlements. A community

working group develops implementation policies and sets priority actions. The Berriquin Working Group comprises

18 landholders, three agency representatives and Murray Irrigation as the Implementation Authority.

Summary of ProgressLandholder adoption of LWMP incentives has steadily increased since commencement of implementation in 1995.

During the 2005/06 financial year record levels of incentives were taken up, with $1.7 million of Government

funding provided to farm planning, irrigation recycling and enhancing native vegetation. This was matched with

$1.7 million of landholder cash and in-kind contributions to incentive works across 276 landholdings. The annual

survey indicates that landholders contributed a further $19 million to non-incentive works.

Berriquin landholders have made significant progress towards meeting the plan targets over the past eleven years of

implementation. At the end of June 2006, a total of 60% of commercial irrigated holding have completed a whole

farm plan, 44% have completed a recycle system and 29% have constructed their minimum storage requirement. A

total of 694.6ha of native vegetation was also protected and enhanced on 34 holdings.

EducationIn 2005/06 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 six working group meetings were held to inform community representatives of natural resource manage-

ment issues and to address LWMP issues, and two newsletters were produced.

The formal component of the education program in Berriquin is the four day Irrigation Accreditation Course (IAC)

that was offered five times during 2005/06. This course was attended by landholders representing 46 holdings,

bringing the total participation to 85% of commercial holdings.

A number of field days were held throughout Berriquin in 2005/06. These included:

· A native vegetation field day;

· Three wildlife seminars held at the Blighty Pub, Coree Hall and Jerilderie Shire Hall;

· A wildlife walk;

· A wetlands safari;

· A wildlife reptile night.

These field days promoted awareness of biodiversity and management of native vegetation. All of the field days

were well attended with between 25 and 90 landholders participating in each event.

The education program continues to be adapted to better meet the needs of individuals and local groups. The

ongoing cooperation and participation of landholders and other organisations in the education program is essential.

The NSW Department of Primary Industries (DPI), Murray Catchment Management Authority (MCMA), Depart-

ment of Natural Resources (DNR) and private industry continue to make significant contributions.

Irrigation Accreditation Course (IAC)

Target

A representative of all commercial holdings will have completed the Irrigation Accreditation Course by March

2006.

2005/06 Progress

Landholders representing a total of 46 commercial properties attended the IAC in 2005/06.

Total Implementation

As of June 30, 2006, landholders representing 1,013 properties attended the course which is 85% of the total target

of 1,188 commercial holdings. This is 175 holdings behind the 2005/06 milestone of 100% or 1,188 commercial


holdings.

Implementation ProgressFarm plan

Target

By 2008, 80% of commercial holdings will have completed an approved LWMP whole farm plan.

2005/06 Progress

43 farm plans were completed and approved in 2005/06.


As of June 30, 2006, a total of 567 commercial landholdings have completed an approved farm plan which is 60%

of the total farm plan target of 950. This is 240 farm plans behind the 2005/06 milestone of 85% or 807.

Survey Results

The landholder survey indicated that 718 landholdings had completed a farm plan, 45 of which had undertaken farm

planning in 2005/06, did not access an incentive but met LWMP guidelines. These landholdings invested $141,166

carrying out these works.

Irrigation Recycling

Target

By 2010, 80% of commercial landholdings to have installed irrigation recycling systems.

2005/06 Progress

36 landholdings installed an irrigation recycling system in 2005/06, an additional 76 landholdings accessed an

incentive to begin their irrigation recycling works.


As of June 30, 2006, a total of 420 commercial landholdings had installed an irrigation recycling system which is

44% of the total irrigation recycle target of 950. This is 274 recycle systems behind the 2005/06 milestone of 73%

or 694.

Survey Results

The landholder survey indicated that 1,010 landholdings had an irrigation recycle system, 45 of which had under-

taken irrigation recycling works in 2005/06, did not access an incentive but still met LWMP guidelines. These

landholdings invested $194,477 carrying out these works. A total of $3,557,941 was also spent on operating and

maintaining irrigation recycling systems in 2005/06.

Storage

Target

By 2010, 75% of commercial landholdings to have constructed a storage with a minimum capacity of 4ML per

100ha laid out to irrigation, where soil types permit.

2005/06 Progress

32 landholders constructed a storage meeting the minimum capacity in 2005/06.


As of June 30, 2006, a total of 254 commercial landholdings have constructed storages that meet the minimum

requirement which is 29% of the total storage target of 891. This is 396 storages behind the 2005/06 milestone of

73% or 650.

Survey Results

The landholder survey indicated that 45 landholdings had a storage facility that met the minimum storage require-


ment of 4ML/100ha of irrigation and didn’t access LWMP incentives. However none of those landholdings under-

took construction work in 2005/06.

Landforming and Topsoiling

Target

By 2010 a total of 247,460ha will be landformed with top-soiling where necessary.

2005/06 Progress

No incentives available.

Survey Results

The landholder survey indicated that landholders invested $9,368,643 million in landforming 11,740ha during

2005/06. This brings the total area landformed to 172,667ha. This is 70% of the landforming target.

Native Vegetation

Target 1

To actively manage 8,987.6ha of existing native broad vegetation types by the year 2013 (table 5.6).

2004/05 Progress

327ha of native vegetation was actively managed in 2005/06 as shown in table 5.6.


As of June 30, 2006, a total of 902.8ha of native vegetation has been actively managed which is 10% of the total

target of 8,987.6ha. This is 1,793.5ha behind the 2005/06 milestone of 30% or 2,696.3ha.

Target 2

To restore and regenerate 8,000ha of under represented broad vegetation types by the year 2013 (table 5.6).

2005/06 Progress

367.6ha of under represented broad vegetation types was restored and regenerated in 2005/06 as shown in table 5.6.


As of June 30, 2006, a total of 492.9ha of native vegetation has been restored and regenerated which is 6% of the

total target of 8,000ha. This is 1,907.1ha behind the 2005/06 milestone of 30% or 2,400ha.

Target 3

To actively manage 52.5ha of riparian zones by the year 2013.

2004/05 Progress

There have been no riparian zones actively managed in 2005/06.


Table 5.6: Summary of native vegetation achievements for 2005/06

BVT Actively manage

native BVT target

Actively manage

- achieved 05/06

Restore & regenerate

under represented BVTs target


- achieved 05/06

Boree Woodland 718.4ha 56.2ha 1823.3ha 143.4ha

Sandhill Woodland 595.6ha 56.2ha 134.1ha 23.7ha

Grassy Box Woodland 4,590.0ha 87.7ha 5650.8ha 147.8ha

Floodplain Forest 1,988.4ha 46.8ha 391.7ha 33.2ha

Riverine Forest 1,095.2ha 80.1ha n/a 19.5ha

Total 10 year Target 8,987.6ha 327ha 8,000ha 367.6ha


As of June 30, 2006, no riparian zones have been actively managed which is 0% of the total target of 52.5ha. This is

15.75ha behind the 2005/06 milestone of 30% or 15.75ha of riparian zone.

Target 4

Establish 9.1ha of seed orchards by the year 2013.

2005/06 Progress

No seed orchards were established in 2005/06.


As of June 30, 2006, a total of 1ha of seed orchards have been established which is 11% of the total seed orchard

target of 9.1ha. This is 1.73ha of seed orchards behind the 2005/06 milestone of 30% or 2.73ha.

Target 5

To manage 1,218ha of native pastures by the year 2013.

2005/06 Progress

No native pastures were managed in 2005/06 through the LWMP programs.


As of June 30, 2006, no native pastures have been managed which is 0% of the total native pastures target of

1,218ha. This is 365.4ha of native pastures behind the 2005/06 milestone of 30% or 365.4ha.

Survey Results

The landholder survey indicated that $355,736 was invested in operation and maintenance costs associated with

native vegetation areas in 2005/06.

Vegetation to Reduce Salinity

Target

By 2010, establish 277ha of perennial vegetation to reduce watertable recharge and minimise the effects of salinity

over high watertables, saline and seepage areas.

2004/05 Progress

3ha of vegetation to reduce salinity was established in 2005/06.


As of June 30, 2006, a total of 5ha of vegetation to reduce salinity has been established which is 2% of the total

target of 277ha. This is 105.8ha behind the 2005/06 milestone of 40% or 110.8ha.

Perennial Species in Annual Pastures

Target

By 2010, 18,743ha of perennial pastures will be incorporated into annual pastures.

Survey Results

The landholder survey indicated that 224 landholders incorporated perennial species into their annual pastures in

2005/06, over an area of 6,727ha. Investment in these works totalled $2,323,264. This brings achievement at the

end of 2005/06 to 16,987ha which is 91% of the perennial species in annual pastures target.


Cadell LWMPThe 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 1,016 landhold-

ings, 47.9% (494) of which are commercial (greater than or equal to 50ha in size and irrigated).

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 Department of Primary Industries and the Murray

Catchment Management Authority. The working group is important for determining priority actions and ongoing

community consultation.

Summary of ProgressLandholder adoption of LWMP incentives has increased steadily since commencement of implementation in

November 1996. During the 2005/06 financial year, $1.6 million of Government funding was provided to Cadell

landholders for farm planning, irrigation recycling and storage, perennial pasture and saltbush, and native vegeta-

tion. This was matched with $1.4 million of cash and in-kind contributions from landholder across 294 landhold-

ings. The annual survey indicates that landholders contributed a further $21.5 million on non-incentive works. Since

1996, 514 Cadell landholdings (51%) have accessed a LWMP incentive.

Cadell landholders have made significant progress towards meeting the implementation targets. A total of 57% of

commercial holdings have completed a farm plan, and 43% of commercial holdings have installed an irrigation

recycling system. The Cadell LWMP has also made significant progress towards meeting the vegetation targets.

Landholders have established or protected 1,898ha of native vegetation and established 6,726ha of perennial pasture

(including saltbush) in 2005/06.

EducationThe Cadell LWMP education program has a number of components; the Cadell Card, community education and

training activities, and one-on-one landholder education.

Accreditation for the Cadell Card requires a landholder to complete an awareness test and submit a farm map

identifying soil types, remnant vegetation areas, waterlogged and saline land, as well as current and proposed

irrigation layouts. This is a prerequisite for receiving financial incentives from the LWMP. As of June 30, 2006, 641

(87%) commercial holdings had received their Cadell Card accreditation. The landholder accreditation process has

provided an opportunity to improve individual landholder awareness and understanding through direct contact with

LWMP Officers.

The second component of the education program is less formal and has been carried out by Murray Irrigation with

support from private consultants and industry representatives, and NSW Department of Primary Industries. Activi-

ties conducted in 2005/06 include:

· Eight field days covering biodiversity, farm planning and drainage; and a tile drainage field day at Green

Gully;

· Two community newsletters;

· 48 landholders participating in the Irrigation Accreditation Course;

· Presentations to community groups.

As in previous years, LWMP staff have continued to increase the focus of the education program towards one-on-

one landholder education. This approach has been successful in increasing landholder awareness of the LWMP and

encouraging implementation of the plan.


Implementation Progress

Farm Plans

Target 1

By 2005, 95% of landholdings greater than 50ha will have completed a Farm Development Plan (Cadell Card).

2005/06 Progress

45 Farm Development Plans (Cadell Cards) were completed in 2005/06.


As of June 30, 2006, a total of 641 landholdings greater than 50ha had received their Cadell Card accreditation

which is 87% of the total farm development plan target of 740. This is 99 holdings behind the 2005/06 milestone of

100% or 740.

Target 2

By 2008, 80% of commercial landholdings will have produced a whole farm plan or drainage development plan.

2005/06 Progress

21 whole farm plans were approved in 2005/06, with an additional 53 landholdings receiving an incentive to begin

their farm plan.



of the total farm plan target of 395. This is 109 farm plans behind the 2005/06 milestone of 85% or 336.

Survey Results

The landholder survey indicated that 519 landholdings had completed some form of a farm plan, 22 of which had

undertaken farm planning in 2005/06, did not access a LWMP incentive but still met LWMP guidelines. These

landholdings invested $44,198 carrying out these works.


Target

By 2010, 80% of commercial landholdings will have implemented an irrigation recycling system.

2005/06 Progress

20 irrigation recycling systems were completed in 2005/06 and an additional 29 landholdings accessed an incentive

to begin their irrigation recycling works.


As of June 30, 2006, a total of 168 commercial landholdings have completed an irrigation recycling system which is

43% of the total irrigation recycling target of 395. This is 120 irrigation recycling systems behind the 2005/06

milestone of 73% or 288.

Survey Results

The landholder survey indicated that 476 landholdings had an irrigation recycle system, 43 of which had undertaken

works in 2005/06, did not access an incentive but still met LWMP guidelines. These landholdings invested

$654,593 in these works. A total of $840,279 was also spent on operating and maintaining irrigation recycling

systems in 2005/06.


Storage

Target

By 2010, 70% of commercial holdings will have implemented recycling and drainage works including a minimum

storage of 11ML per 100ha of irrigated land where soil types permit.

2005/06 Progress

11 landholdings constructed a storage meeting the minimum capacity in 2005/06.


As of June 30, 2006, 120 commercial landholdings have a storage (meeting minimum requirement) which is 35% of

the total storage target of 346. This is 133 storages behind the 2005/06 milestone of 73% or 253.

Survey Results


ment of 11ML/100ha of irrigation that was constructed without accessing LWMP incentives. No money was spent

on construction in 2005/06.


Target

By 2010, 11,773ha of irrigated pasture and 47,092ha of dryland pasture will incorporate lucerne or other native

perennial grass species, resulting in a total of 58,865ha.

2005/06 Progress

6,687ha of perennial pasture was established on 111 landholdings in 2005/06. Of this 1,450ha was irrigated peren-

nial pasture.


As of June 30, 2006, 31,458ha of perennial pasture has been established which is 53% of the total target of

58,865ha. This is 11,513ha behind the 2005/06 milestone of 73% or 42,971ha.

Survey Results

The landholder survey indicated that 281 landholders incorporated perennial species into their annual pastures in

2005/06. This included 10,577ha of irrigated pasture and 12,541ha of dryland pasture. Approximately $4,262,517

was invested in irrigated perennial pastures and $1,266,623 into dryland perennial pastures during 2005/06.

Saltbush

Target

By 2025, plant 4,000ha of saltbush for salinity control.

2005/06 Progress

39ha of saltbush was established in 2005/06 over five holdings.


As of June 30, 2006, 774ha of saltbush has been established which is 19% of the saltbush target of 4,000ha. This is

706ha behind the 2005/06 milestone of 37% or 1,480ha of saltbush.


Native Vegetation

Target 1

To actively manage 12,910ha of existing native broad vegetation types by the year 2013 (table 5.7).

2005/06 Progress

1,460ha of native vegetation was actively managed in 2005/06 as shown in table 5.7.


As of June 30, 2006, a total of 3,879ha of native vegetation has been actively managed which is 30% of the total

actively manage target of 12,910ha. This is 6ha above the 2005/06 milestone of 30% or 3,873ha.

Target 2

To restore and regenerate 4,923ha of under represented broad vegetation types by the year 2013 (table 5.7).

2005/06 Progress

438ha of under represented broad vegetation types has been restored and regenerated in 2005/06 as shown in table

5.7.


As of June 30, 2006 a total of 1,264ha of native vegetation has been restored and regenerated which is 26% of the

total restore and regenerate target of 4,923ha. This is 213ha behind the 2005/06 milestone of 30% or 1,477ha.

Target 3

To actively manage 255ha of riparian zones by the year 2013.

2005/06 Progress

8.8ha of riparian zones were managed in 2005/06.


As of June 30, 2006 a total of 19.2ha of riparian zones has been managed which is 8% of the total riparian zone

target of 255ha. This is 57.8ha behind the 2005/06 milestone of 30% or 77ha.

Target 4

Establish 10ha of seed orchards by the year 2013.

2005/06 Progress

7.1ha of seed orchards were established in 2005/06.


As of June 30, 2006 a total of 13.1ha of seed orchards has been established which is 131% of the total seed orchard

target of 10ha. This is 10.1ha above the 2005/06 milestone of 30% or 3ha.


BVT Actively manage

native BVT target

Actively manage

- achieved 05/06




- achieved 05/06

Boree Woodland 238ha 393ha 782.6ha 11ha

Sandhill Woodland 166ha 30ha 83.5ha 44ha

Grassy Box Woodland 2,952.4ha 298ha 3,239.9ha 173ha

Floodplain Forest 4,450ha 578ha 817ha 165ha

Riverine Forest 5,103.6ha 161ha 0ha 45ha

Total 10 year Target 12,910ha 1,460ha 4,923ha 438ha


Target 5

To manage 180ha of native pastures by the year 2013.

2005/06 Progress

97ha of native pastures have been managed through the LWMP programs in 2005/06.


As of June 30, 2006 a total of 97ha of native pastures has been managed which is 54% of the total native pastures

target of 180ha. This is 43ha over the 2005/06 milestone of 30% or 54ha.

Survey Results



Soil Management

Target 1

By 2010, 80% of commercial landholdings will implement conservation farming techniques such as minimum

tillage or direct drilling.

2005/06 Progress


Survey Results

The landholder survey indicated that 693 landholders used conservation tillage techniques during 2005/06 as

outlined in tables 5.8 and 5.9 (below).

Table 5.9: Stubble management techniques applied in the Cadell area 2005/06

Management Type

Rice Summer

Crops

Winter

Cereals

Grazing 65 22 325

Burning 87 43

Mulching 22 65

Baling 43

Other 43

Crop Type

Table 5.8: Crop establishment techniques applied in the Cadell area 2005/06

Crop Establishment Technique Area (ha) Cost

Direct drill rice stubble 5,779 $291,294

Direct drill other stubble 63,117 $3,181,322

Direct drill pasture 8,355 $421,122

Other techniques 10,168 $508,382

Total 87,419 $4,402,120


Irrigation Scheduling

Target

By 2010, 31,500ha of irrigated land will implement irrigation scheduling practices (e.g. daily evaporation figures or

moisture probes, in particular annual pastures, lucerne and summer crops).

2005/06 Progress


Survey Results

The landholder survey indicated that 281 commercial landholders were adopting irrigation scheduling techniques

equating to 20,509ha across the district.

Landforming

Target

By 2010, an additional 80,000ha will be landformed to minimise waterlogging and reduce accessions.

Survey Results

The landholder survey indicated that landholders invested $5,003,788 in landforming 6,270ha during 2005/06. This

brings the total area landformed to 73,786ha which is 92% of the landforming target.

Alternative Farming Practices

Target 1

By 2005, dryland alternative crops (canola, field peas, lupins and vetch) will be used by 80% of commercial

landholdings as a break crop for wheat and barley.

Survey Results

The landholder survey indicated that 17% of commercial landholdings growing dryland crops grew break crops for

wheat and barley on commercial holdings in 2005/06.

Improved Irrigation Efficiencies

Target

By 2010, 10% of flood irrigation will be converted to drip or spray to improve irrigation efficiencies.

Survey Results

The landholder survey indicated that in 2005/06 no flood irrigation was converted to spray or drip to improve

irrigation efficiencies.

On-farm Infrastructure

Target

By 2005, 90% of commercial landholdings will use the correct maintenance procedures for farm channels to ensure

flow rates are not restricted by the build up of weeds or sediments.

Survey Results

The landholder survey indicated that 303 commercial landholdings undertook channel maintenance during 2005/06

at a cost of $840,279.

Table 5.10: Percentage of landholders using irrigation scheduling techniques 2001/02-2005/06

YearPercentage of landholders

using irrigation scheduling techniques

2001/02 7%

2002/03 6%

2003/04 5%

2004/05 13%

2005/06 19%


Community Surface Drainage

Target

By 2007, obstructions (e.g. channels, roads, banks) in the Yaloke and Murphy’s Timber depressions will be re-

moved.

2005/06 Progress

For progress on Cadell stormwater escape construction see page 88.

Special Projects (Green Gully)

Target 1

By 2008, 80% of farms (downstream of the Womboota township) will have produced a farm plan and implemented

an irrigation recycling system to reduce surface water entering Green Gully.

2005/06 Progress

No further farm plans were completed in 2005/06.


As of 30 June 2006, a total of 12 whole farm plans have been completed downstream of the Womboota township

which is 30% of the total number of holdings of 40. This is 12 farm plans behind the milestone of 60% or 24 farm

plans. Of these holdings, six have an irrigation and recycling and storage system in place, which is equivalent to

15% of the 2008 target.

Target 2

By 2010, implement surface and sub surface drainage within Green Gully and install lift pumps and evaporation

basins as recommended in the CSIRO research project “Hydrologic and economic evaluation of options for improv-

ing surface and subsurface drainage of the Green Gully area.”

2005/06 Progress

Three stages for completion of the tile drainage system were identified in August 2005. Since then Stage 1 located at

“Paringavale” has been completed and is successfully lowering the watertable. Stage 2 located at “Myall Hill” has

been surveyed with preliminary designs being considered. Stage 3 is to be completed in 2006/07.


Three key areas for sub surface drainage have been identified and prioritised with full works being completed at

stage 1. All three sites have been investigated using a geotechnical survey and an EM31 survey with hydraulic

conductivity measured in strategically placed piezometers.

Target 3

By 2015, implement a comprehensive salinity monitoring program to track the movement of salt in Green Gully

after significant rainfall events.

2005/06 Progress

No incentive available.


Soil investigations including soil drilling, EM31 and geophysics, as well as extensive watertable monitoring has

been conducted throughout Green Gully. Ten test wells have also been installed at “Paringavale” to monitor the

watertable before and after works have been carried out. Early results indicate the surface and subsurface drainage

works are reducing watertables at the sites.


Denimein LWMPDenimein is the smallest of the four districts covering 53,379ha and comprising 190 holdings of which 135 are

commercial (commercial being landholdings that are greater than or equal to 50ha and have 50 or more Murray

Irrigation entitlements).

The Denimein Working Group comprises seven landholders from throughout the district and two agency representa-

tives. The working group makes decisions on behalf of the community regarding the operation and implementation

of the plan.

Summary of ProgressSince commencement of the plan in October 1996 there has been a steady uptake of incentives with approximately

88% of commercial landholdings being involved in the Denimein LWMP to date.

Despite the ongoing dry conditions in 2005/06, Denimein landholders continue to support the plan. Government

funding of $0.65 million spent on farm planning, irrigation recycling, and protection and enhancement of native

vegetation. This was matched with $0.2 million of landholder cash and in-kind contributions to incentive works.

The annual survey indicates that landholders contributed a further $1.45 million towards non-incentive LWMP

works.

Denimein landholders have continued to make significant progress towards meeting LWMP targets. Since 1996, a

total of 61% of commercial landholders have finalised a farm plan, with 50% completing an irrigation recycling

system.

EducationA major focus was placed on landholder education in Denimein throughout 2005/06. Since the commencement of

the plans, LWMP staff have continued to focus on one-on-one education with individual landholders. This approach

allows the implementation officer to encourage best management practices to match individual farm requirements.

Throughout the year a number of group activities were undertaken to encourage landholder participation and

increase landholder awareness of the LWMP’s. These events included:

· A wildlife walk;

· A wetland safari;

· A reptile field day;

· A wetlands mapping presentation;

· Three evening wildlife seminars;

· Publication of two newsletters;

· Presentations and tours were also provided to external agencies such as Murray Darling Basin Commission

and Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry Australia.

Landholders are also encouraged to attend the Irrigation Accreditation Course (IAC) which operates throughout the

year, covering a range of topics from soil, plants, irrigation to vegetation issues. This year landholders representing

eight commercial holdings attended the IAC.

A high level of coordination and cooperation is maintained with the Murray Catchment Management Authority,

Department of Primary Industries, Department of Natural Resources and the Murray Wetlands Working Group and

other private organisations which is essential for the efficient delivery of the LWMP education program.


Implementation ProgressFarm Plans

Target

90% of commercial holdings to have completed a farm plan by 2008.

2005/06 Progress

Four farm plans were completed and approved in 2005/06. An additional ten holdings accessed an incentive to

begin developing their farm plan.


As of June 30, 2006, a total of 74 landholdings have completed an approved farm plan which is 61% of the total

farm plan target of 121. This is 27 farms behind the 2005/06 milestone of 85% or 102 farm plans.

Survey Results

The landholder survey indicated that 135 landholdings had completed some form of farm plan, eight of which had

undertaken farm planning in 2005/06, did not access an incentive and met LWMP guidelines. These landholdings

invested $25,653 in these works.


Target

90% of commercial holdings to have an approved irrigation recycling system by 2010.

2005/06 Progress

Two landholdings completed their irrigation recycle system in 2005/06. An additional 18 landholders accessed

incentives to construct their recycling system.


As of June 30, 2005, a total of 61 commercial landholdings have completed an approved irrigation recycling system

which is 50% of the total irrigation recycling target of 121. This is 27 recycling systems behind the 2005/06

milestone of 73% or 88 recycling systems.

Survey Results

The landholder survey indicated that 119 landholdings had an irrigation recycling system, none of which had

undertaken works in 2005/06, did not access an incentive and met LWMP guidelines. A total of $107,051 was spent

on operating and maintaining irrigation recycling systems in 2005/06.

Storage

Target

90% of commercial holdings to meet the minimum storage requirement by 2010.

2005/06 Progress

Three landholdings constructed storages that meet the minimum requirement in 2005/06.


As of June 30, 2005, a total of 34 commercial landholdings have completed an approved storage which is 28% of

the total storage target of 121. This is 54 storages behind the 2005/06 milestone of 73% or 88 storages.

Survey Results

The landholder survey indicated that no landholdings had a storage facility that met the minimum storage require-

ment of 12ML/100ha of irrigation and didn’t access a LWMP incentives.


Native Vegetation

Target 1

To actively manage 3,216.9ha of existing native broad vegetation types by the year 2013 (table 5.9).

2005/06 Progress

135.1ha of native vegetation was actively managed in 2005/06 as shown in table 5.9.


As of June 30, 2006, total of 320.6ha of native vegetation has been actively managed which is 10% of the total

target of 3,216.9ha. This is 644.4ha behind the 2005/06 milestone of 30% or 965ha.

Target 2

To restore and regenerate 731.8ha of under represented broad vegetation types by the year 2013 (table 5.9).

2005/06 Progress

6.8ha of under represented broad vegetation types were restored and regenerated in 2005/06 as shown in table 5.9.


As of June 30, 2006, a total of 90.8ha of native vegetation has been restored and regenerated which is 12% of the

total target of 731.8ha. This is 128.7ha behind the 2005/06 milestone of 30% or 219.5ha.

Target 3

To actively manage 52.5ha of riparian zones by the year 2013.

2005/06 Progress

No riparian zones were managed in 2005/06.


As of June 30, 2006, total of 20ha of riparian zone has been managed which is 38% of the total target of 52.5ha.

This is 4.2ha ahead of the 2005/06 milestone of 30% or 15.8ha.

Target 4


2005/06 Progress



As of June 30, 2006 no seed orchards have been established which is 0% of the total target of 2ha. This is 0.6ha

behind the 2005/06 milestone of 30% or 0.6ha.


BVT Actively manage

native BVT target

Actively manage

- achieved 05/06




- achieved 05/06

Boree Woodland 1,048.4ha 1ha 518.7ha 0ha

Sandhill Woodland 33.3ha 8.3ha 94.8ha 0ha

Grassy Box Woodland 2.4ha 71.9ha 10.5ha 4ha

Floodplain Forest 1,505.2ha 49.9ha 107.8ha 1.5ha

Riverine Forest 627.6ha 4ha 0 1.3

Total 10 year Target 3,216.9ha 135.1ha 731.8ha 6.8ha


Target 5

To manage 260ha of native pastures by the year 2013.

2005/06 Progress

No native pastures were managed through LWMP programs in 2005/06.


As of June 30, 2006 no native pastures have been managed which is 0% of the total target of 260ha. This is 78ha

behind the 2005/06 milestone of 30% or 78ha.

Survey Results




Target

By 2010, 5,900ha of unimproved dryland pasture to incorporate perennial pastures or be managed to maintain a

perennial mix.

2005/06 Progress

156ha of unimproved dryland pasture incorporated perennial pastures in 2005/06.


As of June 30, 2006, a total of 2,079ha of perennials had been established in the Denimein LWMP area which is

35% of the total perennial pastures target of 5,900ha. This is 2,228ha behind the 2005/06 milestone of 73% or

4,307ha.

Survey Results

The landholder survey indicated that 24 landholders incorporated perennial species into their dryland pastures in

2004/05, over an area of 1,012ha. Approximately $102,239 was invested in these works during 2005/06. Table 5.10

details the pasture management techniques applied by landholders to achieve a balanced pasture of perennial and

annual species.

Saltbush

Target

By 2010, plant 500ha of saltbush.

2005/06 Progress

No saltbush was planted in 2005/06.


As of June 30, 2006, 6ha of saltbush has been established in the Denimein area which is equivalent to 1.2% of the

total saltbush target of 500ha. This is 194ha behind the 2005/06 milestone of 40% or 200ha.

Pasture Technique Number

Grazing 0

Grazing/Slashing 0

No specific intervention 16

Rotational 40

Set Stocking Rate 8

Table 5.12: Pasture management techniques applied to achieve a balanced pasture of perennial and annual

species


Groundwater Pumps

Target

Aim to pump 1,200ML/year.

2005/06 Progress

525.64ML of groundwater was pumped in 2005/06 over five holdings.


As of June 30, 2005 a total of 7,171ML of water has been pumped in the Denimein LWMP area which is equivalent

to 40% of the total groundwater pumping target of 18,000ML. This is 5,969ML behind the 2005/06 milestone of

73% or 13,140ML.

Survey results

The landholder survey indicated that a total of 8 holdings have a shallow groundwater pump. 1,165ML was pumped

from these bores during 2005/06 at cost of $13,978.

Landforming

Target

8,000ha to be landformed by 2015.

2005/06 Progress

No incentive available.

Survey Results

The landholder survey indicated that $569,881 was invested in landforming over an area of 714ha during 2005/06.

This brings the total area landformed to 13,701ha and achievement at the end of 2005/06 to 171% of the target.

Farm Channel Sealing

Target

Identify areas of significant farm channel seepage and seal as appropriate.

2005/06 Progress

No landholders undertook channel sealing works in 2005/06.

Channel Escapes

Target 1

Identify the requirements for upgrading the channel escape system by 2001.

2005/06 Progress

For progress with Denimein channel escape upgrades see page 88.

Target 2

Construction based on target 1 outcomes to be completed by 2006.

2005/06 Progress

For progress with Denimein channel escape upgrades see page 88.


Box Creek Upgrade

Target

Implement salinity control works in the Box Creek by 2008.

2005/06 Progress

No salinity control works were completed in Box Creek in 2005/06. However a feasibility study, funded through the

LWMP R&D Program in 2004/05 has assessed the feasibility of different methods which could be employed to deal

with the salinity issues in Box Creek. The final report of this project is due in September 2006. See page 82 for

more information.


Wakool LWMPWakool LWMP implementation commenced in January 1996. It covers an area of 210,694ha and comprises 382

holdings with 350 commercial holdings (holdings greater than or equal to 50ha and 50 Murray Irrigation Ltd

entitlements).

The Wakool LWMP Working Group provides much of the ongoing direction and initiative for the Wakool LWMP.

The group is comprised of 18 landholder representatives, with representation from Murray Irrigation Ltd, Murray

Catchment Management Authority and NSW Department of Primary Industry (Agriculture).

Summary of ProgressDespite continuing difficult farm economic conditions, there has been a significant increase in the number of

holdings taking up the LWMP incentives in 2005/06 compared with 2004/05. Government funding of $1.1 million

dollars was provided for farm planning, irrigation recycling and enhancing native vegetation. This was matched

with $0.6 million of landholder cash and in-kind contributions to incentive works. The annual survey indicated that

landholders contributed a further $4.7 million to non-incentive works on their properties.

EducationEducation has been an active component in the Wakool LWMP area during 2005/06. The major component of

landholder education remains one-on-one informal meetings. Approximately 150 one-on-one landholder meetings

were held during 2005/06. Landholders representing 19 properties attended the Irrigation Accreditation Course.

Other formal aspects of the education program were held through field days, and presentations. A tour and presenta-

tion was also provided on salinity management to Barham High School and to the Wakool LWMP Working Group.

Field days conducted over the past year have included:

· Three evening wildlife seminars;

· A wildlife walk;

· A wetlands safari; and,

· A reptile night.

Implementation Progress

Farm Planning

Target 1

80% of commercial holdings to have a LWMP approved farm plan by the year 2008.

