ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORT - Murray Irrigation · Annual Compliance Report 2008/09 Murray Irrigation Limited Page 4 PREFACE The Annual Compliance Report 2008/09 is written to meet the

ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORT 2008/09

Annual Compliance Report 2008/09

All the data presented in the Annual Compliance Report is available in electronic format by contacting the following Murray Irrigation Officer.

Penny Sloane Water Quality Officer Phone: 03 5888 3015 Fax: 03 5888 3001 Mobile: 0429 839 115 E-mail: [email protected]

The GIS maps are available in electronic format as GIS layers by contacting the following Murray Irrigation Officer.

Jason Tasker Acting GIS Officer Phone: 03 5895350 Fax: 03 5895 3301 Mobile: 0429 819 312 E-mail: [email protected]

For further information regarding the Land and Water Management Plans, please contact the following Murray Irrigation Officer.

Michael Pisasale Team Leader Extension Phone: 03 5895 3341 Fax: 03 5989 3301 Mobile: 0429 819 315 E-mail: [email protected]


Murray Irrigation Limited Page 1

CONTENTS

Preface ............................................................................................................................... 4

1 Works and Lands Subject to the Conditions of the Approval ......................................... 6

1.1 Works Subject to Conditions of the Approval ....................................................................................... 6

1.2 Modification or Decommissioning of Existing Works ............................................................................ 6

1.3 Construction of New Works to Discharge Water .................................................................................. 6

1.4 Failure, Loss and Replacement Work .................................................................................................... 6

1.5 Replace Unserviceable Monitoring Works ............................................................................................ 7

1.6 Monitoring Piezometer Construction, Operation and Maintenance .................................................... 7

1.7 Plans of Operations and Works ............................................................................................................. 8

1.8 Use of Approval Holder’s Infrastructure to Convey Water for Purposes Specified by the Minister ... 12

2 Reporting and Notification Requirements .................................................................. 13

2.1 Annual Compliance Report .................................................................................................................. 13

2.1.1 Submission of an Annual Compliance Report .................................................................................. 13

2.1.2 Contents of an Annual Compliance Report...................................................................................... 13

2.2 Notify and Report Non-Compliance Events ......................................................................................... 13

2.3 Land and Water Management Plan Heads of Agreement Implementation Reporting ....................... 13

3 Environment Protection and Management ................................................................. 14

3.1 Environment Protection ...................................................................................................................... 14

3.2 Measures to Limit Hydraulic Loading .................................................................................................. 14

3.3 Measures to Improve Efficiencies ....................................................................................................... 15

3.4 Compliance with the Basin Salinity Management Strategy (BSMS) .................................................... 15

3.5 Management of Discharges ................................................................................................................. 16

3.5.1 Risk Assessments ............................................................................................................................. 16

3.5.2 Discharge Salinity Level ................................................................................................................... 16

3.5.3 Discharge of Noxious Weeds ........................................................................................................... 16

3.5.4 Discharge of Blue-Green Algae ........................................................................................................ 16

3.6 Control of Groundwater ...................................................................................................................... 16



4 Monitoring and Reporting Requirements ................................................................... 17

4.1 Modification of Monitoring or Reporting Requirements .................................................................... 17

4.2 Monitoring, Analysis and Presentation Standards .............................................................................. 17

4.3 Data and Information Requests ........................................................................................................... 17

4.4 Water Use Reporting ........................................................................................................................... 18

4.4.1 Extraction, Escape and Delivery ...................................................................................................... 18

4.4.2 Water Balance and System Efficiency ............................................................................................. 21

4.4.3 Weather and Water Use ................................................................................................................. 22

4.5 Salinity and Saltload ............................................................................................................................ 25

4.5.1 Extracted Saltload ........................................................................................................................... 25

4.5.2 Discharged Saltload ......................................................................................................................... 25

4.5.3 Salt Balance ..................................................................................................................................... 25

4.6 Groundwater ....................................................................................................................................... 29

4.6.1 Groundwater conditions monitoring and reporting requirements .................................................. 29

4.6.2 Assess and explain groundwater conditions ................................................................................... 29

4.6.3 Data capture specification for groundwater conditions.................................................................. 30

4.6.4 Groundwater Control Works monitoring and reporting requirements (WTSSDS) ........................... 34

4.6.5 Groundwater control performance analysis (WTSSDS Operations) ................................................ 35

5 DECC-EPA Licence Reporting ....................................................................................... 39

5.1 Nutrient Monitoring ............................................................................................................................ 39

5.2 Pesticide Monitoring ........................................................................................................................... 40

5.3 Chemical Usage Report ........................................................................................................................ 40

6 Other Monitoring ....................................................................................................... 41

Appendix 1: Land and Water Management plan Reporting ............................................... 42

Berriquin LWMP ................................................................................................................................................ 45

Cadell LWMP ..................................................................................................................................................... 48

Denimein LWMP ............................................................................................................................................... 51

Wakool LWMP ................................................................................................................................................... 54

Stormwater Escape Construction ..................................................................................................................... 57



Murray LWMP R&D Program ............................................................................................................................ 58

Completed Projects ....................................................................................................................................... 58

Terminated Projects ...................................................................................................................................... 59

Current Projects ............................................................................................................................................. 61

Ongoing Projects under extension ................................................................................................................ 64

LWMP Annual Survey ........................................................................................................................................ 65



PREFACE

The Annual Compliance Report 2008/09 is written to meet the reporting requirements of the licences Murray Irrigation holds with the NSW Department of Water and Energy (DWE) and the NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC). DWE administers the Irrigation Corporation Water Management Works Licence (IC-2 Licence). DECC issues the Environment Protection Licence administered by the Environment Protection Authority (EPA licence).

A new ‘licensing package’ is being issued by DWE under the Water Management Act 2000. Until this package is finalised the existing conditions on the Irrigation Corporation Water Management Works Licence (IC-2 Licence) issued in 1995 remain.

New Licensing Package

At the time of writing, discussions relating to the issuing of the Water Management Licence were still taking place.

The Water Management Licence includes the following:

• Water Access Licences (WAL)

• Water Supply Work and Use Approval (Combined Approval)

• Operating Licence

• Other regulatory instruments required.

In August 2009, an advanced draft of the proposed conditions for the Water Management Licence including the Water Supply and Use Approval (Combined Approval) and details of the proposed Work Schedules and Monitoring and Reporting Conditions (Schedules) had been submitted to Murray Irrigation by DWE for discussion.

In agreement with DWE’s Compliance Unit, the 2008/09 Annual Compliance Report has been prepared based on the proposed conditions in the Water Management Licences presented in August 2009. The layout of the report follows the conditions detailed in Schedule 3-B Other Conditions of the proposed Water Supply Work Approval and Water Use (Combined Approval).

The conditions in the IC-2 Licence that have been agreed upon by both DWE’s Compliance Unit and Murray Irrigation to be deleted in the ‘Combined Approval’ have not been reported upon.



On 9 July 2009 Murray Irrigation held the following water access licences:

Water Access Licences issued under the Water Management Act 2000

DNR Reference Departmental reference number (category) [subcategory] WAL008673 50AL503529 Regulated river (high security) WAL008674 50AL503530 Regulated river (high security) [town water supply] WAL009426 50AL503817 Regulated river (general security) WAL008676 50AL503532 Regulated river (conveyance) WAL008677 50AL503533 Regulated river (supplementary) WAL013833 50AL505902 Regulated river (general security) Use hyperlink to view the extracts of the certificates of these licences or access the extracts at http://naturalresources.nsw.gov.au/water/lic_corputil.shtml. It should be noted that while the information is updated from time to time, it may not be current, as trade or amendments may have occurred since the last update.

Taken from the Statement of Conditions issued under the Water Management Act 2000 as at 9 July 2009

Water Supply Work Approval and Water Use (Combined) Approval

Approval number 50CA501687

Departmental customer ID 890019

Name of Approval Holder Contact details of Approval Holder

Murray Irrigation Limited PO Box 528 DENILIQUIN NSW 2710

Status Current Water source NSW Murray regulated river water source Water management area(s) Murray, Lower Murray-Darling Kind of approval Water supply works, and water use Date of commencement 1 July 2004 Expiry date 20 February 2010 Condition Schedules:

Schedule 1-A Authorised water supply works Schedule 1-B Nominated works Schedule 1-C Monitoring & reporting requirements for extraction Schedule 2 Authorised water use

Schedule 3-A Mandatory conditions Schedule 3-B Other conditions Schedule 4-A Discharge monitoring sites Schedule 4-B Discharge monitoring & reporting requirements Schedule 5-A Piezometers Schedule 5-B Groundwater monitoring & reporting requirements Schedule 6-A Groundwater Control (Wakool-Tullakool Sub-surface Drainage Scheme) Schedule 6-B Groundwater Control monitoring & reporting requirements Schedule 7 Flood control works



1 WORKS AND LANDS SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF THE APPROVAL

1.1 Works Subject to Conditions of the Approval

The works listed in the Schedules of the ‘Combined Approval’ are the subject of the Annual Compliance Report.

1.2 Modification or Decommissioning of Existing Works

During 2008/09 there were no modifications or decommissioning of the authorised works listed in the following schedules:

• Schedule 1-A Authorised Water Supply Works

• Schedule 4-A Discharge Monitoring Sites

• Schedule 6-A Groundwater Control (Wakool-Tullakool Sub-Surface Drainage Scheme)(details to be confirmed)

• Schedule 7 Flood Control Works (details to be confirmed)

For the decommissioning of unusable groundwater monitoring bores listed in Schedule 6B Groundwater and Monitoring Requirements (Piezometers) refer to section 1.4.

1.3 Construction of New Works to Discharge Water

In 2008/09, the construction of no new works to discharge water from the Murray Irrigation Area of Operations were completed.

1.4 Failure, Loss and Replacement Work

In December 2008 the stormwater escape monitoring station on DC2500 West (JIJS) was significantly vandalised. The station was not capable of logging any data and the telemetry system was disabled. At the time, Murray Irrigation staff considered there was a high risk of the vandalism recurring if the equipment was replaced immediately. The site was functioning again in early March. During the period of non operation the site was visited weekly by Murray Irrigation staff. Due to the extremely dry conditions there were no flows during the period when the site was not logging data. This information was communicated to the EPA via letter at the time. In future, these incidents will be reported to both the DECC-EPA and DWE’s Compliance Unit.

Schedule4-B: Discharge site DC2500 East Stormwater Escape

A list of the piezometers that were destroyed during 2008/09 is shown in Table 1. The replacement of the destroyed piezometers will be undertaken as outlined in the Murray Irrigation Piezometer Manual and Schedule 5-B Groundwater Monitoring and Reporting Requirements.

Schedule 5-A: Groundwater Monitoring Bores

The option of constructing replacement piezometers for two piezometers, (BQ1060 and BQ504), will be investigated in 2009/10.



Table 1: Piezometers removed from the network

Site ID Use Y/N Water table

Top of pipe

(0.1m AHD)

Top of pipe

above NS (0.1m)

Natural Surface (0.1m AHD)

Depth below top of pipe

(0.1m)

Depth to top of screen (0.1m)

Easting (GDA94 Zone 55)

Northing (GDA94 Zone 55)

Condition @ Aug- 09

(destroyed, lost, OK, dry)

BQ3134 No 102.99 0.15 102.81 8 9 352200.2 6068508.2 Destroyed

Replace with BQ3133

BQ3133 Yes 104.03 0.17 103.86 14.4 14.9 352163.2 6068384.8 OK

Replaced BQ3134

WAK2544 No 73.74 0.11 73.61 4.3 4.9 243444.2 6082524.8 Destroyed

Replace with WAK768

WAK768 Yes 73.63 0.02 73.61 7 6.7 243533.3 6082685.2 OK

Replaced WAK2544

BQ1060 No 0 0.15 -0.3 12.5 13 367113.2 6059784.7 destroyed

BQ504 No 113.03 0.12 112.85 12.21 13.11 376185.0 6036647.7 destroyed

1.5 Replace Unserviceable Monitoring Works

The replacement of unserviceable monitoring works and measurement facilities as listed in the Schedules are outlined in Section 1.4.

1.6 Monitoring Piezometer Construction, Operation and Maintenance

The measurement, sampling, monitoring, maintenance and construction procedures for the piezometer network (Schedule 5-A and 5-B) are documented in the Murray Irrigation Piezometer Manual (available by request).



1.7 Plans of Operations and Works

Figure 1 outlines the Murray Irrigation Area of Operations, including the boundary of the Area of Operations, rivers, creeks, major roads and localities. Figure 2 outlines the Authorised Water Supply Works and the supply system. It also identifies the location of the credited escapes from the supply system. Figure 3 outlines the stormwater escape system and identifies the location of discharge monitoring sites from the stormwater escape system. It also identifies the location of the Wakool Tullakool Sub-Surface Drainage Scheme (WTSSDS).

The reporting on the inclusion/exclusion of lands from the Murray Irrigation Area of Operations is yet to be clarified between the DWE and Murray Irrigation. Murray Irrigation acknowledges that a list of lands included in the Area of Operations has been included in the Proposed Water Management Licence Package dated the 14 August 2009.

All past applications for the inclusion/ exclusion of lands from the Area of Operations have been sent to DWE’s Deniliquin office. In future reports, Murray Irrigation intends to report on the inclusion/exclusion lands from the Area of Operations when the reporting formats have been finalised between Murray Irrigation and DWE.

Murray Irrigation extracts water from two Authorised Water Supply Works:

Operational Background

• Mulwala Canal Offtake from the Murray River at Lake Mulwala

• Wakool Canal Offtake from the Colligen Creek

The Mulwala Canal supplies water to the area east of the Edward River (formerly known as the Berriquin and Denimein Irrigation Districts) and the area west of the Edward River and south of the Wakool River (formerly known as the Deniboota Irrigation District). Lawson’s Syphon enables the Mulwala Canal to supply water to the area west of the Edward River. The Wakool Canal supplies water to the area north of the Wakool River and south of the Edward River (formerly known as the Wakool Irrigation District and Tullakool Irrigation Area).

The ‘Combined Approval’ includes a clause (Clause 1.8) for Murray Irrigation’s infrastructure to be used to convey water for environmental or river operational needs on behalf of State Water Corporation. Refer to Section 1.8 for further details.



Figure 1: Murray Irrigation Area of Operations



Figure 2: Supply system Area of Operations



Figure 3: Stormwater Escape System



1.8 Use of Approval Holder’s Infrastructure to Convey Water for Purposes Specified by the Minister

Murray Irrigation has an agreement with State Water Corporation to convey water through the Murray Irrigation distribution system on its behalf. The authorised works used to convey water on State Water Corporations’ behalf are listed in Schedule 4-A of the Proposed Combined Approval. The conveyance arrangements are outlined in the Document (4) of the Irrigation Corporation Water Management Works Licence No.IC2, ‘Mulwala Canal and Edward River Operations Protocols and Maintenance Funding Agreement’. The authorised works used to convey water on behalf of State Water Corporation are referred to as ‘credited escapes’.

As part of the critical water delivery program being implemented during the drought, while the Murray Water Sharing Plan is suspended, Murray Irrigation assisted both DWE and State Water Corporation with the delivery of water to the Wakool System during the 2008/09 season. This water was delivered using Murray Irrigation infrastructure at both the Wakool Town and Niemur Syphon Escapes. Murray Irrigation received temporary approval from DWE for both these escapes to be treated as credited escapes for the 2008/09 irrigation season. Murray Irrigation has applied for each of these escapes to be recognised as fully credited escapes, and to be included in both the Schedule 4-A of the Combined Approval and the agreement with State Water Corporation.

As drought contingency measure, all water delivered by Murray Irrigation for DWE and State Water Corporation during the 2008/09 season was done free of charge. The majority of this water was also delivered without the normal 10% loss factor for transmission losses.



2 REPORTING AND NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

2.1 Annual Compliance Report

2.1.1 Submission of an Annual Compliance Report

Murray Irrigation has submitted the Annual Compliance Report before the required date of 31 October 2009. The reporting period is for 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009.

2.1.2 Contents of an Annual Compliance Report

This report is based on the proposed Water Management Licence containing the Proposed Combined Approval (Works and Use) being developed by DWE’s Compliance Unit in consultation with Murray Irrigation. Murray Irrigation considers that all clauses of the Proposed Combined Approval were complied with during 2008/09.

The conditions in the IC-2 Licence that have been agreed upon by both DWE Compliance Unit and Murray Irrigation to be deleted in the Combined Approval have not been reported upon.

The report is based on the Proposed Murray irrigation Water Management Licence Package dated 14 August 2009. The layout of the report follows the conditions detailed in Schedule 3-B Other Conditions of the Proposed Water Supply Work Approval and Water Use (Combined Approval).

2.2 Notify and Report Non-Compliance Events

There were no reports of non- compliance by Murray Irrigation with the Proposed Combined Approval during 2008/09.

2.3 Land and Water Management Plan Heads of Agreement Implementation Reporting

Refer to Appendix 1 for details.



3 ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT

3.1 Environment Protection

Murray Irrigation considers that the water management works under its control have been managed in a manner that minimises environmental harm.

3.2 Measures to Limit Hydraulic Loading

Murray Irrigation has three policies to limit the hydraulic loading within the Murray Irrigation Area of Operations. They include:

• Rice Growing Policy

• Total Farm Water Balance policy

• Stormwater Disposal Policy

Murray Irrigation includes the use of water sourced from deep bores to implement its policies to limit hydraulic loading within the Area of Operations.

Murray Irrigation uses the water use data for the deep bores within the Area of Operations obtained from State Water Corporation. State Water Corporation does not keep accurate records of the crop type the groundwater is used on. Murray Irrigation considers the water use figures provided by State Water Corporation on the use of groundwater as indicative only. In future, Murray Irrigation intends to require landholders that use other sources of water (i.e. deep bores or river pumps) to provide monthly usage figures, for volume used and crop type. This will enable Murray Irrigation to more rigorously apply the Rice Growing policy and the Total Farm Water Balance Policy.

In 2008/09 the deep bore water usage within the Murray Irrigation Area of Operations was 25,296 ML (data provided by State Water Corporation).

The Rice Growing Policy sets out the principles and procedures for the growing of rice in the Area of Operations of Murray Irrigation. The policy outlines the approval criteria for soil classification and a target water use figure for rice growing, adjusted annually for climatic conditions.

Rice Growing Policy

In 2008/09 the target rice water use figure was 17.8 ML/ha for the area west of the Edward River and 17.0 ML/ha for the area east of the Edward River.

There was 752ha of rice grown in the Murray Irrigation Area of Operations during 2008/09. The major source of water to grow rice in 2008/09 was deep bore water.

In 2008/09 there were no breaches of the Murray Irrigation Rice Growing Policy.



Total Farm Water Balance Policy

The Total Farm Water Balance Policy was developed to address the concern of continued watertable rises and the associated threats of water logging and soil salinisation within Murray Irrigation’s Area of Operations. A base Total Farm Water Use Limit applies for each landholding. The Total Farm Water Use Limit is adjusted for climatic conditions in seasons of high plant evapotranspiration. The climatic variation adjustment figure is determined by comparing climatic conditions, relative to the long term average conditions for each month. Refer to Section 4.4.3 for information on climatic data.

In 2008/09 the Total Farm Water balance Limit was increased by 33% for the area west of the Edward River and 20% for the area east of the Edward River.

In 2008/09 there were no breaches of the Murray Irrigation Total Farm Water Balance Policy.

Stormwater Disposal Policy

Murray Irrigation operates an extensive Stormwater Escape Channel system. The aim of the system is to remove excess stormwater from landholdings to reduce waterlogging, rising watertables and salinity. The Stormwater Disposal Policy regulates the circumstances under which a landholder can discharge stormwater into the Stormwater Escape or Supply Systems.

In 2008/09 the stormwater escape channels were not utilised due to the extremely dry climatic conditions.

3.3 Measures to Improve Efficiencies

Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA)

Murray Irrigation has over 200 SCADA sites that can be remotely controlled or monitored and over 180 electronic flowmeter sites. A major upgrade of the SCADA backbone continued in 2008/09. This work included the installation of two radio communication towers. Other works include the near completion of the installation of remote control capabilities at 47 sites on the Deniboota Main Canal, Billabong Main Canal, Wakool Main Canal, Southern Branch Canal and Northern Branch Canal.

Mechanisation

During 2008/09 Murray Irrigation continued implementing the regulator gate mechanisation program to replace wooden drop bars regulators under the asset refurbishment program. There were 182 mechanised gates installed during 2008/09. In 2009/10, it is planned to replace a further 218 regulators.

Modernisation Project

Murray Irrigation has received funding through the Australian Government’s ‘Water for the Future’ Irrigation Modernisation Planning Assistance Program to evaluate irrigation modernisation options for Murray Irrigation’s supply and drainage systems, and to develop a Modernisation Plan and Business Case due for submission by October 2009. Murray Irrigation will then have the opportunity to apply for funding to complete Modernisation Works through the Private Irrigation Infrastructure Operators Program.

3.4 Compliance with the Basin Salinity Management Strategy (BSMS)

Murray Irrigation’s activities during 2008/09 did not influence the NSW salinity credit allowance registered under the Murray- Darling Basin Salinity Management Scheme. No requests were made by DWE during 2008/09 for data required for the assessment of the salinity credit.



3.5 Management of Discharges

3.5.1 Risk Assessments

There were no risk assessments required regarding the potential discharge from Murray Irrigation’s scheduled works to the external environment for the 2008/09 season.

3.5.2 Discharge Salinity Level

During 2008/09 there were no saline discharges raising the salinity levels in a downstream watercourse above 800 EC from the Murray Irrigation Area of Operations.

The salinity levels of the discharges from the stormwater escape system are presented in Table 13 in Section 4.5.

3.5.3 Discharge of Noxious Weeds

There were no infestations of new noxious weed species observed in the Murray Irrigation Area of Operations during 2008/09.

In 2008/09 Murray Irrigation undertook a review of the methods to control the spread of Sagittaria. The aim of Murray Irrigation’s control program is to reduce the spread of Sagittaria as it is not possible to eradicate the weed from the Murray Irrigation Area of Operations. The main strategies to be implemented to reduce the spread of Sagittaria included the use of off- label (high) rates of glyphosate, Arsenal Xpress® and a desilting program. Murray Irrigation holds permits issued by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority for the use of off-label (high) rates of glyphosate and Arsenal Xpress® to control Sagittaria in its channels.

3.5.4 Discharge of Blue-Green Algae

In April 2009 there was a blue-green algae red alert declared for the Hume Dam, Lake Mulwala, Murray River and the Edward River. The Mulwala Canal Offtake, Wakool Canal Offtake and credited escapes were monitored for Blue-Green Algae levels. The levels at both the supply offtakes and the credited escapes were at amber alert levels. Landholders were kept informed of the Blue-Green Algae levels within the supply system via the Murray Irrigation faxstream called Talking Water.

There were no newly discovered blooms of Blue-Green Algae in the Murray Irrigation Area of Operations during 2008/09.

3.6 Control of Groundwater

The target for the operation of the groundwater control works at the Wakool Tullakool Sub-Surface Drainage Scheme (WTSSDS) has not yet been determined. Refer to Section 4.6.4 for further details regarding the WTSSDS.



4 MONITORING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

4.1 Modification of Monitoring or Reporting Requirements

The conditions for the ‘Combined Approval’ are being discussed between DWE and Murray Irrigation. Any proposals for the alternative monitoring and/or reporting requirements will be included in the ongoing discussion regarding the Proposed Combined Approval.

There have been lengthy discussions regarding the requirement to produce an AHD map of the shallow groundwater measured by the piezometer network. Murray Irrigation has produced an AHD map as required in Schedule 5-B (Figure 8). This map does not provide any further information than is available in the depth to watertable maps shown in Figures 6 and 7. Murray Irrigation recommends the need to include the requirement for an AHD map in Schedule 5-B in future seasons be removed.

During the preparation of this report it became evident that to address the conditions in the order listed in the Schedule 3-B Other Conditions, the information presented is disjointed for the reader. Murray Irrigation recommends the order of the conditions be revised to enable better flow of the information presented in the Annual Compliance Report.

4.2 Monitoring, Analysis and Presentation Standards

This report has been compiled by the Murray Irrigation Water Quality Officer with input from other Murray Irrigation staff for sections of the report that relate to their work. The Water Quality Officer, Penny Sloane, holds a B. Sc (Hons) from the University of Melbourne.

Murray Irrigation maintains an extensive Quality Management System which meets the requirements of ISO 9001:2000 Quality Management Systems–Requirements. The system includes details of the procedures for staff to follow to undertake the activities and data collection required for inclusion in this report. The laboratory holds National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA) accreditation (no.14844) for electrical conductivity, turbidity and total phosphorus analysis.

Murray Irrigation owns and operates the continuous monitoring equipment that the records flow and salinity at the outfalls of the stormwater escape channels. The equipment is maintained under contract to Thiess Hydrographic Services (Thiess). The flow measurement equipment at the two Authorised Water Supply Works extraction is also maintained by Thiess. All work undertaken by Thiess is to Australian Standards; this is a condition of the contract.

4.3 Data and Information Requests

There were no requests in writing relating to the monitoring program from DWE for information or data during 2008/09.



4.4 Water Use Reporting

Water Availability

Murray Irrigation’s water availability for the 2008/09 season is outlined in Table 2.

There was a record net volume of 53,477 ML of annual water allocations (temporary transfers) traded outside of Murray Irrigation’s Area of Operations in 2008/09.

Table 2: Water Availability and Allocation (ML)

Source of Water Volume available Carryover available from 2007-08 season

On – farm Murray Irrigation

24,824 62,828

High security town water supplies (95% allocation) 3,012 High security irrigation (95% allocation) 111

General Security (9% allocation) 107,106 Conveyance 120,000 (1)

Supplementary 0 TOTAL AVAILABLE 317,953 ML

(1): Due to the suspension of the Murray Darling Water Sharing Plan, DWE implemented special provisions for the allocation of water to Murray Irrigation’s Conveyance Licence. Normally Murray Irrigation would be allocated 160,484ML for a corresponding 9% General Security Allocation.

4.4.1 Extraction, Escape and Delivery

Diversions

The volume of water extracted at the Authorised Water Supply Works is summarised in Table 3.

Table 3: Extraction Volumes (ML/month)

Mulwala Offtake

Wakool Canal Offtake

Jul 08 7,671 0

Aug 08 18,773 1,747

Sep 08 20,528 1,023

Oct 08 34,976 5,727

Nov 08 20,259 1,773

Dec 08 9,561 1,119

Jan 09 20,959 2,036

Feb 09 20,716 2,821

Mar 09 41,192 8,046

Apr 09 42,090 8,088

May 09 0 0

Jun 09 0 0

Total Extraction Volume 2008/09: 269,105 ML Total 236,725 ML 32,380 ML



Credited Escape Discharge Flows

The volume of water discharges through credited escapes during 2008/09 is summarised in Table 4. The total volume of water discharged from credited escapes in 2008/09 was 128,508ML.