2005/06 Progress

15 farm plans were approved in 2005/06. An additional 25 landholdings received an incentive to begin their farm

plan.



of the total farm plan target of 280. This is 57 farm plans behind the 2005/06 milestone of 85% or 238 farm plans.

Survey Results

The landholder survey indicated that 212 landholdings had completed a farm plan, none of which had undertaken

farm planning in 2005/06, did not access an incentive but still met LWMP guidelines.



Target 1

80% of commercial holdings to have a LWMP approved irrigation recycling system by the year 2010.

2005/06 Progress

11 irrigation recycle systems were approved in 2005/06. An additional 38 landholdings received an incentive to

begin their recycle system.


As of June 30, 2006, a total of 156 commercial landholdings have completed an approved irrigation recycling

system which is 56% of the total target of 280. This is 48 irrigation recycle systems behind the 2005/06 milestone of

73% or 204.

Survey Results

The landholder survey indicated that 297 landholdings had an irrigation recycle system, 28 of which had undertaken

irrigation recycling in 2005/06, did not access an incentive but still met LWMP guidelines. These landholdings

invested $120,332 carrying out these works.

Storage

Target 1

80% of commercial holdings to have a LWMP approved storage system by the year 2010.

2005/06 Progress

19 storage systems were approved in 2005/06.


As of June 30, 2006, a total of 113 commercial landholdings have completed an approved storage which is 40% of

the total storage target of 280. This is 91 storages behind the 2005/06 milestone of 73% or 204.

Survey Results


ment of 6ML/100ha of irrigation and didn’t accessing LWMP incentives however no construction works were

carried out during 2005/06.

Target 2

90% of farm channels will be designed and maintained correctly by 2010. 80% of leaking on farm channel sites will

be sealed by 2005. Landholders have the responsibility of upgrading and maintaining their on-farm supply system.

2005/06 Progress


Survey Results

A total of $935,892 was spent on operating and maintaining irrigation recycling systems in 2005/06.

Vegetation to Reduce Salinity

Target 1

Establish 1,500 hectares of perennial vegetation by 2010 to reduce watertable recharge and minimise the effects of

salinity. This includes establishing lucerne, saltbush, tree belts in irrigated paddocks and planting trees along

seeping channels.

2005/06 Progress

736ha of vegetation to reduce salinity was established in 2005/06. This is divided into 573ha of dryland lucerne and

163ha of saltbush.


As of June 30, 2006, a total of 1,598.4ha of vegetation to reduce salinity has been established which is 107% of the

total target of 1,500ha. This is 503.4ha ahead of the 2005/06 milestone of 73% or 1,095ha.


Native Vegetation

Target 1

To actively manage 13,504ha of existing native broad vegetation types by the year 2013 (table 5.13).

2005/06 Progress

There has been 856.6ha of native vegetation actively managed in 2005/06 (table 5.13).


As of June 30, 2006, a total of 3,373.4ha of native vegetation has been actively managed which is 25% of the total

target of 13,504.4ha. This is 677.9ha behind the 2005/06 milestone of 30% or 4,051.3ha.

Target 2

To restore and regenerate 2,650.6ha of under represented broad vegetation types by the year 2013 (table 5.13).

2005/06 Progress

There has been 154.5ha of under represented broad vegetation types restored and regenerated in 2005/06 (table

5.13).


As of June 30, 2006, a total of 298ha of native vegetation has been restored and regenerated which is 11% of the

total target of 2,650.6ha. This is 497.2ha behind the 2005/06 milestone of 30% or 795.2ha.

Target 3

To actively manage 298ha of riparian zones by the year 2013.

2005/06 Progress

There has been 7ha of riparian zones managed in 2005/06.


As of June 30, 2006, a total of 27ha of riparian zone vegetation has been actively managed which is 9% of the total

target of 298ha. This is 62.4ha behind the 2005/06 milestone of 30% or 89.4ha.

Target 4


2005/06 Progress



As of June 30, 2006, no seed orchards have been established which is 0% of the total target of 10ha. This is 3ha


Table 5.13: Summary of native vegetation achievements 2005/06

BVT Actively manage

native BVT target

Actively manage

- achieved 05/06




- achieved 05/06

Boree Woodland 44.8ha 0ha 49.3ha 0ha

Sandhill Woodland 174ha 16ha 246.4ha 10.3ha

Grassy Box Woodland 1,098ha 0ha 837.9ha 2ha

Floodplain Forest 5,538ha 634.5ha 1,517.0ha 126.7ha

Riverine Forest 6,649.6ha 206.1ha n/a 15.5ha

Total 10 year Target 13,504.4ha 856.6ha 2,650.6ha 154.5ha


Target 5

To manage 1,500ha of native pastures by the year 2013.

2005/06 Progress

No native pastures were managed through LWMP programs in 2005/06.


As of June 30, 2006, no native pastures have been managed which is 0% of the total target of 1,500ha. This is 450ha


Survey Results

The landholder survey indicated that $7,054 was invested in operation and maintenance costs associated with native

vegetation areas in 2005/06.

Other on-farm practices

Target

All landholders are encouraged to improve internal drainage lines of rice layouts so that uninterrupted drainage is

provided.

2005/06 Progress


Survey Results

The landholder survey indicated that landholders invested $2,052,946 in landforming during 2005/06. The total area

landformed has increased by 2,573ha to 62,712ha landformed since 1995.

Subsurface Drainage

Target 1

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 priority areas.


The Wakool community and Murray Irrigation have identified an area of 6,000ha west of the existing Stage 2

evaporation basin that has been subject to a significant watertable rise in recent years. Watertables are within two

metres of the surface and groundwater salinity typically exceeds 50,000EC.

Australian Water Environments (AWE) was contracted to further evaluate the potential for expansion of groundwa-

ter pumping around the Stage 2 evaporation basin. When this report was completed a cost benefit analysis of the

scheme was undertaken, the results of this report showed that the current benefit cost ratio was generally around 0.7

to 1. To justify the investment, a benefit cost ratio of at least 1 to 1 is preferred. CSIRO Land and Water have

assisted by re-investigating the area for more cost effective options using geophysics technology to identify yielding

aquifers. This investigation has led to a revised concept layout of the scheme which should deliver similar ground-

water control using less pumping sites.

A community meeting was held in February 2006 to discuss likely charges to be imposed on landholders to com-

plete the scheme with unanimous agreement that the scheme should be constructed. The Wakool Sub Surface

Drainage committee will now investigate a range of cost effective options for installing the scheme in an initiative

to reduce projected capital and operation and maintenance costs further.

Floodplain Management

Target 1

The floodplain Management Strategy for Stage 4 to be completed by Department of Natural Resources by 2001.

2005/06 Progress

The fieldwork for the Stage 4 strategy has been completed and signed off and gazetted. Field investigations are still

underway for Stage 1, 2, and 3 of the floodplain plans, which have an influence in some of the Wakool LWMP area.


Murray LWMP R&D ProgramThe 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 organizations 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, 37 projects have been funded and 19 completed.

More information on past projects is available on our website www.murrayirrigation.com.au . During 2005/06 22

projects were conducted with the support of the R&D program, four of which were new projects that were approved

and commenced in the last 12 months. In 2005/06, six research projects were completed.

Completed ProjectsFactors Affecting the Rate of Adoption of Best Management Practice – RM Consulting Group

The adoption of Best Management Practice (BMP) often involves change from existing practices. Achieving the

change is often far more complex than first thought. The successful implementation of the Murray LWMPs requires

a large number of people to be influenced to adopt a range of BMPs.

To facilitate this change there is a need to understand the complex interactions influencing the decision-making

processes of landholders within the area. Adoption of new practices is the product of identifying the need for

change, seeing value in change, knowing how to change and having the time, money, energy and skills to put it in

place. In an effort to understand the adoption of BMPs this study undertook a series of surveys to identify those

issues that contribute to or limit the adoption. This survey included both people who have and people who have not

been involved in the uptake of LWMP BMPs.

A number of principles for adoption were developed in consultation with RMCG and Murray Irrigation staff. These

principles were:

1 Change occurs when a significant level of discontent exists;

2 Adoption is faster where there is easy access to information;

3 Adoption is faster where there is consistent information about practice change;

4 Change will be faster where it is motivated by a potential gain rather than a perceived loss;

5 Adoption occurs more quickly where the change aligns with the farmers existing goals and visions;

6 The greater the level of trust that the change will achieve the desired outcome, the faster the rate of

adoption;

7 Adoption is faster when the perceived level of risk is low;

8 Adoption occurs where there is a plan for introducing change;

9 Adoption requires the skills to implement the change;

10 Adoption requires the resources to implement the change.

It was determined that 1, 2 and 10 were the key barriers to adoption. RMCG believed that there was little the LWMP

program could do about discontent or peoples financial limitations (other than increasing incentives). However they

did believe that the LWMP could improve its extension program by:

· Better demonstrating the economic value of investing in LWMP works i.e. potential private gains

associated with LWMP works;

· Be clear about the cost of implementing works;

· Justify LWMP standards and guidelines, and how they apply to individual farms.

The project also concluded that farmers access information from a number of sources including consultants,

agronomists, farmer groups, media. As a result it was suggested that we could improve our information delivery by

using a broader network of information providers to get our messages across, this includes:

· Ensuring consultants and agronomists are well informed about the program and are promoting it to their

clients;

· Taking advantage of existing farmer groups to inform farmers about the LWMP program;

· Publishing extension info using a broad cross section of media; and,

· Making sure LWMP staff are prompt and efficient in their service of farmers enquiries.


Groundwater management and optimisation of the Wakool Tullakool Subsurface Drainage

Scheme – CSIRO Land and Water

The high cost of operating and maintaining the Wakool Tullakool Sub-Surface Drainage Scheme (WTSSDS),

combined with drier conditions over the last five years has led us to believe we can reduce the level of pumping.

Such a decision needs to be based on aquifer reactions as well as cost savings.

This study involved the development of two models:

1. Simulation model

a. Facilitate comprehensive understanding of the behaviour of the groundwater domain;

b. Compare various levels of groundwater extraction.

2. Operational model

a. Optimise pumping rates and timings for existing tubewells;

b. Prepare a plan of operation for the drainage tubewells to control waterlogging and its associated

salinity issues.

The simulation and operational models are complete and ready to run management scenarios for the optimisation of

the WTSSDS. Murray Irrigation has received a copy of the model and key staff will receive training on the use of

the model in coming months.

Factors affecting landholder adoption of native vegetation best management practices – Charles

Sturt University

Farm planning, irrigation recycling and the protection and enhancement of regional native vegetation are three

essential components of the Murray LWMPs. While landholders have adopted farm planning and irrigation recy-

cling best management practices quite widely, native vegetation management and the uptake of associated incen-

tives has been relatively low. This is despite active extension and communication programs in each LWMP area.

This project aims to investigate the reasons behind the slow uptake of native vegetation initiatives offered by the

Murray LWMPs. A number of factors have been identified, including landholder perception of government regula-

tion, perceived loss of productivity, time constraints and additional costs. Both landholders that have and haven’t

been involved in the LWMPs were interviewed to gain insight into the issues we are dealing with in the hope that

this information can be used to tailor the extension and incentive program to encourage greater uptake.

CSU concluded that in order for a landholder to take up native vegetation best management practices (BMPs):

· Recommended practices and incentives need to match the goals and values of landholders;

· Recommended practices need to fit into existing farming systems;

· Economic and time constraints need to be addressed;

· Recommended practices and incentives need to be more flexible;

· They also showed that adoption of BMPs is an ongoing process as part of adaptive learning and that good

extension was vital to continuing adoption.

As a result, CSU recommended that the LWMPs consider:

· Focusing their efforts on landholder and community engagement and less on targets;

· Providing opportunities for a wider range of landholders to participate in the program;

· Allowing for more flexible implementation of criteria for works receiving incentives;

· Providing greater labour support through contracts with professional or volunteer providers;

· Providing recognition for past efforts;

· Providing incentives to retain staff for longer periods.


Reducing waterlogging and improving the water use efficiency of rice farming systems –

NSW DPI (Agriculture)The price of irrigation water is set to increase as competition for water increases and irrigation supply decreases,

requiring farmers to increase their water use efficiency.

Many farmers rely predominantly on rice, leaving themselves vulnerable to fluctuations in water price and availabil-

ity. Improving the productivity of the non-rice phases of the rotation will increase the flexibility of the rice farming

system. Growing crops after rice reduces recharge which then decreases the incidence of rising watertables.

The major limiting factor for winter crop and pasture productivity is waterlogging. During the winter months,

rainfall often exceeds evaporation and this causes significant yield loss (20%-40% in winter cereals). The water use

efficiency (WUE) of the rice farming system will be improved if winter crop and pasture productivity can be

increased.

This project investigated the changes required to a rice farming system to allow for better incorporation of crops

after rice as a vital component of a sustainable operation. Two specific research questions were examined:

· Can drainage in lasered contour bays be improved to the point where waterlogging sensitive crops can be

grown in the non-rice phase of the rotation;

· Do conservation farming practices improve soil structure and lessen the incidence of waterlogging in

winter crops grown in rotation with rice.

Lucerne, wheat and field peas were trialled with mixed success. Yield was observed to be lost as a result of water-

logging and moisture stress at critical points. Drainage in each of the bays was observed to improve through

installation of 450mm pipes from each bay to the farm drain as well as increasing the size of the toe furrows and

cutting of spin ditches through the bays and this will make it possible to grow waterlogging sensitive crops after

rice.

The project concluded that soil constraints and slow draining irrigation layouts limit crop selection and yields. A

follow on project ‘Improving the performance of contour irrigation designs in the southern Murray Darling Basin’

will continue evaluating improvements to rice farming systems in the region.

Direct Seeding of native trees and shrubs in the LWMP areas – Western Murray Land

Improvement Group

Landholders are often very busy people who may see the benefits of preserving and boosting their native vegetation

but may find planting native trees is not cost effective and too time consuming. To achieve good revegetation

projects, methods have to be developed for farmers that are similar to their other cropping practices, so as to ease

the cost and time burden. Direct seeding of native species gives farmers a method of revegetation that can fit into

their farming routines.

This project trialled direct seeding of native species on eight sites across the Murray LWMP region and monitored

the early establishment, survival and growth rate of these plants treated in a number of different ways.

No treatment stood out as the best method of direct seeding however it was observed that good weed and pest

control is essential for successful germination and establishment.

The researchers concluded that direct seeding of native species is a viable method of revegetation for the Murray

LWMP region.


Mitigating soil acidity and minimising recharge of groundwater through coal ash treatment –

University of Technology, Sydney

Soil acidification is considered a new threat in the Murray Valley, and although its extent is yet to be fully quanti-

fied, it is imperative to begin exploring potential remedies. Soil acidity is a major land degradation process in

Australian agricultural landscapes. Low pH adversely affects fertility and so limits water-use by crops, thereby

increasing groundwater recharge. This adversity will be greater in irrigated cropping systems where over-applica-

tion of water can occur. Application of lime is the most common means of treating soil acidity, but it is an expensive

remedy costing over $145 to treat a hectare with 2.5 tonnes of lime. This project analysed the chemical and physical

properties of six coal ashes to determine their suitability for use as a soil ameliorant, and compared the economics of

the use of coal ash vs lime for soil amelioration.

For a product to be effective in the treatment of soil acidity it needs to have a high effective neutralising value

(ENV). Lime commonly has an ENV of 89% however the coal ashes tested in this study only had ENVs of 0-2.5%

which would not make them useful ameliorants for soil acidity. The researchers did however hold the belief that the

coal ash could provide some nutritional and structural improvements in soils of the region. The cost of sourcing and

transporting the coal ash was another limitation due to our proximity to coal-fired power stations. At $4 per tonne

plus $10 per 100kms, this would make coal ash approximately $80 per tonne pre application.

Current Projects

Inland Saline Aquaculture – NSW DPI (Fisheries)

This project is investigating the viability of commercial opportunities for farming a variety of fish species using

saline groundwater, including examining optimum stocking strategies and market acceptance. Water quality

preferences have been determined for a number of species however the main challenge continues to be the extremes

of climate the researchers face at Wakool.

In 2006 the 12 month trial of Mulloway began. 2,600 fish were stocked in four ponds, two were covered with a

floating solar thermal blanket and two were left uncovered. The trial aimed to answer three questions:

· Do the covers provide additional heat?

· Do the covers reduce the fluctuations in daily temperature?

· How does this effect the growth and survival of Mulloway?

Preliminary results show the covers are providing a one to four degree Celsius increase in water temperature that is

resulting in a slight growth benefit. As of July 2006, fish were 250-350g with harvesting in December and marketed

in a trial similar to that used with the Rainbow Trout in 2004.

A pumping trial is also underway at the Wakool Tullakool Sub Surface Drainage Scheme to determine the maximum

volume of water that could be pumped for a commercial aquaculture venture and whether or not the quality of water

is affected by an increase in volume extracted.


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 require-

ments, fertiliser application rates, methods and types.

From the data collected to date the following observations have been made:

· There appears to be some accumulation of nitrogen and phosphorus. However it is noted that reuse systems

are keeping the nutrients out of our waterways and they are of no harm to the farming system so this isn’t

perceived as an issue. As was expected the dairy farm exhibited the highest nutrient levels. In the case

where a farmer would be required to discharge water to the stormwater escape system it would be

occurring under a high flow situation and the nutrient levels would be diluted significantly;

· Salt could potentially be an issue if the reuse water on some farms was not diluted before it was used on

crops. There is some concern that levels could accumulate further. All salinity levels were however below

800EC and hence are not an issue if this water were to be discharged and reach waterways;

· Turbidity was generally within MIL’s expected range (i.e. <200NTU) except in limited instances when

stock had access to the storage etc;

· Some farmers appeared to be utilising their reuse systems during winter for stock watering;

· Farmers are attempting to empty their storages before Christmas to avoid excess losses from evaporation;

· There doesn’t seem to be any real correlation between rainfall and reuse, indicating that farmers aren’t

harvesting water from rainfall, they are only using their recycling systems for tailwater.

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 manage-

ment 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 deter

mined from the existing project.

A variety of analyses have been undertaken to gain a better understanding of the dynamics of the regional ground-

water including analysis of pump test data, watertable and soil information. This has allowed for new calculations of

recharge and from this the team have set preliminary ‘new’ targets for the total groundwater capacity of each LWMP

region, and production of preliminary salinity risk assessment maps. 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.

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 novel 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:

· Rotations that conserve more soil organic matter, and/or increase organic matter inputs, boost soil carbon

levels and microbial activity, resulting in improved soil structure and ‘biologically healthier’ soils.

· Systems that lead to healthier soils increase sustainability, productivity and ease of management.

· The benefits of healthier soils have been demonstrated over large variety of soil types and management

systems.

· Optimal soil structure is achieved when soil carbon level reaches approximately 2%.

· When soil carbon is low (<2%), small increases in soil carbon will result in substantial improvements in

soil structure and stability.

· There are a wide range of rotational and management options available to increase soil carbon levels,

including:

o Growing more or longer pasture phases;

o Eliminating fallows;

o Retaining crop residues;

o Reducing cultivation;

o Growing crops with more residues;

o Improving crop nutrition (increases crop residues);

o Growing crops with more fibrous roots (eg. corn);

o Green or brown manuring (short term benefits which need to be followed by high organic matter

input rotations).

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 establishing an education program to

raise awareness of sodic soil processes, the impact of groundwater irrigation on soils and best practices for manag-

ing soils.

Sites for the project have been identified, six of which were also part of Iain Hume’s original soil work in the

Murray valley. Initial sampling of sites is complete with soils analysed for sodicity, soil structure and chemical

composition. Ring infiltrometers have been installed and are operating.

The next steps of the project are as follows:

· analyse the soils for mineralogy;

· second round of soil samples;

· develop manual for farmers on dealing with groundwater irrigation and sodic soils; and,

· workshops with farmers on groundwater irrigation and sodic soils.

Stubble/soil organic matter management – processes, practices and improvements – CSIRO

Land and Water

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. Ulti-

mately this project aims to educate landholders about best practices for local conditions.

Four sites have been established in the Wakool/Moulamein region and one near Deniliquin, and a range of treat-

ments have been imposed at these sites. Sites have been sampled on three occasions, with a fourth sampling event to

occur in the near future. Results to date indicate that soils under a stubble retention regime are able to recover from

stressful situations (like drying out) quicker than soils with a more traditional burn/cultivate regime. The longest

running site has shown that stubble burning leads to lower levels of soil carbon, nitrogen and sulphur however the

differences between the values are not statistically significant.


A comparison of the soil ratios of C:N and C:S to those found in soil humic materials suggest that, while soil

sulphur levels may not be affecting plant performance, the low levels, compared to the carbon levels, may be

impeding the formation of humus and the subsequent increase in recalcitrant soil organic matter. As higher levels of

humic materials are generally associated with better soil structure this may mean that the efficacy of the stubble

retention regime on these soils is lower than might otherwise be expected.

Last year a laboratory trial clearly showed that the addition of sulphur, in the form of gypsum, to soil from one of

the other trial sites significantly improved the ability of that soil to decompose freshly added organic matter. While

these two phenomena are clearly linked it is not known if addition of sulphur at the paddock scale would produce an

economically acceptable outcome such as improved yield, or a significantly beneficial environmental outcome such

as reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It may however, be something that might be worth investigating in the

future.

Investigation of Combined Solar Thermal Power Generation and Desalination System –

Australian National University

The prevention, management and productive use of saline water are major priorities within the Murray LWMP

region, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions is of high importance to reduce global warming. This project

addresses both issues simultaneously by investigating the feasibility of constructing a solar thermal power system to

produce super heated steam which can generate electricity to drive a desalination system. This is an environmentally

friendly solution to the saline watertable problems of the region, is pioneering new technology and could possibly

increase local tourism.

To date the researchers have:

· Prepared a conceptual design;

· Researched commercially available steam turbines;

· Developed a thermal model of the Inland Saline Aquaculture ponds;

· Identified and examined potential demonstration sites for a combined solar thermal power generation and

desalination system – WTSSDS evaporation basins, WTSSDS pump site, MIL irrigation channel, and

SunRice facility;

· Analysed the economics of a variety of options.

Their investigations indicate that although the Murray Irrigation region is a prime location for solar power genera-

tion due to our hours of sunlight per annum and that combining solar thermal power generation with desalination is

a viable technology, the current cost of desalination of water at $1,000/ML is too expensive for agricultural pur-

poses.

Perennial native groundcovers for biodiversity enhancement – development of cost-effective

establishment mechanisms – University of Adelaide

The establishment of native grasses and noncommercial tree plantings is important to enhance biodiversity in

revegetation works. Currently, native plant seed requires specialised sowing equipment that is quite costly and not

always available to the average farmer. Conventional crop/pasture sowing equipment is incompatible with native

plant seed. Also, native seeds are expensive and establishment rates make revegetation efforts with them difficult.

This project is investigating the idea of pelletising native plant seeds so that they may be sown through conventional

sowing equipment. This will reduce the cost of revegetation works and increase the availability of the technology to

the average farmer.

The project has produced a literature review of current knowledge of seed pelleting of native grasses. The research-

ers have trialled the pelleting technology using locally indigenous seed from a local distributor (Murray Indigenous

Seed Services) with the seed being pelleted by Seed Solutions in Melbourne. Two germination trials were conducted

initially, one at the Seed Solutions laboratory using international seed testing procedures, and the second under

cooled glasshouse conditions at the University of Adelaide. Species that displayed poor germination in the initial

University of Adelaide trials were retested in growth cabinet conditions. Preliminary results of the trials indicate that

the success of germination of pelleted seed varies greatly between species. Austrodanthonia and Rhagodia germi-

nated well from both the raw and pelleted seed. Chloris and Clematis showed a reduction in germination after

pelleting. A number of species germinated well in one set of trial conditions and not the other. The trials also

investigated possible herbicide applications, eight herbicides were analysed. It was found that no herbicides trialled

allowed both monocots and dicots to germinate and establish without some level of damage or death. They therefore

recommended that a sustained period of weed control be initiated prior to sowing.


Water use and yields under centre pivot irrigation in the Southern Riverina – NSW DPI

(Agriculture)

Since the introduction of The Cap on diversions from the Murray-Darling Basin and a series of below average

inflows as well as other COAG water reforms, there has been a reduction in the volume and reliability of irrigation

supply and an increase in the cost of water for general security licence holders. Growers are searching for ways of

improving returns per megalitre of irrigation water used that also reduce the risk of crop failure. Shifting to centre

pivot systems is a possible solution if less water is used and/or yields are increased. There are also potential environ-

mental benefits in such a shift for the Murray LWMPs if these increases in efficiency also result in a decrease in

recharge to the watertable.

A significant investment is required to change from surface to overhead systems, so growers need to be well

informed to allow them to make appropriate decisions. This project is investigating the viability of converting from

a surface irrigation system to an overhead centre pivot irrigation system. It will provide objective performance data

on centre pivots by:

· Quantifying actual yields per ML;

· Documenting farm practices that lead to those yields;

· Evaluating the cost of machine operation.

Nine wheat, one barley and three canola crops were monitored for a range of agronomic, water use and irrigator

performance in the winter of 2005. Three wheat crops grown on transitional red brown earth and red brown earth

soils achieved a water use efficiency in the first year of 20kg/ha/mm where the wheat grown on heavier non-self

mulching clays did not. Final crop yield was mostly affected by water stress at critical stages of crop growth.

RM Consulting Group will be interviewing participating landholders and collecting information regarding the

economics of centre pivots and lateral move systems in August this year. They hope to determine the total cost ($/

ML) of operating these systems and the cost associated with storages that are required to provide supply during the

winter irrigation off-season.

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 dependant 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. To date, there have been very few examples of where water supply, water delivery

capacity (through rivers and channels) and water use have been combined with irrigation and other uses to quantify

the risks and economic consequences of particular supply/demand prospects. Customised geospatial forecasts of

climate and stream flow at appropriate scales are necessary to improve land and water management by providing

advanced forecasts of likely water availability.

This project aims to:

· identify and classify ocean influences on meteorological events responsible for significant rainfall and

catchment runoff in the southeast 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 and Artificial Neural Networks 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).

An interim report and a copy of the model have been submitted. The project is now focussing on further refining

results and synoptic analysis of pressure and temperature patterns to understand the dynamics of seasonal climate,

development of a cropping decision support tool for farmers, and linking economics into the model.


Feasibility of Box Creek Salinity Management to Achieve Salinity Benefits for the Murray River –

Charles Sturt University

The Box Creek Stormwater Escape is one of Murray Irrigation’s poorest performing stormwater escapes in terms of

water quality, particularly salinity. A hydraulic and hydrologic study was carried out by URS Australia in 2003 and

it identified the need for further analysis of salinity management options. This project is assessing the feasibility of a

number of salinity management options for the SEC. These include:

· separation of saline groundwater and high quality surface water;

· Serial Biological Concentration (SBC) of salts at a community farm; and,

· seasonal management of flows and vegetation to reduce soil and groundwater salinity.

This project will review previous studies and trials, collect a wide range of data, review and analyse previously

suggested surface and groundwater management options for the Box Creek and the whole of the Murray LWMP

region, perform hydrologic analyses and modelling to source the groundwater inflows, and appraise the hydrologic

and economic feasibility of a SBC system on the Box Creek.

Three reaches were identified as having either moderate or high potential to be contributing to the salt load in the

Box Creek Stormwater Escape. From this investigation as well as analysis of soil types, depth to watertable and

groundwater salinity five farms were identified as being suitable for the establishment of a community site to

manage salinity in the catchment. A number of management methods are being explored and assessed in terms of

ability to manage salinity in the stormwater escape and economics of any such method. A final report on the project

is due September 2006.

A scientifically based methodology for the use of EM technology for land capability and soil

classification mapping – Soil Solutions Pty Ltd / Advanced Soil Mapping

Soil survey methods are subjective and need little technical equipment. They rely a lot on the soil surveyor’s

experience to interpret soils based on a limited number of sites. The methods used today use closely the same

methodology applied when soil surveying was adopted as a science in Australia in the 1930s. Today soil surveyors

use a back hoe pit to examine profiles rather than augering a hole in the soil. However farmers are frequently

reluctant to have backhoes on their properties due to its intrusiveness. A less intrusive system of soil inspection is

desirable.

Objective data on the hydraulic and physical properties of soils to assist in classifying land for irrigation design and

practice is not collected in any systematic way at present. There are other important uses for this data, such as

assessing deep leakage, offsite effects, environmental impacts and more precise weather modelling. EM surveys are

a recognised method of soil salinity mapping with a precision not possible with traditional soil surveying and

sampling. Thus a level of accuracy impossible with traditional soil inspection is available. This project will investi-

gate the above issues to see if the development of a more accurate and less intrusive method of soil surveying is

possible.

EM surveying and soil analyses have been carried out on four sites in the Murray LWMP region. The results are

currently being compiled into a report to determine if this technology can be used to identify and classify soils for

different irrigation layouts and landuses.


An Irrigation Layout BMP Manual for the Murray LWMP region – RM Consulting Group

Local landholders identified the need for a manual outlining best management practices (BMPs) of 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 utilise when dealing with

designers to achieve the best outcome for their property and the surrounding environment when developing a whole

farm plan.

A steering committee comprising local landholders, irrigation surveyors and designers and departmental staff

(Murray Irrigation and NSW Department of Primary Industries) has been formed to oversee the development of the

manual.

To date, RMCG have provided the steering committee with a manual overview and draft chapter in order to seek

their feedback on:

· The overall direction and target audience for the manual;

· The individual chapters of the manual; and

· The manual style and layout.

Endorsement of the manual content, style and layout has been provided by and the draft manual is in its final stages

of development. This draft will then be open for review by the Steering Committee and the wider LWMP commu-

nity prior to production of the final manual.

Dealing with the reliability of irrigation allocations in the Murray Irrigation region – RM

Consulting Group

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.

Key to making effective decisions is a sound understanding of the reliability of the water resource. Irrigators have

never before been as exposed to the low level of allocations as in recent years and there is a need to employ sound

risk management practices to minimise the impact. Many irrigators in the area supplied by Murray Irrigation are not

sure what the future will mean in terms of water availability. This is creating uncertainty and impacting on the

ability to make decisions for the longer term. There is a need to help improve irrigator’s understanding of water

policy reform so they can be more confident about the decisions they need to make.

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.

Feasibility of Subsurface Drip Irrigation for the Murray LWMP region – RM Consulting Group

Interest in the adoption of alternative irrigation techniques such as subsurface drip irrigation is presently being

driven by:

· a desire to increase water use efficiency;

· the potential to increase returns per ML; and

· wanting to reduce vulnerability to low allocations.

Whilst there is interest amongst farmers in the adoption of subsurface drip irrigation in the Murray LWMP region, it

is not a common irrigation method. This is the result of a lack of knowledge on the suitability of subsurface drip

irrigation to our soils and crops, and an uncertainty about the economics of conversion.

Through literature reviews, analysis of soil maps, and case studies with farmers using subsurface drip irrigation both

in the Murray LWMP region and on similar soils in northern Victoria RMCG have found that subsurface drip

irrigation is feasible where there is:

· a high value crop;

· appropriate soils; and,

· a high level of management.


Where any of these factors is missing subsurface drip irrigation becomes more risky. They found that the most

appropriate soil types are self-mulching clays and red brown earths, and the most appropriate crops include lucerne,

maize, vegetables and fruit. All of which can be found or are produced in the region, if only in small proportions.

Understanding the market demand for produce and the associated prices, as well as training in the management of

subsurface drip irrigation were found to be essential requirements of a farmer looking to invest in the technology.

A final report on the feasibility study is due early in the 2006/07 financial year.

Improving the performance of basin irrigation layouts in the southern Murray Darling Basin –

NSW DPI (Agriculture)

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; and

· train irrigation surveyors and designers in the use of recommended design and evaluation tools.

The project commenced in February 2006 with a scoping study to review the literature and the current state of

knowledge and practice with respect to contour and basin irrigation systems. A local steering group comprised of

rice farmers, irrigation designers, earthmoving contractors and representatives from the LWMP and RIRDC Rice

research committees has been established. Focus group meetings have been have been held with this steering

committee and with farmers in the Wakool and Cadell LWMP areas and in-depth interviews have been held with

four irrigation designers. A review of existing basin irrigation design models and software has been completed. The

results of the interviews and the literature reviews is currently being compiled and will be completed by the end of

August 2006.

Meetings have also been held with staff from CRC Irrigation Futures (IF), University of Southern Queensland and

CSIRO Land & Water with the intention of bringing more partners into the project and attracting further funding.