Table 4: Credited Escapes Discharges (ML/month)

Edward River

Escape

Finley Escape

Wakool River

Escape

Yallakool Creek

Escape

Perricoota Escape

Wakool Town

Escape

Niemur Syphon Escape

Jul 08 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

Aug 08 6,448 1,287 0 0 0 0 0

Sep 08 10,266 2,199 45 115 0 0 180

Oct 08 20,189 1,638 1,286 2,547 0 1,560 3,415

Nov 08 13,030 1,562 0 949 0 845 0

Dec 08 3,204 648 0 0 0 0 0

Jan 09 3,689 1,672 0 0 0 0 0

Feb 09 4,402 3,628 0 0 0 0 0

Mar 09 5,334 2,110 968 0 0 1,335 2,090

Apr 09 14,257 908 0 0 0 1,885 3,570

May 09 7,920 484 327 141 1,004 485 885

Jun 09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 88,740 ML 16,136 ML 2,626 ML 3,752 ML 1,004 ML 6,110 ML 10,140 ML

Total Credited Escape Discharges 2008/09: 128,508 ML

Non-Credited Discharges

There was 3,534 ML of non-credited escape flows from the supply system during 2008/09. The majority of non-credited escape flows occurred at the end of the season when the supply system was drained for the winter period.

The stream discharges from the Stormwater Escape System are summarised in Table 5. The total volume of water discharges from the Stormwater Escape system for 2008/09 was 70 ML.



Table 5: Stormwater Escape Discharges (ML/month)

Stormwater Escape Channel

Back Barooga SEC

(BBR1)

Berrigan Creek

Escape (BIBE)

Box Creek (MOXM)

Burraboi SEC

(JIBU)

Burragorrimma SEC

(NMBR)

DC 2500 East (JIJS)

Lalalty SEC (TUPJ)

Jul 08 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Aug 08 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Sep 08 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Oct 08 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Nov 08 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Dec 08 16.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 36 * 0.0

Jan 09 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 * 0.0

Feb 09 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 * 0.0

Mar 09 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Apr 09 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

May 09 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Jun 09 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 08-09 26 0.0 0.0 0.0 44 0.0 0.0


Deniboota Canal Escape

(DBCE)

Murphys Timber SEC

(WRMT)

Neimur SEC (TCND)

North Deniliquin SEC (DENI)

Pinelea SEC (TCPL)

Wakool SEC

(DRWK)

West Warragoon

SEC (TCWW)

Jul 08 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Aug 08 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Sep 08 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Oct 08 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Nov 08 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Dec 08 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Jan 09 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Feb 09 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Mar 09 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Apr 09 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

May 09 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Jun 09 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 08-09 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


Wollamai East Escape

(BIWE)

Wollamai Escape (BIOW)

Jul 08 0.0 0.0 Aug 08 0.0 0.0 Sep 08 0.0 0.0 Oct 08 0.0 0.0 Nov 08 0.0 0.0 Dec 08 0.0 0.0 Jan 09 0.0 0.0 Feb 09 0.0 0.0 Mar 09 0.0 0.0 Apr 09 0.0 0.0 May 09 0.0 0.0 Not available. Refer to section 4.1.1

Jun 09 0.0 0.0 Total 08-09 0.0 0.0 Total Stormwater Escape Discharges 2008/09: 70 ML



4.4.2 Water Balance and System Efficiency

Water Balance

A simple water Balance for the Murray Irrigation Area of Operations is presented in Table 6.

Table 6: Simple Water Balance (ML)

Extraction Gross Diversions 269,105 ML (Refer to Table 4)

Deliveries On- farm Deliveries 69,293 ML (Refer to Table 8)

Credited Escapes 128,508 ML (Refer to Table 5) Total Deliveries 197,801 ML

Losses Net Evaporation 35,000 ML (Indicative only)

Seepage 28,000 ML (Indicative only) Non-credited Escapes (supply escapes) 3,534 ML

Unaccounted Water 4,770 ML Total Losses 71,304 ML

Delivery efficiency 74% Note: Murray Irrigation does not have an off line storage

Supply Efficiency

Supply efficiency has been calculated for the entire Murray Irrigation system using the ‘National Performance Framework: 2006/07 Rural Water Performance Reporting indicators and definitions’ from the National Water Commission 2007. Refer to Table 7.

Table 7: Supply Efficiency (National Performance Reporting Framework)

MIL General Security

Allocation (%)

Gross diversions

(1) (ML)

On-farm deliveries

(ML)

Other planned

deliveries (2)

(ML)

Unaccounted water (3)

(ML)

Supply delivery

efficiency (4) (%)

Unaccounted water per km

of channel (ML/km)

2002/03 8% 1,094,415 399,740 523,923 170,752 76% 84

2003/04 45% 1,225,616 658,608 346,347 220,661 77% 82

2004/05 42% 1,284,693 651,240 429,440 204,013 78% 84

2005/06 56% 1,642,345 985,038 441,186 216,121 84% 87

2006/07 0% 755,538 222,688 401,660 131,190 69% 83

2007/08 0% 149,352 29,401 60,112 59,839 60% 60

2008/09 9% 269,105 69,293 128,508 71,304 74% 24 (5)

(1): Supply network intake volume (gross diversions) = Mulwala Canal Offtake diversions + Wakool Canal Offtake diversions (2): Other planned deliveries = total credited escape flows (3): Unaccounted water = measured inflows (gross diversions) – total planned deliveries (on-farm deliveries + other planned deliveries). Unaccounted water includes unintended flows (eg. operational margins or errors), evaporation, seepage, leakage, measurement error and theft. (4): Supply network delivery efficiency = (total planned deliveries / gross diversions) * 100% (5) Unaccounted water per km of channel based on 2,956 km of supply channel



4.4.3 Weather and Water Use

Weather

The climatic conditions in the area influence every aspect of this report. The climate determines the volume of water available for irrigation, the volume of water used for irrigation, the volume of water discharged from the area and the rate of evaporation.

The climatic data for the Area of Operations is monitored at two weather station operated by the CSIRO in Finley and Tullakool. These stations measure the rainfall and evapotranspiration on a daily basis. A summary of the yearly data for July 2008 to June 2009 compared to long term averages is presented in Table 8. The monthly data is presented in Figure 4 and Figure 5.

The drought conditions continued into the 2008/09 season with rainfall well below average and evapotranspiration well above average. This translated into an extremely low 9% general security allocation by the end of the 2008/09 season.

Table 8: Summary of Climatic Data

Finley % of average Tullakool % of average

Total rainfall (mm) 239.9 66 % 255.4 79% Average Rainfall (mm) 362.1 322.9

Total Evapotranspiration (mm) 2234.8 117 % 2338.3 110% Average Evapotranspiration (mm) 1915.2 2117.0

Note: Finley long term data: 1986 -2008 Tullakool long term data: 1996- 2008

Figure 4: Climatic Data: Finley

Figure 5: Climatic Data: Tullakool

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

Evapotranspiration (mm) Rainfall (mm)

Month

Finley

Rainfall 2008/09

Rainfall average

Evapotranspiration 2008/09

Evapotranspiration average

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

Evapotranspiration (mm)Rainfall (mm)

Month

Tullakool

Rainfall 2008/09

Rainfall average

Evapotranspiration 2008/09

Evapotranspiration average



Water Use

Water use data is recorded each time a member-customer orders water using the Interactive Voice Recording (IVR) program. The member-customer is required to allocate the water order to a particular usage for every order. The data presented in Table 9 is a summary of the data recorded for 2008/09. The total volume of water used on-farm was extremely low compared to the long term average and reflects the low water allocation of 9% and the record volume of water traded out of the Murray irrigation Area of Operations on the temporary water market.

Table 9: Crop Water Usage 2008/09 (ML)

Rice Annual Pasture

Perennial Pasture

Winter Crops Other Stock &

Domestic Town

Deliveries Total

delivered (on-farm)

Mulwala Canal

Offtake 2,380 29,794 4,599 9,870 6,526 8,059 893 62,121

Wakool Canal

Offtake 402 1,487 1,188 1,698 112 2,131 154 7,172

TOTAL 2,782 ML 31,281 ML 5,787 ML 11,568 ML 6,638 ML 11,237 ML 1,047 ML 69,293 ML

Total area 752 ha 156,405 ha

(1) 75,321 ha

(1) 23,136 ha

(1)

(1): Calculated from Crop Usage figures obtained from the NSW DPI Farm enterprise Budgets 5 ML/ ha for annual pasture 13 ML/ha for perennial pasture 2 ML/ha for winter crops

Murray Irrigation considers (with the exception of rice) the data presented for the total area of crop reported in Table 9 to be highly unreliable, especially in a year of extremely low allocation. The crop water usage figures provided by the NSW DPI are based on seasons of ‘normal’ allocation and do not take into account the current circumstances of extremely low water allocation. For instance, the crop water usage figure of 2 ML/ha for winter crops is based on two irrigations, one prior to sowing and as second irrigation in spring. It is highly unlikely that this happened during the 2008/09 season. Also, Murray Irrigation considers that the majority of the surface water used was in addition to the use of groundwater.

The distribution of irrigation intensity is reported in Figure 6. It needs to be noted that the data for this map includes the water usage of deep bores. This map identifies the location of the landholdings using more than 2 ML/ha, including deep bore water usage.



Figure 6: Irrigation Intensity (ML/ha)



4.5 Salinity and Saltload

4.5.1 Extracted Saltload

The extracted salt load is presented in Table 10.

Table 10: Extracted salt load

Gross Diversions (ML) Average Salinity EC (µS/cm) Salt load (t)

Mulwala Canal Offtake 236,725 46 (1) 6,991 Wakool Canal Offtake 32,380 44 (2) 915

Total 269,105 ML 7,906 t (1): Yarrawonga Weir @ head gauge (GM-W data) : 46 EC =30 mg/L (2): Edward River Escape @ Mulwala Canal (DWE data): 44 EC =28 mg/L

4.5.2 Discharged Saltload

The discharged salt load from the credited escapes is presented in Table 11. It is assumed the salinity at the credited escapes is similar to the salinity at the Edward River Escape @ Mulwala Canal (44 EC = 28 mg/L). The discharged salt load from the stormwater escape system is presented in Table 13.

Table 11: Discharged salt load from supply escapes

Gross Diversions (ML) Salt load (t) Edward River Escape 88,740 2,507

Finley Escape 16,136 456 Perricoota Escape 1,004 28

Wakool River Escape 2,626 74 Yallakool Escape 3,752 106

Wakool Town supply Escape 6,110 173 Neimur Syphon Escape 10,140 286

Total from credited escapes 128,508 ML 3,630 t

Non credited escapes (supply escapes) 3,534 100 t

4.5.3 Salt Balance

A simple salt balance for the Murray Irrigation Area of Operations is presented in Table 12.

Table 12: Simple Salt Balance

In flows Salt load (t) Extractions 7,906 t (Refer to Table 10)

Out flows Credited Escapes 3,630 t (Refer to Table 11)

Non-credited Escapes (supply escapes) 100 t (Refer to Table 11) Stormwater Escapes 16 t (Refer to Table 13)

Total out flows 3,746t

Balance 4,160 t imported



Table 13: Stormwater Escape Salt Loads (tonnes/month) Stormwater Escape

Channel Back Barooga SEC (BBR1) Berrigan Creek Escape (BIBE) Box Creek (MOXM)

Min. Daily EC (µS/cm)

Max. Daily EC (µS/cm)

Mean daily EC (µS/cm)

Salt load (t/mth)

Min. daily EC (µS/cm)

Max. daily EC (µS/cm)


Salt load (t/mth)

Min. daily EC (µS/cm)

Max. daily EC (µS/cm)


Salt load (t/mth)

Jul 08 278 (1) 552 (1) N/A 0 N/A 0.0 N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0

Aug 08 394 495 N/A 0 N/A 0.0 N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0

Sep 08 416 (1) 827 (1) N/A 0 N/A 0.0 N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0

Oct 08 841 (1) 886 (1) N/A 0 N/A 0.0 N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0

Nov 08 141 437 N/A 1 N/A 0.0 N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0

Dec 08 400 907 N/A 6 N/A 0.0 N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0

Jan 09 920 1380 N/A 0 N/A 0.0 N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0

Feb 09 N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0.0 N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0

Mar 09 N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0.0 388 (1) 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0

Apr 09 N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0.0 N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0

May 09 367 497 N/A 0 N/A 0.0 90.4 (1) 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0

Jun 09 487 487 N/A 0 N/A 0.0 136 (1) 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0

Total salt (t) 08-09 7

0.0 0.0


Burraboi SEC (JIBU) Burragorrimma SEC (NMBR) DC 2500 East (JIJS)




Salt load (t/mth)




Salt load (t/mth)




Salt load (t/mth)

Jul 08 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0

Aug 08 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0

Sep 08 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0

Oct 08 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0

Nov 08 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.0 292 (1) 1020 (1) 572 (1) 0.0

Dec 08 49.3 (1) 160 (1) 115 (1) 143 438 362 0.0 * * * *

Jan 09 165 (1) 233 (1) 199 (1) 342 419 390 0.0 * * * *

Feb 09 227 (1) 254 (1) 239 (1) N/A N/A N/A 0.0 * * * *

Mar 09 253 (1) 313 (1) 283 (10 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0

Apr 09 315 (1) 345 (1) 329 (1) N/A N/A N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0

May 09 335 (1) 377 (1) 356 (1)

237 (1) 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0

Jun 09 345 (1) 390 (1) 368 (1) 161 (1) 283 (1) 226 (1) 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0

Total salt (t) 08-09 9

0.0 0.0 0.0




Deniboota Canal Escape (DBCE) Lalalty SEC (TUPJ) Murphys Timber SEC (WRMT




Salt load (t/mth)




Salt load (t/mth)




Salt load (t/mth)

Jul 08 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0

Aug 08 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0

Sep 08 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0

Oct 08 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0

Nov 08 39.3 (1) 258 (1) 195 (1) 0.0 116 (1) 205 (1) 150 (1) 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0

Dec 08 38.5 (1) 164 (1) 104 (1) 0.0 115 (1) 265 (1) 191 (1) 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0

Jan 09 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0

Feb 09 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0

Mar 09 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0

Apr 09 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0

May 09 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0

Jun 09 106 (1) 139 (1) 120 (1) 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0