These meetings have been successful in gaining scholarship funding from CRC IF to support a PhD student who

will examine the hydraulic performance of bankless channel systems. The project has also been included in the CRC

IF Research Plan and discussions are on-going with regard to attracting additional funding for the currently un-

funded components of the project (i.e. economic analysis, software design and extension/advisory components).


Stormwater Escape ConstructionConstruction of stormwater escapes is a significant salinity control component of the Murray LWMPs for the

Berriquin, Cadell and Wakool districts. They aim to remove stormwater runoff from the landscape following rainfall

events to prevent ponding and the subsequent recharge to the watertable. Stormwater relief is provided to Denimein

landholdings through enlargement of channel escapes.

Since the commencement of the LWMPs implementation in 1995, a large proportion of the stormwater escape

construction program has been completed. This, combined with relatively 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

stormwater events.

BerriquinIn 2005/06 the following works were undertaken as part of the Berriquin stormwater escape program:

· Box Creek stormwater escape refurbishment works in 2005/06 included 60km of desilting and 25kms of

fencing which equates to 15% of the total project. The tender for 16kms of fencing at Barratta has been let

with the tenders for their stock watering points to be let in August. These works are expected to be

completed in November. Ground preparation for tree planting has begun and will be assessed for moisture

in the first week of August. Revegetation along the stormwaterescape will commence in the next two

months depending on soil moisture. Construction of drainage inlets on Section 1 is to commence in August

and the following works in Section 2; inlets - survey and design, installation of stock water points and

fencing. Other Box Creek works include: upgrade of Berriquin drainage inlets (another 50 structures),

minor bank works, 80kms of fencing and installation of alternate stock water systems for Berriquin are

expected to be underway by December 2006. The continuation of desilting will be assessed in September

for finalisation of the 20kms to Moulamein Road later in 2006.

· Warragoon Stage II stormwater escape has been negotiated to drain via a storage adjacent to the levee of

the Tuppal Creek. High flows are to escape beyond the levee into the Tuppal Creek. All survey and

drilling works have been completed and designs commenced.

· Dry Creek stormwater escape was completed in April 2006. It is 4.2kms in length and provides surface

drainage to seven landholdings, covering 1,200ha of land surrounding the Dry Creek. The Dry Creek is a

natural evaporation basin that is highly saline.

· A hydraulic study of the Berrigan Creek Escape has been completed. This study modelled the effect of the

proposed construction of the Wunnumurra, Green Swamp and Jerilderie South stormwater escapes. The

works consist of five lateral stormwater escapes totalling 44km in length that outfall into the Berrigan

Creek Escape which is 42kms in length. Drilling and surveying has been completed and negotiations with

landholders arecontinuing. As part of the process an Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared.

Design work has commenced, with approval to proceed with construction being sought.

· The Broughshane Lane stormwater escape has been surveyed and landholder negotiations have been

finalised.

Table 5.12 outlines Berriquin stormwater escape construction up to 30th June 2006. Figures 5.2 and 5.3 show

landholdings with access to formal district drainage in 2005/06 and pre 1995 respectively.


Table 5.12: Summary of the Berriquin District Drainage Programs as at the 30th of June 2006

Stormwater Escape Landholder Negotiations Drilling and Surveying Design Environmental Approval Construction Operating

Nth Deniliquin

Stage 4

Warragoon North

Warragoon Stage 2 10%

West Warragoon

Back Barooga Stage 1

Back Barooga Stage 2

Oddy’s

Pinelea

Dc Lalalty 18

Wollamai East

Cosgrove

West Monee Swamp

Wollamai North

Wollamai West

Willeroo

Logie Brae

Logie Brae Extensions

Booroobanilly North

Booroobanilly Middle

Booroobanilly South

Mundiwa

Green Swamp 95% 100%

Wunnumurra 85% 100%

Berrigan Creek 95% 5%

Jerilderie South 95% 100%

Coree

Box Creek Ongoing Stage 1 approved

Stage 2 pending

Ongoing

Broughshane Lane


Figure 5.3: Berriquin landholdings with access to formal district drainage pre 1995

Figure 5.2: Berriquin landholdings with access to formal district


CadellThe Murphy’s Timber stormwater escape Stage 1 fencing was completed in 2005/06. In total over 25km of

stormwater escape was constructed. A small amount of landholder works are ongoing.

The Cadell surface drainage program works are outlined in table 5.13.

DenimeinThe focus of the Denimein LWMP drainage strategy is on farm irrigation recycling and storage, with the ability to

store all irrigation runoff and 12mm/100ha of rainfall runoff from the irrigated area on farm. It is planned that

excess stormwater would then be disposed off-farm via existing gravity drainage to the Box Creek Stormwater

Escape or by pumping into the Murray Irrigation supply system. Disposal into the supply system requires the

enlargement of channel escapes.

The Dahwhilly channel escape upgrade was completed in 2005/06. Designs for the amalgamation and enlargement

of eight channel escapes has been ongoing with six of those completed at the end of 2005/06 (table 5.14).

WakoolThe stormwater escape construction program in Wakool is now winding down, with the Burraboi stormwater escape

completed in 2002/03. This was the last of the formal stormwater escapes to be completed. Some areas within the

Wakool district however still require stormwater relief. These areas are not suitable for a formal stormwater escape

due to terrain, soil type, and floodway considerations. Some of these areas have substandard private drainage

systems or are in a floodway. It is proposed that these properties and private drainage systems in the Wakool district

be upgraded to ensure they meet Murray Irrigation’s DEC and DNR licence requirements. The first of these to be

considered by the Wakool working group is the Bunna private drainage system. Landholders on this system have

met with the working group to consider options and develop guidelines for the implementation and operation of

these private systems. No progress was made on stormwater escape construction or upgrade in the Wakool region

during 2005/06. For details on progress in Wakool surface drainage see table 5.15.

Table 5.13: Summary of the Cadell Stormwater Escape Program 1995/96 – 2005/06

Stormwater Escape Landholder Negotiations Survey Design Environmental Approval Construction Operational

Yaloke Stage 2

Sth Deniliquin

Murphy’s Timber

Table 5.15: Summary of the Wakool District Drainage Program

Stormwater Escape Landholder Negotiations Survey Design Environmental Approval Construction Operational

DC 2005Ext

Yallakool No 3

Burragorima

Neimur Upgrade

Burraboi

DC2500 West

Bunna # 75% 15%

Table 5.14: Escapes to be upgraded within the Denimein area 1995/96-2005/06

Escape Landholder Negotiations Survey Design Environmental Approval Construction Operational

Moulamein 1

Moulamein 2

Moulamein 4a

Dahwilly Channel

Dahwilly 3

Moulamein 8 & 12


APPENDICES


Appendix One: Benchmark and Compliance IndexThe benchmarking program was developed at the beginning of the LWMPs by a committee comprising representa-

tives of Murray Irrigation, the Murray LWMPs, DNR, NSW DPI and NSW DEC. 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

• Socioeconomic 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 hope to consolidate the benchmarking items by

removing, modifying and adding new items as appropriate. A preliminary workshop was held in June 2005 and

follow up workshops are scheduled for late 2006, early 2007. From the preliminary workshop a number of items

were marked for removal. Data for these items was not gathered for the 2004/05 or 2005/06 Compliance Reports.

The benchmark program review should be complete by the 2006/07 Compliance Report and a complete list of

benchmarks will be presented with data.

Appendix 1.1: Table of BenchmarksThe location of the benchmark items throughout the compliance report is outlined in table 1.1.

Benchmark Item Location Page Number

Delivery Efficiency Chapter 1: Supply Management 4

Supply Water Quality Chapter 1: Supply Management 5

Farm Water Use Efficiency Chapter 4: On-Farm Management 44-45

Rootzone Salinity Chapter 4: On-Farm Management 44

Risk Of Salinity Chapter 4: On-Farm Management 43

Soil Acidity Chapter 4: On-Farm Management 45

Waterlogging Chapter 4: On-Farm Management 44

Discharge Water Quality Chapter 2: Stormwater Management 10-26

Adoption of Best Management Practices Chapter 4: On-Farm Management 45

Status of Native Vegetation Chapter 4: On-Farm Management 45

Socio Economic Status Chapter 4: On-Farm Management 46

Community Understanding of Best

Management Practices

Chapter 4: On-Farm Management 46


Appendix 1.2: Table of Compliance ItemsThe location of compliance items through out the compliance report is outlined in table 1.2.

Condition Issue Format Chapter Page Number

A.1.1 Annual Environment Management

Reporting

All reporting requirements of LWMP &

licences

Submitted

A.1.2 LWMP Documentation Current reference list of reports, etc Appendix 4 91

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

A.2.2 Supply Efficiency Loss % of diversion, ML/month lost &

delivered, trend

Chapter 1: Supply Management4-Jan

A.2.2 Channel Seepage ML/year, trend, measures, prevented Chapter 1: Supply Management 6-Jan

A.2.2 Escape Flow/Loss ML/month, trend, measures, prevented Chapter 1: Supply Management4

A.2.2 Blue Green Algae Counts, changes etc. Chapter 1: Supply Management 5

Chapter 2: Stormwater Management 22

A.2.3 Chemical Contingency Type, location, time, quantity, measures,

risk, etc

Chapter 2: Stormwater Management20-21

A.3.3 Groundwater Levels Chapter 3: Groundwater Management 30-35

A.3.3 Groundwater Salinity Chapter 4: On-Farm Management 43

A.3.3/2.2 Groundwater Pumping ML/year pumped, reused, exported,

trend, salt load

Chapter 3: Groundwater Management27-30

A.3.3 Groundwater Accession Control Type, measures, trend, Net groundwater

accessions (estimated).


27-35

Chapter 4: On-Farm Management 41-43

A.3.3 Groundwater Pollution, events Type, location, concentration, risk,

measures

Chapter 3: Groundwater ManagementN/A

A.3.3 Groundwater Pollution, status Type, location, concentration, risk, trend,

measures when asked to do so.


N/A

A.4.2 Flood Levels Exception report Chapter 1: Supply Management 6

A.4.2 Floodplain Structures Asset dimension change and impact Chapter 1: Supply Management 6

A.5.2 Aquatic Environment Assets

Condition & Management Change

Any significant change, trend, and

Register of Activities


A.5.2 Potential Management Impacts EIS, REF, SIS, Appendix 4 91

A.5.2 Noxious Aquatic Weeds Type, extent, control measures within

licensee infrastructure.

Chapter 2: Stormwater Management 26

A.6.4 Soil Salinity dS/m, class, location, trend, ha Chapter 4: On-Farm Management 43-44

A.6.4 Remnant Vegetation Effects of Licensee activities, health of

selected stands.

Chapter 4: On-Farm Management45

A.7.1 Saline Discharge (summary) Notify/apply, EC level & load, dilution,

duration


A.7.1 High Salinity Event (summary) Notify, EC level & load, location, duration,

dilution, measures


A.7.3/2.2 Salt Export Ton/month, as per PC Licence Chapter 2: Stormwater Management 13-14

39-41

A.2.2 Crop Statistics Ha & ML/year delivery to crops, trend Chapter 4: On-Farm Management


Appendix Two: Pesticide Summary

Site Date Atrazine (ug/L)Thiobencarb

(ug/L)

Molinate

(ug/L)

Molinate ELIZA

(ug/L)

Back Barooga SEC

BBR1 02-Oct-05 < 0.05 < 0.05

BBR1 08-Nov-05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05


BIBE 02-Oct-05 0.08 < 0.05

BIBE 01-Nov-05 0.16 < 0.05 <1.0

BIBE 06-Nov-05 <0.05 4.2 12.8

BIBE 08-Nov-05 18 7.8 14.7

BIBE 13-Nov-05 3.40 <0.05 9.4 56

BIBE 15-Nov-05 4.9 14.4

BIBE 29-Nov-05 0.91 0.08 NA

Finley Escape

BIFE 02-Oct-05 < 0.05 < 0.05

BIFE 09-Oct-05 0.22 < 0.05

BIFE 11-Oct-05 <1.0

BIFE 18-Oct-05 0.06 < 0.05 16.5 37

BIFE 30-Oct-05 <0.05 <0.05 < 1.0

BIFE 01-Nov-05 < 1.0

BIFE 06-Nov-05 0.10 <0.05 0.34 1.5

BIFE 08-Nov-05 <1.0

BIFE 13-Nov-05 0.23 <0.05 <1.0

BIFE 15-Nov-05 <1.0

BIFE 29-Nov-05 <0.05 <0.05 NA

BIFE 06-Dec-05 <0.05 <0.05 NA

BIFE 13-Dec-05 <0.05 <0.05 <1.0

BIFE 20-Dec-05 <0.05

Wollamai Escape

BIOW 02-Oct-05 0.39 < 0.05

BIOW 05-Oct-05 < 1.0

BIOW 08-Nov-05 <0.05 <0.05 <1.0

BIOW 13-Nov-05 0.11 <0.05 <1.0

BIOW 15-Nov-05 <1.0


BIWE 08-Nov-05 <0.05 <0.05 0.06

BIWE 13-Nov-05 <0.05 <0.05 <1.0

Box Creek

MOXM 02-Oct-05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05

MOXM 04-Oct-05 < 0.05 < 0.05

MOXM 05-Oct-05 < 0.05 < 0.05

MOXM 09-Oct-05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05

MOXM 11-Oct-05 < 0.05 < 0.05

MOXM 13-Oct-05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 1.0

MOXM 18-Oct-05 < 0.05 < 1.0

MOXM 20-Oct-05 < 0.05 < 1.0

MOXM 23-Oct-05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 1.0

MOXM 25-Oct-05 < 0.05 < 1.0

MOXM 27-Oct-05 < 1.0

MOXM 30-Oct-05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 1.0

MOXM 01-Nov-05 <0.05 <1.0

MOXM 06-Nov-05 <0.05 <0.05 0.85 5.7

MOXM 08-Nov-05 <0.05 0.28 <1.0

MOXM 10-Nov-05 <0.05

MOXM 13-Nov-05 <0.05 <0.05 2.2 4.9

MOXM 15-Nov-05 <0.05 <1.0

MOXM 22-Nov-05 <0.05 0.16 <2.5

MOXM 29-Nov-05 <0.05 0.12 NA

MOXM 06-Dec-05 <0.05 0.05 NA

MOXM 13-Dec-05 <0.05 0.06 <1.0

MOXM 20-Dec-05 <0.05

Burraboi SEC

JIBU 13-Nov-05 2.1

JIBU 15-Nov-05 2.3

Burragorrimma SEC

NMBR 02-Oct-05 < 0.05 < 0.05

NMBR 04-Oct-05

NMBR 09-Oct-05 < 0.05 < 0.05

NMBR 11-Oct-05 <1.0

NMBR 16-Oct-05 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.2 < 1.0

NMBR 18-Oct-05 < 1.0

Deniboota Canal Escape

DBCE 06-Nov-05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <1.0

DBCE 08-Nov-05 <1.0

DBCE 13-Nov-05 <0.05 <0.05 0.51 4.0

DBCE 15-Nov-05 <1.0

Lalalty SEC

TUPJ 02-Oct-05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05

Appendix 2.1: Summary of pesticide data for the Murray Irrigation area 2005/06


Appendix 2.2: Exceedence levels of Molinate and Thiobencarb

Molinate (ug/L) Thiobencarb (ug/L)

Year

No. of

exceedence of

environmental

levels

No. of

exceedence of

notification

levels

No. of

exceedence of

action levels

No. of

exceedence of

environmental

levels

No. of

exceedence of

notification

levels

No. of

exceedence

of action

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

*: tests not required


Appendix Three: Compliance Report Issues 2004/05The issues documented by NSW DPI, DNR and DEC in their formal response to the 2004/05 Murray Irrigation

Compliance Report have been responded to below.

Appendix 3.1: NSW Department of Primary IndustriesThe Department of Primary Industries again chose to comment on Murray Irrigation’s Compliance and Sustainabil-

ity Reports. No issues were identified that related to compliance with licence conditions.

Appendix 3.2: Department of Natural ResourcesThe Department of Natural Resources retained their ‘report by acception’ audit approach in 2004/05 and identified

one minor noncompliance that was quickly resolved. Due to a change in staff within the environment section of

Murray Irrigation, actual depth to watertable readings were not provided to DNR in the required timeframe,

although as soon as the issue was identified the data was forwarded.

Appendix 3.3: Department of Environment and ConservationThe Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) chose not to comment on Murray Irrigation’s 2004/05

Compliance Report.


Appendix Four: Published DocumentsAppendix 4.1: Murray LWMP Documentation ProducedEllis, R & O’Neill, P (2006) Direct seeding of native tree and shrub species in the Murray LWMP region. Western

Murray Land Improvement Group, Swan Hill.

Khan, S & Rana, T (2006) Groundwater modelling and optimisation of the Wakool Tullakool Sub-Surface DrainageScheme. CSIRO Land & Water, Wagga Wagga.

Mendham, E, Millar J, & Curtis A (2006) Factors affecting landholder adoption of native vegetation best manage-ment practices in the Murray Irrigation region. Charles Sturt University, Albury.

North, S (2006) Reducing waterlogging and improving the water use efficiency of rice farming systems. NSW

Department of Primary Industry, Deniliquin.

RMCG (2005) Factors affecting the rate of adoption of best management practices in the Murray Irrigation Limitedarea - final report. RM Consulting Group, Bendigo.

Yunusa, I & Veeragathipillai, M (2005) Mitigating soil acidity and minimising recharge of groundwater throughcoal-ash treatment - final report for project ENV 13/04. University of Technology, Sydney.

Appendix 4.2: Environmental Documentation ProducedBiosis Research (2006) Box Creek Escape Channel – Stage 2 - Upgrade of drainage inlets and outlets fencing andother works – Assessment of Significance and Significant Impact Criteria. Biosis Research, Queanbeyan.

Goudie, K (2006) Statement of Environmental Effects Moulamein 12 Escape Channel. Murray Irrigation Limited,

Deniliquin.

Goudie, K (2006) Statement of Environmental Effects Moulamein 8 Escape Channel. Murray Irrigation Limited,

Deniliquin.

Pisasale, M (2005) SEE of Green Gully Tile Drainage Project at “Paringavale”. Murray Irrigation Limited,

Deniliquin.

Russell, L (2006) 3A Permit Application – Box Creek Escape Channel - Work Stage 2. Murray Irrigation Limited,

Deniliquin.

Webster, R (2006) Wetlands of the Denimein Land and Water Management Plan District. Ecosurveys Pty Ltd,

Deniliquin.


Appendix Five: Landholder Chemical Usage Report

Murray Land and Water Management

Plans

Landholder chemical usage – 2005/06

August 2006

Murray Land & Water Management Plans

Murray Irrigation LimitedA.B.N. 23067 197 933

Landholder Chemical Usage Report 2005/06

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 Conservation (DEC), which outlines a monitoring program and procedures to follow where surface water is discharged from the Murray Irrigation area into receiving waterways.

The DEC 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 2005/06. These numbers are based on the raw survey data and are not extrapolated to represent the whole Murray LWMP region. The results indicate glyphosphate to be the most commonly used chemical. This was particularly prevalent in the case of winter crops and channels/drains.

Table 1 Summary of major chemical usage by landholders – 2005/06

Situation Chemical used Landholder usage (no. of positive responses to use of the chemical)

bensulfuron 37

bentazone 3

benzofenap 9

chloropyrifos 40

clomazone 5

cyhalofop-butyl 3

MCPA 35

molinate 25

Rice

thiobencarb 4

carfentrazone 6

chlorsulfuron 30

fenoxaprop 4

glyphosphate 97

iodosulfuron 4

MCPA 10

metsulfuron 5

omethoate 63

simazine 10

triasulfuron 33

Winter Crops

trifluralin 37

2,4 D 4

diquat 6 Summer

Cropping / pasture trifluralin 10

2,4 D 11

amitrole 5

diuron 6

glyphosphate 93

Channels/Drains

imazpyr 5

MCPA 41 Winter Pasture

omethoate 51

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.

Annual Pasture

Channels/Drains

Perennial Pastures

RiceSummerCrops

Winter Crops

Back Barooga SEC

diuron 1

glyphosphate 1

omethoate 1

trifluralin 1


bensulfuron 1

chlorsulfuron 2

glyphosphate 2

MCPA 2 1

MCPA

molinate 1

omethoate 1

triasulfuron 1

trifluralin 1 1

Booroobanilly SEC

bensulfuron 1

benzofenap 1

chlorpyrifos 1

chlorsulfuron 1

fenoxaprop 1

glyphosphate 1

MCPA 1

metsulfuron 1

omethoate 1 1

triasulfuron 1

Box Creek

2,4 D 2 1

amitrole 1

atrazine 1

bensulfuron 5

bentazone 1

benzofenap 1

chlorpyrifos 6

chlorsulfuron 5

diflufenican 1

diuron 2

glyphosphate 1 15 14

iodosulfuron 2

MCPA 10 2 4

metolachlor 1

molinate 3

omethoate 9 7

simazine 1

thiobencarb 2

triasulfuron 3

trifluralin 1

DC 2500 East SEC

benzofenap 1

glyphosphate 3 2

MCPA 1

molinate 1

omethoate 1

triasulfuron 1

Annual Pasture

Channels/Drains

Perennial Pastures

RiceSummerCrops

Winter Crops

trifluralin 1 1

Lalalty SEC

2,4 D 1

amitrole 1

bensulfuron 2

bentazone 1

chlorpyrifos 2

chlorsulfuron 1

glyphosphate 7 8

MCPA 3 2

molinate 2

omethoate 4 8

simazine 4

thiobencarb 1

trakoxydim 1

triasulfuron 5

trifluralin 1 4

Logie Brae SEC

2,4 D 1

bensulfuron 2

benzofenap 1

chlorpyrifos 2

glyphosphate 1 2

imazapyr 1

MCPA 2 2

molinate 1

omethoate 2 1

triasulfuron 2

trifluralin 1

Neimur SEC

2,4 D 1

diclofop 1

diflufenican 1

glyphosphate 3

MCPA 1

metsulfuron 1

omethoate 1

propiconazole 1

trifluralin 1

North Deniliquin SEC

2,4 D 1 1

bensulfuron 1

bentazone

chlorpyrifos 1

chlorsulfuron 2

glyphosphate 4 3

imazapyr 1

MCPA 1

omethoate 2 1

Wakool SEC

bensulfuron 1

chlopyrifos 2

glyphosphate 3 4

MCPA 2

molinate 1

trifluralin 2

Annual Pasture

Channels/Drains

Perennial Pastures

RiceSummerCrops

Winter Crops

West Warragoon SEC

glyphosphate 1 1

omethoate 1

Wollamai SEC

amitrole 1

bensulfuron 1

benzofenap 2

chlorpyrifos 3

cyhalofop-butyl 1

glyphosphate 7 1 4

MCPA 3 4

molinate 2

omethoate 4 3

oxyfluefen 1

tri-allate 1

triasulfuron 4

trifluralin 2

Murray LWMP landholder chemical usage – 2005/06 Appendices

Appendix 1 Murray LWMP Annual Survey (2005/06) - Question related to Chemical usage

What chemicals have you used on this holding in 2005/06? (Please tick)

Winter Crops Tick

Glean

Gesatop

Roundup (Glyphosphate)

Logran

Treflan (Trifluralin)

Le-Mat (Omethoate)

Other ……………..

Rice

Londax

MCPA

Ordram (Molinate)

Lorsban (Chlorpyrifos)

Other ……………..

Annual pasture (winter)

MCPA

Le-Mat (Omethoate)

Other ……………..

Perennial pastures (summer) Tick

2,4-D

Spray seed


Other ……………..

Summer crops / vegetables / fruit / vines

Primextra Gold (Maize weeds)

Other ……………..

Channels / Drains

2,4 D

Arsenal

Diuron


Other ……………..

Other

Other ……………..

Other ……………..

Mur

ray

LWM

P la

ndho

lder

che

mic

al u

sage

– 2

005/

06

Appe

ndic

es

Ap

pen

dix

2

Lo

cati

on

of

the 2

8 f

orm

al

dra

inag

e b

asin

s w

ith

in t

he M

urr

ay L

WM

P a

rea

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

17

58

6

31

16

33

26

19

24

32

1

36

9

3

2

7

25

29

1135

27

23

28

12

20

30

22

34

18

4

10

21

15

13

Mo

am

a

Wakoo

l

Barh

am

Fin

ley

Con

arg

o

Baro

og

a

Mu

lwa

la

Burr

ab

oi

Bun

na

loo

Ma

thou

raTo

cum

wal

Berr

iga

n

Mo

ula

me

in

Jerild

erie

Den

iliqu

in

Pre

tty P

ine

Leg

en

d

Dra

ins

Dra

inag

e C

atc

hm

en

ts

1.2

500 E

ast

2.B

ack B

aro

og

a

3.B

err

iga

n C

ree

k E

scap

e

4.B

lighty

Retr

eat

5.B

oo

roo

banill

y

6.B

ox C

reek

7.B

urr

aboi

8.B

urr

agorr

ima

9.D

C 1

000

10.D

C 1

100

11.D

C 1

201

12.D

C 1

300

13.D

C 2

005

14.D

C 2

006

15.D

C 2

400

16.D

enib

oota

17.F

inle

y E

csa

pe

18.F

lannag

ans

19.L

ala

lty

20.L

ogi B

rae

21.M

aw

s

22.M

cE

wans

23.M

oonee

Sw

am

p

24.M

urp

hys

Tim

ber

25.M

ytr

le P

ark

26.N

eim

ur

27.O

ddys

28.P

inele

a

29.T

ulla

30.U

lupna

31.W

arr

agoo

n

32.W

ille

roo

33.W

olla

mai

34.W

oodb

ury

35.Y

alla

koo

l 3

36.Y

allo

ke

Farm

Boundarie

s0

10

20

5K

ilom

etr

es

μ

Mur

ray

LWM

P la

ndho

lder

che

mic

al u

sage

– 2

005/

06

Appe

ndic

es

Ap

pen

dix

3

Tre

nd

s in

reco

rded

ch

em

ical

usag

e in

th

e M

urr

ay L

WM

P a

rea

Ap

pen

dix

3.1

: T

ren

ds

in c

hem

ica

l u

sag

e 1

99

6/9

7 –

20

05

/06

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2,4-

DBen

sulfu

ron

Chl

orpy

rifos C

hlor

sulfu

ron

Diq

uat +

Par

aqua

t

Diu

ron

Gly

phos

ate

Imaz

apyr

MC

PA

Mol

inat

eO

met

hoat

e Thiob

enca

rbTra

lkox

ydim

Triasu

lfuro

n

Triflu

ralin

number of landholdings

2001/0

2

2002/0

3

2003/0

4

2004/0

5

2005/0

6


Appendix 3.2: Trends in Chemical Usage by Enterprise Type 2001/02 – 2005/06

Rice Chemical Usage

0

20

40

60

80

100

bensulfuron benzofenap chloropyrifos MCPA molinate thiobencarb

Active Constituent

Nu

mb

er

of

po

sit

ive

re

sp

on

ses

2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06

Winter Crops Chemical Usage

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

chlors

ulfu

ron

Bifent

hrin

Clopy

ralid

diclof

op-m

ethy

l

dim

etho

ate

glyp

hosp

hate

omet

hoat

e

sim

azine

trias

ulfu

ron

Atrazine

Halox

yfop

-Rm

ethy

l ester

MCPA

Tralkox

ydim

triflu

ralin

Active Constituent

Nu

mb

er

of

po

sit

ive

re

sp

on

ses

2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06


Winter Pasture Chemical Usage

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

diflulenican MCPA simazine omethoate

Active Constituent

Nu

mb

er

of

po

sit

ive r

esp

on

se

s

2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06

Summer Cropping/Pasture Chemical Usage

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

2,4 D ester Glyphosphate diquat + paraquat trifluralin Endosulfan MCPA Omethoate

Active Constituent

Nu

mb

er

of

po

sit

ive r

esp

on

se

s

2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06


Channels and Drains Chemical Usage

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

glyphosphate Amitrole 2,4 D ester Endosulfan MCPA diuron imazapyr

Active Constituent

Nu

mb

er

of

po

sit

ive r

esp

on

se

s

2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06


Appendix Six: Stormwater Escape Additional Information

Stormwater Escape

ChannelSite Mean Median

Max.

Daily

Min.