Total salt (t) 08-09 0.0

0.0 0.0


Neimur SEC (TCND) North Deniliquin SEC (DENI) Pinelea SEC (TCPL)




Salt load (t/mth)




Salt load (t/mth)




Salt load (t/mth)





Nov 08 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0

Dec 08 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0

Jan 09 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0

Feb 09 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0

Mar 09 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0

Apr 09 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0

May 09 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0

Jun 09 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0


0.0 0.0




Wakool SEC (DRWK) West Warragoon SEC (TCWW) Wollamai East Escape (BIWE)




Salt load (t/mth)




Salt load (t/mth)




Salt load (t/mth)





Nov 08 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0

Dec 08 107 (1) 432 (1) 255 (1) 0.0 777 (1) 971 (1) 921 (1) 0.0 0.0 74.6 27.0 0.0

Jan 09 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 973 (1) 1030 (1) 1010 (1) 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0

Feb 09 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 1030 (1) 1100 (1) 1060 (1) 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0

Mar 09 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 1100 (1) 1130 (1) 1120 (1) 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0

Apr 09 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 979 (1) 1670 (1) 1250 (1) 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0

May 09 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 226 (1) 1070 (1) 765 (1) 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0

Jun 09 431 295 316 0.0 360 (1) 421 (1) 392 (1) 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0


0.0 0.0


Wollamai Escape (BIOW)




Salt load (t/mth)

Jul 08 N/A N/A N/A 0.0

Aug 08 N/A N/A N/A 0.0

Sep 08 N/A N/A N/A 0.0

Oct 08 N/A N/A N/A 0.0

Nov 08 N/A N/A N/A 0.0

Dec 08 10.1 489 264 0.0

Jan 09 N/A N/A N/A 0.0

Feb 09 N/A N/A N/A 0.0

Mar 09 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 *: Not available. Refer to section 4.1.1

Apr 09 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 N/A: Dry. No flow

May 09 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 (1): Pool reading. No flow

Jun 09 N/A N/A N/A 0.0

Total salt (t) 08-09 0.0 Total Stormwater Escape salt load discharged 2008/09: 16t



4.6 Groundwater

4.6.1 Groundwater conditions monitoring and reporting requirements

The Groundwater Monitoring and Reporting requirements in Schedule 5-B had not been finalised at the time of writing this report. The following information is presented as the data that is currently collected and analysised.

In March 2009, Murray Irrigation requested an exemption from the groundwater salinity monitoring condition of DWE’s Licence. DWE agreed to suspend the requirement for Murray Irrigation to sample and measure the groundwater salinity from the piezometer network every three years until further notice, commencing in 2009.

After the monitoring of the depth to watertable was undertaken in August 2008, Murray Irrigation decided to undertake a review of the procedures used to collect the data, the reliability of the data and the storage and analysis of the data. The outcome of the review was the development of the Murray Irrigation Piezometer Manual (available by request). This manual outlines the process to create the depth to watertable maps from the data collection in the field to the KRIG analysis in the GIS system.

4.6.2 Assess and explain groundwater conditions

The depth to watertable data is presented in Table 14. The maps of the depth to watertable for August 2008 are presented in Figure 7 and March 2009 in Figure 8.

Table 14: Depth to watertable area (ha)

0-2 m 2-4 m >4 m Total Boundary

Aug 95 113,130 296,500 308,063 717,693 (excludes East Cadell)



Aug 05 3,758 NA NA NA

Aug 06 7,479 285,458 677,305 970,242 (includes East Cadell)



Mar 09 18 41,407 926,585 968,010 (includes East Cadell)

Note: East Cadell is the area outside Murray Irrigation’s Area of Operations, located south of Deniliquin, between Mathoura and Bunnaloo and south to Moama included as part of the LWMP reporting for the Cadell area.

The steady decline in the area affected by watertables less than 2m is a reflection of the drought conditions experienced in the Murray Irrigation Area of Operations and the extremely low water allocations associated with the drought.

In future, the depth to watertable will be monitored once per year in August. The piezometers in East Cadell will not be monitored in the future as this area is outside of Murray Irrigation’s Area of Operations.



The groundwater level relative the standard height datum (AHD) is presented in Figure 8. The natural surface AHD level of the piezometers was provided by DWE for each of the piezometers listed in Schedule 5-A. The data set is not complete; natural surface AHD levels are only available for 79 % of the piezometers.

Murray Irrigation recommends that the production of this map not be required in future reports as it provides no meaningful benefit. All the map indicates is that the eastern side of Murray Irrigation’s Area of Operations is higher than the western side, which is an already well known fact. This is consistent with Murray Irrigation’s gravity system, which extracts water in the east and traverses the area westwards.

4.6.3 Data capture specification for groundwater conditions

A total of 1449 piezometers are listed in Schedule 5-A of the Combined Approval. In August 2008 all the 1449 piezometers (100%) were monitored and used in the analysis of the depth to watertable. In March 2009 a total 1445 piezometers (99.7%) were monitored, four piezometers had been destroyed. The data for March 2009 was audited according to the procedures outlined in the Murray Irrigation Piezometer Manual.



Figure 7: Depth to Watertable: August 2008



Figure 8: Depth to Watertable: March 2009



Figure 9: AHD map of the groundwater: August 2008



4.6.4 Groundwater Control Works monitoring and reporting requirements (WTSSDS)

The Groundwater Control Works, known as the Wakool Tullakool Sub-Surface Drainage Scheme (WTSSDS) are listed in Schedule 6-A and the Groundwater Control Monitoring & Reporting Requirements are listed in Schedule 6-B. Both schedules are under significant review as part of the Water Management Licence review. A map of the WTSSDS is presented in Figure 10.

Figure 10: Wakool Tullakool Sub-Surface Drainage Scheme (WTSSDS)

Murray Irrigation is planning to undertaken a significant review of the operation of the WTSSDS during 2009/10. It is intended the review will outline the future objectives of the scheme and determine the most cost effective way to deliver the scheme’s objectives.



4.6.5 Groundwater control performance analysis (WTSSDS Operations)

In August 2008, only 924ha of the 75,499ha area influenced directly by the scheme had watertables within 2 m of the surface. Refer to Figure 11. A summary of the area affected by watertable within 2 m of the surface in the WTSSD area of influence is presented in Table 15.

Figure 11: WTSSDS Watertable levels August 2008

Table 15: Area of WTSSDS with watertable within 2 m of the surface (ha)

WTSSDS with watertable < 2 m 1995 (July) 23,300 ha

2003/04 (Mar 04) 2350 2004/05 (Mar 05) 2705 2005/06 (Mar 06) 2930 2006/07 (Mar 07) 1432 2007/08 (Mar 08) 299 2008/09 (Aug 08) 924

Note: In past years the area of the WTSSDS with a watertable within 2 m was reported on March. Schedule 6-B, Groundwater Control Works Monitoring and Reporting Requirements have not been finalised. In future, the measurement of the depth to watertable for the entire Murray Irrigation Area of Operations will be monitored in August.

The increase in the area of the WTSSDS with watertable within 2 m between March 2008 and August 2008 is likely to be due to a combination of factors, including the effect of some winter rainfall and changes in the operation of the scheme during 2008/09.

During 2008/09 the pumping rates from the WTSSDS bores were reduced to minimal levels due to the low watertables in the area. The total volume pumped from the WTSSDS scheme in 2008/09 was 464 ML, with 259 ML pumped from Stage 1 and 205 ML pumped from Stage 2. Refer to Table 16. The salinity at each of the pump sites in July 2009 is presented in Table 17. The average salinity at the pump sites for 2008/09 was 22,489 µS/cm. The depth to watertable at each of the pump sites is presented in Table 18. The average depth to the watertable for the WTSSDS for 2008/09 was 3.97 m.



Table 16: Volume pumped from WTSSDS (ML)

Stage 1 Stage 2

Jul 08 175 69

Aug 08 65 61

Sep 08 7 5

Oct 08 4 16

Nov 08 5 23

Dec 08 3 31

Jan 09 0 0

Feb 09 0 0

Mar 09 0 0

Apr 09 0 0

May 09 0 0

Jun 09 0 0

Total 2008/09 259 ML 205 ML Total volume pumped WTSSDS 2008/09: 464 ML

N/A: Not available

Table 17: Salinity at WTSSDS pump sites (July 2009)

Pump Site Number

EC (µS/cm)

Pump Site Number

EC (µS/cm)

Pump Site Number

EC (µS/cm)

1 4,780 20 8,670 41 7,190

2 2,570 21 18,640 42 20,500

3 7,670 22 19,410 43 31,200

4 8,160 23 2,030 45 35,800

5 29,500 24 52,700 46 46,900

6 21,800 26 20,200 47 37,500

7 14,180 27 8,150 49 397*

8 14,140 28 24,600 51 13,820

9 3,850 29 2,550 52 11,850

11 6,710 30 18,220 54 28,200

12 8,360 33 5,540 58 37,700

13 3,020 34 6,930 59 42,300

14 20,900 35 6,870 60 43,800

15 8,680 36 9,800 61 127,100

16 8,210 37 38,600 62 73,100

17 3,190 38 29,700 63 15,960

18 14,250 39 11,720 64 121,900

19 4,490 40 16,630

Average salinity WTTSSDS pump sites: 22,489 µS/cm *: pump site salinity checked twice to confirm result

Based on the above data, a simple salt balance for the WTSSDS can be calculated. In 2008/09 the WTSSDS imported 6,682 t of salt into the two basins and no salt was exported (eg. by truck) from the basins.



Table 18: Depth to watertable at the WTSSDS pump sites (m)

Pump site Stage 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Jul 08 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Aug 08 5.7 5.3 4.7 4 4.9 3.8 4.4 3.05 4.8 3.8 4.1 3.9 4.1 4.4 4.2 4.1 3 3.7 3.3 4.16 4.1 3.85 4.4

Sep 08 5.7 4.6 5.1 4.15 5 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.4 3.8 4 4 4.1 4.4 4.2 4 3 3.7 3.3 4.1 4.1 3.85 4.4

Oct 08 5.7 4.6 4.7 4.15 5.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.4 3.8 4.2 4 4.1 4.4 4.2 4 3 4 3.3 4.2 4.16 3.85 4.4

Nov 08 5.5 4.7 4.75 4.2 5 4.3 4.4 4.2 4.4 3.8 4.2 3.85 4.3 4.4 4.1 4 2.7 3.9 3.3 4.2 4.05 3.9 4.6

Dec 08 6 4.7 5.1 4.2 5.2 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.4 3.8 4.2 3.85 4.5 4.4 4 3.9 2.7 3.9 3.3 4.1 4.1 4 4.7

Jan 09 6.3 4.8 5.15 4.2 5.2 4.3 4.35 4.4 4.4 3.8 4.2 3.8 4.5 4.4 4.2 3.9 2.9 3.9 3.4 4.2 4.3 4 4.6

Feb 09 6.2 4.7 5.2 4.2 5 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.4 3.8 4.2 3.85 4.5 4.1 4.2 3.9 2.9 3.9 3.4 4.2 4 4 4.7

Mar 09 6.4 4.8 5.75 4.4 5.8 4.4 4.4 4.6 4.4 4 4.3 3.8 4.6 4.5 4.1 3.9 3 4 3.4 4.2 4.2 4 4.7

Apr 09 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

May 09 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Jun 09 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Pump site Stage 1

24 38 49 51 52 54 58 59

Jul 08 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Aug 08 3.1 3.9 3.7 4.4 3 3.5 4.6 2.5

Sep 08 3.5 3.9 3.7 4.4 3 3.5 4.6 2.5

Oct 08 3.1 3.9 3.7 4 2.7 3.5 4.6 2.6

Nov 08 3.1 4 3.7 3.9 2.5 4 4.5 2.5

Dec 08 3.1 4 3.7 3.9 2.5 4 4.4 2.5

Jan 09 3.1 4 3.7 3.9 2.4 4.1 4.5 2.5

Feb 09 3.1 4.1 3.7 3.9 2.5 4 4.5 2.6

Mar 09 3.1 4.2 3.8 4 2.6 4.1 4.5 2

Apr 09 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

May 09 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Jun 09 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A



Pump site Stage 2

26 27 28 29 30 33 34 35 36 37 39 40 41 42 43 45 46 47 60 61 62 63 64

Jul 08 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Aug 08 5.19 3.9 3.2 4.2 4 4.4 3.59 3.3 3.6 4.9 4.9 4 4.4 3.6 4 3.1 3.2 4.4 3.3 3.6 2.8 2.6 5

Sep 08 5.2 3.9 3.2 4.3 4 4.5 3.5 3.4 3.6 4.9 4.9 4 4.4 3.6 4 3.1 3.2 4.4 3.3 2.2 3.5 1.9 5.1

Oct 08 5 3.9 3.2 4.3 4.1 4.5 3.5 3.4 3.6 5 4.9 4.1 4.4 3.6 4 3.1 3.2 4.4 3.3 2.3 2.9 2 5

Nov 08 5 3.9 3.7 4.2 4 4.6 3.5 3.4 5 4.9 4.9 4.1 4.5 3.7 4.5 3.1 3.1 4.4 3.4 2.1 3 1.8 2.1

Dec 08 4.9 4 3.3 4.1 4 4.5 3.55 3.5 5.2 4.9 5 4.1 4.4 3.7 4.4 3.1 3 4.4 3.4 2.8 2.9 1.5 2.1

Jan 09 5 4 3.3 4 3.9 4.55 3.5 3.5 4.5 4.9 5 4.1 4.4 3.7 4.5 3.2 3 4.4 3.4 3 2.9 1.6 2.1

Feb 09 5 4 3.4 4 3.9 4.5 3.6 3.6 4.5 5 5 4.1 4.4 3.7 4.4 3.2 3 4.4 3.4 3.1 2.8 1.7 2.2

Mar 09 5 4 3.9 4 3.9 4.5 3.6 3.5 5.4 5.2 5 4.1 4.4 3.7 4.6 3.2 2.6 4.5 3.4 3.6 3 2 2.8

Apr 09 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

May 09 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Jun 09 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Average Depth to Watertable for WTSSDS pumps (m)

Jul 08

Aug 08 3.96

Sep 08 3.96

Oct 08 3.95

Nov 08 3.92

Dec 08 3.94

Jan 09 3.96

Feb 09 3.95

Mar 09 4.15

Apr 09 3.96

May 09

Jun 09 Average Depth to watertable for the WTSSDS pumps for 2008/09: 3.97 m



5 DECC-EPA LICENCE REPORTING

The report is based on the DECC-EPA licence number 5014, Notice Number 1096624

During 2008/09 the DECC-EPA licence was reviewed. Murray Irrigation applied for a variation to the DECC-EPA licence relating to the Chemical Control Plan and Reporting Requirements. Amendments where requested for the Irrigation Water Recycling (LWMP targets) to be updated to reflect the current Heads of Agreement. This issue is being considered by the EPA separately.

The amendments granted were:

1. O.5: Chemical Control Plan

The removal of the condition for Murray Irrigation to report on the estimated usage of chemicals by landholders on irrigated land, the removal of the requirement for Murray Irrigation to submit the plan yearly and simplifying the contents of the plan in line with the Pesticides Act.

2. R5.3 (a) and (g): Report requirements

The removal of the conditions to provide a report on the estimated chemical usage by landholders and estimate of all accessions to groundwater. This will be replaced with a brief report on the types of chemicals used on the crop types grown with irrigation in the area.

There were no reports of non- compliance by Murray Irrigation with the DECC-EPA Licence during 2008/09.

Murray Irrigation considers that all clauses of the DECC-EPA Licence 5014 were complied with during 2008/09.

5.1 Nutrient Monitoring

Due to the exceptionally dry conditions experienced in the Murray Irrigation Area of Operations in 2008/09 resulting in the stormwater escape channel system being dry, the only site monitored for nutrients was the Finley Escape. The Finley Escape has a dual role of acting as a DWE credited escape and stormwater escape DECC-EPA licensed site. Refer to Table 19.

Table 19: Nutrient Monitoring

Date Turbidity (NTU) Total Phosphorus (mg/L) Total Nitrogen (mg/L) Site: Finley Escape (BIFE)

26 Aug 08 N/A 0.023 0 (<0.5) 2 Sep 08 N/A 0.029 0 (<0.5)

30 Sep 08 N/A 0.192 0 (<0.5) 14 Oct 08 62 0.032 0 (<0.5) 18 Nov 08 39 0.015 0 (<0.5) 9 Dec 08 43 0.010 0 (<0.5) 13 Jan 09 117 0.036 0 (<0.5) 10 Feb 09 131 0.029 0 (<0.5) 17 Mar 09 80 0.050 0 (<0.5) 20 Apr 09 51 0.019 0 (<0.5) 12 May 09 46 0.020 0 (<0.5) 25 May 09 94 0.022 0 (<0.5)

N/A: turbidity meter being repaired



5.2 Pesticide Monitoring

In July 2008 Murray Irrigation wrote to the EPA requesting a temporary variation to the licence to remove the pesticide monitoring program for 2008. The EPA agreed to the exemption of the pesticide monitoring program until 31st December 2008. The letter granting the exemption is DECC NSW reference DOC08/34650 LIC07/2285.

5.3 Chemical Usage Report

Due to the extreme dry conditions and low water allocations landholders planted a large area of winter crops. There was a small volume of water used on annual pastures. An indication of the chemicals used by landholders in the Murray Irrigation Area of Operations has been sourced from the following NSW DPI Management Guidelines:

• Weed Control in Lucerne and Pastures 2007

• Weed Control in Winter Crops 2009

The list of chemicals has been based on the premise that landholders will use the cheapest option in weed control. Landholders decisions on the choice of chemicals used are also based on the decrease in the price of the product when the patents on the active ingredient expire. Refer to Table 20.

Table 20: Chemical used by landholders

Glyphosate Triclopyr MCPA Chlorsulfuron Atrazine Trifluralin Bromoxynil Oxyfluorfen Metsulfuron- methyl 2,4-D ester Dicamba Triasulfuron simazine 2,4-D amine s-metachlor



6 OTHER MONITORING

Council development consent conditions on some Stormwater Escape Channels required the installation of flow and salinity monitoring equipment. These are;

• DC18 Lalalty SEC(LAL18)

• Warragoon North SEC (BCMS)

• Pinelea SEC (TUP1)

The data for the council condition sites is presented in Table 21.

Table 21: Flow and salt load at the council consent conditions sites

Stormwater Escape Channel Site Total Flow (ML) Total salt load (t) DC18 Lalalty LAL18 0.0 0.0

Warragoon North BCMS 0.0 0.0 Tuppal Creek TUP1 0.0 0.0

Some of the more recently constructed Stormwater escape channels have a consent condition regarding the analysis of water quality following a rainfall event of over 25mm in 24hr. There were no rainfall events in 2008/09 meeting these criteria.

Three monitoring sites established prior to 1995 to record flow and salinity levels have been removed from the Environment Protection Licence. Murray Irrigation has chosen to continue to operate these sites for our own information. These sites are:

• Box Creek SEC at Conargo Rd (BOXC)

• Lalalty SEC at railway bridge (LAL1)

• Niemur SEC at Moulamein Rd (DRNM) (this site was dismantled in 2008/09 as the data was unreliable)

As part of the project for the refurbishment of the Box Creek two sites were installed in 2006/07. One of the sites is at Mayrung Rd (BOMA), which is an old site that has been upgraded. The second new site is on Lindifferon Lane (BOLL).

A site has been established on the Tuppal Creek downstream of the Tocumwal 6 supply channel escape to enable Murray Irrigation to closely monitor the water quality in the Tuppal Creek (TULAL) after the discharge from the Lalalty SEC has been diluted with supply water, as required to meet DWE licence discharge conditions.

The data for the internal monitoring described above is presented in Table 22.

Table 22: Flow and salt load at the internal monitoring sites

Stormwater Escape Channel Site Total Flow (ML) Total salt load (t) Lalalty (Railway bridge) LALI 0.0 0.0

Tuppal Creek D/S Toc Esc TULAL 0.0 0.0 Box Creek (Conargo Rd) BOXC 0.0 0.0

Box Creek (Lindifferon Rd) BOLL 0.0 0.0 Box Creek (Mayrung Rd) BOMA 0.0 0.0



APPENDIX 1: LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN REPORTING

The Murray Land and Water Management Plans (LWMPs) is a natural resource management program developed around a strong community-Government partnership. The LWMP program was originally agreed to have 15 years of Government funding with contributions from federal and state natural resource management programs and local government. The landholder contributions are in the form of levies on Murray irrigation charges, council rates, cash and in-kind contributions to works on their properties. Government-landholder cost shares vary from 100% landholder funded to 100% Government incentives based on public and private good.

Funds allocated in the 2008/09 financial year were considerably lower than previous years which reflected directly on the plan’s ability to achieve targets. As a consequence priority was focussed on completing a limited number of farm plans, partly contributing to a surface drainage system and finalising research and development, irrigation recycling, vegetation to reduce salinity and native vegetation projects that had previously started. Based on the program’s “expression of interest” list, a further 355 landholders were interested in investments in on-farm activities for incentives to the value of $8 M.

LWMP Implementation

The 2008/09 achievements mark year 14 of the original 15 year program. Table 23 combines and summarises the achievements of the on-farm education and incentives program for the Berriquin, Denimein, Cadell and Wakool LWMP areas. The achievements for each area are presented in Table 25 for Berriquin, Table 26 for Cadell, Table 27 for Denimein and Table 28 for Wakool. In each of these tables the total achieved at June 2009 refers to the cumulative number of landholdings or hectares achieved from the commencement of the program until June 2009 and the % achieved of target refers to the percentage achieved from the commencement of the program up to June 2009. The target milestone at June 2009 refers to the total milestone figure to be achieved at June 2009 relative to the target that has been set at the commencement of the program and the target milestone % refers to the target milestone on June 2009 expressed as a percentage.

Table 24 outlines expenditure for the Murray LWMP region for 2008/09, this includes government and landholder cash contributions to the program as well as landholder in-kind contributions as recorded through the Annual LWMP Survey.

Education continues to be a key component of the Murray Plans with various activities held in each LWMP sub-region. In addition to events within each of these areas, other activities representing the Murray region include the following:

• A joint presentation at the Australian National Water Conference about the relationship between Murray Irrigation and the NSW Murray Wetlands Working Group which delivered environmental water through Murray irrigation’s channels to wetlands within the region.

• Presentation about the implementation and achievements of the Murray LWMPs to nine delegates representing the Kyrgyz Republic.

• A total of five biodiversity presentations to 132 Deniliquin High School year eight students.

• A careers information session to 10 Deniliquin High School year 11 students.



Table 23: Murray LWMP On-Farm Implementation summary 1995 to June 2009

Program Combined Target Total target number

2008/09 achievements

Total achieved at 30 June 2009

% achieved of target

Target Milestone at 30 June 2009

Target Milestone %

Irrigation Accreditation Course

From 1995 to 2010, commercial holding representatives will complete the Irrigation Accreditation Course.

1,850 76 1,548 84% 1,712 93%

Farm Plan From 1995 to 2010, commercial holdings will have completed an approved LWMP whole farm plan.

1,627 57 1,311 81% 1,518 93%

Irrigation Recycling

From 1995 to 2012, commercial landholdings to have installed irrigation recycling systems. 1,627 20 1,006 62% 1,340 82%

Storage From 1995 to 2012, commercial holdings to have a LWMP approved storage system with the minimum storage capacity.

1,528 15 747 49% 1,258 82%

Actively Manage Native Vegetation

From 2003 to 2013, 38,618 ha of existing native broad vegetation types will be actively managed.

38,619 ha 412 ha 17,518 ha 45% 23,171 ha 60%

Restore & Regenerate Native Vegetation

From 2003 to 2013, 6,306 ha of under-represented broad vegetation types will be restored and regenerated.

16,305 ha 368 ha 5,619 ha 34% 9,783 ha 60%

Riparian Zones From 2003 to 2013, 658 ha of riparian zones will be actively managed. 659ha 134ha 892ha 135% 395ha 60%

Seed Orchards From 2003 to 2013, 31 ha of seed orchards will be established. 31 0 14.1 46% 19 60%

Native Pastures From 2003 to 2013, 3,158 ha of native pastures will be protected. 3,158 ha 0 ha 562 ha 18% 1,895 ha 60%

Vegetation to reduce salinity

From 1995 to 2010, 70,542 ha of vegetation to reduce salinity will be established. This includes lucerne, saltbush and trees planted in salinity recharge areas.

70,542 ha 796 ha 46,747 ha 66% 65,839 ha 93%



Table 24: Implementation Expenditure for Murray LWMP 2008/09

Funding Item Government Contribution1

($)

Landholder Contribution Total Expenditure ($) Levy2 ($)

LWMP Incentives3

($) Additional 4 ($)

LWMP Programs

Education $232,315 $25,813 $258,128

Research & Development $161,371 $40,343 $201,714

Monitoring $117,357 $299,339 $416,696

Administration $204,343 $51,086 $255,429

Sub total $715,386 $416,581 $1,131,967

LWMP Incentive Programs

Farm Planning $947,864 $104,554 $809,116 $1,861,534

Irrigation Recycling/Storage Construction $2,185,336 $1,025,904 $5,211,716 $8,422,956

Native Vegetation $689,987 $1,339,386 $2,029,373

Vegetation to Reduce Salinity $40,930 $40,930 $81,860

Vegetation Management Payment

$5,580 $5,580

Shallow Groundwater Pumping $1,636,354 $1,636,354

Sub total $3,864,117 $5,580 $1,130,458 $9,037,502 $14,037,657

Capital Works Program

Green Gully Tile Drainage $0 $0

Surface Drainage $1,937,974 $1,529,972 $3,467,946

Surface Drainage O&M $16,287 $16,287

Subsurface Drainage O&M $36,414 $36,414

Wakool Stage 3 Subsurface Drainage $0 $0

Subsurface Drainage O&M Stage 3 $0 $0

Sub total $1,937,974 $1,582,673 $0 $3,520,647

Landholder Works Program

Improved Irrigation Layouts $2,174,363 $2,174,363

Irrigation Recycling & Storage O&M $1,157,269 $1,157,269

Improved Irrigation Efficiencies $13,148,184 $13,148,190

Perennial Pastures $3,476,817 $3,476,817

Native Vegetation O&M $1,284,252 $1,284,252

Conservation Farming $1,194,784 $1,194,784

Channel Maintenance $136,485 $136,485

Landforming $5,044,371 $5,044,371

Sub total $27,616,531 $27,616,531

TOTAL $6,517,477 $2,004,834 $1,130,458 $36,654,027 $46,306,802

Contribution to program 14% 4% 2% 79% 100%

1 The actual Government financial contribution to implementation of each component of the LWMP. 2 The direct levy charged to all landholders via their water accounts. 3 The actual landholder financial contribution to implementation of the LWMP program. 4 The additional landholder financial contribution to implementation of each component of the LWMP as recorded via the 2008/09 LWMP Annual Survey or the in-kind contribution from landholders following implementation of incentives for the native vegetation and vegetation to reduce salinity programs.



Berriquin LWMP

The Berriquin LWMP area encompasses the East and West Berriquin Irrigation Districts, which covers an area of 341,546ha of farm land, consisting of 1,447 landholdings. Of these landholdings 1,113 are considered to be commercial, having greater than or equal to 50 ha laid out for irrigation. A community working group develops implementation policies and sets priority actions. The Berriquin Working Group is comprised of 19 landholders, Murray CMA, NSW DPI, Jerilderie Shire and Murray Irrigation as the Implementation Authority.