Daily

June '05 -

Aug. '05

Sept.'05-

Dec.'05

Jan. '06 -

May '06

Total

June '05

–May '06

Back Barooga SEC BBR1 0.8 0.3 25.2 0 26 172 87 285

Berrigan Creek Escape BIBE 2.9 1.3 32.5 0 40 661 375 1,076

Box Creek MOXM 8.2 5.2 138 0 132 1524 1,330 2,986

Burraboi SEC JIBU 0.6 0.0 32.6 0 0 199 8 207

Burragorrimma SEC NMBR 2.5 1.0 17.1 0 58 366 391 815

DC 2500 East JIJS 0.1 0.0 5.5 0 1.0 28.0 0.0 29

Deniboota Canal Escape DBCE 1.9 1.2 8.9 0.6 74 309 319 702

Finley Escape BIFE 90.7 11 407 0 508 8,683 23,897 33,088

Lalalty SEC TUPJ 1.3 0.0 40.7 0 0 400 43 443

Murphys Timber SEC WRMT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Neimur SEC TCND 2.3 0.7 14.7 0 38 296 522 856

North Deniliquin SEC DENI 1.6 0.8 51.1 0 14 179 396 589

Pinelea SEC TCPL 0.1 0.0 2.1 0 1 39 0 40

Wakool SEC DRWK 0.3 0.0 5.8 0 3 71 28 102

West Warragoon SEC (1) TCWW 0.0 0.0 1.0 0 * * 4 4

Wollamai East Escape BIWE 0.6 0.0 15.2 0 0 144 57 201

Wollamai Escape BIOW 0.9 0.7 7.3 0 67 136 107 310

Sub total 41,733

Credited Escapes: Finley Escape (BIFE) 33,088

Net Discharges 8,645

(1): data collection commenced Dec 2005

Flow (ML/day) Total Flow (ML)

Appendix 6.1: Summary of total flow at Murray Irrigation monitoring sites 2005/06

Stormwater Escape Channel Site Mean MedianMax.

daily

Min.

daily

June '05 -

Aug. '05

Sept.'05-

Dec.'05

Jan. '06 -

May '06

Total

June '05

–May '06

Back Barooga SEC BBR1 333 289 776 0 4 51 14 69

Berrigan Creek Escape BIBE 135 143 266 7 4 60 20 84

Box Creek MOXM 2180 1900 8620 321 316 836 1360 2,512

Burraboi SEC JIBU 395 413 614 57 0 52 0 52

Burragorrimma SEC NMBR 209 154 1250 0 4 25 81 110

DC 2500 East JIJS 636 654 2000 365 1 11 0 12

Deniboota Canal Escape DBCE 318 211 2000 65 15 75 28 118

Finley Escape BIFE 121 96 509 55 30 434 1034 1,498

Lalalty SEC TUPJ 667 431 2670 19 0 173 5 178

Murphys Timber SEC WRMT 728 703 964 318 0 0 0 0

Neimur SEC TCND 211 181 1200 43 4 49 39 92

North Deniliquin SEC DENI 231 189 809 85 2 26 52 80

Pinelea SEC TCPL 215 202 427 33 0 3 0 3

Wakool SEC DRWK 403 297 1170 55 0 6 1 7

West Warragoon SEC (1) TCWW 353 264 1390 48 * * 2 2

Wollamai East Escape BIWE 384 372 1210 15 0 46 2 48

Wollamai Escape BIOW 314 231 1230 77 16 17 11 44

Sub total 4,909

Credited Escapes: Finley Escape (BIFE) 1,498

Net Discharges 3,411

(1): data collection commenced Dec 2005

EC (uS/cm) Total Tonnes Salt

Appendix 6.2: Salinity levels at Murray Irrigation monitoring sites 2005/06


Site DateTurbidity

(NTU)

Total

Phosphorus

(mg/L)

Total Nitrogen

(mg/L)

Back Barooga SEC

BBR1 08-Nov-05 1000 0.9


BIBE 08-Nov-05 190 0.38 1.0

BIBE 15-Nov-05 81 0.499 1.3

BIBE 24-Jan-06 121 0.047 0 (<0.5)

BIBE 14-Mar-06 94 0.031 0 (<0.5)

BIBE 04-Apr-06 61 0.026 0 (<0.5)

BIBE 16-May-06 106 0.16 0.2 (<0.5)

Finley Escape

BIFE 09-Aug-05 80 0.036 0.1 (<0.5)

BIFE 16-Aug-05 66 0.03 0.2 (<0.5)

BIFE 23-Aug-05 5 0.043 0.2 (<0.5)

BIFE 20-Sep-05 142 0.191 2.6

BIFE 04-Oct-05 449 0.221 1.2

BIFE 11-Oct-05 212 0.049 0.6

BIFE 17-Oct-05 238 0.097 0.7

BIFE 08-Nov-05 314 0.42 1.2

BIFE 15-Nov-05 135 0.033 0.9

BIFE 13-Dec-05 48 0.02 0.4 (<0.5)

BIFE 03-Jan-06 76 0.036 0.1 (<0.5)

BIFE 10-Jan-06 102 0.027 0 (<0.5)

BIFE 24-Jan-06 70 0.038 0 (<0.5)

BIFE 07-Feb-06 119 0.055 0.6

BIFE 21-Feb-06 35 0.021 0 (<0.5)

BIFE 07-Mar-06 29 0.011 0 (<0.5)

BIFE 14-Mar-06 65 0.004 0 (<0.5)

BIFE 28-Mar-06 26 0.021 0 (<0.5)

BIFE 16-May-06 91 0.019 0 (<0.5)

BIFE 30-May-06 54 0.014 0 (<0.5)

Wollamai Escape

BIOW 04-Oct-05 227 0.083 0.5

BIOW 08-Nov-05 871 0.14 0.3 (<0.5)

BIOW 15-Nov-05 101 0.165 2.1


BIWE 08-Nov-05 639 0.8

BIWE 23-May-06 92 0.055 0 (<0.5)

Deniboota Canal Escape

DBCE 08-Nov-05 727 0.169 0.7

DBCE 15-Nov-05 891 1.1

DBCE 07-Feb-06 537 0.113 0.6

DBCE 23-May-06 301 0.087 0 (<0.5)

North Deniliquin SEC

DENI 28-Mar-06 99 0.091 0.4 (<0.5)

DENI 25-Apr-06 302 0.484 2.3

DENI 16-May-06 57 0.032 0.1 (<0.5)

Box Creek

MOXM 27-Sep-05 32 0.035 0.3 (<0.5)

MOXM 04-Oct-05 215 0.128 0.9

MOXM 11-Oct-05 103 0.057 0.7

MOXM 18-Oct-05 139 0.072 0.3 (<0.5)

MOXM 08-Nov-05 200 0.212 0.7

MOXM 15-Nov-05 161 0.458 1.1

MOXM 22-Nov-05 128 0.535 2

MOXM 13-Dec-05 21 0.029 1.0

MOXM 03-Jan-06 16 0.029 1.7

MOXM 10-Jan-06 32 0.01 0.6

MOXM 24-Jan-06 20 0.034 0 (<0.5)

MOXM 07-Feb-06 49 0.047 0.5

MOXM 21-Feb-06 54 0.055 0.5

MOXM 07-Mar-06 32 0.029 0.3 (<0.5)

MOXM 28-Mar-06 12 0.05 0.3 (<0.5)

MOXM 16-May-06 86 0.05 0 (<0.5)

MOXM 30-May-06 89 0.045 0 (<0.5)

Burragorrimma SEC

NMBR 04-Oct-05 654 0.184 0.3 (<0.5)

NMBR 25-Apr-06 206 0.022 0.2 (<0.5)

NMBR 17-May-06 0.025 0 (<0.5)

Neimur SEC

TCND 04-Oct-05 676 0.217 0.9

TCND 11-Oct-05 400 0.097 0 (<0.5)

TCND 08-Nov-05 494 0.242 1.2

TCND 13-Dec-05 267 0.089 1.4

TCND 25-Apr-06 609 0.124 0.8

TCND 17-May-06 0.095 0.1 (<0.5)

TCND 23-May-06 390 0.12 0.1 (<0.5)

Lalalty SEC

TUPJ 04-Oct-05 31 0.076 1.2

Appendix 6.3: Monthly turbidity and nutrient data for Murray Irrigation monitoring sites

2005/06


Appendix 6.4: Turbidity levels at Murray Irrigation monitoring sites 2005/06

Stormwater Escape Channel Site Mean Median Max. daily Min. dailyNumber of

samples

Back Barooga SEC BBR1 * * * * 1

Berrigan Creek Escape BIBE 108 100 190 61 6

Box Creek MOXM 82 100 215 12 17

Burraboi SEC JIBU * * * * 0

Burragorrimma SEC NMBR * * 654 206 2

DC 2500 East JIJS * * * * 0

Deniboota Canal Escape DBCE 614 632 891 301 4

Finley Escape BIFE 118 78 314 5 20

Lalalty SEC TUPJ 120 78 190 31 4

Neimur SEC TCND 472 447 609 267 6

North Deniliquin SEC DENI 153 99 302 57 3

Pinelea SEC TCPL * * * * 0

Wakool SEC DRWK * * * * 0

Wollamai East Escape BIWE * * 639 92 2

Wollamai Escape BIOW 400 227 871 101 3


Turbidity (NTU)

Appendix 6.5: Total phosphorus levels within MIL stormwater escape system 2005/06

Stormwater Escape Channel Site Mean MedianMax.

daily

Min.

daily

June '05 -

Aug. '05

Sept.'05-

Dec.'05

Jan. '06 -

May '06

Total

June '05

–May '06

June '05 -

Aug. '05

Sept.'05-

Dec.'05

Jan. '06 -

May '06

Total

June '05

–May '06

Back Barooga SEC BBR1 * * * * * * * * 0 0 0 0

Berrigan Creek Escape BIBE 0.191 0.104 0.499 0.026 * 0.20 0.02 0.22 0 2 4 6

Box Creek MOXM 0.110 0.050 0.535 0.010 * 0.43 0.04 0.47 0 8 9 17

Burraboi SEC JIBU * * * * * * * * 0 0 0 0

Burragorrimma SEC NMBR 0.077 0.025 0.184 0.022 * 0.02 0.00 0.02 0 1 2 3

DC 2500 East JIJS * * * * * * * * 0 0 0 0

Deniboota Canal Escape DBCE 0.123 0.113 0.169 0.087 * 0.02 0.02 0.04 0 2 2 4

Finley Escape BIFE 0.069 0.035 0.420 0.004 0.02 0.61 0.64 1.27 3 7 10 13

Lalalty SEC TUPJ 0.499 0.461 1.000 0.076 * 0.10 * 0.10 0 4 0 4

Murphys Timber SEC WRMT * * * * * * * * 0 0 0 0

Neimur SEC TCND 0.141 0.120 0.242 0.089 * 0.04 0.05 0.09 0 4 3 7

North Deniliquin SEC DENI 0.202 0.091 0.484 0.032 * * 0.06 0.06 0 0 3 3

Pinelea SEC TCPL * * * * * * * * 0 0 0 0

Wakool SEC DRWK * * * * * * * * 0 0 0 0

West Warragoon SEC (1) TCWW * * * * * * * * 0 1 0 1

Wollamai East Escape BIWE * * * * * * 0.00 0.00 0 0 1 1

Wollamai Escape BIOW 0.129 0.140 0.165 0.083 * 0.01 * 0.01 3 3 0 3

Sub total 2.27

Credited Escapes: Finley Escape (BIFE) 1.27

Net Discharges 1.00


Number of samplesTotal Phosphorus (tonnes)Total Phosphorus (mg/L)


Appendix 6.6: Total nitrogen levels within MIL stormwater escape system 2005/06

Stormwater Escape Channel Site Mean Median Max. dailyMin.

daily

June '05 -Aug.

'05

Sept.'05-

Dec.'05

Jan. '06 -

May '06

Total

June '05

–May '06

June '05 -

Aug. '05

Sept.'05-

Dec.'05

Jan. '06 -

May '06

Total

June '05

–May '06

Back Barooga SEC BBR1 * * * * * 0.1 * 0.1 0 1 0 1

Berrigan Creek Escape BIBE 0.4 0.1 1.3 0.0 * 0.6 0.0 0.6 0 2 4 6

Box Creek MOXM 0.7 0.6 1.7 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.3 1.9 0 8 9 17

Burraboi SEC JIBU * * * * * * * * 0 0 0 0

Burragorrimma SEC NMBR 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.0 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 1 2 3

DC 2500 East JIJS * * * * * * * * 0 0 0 0

Deniboota Canal Escape DBCE 0.5 0.4 1 0.0 * 0.2 0.0 0.2 0 2 2 4

Finley Escape BIFE 0.4 0.2 2.6 0.0 * 5.2 2.9 8.2 3 7 10 13

Lalalty SEC TUPJ 1.4 1.3 2.1 1.1 * 0.5 * 0.5 0 4 0 4

Murphys Timber SEC WRMT * * * * * * * * 0 0 0 0

Neimur SEC TCND 0.5 0.2 1.4 0.0 * 0.3 0.2 0.5 0 4 3 7

North Deniliquin SEC DENI 1.0 0.4 2.3 0.4 * * 0.3 0.3 0 0 3 3

Pinelea SEC TCPL * * * * * * * * 0 0 0 0

Wakool SEC DRWK * * * * * * * * 0 0 0 0

West Warragoon SEC (1) TCWW * * * * * * * * 0 1 0 1

Wollamai East Escape BIWE * * * * * 0.1 0.0 0.1 0 0 0 0

Wollamai Escape BIOW 1 0.5 2.1 0.3 * 0.1 * 0.1 3 3 0 3

Sub total 12.5

Credited Escapes: Finley Escape (BIFE) 8.2

Net Discharges 4.3


Total Nitrogen (mg/L) Total Nitrogen (tonnes) Number of samples


Appendix Seven: Murray LWMP Annual Landholder Survey

Appendix 7.1: Berriquin LWMP Annual Landholder Survey Form

JULY 2006 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED

1

Name: ________________________________________________________(Please Print)

Holding Reference No.: _____________

Farm area: ________________ (hectares)

LWMP District: Berriquin

Date of interview: ____/____/ 2006

Interviewer’s Name: _____________________________________________ __ (Please Print)

Murray LWMP Annual Survey 2005/06

Please note – questionnaire is for financial period 2005/06


2

1.1 What is the main enterprise on this holding?

Please tick one:

Mixed enterprises – rice ........................

Mixed enterprises – no rice ...................

Mixed enterprises – livestock ...............

Dairying ................................................

Horticulture ...........................................

Other .....................................................

1.2 What were the landuses on this holding in 2005/06?

Surveyor note: Total area in Land Use table has to equal the size of the holding.

Land use Area (ha)

Irrigated annual pasture

Irrigated perennial pasture (including lucerne)

Dryland pastures

Winter crops

Horticulture - perennial (Fruit, vine and nuts)

Horticulture – annual (Vegetables)

Native vegetation (grass / tree / shrub)

Fallowed land

Stubble

Dryland

Other

Total

Infrastructure

1: Enterprise type and land use

2.1 Do you have a surveyor designed irrigation

or drainage plan?

Yes No.

2.2 What is the area laid out to irrigation on this

holding?

............... ha

2.3 What proportion of this holding’s irrigated

area is represented on the plan?

................%

2.4 Did you undertake farm planning activities

(irrigation surveying and / or design) in

2005/06 and not access an LWMP incentive?

Yes No If No, then question 3.1.

2.5 What was the purpose of the farm planning?

a) Introduce changes to an existing plan

Yes No

b) Commence a farm plan.

Yes No

c) Develop part of the farm

(paddock scale surveying).

Yes No

d) Other (please summarise)

...................................................................

...................................................................

2.6 What was spent on farm planning in

2005/06?

2. Farm Planning

Item Amount ($)

a) Surveyor / Designer

b) Soil drilling

c) Own time (hours @ $20 per hour)

d) Other …………….

e) Total


3

3: Irrigation recycling and Storage

3.1 Do you have an irrigation recycling system

on this holding?

Yes No If No, then 4.1.

3.2 What volumes of water can be stored in:

a) Sump/Main Drains …………ML

b) Storage …………ML

3.3 Has the Sump and/or Storage been drilled or

seepage tested?

Yes No

3.4 What proportion of the holding can be

drained to a recycle point?

.................ha


irrigated with recycled water?

.................ha

3.6 Did you undertake irrigation recycling and/or

storage works in 2005/06 and not access an

LWMP incentive?

Yes No

If no, go to Q3.9.

3.7 What was spent on constructing the

irrigation recycling system in 2005/06?

3.8 What was spent on constructing the storage in2005/06?

3.9 What was spent on operating and maintaining

the irrigation recycling system in 2005/06?

(e.g.: drains, sump, recycle channels and

associated equipment)

Item Amount ($)

a) Materials / equipment

b) Fuel

c) Contractors

d) Own time (hours @ $20 per hour)

e) Other ………………………

f) Total

Item Amount ($)


b) Fuel / electricity

c) Contractors


e) Other ………………………

f) Total

Item Amount ($)


b) Fuel

c) Contractors

d) Own time (hours @ $20 per hour

e) Other ………………………

f) Total


4

4: Irrigation development

4.1 What area of this holding is landformed

(laser graded)?

a) Total area landformed on holding ........... ha

b) Area landformed in 2005/06 ............. ha

4.2 Of the area landformed in 2005/06,

what was previously dryland?

(e.g. never been irrigated) ................. ha

4.3 Did you undertake any

paddock improvements, 2005/06?

(Not including lasering, but including conversion

to side ditch, installing permanent bay outlets etc)

Yes No

4.4 If Yes, what was spent on paddock improve-

ments in 2005/06?

4.5 Did you undertake EM 31 surveying in

2005/06?

Yes No

4.6 If Yes, what was the area surveyed?

..................... ha

Item Amount ($)

a) Contractors

b) Own time (hours @ $20 per hour)

c) Fuel

d) Fencing / structures

f) TOTAL

e) Other ………………………

5: Soil management

5.1 Did you apply lime to pasture or cropping

paddocks in 2005/06?

Yes No

If yes, what was the application rate?

a) Application rate ...........................tonnes/ha

b) Area ..............................................hectares

6.1 Did you sow perennial species (e.g., lucerne,

phalaris) into annual pastures on this holding

in 2005/06?

Yes No

6.2 If Yes, was the pasture paddock:

a) Irrigated Yes No.

b) Dryland Yes No

6.3 What was the rate of sowing and area sown to perennial species?

a) Irrigated pasture

Seeding rate (kg/ha) Area sown (ha)

b) Dryland pasture


6: Pasture


5

8.1 Do you have a groundwater pump for

irrigating on this holding?

(not a stock and domestic bore)

Yes No

8.2 If Yes, is your bore:

a) Shallow (less than 10 metres)

b) Deep (more than 10 metres deep)

8.3 What volume did you pump from the shallow

bore in 2005/06?

...............................ML

8: Groundwater pumping

7.1 Did you carry out any maintenance of

native vegetation on this holding during

2005/06? (both remnant and planted areas

>10m)

Yes No

7.2 If Yes, what did you spend on maintaining native vegetation in 2005/06?

7: Native vegetation

Item Amount ($)

a) Materials


c) Contractors

d) Chemicals (e.g. fox bait)

e) Other

f) TOTAL

9.1 What chemicals have you used on this holding in 2005/06? (Please tick)

Thank you for your time in completing this questionnaire.

9: Chemical use

Winter Crops Tick

Glean

Gesatop


Logran


Le-Mat (Omethoate)

Other ……………..

Rice

Londax

MCPA

Ordram (Molinate)


Other ……………..


MCPA

Le-Mat (Omethoate)

Other ……………..

Perennial pastures (summer)

2,4-D

Spray seed


Other ……………..



Other ……………..

Channels / Drains

2,4 D

Arsenal

Diuron


Other ……………..

Other

Other ……………..

Other ……………..


6

10.1 Did you convert an area of flood irrigation

to a pressurised irrigation system on this

holding in 2005/06? (e.g., Centre Pivot)

Yes No

10.2 If Yes, how many hectares were converted

to a pressurised system?

(Note: Exclude land that was previously dryland).

................... ha

10.3 What type of pressurised system

was installed?

...........................................................................


Appendix 7.2: Cadell LWMP Annual Landholder Survey Form


1




LWMP District: Cadell






2


Please tick one:




Dairying ................................................

Horticulture ...........................................

Other .....................................................



Land use Area (ha)



Dryland pastures

Winter crops




Fallowed land

Stubble

Infrastructure

Other

Total

Dryland



or drainage plan?

Yes No


holding?

…………...ha



................%







Yes No


Yes No

c) Develop part of the farm (paddock scale sur-

veying).

Yes No

e) Other (please summarise)

……………………………


2005/06?

2. Farm Planning

Item Amount ($)


b) Soil drilling

c) Own time (hours @ $20 per hour


e) Total


3


3.1 Is there an irrigation recycling system on this

holding?

Yes No

If No, then 3.11.



c) Storage ...……….ML


seepage tested?

Yes No


drained to a recycle point/s? ................ha


irrigated with recycled water? ..............ha



LWMP incentive?

Yes No

If no, go to Q3.9.

3.7 What was spent on constructing the irriga-

tion recycling system in 2005/06?

Item Amount ($)


b) Fuel

c) Contractors


e) Other …………..

f) Total

3.8 What was spent on constructing the storage in 2005/06?





3.10 Did you carry out any maintenance of supply

channels on this holding in 2005/06?


3.11 What was spent on maintaining supply

channels in 2005/06?

Item Amount ($)


b) Fuel

c) Contractors


e) 0ther …………

f) Total

Item Amount ($)



c) Contractors


e) Other ………………………

f) Total

Item Amount ($)

a) Contractors


c) Fuel

d) Desilting

e) Chemicals

f) Other …………………….

g) Total


4



(laser graded)?





(e.g. never been irrigated) .................. ha

4.3 Did you undertake any paddock

improvements, 2005/06?



Yes No

4.4 If Yes, what was spent on paddock

improvements in 2005/06?

4.5 Did you convert an area of flood irrigation to a

pressurised irrigation system on this holding

in 2005/06? (e.g., Centre Pivot)

Yes No

4. 6 If Yes, how many hectares were converted to

a pressurised system?


................... ha


was installed?

...........................................................................


2005/06?

Yes No


..................... ha

Item Amount ($)

a) Contractors


c) Fuel


f) TOTAL

e) Other …………….

5: Irrigation management

5.1 Did you apply any of the following tech-

niques to schedule irrigations in 2005/06?

If No, then question 6.1.

a) External evaporation and rainfall data (MIL,

CSIRO, Bureau of Meteorology)?

Yes No

b) On-farm evaporation and rainfall data?

Yes No

c) Soil moisture equipment

(Tensiometer, Gopher, EnviroSCAN)?

Yes No

d) Other (please explain)

.........................................................................

.........................................................................

5.2 On what landuses did you practise irrigation scheduling and what area was laid out to those landuses?

Land use (e.g. pastures) Area (ha)


5

6: Soil management & farming systems

6.1 Did you practice any conservation farming

on this holding in 2005/06?

Yes No

If No, then question 6.4.

6.2 What crop / pasture establishment

techniques did you apply?

6.3 How did you manage your previous crop residues / stubble? (tick whichever applies)

6.4 Is dryland wheat or barley normally grown

on this holding?


6.5 Were either canola, field peas, lupins or

vetch grown in 2005/06 as a dryland break

crop for wheat or barley?

Yes No

6.6 Did you apply lime to pasture or cropping paddocks in 2005/06?

Yes No

6.7 If yes, what was the

a) application rate ........................tonnes/ha

b) area ....................................ha

Management method

Winter crops

Rice Summer crops

Grazing

Burning

Baling

Mulching

Other

Crop / pasture establishment technique Area (ha)

Direct drilling of pasture paddock

Direct drilled, ie no cultivation, winter crop into 2004/2005 rice stubble

Direct drilled, ie no cultivation, winter crop into other crop stubble, eg soybeans or barley

Other techniques, eg one cultivation

Other:

Other:



in 2005/06?

Yes No



b) Dryland Yes No




b) Dryland pasture


7: Pasture


6

8.1 Did you carry out any maintenance of native vegetation on this holding during 2005/06? (both remnant and planted areas >10m wide)

Yes No


Item Amount ($)

a) Materials


c) Contractors


e) Other …………….

f) TOTAL



8: Native vegetation 9: Chemical use

Winter Crops Tick

Glean

Gesatop


Logran


Le-Mat (Omethoate)

Other ……………..

Rice

Londax

MCPA

Ordram (Molinate)


Other ……………..


MCPA

Le-Mat (Omethoate)

Other ……………..


2,4-D

Spray seed


Other ……………..



Other ……………..

Channels / Drains

2,4 D

Arsenal

Diuron


Other ……………..

Other

Other ……………..

Other ……………..


Appendix 7.3: Denimein LWMP Annual Landholder Survey Form


1




LWMP District: Denimein






2


Please tick one:



Mixed enterprises – livestock................

Dairying ................................................

Horticulture ...........................................

Other .....................................................



Land use Area (ha)


Irrigated perennial pasture, including lucerne

Dryland pastures

Winter crops




Fallowed land

Stubble

Infrastructure

Other

Total

Dryland



or drainage plan?

Yes No


holding?

...............ha



................%







Yes No


Yes No



Yes No


...................................................................

...................................................................


2005/06?

2. Farm Planning

Item Amount ($)


b) Soil drilling



e) Total


3



on this holding?

Yes No

If No, then 4.1.



b) Storage …………ML


seepage tested?

Yes No



.................ha



.................ha



LWMP incentive?

Yes No

If no, go to Q3.9.



3.8 What was spent on constructing the storage in 2005/06?





Item Amount ($)


b) Fuel

c) Contractors


e) Other ………………………

f) Total

Item Amount ($)



c) Contractors


e) Other ………………………

f) Total

Item Amount ($)


b) Fuel

c) Contractors


e) Other ………………………

f) Total


4



(laser graded)?





(e.g. never been irrigated) .................. ha

4.3 Did you undertake any

paddock improvements, 2005/06?



Yes No


ments in 2005/06?


2005/06?

Yes No


…………….ha

Item Amount ($)

a) Contractors


c) Fuel


f) TOTAL

e) Other ………………………

5: Soil management



Yes No


a) Application rate ........................... tonnes/ha

b) Area .............................................. hectares



in 2005/06?

Yes No



b) Dryland Yes No


6.4 What techniques are applied to achieved a

balanced pasture comprised of perennial and

annual species? (tick appropriate box)

a) No specific intervention

b) Strategic interventions

i) Rotational spelling and grazing

ii) Set stocking rate throughout year

iii) Grazing and or slashing of dry residue



b) Dryland pasture


6: Pasture


5

8.1 Do you have a groundwater pump for

irrigating on this holding?

(not a stock and domestic bore)

Yes No

8.2 If Yes, is your bore:

a) Shallow (less than 10 metres)

b) Deep (more than 10 metres deep)

8.3 What volume did you pump from the shallow

bore in 2005/06?

...............................ML

8: Groundwater pumping



2005/06? (both remnant and planted areas

>10m wide)

Yes No

If no then question 8.1



Item Amount ($)

a) Materials


c) Contractors


e) Other …………………….

f) TOTAL



9: Chemical use

Winter Crops Tick

Glean

Gesatop


Logran


Le-Mat (Omethoate)

Other ……………..

Rice

Londax

MCPA

Ordram (Molinate)


Other ……………..


MCPA

Le-Mat (Omethoate)

Other ……………..


2,4-D

Spray seed


Other ……………..



Other ……………..

Channels / Drains

2,4 D

Arsenal

Diuron


Other ……………..

Other

Other ……………..

Other ……………..


6




Yes No




................... ha


was installed?

...........................................................................


Appendix 7.4: Wakool LWMP Annual Landholder Survey Form


1




LWMP District: Wakool






2


Please tick one:




Dairying ................................................

Horticulture ...........................................

Other .....................................................



Land use Area (ha)



Dryland pastures

Winter crops




Fallowed land

Stubble

Dryland

Infrastructure

Total

Other



or drainage plan?

Yes No.


holding?

............... ha



................%







Yes No


Yes No



Yes No


...................................................................

...................................................................


2005/06?

2. Farm Planning

Item Amount ($)


b) Soil drilling



e) Total


3



on this holding?

Yes No

If No, then 4.1.



c) Storage ...……….ML


seepage tested?

Yes No



.................ha



.................ha



LWMP incentive?

Yes No

If no, go to Q3.9.



3.8 What was spent on constructing the storage in2005/06?





Item Amount ($)


b) Fuel

c) Contractors


e) Other ………………………

f) Total

Item Amount ($)



c) Contractors


e) Other ………………………

f) Total

Item Amount ($)


b) Fuel

c) Contractors


e) Other ………………………

f) Total


4



(laser graded)?





(e.g. never been irrigated) ................. ha

4.3 Did you undertake any paddock

improvements, 2005/06?



Yes No


ments in 2005/06?


2005/06?

Yes No


..................... ha

Item Amount ($)

a) Contractors


c) Fuel


f) TOTAL

e) Other ………………………

5: Soil management



Yes No


a) Application rate ...........................tonnes/ha

b) Area ..............................................hectares



2005/06? (both remnant and planted areas >

10m wide)

Yes No



Item Amount ($)

a) Materials


c) Contractors


e) Other ………………………

f) TOTAL


5



7: Chemical use

Winter Crops Tick

Glean

Gesatop


Logran


Le-Mat (Omethoate)

Other ……………..

Rice

Londax

MCPA

Ordram (Molinate)


Other ……………..


MCPA

Le-Mat (Omethoate)

Other ……………..


2,4-D

Spray seed


Other ……………..



Other ……………..

Channels / Drains

2,4 D

Arsenal

Diuron


Other ……………..

Other

Other ……………..

Other ……………..


6




Yes No




................... ha


was installed?

...........................................................................


Appendix 7.5: Murray LWMP Annual Landholder Survey Audit Report


Audit of Landholder Survey 2005/2006

24 October 2006

D e n n i s E T o o h e y & A s s o c i a t e s

Skmmil Rpt 2006.doc


Audit of Landholder Survey 2005/2006

Review of MIL methodology for determining community (in kind)

contributions to the LWMPs and verify the authenticity of data

collected during the 2005/2006 Landholder Survey.

Prepared by:

Dennis E Toohey & Associates

16/659 Young Street

ALBURY NSW 2640

Telephone: (02) 6041 4955

Facsimile: (02) 6041 4350

E-mail: [email protected]

24 October 2006

Disclaimer

Dennis E Toohey and Associates makes no representations or warranties as to the accuracy or completeness of the Report entitled Murray Land & Water Management Plans – Audit of Landholder Survey 2005/2006 and disclaims all liability for all claims, expenses, losses, damages and costs any third party may incur as a result of them relying on the accuracy or completeness of the Report.


Skmmil Rpt 2006.doc

Review of Landholder Survey

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY and RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................. i

1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................... 1

2 MIL METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINING COMMUNITY (IN-KIND) CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE LWMPS........................................ 3

3 AUDIT METHODOLOGY and FINDINGS.................................... 8

4 MIL REPORTING OF LANDHOLDER ACTIVITIES................... 12

5 FUTURE DIRECTIONS.............................................................. 15

6 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................ 16

7 ANNEXES .................................................................................. 16

TABLES

Table 2.1: Landholder survey sampling by size stratum ..................... 4

Table 2.2: Summary of landholdings within Murray Irrigation Limited and LWMPs.................................................................................. 4

Table 2.3: Holdings sampled by size and Plan – 2005/2006............... 5

Table 2.4: Holdings second round selection - 2005/2006 ................... 5

Table 4.1: Selected performance of HOAs, 2004/2005 and 2005/2006................................................................................................... 13

Table 4.2: 2005/2006 Summary - Land and Water Management, Farm (In kind) contributions................................................................. 14

FIGURES

Figure 2.1: 2005/2006 Holdings Surveyed .......................................... 7

Acknowledgements:

The support provided by the staff of Murray Irrigation Limited (MIL) enabled the Audit process to be conducted efficiently. In particular, the assistance provided by Demelza Brand, Environmental Officer and the Implementation staff for each Plan in organising the farm level audits is gratefully acknowledged.

Abbreviations:

HOA Head of Agreement

ha Hectare

LWMP Land and Water Management Plan

MIL Murray Irrigation Limited


Skmmil Rpt 2006.doc i

SUMMARY and RECOMMENDATIONS

AUDIT PROCESS

The 2005/2006 audit followed closely the process introduced following the acceptance of the recommendations in a report entitled Murray Irrigation Limited: Murray Land and Water Management Plans – Review of Landholder Survey, by Dennis E Toohey and Associates in conjunction with La Trobe University, (Toohey 2005). The University contributed to the statistical components of the Review.

The Survey instrument that is now only sampling 169 holdings compared to 317 in 2003/2004 was again well received by both landholders and surveyors. Its simplicity and brevity are features that draw favourable comments.

AUDIT FINDINGS

Findings emerging from the combined desk and field audits are presented in three categories as follows:

Transposing errors. One error of transposition was detected in transferring information from the Survey forms to the Survey Report. No such errors were detected in 2004/2005 with one detected in 2003/2004.

Desk and Field audits. One under recording by $4 700.00 (Farm Planning); one under recording of 12ha (conservation farming); and two omissions: 12ha (pasture improvement) and the other a deep bore. Results on a par with 2003/2004.

Calculation errors. No errors detected.

Overall these findings reveal a continuation of improvement since 2004/2005 when the revised Survey was introduced.

REPORTING OF ACTIVITY FINDINGS

Landholders invested $46.07 million in LWMP activities in 2005/2006 compared to $36.68 million in 2004/2005. Three factors have had an influence upon this result, namely:

1. Improved water allocations. Whilst initial allocations were zero subsequent announcements of 14% on 1 September and 30% at the end of September provided the much needed confidence boost.


Skmmil Rpt 2006.doc ii

2. Farm disposable incomes. Landholders are still recovering from the cumulative impact of four consecutive years of very low water allocations.

3. Leading activities. Improving irrigation layouts continues to be the leading landholder activity, representing $24.24 million or 53% of total investment.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Several recommendations arise from the findings of the 2005/2006 Survey where the objective is of strengthening the high level of accuracy within the Landholder Survey.

1. Training program of Surveyors to emphasise the following:

1.1 The necessity for rigorous questioning of the landholder as to land uses and activities, e.g. soil management and farming systems for the holding selected for survey.

Note. Addresses omissions, under recordings and incorrect claims uncovered in the auditing processes.

1.2 Undertaking checks throughout the interview to establish the landholder is fully aware as to what is being asked, especially with similarly worded questions, e.g. irrigation recycling system construction or O&M.

Note. Addresses a qualified audit finding on expenditure for a Wakool holding which in all likelihood was O&M of irrigation recycling system, not construction of a storage.

1.3 Undertaking checks throughout the interview to avoid disagreement in responses.

Note. Addresses a discrepancy in one survey where area landformed exceeded that laid out to irrigation.

2. Investigate with Murray Shire Council measures that will improve the accuracy and completeness of landholder contact information on East Cadell holdings.

Note. In 2005/2006, 23% of the originally selected holdings for survey had to be re-sampled.

3. Amend Survey for 2006/2007 to include the agreements arising from the debriefing meeting of Surveyors held on 25 August 2006.

Note. Areas for improvement reported upon in Annex Table 7.

4. Amend Surveyors Notes, of July 2006, to include agreements arising from the debriefing meeting of Surveyors held on 25 August 2006.


Skmmil Rpt 2006.doc iii


5. Continue the reviewing process of completed Surveys.

Note. To maintain high standard of recent years.


Skmmil Rpt 2006.doc 1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

The Murray Land and Water Management Plans (LWMPs) consist of the Berriquin, Cadell, Denimein and Wakool Plans. Each Plan is an integrated natural resource management strategy prepared by the community with technical and financial assistance from the NSW and Commonwealth Governments.

The aim of these Plans is to improve economic and environmental stability throughout the Region. The focus is a combination of improved farm management, district drainage works, education, research and development and monitoring of both adoption levels and impacts. (MIL, 2004).

A financial partnership agreement has operated since 1995 involving the landholders of Murray Irrigation Limited (MIL), the community of the Mid-Murray Region and the NSW and Commonwealth Governments. Financing of the LWMP’s is in accordance with Heads of Agreement (HOA) signed by the community representatives, MIL and Murray Shire, as implementation authorities and the NSW Government.

Each LWMP contains a detailed implementation program and specific targets. The administration of the four LWMPs reflects both the administrative area of MIL and adjoining lands and the requirement for each Plan to be separately accounted. MILs area covers the four former government Irrigation Districts of Berriquin, Denimein, Deniboota and Wakool, as well as the Tullakool Irrigation Area. MIL is the contracted implementer for the lands to the east of Deniboota I. D., referred to as East Cadell, which collectively are known and reported upon as the Cadell Land and Water Management Plan.

1.2 2004 MID-TERM REVIEW

The Plans were subjected to a Mid-term review in early 2004. The Review resulted in changes to the components of many programs, a focusing of Plan targets upon commercial-sized farms and structuring incentives to encourage their early uptake. These changes have operated since the 1 October 2004.

Concomitant with the Mid-term review was a review of the annual Landholder Survey. This review was undertaken by Dennis E Toohey and Associates who provided a report to the LWMP Management Committee entitled Murray Irrigation Limited: Murray Land and Water Management Plans – Review of Landholder Survey, (Toohey, 2005).

Recommendations on the Landholder Survey were implemented in time for the 2004/2005 annual survey. The objectives framed in the Toohey report for the Landholder Survey were:

1 To capture annually, from a statistically representative sample of holdings within each Plan, the contributions of landholders towards:

1.1 Targets where landholders are required to fully resource the achievement of the target, i.e. there is no incentive payment; and

1.2 Other targets where their eligible contributions exceed the holding (farm) ‘caps’, i.e. the cost to the landholder to achieve full implementation exceeds the cost sharing formula.



2 To provide annually, holding-based information on selected aspects of the Benchmarking Program of the Murray LWMPs.

3 To provide annually, holding-based licence compliance information to MIL.

4 To provide on as needs basis, information to MIL for the improvement of its policies.

The 2005/2006 Survey was essentially the same as the 2004/2005 with some improvements arising from the 2005 debriefing meeting with surveyors.

1.3 REDESIGNED AUDITING FRAME

A revised audit frame was implemented in 2004/2005 for reasons of expediency without having the endorsement of the LWMP Management Committee to bring the auditing methodology into alignment with the substantially revised Landholder Survey. Their adoption involving a small decrease in the number of audits from 58 in 2003/2004 to 53 in 2004/2005, arising from a reduced number of Level 1 audits and an increased number of Level 2 audits undertaken in proportion to the number of holdings in each Plan.

The LWMP Management Committee at its meeting on 8 September 2005, (Meeting Number 54) adopted revised auditing frame proposed by Toohey, (Toohey, 2005) that is presented in Annex Table 6: Auditing framework, in-kind works.



2 MIL METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINING COMMUNITY (IN-KIND) CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE LWMPS

2.1 APPROACH

MIL, as in previous years, has undertaken a stratified random survey of landholdings to determine the inputs made to the respective Plans by the ‘community’.

A stratified random sample approach was adopted by the LWMP Management Committee Meeting Number 54 of 8 September 2005 on the advice of Drs Crase and Paul, La Trobe University, as reported in Toohey (2005) in his report on the Landholder Survey. The advice from the University that appears in the Toohey Report was a revision of that provided by Crase and Jackson, (1998) where again landforming was deemed to be the critical statistic with the level of its activity, i.e. expenditure, related to the size of the holding.

The principal features of the stratified random sampling are:

o Selection of stratums for which there is a high level of confidence as to accuracy, ie number of holdings per Plan and holding size (hectares)1 ;

o Stratification on the basis of the four historical irrigation districts with Deniboota renamed Cadell to reflect inclusion of land outside former government administered scheme and on the size of holdings; and

o A confidence interval of 95 per cent for total area landformed.

In Table 2.1 Landholder survey sampling by size stratum, the number of samples by size stratum for the four Plans is shown. These holding size categories reflect the following sampling criteria:

1. Qualifying holding.

Berriquin, Denimein and Wakool – having a water entitlement of equal to or greater than 20 ML and an area equal to or greater than 10 hectares;

Cadell (Deniboota and East Cadell) – equal to or greater than 10 hectares.

2. Spread of holdings. A non-proportional allocation approach was adopted with a larger number sampled in the categories above 100 ha. The highest numbers of holdings are in the 100 to 300 ha size range, thus more holdings are sampled within the 100-200 and 200-300 ha categories. At the higher end of holding size, i.e. 500+ha, a minimum number of 5 was adopted to improve estimation of variance.

1 A holding is an area of land with its own water supply point and alphanumeric identifier. A farm business entity usually operates across several holdings. Within the four Plans there are 3 092 holdings– see column three, Table 2.2.



Table 2.1: Landholder survey sampling by size stratum

Plan Holding size category (hectares) Total

(numbers)

10-100 100-200 200-300 300-500 500+ Total

Berriquin 13 17 22 11 5 68

Cadell 12 9 8 10 9 48

Denimein 5 5 5 5 5 25

Wakool 5 5 5 5 8 28

Total 35 36 40 31 27 169

Source: Toohey, 2005.

Table 2.2: Summary of landholdings within Murray Irrigation Limited and LWMPs

Plan Area (ha) Holdings

(number)

Ave. area (ha)

Qualifying Holding size (hectares)

10-100 100-200 200-300 300-500 500+ Total

Berriquin 341 445 1 481 231 246 333 438 213 88 1 318

Cadell 298 430 1 039 287 259 177 151 188 181 956

Denimein 52 780 190 278 42 28 23 38 31 162

Wakool 210 901 382 552 18 36 52 98 156 360

Total LWMPs

903 556 3 092 565 574 664 537 456 2 796

Source: Pers. comm. Demelza Brand, Environment Officer, MIL 8 August 2006.

2.2 SURVEY METHODOLOGY

MIL applied a randomised sampling approach to achieve a target number of holdings per size category from a sub-sample of the entire qualifying landholder population. The target, as per Table 2.1, Landholder survey sampling by size stratum, was a sample of 169 holdings from within the four Plans. In 2005/2006, 167 Surveys were returned resulting in a surveyed population of two fewer than the target. See Table 2.3, Holdings sampled by size and Plan – 2005/2006.

In 2004/2005 the Survey form underwent a major revision whereby a tailored instrument was developed to suit the HOA requirements for each Plan. This was in response to a recommendation from the Landholder Survey Review. In 2005/2006 MIL sought responses from all surveyed holdings as to activities in converting flood irrigation to a pressurised irrigation system. (This is a target for the Cadell Plan). A composite of the Survey form for the four Plans is provided in Annex Table 3: Landholder survey – composite.

An appreciation of the locations of the holdings surveyed in 2004/2005 may be gleaned from Figure 2.1: 2005/2006 Holdings Surveyed, 2004/2005.



Table 2.3: Holdings sampled by size and Plan – 2005/2006

Plan Holding size category (hectares) Total

(numbers)

10-100 100-200 200-300 300-500 500+ Total

Berriquin 13 16 20 10 5 66

Cadell 12 11 8 10 7 48

Denimein 5 5 5 5 5 25

Wakool 5 5 5 5 8 28

Total 35 37 38 30 25 167

The sampling methodology recognises that the randomly selected holding may not be surveyed for a variety of reasons. MIL for the third year has recorded the number of second round selections of holdings by Plan with results presented in Table 2.4, Holdings second round selection 2005/2006.

The number of holdings required to be selected in a second round was 34 or 20.3% to achieve a sample size of 167 holdings. In 2004/2005 the second round sampling represented 13.8%. Three findings emerge:

1. Decline in number of refusals. An improvement in the number of landholders declining to be surveyed from 6 (or 4%) of the 167 holdings surveyed in 2005/2006, to 10 (or 6%) of the 167 holdings in 2004/2005.

2. Landholders unable to be contacted. The high number in Cadell – 11 – is attributed to the East Cadell sector. In this sector, MIL is reliant upon Murray Shire Council in providing up to-date information on landholder details however they are not always available. In East Cadell the level and intensity of irrigation development is much less than that of West Cadell or the former Deniboota Irrigation District.

3. Ownership transfers. At the time of the survey, four holdings recorded as ‘other’, were subject to title holder transfer.

Table 2.4: Holdings second round selection - 2005/2006

Reason for re-sampling Number of re-sampled landholdings

(2004/2005 Landholder Survey)

Berriquin Cadell Denimein Wakool

Unable to be contacted 6 (1) 11 (7) 0 (1) 2 (0)

Declined to be involved 5 (4) 0 (4) 1 (2) (0)

On holidays 3 (2) 0 (2) (0) (0)

Other, e.g. sale of property 1 (0) 4 (0) 3 (0) (0)

Total number re-sampled 13 (7) 15 (13) 4 (3) 2 (0)



2.3 RECOMMENDATION

The ‘unable to contact’ reason for re-sampling of holdings in the Eastern sector of the Cadell Plan is assessed as being too high.

2.1. Investigate with Murray Shire Council measures that will improve the accuracy and completeness of landholder contact information on East Cadell holdings.

Note. In 2005/2006, 23% of the originally selected holdings for survey had to be re-sampled.



Figure 2.1: 2005/2006 Holdings Surveyed

Note: Red areas indicate Holdings included in Survey.



3 AUDIT METHODOLOGY and FINDINGS

The Program Auditor is required to:

Audit that the landholders contributions have been collected and utilised as specified in the works program; and

Ensure that the Implementer, i.e. MIL, correctly values and assesses “in kind” work and that this work is carried out as specified in the Project Funding Agreement for that year.

3.1 AUDIT METHODOLOGY

Auditing of the Landholder Survey commenced with a meeting involving MIL staff on 18 August 2005.

The contracted auditors were provided with all of the Landholder Surveys, tabularised results of the survey question responses and the Survey Report. The latter presents information at two levels, namely the aggregated survey data for each HOA. item and their extrapolation to either the area of the Plan or the number of holdings.

The Auditing Contract specifies the minimum auditing frequency for each Class of audit.

There are six levels (Classes) of auditing. For the On-Farm works the Classes of audit are with few exceptions either Class 1 or Class 2 with their requirements outlined below.

Level 1. Confirm that Implementer’s records of financial expenditure were for the works as specified in the Heads of Agreement (HOA) and works were completed to specified standard.

2

Level 2. Physical inspection required of “ground works” and structures, justification of expenses, sign-off by the Auditor.

Typical auditing frequency is 1:50 for non-incentive items and 1:20 for items that attract an incentive. Through practice, the adopted frequency of auditing is 1:50 for Landholder Survey items.

The frequency of auditing is also expressed as a minimum number, e.g. for Berriquin, Improved irrigation layout, the frequency is 15 sites (holdings) over five years which translates into 3 per year. The auditing of the 2005/2006 Landholder Survey adopted the proposals of Toohey, (2005) that are presented in Annex Table 6: Auditing framework, in-kind works.

Auditing of Level one or ‘desk’ HOAs was undertaken over two days, commencing on 27 July 2006. The procedure was as follows.

1. Review the Microsoft Access reports for each auditable work. MIL after keying in all the Landholder Survey data produce two reports. One reports for each Plan the level of activity for all the surveyed items. The second report is an extrapolation of data in the first report. Two methods of extrapolation are used:

a. Express aggregated area of surveyed holding as percentage of Plan area. This applies to items like landforming and pasture works; or

2 The words Heads of Agreement (HOA) and targets have an identical meaning in this report.



b. Express number of holdings surveyed as percentage of Plan holdings. For items that are site-specific on a holding, e.g. O & M of channels, groundwater pumping.

2. Randomly select, for each auditable work, the required number of holdings per Plan from a Microsoft Access query list. This list records all holdings that reported activity on the HOA.

3. Test the level of agreement between the work in the Survey form to that recorded in the MIL database. Record discrepancies.

4. Apply local knowledge and experience to test the veracity of the landholders claim.

5. Reach a conclusion as to the appropriateness and cost-effectiveness of the landholders claim.

6. Record comments to assist in the framing of general audit findings and recommendations.

Auditing of Level two, ‘on-farm’ HOAs were undertaken over three days from the 1 to 3 August 2006 in the company of the respective LWMP Implementation Officer.

Steps one to three as per Level One were completed in the office with steps four to six from information obtained from ‘on-site’ visits. Landholders generally accompanied the auditor which expedited clarification of any issues. In the absence of the landholder, the Implementation Officer was always able to provide quite detailed information on the property and of the work.

3.2 FINDINGS

A component of the audit process is establishing confidence in the results from the Survey, thus attention is given to uncovering evidence of over and under recording of items. It does this in three areas:

1. At the desk level, the detection of inconsistencies between the Survey forms and the Survey Report, i.e. errors of transposition.

2. Inconsistencies at the desk and field level between Survey form and observations / comment and Auditor’s knowledge / experience.

3. Inconsistencies at the desk level in calculations.

A summary of the detected errors appears below with full details provided in Annex Table 1: Audit of HOA works 2005/2006 Landholder survey.

1. Transposing errors.

One transposing error detected.

Holding D235, no recording of farm planning. Desk audit found the amount spent on farm planning of $4 700.00 was not recorded in the Survey report.

The high level of accuracy is being maintained with no errors detected in 2004/2005 and one detected in 2003/2004.

2. Desk and Field audit findings.

Holding E184M, an omission of a deep bore. Field survey noted the presence of a deep bore supplementing MIL channel supplies.



Holding E366, incorrect claim of paddock improvements. Field audit uncovered mistaken understanding of landholder classified O&M of recycling system channels as paddock improvements.

Holding C840A, omission of pasture improvement. Field audit uncovered the landholder had seeded 12 ha of irrigated annual pasture to lucerne. Auditing reinstated the scheduling of maize which had been shown in the Survey report as of annual pasture.

Holding D068, under recording of conservation farming. Field audit uncovered landholder had direct drilled an additional 40 ha into winter crop and the survey had omitted grazing as a crop residue technique of 2005/2006 winter crop stubble. Auditing clarified that the rice stubble was only burnt and not ploughed as recorded in Survey report.

Holding M032G, incorrect claim for perennial pasture species. Desk audit found the two species sown into an annual pasture were not eligible as they are both annuals.

3. Calculation errors.

No errors detected during desk audits.

3.3 RECOMMENDATIONS

Several recommendations arise from the findings of the 2005/2006 Survey that continue the theme of the 2004/2005 recommendations where the objective is of strengthening the high level of accuracy within the Landholder Survey.

1. Training program of Surveyors to emphasise the following:

1.1 The necessity for rigorous questioning of the landholder as to land uses and activities, e.g. soil management and farming systems for the holding selected for survey.

Note. Addresses omissions, under recordings and incorrect claims uncovered in the auditing processes.

1.2 Undertaking checks throughout the interview to establish the landholder is fully aware as to what is being asked, especially with similarly worded questions, e.g. irrigation recycling system construction or O&M.

Note. Addresses qualified audit finding of expenditure for a Wakool holding which in all likelihood was O&M of recycling system not construction of a storage.

1.3 Undertaking checks throughout the interview to avoid disagreement in responses.

Note. Addresses a discrepancy in one Survey where area landformed exceeded that laid out to irrigation.

2. Amend Survey for 2006/2007 to include the agreements arising from the debriefing meeting of Surveyors held on 25 August 2006.


3. Amend Surveyors notes, of July 2006, to include agreements arising from the debriefing meeting of Surveyors held on 25 August 2006.




3. Continue the reviewing process of completed Surveys.

Note. To maintain high standard of recent years.



4 MIL REPORTING OF LANDHOLDER ACTIVITIES

As in previous years, MIL has extrapolated the Survey findings on the basis of all holdings within each Plan. The results of actual survey and extrapolations for each Plan are presented in summary form in Table 4.2: 2005/2006 Summary - Land and Water Management, Farm (In kind) contributions and Annex Table 1: Audit of HOA works 2005/2006 Landholder survey.

MIL continues to apply benchmark values for a number of items of expenditure that were first introduced into the 2002/2003 Landholder Survey. These values were revised for the 2005/2006 Survey with reference to merchandise suppliers price lists, Department of Primary Industry, Farm Budgets and MIL staff. The benchmark values are presented in Annex Table 5: Landholder Survey Benchmark values.

4.1 FINDINGS

The information in Table 4.2, shows that the landholders’ invested approximately $46.07 million ($36.68 million in 2004/2005) in LWMP activities during 2005/2006. These factors need to be considered when comparing the two years performance:

1. Improved water allocations. Whilst initial allocations were zero subsequent announcements of 14% on 1 September and 30% at the end of September provided the much needed confidence boost. Early spring announcements are critical for farm enterprise planning where decisions are made upon what winter growing crops are irrigated and the amount of rice and other summer crops to be sown.

2. Farm disposable incomes. Landholders are still recovering from the cumulative impact of four consecutive years of very low water allocations.

3. Leading activities. Improving irrigation layouts continues to be the leading landholder activity, representing $24.24 million or 53% of total investment. Introducing perennials into pastures is the next highest area of investment of $8.4 million or 18%.

Some leading indicators of the workings of the Plans is provided in Table 4.1 where comparisons of performance undertaken of identical HOAs over the two most recent years, i.e. 2005/2006 and 2004/2005 with these results:

o Farm planning. Responses to survey question reveal a high degree of consistency in farm planning over the last two years. Denimein Plan has the highest percentage of holdings with farm plans followed by Wakool with Berriquin and Cadell being equal third.

o Irrigation layout improvement. Investment in measures to improve the performance of irrigation layouts has greatly expanded in Cadell and is being maintained in the other three Plans.

o Introduction of perennials into pastures. Cadell landholders have substantially increased their investment in including perennial species into annual pastures with Berriquin and Denimein maintaining a consistent level over the last two years.



Table 4.1: Selected performance of HOAs, 2004/2005 and 2005/2006

Plan Head of Agreement

(% Landholder Surveys)

Farm planning

Paddock improvements

Perennials in pastures

Berriquin 64 surveys 2005/2006 (66 in 2004/2005)

47 (54) 28 (33) 16 (17)

Cadell 48 surveys 2005/2006 and in 2004/2005

50 (42) 21 (4) 23 (13)

Denimein 25 surveys 2005/2006 and in 2004/2005

72 (72) 16 (16) 32 (28)

Wakool 28 surveys 2005/2006 and in 2004/2005

57 (64) 25 (25) n.a.

De

nn

is E

T

oo

he

y &

A

ss

oc

iate

s

Skm

mil

Rp

t 2

00

6.d

oc

14

Tab

le 4

.2:

2005/2

006 S

um

mary

- L

an

d a

nd

Wate

r M

an

ag

em

en

t, F

arm

(In

kin

d)

co

ntr

ibu

tio

ns

La

nd

ho

lde

r S

urv

ey

esti

mate

R

eg

ion

al

Berr

iqu

in

C

ad

ell

Den

imein

Wak

oo

l

extr

ap

ola

tio

n

Item

Surv

ey

E

xtr

apola

ted

Surv

ey

E

xtr

apola

ted

Surv

ey

E

xtr

apola

ted

Surv

ey

E

xtr

apola

ted

To

tal

($)

Un

it

($)

($)

Un

it

($)

($)

Un

it

($)

($)

Un

it

($)

($)

Farm

pla

nnin

g

17

,200

36

8,1

51

2,0

30

44

,198

3

700

25,6

53

0

0

43

8,0

02

Native

ve

geta

tion

O &

M

16

,620

35

5,7

36

8,7

10

18

9,6

36

5

,06

0

3

5,0

83

3

40

7,0

54

5

87,5

09

Irri

gatio

n la

you

t Landfo

rmin

g

43

7,7

03

5

48.5

9,3

68

,643

2

29,8

24

2

88

5

,00

3,7

88

82,1

94

1

03

5

69,8

81

9

895

2

12

4

2,0

52

,946

16

,995

,258

P

addock

impro

v.

43

7,7

03

2,2

37

,290

2

29,8

24

1,6

95

,439

82,1

94

547,7

36

9

8,9

52

1,4

75

,519

5,9

55

,984

C

hanne

l main

t.

5

9,1

25

1,2

87

,285

1,2

87

,285

Irri

g.

Recyc

le/s

tora

ge

Ir

rig.

recyc

le c

onst

. 1

5,7

20

33

6,4

73

5

0,6

00

1,1

01

,676

0

0

9,2

00

1

908

71

1

,62

9,0

20

Ir

rig.

stora

ge c

onst.

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Ir

rig.

recyc

le O

& M

16

6,2

27

3,5

57

,941

2

6,7

50

58

2,4

08

1

5,4

00

107,0

51

4

5,1

10

93

5,8

92

5

,18

3,2

92

Shallo

w g

'wate

r O

& M

8

,48

4

70

7

18

1,5

92

2,0

16

1

68

1

3,9

78

19

5,5

70

Pastu

res

Pere

nn

ial. Irr

ig.

10

2,4

83

2

54

2

,193

,555

1

95,7

77

4

86

4

,26

2,5

17

64,8

02

1

61

4

49,2

99

6,9

05

,371

Pe

renn

ial D

ry

6,0

60

6

0

12

9,7

09

5

8,1

76

5

76

1

,26

6,6

23

14,7

46

1

46

1

02,2

39

1,4

98

,571

Con.f

arm

ing

247,7

65

4,9

55

5,3

94

,404

5,3

94

,404

TO

TA

L

1

8,7

29

,09

0

20

,827

,97

4

1,8

50

,920

4

,66

2,2

82

46

,070

,266

So

urc

e: A

nn

ex T

able

1.

Note

s. R

eg

ion

al m

ultip

liers

are

on

are

a o

f all

hold

ings b

asis

(perc

en

t).



5 FUTURE DIRECTIONS

The Review of the Landholder Survey has addressed all of the long-standing matters of audit reports prior to 2004/2005 with the major challenges before the Plans being maintaining the momentum in the face of th economic impacts of four consecutive years of low water allocations.



6 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Crase, L. and Julie Jackson. (1998). Sampling frame for the administration of LWMP survey and the collection of financial data for Murray Irrigation Limited (MIL). Unpublished report prepared for Murray Irrigation Limited, La Trobe University. Wodonga. September.

Murray Irrigation Limited. (2004). Environment Report, 2003/2004. Draft Annual Environment Report. MIL. Deniliquin. September.

Toohey, D. E. (2004). Murray Land and Water Management Plans, Audit of Landholder Survey 2003/2004. Albury. November.

Toohey, D. E. (2005). Murray Irrigation Limited: Murray Land and Water Management Plans – Review of Landholder Survey. Albury. August.

7 ANNEXES

Annex Table 1: Audit of HOA works 2005/2006 Landholder survey .......................................17

Annex Table 2: Alphanumeric coding of On-Farm Targets by Plans ......................................36

Annex Table 3: Landholder survey – composite.....................................................................37

Annex Table 4: MIL 2005/2006 Landholder Survey Report ....................................................51

Annex Table 5: Landholder Survey Benchmark values ..........................................................63

Annex Table 6: Auditing framework, in-kind works .................................................................64

Annex Table 7: 2006 Annual Survey Interview debrief ...........................................................65

De

nn

is E

T

oo

he

y &

A

ss

oc

iate

s

Skm

mil

Rp

t 20

06

.do

c

17

An

nex T

ab

le 1

: A

ud

it o

f H

OA

wo

rks 2

005/2

006 L

an

dh

old

er

su

rvey

Pla

n

H.O

.A.

Item

Wo

rks

Audit leve

l C

om

me

nts

Berr

iqu

in

B 1

F

arm

Pla

nn

ing

Leve

l 1

(d

esk)

4 e

ntr

ies

a)

Pro

pert

y E

468

. (

202

ha

hold

ing

with p

rin

cip

al la

nd u

se

of

mix

ed

en

terp

rise

with

livesto

ck)

. 1

04

ha la

id o

ut to

irr

iga

tion

an

d 1

3 h

a la

nd

form

ed.

Farm

Pla

n f

or

98%

of

ho

ldin

g’s

irri

ga

ted

are

a;

$5

00

0.0

0 o

n F

arm

Pla

nnin

g (

Su

rve

yors

, $

5 0

00

.00).

Au

dit

fin

din

gs

.

Ve

rifie

d c

orr

ectn

ess

, at d

esk

level, o

f re

cord

ing

of

$5

000

.00 o

n F

arm

Pla

nnin

g.

b)

Pro

pert

y Q

649

. (

240

ha

hold

ing

with p

rin

cip

al la

nd u

se

of

mix

ed

en

terp

rises w

ith

rice).

20

8 h

a la

id o

ut

to ir

riga

tion

an

d a

198

ha

land

form

ed

; 3

2 h

a in

200

5/2

00

6.

Farm

P

lan

for

10

0%

of h

old

ing’s

irri

ga

ted

are

a;

$1

200

.00 o

n F

arm

Pla

nn

ing

(S

oil

dri

lling

, $8

00.0

0 a

nd

Ow

n t

ime $

400

.00).

Au

dit

fin

din

gs

.V

eri

fied c

orr

ectn

ess

, at d

esk

level, o

f re

cord

ing

of

$1

200

.00 o

n F

arm

Pla

nnin

g.

Co

mm

en

tsT

he t

wo

hold

ings d

em

onstr

ate

th

e o

n-g

oin

g c

om

mitm

en

t o

f la

nd

hold

ers

to

ha

vin

g a

p

lanne

d a

ppro

ach

aft

er

fully

util

isin

g t

he

ava

ilab

le in

ce

ntiv

es.

De

nn

is E

T

oo

he

y &

A

ss

oc

iate

s

Skm

mil

Rp

t 20

06

.do

c

18

Pla

n

H.O

.A.

Item

Wo

rks

Audit leve

l C

om

me

nts

Berr

iqu

in

B2

Irri

gatio

n r

ecyc

ling

and

sto

rage

Leve

l 2

(on-f

arm

)

5 e

ntr

ies -

re

cyc

ling

;

0 e

ntr

ies –

sto

rag

e;

an

d

37

en

trie

s –

O

&M

irr

igatio

n

recyc

ling

sys

tem

a)

Pro

pert

y E

088F

. (

28

8 h

a h

old

ing

with p

rin

cip

al la

nd u

se

of d

air

yin

g).

2

00

ha

laid

ou

t to

irri

ga

tion

an

d a

ll la

nd

form

ed; la

st 3

2 h

a la

nd

form

ed in

20

05

/20

06

. Ir

rigat

ion

recy

clin

g sy

stem

– c

onstr

ucte

d p

ad

for

retu

rn d

rain

wh

ere

the

long

haula

ge d

ista

nce

incr

eased

cost

of

wo

rks. $

4 9

000

.00 o

n r

ecyc

ling

sys

tem

(M

ate

ria

ls $

2 5

00

.00

; C

on

tracto

rs $

2 0

00

.00

and

Ow

n t

ime $

400

.00).

Au

dit

fin

din

gs

.

Ve

rifie

d c

orr

ectn

ess

, at d

esk

level, o

f re

cord

ing

of

irrig

atio

n r

ecyc

ling

.

Ve

rifie

d c

orr

ectn

ess

, at o

n-f

arm

level,

of re

co

rdin

g o

f $

4 9

00

.00 o

n ir

riga

tion r

ecyc

ling

.

b)

Pro

pert

y E

031

. (

148

ha h

old

ing

with

pri

ncip

al l

an

d u

se

of

mix

ed

en

terp

rises w

ith

livesto

ck)

. 1

15

ha la

id o

ut to

irr

iga

tion

an

d a

ll la

ndfo

rmed

. Ir

rigat

ion

recy

clin

g sy

stem

m

aint

enan

ce $

4 2

00

.00

exp

ende

d (

Mate

ria

ls $

1 2

00

.00

; F

ue

l $1 0

00.0

0; C

on

tracto

rs

$1

00

0.0

0 a

nd

Ow

n tim

e $

1 0

00

.00).

E

xtra

cte

d s

oil

fro

m s

um

p w

as p

laced

to c

rea

te a

pa

d for

a y

et

to r

eco

nstr

ucte

d s

upp

ly c

ha

nne

l. A

recog

nis

ed

farm

pla

n w

ould

be

hig

hly

be

nefic

ial e

spe

cia

lly in a

ddre

ssin

g the

ine

ffic

iencie

s w

ith

the

pre

sen

t tw

o-s

tage

recyc

le

pu

mp

ing

sys

tem

.

Au

dit

fin

din

gs

.V

erifie

d c

orr

ectn

ess

, at d

esk

level, o

f re

cord

ing

of irrig

atio

n s

tora

ge

.

Ve

rifie

d c

orr

ectn

ess

, at o

n-f

arm

level,

of re

co

rdin

g o

f $

4 2

00

.00 o

n ir

riga

tion s

tora

ge

.

c)

Pro

pert

y E

184

M. (5

9 h

a h

old

ing

with

pri

ncip

al la

nd u

ses o

f m

ixe

d e

nte

rprise

with

liv

esto

ck).

32

ha

laid

out

to ir

riga

tion

of

wh

ich a

ll la

nd

form

ed. W

ho

le farm

ca

n b

e

dra

ined

to

recycle

po

int. Irr

igat

ion

recy

clin

g sy

stem

mai

nten

ance

$3

60

.00

(M

ate

rials

$2

00.0

0; O

wn

tim

e $

160

.00).

H

old

ing is

a li

fest

yle

one

. C

he

mic

als

applie

d to

chan

nels

. E

lectr

ic m

oto

r serv

ices p

um

p a

nd

buri

ed m

ain

line s

upp

lyin

g w

ate

r fr

om

D

istr

ict ch

an

ne

l on

nort

hern

bo

un

dary

to la

id o

ut are

a.

Au

dit

fin

din

gs

.

Ve

rifie

d c

orr

ectn

ess

, at d

esk

level, o

f re

cord

ing

of

irrig

atio

n r

ecyc

ling

.

Ve

rifie

d c

orr

ectn

ess

, at o

n-f

arm

level,

of re

co

rdin

g o

f $

36

0.0

0 o

n irr

iga

tio

n r

ecyc

ling

.

De

nn

is E

T

oo

he

y &

A

ss

oc

iate

s

Skm

mil

Rp

t 20

06

.do

c

19

Pla

n

H.O

.A.

Item

Wo

rks

Audit leve

l C

om

me

nts

d)

Pro

pert

y E

230A

. (8

0 h

a h

old

ing w

ith

pri

ncip

al la

nd

use

of m

ixed

ente

rpri

ses w

ith

ric

e).

24

ha

laid

ou

t to

irri

ga

tion

and

all

land

form

ed

. W

ho

le farm

can

be

dra

ined

to r

ecyc

le

po

int.

Irr

igat

ion

recy

clin

g sy

stem

mai

nten

ance

$3 2

75.0

0 (

Ma

teri

als

$2

90

0.0

0;

Fue

l $27

5.0

0; C

ontr

act

ors

$10

0.0

0).

Tw

o r

ecyc

le p

oin

ts s

erv

ice

d b

y po

rtab

le p

um

ps.

M

ate

rials

were

che

mic

als

.

Au

dit

fin

din

gs

.

Ve

rifie

d c

orr

ectn

ess

, at d

esk

level, o

f re

cord

ing

of

irrig

atio

n r

ecyc

ling

main

tena

nce

.

Ve

rifie

d c

orr

ectn

ess, at o

n-f

arm

level,

of re

co

rdin

g o

f $

3 2

75

.00 o

n ir

riga

tion r

ecyc

ling

m

ain

tenance

.

Co

mm

en

tsA

ll fo

ur

ho

ldin

gs

refle

ct th

e s

trong

co

mm

itm

ent

to o

ptim

isin

g the

ir ir

rig

atio

n m

ana

ge

me

nt

thro

ug

h h

avin

g r

ecyc

ling s

yste

ms. T

hre

e o

f th

e fo

ur

hold

ings d

em

onstr

ate

th

e

effectiv

en

ess o

f ha

vin

g a

farm

pla

n to

guid

e inve

stm

en

t in

wa

ys to

better

mana

ge

d

rain

ag

e w

ate

r. H

old

ing E

18

4M

has a

de

ep

bore

tha

t w

as n

ot re

cord

ed

on th

e S

urv

ey.

De

nn

is E

T

oo

he

y &

A

ss

oc

iate

s

Skm

mil

Rp

t 20

06

.do

c

20

Pla

n

H.O

.A.

Item

Wo

rks

Audit leve

l C

om

me

nts

Berr

iqu

in

B6

Irri

gatio

n d

eve

lop

me

nt

Leve

l 2

(o

n-f

arm

)

6 e

ntr

ies -

la

ndfo

rmin

g;

18

en

trie

s -

pad

do

ck

impro

ve

men

ts

a)

Pro

pert

y Q

570

. (

312

ha

hold

ing

with p

rin

cip

al l

an

d u

se

of

mix

ed

en

terp

rise

with

livesto

ck)

. 2

90

ha la

id o

ut to

irr

iga

tion

with

82 h

a la

nd

form

ed. L

andf

orm

ing

– 8

ha

in

20

05/2

006

wh

ere

the

exi

stin

g g

rade

wa

s eve

ne

d o

ut

to 1

:1 4

00

to

1:1

600

.