Summary of Progress

Landholder adoption of LWMP incentives has increased since commencement of implementation in 1995. During the 2008/09 financial year lower than normal incentives were delivered with $1.29 M provided to farm planning, irrigation recycling and storage systems, vegetation to reduce salinity and native vegetation. This was matched with $0.29 M of landholder contributions to incentive works across 171 landholdings.

Berriquin landholders have made significant progress towards meeting the plan targets over the past 14 years of implementation. At the end of June 2009, a total of 728 commercial landholdings have fully completed a whole farm plan, 558 have completed a recycle system and 427 have constructed their minimum storage requirement. A total of 3,527 ha of native vegetation has also been protected and enhanced with a total of 53 ha of vegetation to reduce salinity established.

Education

In 2008/09 the LWMP education program focused on one-on-one education and community meetings. This approach actively encouraged landholders to complete LWMP related works on their farms. In addition to landholder extension activities four working group meetings were held to inform community representatives of natural resource management issues and to address LWMP issues.

The formal component of the education program in Berriquin is the four day Irrigation Accreditation Course (IAC). This course was attended by landholders representing 23 landholdings, bringing the total participation to 86% of commercial landholdings. Another education activity in Berriquin was a bus tour and presentation about LWMP initiatives to 22 irrigators from the Pike River Region in South Australia.



Table 25: Berriquin LWMP progress against targets

Program Target Total target

number 2008/09

achievements

Total achieved at

30 June 2009



Target Milestone

% Comments & results from the Annual Survey


From 1995 to 2010, a representative of all commercial holdings will have completed the Irrigation Accreditation Course.

1,113 23 953 86% 1,038 93% N/A

Farm Plan From 1995 to 2010, 80% of commercial holdings will have completed an approved LWMP whole farm plan.

890 20 728 82% 831 93%

Estimated farm plans = 1,122 Estimated plans with no incentive & met LWMP guidelines = 0 Expenditure on farm plans excluding incentives = $0


From 1995 to 2012, 80% of commercial landholdings will have installed irrigation recycling systems.

890 11 558 63% 732 82%

Estimated completed irrigation recycling system = 1,143 Estimated systems with no incentive & met LWMP guidelines = 22 Operation & maintenance expenditure = $196,528

Storage

From 1995 to 2012, 75% of commercial landholdings will have constructed a storage with a minimum capacity of 4ML per 100 ha laid out to irrigation, where soil types permit.

835 9 427 51% 688 82% Estimated systems with no incentive & met minimum storage capacity = 0

Landforming From 1995 to 2010, a total of 247,460 ha will be landformed with top-soiling where necessary.

247,460 ha 1,813 ha 210,685 ha 84% 230,963 ha 93% Data from annual survey Expenditure = $1,446,737

Improve irrigation Efficiencies

From 2003 to 2010, 3,865 ha will be converted to spray irrigation

3,865 ha 0 ha 40 ha 1% 3,313 ha 86% Estimate Data from annual survey No conversion 2008/09




number 2008/09

achievements

Total achieved at

30 June 2009



Target Milestone




8,988 ha 92 ha 1,962 ha 22% 5,393 ha 60% Estimated data from annual survey Operation & maintenance expenditure = $63,243


From 2003 to 2013, 8,000 ha of under represented broad vegetation types will be restored and regenerated.

8,000 ha 96 ha 1,565 ha 20% 4,800 ha 60% N/A

Riparian Zones From 2003 to 2013, 52.5 ha of riparian zones will be actively managed.

53 ha 50 ha 189 ha 356% 32 ha 60% N/A

Seed Orchards From 2003 to 2013, 9 ha of seed orchards will be established.

9 ha 0 ha 1 ha 11% 5.4 ha 60% N/A

Native Pastures From 2003 to 2013, 1,218 ha of native pastures will be managed.

1,218 ha 0 ha 0 ha 0% 731 ha 60% N/A


From 2003 to 2010, 277 ha of perennial vegetation will be established to reduce watertable recharge and minimise the effects of salinity in high water tables, saline and seepage areas.

277ha 36 ha 53 ha 19% 238 ha 86% N/A

Perennial pastures From 1995 to 2010, 18,743 ha of perennial pastures will be incorporated into annual pastures.

18,743 ha 9,906 ha 19,136 ha 155% N/A N/A Data from annual survey Expenditure = $2,137,978

Total number of landholdings: 1,447 Total number of commercial landholdings: 1,113



Cadell LWMP

The Cadell LWMP area covers the Deniboota Irrigation District, and a number of smaller private irrigation districts and neighbouring dryland areas known as East Cadell. The Cadell LWMP area is 299,331 ha with 1,035 landholdings, with 448 (43%) commercial irrigated holdings with greater than or equal to 50 ha of irrigated area.

The Cadell LWMP has joint implementation authorities, Murray Shire Council and Murray Irrigation. In 1996-97, the Murray Shire Council contracted Murray Irrigation to implement the East Cadell component of the LWMP.

The Cadell Working Group comprises 12 landholder representatives, six each from Deniboota and East Cadell, representatives from Murray Irrigation, Murray Shire, NSW DPI and the Murray CMA. The working group is important for determining priority actions and ongoing community consultation.

Summary of Progress

Despite limited funds, landholder adoption of LWMP incentives has continued since commencement of implementation in 1995. During the 2008/09 financial year $0.76 M dollars has been provided for farm planning, irrigation recycling systems, vegetation to reduce salinity and native vegetation. This was matched with $0.12 M of landholder contributions to incentive works across 110 landholdings.

Cadell landholders have continued to make progress towards meeting the plan targets over the past fourteen years of implementation. At the end of June 2009, a total of 274 commercial landholdings have fully completed a whole farm plan, 192 have completed a recycle system and 137 have constructed their minimum storage requirement. A total of 10,575 ha of native vegetation and native grasses have also been protected and enhanced along with a total of 41,966 ha of vegetation to reduce salinity.

Education

In 2008/09 the LWMP education program focused on one-on-one education and community meetings. This approach actively encouraged landholders to complete LWMP related works on their farms. In addition to landholder extension four working group meetings were held to inform community representatives of natural resource management issues and to address LWMP issues.

The formal component of the education program in Cadell is the four day Irrigation Accreditation Course (IAC). This course was attended by landholders representing 42 landholdings, bringing the total participation to 64% of commercial landholdings. Another education highlight in Cadell was a news article from ABC Television about the wetlands mapping and watering project funded by the NSW Murray wetlands Working Group.



Table 26: Cadell LWMP progress against targets


number


Total achieved at

30 June 2009



Target Milestone



From 1995 to 2010, a representative from 80% of commercial holdings will have completed the Irrigation Accreditation Course.

358 42 229 64% 334 93% N/A


358 12 274 77% 334 93%

Estimated farm plan = 437 Estimated plans with no incentive & met LWMP guidelines = 66 Expenditure (exc incentives) = $663,913


From 1995 to 2012, 80% of commercial landholdings will have installed an irrigation recycling system.

358 2 192 54% 295 82%

Estimated irrigation recycling systems = 328 Estimated systems with no incentive & met LWMP guidelines = 0 Operation & maintenance expenditure = $584,764

Storage

From 1995 to 2012, 70% of commercial landholdings will have constructed a storage with a minimum capacity of 11ML per 100ha laid out to irrigation, where soil types permit

314 0 137 44% 259 82% Estimated storages that meet minimum storage capacity = 197

Soil Management

From 1995 to 2010, 80% of commercial landholdings will implement conservation farming techniques such as minimum tillage or direct drilling.

358 699 holdings N/A 195% 334 holdings 93% Data from annual survey Estimates expenditure -= $41,194,784

Irrigation Scheduling

From 1995 to 2010, 31,500 ha of irrigated land will have irrigation scheduling practices (e.g. daily evaporation figures or moisture probes, in particular annual pastures, Lucerne and summer crops)

31,500 ha 1,500 ha 44,978 ha 143% 29,400 ha 93% Data from annual survey Estimated number of holdings: 88

Landforming From 1995 to 2010, an additional 80,000 ha will be landformed to minimise waterlogging and reduce accessions.

80,000 ha 4,163 ha 208,696 ha 261% 74,667 ha 93% Data from annual survey Expenditure = $3,321,748




number


Total achieved at

30 June 2009



Target Milestone


Improved Irrigation Efficiencies

From 2003 to 2010, 3,320 ha converted to spray irrigation.

3,320 ha 2,922 ha 2,922 ha 88% 2,846ha 86% Data from annual survey Estimated expenditure = $13,148,190

On-farm Infrastructure

From 1995 to 2005, 80% of commercial landholdings will use correct maintenance procedures for farm channels to ensure flow rates are not restrictetd by the build up of weeds or sediments.

358 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Data from annual survey Expenditure = $136,485 to maintain on-farm infrastructure

Veg to reduce salinity- Perennial Species in Pastures

From 1995 to 2010, 11,773 ha 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 established.

58,865 ha 12ha 41,006 ha 70% 54,941 ha 93% Annual survey = 12ha

Veg to reduce salinity- Saltbush

From 2002 to 2025, 4,000 ha of saltbush for salinity control will be planted.

4,000 ha 65 ha 972 ha 24% 1,866 ha 47% N/A



12,910 ha 5 ha 7,523 ha 58% 7,746 ha 60% Operation and Maintenance expenditure = $1,039,603


From 2003 to 2013, 4,923 ha of under represented broad vegetation types will be restored and regenerated.

4,923 ha 74 ha 2,490 ha 51% 2,954 ha 60% N/A

Riparian Zones From 2003 to 2013, 255 ha of riparian zones will be actively managed.

255 ha 21 ha 260 ha 102% 153 ha 60% N/A

Seed Orchards From 2003 to 2013, 10 ha of seed orchards will be established.

10 ha 0 ha 13.1 ha 131% 6 ha 60% N/A

Native pastures From 2003 to 2013, 180 ha of native pastures will be protected.

180 ha 0 ha 562 ha 312% 108 ha 60% N/A

Total number of landholdings: 1,035 Total number of commercial landholdings: 448



Denimein LWMP

The Denimein LWMP is the smallest of the four districts covering 53,379ha consisting of 181 landholdings. Of these landholdings 119 are considered to be commercial, having greater than or equal to 50ha laid out to irrigation.

A community working group develops implementation policies and sets priority actions. The Denimein Working Group is comprised of seven landholders, representatives from the Murray CMA, NSW DPI and Murray Irrigation as the Implementation Authority.

Summary of Progress

Landholder adoption of LWMP incentives has continued since commencement of implementation in 1995.

During the 2008/09 financial year record levels of incentives were taken up, with $1.1 M provided to farm planning, irrigation recycling, vegetation to reduce salinity and native vegetation. This was matched with $0.4 M of landholder contributions across 66 holdings.

Denimein landholders have continued to make significant progress towards meeting LWMP targets. Since 1996, a total of 88 of commercial landholders have completed a farm plan, 70 have completed an irrigation recycling system and 43 have constructed their minimum storage requirement. A total of 1,481 ha of native vegetation has been actively managed or restored and regenerated and a total of 2,266 ha of vegetation to reduce salinity has been established.

Education

In 2008/09 the LWMP education program focused on one-on-one education with individual landholders and community meetings. This approach actively encouraged landholders to complete LWMP related works on their farms. In addition to landholder extension, four working group meetings were held to inform community representatives of natural resource management issues and to address LWMP issues.

Other education activities held throughout Denimein in 2008/09 include a “Habitat and Heritage” field day which was attended by 40 landholders and a Charles Sturt University student bus tour to identify barriers to sustainable land management practices.



Table 27: Denimein LWMP progress against targets


number


Total achieved at

30 June 2009



Target Milestone %

Comments & results from the Annual Survey


From 1995 to 2010, a representative from 90% of commercial holdings will have completed the Irrigation Accreditation Course .

107 0 98 92% 100 93%


107 6 88 82% 100 93%

Estimated farm plans = 178 Estimated plans with no incentive & met LWMP guidelines = 0 Expenditure (exc incentives) = $0


From 1995 to 2012, 90% of commercial landholdings will have installed an irrigation recycling system.

107 0 70 65% 88 82%

Estimated irrigation recycle system = 155 Estimated systems with no incentive & meet LWMP guidelines = 0 Expenditure excluding incentives = $0 Operation & maintenance expenditure = $31,638

Storage

From 1995 to 2012, 90% of commercial landholdings will have constructed a storage with a minimum capacity of 12ML per 100ha laid out to irrigation, where soil types permit.

107 0 43 40% 88 82% Estimated storages meeting min capacity = 109 Expenditure (exc incentives) = $0

Groundwater Pumping

From 1995 to 2010, 18,000 ML of groundwater will be pumped.

18,000 ML 80 ML 7,915 ML 44% 16,800 ML 93% Annual survey = 598ML

Landforming From 1995 to 2010, 8,000 ha will be landformed.

8,000 ha 0 ha 14,911 ha 187% 7,467 ha 93% Data from annual survey Expenditure = $0


From 2003 to 2010, 570 ha will be converted to spray irrigation.

570 ha 0 ha 0 ha 0% 489 ha 86% Data from annual survey Expenditure = $0




number


Total achieved at

30 June 2009



Target Milestone %

Comments & results from the Annual Survey

Channel Escapes Identify the requirements for upgrading the channel escape system by 2001

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A See Stormwater Escape Channel Construction Program

Channel Escapes Construction based on target outcomes to be completed by 2006

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A See Stormwater Escape Channel Construction Program

Box Creek Upgrade

Implement salinity control works in the Box Creek by 2008

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A See Research & Development Program



3,217 ha 196 ha 893 ha 28% 1,930h a 60% Operation and Maintenance Expenditure = $20,594


From 2003 to 2013, 732 ha of under-represented broad vegetation types will be restored and regenerated.

732 ha 139 ha 588 ha 80% 439 ha 60%

Riparian Zones From 2003 to 2013, 53 ha of riparian zones will be actively managed.