La

ndh

old

er

ap

pre

hensiv

e a

bou

t und

ert

akin

g c

uts

as a

sh

allo

w t

op s

oil

pre

sen

t.

Dry

lan

d p

astu

res

pre

do

min

ate

as a

respo

nse to

recen

t ye

ars

wa

ter

allo

ca

tions.

Au

dit

fin

din

gs

.

Ve

rifie

d c

orr

ectn

ess

, at d

esk

level, o

f re

cord

ing

of

8 h

a o

f im

pro

ved irr

igation

la

you

t.

Ve

rifie

d c

orr

ectn

ess

, at p

ad

do

ck le

vel,

of

un

dert

akin

g 8

ha

of la

nd

form

ing

.

b)

Pro

pert

y E

349

. (

88 h

a h

old

ing w

ith

pri

nci

pa

l land

use

of dair

yin

g).

64

ha

laid

ou

t to

irri

ga

tion

with a

ll la

nd

form

ed.

Pad

dock

impr

ovem

ents

– 8

ha a

nd

$6

90

0.0

0

(Con

tracto

rs $

3 0

00

.00

; O

wn

tim

e $

1 4

00.0

0;

Fu

el $

1 5

00

.00 a

nd

Str

uctu

res

($1 0

00.0

0).

Im

pro

ve

men

ts in

volv

ed p

urc

hase

of

8 P

ad

man

ba

y o

utle

ts (

insta

lled

A

ugust 20

06)

in 8

ba

ys t

o f

orm

3 s

mall

da

iry

padd

ocks.

Lu

cern

e s

ow

n.

Supp

ly

chan

nel re

constr

ucte

d in

20

03

/2004

resulti

ng

in a

n e

nla

rge

me

nt

of

are

a c

om

man

ded

.

Pa

dd

ock

dra

inage

wa

ter

recyc

led

.

Au

dit

fin

din

gs

.V

erifie

d c

orr

ectn

ess

, at d

esk

level, o

f re

cord

ing

$6

900

.00 o

f im

pro

ved

irr

igation

la

you

t.

Ve

rifie

d c

orr

ectn

ess

, at p

ad

do

ck le

vel,

of

un

dert

akin

g 8

ha

and

$6

900

.00 o

f p

addock

impro

ve

me

nts

.

c)

Pro

pert

y E

366

. (1

94

ha

ho

ldin

g w

ith

pri

ncip

al l

and

use

of m

ixe

d e

nte

rpri

se w

ith

liv

esto

ck)

. 1

02

ha la

id o

ut to

irr

iga

tion

an

d a

ll la

ndfo

rmed

. P

addo

ck im

prov

emen

ts

an

d $

2 4

00.0

0 (

Ow

n tim

e $

40

0.0

0;

Fu

el $

2 0

00

.00).

F

ield

audit r

eve

ale

d t

ha

t w

ork

s

we

re O

&M

of ir

riga

tion

recyc

ling

sys

tem

with

lan

dhold

er

cu

ltiv

atin

g th

e c

ha

nne

l be

ds

to r

em

ove

we

eds.

Au

dit

fin

din

gs

.

Ve

rifie

d c

orr

ectn

ess

, at d

esk level, o

f re

cord

ing

of $2

400

of im

pro

ve

d ir

rig

ation

la

you

t.

Ve

rifie

d a

t p

ad

dock level,

tha

t w

ork

s w

ere

O&

M o

f re

cyc

ling s

yste

m a

nd

not

those o

f pa

ddock

impro

vem

en

ts.

De

nn

is E

T

oo

he

y &

A

ss

oc

iate

s

Skm

mil

Rp

t 20

06

.do

c

21

Pla

n

H.O

.A.

Item

Wo

rks

Audit leve

l C

om

me

nts

d)

Pro

pert

y E

476E

. (1

18

ha

hold

ing

with p

rin

cip

al la

nd u

se

of

mix

ed

en

terp

rise

with r

ice).

10

0 h

a la

id o

ut to

irr

igatio

n w

ith

75

ha

lan

dfo

rme

d.

Pad

dock

impr

ovem

ents

- $7

00

.00

(O

wn

tim

e $

40

0.0

0;

Fu

el $

30

0.0

0).

Au

dit

fin

din

gs

.

Ve

rifie

d c

orr

ectn

ess

, at d

esk

level, o

f re

cord

ing

of

$7

00

.00

of p

add

ock im

pro

ve

me

nts

. V

erifie

d a

t p

ad

dock le

vel o

f w

ork

s in

volv

ing c

ha

ngin

g la

you

t fr

om

bord

er

che

ck b

ays

to

recta

ngu

lar

con

tour

for

rice

with

no

cha

ng

es to

gra

de

or

to s

upp

ly o

r dra

ina

ge

sys

tem

. T

he

elig

ibili

ty o

f th

ese

work

s a

s ‘p

ad

dock im

pro

ve

men

ts’ re

quires c

lari

fica

tion

.

Co

mm

en

tsT

wo

of th

e four

hold

ings d

em

onstr

ate

th

e s

incere

co

mm

itm

ent o

f la

nd

hold

ers

to

imple

men

ting

furt

her

impro

ve

me

nts

in

to the

sta

ndard

of

the

ir irr

iga

tion

layo

uts

, w

hic

h a

re

ach

ievin

g g

ain

s in

wa

ter

ap

plic

ation

eff

icie

ncy

an

d la

bo

ur

and

mach

inery

opera

tion

e

ffic

iencie

s. E

366

land

hold

er

mis

taken

ly c

lassifi

ed

O&

M a

s pad

dock im

pro

vem

en

ts.

E476E

wo

rks r

equ

ire

cla

rifica

tion

as t

o e

ligib

ility

.

Re

co

mm

en

da

tio

nR

evie

w e

ligib

ility

as a

pa

dd

ock

impro

ve

men

t a

work

und

ert

aken

for

the

so

le p

urp

ose

of

ena

blin

g a

sp

eci

fic c

rop t

ype

to b

e g

row

n,

e.g

. ri

ce.

Note

s. A

land

hold

er

cla

imed

as a

padd

ock im

pro

vem

en

t a c

han

ge

in p

ad

dock la

you

t fr

om

b

ord

er

check to c

on

tour

with n

o s

pecifi

c in

tent o

f im

ple

me

ntin

g c

ha

ng

es to

enha

nce

con

trol o

f w

ate

r. P

rop

osed

re

vie

w b

y Im

ple

me

nta

tio

n O

ffic

ers

with

cha

ng

es in

corp

ora

ted

into

the

2007

Surv

eyo

rs N

ote

s.

Berr

iquin

B

7

Pastu

res

Level 1

(desk)

10

en

trie

s

a)

Pro

pert

y E

115

. (

421

ha h

old

ing

with

pri

ncip

al l

an

d u

se

of

mix

ed

en

terp

rise w

ith

ric

e).

25

3 h

a la

id o

ut

to irr

igatio

n w

ith

187

ha

land

form

ed

. 6

5 h

a o

f p

ere

nn

ial s

pecie

s

seed

ed

into

irri

ga

ted

ann

ual p

ast

ure

.

Au

dit

fin

din

gs

.

Ve

rifie

d c

orr

ectn

ess

, at d

esk

level, o

f re

cord

ing

of

65

ha o

f ir

riga

ted p

ere

nn

ial p

ast

ure

so

win

g.

b)

Pro

pert

y E

354C

. (

41

ha

hold

ing

with p

rin

cip

al la

nd u

se

of

mix

ed

en

terp

rise

and

liv

esto

ck).

33

ha

laid

out

to ir

riga

tion

an

d a

ll la

nd

form

ed

. 1

6 h

a p

ere

nnia

l spe

cie

s

seed

ed

into

irri

ga

ted

ann

ual p

ast

ure

.

Au

dit

fin

din

gs

.V

erifie

d c

orr

ectn

ess

, at d

esk

level, o

f re

cord

ing

of

16

ha o

f ir

riga

ted p

ere

nn

ial p

ast

ure

so

win

g.

De

nn

is E

T

oo

he

y &

A

ss

oc

iate

s

Skm

mil

Rp

t 20

06

.do

c

22

Pla

n

H.O

.A.

Item

Wo

rks

Audit leve

l C

om

me

nts

c)

Pro

pert

y E

469

. (3

89

ha

ho

ldin

g w

ith

pri

ncip

al l

and

use

of m

ixe

d e

nte

rpri

se w

ith

no

rice).

18

6 h

a la

id o

ut

to ir

riga

tion

with

non

e land

form

ed

. 9

3 h

a p

ere

nn

ial spe

cie

s in

to

irri

ga

ted

an

nu

al p

astu

re.

Au

dit

fin

din

gs

.

Ve

rifie

d c

orr

ectn

ess

, at d

esk

level, o

f re

cord

ing

of

93

ha o

f ir

riga

ted p

ere

nn

ial p

ast

ure

so

win

g.

Co

mm

en

tsA

ll th

ree

pro

pe

rty

info

rma

tion

corr

ectly

record

ed

in S

urv

ey

Rep

ort

. B

err

iqu

in

B3

Nativ

e v

ege

tatio

n

Leve

l 1

(d

esk a

udit)

16

en

trie

s

a)

Pro

pert

y E

597A

. (

346

ha

hold

ing w

ith

pri

nci

pal l

and

use

of m

ixe

d e

nte

rpri

ses w

ith

rice).

28

0 h

a la

id o

ut

to ir

riga

tion

with

non

e land

form

ed

. O

&M

on 2

6 h

a n

ative

vege

tatio

n -

$1

300

.00

(C

he

mic

als

$500

.00

; O

wn

tim

e $

80

0.0

0).

Au

dit

fin

din

gs

.

Ve

rifie

d c

orr

ectn

ess

, at d

esk

level, o

f re

cord

ing

of

$1

300

.00 o

n O

&M

of

nativ

e

vege

tatio

n.

b)

Pro

pert

y Q

723

B. (

45

ha h

old

ing w

ith

pri

ncip

al la

nd

use

of m

ixe

d e

nte

rpri

se

and

liv

esto

ck)

. 2

7 h

a la

id o

ut

to ir

riga

tion

an

d a

ll la

nd

form

ed

. O

&M

on 1

ha

native

vege

tatio

n -

$4

0.0

0 (

Ow

n tim

e $

40

.00).

Au

dit

fin

din

gs

.

Ve

rifie

d c

orr

ectn

ess

, at d

esk

level, o

f re

cord

ing

of

$4

0.0

0 o

n O

&M

of

na

tive

vege

tatio

n.

Co

mm

en

tsB

oth

pro

pert

ies’ in

form

ation c

orr

ectly

record

ed in S

urv

ey

Report

.

Berr

iqu

in

B8

Gro

und

wa

ter

pum

pin

g

Leve

l 1

(desk a

udit)

13

en

trie

s

a)

Pro

pert

y E

483

. (

224

ha h

old

ing

with

pri

ncip

al l

an

d u

ses o

f m

ixe

d e

nte

rpri

se

with r

ice).

18

6 h

a la

id o

ut to

irr

igatio

n w

ith

198

ha

land

form

ed

. 8

5 M

L p

um

ped

fro

m s

ha

llow

b

ore

.

Au

dit

fin

din

gs

.

Ve

rifie

d c

orr

ectn

ess

, at d

esk

level, o

f re

cord

ing

of

85

ML

pu

mp

ed

fro

m s

ha

llow

bore

. Im

ple

me

nta

tio

n O

ffic

er

did

no

t have d

ata

to

assis

t in

reso

lvin

g in

con

sis

ten

t re

sp

onses

giv

en o

n la

nd

form

ed a

rea e

xce

ed

ing

lan

d la

id o

ut to

irri

ga

tion

.

De

nn

is E

T

oo

he

y &

A

ss

oc

iate

s

Skm

mil

Rp

t 20

06

.do

c

23

Pla

n

H.O

.A.

Item

Wo

rks

Audit leve

l C

om

me

nts

b)

Pro

pert

y Q

738

C.

(13

4 h

a h

old

ing

of

mix

ed

en

terp

rise w

ith liv

esto

ck)

. 1

25

ha

laid

ou

t to

irr

iga

tion

an

d a

ll la

nd

form

ed. A

dee

p b

ore

with

MIL

ho

ldin

g r

ecord

s o

f extr

action

.

Au

dit

fin

din

gs

.

Ve

rifie

d c

orr

ectn

ess

, at d

esk

level, o

f re

cord

ing

of

da

ta o

n d

eep

bore

.

Co

mm

en

tsB

oth

pro

pert

ies’ i

nfo

rma

tion

co

rrectly

record

ed in

Surv

ey

Re

port

.

De

nn

is E

T

oo

he

y &

A

ss

oc

iate

s

Skm

mil

Rp

t 20

06

.do

c

24

Pla

n

H.O

.A.

Item

Wo

rks

Audit leve

l C

om

me

nts

Cad

ell

C2

F

arm

Pla

nn

ing

Leve

l 1

(desk)

2 e

ntr

ies

a)

Pro

pert

y C

122

. (

116

ha h

old

ing

with

pri

ncip

al la

nd u

se

of

mix

ed e

nte

rpri

se w

ith

liv

esto

ck)

. 7

7 h

a la

id o

ut

to ir

riga

tion

an

d a

ll la

nd

form

ed

with 2

6 h

a in

20

05/2

00

6.

F

arm

Pla

n f

or

100

% o

f h

old

ing’s

irr

igate

d a

rea

; P

lan

nin

g in

2005

/200

6 o

f $2

03

0.0

0

(Surv

eyo

r $

1 7

10

.00

; S

oil

drilli

ng

, $12

0.0

0; O

wn

tim

e $

20

0.0

0).

Au

dit

fin

din

gs

.

Ve

rifie

d c

orr

ectn

ess

, at d

esk

level, o

f re

cord

ing

of $2

030

.00 o

n F

arm

Pla

nnin

g.

b)

Pro

pert

y D

235

. (

44 h

a h

old

ing w

ith

pri

ncip

al la

nd

use

of m

ixed

ente

rpri

ses w

ith

livesto

ck)

. 4

0 h

a la

id o

ut

to ir

riga

tion

an

d a

ll la

nd

form

ed

in 2

00

5/2

006

. F

arm

Pla

n f

or

10

0%

of h

old

ing’s

irr

igate

d a

rea

; P

lan

nin

g in

20

05

/200

6 o

f $4

70

0.0

0 (

Surv

eyo

r

$4

70

0.0

0).

Au

dit

fin

din

gs

.

Ve

rifie

d a

n o

mis

sio

n, a

t desk

leve

l, o

f re

cord

ing

of $4

700

.00 o

n F

arm

Pla

nnin

g.

Co

mm

en

tsD

23

5 p

rop

ert

y’s F

arm

Pla

nn

ing in

form

atio

n n

ot re

cord

ed in

Surv

ey

Re

port

.

Cad

ell

C3

Ir

rig

atio

n r

ecyc

ling

an

d

sto

rage

Leve

l 2

(on-f

arm

)

4 e

ntr

y -

recyc

ling

;

0 e

ntr

ies –

sto

rag

e;

an

d

15

en

trie

s –

O

&M

irr

igatio

n

recyc

ling

sys

tem

a)

Pro

pert

y D

235

. (

44 h

a h

old

ing w

ith

pri

ncip

al la

nd

use

of m

ixed

ente

rpri

ses w

ith

livesto

ck)

. 4

0 h

a la

id o

ut

to ir

riga

tion

an

d a

ll la

nd

form

ed

in 2

00

5/2

006

Irr

igat

ion

recy

clin

g sy

stem

– $

19

70

0.0

0 o

n r

ecyc

ling

sys

tem

(C

ontr

acto

rs $

19

70

0.0

0).

La

ndh

old

er

ha

s e

nla

rged

su

mp

and

recon

figure

d th

e p

um

pin

g s

yste

m to

ena

ble

fu

ll re

use

of th

e h

old

ing’s

dra

inag

e w

ate

r.

Used

exis

tin

g p

um

p.

Au

dit

fin

din

gs

.

Ve

rifie

d c

orr

ectn

ess

, at d

esk

level, o

f re

cord

ing

of

irrig

atio

n r

ecyc

ling

.

Ve

rifie

d c

orr

ectn

ess

, at o

n-f

arm

level,

of re

co

rdin

g o

f $

19

70

0.0

0 o

n ir

rig

atio

n

recyc

ling

.

b)

Pro

pert

y C

278

. (

390

ha h

old

ing

with

pri

ncip

al la

nd u

se

of

mix

ed e

nte

rpri

ses w

ith n

o

rice.

Part

of

Cots

wo

ld P

ark

an

d d

air

y e

nte

rprise).

36

8 h

a laid

out

to ir

riga

tio

n a

nd a

ll la

ndfo

rmed

. Ir

rigat

ion

recy

clin

g sy

stem

mai

nten

ance

- $

8 3

00.0

0 e

xp

en

de

d (

Fuel

$4

50

0.0

0; C

hem

icals

$3

00

0.0

0 a

nd

Ow

n tim

e $

80

0.0

0).

Au

dit

fin

din

gs

.

Ve

rifie

d c

orr

ectn

ess

, at d

esk

level, o

f re

cord

ing

of

irrig

atio

n r

ecyc

ling

exp

enditure

.

De

nn

is E

T

oo

he

y &

A

ss

oc

iate

s

Skm

mil

Rp

t 20

06

.do

c

25

Pla

n

H.O

.A.

Item

Wo

rks

Audit leve

l C

om

me

nts

c)

Pro

pert

y D

034

. (

481

ha h

old

ing

with

pri

ncip

al l

an

d u

se

of

mix

ed

en

terp

rises w

ith r

ice).

30

2 h

a la

id o

ut to

irr

igatio

n w

ith

216

ha

land

form

ed

. Ir

rigat

ion

recy

clin

g sy

stem

m

aint

enan

ce -

$35

0.0

0 e

xpe

nded

(F

ue

l $1

00

.00; C

on

tracto

rs $

250

.00).

Au

dit

fin

din

gs

.

Ve

rifie

d c

orr

ectn

ess

, at d

esk

level, o

f re

cord

ing

of

irrig

atio

n r

ecyc

ling

.

Co

mm

en

tsA

ctiv

ity

with

op

era

tio

n o

f dra

inage

wa

ter

recyc

ling

hig

hly

corr

ela

ted

with

the

inte

nsi

ty o

f ir

riga

tion

with d

air

y fa

rm h

avin

g th

e h

ighest e

xpecte

d u

sa

ge.

Cad

ell

C1

1

Supp

ly c

ha

nne

l m

ain

tenan

ce

Leve

l 2

(on-f

arm

)

20

en

trie

s

a)

Pro

pert

y C

840A

. (

66 h

a h

old

ing

with p

rin

cip

al la

nd u

se

of

mix

ed

en

terp

rises w

ith r

ice

).

23

2 h

a la

id o

ut to

irr

igatio

n a

nd

all

land

form

ed. M

aint

aini

ng s

uppl

y ch

anne

l - $

3 0

00

expe

nd

ed

(C

ontr

acto

rs $

1 0

00

.00).

C

han

ne

ls a

s in

sp

ecte

d p

resen

ted a

well-

ma

inta

ine

d a

ppeara

nce

; as p

art

of cha

ng

e o

ver

fro

m a

quacultu

re fa

rmin

g to

ma

ize

chan

nels

serv

icin

g s

om

e 3

0h

a w

ere

re

built

with f

ences r

e-a

ligne

d a

nd b

ay

ou

tlets

in

sta

lled

.

Au

dit

fin

din

gs

.V

erifie

d c

orr

ectn

ess

, at d

esk

level, o

f re

cord

ing

of

main

tena

nce

of sup

ply

chan

nels

.

Ve

rifie

d c

orr

ectn

ess

, at o

n-f

arm

level,

of re

co

rdin

g o

f $

3 0

0.0

0 o

n c

han

nel

ma

inte

nance

.

Co

mm

en

tsP

ropert

y h

as t

wo

no

n-t

raditio

nal e

nte

rpri

ses: aq

uacu

lture

(ya

bb

y) a

nd

hors

e b

ree

din

g,

that h

ave

a s

ubst

an

tial i

nflue

nce

up

on

the

land

hold

er’

s co

mm

itte

d to

ma

inte

na

nce

of

supp

ly in

frastr

uctu

re. O

n fie

ld a

ud

it fou

nd

12 h

a s

od

se

ed

ed

cro

p w

ith

2 k

g/h

a o

f lu

cern

e

(Q7.2

and

7.3

).

De

nn

is E

T

oo

he

y &

A

ss

oc

iate

s

Skm

mil

Rp

t 20

06

.do

c

26

Pla

n

H.O

.A.

Item

Wo

rks

Audit leve

l C

om

me

nts

Cad

ell

C9

Ir

rig

atio

n d

eve

lop

me

nt

Leve

l 2

(on-f

arm

)

9 e

ntr

ies -

la

ndfo

rmin

g;

10

en

trie

s -

pad

do

ck

impro

ve

men

ts

a)

Pro

pert

y C

122

. (

116

ha h

old

ing

with

pri

ncip

al la

nd u

se

of

mix

ed e

nte

rpri

se w

ith

liv

esto

ck).

77

ha

laid

out

to ir

riga

tion

. L

andf

orm

ing

– 2

6 h

a in

200

5/2

006

to a

slo

pe o

f 0.0

8%

. S

yste

m o

f irrig

atio

n is b

ord

er

ch

eck b

ays

, 1

2 in

nu

mb

er

of 34

me

tres

wid

e

with b

ay

ou

tlets

ye

t to

be

insta

lled

. A

n ir

riga

tion

recyc

ling

sys

tem

was s

imu

ltan

eo

usly

in

stalle

d a

t a

cost

of

$2

0 0

00.0

0 in

volv

ing

a s

um

p o

f 12

13

0m

3 w

ith

eart

hw

ork

s for

dra

in (

660

m3)

an

d p

ad

din

g o

f ch

ann

els

(4

200

m3).

Au

dit

fin

din

gs

.

Ve

rifie

d c

orr

ectn

ess

, at d

esk

level, o

f re

cord

ing

of 26

ha o

f la

nd

form

ing

.

Ve

rifie

d c

orr

ectn

ess

, at p

ad

do

ck le

vel,

of

un

dert

akin

g 2

6 h

a o

f la

nd

form

ing

.

b)

Pro

pert

y C

025

. (

281

ha h

old

ing

with

pri

ncip

al la

nd u

ses o

f m

ixe

d e

nte

rprise

with

liv

esto

ck)

. 2

10

ha la

id o

ut to

irr

iga

tion

with

136

ha

lan

dfo

rmed

inclu

din

g 2

0 h

a in

20

05/2

006

. P

addo

ck im

prov

emen

ts –

$12

000

.00

(F

encin

g $

12

00

0.0

0).

Au

dit

fin

din

gs

.V

erifie

d c

orr

ectn

ess

, at d

esk

level, o

f re

cord

ing

of

$1

2 0

00

.00

on

pa

ddock

impro

ve

me

nts

.

c)

Pro

pert

y D

068

. (2

82

ha

ho

ldin

g w

ith

pri

ncip

al la

nd

uses o

f m

ixe

d e

nte

rpri

se w

ith

ric

e).

16

0 h

a la

id o

ut to

irr

igatio

n a

nd

all

land

form

ed inclu

din

g 3

2 h

a in

20

05/2

00

6. P

addo

ck

impr

ovem

ents

– $

5 0

00

.00

(S

tructu

res

$5

00

0.0

0)

for

recen

tly

lan

dfo

rmed

pad

dock.

Au

dit

fin

din

gs

.

Ve

rifie

d c

orr

ectn

ess

, at d

esk

level, o

f f

$1

2 0

00

.00

on

pa

dd

ock im

pro

ve

me

nts

.

Ve

rifie

d c

orr

ectn

ess

, at p

ad

do

ck le

vel,

of

un

dert

akin

g p

add

ock im

pro

ve

men

ts.

Co

mm

en

tsA

ll th

ree

pro

pe

rty

info

rma

tion

corr

ect

ly r

ecord

ed

in S

urv

ey

Rep

ort

. P

rope

rty

D06

8 d

uri

ng

field

audit f

ou

nd to

have

unde

r re

cord

ed

ext

ent o

f dir

ect d

rilli

ng

by

om

ittin

g 4

0 h

a in

to

win

ter

cro

p (

Q6.2

); 2

005

/200

6 r

ice s

tubb

le w

as n

ot burn

t, o

nly

burn

t; a

nd

om

issio

n o

f g

razi

ng

of

20

05/2

00

6 w

inte

r cro

p s

tubb

le (

Q6.3

).

Cad

ell

CN

2

Irrig

atio

n c

onvers

ion

Leve

l 2

(on-f

arm

)

0 e

ntr

ies

De

nn

is E

T

oo

he

y &

A

ss

oc

iate

s

Skm

mil

Rp

t 20

06

.do

c

27

Pla

n

H.O

.A.

Item

Wo

rks

Audit leve

l C

om

me

nts

Cad

ell

C8

Ir

rig

atio

n s

che

dulin

g

Leve

l 1

(desk)

8 e

ntr

ies

a)

Pro

pert

y C

840A

(6

6 h

a h

old

ing w

ith

pri

nci

pal l

and

uses o

f m

ixed

en

terp

rises w

ith

rice).

63

ha

laid

ou

t to

irri

ga

tion

an

d a

ll la

ndfo

rmed

. 1

51

ha

la

id o

ut

to irr

igation

and

all

land

form

ed

. S

che

dulin

g o

f cro

ps w

ith

on-f

arm

and

mo

istu

re e

quip

men

t.

Au

dit

fin

din

gs

.

Ve

rifie

d p

artia

l corr

ectn

ess, a

t d

esk

leve

l, o

f re

cord

ing

of

sch

edu

ling

of

irrig

ations.

Co

mm

en

tsO

n fie

ld a

udit for

Supp

ly C

ha

nne

l M

ain

tena

nce

foun

d s

che

dulin

g o

ccurr

ed o

f 3

0 h

a

ma

ize

not

irrig

ate

d a

nnu

al p

ast

ure

as

record

ed

in S

urv

ey

report

.

Cad

ell

C7

an

d

C1

0

Farm

ing

sys

tem

Leve

l 1

(desk)

31

en

trie

s –

conse

rvation

fa

rmin

g

3 e

ntr

ies –

bre

ak

cro

pp

ing

a)

Pro

pert

y D

012

(2

22

ha

ho

ldin

g w

ith

pri

ncip

al l

and

use

s o

f m

ixed

en

terp

rise w

ith

liv

esto

ck).

161

ha la

id o

ut to

irr

iga

tion

an

d a

ll la

ndfo

rmed

. C

onse

rvat

ion

farm

ing

-D

irect drille

d 5

0 h

a o

f w

inte

r cro

p in

200

5/2

006

into

cro

p s

tubb

le.

Au

dit

fin

din

gs

.

Ve

rifie

d c

orr

ectn

ess

, at d

esk

level, o

f re

cord

ing

of

conserv

atio

n f

arm

ing p

ract

ices.

b)

Pro

pert

y C

188

(4

14

ha

ho

ldin

g w

ith

pri

ncip

al l

and

use

s o

f m

ixed

en

terp

rise w

ith

liv

esto

ck).

147

ha la

id o

ut to

irr

iga

tion

an

d a

ll la

ndfo

rmed

. C

onse

rvat

ion

farm

ing

–

win

ter

cro

p s

tubble

gra

ze

d a

nd b

urn

t pri

or

to fo

llow

ing s

eason

so

win

gs.

Au

dit

fin

din

gs

.

Ve

rifie

d c

orr

ectn

ess

, at d

esk

level, o

f re

cord

ing

of

bre

ak c

roppin

g p

ractice

.

c)

Pro

pert

y C

020

. (7

29

ha

ho

ldin

g w

ith

pri

ncip

al la

nd

uses o

f m

ixe

d e

nte

rpri

se w

ith

liv

esto

ck).

N

o la

nd

laid

ou

t to

irr

iga

tion

. B

reak

cro

ppin

g –

dry

lan

d w

he

at

or

barl

ey

are

no

rmal cr

ops o

n th

e h

old

ing

, bu

t no

bre

ak c

rop

in 2

00

5/2

00

6.

Au

dit

fin

din

gs

.

Ve

rifie

dco

rre

ctn

ess

, a

t d

esk le

ve

l, o

f re

cord

ing

of B

rea

k C

rop

pin

g.

Co

mm

en

tsA

ll th

ree

pro

pe

rty’

s in

form

atio

n c

orr

ectly

record

ed in

Surv

ey

Re

port

.

De

nn

is E

T

oo

he

y &

A

ss

oc

iate

s

Skm

mil

Rp

t 20

06

.do

c

28

Pla

n

H.O

.A.

Item

Wo

rks

Audit leve

l C

om

me

nts

Cad

ell

C5

P

astu

res

Leve

l 1

(desk)

11

en

trie

s

a)

Pro

pert

y D

014

. (

931

ha h

old

ing

with

pri

ncip

al la

nd u

ses o

f m

ixe

d e

nte

rprise

with

ric

e).

42

6 h

a la

id o

ut to

irr

igatio

n w

ith

14

ha

lan

dfo

rme

d in

200

5/2

006

. 2

42 h

a o

f p

ere

nnia

l specie

s se

ede

d in

to d

ryla

nd a

nn

ual pastu

re a

t ra

te o

f 3.5

kg/h

a.

Au

dit

fin

din

gs

.

Ve

rifie

d c

orr

ectn

ess

, at d

esk

level, o

f re

cord

ing

of

24

2 h

a o

f dry

lan

d p

ere

nnia

l pastu

re

so

win

g.

b)

Pro

pert

y D

068

. (

282

ha h

old

ing

with

pri

ncip

al la

nd u

ses o

f m

ixe

d e

nte

rprises w

ith

rice).

16

0 h

a la

id o

ut

to ir

riga

tion

an

d a

ll la

ndfo

rmed

with

32 h

a in

200

5/2

006

. 4

0 h

a

pe

rennia

l sp

ecie

s s

eed

ed

into

dry

land

pastu

res a

t 4

kg

/ha

.

Au

dit

fin

din

gs

.V

erifie

d c

orr

ectn

ess

, at d

esk

level, o

f re

cord

ing

of

40

ha o

f ir

riga

ted p

ere

nn

ial p

ast

ure

so

win

g.

c)

Pro

pert

y D

075B

. (3

32

ha

hold

ing

with p

rin

cip

al la

nd u

ses o

f m

ixe

d e

nte

rprise

with

livesto

ck)

. 2

74

ha la

id o

ut to

irr

iga

tion

with

200

ha

lan

dfo

rmed

. 1

40

ha p

ere

nn

ial

specie

s in

to ir

riga

ted

ann

ual p

ast

ure

at

6-8

kg/h

a.

Au

dit

fin

din

gs

.

Ve

rifie

d c

orr

ectn

ess

, at d

esk

level, o

f re

cord

ing

of

14

0 h

a o

f irri

ga

ted p

ere

nnia

l pa

stu

re s

ow

ing

.

Co

mm

en

tsA

ll th

ree

pro

pe

rty’

s in

form

atio

n c

orr

ectly

record

ed in

Surv

ey

Re

po

rt.

Cad

ell

C4

N

ativ

e v

ege

tatio

n

Leve

l 1

(desk a

udit)

13

en

trie

s

a)

Pro

pert

y C

480

. (

16 h

a h

old

ing f

or

lifesty

le p

urp

ose

s).

O

&M

on

native

ve

ge

tatio

n -

3.5

ha

: $45

0.0

0 (

Che

mic

als

$2

00

.00

; O

wn

tim

e $

200

.00; O

ther

[rabb

it b

ait]

$50

.00).

Au

dit

fin

din

gs

.

Ve

rifie

d c

orr

ectn

ess

, at d

esk

level, o

f re

cord

ing

of $4

50

.00

on

O&

M o

f na

tive

vege

tatio

n.

De

nn

is E

T

oo

he

y &

A

ss

oc

iate

s

Skm

mil

Rp

t 20

06

.do

c

29

Pla

n

H.O

.A.

Item

Wo

rks

Audit leve

l C

om

me

nts

b)

Pro

pert

y D

169

. (

463

ha h

old

ing

with

pri

ncip

al la

nd u

ses o

f m

ixe

d e

nte

rprises w

ith

livesto

ck)

. 3

82

ha la

id o

ut to

irr

iga

tion

with

315

ha

lan

dfo

rmed

. O

&M

on

nativ

e

vege

tatio

n -

14

5 h

a:

$2

0.0

0 (

Che

mic

als

$20

.00).

Au

dit

fin

din

gs

.

Ve

rifie

d c

orr

ectn

ess

, at d

esk

level, o

f re

cord

ing

of

$2

0.0

0 o

n O

&M

of

na

tive

vege

tatio

n.

Co

mm

en

tsB

oth

pro

pert

y’s in

form

ation c

orr

ectly

record

ed in

Surv

ey

Re

port

.

De

nn

is E

T

oo

he

y &

A

ss

oc

iate

s

Skm

mil

Rp

t 20

06

.do

c

30

Pla

n

H.O

.A.

Item

Wo

rks

Audit leve

l C

om

me

nts

Denim

ein

D

1

Farm

Pla

nn

ing

1

(desk)

1 e

ntr

y

a)

Pro

pert

y M

060

A. (

1 1

92 h

a h

old

ing

with

pri

ncip

al l

an

d u

ses o

f m

ixed

en

terp

rises w

ith

rice).

19

7 h

a la

id o

ut

to ir

riga

tion

an

d a

ll la

ndfo

rmed

with

80 h

a in

200

5/2

006

. F

arm

P

lan

for

10

0%

of h

old

ing’s

irr

iga

ted

are

a; $3

700

.00 o

n F

arm

Pla

nn

ing

(S

urv

eyo

r,

$5

00.0

0; S

oil

drilli

ng

$1 2

00.0

0; O

wn

tim

e $

2 0

00

.00).

Au

dit

fin

din

gs

.

Ve

rifie

d c

orr

ectn

ess

, at d

esk

level, o

f re

cord

ing

of

$3

700

.00 o

n F

arm

Pla

nnin

g.

Co

mm

en

tsP

ropert

y’s in

form

ation

corr

ectly

reco

rde

d in

Surv

ey

Re

port

. D

enim

ein

D

2

Irrig

atio

n r

ecyc

ling

and

sto

rage

2 *

(o

n-f

arm

)

0 e

ntr

ies -

re

cyc

ling

;

0 e

ntr

ies –

sto

rag

e;

an

d

14

en

trie

s –

O

&M

irr

igatio

n

recyc

ling

sys

tem

.

* N

ote

: F

ield

aud

ited

every

seco

nd

ye

ar

with n

ext in

200

6/2

007

.

a)

Pro

pert

y M

055

. (

955

ha

hold

ing

with p

rin

cip

al la

nd u

ses o

f m

ixe

d e

nte

rprise

with r

ice).

32

8 h

a la

id o

ut to

irr

igatio

n w

ith

289

ha

land

form

ed

. Ir

rigat

ion

recy

clin

g sy

stem

m

aint

enan

ce –

$2 0

00

.00

(O

wn

tim

e $

2 0

00

.00).

Au

dit

fin

din

gs

.

Ve

rifie

d c

orr

ectn

ess

, at d

esk

level, o

f re

cord

ing

of

main

tena

nce

of sto

rag

e s

yste

m.

Co

mm

en

tsP

ropert

y’s info

rma

tion

corr

ectly

reco

rde

d in

Surv

ey

Re

po

rt.

De

nn

is E

T

oo

he

y &

A

ss

oc

iate

s

Skm

mil

Rp

t 20

06

.do

c

31

Pla

n

H.O

.A.

Item

Wo

rks

Audit leve

l C

om

me

nts

Denim

ein

D

8

Irrig

atio

n d

eve

lop

me

nt

2 *

(o

n-f

arm

)

3 e

ntr

ies -

la

ndfo

rmin

g;

4 e

ntr

ies -

pad

do

ck

impro

ve

men

ts

* N

ote

: F

ield

aud

ited

every

seco

nd

ye

ar

with n

ext in

200

6/2

007

.

a)

Pro

pert

y M

060

A. (

1 1

92 h

a h

old

ing

with

pri

ncip

al l

an

d u

ses o

f m

ixed

en

terp

rises w

ith

rice).

19

7 h

a la

id o

ut

to ir

riga

tion

an

d a

ll la

ndfo

rmed

. L

andf

orm

ing

- 80

ha

land

form

ed

in

20

05

/2006

.

Au

dit

fin

din

gs

.

Ve

rifie

d c

orr

ectn

ess

, at d

esk

level, o

f re

cord

ing

of

lan

dfo

rmin

g.

b)

Pro

pert

y M

060

A. (

1 1

92 h

a h

old

ing

with

pri

ncip

al l

an

d u

ses o

f m

ixed

en

terp

rises w

ith

rice).

19

7 h

a la

id o

ut

to ir

riga

tion

an

d a

ll la

ndfo

rmed

. P

addo

ck im

prov

emen

ts -

$2

1 0

00

(C

on

tracto

rs $

7 0

00

.00

; F

enci

ng

$1

4 0

00).

Au

dit

fin

din

gs

.V

eri

fie

d c

orr

ectn

ess

, at d

esk

level, o

f re

cord

ing

of

pa

ddock im

pro

ve

men

ts.

Co

mm

en

tsB

oth

pro

pert

y’s in

form

ation c

orr

ectly

record

ed in

Surv

ey

Re

port

. D

enim

ein

D

4

Pastu

res

Leve

l 1

(desk)

8 e

ntr

ies

a)

Pro

pert

y M

001

. (

270

ha

hold

ing

with p

rin

cip

al la

nd u

ses o

f m

ixe

d e

nte

rprises w

ith

rice).

17

5 h

a la

id o

ut

to ir

riga

tion

an

d a

ll la

ndfo

rmed

. 3

3 h

a o

f p

ere

nnia

l sp

eci

es

seed

ed

into

dry

lan

d a

nnua

l pastu

re a

t ra

te o

f 2.5

kg

/ha

. S

trate

gie

s for

ma

na

ge

men

t are

ro

tata

tio

na

l sp

elli

ng

and

gra

zin

g.

Au

dit

fin

din

gs

.

Ve

rifie

d c

orr

ectn

ess

, at d

esk

level, o

f re

cord

ing

of

33

ha o

f ir

riga

ted p

ere

nn

ial p

ast

ure

so

win

g a

nd

of gra

zin

g m

an

ag

em

en

t.

b)

Pro

pert

y M

022

. (

79

ha h

old

ing

with

pri

ncip

al la

nd u

ses o

f m

ixe

d e

nte

rpri

ses w

ith

livesto

ck)

. 6

8 h

a la

id o

ut

to ir

riga

tion

an

d a

ll la

nd

form

ed

with 1

0 h

a in

20

05/2

00

6.

16

ha

pere

nnia

l specie

s s

ee

ded

into

irrig

ate

d p

astu

res a

t 4 k

g/h

a.

Str

ate

gie

s for

ma

na

ge

me

nt a

re r

ota

tion

al a

nd s

et sto

ckin

g.

Au

dit

fin

din

gs

.V

erifie

d c

orr

ectn

ess

, at d

esk

level, o

f re

cord

ing

of

16

ha o

f ir

riga

ted p

ere

nn

ial p

ast

ure

so

win

g a

nd

of gra

zin

g m

an

ag

em

en

t.

De

nn

is E

T

oo

he

y &

A

ss

oc

iate

s

Skm

mil

Rp

t 20

06

.do

c

32

Pla

n

H.O

.A.

Item

Wo

rks

Audit leve

l C

om

me

nts

c)

Pro

pert

y M

032G

. (5

02

ha

hold

ing w

ith

pri

ncip

al la

nd

use

s o

f m

ixe

d e

nte

rprises w

ith

ri

ce).

37

7 h

a la

id o

ut

to ir

rig

atio

n w

ith

170

ha lan

dfo

rme

d.

40

ha

pere

nnia

l sp

ecie

s

into

irrig

ate

d a

nnu

al p

astu

re a

t 5

kg

/ha S

ha

ftal an

d 2

kg/h

a tri

tica

le.

Str

ate

gie

s fo

r m

ana

ge

me

nt a

re r

ota

tation

al spelli

ng a

nd g

razin

g.

Au

dit

fin

din

gs

.

Ve

rifie

d c

orr

ectn

ess

, at d

esk level, o

f re

cord

ing

of 40

ha o

f ir

riga

ted p

ere

nn

ial p

ast

ure

so

win

g a

nd

of gra

zin

g m

an

ag

em

en

t.

Co

mm

en

tsW

hils

t a

ll th

ree

pro

pert

y’s in

form

atio

n c

orr

ectly

record

ed

in

Surv

ey

Re

port

th

e s

pecie

s

so

wn

on h

old

ing M

032G

were

not e

ligib

le s

pecie

s, be

ing a

n a

nnu

al clo

ver

(Sha

ftal [M

ara

l]

Pers

ian c

lover)

and

a c

ere

al (t

ritic

ale

: a

gra

in).

Reco

mm

en

dati

on

In

clu

de T

ritic

ale

as a

gra

in s

pecie

s in S

urv

eyors

Note

s, enh

ance

pre

se

nta

tion

of elig

ible

specie

s in

the

Note

s a

nd g

ive

incre

ase

d a

tte

ntion

to

this

top

ic in

Surv

eyo

r in

ductio

n

pro

gra

m.

Denim

ein

D

3

Nativ

e v

ege

tatio

n

Leve

l 1

(desk a

udit)

7 e

ntr

ies

a)

Pro

pert

y M

066

. (

393

ha

hold

ing

pri

nci

pa

l la

nd

uses o

f m

ixed

en

terp

rise

s w

ith

livesto

ck)

. 2

36

ha la

id o

ut to

irr

iga

tion

with

185

ha

lan

dfo

rmed

. O

&M

of 7

3 h

a n

ativ

e

vege

tatio

n -

$1

60

.00

(O

wn

tim

e $

16

0.0

0).

Au

dit

fin

din

gs

.

Ve

rifie

d c

orr

ectn

ess

, at d

esk

level, o

f re

cord

ing

of

$1

60

.00

on

O&

M o

f na

tive

vege

tatio

n.

b)

Pro

pert

y M

080

. (

180

ha

hold

ing

with p

rin

cip

al la

nd u

ses o

f m

ixe

d e

nte

rprise

with n

o

rice

). 15

5 h

a la

id o

ut

to ir

rig

atio

n w

ith

47 h

a lan

dfo

rmed

. O

&M

of

20

ha n

ativ

e

vege

tatio

n $

40

0.0

0 (

Ch

em

ica

ls $

400

.00

).

Au

dit

fin

din

gs

.

Ve

rifie

d c

orr

ectn

ess

, at d

esk

level, o

f re

cord

ing

of

$4

00

.00

on

O&

M o

f na

tive

vege

tatio

n.

Co

mm

en

tsB

oth

pro

pert

ies’ in

form

ation c

orr

ectly

record

ed in S

urv

ey

Report

.

De

nn

is E

T

oo

he

y &

A

ss

oc

iate

s

Skm

mil

Rp

t 20

06

.do

c

33

Pla

n

H.O

.A.

Item

Wo

rks

Audit leve

l C

om

me

nts

Denim

ein

D

5

Gro

und

wa

ter

pum

pin

g

Leve

l 1

(desk a

udit)

1 e

ntr

y

a)

Pro

pert

y M

022

. (

79

ha h

old

ing

with

pri

ncip

al la

nd u

ses o

f m

ixe

d e

nte

rpri

ses w

ith

livesto

ck)

. 6

8 h

a la

id o

ut

to ir

riga

tion

an

d a

ll la

nd

form

ed

with 1

0 h

a in

20

05/2

00

6.

168

M

L p

um

pe

d fro

m s

ha

llow

bore

.

Au

dit

fin

din

gs

.

Ve

rifie

d c

orr

ectn

ess

, at d

esk

level, o

f re

cord

ing

of

16

8 M

L p

um

pe

d f

rom

sh

allo

w b

ore

.

Co

mm

en

tsP

ropert

y’s in

form

ation

corr

ectly

reco

rde

d in

Surv

ey

Re

po

rt.

De

nn

is E

T

oo

he

y &

A

ss

oc

iate

s

Skm

mil

Rp

t 20

06

.do

c

34

Pla

n

H.O

.A.

Item

Wo

rks

Audit leve

l C

om

me

nts

Wako

ol

W1

Farm

Pla

nn

ing

1

(desk)

0 e

ntr

ies

Wako

ol

W2

Irri

gatio

n r

ecyc

ling

and

sto

rage

2 (on-f

arm

)

2 e

ntr

ies -

re

cyc

ling

;

0 e

ntr

ies –

sto

rag

e;

an

d

15

en

trie

s –

O

&M

irr

igatio

n

recyc

ling

sys

tem

a)

Pro

pert

y W

290

. (

310

ha

hold

ing

with p

rin

cip

al la

nd u

ses o

f m

ixe

d e

nte

rprise

with

rice).

25

1 h

a la

id o

ut

to ir

riga

tion

with

no la

ndfo

rmin

g.

Irrig

atio

n re

cycl

ing

syst

em –

$1

80

0.0

0 o

n r

ecyc

ling

sys

tem

(C

ontr

act

ors

$1 8

00

.00).

T

he

he

ight

of th

e b

ank o

f a

supp

ly c

ha

nne

l a

sh

ort

dis

tan

ce fro

m the

wh

eel w

as incre

ased

.

Au

dit

fin

din

gs

.

Ve

rifie

d c

orr

ectn

ess

, at d

esk

level, o

f re

cord

ing

of

irrig

atio

n r

ecyc

ling

.

Qu

alif

ied

veri

ficatio

n o

f corr

ectn

ess,

at

on-f

arm

leve

l, o

f re

cord

ing

of

$7

50.0

0 o

n

irri

ga

tion

recyc

ling

.

b)

Pro

pert

y W

303

. (

719

ha

hold

ing

with p

rin

cip

al la

nd u

ses o

f m

ixe

d e

nte

rprises w

ith

rice).

25

0 h

a la

id o

ut

to ir

riga

tion

with

132

ha lan

dfo

rme

d.

Irrig

atio

n re

cycl

ing

syst

em

mai

nten

ance

- $

7 4

40

.00

exp

en

ded

(F

ue

l $5

000

.00

; C

he

mic

als

$2

000

.00; O

wn

tim

e

$4

40.0

0).

Au

dit

fin

din

gs

.V

erifie

d c

orr

ectn

ess, at d

esk level, a

s to

th

e tota

l o

f re

cord

ing o

f to

tal e

xpe

nd

iture

on

irri

ga

tion

recyc

ling

sys

tem

. I

mple

men

tatio

n O

ffic

er

so

ugh

t cla

rifica

tion

fro

m

lan

dho

lder

as t

o a

mou

nts

exp

end

ed

on fu

el (b

uild

ing

up c

ha

nne

l pa

ds, n

o c

han

ge),

o

wn

tim

e (

opera

ting

equ

ipm

ent $

1 4

40.0

0 in

lieu

of $4

40

.00 a

nd

ch

em

icals

($1

000

.00

in

lie

u o

f $2

00

0.0

0).

Co

mm

en

tsW

29

0. Q

ua

lifie

d a

udit

arises fro

m a

n a

sse

ssm

ent:

vis

ual a

nd fo

llow

-up

investig

ation

by

the I

mp

lem

enta

tion

offic

er,

th

at e

xpen

diture

wa

s m

ost

ly m

ain

ten

ance a

nd

no

t associa

ted

w

ith t

he

constr

uctio

n o

f a

recyc

ling

sys

tem

. H

old

ing h

as thre

e r

ecyc

ling

po

ints

all

serv

ice

d w

ith

port

able

pu

mps.

La

ndh

old

er

sin

ce

co

mp

letin

g t

he

surv

ey

has s

old

the

p

rop

ert

y.

De

nn

is E

T

oo

he

y &

A

ss

oc

iate

s

Skm

mil

Rp

t 20

06

.do

c

35

Pla

n

H.O

.A.

Item

Wo

rks

Audit leve

l C

om

me

nts

Wako

ol

W7

Irri

gatio

n d

eve

lop

me

nt

2

(on-f

arm

)

7 e

ntr

ies -

pad

do

ck

impro

ve

men

ts

a)

Pro

pert

y T

015A

. (

133

ha h

old

ing w

ith

pri

ncip

al la

nd

use

s o

f m

ixe

d e

nte

rprise

with

liv

esto

ck)

. 1

00

ha la

id o

ut to

irr

iga

tion

an

d a

ll la

ndfo

rmed

with

24 h

a in 2

00

5/2

00

6.

P

add

ock

im

pro

vem

en

ts -

$8

600

.00

(C

on

tracto

rs $

2 5

00

.00

; O

wn

tim

e $

1 6

00

.00

; F

encin

g $

4 5

00.0

0).

H

old

ing d

oes n

ot

have

a farm

pla

n w

hic

h g

ive

s r

ise to

questio

ns

on

the

app

ropri

ate

ne

ss o

f th

e c

han

ges in la

you

t in

a la

nd

form

ed a

rea a

nd o

f ri

sk o

f w

ate

rlogg

ing.

Obse

rved

ba

ys o

f 10

0 m

etr

es

wid

th a

nd

over

500

me

tres lon

g o

n la

nd

w

ith t

wo

dis

tinct soil

typ

es: re

d o

n u

pp

er

an

d g

rey

cla

ys o

n lo

wer.

R

ece

ntly

lan

dfo

rmed

are

a h

as c

onvert

ed

som

e fo

rmer

dry

land

to ir

rig

atio

n; re

duce

d len

gth

of

supp

ly c

ha

nne

ls a

nd

has b

ay

ou

tlets

. P

add

ing

an

d c

onstr

uctio

n o

f fu

ture

dra

inag

e

recyc

ling

cha

nnels

has taken

pla

ce w

ith

effe

ctiv

e inclu

sio

n o

f e

xis

tin

g s

ma

ll fa

rm d

am

.

Au

dit

fin

din

gs

.

Ve

rifie

d c

orr

ectn

ess

, at d

esk

level, o

f re

cord

ing

of

impro

ved

irr

iga

tion

layo

ut.

Ve

rifie

d c

orr

ectn

ess

, at p

ad

do

ck le

vel,

of

$8

600

.00 o

n u

nd

ert

akin

g im

pro

vem

en

ts

within

176

ha

.

Co

mm

en

tsA

wh

ole

farm

pla

n is

an e

sse

ntia

l co

mp

one

nt of ir

riga

tion

de

velo

pm

en

t w

ith H

old

ing

T

015A

be

ing a

pri

me

illu

str

ato

r o

f situ

ations w

he

n a

pla

n c

an b

e u

se

d to g

rea

t effect fo

r p

rovi

din

g s

ou

nd g

uid

ance

on

fu

ture

infr

astr

uctu

re in

vestm

ents

. W

ako

ol

W3

Nativ

e v

ege

tatio

n

Leve

l 1

(desk a

udit)

2 e

ntr

ies

a)

Pro

pert

y W

010

. (

975

ha

hold

ing

with p

rin

cip

al la

nd u

ses o

f m

ixe

d e

nte

rprise

with

rice).

38

5 h

a la

id o

ut

to ir

riga

tion

with

80 h

a lan

dfo

rmed

. 2

42

ha

na

tive

ve

ge

tatio

n.

O

&M

on

na

tive

ve

ge

tatio

n -

$3

40

.00 (

Ow

n t

ime

$16

0.0

0;

Fuel [p

repari

ng

fen

ce

lin

e]

$1

80.0

0).

Au

dit

fin

din

gs

.

Ve

rifie

d c

orr

ectn

ess

, at d

esk

level, o

f re

cord

ing

of

$3

40

.00

on

O&

M o

f na

tive

vege

tatio

n.

b)

Pro

pert

y W

250

B. (

50

ha h

old

ing w

ith

pri

ncip

al la

nd

use

s for

da

iryi

ng).

3

3 h

a la

id o

ut

to irr

iga

tion

with a

ll la

nd

form

ed. 8

ha

na

tive

vege

tation

of

betw

ee

n 2

6 a

nd

56 m

etr

es

in w

idth

alo

ng

pro

pert

y b

ou

nd

ary

. O

&M

on n

ative

veg

eta

tio

n -

$20

.00

(C

ontr

acto

rs

$2

0.0

0).

Au

dit

fin

din

gs

.

Ve

rifie

d c

orr

ectn

ess

, at d

esk

level, o

f re

cord

ing

of

$1

300

.00 o

n O

&M

of

nativ

e

vege

tatio

n.

Co

mm

en

tsT

wo

pro

pe

rty’

s in

form

atio

n c

orr

ectly

record

ed in

Surv

ey

Re

port

.



Annex Table 2: Alphanumeric coding of On-Farm Targets by Plans

Source: Toohey, 2005, Table 10.2.

Abbreviation Plan Target Abbreviation Plan Target

Berriquin Cadell B 1 1. Farm Planning C 1 1. Cadell CardB 2 2. Irrigation Recycling

(Drainage, Reuse & Storage)

C 2 2. Farm Planning

B 3 3. Vegetation & Biodiversity (O &M)

C 3 3. Irrigation Recycling (Drainage, Reuse & Storage)

B 4 4. Surface drainage C 4 4. Vegetation & Biodiversity (O&M)

B 5 5. Irrigation Training Program

C 5 5. Perennial Pasture

B 6 6. Landforming and Topsoiling, including ‘improved irrigation layouts’

C 6 6. Saltbush

B 7 7. Perennial species in annual pastures

C 7 7. Soil Management

B 8 8. Groundwater pumping –shallow (O & M)

C 8 8. Irrigation Scheduling

Denimein C 9 9. Landforming, including ‘improved irrigation layouts’

D 1 1. Farm Plans C 10 10. Alternative Farming Practices

D 2 2. Irrigation Recycling (Drainage, Reuse and Storage)

C 11 11. On-Farm Infrastructure

D 3 3. Vegetation & Biodiversity (O &M)

C 12 12. Community Surface Drainage

D 4 4. Dryland Pasture C N 1 Special projects (Green Gully)D 5 5. Groundwater Pumping –

shallow (O & M) C N 2 New 2. Improved Irrigation

Efficiencies D 6 6. Farm Channel Sealing C N 3 New 3. EducationD 7 7. Channel Escapes & Box

Creek upgradeD 8 8. Landforming, including

‘improved irrigation layouts’

Wakool

D N 1 Education W 1 1. Farm Planning D N 2 New 3. Saltbush W 2 2. Irrigation Recycling

(Drainage, Reuse & Storage) D N 3 Box Creek Upgrade W 3 3. Vegetation & Biodiversity (O

&M) W 4 4. Vegetation to reduce salinity W 5 District Surface Drainage W 6 Sub-surface drainage W 7 Improved irrigation layouts



Annex Table 3: Landholder survey – composite

Landholder Survey – Questions by themes

Theme 1. Holding enterprise and land uses

Plan Targets: Basic contextual information for report

Target performance - All ‘qualifying’ holdings.

Plan environmental indictors program: Basic contextual information for report

MIL Licences and / or policies: Basic contextual information for Environment Report – Landuse, Irrigation development

Questions:Target / Indicator / Licence - policy

Questions Target scope

L Landholders name Holding reference number LWMP District Farm area ……ha

All qualifying holdings

L 1.1. Enterprise type and land use. What is the main enterprise on this holding? Please tick one:

Mixed enterprises – rice Mixed enterprises – no rice Mixed enterprises- livestock Dairying Horticulture, and Other.


L 1.2. What were the land uses on this holding in 2005/2006? Surveyor note: Total area in Land Use table has to equal the size of the holding.




Target / Indicator / Licence - policy


Land use Area Land use Area Irrigatedannual pasture

Native vegetation (grass / shrub / tree

Irrigatedperennial pasture, (including lucerne)

Fallowed land

Drylandpastures

Stubble

Winter crops Dryland

Horticulture – perennial (Fruit, vine and nuts)

infrastructure




Theme 2. Farm planning

Plan Targets: B 1, D 1, C 2, W 1.

Target performance - All ‘commercial’ holdings.

Beyond incentive program planning. To capture the extent of planning that is being undertaken outside of incentive scheme, or planning undertaken after a landholder has received the allowable incentive payment.

Plan environmental indictors program: NA

MIL Licences and / or policies: NA

Questions:



TB 1, D 1, C 2, W 1

2.1. Do you have a surveyor designed irrigation or drainage plan? Y/N.

Allcommercial holdings

TB 1, D 1, C 2, W 1

2.2. What is the area laid out to irrigation on this holding?


TB 1, D 1, C 2, W 1

2.3. What proportion of this holding’s irrigated area is represented on the plan? …….%


TB 1, D 1, C 2, W 1

2.4. Did you undertake farm planning activities (irrigation surveying and / or design) in 2005/06 and not access an LWMP incentive?, Y/N. If No, then question 3.1.


TB 1, D 1, C 2, W 1

2.5. What was the purpose of the farm planning? a Introduce changes to an existing approved plan?

Y/N b Commence a farm plan? Y/N c Develop part of the farm (paddock scale

surveying)? Y/N d Other (please summarise)

……………………………


TB 1, D 1, C 2, W 1

2.6. What was spent on farm planning in 2005/2006? a Surveyor / Designer $………… b Soil drilling $………… c Own time (hours @ $20 per hour) $………… d Other $………… e TOTAL $………….




Theme 3. Irrigation water recycling, drainage and storage

Plan Targets: B 2, D 2, C 3, C 11 and W 2.

Target performance - All ‘commercial’ holdings.

Beyond incentive program activity. To capture the extent of works after a landholder has received the allowable incentive payment, or works undertaken outside of the incentive program.

To capture construction and maintenance of systems.



Questions:



L 3.1. Do you have an irrigation recycling system on this holding? Y/N. If no, then 4.1.

All commercial holdings

TB 2, D 2, C 3, W 2

3.2. What volumes of water can be stored in: a. Sump / Main drains ….....ML b. Storage …………………..ML

3.3. Has the Sump and / or Storage been drilled or seepage tested? Y/N

3.4. What proportion of the holding can be drained to a recycle point? …...ha

3.5. What proportion of the holding can be irrigated with recycled water? …...ha


TB 2, D 2, C 3, W 2

3.6. Did you undertake irrigation recycling and / or storage works in 2005/2006 and not access an LWMP incentive? Y/No. If no, to Q3.9.


TB 2, D 2, C 3, W 2

3.7. What was spent on constructing the irrigation recycling system in 2005/2006? a Materials / equipment $………… b Fuel $………… c Contractors $………… d Own time (hours @ $20 per hour) $………… e Other $…………. f TOTAL $………….






TB 2, D 2, C 3, W 2

3.8. What was spent on constructing the storage in2005/2006?a. Materials / equipment $………… b. Fuel $…………. c. Contractors $…………. d. Own time (hours @ $20 per hour) $…………. e. Other $…………. f. TOTAL $…………..


TB 2, D 2, C 3, W 2

3.9. What was spent on operating and maintaining the irrigation recycling system in 2005/2006? a. Materials / equipment $…………. b. Fuel / electricity $…………. c. Contractors $…………. d. Own time (hours @ $20 per hour) $………….. e. Other $………….. f. TOTAL $…………..

All holdings with system

TC 11

3.10. Did you undertake any maintenance of supply / drainage channels on this holding in 2005/2006, Y/N. If no, then question 4.1.

Commercial holdings

TC 11

3.11. What was spent on maintaining supply channels in 2005/2006? a. Contractors $…………. b. Own time (hours @ $20 per hour) $…………. c. Fuel $…………. d. Desilting $…………. e. Chemicals $…………. f. Other $…………. g. TOTAL $…………..

Commercial holdings



Theme 4. Irrigation development

Plan Targets: B 6, D 8, C 9, C N 2 and W 7 (Wakool landforming is a ‘recommended’ activity).

Target performance – All qualifying holdings, except Target 11, where ‘commercial’ applies.

To capture paddock improvements.


MIL Licences and / or policies: To capture the extent of EM 31 surveying. MIL has data on EM surveys of ground for growing of rice and on land for storages. EM surveying also assists in general irrigation design / re-design, e.g. positioning of channels on less permeable soils. MIL has an interest in being aware of general usage of EM 31. MIL has a general interest in landholder activity in converting flood irrigation to pressurised irrigation systems.

Questions:



TB 6, D 8, C 9, W 7

4.1. What area of this holding is landformed (laser graded)?a Total area landformed on holding ……....ha b Area landformed in 2005/2006 ……..ha

All qualifying holdings – except Cadell where it is commercial holdings.

TB 6, D 8, C 9, W 7

4.2. Of area landformed in 2005/2006 what was previously dryland? (e.g. never been irrigated)………ha

All qualifying holdings – except Cadell.

TB 6, D 8, C 9, W 7

4.3. Did you undertake any paddock improvementsin 2005/2006? (Not including lasering, but including, conversion to side ditch, install permanent bay outlets, etc.). Y/N


TB 6, D 8, C 9, W 7

4.4. If Yes, what was spent on paddock improvements in 2005/2006? a. Contractors $………. b. Own time (hours @ $20 per hour) $………. c. Fuel $………. d. Fencing / structures $………. e. Other $………. f. TOTAL $……….






TC N 2 L

4.5. Did you convert an area of flood irrigation to a pressurised irrigation system on this holding in 2005/2006? (e.g., Centre Pivot), Y/N.

C. All commercial holdings. L All qualifying holdings

TC N 2 L

4.6. If Yes, how many hectares were converted to a pressurised system? …… ha.(Note exclude land that was previously dryland)


TC N 2 L

4.7. What type of pressurised system was installed? ………………………..


L 4.8. Did you undertake EM 31 surveying in 2005/2006? Y?N.


L 4.9. If Yes, what was the area surveyed area? ...ha All qualifying holdings



Theme 5. Irrigation management

Plan Targets: C 8

Target performance – All commercial holdings.

Irrigation scheduling is the process of calculating both the timing and volume of irrigation applications required to meet crop yield and quality objectives.



Questions:



T C 8 5.1. Did you apply any of the following techniques to schedule irrigations in 2005/2006? If no, then question 6.1. a. External evaporation and rainfall data (MIL, CSIRO,

Bureau of Meteorology). Y/N b. On-farm evaporation and rainfall data? Y/N c. Soil moisture equipment(Tensiometer, Gopher,

EnviroSCAN). Y/N d. Other……………


T C 8 5.2. On what land uses did you practice irrigation scheduling and what area was laid out to those landuses?

Land use (e.g. pastures) Area ha




Theme 6. Soil management / Farming systems

Plan Targets: C 7, C10.

Target performance – Target C 7, ‘commercial’ applies; Target C 10 - All qualifying holdings.

Achievement of conservation farming (C 7) requires the application of techniques to manage both the previous crop’s residue and the seeding of the new crop.

Plan environmental indictors program: Soil acidity benchmark


Questions:



TC 7

6.1. Did you practice any conservation farming on this holding in 2005/200? Y/N. If No, then question 6.4.


T C 7

6.2. What crop / pasture establishment techniques did you apply?

Crop establishment technique Area (ha)a. Direct drilling of pasture paddock b. Direct drilled, i.e. no cultivation,

winter crop into 2005/2006 rice stubble

c. Direct drilled, ie no cultivation,winter crop into other crop stubble, e.g. soybeans or barley

d. Other techniques, e.g. one cultivation

e. Other f. Other


TC 7

6.3. How did you manage your previous crop residues / stubble? (tick whichever applies)

Managementmethod

Winter crops

Rice Summer crops

Grazing Burning Baling Mulching Other


TC 10

6.4. Is dryland wheat or barley normally grown on this holding? Y/N. If No, then question 6.6.






TC 10

6.5. Were either canola, field peas, lupins or vetch grown in 2005/2006 as a dryland break crop for wheat or barley? Y/N.


I 6.6. Did you apply lime to pasture or cropping paddocks in 2005/2006? Y/N.

Allqualifying holdings

I 6.7. If Yes, what was the a. Application rate …….tonnes/ha b. Area ……...tonnes




Theme 7. Pastures

Plan Targets: B 7, D 4 and C 5.

Target performance – All qualifying holdings.

In Denimein (D 4) the target includes management as a technique for maintaining presence of perennial species.



Questions:



TB 7, D 4 and C 5

7.1. Did you sow perennial species (e.g., lucerne, phalaris) into annual pastures on this holding in 2005/200? Y/N


TB 7, D 4 and C 5

7.2. If yes, was the pasture paddock: a Irrigated Y/N b Dryland Y/N


TB 7, D 4 and C 5

7.3. What was the rate of sowing and area sown toperennial species?

a Irrigated pasture b Dryland pasture

Seeding rate (kg/ha)

Area sown (ha)

Seeding rate(kg/ha)

Area sown (ha)


TD 4

7.4. What techniques are applied to achieve a balanced pasture comprised of perennial and annual species? (tick appropriate box) a. No specific intervention. b. Strategic interventions

i. Rotational spelling and grazing ii. Set stocking rate throughout the year iii. Grazing and or slashing of dry residue.




Theme 8. Native vegetation

Plan Targets: B 3, D 3, C 4 and W3.