53 ha 40 ha 193 ha 364% 32 ha 60%

Seed Orchards From 2003 to 2013, 2ha of seed orchards will be established.

2 ha 0ha 0ha 0% 1.2 ha 60%

Native Pastures From 2003 to 2013, 260ha of native pastures will be managed.

260 ha 0ha 0 ha 0% 156 ha 60%

Vegetation to reduce salinity- Saltbush

From 2003 to 2010, 500 ha of saltbush will be planted.

500 ha 0ha 6 ha 1% 428 ha 86%

Veg to reduce salinity- Perennial Species in Pastures

From 1995 to 2010, 5,900 ha of unimproved dryland pasture will incorporate perennial pastures or be managed to maintain a perennial mix.

5,900 ha 75 ha 2,260 ha 38% 5,506 ha 93% Estimated data from annual survey =8 Establish veg to reduce salinity = $8,629

Total number of landholdings: 181 Total number of commercial landholdings: 119



Wakool LWMP

The Wakool LWMP area begins 20km east of Wakool and concludes approximately 30km west of Moulamein, with the Edwards River being the northern boundary and the Wakool River the southern boundary. The Wakool district covers an area of 210,694ha of farm land consisting of 382 landholdings. Of these landholdings 340 are considered to be commercial, having greater than or equal to 50 ha laid out for irrigation. A community working group develops implementation policies and sets priority actions. The Wakool Working Group is comprised of 16 landholders, representatives from the Murray CMA, NSW DPI, Wakool Shire Council and Murray Irrigation as the Implementation Authority.

Summary of Progress

Landholder adoption of LWMP incentives has increased since commencement of implementation in 1995. During the 2008/09 financial year incentives continued to be delivered, with $0.66 M provided to farm planning, irrigation recycling systems, vegetation to reduce salinity and native vegetation. This was matched with $0.3 M of landholder contributions to incentive works across 80 landholdings.

Wakool landholders have made significant progress towards meeting the plan targets over the past 14 years of implementation. At the end of June 2009, a total of 221 commercial landholdings have fully completed a whole farm plan, 186 have completed a recycle system and 140 have constructed their minimum storage requirement. A total of 8,116 ha of native vegetation has been actively managed or restored and regenerated along with a total of 2,461 ha of vegetation to reduce salinity.

Education

In 2008/09 the LWMP education program focused on one-on-one education and community meetings. This approach actively encouraged landholders to complete LWMP related works on their farms. In addition to landholder extension activities four working group meetings were held to inform community representatives of natural resource management issues and to address LWMP issues.

Other education activities held throughout Wakool in 2008/09 included the following:

• Irrigation Accreditation Course in which landholders representing 11 commercial holdings attended.

• Norm Wettenhall Foundation Tour which was attended by 14 people.

• Salinity and natural resource management tour for 26 Ballarat Clarenden College students.

• An ABC television news story highlighting the successful outcomes from a Curlew Breeding Project.



Table 28: Wakool LWMP Progress against targets


number


Total achieved at

30 June 2009



Target Milestone



From 1995 to 2010, a representative from 80% of commercial holdings will have completed the Irrigation Accreditation Course.

272 11 268 99% 254 93% N/A


272 19 221 81% 254 93%

Estimated farm plans = 303 Estimated plans completed with no incentive & met LWMP guidelines = 28 Expenditure excluding incentives = $145,203


From 1995 to 2012, 80% of commercial landholdings will have installed irrigation recycling systems.

272 7 186 68% 224 82%

Estimated Irrigation recycle system = 344 Estimated systems with no incentive & met LWMP guidelines = 14 Expenditure (exc incentives) = $606,742 Operation & maintenance expenditure = $344,339

Storage

From 1995 to 2012, 80% of commercial holdings will have a LWMP approved storage system with a minimum storage capacity of 6 ML per 100 ha laid out to irrigation.

272 6 140 51% 224 82% Estimated storages meeting min capacity = 193 Expenditure excluding incentives = $181,504

Improved Irrigation layouts

All landholders are encouraged to improve internal drainage lines of rice layouts so that uninterrupted drainage is provided

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Landforming = 346 ha Expenditure = $275,886


From 2003 to 2010, 1,545 ha will be converted to spray irrigation.

1,545 ha 0 ha 0 ha 0% 1,324 ha 86% Data from annual survey Expenditure = $0




number


Total achieved at

30 June 2009



Target Milestone


Subsurface Drainage

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

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Floodplain The floodplain Management Strategy for Stage 4 to be completed by Department of Natural Resources by 2001

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A



13,504 ha 119 ha 7,140 ha 53% 8,102 ha 60% Estimated from annual survey Operation and Maintenance expenditure = $56,871


From 2003 to 2013, 2,650 ha of underrepresented broad vegetation types will be restored and regenerated.

2,650 ha 59 ha 976ha 37% 1590ha 60%

Riparian Zones

From 2003 to 2013, 298 ha of riparian zones will be actively managed.

298ha 23ha 250 ha 84% 179 ha 60%

Seed Orchards

From 2003 to 2013, 10ha of seed orchards will be established.

10 ha 0 ha 0 ha 0% 6 ha 60%


From 1995 to 2010, 3,000 ha of perennial vegetation will be established to reduce watertable recharge and minimise the effects of salinity.

3,000 ha 384 ha 2,461 ha 82% 2,800 ha 93%

Native Pastures

From 2003 to 2013, 1,500 ha of native pastures will be managed.

1,500 ha 0 0 0% 900 ha 60%

Total number of landholdings: 387 Total number of commercial landholdings: 340



Stormwater Escape Construction

Stormwater escape construction is a significant salinity control component of the Murray LWMPs for the Berriquin, Cadell and Wakool districts.

Since the commencement of implementation of the LWMPs in 1995, a large proportion of the stormwater escape construction program has been completed. This, combined with dry seasons and improved practices, has assisted in reducing watertable levels. As a result, the region is in a much stronger position to cope with future large rainfall events.

The following progress was made during 2008/09 in construction and refurbishment of stormwater escapes:

Box Creek

Finalising of works on the Box Creek in 2008/09 has included:

• The construction of the last 58 drainage inlets along the length of the creek to allow for controlled inflows. A total of 122 inlets.

• 32 kms of fencing has been completed. Overall, of 114 km of the creek, only 9 km is now unfenced.

• Alternate watering points have also been an important where access to the Box Creek has been limited by the fencing. Works have included solar pumps, stock and domestic bore troughs, and many kilometres of poly pipe. Landholders have also made a significant financial contribution to the works on their holdings to compliment the planned works.

Warragoon Stage II.

Construction of Warragoon Stage II commenced in November 2008, with construction about 50% complete at the end of June 2009. Construction of the Warragoon Stage II is expected to be completed in December 2009. Warragoon Stage II is 15kms long.

The Berrigan Creek Escape.

Works on Stage II were completed in December 2008. Works included the upgrading of 12 boundary stock stops, 50 drainage inlets installed, 23 km of fencing and 18.8 km refurbishment reconstruction of the drain profile. The design of earthworks and structures for four lateral stormwater escapes leading into the Berrigan Creek have been finalised and will be ready for tender after a review of landholder agreements and design.

Broughshane Lane.

Earthwork designs for the Broughshane’s Lane Stormwater Escape have been completed, Broughshane’s Lane is 13 kms long. The Environmental Impact Statement has been received and a Development Application will be applied for when funding becomes available.



Murray LWMP R&D Program

The Murray LWMP R&D program is a dynamic and innovative program addressing a wide range of issues with the objective of improving the environmental knowledge and actions of landholders. Strong linkages have been maintained between research organisations to enhance specific, locally-based research outcomes.

A formal, elected committee presides over the implementation of the R&D program. Coupled with this formal committee structure, a strategic plan has been developed to focus R&D efforts into disciplines which will directly impact on the sustainability of the Murray LWMP area.

Since implementation of the LWMPs first commenced in 1995, 41 projects have been funded and 31 completed, with 3 projects terminated due to prolonged dry conditions. More information on past projects is available on our website, www.murrayirrigation.com.au. During 2008/09 nine projects were conducted with the support of the R&D program. No new projects were approved or commenced in the last 12 months. Two research projects were completed in 2008/09.

The compilation and publication of a booklet for the full R&D program providing project summaries and a CD insert of full reports has been proposed by the LWMP Working Groups as a requirement for extension. This requirement was approved by the R&D Committee in the January 2008 meeting and a tender request has been prepared for submission to appropriate scientific publishers. Submission of the tender request is awaiting funding approval and is likely to be extended to incorporate the completed reports for all projects under the program.

Completed Projects

Box Creek Box Creek Salt Mitigation Scheme Scoping Study – URS Australia Pty Ltd

Box Creek is a highly modified natural waterway that acts as an escape-water drain for the Denimein and Berriquin Irrigation areas north and east of Deniliquin. Intense irrigation and limited natural drainage within the irrigation areas over many decades has caused the watertable below the irrigation areas to rise, bringing saline groundwater to within metres of the ground surface. Over much of the course of the creek, the shallow watertable has risen to a level whereby the creek intersects the watertable, allowing saline groundwater to drain into the creek. During periods of low surface water runoff into the drain, such as the extended period of below average rainfall experienced in Southern Australia over the past decade, groundwater inflows dominate the water quality profile in the creek, resulting in high salinity water flowing in the creek, albeit at low volumes. The large variability in both flows and salinity in the creek and the cyclical pattern in the variations has resulted in a degraded riparian environment along much of the creek.

Over the past five years, studies have been conducted to consider options available to Murray Irrigation for mitigating saline groundwater inflows in Box Creek. There are a number of options available but given the length of the creek affected by high water tables, the capital and operation and maintenance costs to implement most of the options are prohibitive. Murray Irrigation is interested in testing a relatively low cost salinity control option involving the principal of ‘hydraulic barrier’. Murray Irrigation has decided upon the concept of maintaining the water level within the creek at or just above the adjacent shallow groundwater table levels thereby forming an effective barrier for the movement of saline groundwater into the creek by eliminating the direction of the hydraulic gradient from the groundwater environment to the creek.

A concept design for the hydraulic barrier on Box Creek was being prepared with a sufficient level of detail for Murray Irrigation to hold informal discussions with the local council, NSW Department of Primary Industries (DPI Fisheries) and NSW Department of Water and Energy (DWE) representatives to determine what precursor



conditions may be required for the trial or subsequent implementation of a system covering approximately 70 km of the Box Creek alignment.

Two sites were short-listed as appropriate for the installation of a Salt Mitigation Barrier. A review of current reduced groundwater levels from the two series of piezometers has been undertaken. Since their installation, the groundwater levels have been in decline reflecting the recent low rainfall and irrigation allocation years. At the current levels at both trial sites, a hydraulic barrier would not be required to control saline inflows. A barrier would only be required if and when groundwater levels begin to rise, either from a return to successive normal/high rainfall years or a return to normal irrigation allocation years.

The most optimal location for a trial salt mitigation barrier based on the assessment is a site at Lindifferon Lane. This location provides for historic water table levels within the low flow channel section, has existing piezometers downstream for monitoring, and has good access and minimal site constraints. The recommended mitigation barrier is a pre-fabricated concrete barrier due to life cycle cost, operational durability and functionality. The report was finalised in August 2008.

Salinity management options for the Jimaringle Creek Catchment – Charles Sturt University

The Jimaringle Creek, in the west of the Murray LWMP region, has shown signs of salinisation which are affecting the local environment. The area has been highlighted as a priority for intervention and rehabilitation by the Wakool LWMP working group.

As part of the rehabilitation efforts, Charles Sturt University (CSU) is investigated the groundwater dynamics along the creek. This was carried out using historical data, geophysics technology and piezometers to assess the options for management of saline groundwater intrusions along the creek. The researchers will provide recommendations for the feasibility of using groundwater pumps, along the most severely affected sections of the creek, to link into the WTSSDS. The draft report has been reviewed by LWMP staff and has been finalised by CSU.

Terminated Projects

Dealing with the reliability of irrigation allocations in the Murray Irrigation region – RMCG

Recent years of low allocations due to a prolonged period of below average rainfall has had a large impact on irrigation businesses in the Murray region. Making the most effective decisions on how to best use the limited water resource is critical to the future viability of farms in the region.

This project is capturing real life lessons through case studies with farmers to find out how they have managed low allocations over recent seasons. This will then be used to outline the key issues associated with water management in both the short and long term, to identify/develop tools to help farmers in decision making regarding water, and to identify risk management strategies for the future.

The focus group sessions concentrated on information sources used, how it is used, how it is interpreted, how it can be improved and any gaps in the information available. It was revealed that irrigators use information from a range of sources in determining the likely allocation available although Murray Irrigation’s Talking Water fax stream was rated as the most used information source. Two key gaps in information available were identified: the impact of carry over water on future allocations and the rules governing how water is allocated.

The case studies aimed to learn about the strategies implemented during periods of low allocations from the past experiences of farmers. There was an enormous amount of variation observed in the risk management strategies employed with those with taking larger risks placing more effort on their management. Key areas that would improve farm management decisions in response to low allocations are:



• Increasing level of understanding of the factors influencing water allocations and water markets;

• Good understanding of the profitability of different enterprise types to improve decision making with regard to how to use the water that is available;

• Developing farm business plans to help identify key strengths and weaknesses within a business.

The next phase of this project has been terminated due to prolonged dry conditions.

Quantification of runoff quantity and quality from irrigated farms in the Murray Valley – Murray Irrigation Limited

Determining the quantity (both from irrigation and rainfall) and quality of runoff from irrigation farms in the Murray valley is an important factor in determining the efficiency of resource use. At the farm level, these results will be used to assist irrigators to make better management decisions about water storage and recycle pump requirements, fertiliser application rates, methods and types.

The project ran for eight years with data on runoff volumes collected for the entire period and water quality data collected intermittently over three years.