Questions:



TB 3, D 3, C 4 and W 3

8.1. Did you carry out any maintenance of native vegetation on this holding during 2005/2006? (both remnant and planted areas > 10m wide). Y/N


TB 3, D 3, C 4 and W 3

8.2. If Yes, what did you spend on maintaining native vegetation in 2005/2006? a. Materials $……… b. Own time (hours @ $20 per hour) $……… c. Contractors $……… d. Chemicals (e.g. fox bait) $……… e. Other $………. f. TOTAL $……….




Theme 9. Groundwater pumping

Plan Targets: B 8 and D5.




Questions:



TB 8 and D 5

9.1. Do you have a groundwater pump for irrigating on this holding? (Not a stock and domestic bore). Y/N


TB 8 and D 5

9.2. If Yes, is your bore: a. Shallow (less than 10 metres deep) b. Deep (more than 10 metres deep).


TB 8 and D 5

9.3. What volume did you pump from the shallow bore in 2005/2006? ………..ML.




Theme 10. Chemical usage

Plan Targets: NA



MIL Licences and / or policies: MILs EPA Licence requires the annual recording of chemicals used on farms. To assist landholders as to usage of chemicals, a listing has been prepared, in the main, from previous MIL Environment reports with supplementation from Department of Primary Industries, Gross Margins budgets.

Questions:

Target / Indicator/Licence- policy


L 10.1. What chemicals have you used on this holding in 2005/2006? (please tick)


L Winter Crops Tick Rice Tick Perennial pastures (summer)

Tick

Glean Londax 2,4-D

Gesatop MCPA Spray.seed

Glyphosate Ordram (Molinate)


Logran Lorsban (Chlorpyrifos)

Other


Other

Le-mat (Omethoate)

Other


Tick Summer crops / vegetables / fruit / vines

Tick Channels / Drains Tick

MCPA Primextra Gold (Maize, weeds)

2,4-D

Le-Mat (Omethoate)

Other Arsenal

Other Diuron

Roundup (Glyphosate)

Other

Other



De

nn

is E

T

oo

he

y &

A

ss

oc

iate

s

Skm

mil

Rp

t 2

00

6.d

oc

51

An

nex T

ab

le 4

: M

IL 2

005/2

006 L

an

dh

old

er

Su

rvey R

ep

ort

3

FA

RM

PL

AN

NIN

G R

EP

OR

T4

/09

/20

06

Nu

mb

er

Fa

rm P

lan

Not

Re

aso

ns F

or

Fa

rm P

lan

nin

g$ S

pe

nt

Pla

n

Re

ason

s F

or

Farm

Pla

nn

ing

$ S

pe

nt

Ho

ldin

gs

Irr

igate

d

Access

Fa

rm

Me

et

Fa

rm P

lan

nin

g

Fa

rm P

lan

Are

aIn

ce

ntive

Ch

ang

es

Co

mm

ence

De

velo

pO

ther

Pla

nnin

gS

tand

Ch

ang

es

Com

me

nce

De

velo

pO

ther

20

05/2

00

6

Be

rriq

uin

32

64

50

.59

63

02

10

$1

7,2

00.0

03

02

10

$1

7,2

00

.00

To

tal

Irr

Are

a

10

78

0.3

8

To

t S

urv

eys

66

Cad

ell

24

36

12

21

11

0$2

,03

0.0

02

11

00

$2,0

30

.00

To

tal

Irr

Are

a

464

8.5

To

t S

urv

eys

48

Den

imein

17

326

4.7

11

00

0$3

,70

0.0

01

10

00

$3,7

00

.00

To

tal

Irr

Are

a

418

8.7

To

t S

urv

eys

24

Wa

ko

ol

15

23

95.7

42

40

00

00

$0.0

00

00

00

$0

.00

To

tal

Irr

Are

a

496

7.9

2

To

t S

urv

eys

27

3 T

he

extr

apo

lati

on

tab

les

in A

nn

ex T

able

4 d

eriv

ed f

rom

All

Ho

ldin

gs

bas

is.

De

nn

is E

T

oo

he

y &

A

ss

oc

iate

s

Skm

mil

Rp

t 2

00

6.d

oc

52

FA

RM

PL

AN

NIN

G R

EP

OR

T4

/09

/20

06

Extr

ap

ola

ted

Re

po

rt

Nu

mb

er

Fa

rm P

lan

Not

Re

aso

ns F

or

Fa

rm P

lan

nin

g$ S

pe

nt

Pla

n

Re

ason

s F

or

Farm

Pla

nn

ing

$ S

pe

nt

Ho

ldin

gs

Irr

igate

d

Access

Fa

rm

Me

et

Fa

rm P

lan

nin

g

Fa

rm P

lan

Are

a H

AIn

ce

ntive

Ch

ang

es

Co

mm

ence

De

velo

pO

ther

Pla

nnin

gS

tand

Ch

ang

es

Com

me

nce

De

velo

pO

ther

20

05/2

00

6

Be

rriq

uin

718

138

069

67

04

52

20

$3

68

,151

67

04

52

20

$3

68,1

51

To

tal

Irr

Are

a

230

744

To

t S

urv

eys

66

Cad

ell

519

786

41

43

22

22

22

0$

44,1

98

43

22

22

00

$4

4,1

98

To

tal

Irr

Are

a

101

208

To

t S

urv

eys

48

Den

imein

135

226

35

88

00

0$

25,6

53

88

00

0$

25,6

53

To

tal

Irr

Are

a

290

42

To

t S

urv

eys

24

Wa

ko

ol

212

497

04

00

00

0$

00

00

00

$0

To

tal

Irr

Are

a

103

069

To

t S

urv

eys

27

De

nn

is E

T

oo

he

y &

A

ss

oc

iate

s

Skm

mil

Rp

t 2

00

6.d

oc

53

IRR

IGA

TIO

N,

RE

CY

CL

ING

AN

D S

TO

RA

GE

RE

PO

RT

4/0

9/2

00

6

Irri

T

ota

l S

tora

ge

Avg

M

ee

t M

in

Sto

rag

eA

rea

A

rea

Irri

gatio

n

Sto

rag

e

Ope

ratio

nIr

rSys

tem

Irri

ga

tio

n

Irrig

ation

&&

Con

st

Ch

an

n

Ope

ratio

n

Recyc

ling

Vo

lum

eS

tora

ge

S

tora

ge

D

rille

dD

rain

ed

Irri

ga

ted

C

on

st

Co

nst

&&

Ma

int

Me

et

Co

nst

Sto

rage

S

tora

ge

Ma

int

&&

Ma

int

Sys

tem

Volu

me

Vo

lum

eB

y R

ecy

Co

st

Cost

Co

st

Sta

nd

ard

Co

st

Mee

t S

tand

Co

st

Co

st

20

05/2

00

6

25

32

6.5

00

22

98

.03

46.0

$0

$0

$5

,00

00

$0

0$

00

$0

To

tal

Irr

Are

a

37

2

To

t S

urv

eys

2

Be

rriq

uin

45

10

60

.24

23

.56

37

18

71

59

.553

86.7

$15

,720

$0

$16

6,2

27

2$9

,100

2$

0

To

tal

Irr

Are

a

10

78

0.3

8

To

t S

urv

eys

66

Cad

ell

22

68

63

1.1

81

31

83

568

.024

92.0

$50

,600

$0

$2

6,7

50

3$

49

,70

01

$0

16

$5

9,1

25

To

tal

Irr

Are

a

464

8.5

To

t S

urv

eys

48

Den

imein

16

444

.12

7.7

61

01

53

087

.528

78.5

$0

$0

$1

5,4

40

0$

00

$0

To

tal

Irr

Are

a

418

8.7

To

t S

urv

eys

24

Wa

ko

ol

21

472

.82

2.5

11

17

36

69

.231

71.0

$9,2

00

$0

$4

5,1

10

2$5

,800

1$

0

To

tal

Irr

Are

a

496

7.9

2

To

t S

urv

eys

27

De

nn

is E

T

oo

he

y &

A

ss

oc

iate

s

Skm

mil

Rp

t 2

00

6.d

oc

54

IRR

IGA

TIO

N,

RE

CY

CL

ING

AN

D S

TO

RA

GE

RE

PO

RT

4/0

9/2

00

6E

xtr

ap

ola

ted

Re

po

rt

Irri

Tota

l S

tora

ge

Avg

M

ee

t M

in

Sto

rage

Are

a

Are

a

Irri

gatio

n

Sto

rag

e

Ope

ratio

nIr

rSys

tem

Irri

ga

tio

n

Irrig

ation

&&

Con

st

Ch

an

n

Ch

ann

el

Recyc

ling

V

olu

me

ML

Sto

rag

e

Sto

rage

D

rille

d

Dra

ine

d

Irri

ga

ted

C

on

st

Con

st

&&

Ma

int

Me

et

Co

nst

Sto

rage

S

tora

ge

Ma

int

Ope

ration

Sys

tem

Vo

lum

e

Volu

me

Ye

sH

AB

y R

ecy

Co

st

$C

ost

$C

ost $

Sta

nd

ard

C

ost

$M

ee

t S

tan

d

Cost

$Y

es

&&

Ma

int

ML

Ye

sH

AY

es

Ye

sC

ost $

20

05/2

00

6

Be

rriq

uin

101

02

26

93

22

.47

83

040

415

324

1.7

115

297

.9$

336

,47

3$0

$3

,55

7,9

41

45

$19

4,7

77

45

$0

To

tal

Irr

Are

a

230

744

To

t S

urv

eys

14

81

Cad

ell

47

61

49

36

31

.37

28

139

077

68

3.4

54

256

.5$1

,10

1,6

76

$0

$58

2,4

08

65

$1

,08

2,0

81

22

$0

34

6$

1,2

87,2

85

To

tal

Irr

Are

a

101

208

To

t S

urv

eys

10

39

Den

imein

12

730

79

24

.31

79

11

921

40

6.8

19

957

.7$

0$0

$10

7,0

51

0$

00

$0

To

tal

Irr

Are

a

290

42

To

t S

urv

eys

19

0

Wa

ko

ol

29

798

09

33

.01

15

69

976

12

4.3

65

788

.4$

190

,87

1$0

$93

5,8

92

28

$12

0,3

32

14

$0

To

tal

Irr

Are

a

103

069

To

t S

urv

eys

38

2

De

nn

is E

T

oo

he

y &

A

ss

oc

iate

s

Skm

mil

Rp

t 2

00

6.d

oc

55

PA

DD

OC

K I

MP

RO

VE

ME

NT

& I

RR

IGA

TIO

N D

EV

EL

OP

ME

NT

RE

PO

RT

4/0

9/2

006

Te

ch

niq

ue

s t

o S

ch

ed

ule

Irr

igati

on

Irri

ga

tio

n

Are

a

Are

a/F

orm

L

an

dfo

rm $

Pa

dd

ock

N

um

EM

31

E

M31

E

M31

Are

a

Nu

m C

on

ve

rtA

rea

E

xte

rnal

On

Fa

rm

So

il

Are

aL

/fo

rme

d

Th

is P

eri

od

T/P

Imp

rove

$S

urv

eys

Are

aC

os

tC

on

ve

rted

Eva

po

rati

on

Eva

po

rati

on

Mo

istu

re

20

05/2

00

6

012

68

$6

,38

4.0

0$

9,0

00

.00

00

$0.0

0$

0.0

0$0

.00

00

0

Be

rriq

uin

07

154

.01

548

.5$4

37,7

03

.00

$1

00

,04

6.1

93

24

9$7

,46

1.0

0$

0.0

0$0

.00

00

0

091

30

$0

.00

$4,4

80

.00

00

$0.0

0$

1.0

0$

12

0.0

00

00

Cad

ell

033

89

28

8$2

29,8

24

.00

$77

,87

1.5

02

0$

0.0

0$

0.0

0$0

.00

56

2

Den

imein

01

97

6.1

10

3$8

2,1

94.0

0$

79

,00

0.0

01

32

$9

60

.00

$0

.00

$0

.00

00

0

Wa

ko

ol

03

02

2.7

12

4$9

8,9

52.0

0$

71

,12

0.0

01

14

9$4

,45

8.0

0$

0.0

0$0

.00

00

0

016

58

0.8

11

07

1.5

$8

55,0

57

.00

$3

41

,51

7.6

97

42

9.3

0$

12

,87

9.0

01

.00

$12

0.0

05

62

De

nn

is E

T

oo

he

y &

A

ss

oc

iate

s

Skm

mil

Rp

t 2

00

6.d

oc

56

PA

DD

OC

K I

MP

RO

VE

ME

NT

& I

RR

IGA

TIO

N D

EV

EL

OP

ME

NT

RE

PO

RT

4/0

9/2

00

6E

xtr

ap

ola

ted

Re

po

rt

Te

ch

niq

ue

s t

o S

ch

ed

ule

Irr

iga

tio

n

Irri

ga

tio

n

Are

a

Are

a/F

orm

L

an

dfo

rm $

Pa

dd

ock

N

um

EM

31

E

M31

E

M31

Are

a

Nu

m C

on

ve

rtA

rea

N

um

Us

ing

N

um

Us

ing

Nu

n U

sin

g

Are

a H

AL

/fo

rmed

HA

T

his

Pe

rio

d

T/P

Imp

rove

$S

urv

eys

Are

a H

AC

os

tC

on

ve

rte

d H

AE

xte

rnal

On

Fa

rm

So

il

Mo

istu

re

HA

Eva

po

rati

on

Eva

po

rati

on

20

05/2

00

6

Be

rriq

uin

To

tal

Are

a H

A23

04

02

172

667

117

40

$9

,36

8,6

43

$2,2

37

,29

06

75

32

3$

15

9,6

96.0

622

25

68

00

0

34

144

5

To

tal

Ho

ldin

gs

14

81

Cad

ell

To

tal

Are

a H

A10

11

21

737

86

62

70

$5

,00

3,7

88

$1,6

95

,43

94

30

$0.0

00

01

08

13

04

3

29

843

0

To

tal

Ho

ldin

gs

10

39

Den

imein

To

tal

Are

a H

A2

904

21

37

01

71

4$

569

,88

1$5

47,7

36

822

2$6

,65

6.0

40

00

00

52

780

To

tal

Ho

ldin

gs

19

0

Wa

ko

ol

To

tal

Are

a H

A10

30

69

627

12

25

73

$2

,05

2,9

46

$1,4

75

,51

91

43

08

3$

92

,48

9.6

30

00

00

21

090

1

To

tal

Ho

ldin

gs

38

2

To

tal

Are

a H

A46

36

34

322

866

212

97

$1

6,9

95,2

59

$5,9

55

,98

41

33

862

8$

25

8,8

41.7

222

25

68

108

13

04

3

90

355

6

To

tal

Ho

ldin

gs

30

92

De

nn

is E

T

oo

he

y &

A

ss

oc

iate

s

Skm

mil

Rp

t 2

00

6.d

oc

57

IRR

IGA

TIO

N S

CH

ED

UL

ING

RE

PO

RT

4/0

9/2

00

6

Year

20

05/2

006

To

tal

Su

rve

ys

Irri

ga

tio

n S

ch

ed

uli

ng

Typ

eT

ota

l N

oA

rea

% O

f S

urv

eys

Cad

ell

48

Dry

La

nd

Pa

stu

res

41

94

8.3

3%

Infr

astr

uctu

re4

52

8.3

3%

Irrig

ate

d A

nn

ua

l P

astu

re12

728

25.0

0%

Irri

ga

ted

Pere

nnia

l P

astu

re6

268

12.5

0%

Lu

cern

e2

80

4.1

7%

Ma

ize

26

04

.17

%

Na

tive

Ve

geta

tion

45

28

.33

%

Stu

bb

le2

64

4.1

7%

Win

ter

Cro

ps

83

86

16.6

7%

IRR

IGA

TIO

N S

CH

ED

UL

ING

RE

PO

RT

4/0

9/2

00

6E

xtr

ap

ola

ted

Re

po

rt

Year

20

05/2

006

To

tal

Su

rve

ys

Irri

ga

tio

n S

ch

ed

uli

ng

Typ

eT

ota

l N

oA

rea

HA

% O

f S

urv

eys

Cad

ell

10

39

To

tal

Are

a H

A

29

843

0

Dry

La

nd

Pa

stu

res

43

21

12

4.1

7%

Infr

astr

uctu

re43

566

4.1

7%

Irrig

ate

d A

nn

ua

l P

astu

re13

07

925

12.5

0%

Irri

ga

ted

Pere

nnia

l P

astu

re65

29

17

6.2

5%

Lu

cern

e22

871

2.0

8%

Ma

ize

22

653

2.0

8%

Na

tive

Ve

geta

tion

43

566

4.1

7%

Stu

bb

le22

697

2.0

8%

Win

ter

Cro

ps

87

42

02

8.3

3%

De

nn

is E

T

oo

he

y &

A

ss

oc

iate

s

Skm

mil

Rp

t 2

00

6.d

oc

58

FA

RM

ING

SY

ST

EM

S R

EP

OR

T4/0

9/2

006

Bre

ak

Cro

ps

Co

nse

rv

Cro

p E

sta

blis

hm

en

t T

ec

hn

iqu

es

Wh

ea

t B

arl

ey

Ca

no

la

Fa

rmin

gT

yp

e

A

rea

C

os

tS

tub

ble

Ma

nag

em

en

tP

ea

s

20

05/2

00

6

Cad

ell

32

Dir

ect D

rill

Oth

er

Stu

bb

le3

35

9.3

$1

67,9

65

.00

Stu

bb

le T

yp

eR

ice

29

3

Dir

ect D

rill

Pa

stu

re75

4$3

7,7

00.0

0M

an

ag

em

en

t T

yp

eN

um

be

r

Dir

ect D

rill

Ric

e S

tubb

le37

5$1

8,7

50.0

0M

ulc

hin

g1

Oth

er

Te

ch

niq

ue

s46

7$2

3,3

50.0

0G

razin

g3

Burn

ing

4

Stu

bb

le T

yp

eS

um

mer

Cro

ps

Ma

na

ge

me

nt

Typ

eN

um

be

r

Gra

zin

g1

Stu

bb

le T

yp

eW

inte

r C

ere

als

Ma

na

ge

me

nt

Typ

eN

um

be

r

Oth

er

4

Mu

lch

ing

3

Gra

zin

g23

Burn

ing

3

Balin

g2

De

nn

is E

T

oo

he

y &

A

ss

oc

iate

s

Skm

mil

Rp

t 2

00

6.d

oc

59

FA

RM

ING

SY

ST

EM

S R

EP

OR

T4/0

9/2

006

Bre

ak

Cro

ps

Ex

tra

po

late

d R

ep

ort

Co

nse

rv

Cro

p E

sta

blis

hm

en

t T

ec

hn

iqu

es

Wh

ea

t B

arl

ey

Ca

no

la

Fa

rmin

gT

yp

e

Are

a

C

ost

Stu

bb

le M

an

ag

em

en

tP

ea

s

20

05/2

00

6

Cad

ell

69

3D

ire

ct D

rill

Oth

er

Stu

bb

le7

314

0$

3,6

56

,97

8S

tub

ble

Typ

eR

ice

62

86

5

Dir

ect D

rill

Pa

stu

re1

641

6$8

20,8

14

Ma

na

ge

me

nt

Typ

eN

um

ber

Dir

ect D

rill

Ric

e S

tubb

le8

16

5$4

08,2

30

Mu

lch

ing

22

Oth

er

Te

ch

niq

ue

s1

016

8$5

08,3

82

Gra

zin

g65

Burn

ing

87

Stu

bb

le T

yp

eS

um

mer

Cro

ps

Ma

na

ge

me

nt

Typ

eN

um

ber

Gra

zin

g22

Stu

bb

le T

yp

eW

inte

r C

ere

als

Ma

na

ge

me

nt

Typ

eN

um

ber

Oth

er

87

Mu

lch

ing

65

Gra

zin

g4

98

Burn

ing

65

Balin

g43

De

nn

is E

T

oo

he

y &

A

ss

oc

iate

s

Skm

mil

Rp

t 2

00

6.d

oc

60

SO

IL M

AN

AG

EM

EN

T,

FA

RM

ING

SY

ST

EM

S A

ND

NA

TIV

E V

EG

ET

AT

ION

R

EP

OR

T4

/09

/20

06

Nu

mb

er

Pla

nt

Pa

stu

reIr

rig

ate

d

Dry

lan

d

Irri

gate

d

Irri

ga

ted

D

ryla

nd

D

ryla

nd

N

ati

ve

N

at

Ve

g

Pas

ture

Pa

stu

reA

rea

Co

st

Are

aC

ost

Pa

stu

re T

ec

hn

iqu

es

Ap

pli

ed

Ve

ge

tati

on

Co

st

20

05/2

00

6

10

18

0$

8,0

80

.00

0$0

.00

Be

rriq

uin

10

83

25

4.3

$1

02

,48

2.9

06

0$

6,0

60

.00

16

$1

6,6

20

.00

Cad

ell

14

86

48

5.8

$1

95

,77

7.4

05

76

$5

8,1

76

.00

15

$8,7

10

.00

Den

imein

85

316

0.8

$64

,80

2.4

01

46

$1

4,7

46

.00

No S

pe

c I

nte

rve

ntio

n2

7$

5,0

60

.00

Rota

tion

al

5

Se

t S

tockin

g R

ate

1

Wa

ko

ol

00

01

$3

40

.00

33

21

13

90

0.9

$3

63

,06

2.7

08

62

$8

7,0

62

.00

39

$3

0,7

30

.00

De

nn

is E

T

oo

he

y &

A

ss

oc

iate

s

Skm

mil

Rp

t 2

00

6.d

oc

61

SO

IL M

AN

AG

EM

EN

T,

FA

RM

ING

SY

ST

EM

S A

ND

NA

TIV

E V

EG

ET

AT

ION

R

EP

OR

TE

xtr

ap

ola

ted

Re

po

rt4

/09

/20

06

Nu

mb

er

Pla

nt

Pa

stu

re

Irri

gate

d

Dry

lan

d

Irri

gate

d

Irri

ga

ted

D

ryla

nd

D

ryla

nd

N

ati

ve

N

at

Ve

g

Yes

Pas

ture

Yes

Pa

stu

re Y

es

Are

a H

AC

os

t $

Are

a H

AC

os

t #

Pa

stu

re T

ec

hn

iqu

es

Ap

pli

ed

Ve

ge

tati

on

Co

st

$

20

05/2

00

6

Be

rriq

uin

To

tal

Are

a H

A22

418

06

75

443

$2,1

93

,555

12

84

$12

9,7

09

35

9$3

55,7

36

34

144

5

To

tal

Ho

ldin

gs

14

81

Cad

ell

To

tal

Are

a H

A30

317

31

30

10

57

7$

4,2

62

,517

12

541

$1

,26

6,6

23

32

5$1

89,6

36

29

843

0

To

tal

Ho

ldin

gs

10

39

Den

imein

To

tal

Are

a H

A6

340

24

11

15

$44

9,2

99

10

12

$10

2,2

39

No S

pe

c I

nte

rve

ntio

n1

655

$3

5,0

83

Rota

tion

al

40

Se

t S

tockin

g R

ate

8

52

780

To

tal

Ho

ldin

gs

19

0

Wa

ko

ol

To

tal

Are

a H

A14

$7,0

54

21

090

1

To

tal

Ho

ldin

gs

38

2

To

tal

Are

a H

A59

139

22

21

17

13

5$

6,9

05

,371

14

837

$1

,49

8,5

72

75

3$5

87,5

10

90

355

6

To

tal

Ho

ldin

gs

30

92

De

nn

is E

T

oo

he

y &

A

ss

oc

iate

s

Skm

mil

Rp

t 2

00

6.d

oc

62

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R P

UM

PIN

G R

EP

OR

T4

/09

/20

06

Year

20

05/2

006

Ha

ve

Gro

un

dw

ate

r S

ha

llo

w

De

ep

Bo

reV

olu

me

Pu

mp

ed

C

os

t O

&&

M

Pu

mp

Bo

reS

ha

llo

wS

ha

llo

w B

ore

Berr

iqu

in

14

86

70

7.0

0$

8,4

84.0

0

Den

ime

in

11

016

8.0

0$

2,0

16.0

0

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R P

UM

PIN

G R

EP

OR

T4

/09/2

00

6E

xtr

ap

ola

ted

Re

po

rt

Year

20

05/2

006

Ha

ve

Gro

un

dw

ate

r S

ha

llo

w

De

ep

Bo

reV

olu

me

Pu

mp

ed

C

os

t O

&&

M

Pu

mp

Bo

reS

ha

llo

w M

LS

hall

ow

Bo

re $

Berr

iqu

in

To

tal

Are

a H

A31

41

80

13

51

51

32.7

1$1

81,5

92

.47

34

144

5

To

tal

Ho

ldin

gs

14

81

Den

ime

in

To

tal

Are

a H

A8

80

116

4.8

1$1

3,9

77

.67

52

780

To

tal

Ho

ldin

gs

19

0

De

nn

is E

T

oo

he

y &

A

ss

oc

iate

s

Skm

mil

Rp

t 20

06

.do

c

63

An

nex T

ab

le 5

: L

an

dh

old

er

Su

rvey B

en

ch

mark

valu

es

Se

cti

on

B

en

ch

ma

rk s

pe

cif

ica

tio

ns

B

en

ch

ma

rk u

nit

an

d v

alu

e

Re

fere

nc

e

Unit

Valu

e (

$)

1.

Pa

dd

ock

In

form

atio

n

La

nd

form

ing

Ba

sed

on

typ

ica

l fie

ld e

art

hw

ork

s

of

57

0 m

3 @

$1

.40

/m3

He

cta

re

79

8.0

0L

WM

P I

mp

lem

en

tatio

n

Offic

ers

2.

EM

31

E

M 3

1 s

urv

eyin

g

He

cta

re

30

.00

MIL

Co

mp

lian

ce

Off

ice

r (v

alu

e s

et

ha

lf w

ay

be

twe

en

ba

sic s

urv

ey

on

ly a

nd

fu

ll ri

ce

su

rve

y

inclu

din

g s

oil

cori

ng

an

d

sod

icity

an

aly

ses).

3.

Pa

stu

res

- Ir

rig

ate

d lu

ce

rne

C

ultiv

atio

n

So

win

g

Fe

rtili

ser

He

rbic

ide

& I

nse

ctici

de

Irrig

atio

n (

3 M

L/h

a @

$3

4.2

6/M

L)

TO

TA

L (

Ro

un

de

d)

Hecta

re

Hecta

re

Hecta

re

Hecta

re

Hecta

re

Hecta

re

54

.45

94

.72

67

.20

83

.49

10

2.7

8

40

3.0

0

NS

W A

gri

cu

lture

Farm

B

ud

ge

t 20

06

(A

da

pte

d)

4.

Pa

stu

res

– d

ryla

nd

lu

ce

rne

D

ire

ct

dri

lle

d e

sta

bli

sh

me

nt

Se

ed

+In

ocu

lan

t.

5 k

g/h

a

Fe

rtili

zer

Inse

cticid

e

So

win

g

TO

TA

L (

Ro

un

de

d)

Hecta

re

Hecta

re

Hecta

re

Hecta

re

26

.10

65

.91

3.7

4

5.0

0

10

1.0

0

NS

W A

gri

cu

lture

Farm

B

ud

ge

t 20

06

(A

da

pte

d)

5.

Ma

na

ge

me

nt

pra

ctice

s D

ire

ct

dri

llin

g

He

cta

re

50

.00

Co

ntr

act

rate

6.

Gro

un

dw

ate

r p

um

pin

g

Sh

allo

w -

op

era

tion

an

d

ma

inte

nan

ce

M

eg

alit

re1

2.0

0L

WM

P I

mp

lem

en

tatio

n

Offic

ers

, E

nviro

nm

en

t M

an

ag

er

7.

Lim

eC

ost

of

lime

an

d a

pp

lica

tio

n

$6

7/t

on

ne

To

nn

e

82

.00

De

nn

is E

To

oh

ey



Annex Table 6: Auditing framework, in-kind works

Source: Toohey, 2005, Table7.3.

Plan Target Estimated sites audited over 5 years

Audit Class

BerriquinFarm Planning 10 1 Irrigation Recycling (Drainage, Reuse & Storage) 21 2 Vegetation & Biodiversity (O&M) 10 1 Landforming and Topsoiling, including ‘improved irrigation layouts’

24 2

Perennial species in annual pastures 15 1 Groundwater pumping – shallow (O&M) 10 1

Cadell Farm Planning 10 1 Irrigation Recycling (Drainage, Reuse & Storage) 10 2 Vegetation & Biodiversity (O&M) 10 1 Perennial Pasture 15 1 Soil Management 5 1 Irrigation Scheduling 5 1 Landforming, including ‘improved irrigation layout’ 15 2 Alternative Farming Practices 5 1 On-Farm Infrastructure 10 1 New 2. Improved Irrigation Efficiencies 5 2

Denimein Farm Plans 10 1 Irrigation Recycling (Drainage, Reuse and Storage) 2 2 Vegetation & Biodiversity (O&M) 10 1 Dryland Pasture 15 1 Groundwater Pumping – shallow (O&M) 10 1 Landforming, including ‘improved irrigation layout’ 3 2

WakoolFarm Planning 10 1 Irrigation Recycling (Drainage, Reuse & Storage) 4 2 Vegetation & Biodiversity (O&M) 15 1 Landforming, including ‘improved irrigation layout’ 7 2



Annex Table 7: 2006 Annual Survey Interview debrief

MIL Board Room, Deniliquin 25th August 2006

8.30 – 11am

Present: Demelza Brand, Dennis Toohey, Clare Fitzpatrick, Jane Paulet, Kirsty Swinton, Emma Wilson, Reg Hinton, Prue McGuffie, Matt Dean, Neil Goudie, Janet Manzin, Maria McCaw.

Apologies: Gemma Gordon, Belinda Seymour, Jan Cullen, Sophie Ingram, Suzanne Robertson.

Meeting discussion

1. Survey questions and layout

Q1.2 Landuse – add ‘landuse as at 30th June 2007’.

Q1 Enterprise type and landuse – look at adding third sub-question regarding summer cropping to take into account instances of double cropping.

Q3.4 & 3.5 Irrigation Recycling – change proportion to percentage not hectares.

Q6.2/7.2/8.2 Native Vegetation O&M – replace ‘fox baiting’ with ‘rabbit warren ripping’ to avoid confusion with fox baiting to reduce predation on young lambs.

2. Surveyor’s notes

Q1.2 Landuse – for irrigated annual pasture, add ‘annual pasture in area laid out for irrigation, doesn’t have to have been irrigated in past year’.

Q2&3 Farm Planning and Irrigation Recycling – some landholders may delay submitting claims for LWMP incentives. Inquire of the landholder does he/she either have no incentive funds or has no intention of claiming in a later year before including their expenditure as ‘non-LWMP funded works’.

Q6/7/8 (Wakool/Berriquin, Denimein/Cadell) Native Vegetation O&M – Add more examples of native vegetation O&M:

- pest weed control e.g. boxthorn

- pest animal control e.g. rabbits



- fencing

- monitoring

- wetland watering

Q7/9 (Berriquin, Cadell, Denimein/Wakool) Chemical Use

- Ensure that chemicals referred to throughout survey i.e. O&M native vegetation are included in this section.

- Continue to review list of chemicals to ensure have most appropriate products.

Q5.2 Irrigation scheduling (Cadell only) – landuses included here don’t need to match the landuse table in Q1.2 as could be summer crops.

Q6/7 (Berriquin, Denimein, Wakool/Cadell) Pasture Management – add note about what pasture species are eligible to claim as perennial.

3. Survey administration

Timetable – Initial meeting of surveyors held earlier to give more time for surveyors to contact landholders before the commencement of the school holidays. Also, look at extending the timeframe for completing the surveys to account for people being on holidays during NSW school holiday period.

Survey process – Consider sending letter or fax to re-sampled landholdings to assist surveyors when contacting them about being involved in the survey.

Survey results – Provide the surveyors with the summarised findings of the 2005/06 landholder survey, when compiled.

East Cadell – there are many gaps in the contacts database with regard to Murray Shire landholdings. Murray Irrigation will seek to resolve these gaps with Murray Shire before the 2006/07 survey.


Appendix Eight: Ecowise Environmental Report

Appendix 8.1: Ecowise Environmental Annual Environmental Data Report

Murray Irrigation Limited · 2019-01-23 · Maintenance works on company structures were carried...

Documents

Transcript of Murray Irrigation Limited · 2019-01-23 · Maintenance works on company structures were carried...