RMCG have been commissioned to analyse the data to extract correlations between runoff and rainfall or irrigation events. To date the data on one farm has been analysed with some runoff events correlating with rainfall and others with irrigation, depending on the time of year.

The water quality data has not been collected frequently enough to enable a statistically significant determination of any relationship between rainfall or irrigation events and changes in water quality parameters.

Preliminary observations of the data reveal the following trends:

• Some accumulation of nitrogen and phosphorus which is not harmful to the farming system. The dairy farm exhibited the highest nutrient levels;

• Salt could potentially be an issue if the reuse water from some farms was not shandied prior to use on crops/pastures. All salinity levels were however below 800EC;

• Turbidity was generally within MIL’s expected range (<200NTU) except in a limited number of circumstances where stock had access to storages.

The project has been terminated due to prolonged dry conditions and insufficient data being available for a valid conclusion.

Stubble/soil organic matter management – processes, practices and improvements – CSIRO Plant Industry/ Charles Sturt University/EH Graham Centre

The management practices of post-harvest stubble can have a major impact on the soil properties and therefore crop yield. Current practices generally centre on the burning or removal of stubble. This project investigates alternative options for stubble management and their potential benefits in terms of organic matter management. At four local sites on typical soils different strategies have been analysed for their effect on soil characteristics and yield. Ultimately this project aims to educate landholders about best practices for local conditions.

Previous results however have shown that with the correct management, retention of heavy stubble loads can:

• Provide small but reasonably consistent increases in yield;

• Reduce greenhouse gas emissions;

• Increase the number of nitrogen fixing bacteria in the soil;



• Increase the efficiency of nitrogen use;

• Improve soil structure;

• Decrease the amount of power required to cultivate; and,

• Not lead to an increase in disease.

No work has been undertaken on this project since 2007 due to a changeover of organisation for the principal researcher and the drought resulting in no water being available on farms. The project contract has subsequently been terminated with remaining funds to be allocated to Stubble Star trials when climatic conditions allow. The Stubble Star is a unique no-till sowing device created at NSW Agriculture’s Wagga Wagga Agricultural Institute aimed at reducing use of herbicide volumes and delivering an environmentally friendly breakthrough for weed control in winter crops.

Current Projects

Economic and hydrologic appraisal of regional groundwater and salinity management actions in the Murray valley – CSIRO Land and Water

Building on past work this project is evaluating the hydrologic and economic merit of LWMP groundwater management options.

The objectives of the project are:

• Hydrologic and economic evaluation of existing LWMP regional groundwater and salinity management options;

• Hydrologic and economic analysis of alternative management options to achieve regional vertical and lateral recharge rates by incorporating surface water-aquifer interactions; and

• Provide support for ongoing implementation of SWAGMAN Farm, on the basis of policy options determined from the existing project.

A variety of analyses have been undertaken to gain a better understanding of the dynamics of the regional groundwater including analysis of pump test data, watertable and soil information. The groundwater model of the Murray LWMP region is close to completion. Preliminary calibrations have been carried out with more required for the model to meet Australian standards. Once it is operational it will be validated against historical data and run in simulation mode for a variety of scenarios. This will allow for the prioritisation of future groundwater and salinity management actions, to identify potential salinity risk zones, and to determine the downstream impacts of the various management actions. Final reporting for this project is now scheduled for late 2009.

Managing Sodic Soils and Groundwater Irrigation in Murray Irrigation Regions – University of Adelaide

Shallow groundwater pumping has been used as a method to combat rising saline watertables in the Murray LWMP area. However local groundwater is often saline and dominated by sodium salts. These sodium salts can interact with the soil, changing its properties to become more saline and sodic. An increase in soil sodicity and salinity can reduce the productivity and long-term sustainability of the region. If the problem becomes widespread, then groundwater pumping will cease to be a feasible management option for the region.

This project aims to develop new, simple methods for testing soil sodicity and establish an education program to raise awareness of sodic soil processes, the impact of groundwater irrigation on soils and best practices for managing soils.

All soil analysis for the project has been completed. Final reporting is currently underway and the training package has been designed and is now being compiled.



Water use and yields under centre pivot irrigation in the Southern Riverina – NSW DPI (Agriculture)

The number of centre pivot and linear move irrigation systems in the Murray valley has been increasing over the past five years, driven in part by low irrigation allocations and the need to find irrigation systems that require less water. These systems require significant capital investment and are not suited to all soil types so objective information is needed when assessing their purchase. This information is currently not available for irrigators and, in some cases, inappropriate and costly decisions have been made. By providing objective information on achievable yields, suitable soil types and water use, those considering purchasing a centre pivot or linear move system will have industry data for their region to base their decisions on. Also, benchmarking current practice will allow irrigators who currently own the systems to assess their performance and identify areas for improvement.

The study was conducted in 2005 and 2006 with six co-operators in each year. The sites were spread across the Murray LWMP region, included both red-brown earth (RBE) and non-self mulching clay (NSMC) soils, and wheat was grown at all sites. Data collected for each site included: volume of irrigation water applied, rainfall, crop area and yield. Crop growth was monitored from sowing to harvest. Soil water content and soil water potential were monitored at each site.

Wheat grain yields varied from 2-6.9t/ha for both years. In general, yields over 6t/ha were achieved from fully irrigated crops on RBE soils. Crops which experienced some degree of moisture stress or were grown on NSMC soils yielded around 4t/ha.

The study found that the amount of irrigation water required to grow a given yield of crop can be determined from the French & Schultz (1984) water use efficiency equation:

Total water requirement (mm) = Yield (kg/ha)/20 + 110

For example, a 6t/ha crop requires approximately 410mm of water to grow (6000/20 + 110 = 410), including both growing season rainfall and irrigation.

The report recommended storages where the landholding is on a channel system to allow best use of the centre pivot/linear move systems in autumn and early spring in case of conditions being dry and the irrigation season being delayed.

The three key factors that contribute to achievable yields have been identified as follows:

1. Heavy clay and sodic soils – are predisposed to waterlogging and hence reduced yield; 2. Timing of irrigations – particularly where a store of soil moisture is not present in the sub-soil, the

timing of irrigations are critical to ensure water stress is limited. Sites that were fully irrigated had the highest yields at 6.6 t/ha;

3. Agronomic management – a greater level of crop management is required with centre pivot/linear move systems due to their high capital and operating costs to maximise the benefits.

Economic analyses have been finalised by RMCG and publishing of report and manual by the DPI is currently underway.

Improving the performance of basin irrigation layouts in the southern Murray-Darling Basin – NSW DPI (Agriculture) and the Cooperative Research Centre for Irrigation Futures

Basin irrigation layouts that are ideal for the production of rice, a major crop in the Murray LWMP region, are not suited to many other crops that are included in our farming systems. Previous research demonstrated the benefits of bed farming in basin layouts for this purpose however there is reluctance in the Murray valley to make this shift. This is because most cropping enterprises use large tractors, dual tyres and wide-line



machinery which are not suited to cropping on beds. The choice of machinery is driven by the high proportion of dryland and unirrigated areas on most farms in the district. As a result there is a need for flexible layouts suited to the machinery and scale of cropping enterprises in the Murray LWMP region that are capable of being used to produce high yields from upland crops as well as rice.

This project aims to:

• determine the current state of knowledge, practice and tools for basin irrigation design and performance evaluation;

• develop clear recommendations for ‘best practice’ basin irrigation design based on hydraulic and economic performance;

• develop tools and techniques to evaluate basin irrigation performance; and,

• train irrigation surveyors and designers in the use of recommended design and evaluation tools.

The scoping study reviewed past research and current practices to identify research, development and extension needs regarding basin irrigation layouts in the Murray valley. This included liaison with a range of stakeholders through a local project steering committee, interviews with irrigation designers, and a review of existing basin irrigation design models and software. The following areas were highlighted:

• advantages and disadvantages of basin irrigation layouts;

• causes of waterlogging and preventative measures;

• strategies for improving the irrigated productivity of flat slopes with high clay content and high sodicity;

• options for increasing the profitability of basin systems;

• approaches to improve the irrigation efficiency of basin layouts;

• best practice design for contour basin systems;

• scope for improving contour basin systems in the Murray valley – half are still in natural, unlasered contours;

• economic data is required to guide decision making and to provide benefit:cost information regarding upgrading contour systems;

• labour and time constraints to improving efficiency;

• requirement for simple design model and tools for evaluating performance.

Effective weed management in direct seeded native vegetation – Agropraisals Pty Ltd

Previous research conducted through the LWMP R&D program highlighted weed management as the most significant limiting factor in the establishment of direct seeded native vegetation in the region. Agropraisals Pty Ltd has been commissioned to carry out trials of different herbicides and herbicide application methods to develop effective weed management strategies for direct seeded native vegetation. This includes looking at modifying the current direct seeding machine to better incorporate chemical application at sowing.

To date initial seeding and spraying trials have been conducted but due to dry conditions, the initial proposed program was modified. The modification of the direct seeding machine has also been undertaken with a field demonstration held in August 2008. The project has been well supported by the Murray Catchment Management and the modified direct seeding the machine has been in use by the Murray Catchment Management Authority. Final reporting is currently being completed with the project scheduled for conclusion by the end of 2009.



Ongoing Projects under extension

An Irrigation Layout BMP Manual for the Murray LWMP region – RM Consulting Group (RMCG)

Local landholders identified the need for a manual outlining best management practices (BMPs) for farm irrigation layouts i.e. bank heights, channel sizing and outlet types. This manual aims to compile the wealth of information available on irrigation layouts into a simple, user friendly guide that landholders can suse when dealing with designers to achieve the best outcome for their property and the surrounding environment when developing and implementing a whole farm plan.

The manual is complete and is currently being prepared for publishing for distribution to shareholders and stakeholders in 2010.

Maintaining the productivity of soils under continuous intensive cropping – DPI, Victoria

This project was initiated in response to growers concerns about the sustainability of continuous cropping systems, due to a decline in soil structure and soil health. The project is addressing these concerns by investigating how different organic matter inputs effect soil physical, chemical, and biological properties, and how changes in these soil properties influence crop performance. This knowledge can be used to develop practical agronomic practices to improve management of soil organic matter, and ensure soils remain healthy and productive.

This project has taken the approach of using farmers paired paddocks to determine how management affects soil health. Rotational histories and soil measurements were taken from 16 paired paddocks across northern Victoria and southern NSW. Each pair of paddocks consisted of one paddock with higher organic matter inputs and the other with lower organic matter inputs.

Results from the project have demonstrated that:

• Increasing the amount of organic matter (OM) throughput (rate at which OM is added to the soil to be broken down and recycled) over several years will boost soil organic carbon levels;

• The percentage of soil carbon can be increased by 0.4% by increasing the amount of above and below ground OM by 2 t/ha/yr for 10 years;

• The amount of soil carbon can explain approximately 60% of the variation in soil structure;

• When soil carbon levels are less than 2%, small increases in soil carbon will result in substantial improvements to soil structure;

• Higher OM systems are likely to result in equal or better yields;

• The role of different forms of carbon in the soil is likely, in the future, to offer greater understanding of how OM influences crop production; and,

• Monitoring the cumulative OM input of a paddock is an easy way for a farmer to monitor improvements in soil health.

The final project report has been provided and we are awaiting completion of booklets by DPI, Victoria for conclusion of the project.



LWMP Annual Survey

JUNE 2009 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED

1

Name: ________________________________________________________ (Please Print)

Holding Reference No.: _____________

Farm area: ________________ (hectares)

LWMP District: Berriquin

Date of interview: ____/____/ 2009

Interviewer’s Name: _____________________________________________ __ (Please Print)

Murray LWMP Annual Survey 2008/09

Please note – questionnaire is for financial period 2008/09


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 land uses on this holding as at 30th June 2009?

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 (note: ceases to be classed as stubble after 12 months)

Irrigable land (irrigation infrastructure is present but has not been used for irrigation for over 12 months)

Dryland

Infrastructure

Other

Total

1: Enterprise type and land use

2.1 What is the area laid out to irrigation on this holding?

............... ha 2.2 Do you have a surveyor designed irrigation

or drainage plan?

Yes No If No, then go to Q 2.4. 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 2008/09, and have not and do not intend to access an LWMP incentive? Yes No If No, then go to Q 3.1.

2.5 What was the purpose of the 2008/09 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

2008/09?

2. Farm Planning

Item Amount ($)

a) Surveyor / Designer

b) Soil drilling

c) Own time (hours @ $20 per hour)

d) Other …………….

e) Total

SURVEYOR NOTE: For completing tables please see General Notes 1-3 (2009 Surveyors Notes page 1)

SURVEYOR NOTE: Total area Land use table must equal size of holding


3

3: Irrigation recycling and Storage

3.1 Do you have an irrigation recycling system on this holding?

Yes No If No, then go to Q 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 is the size of the area within the holding

that can be drained to a recycle point/s? ................ ha 3.5 What is the size of the irrigated area within

the holding that can be irrigated with recy-cled water? (Note: cannot be greater than area stated in Q2.1)

................ ha 3.6 Did you undertake irrigation recycling and/or

storage works in 2008/09, and have not and do not intend to access an LWMP incentive?

Yes No If No, then go to Q 3.9.

3.7 What was spent on constructing the irrigation recycling system in 2008/09?

(e.g.: drains, sump, recycle channels and associated equipment)

3.8 What was spent on constructing the storage in

2008/09?

3.9 What was spent on operating and maintaining

the irrigation recycling system in 2008/09? (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

c) Contractors

d) Own time (hours @ $20 per hour)

e) Other ………………………

f) Total

Item Amount ($)


b) Fuel / electricity

c) Contractors


e) Other ………………………

f) Total


4

4: Irrigation development 4.1 What area of this holding is landformed

(laser graded)? (Note: cannot be greater than area stated in Q2.1) a) Total area landformed on holding ........... ha

b) Area landformed in 2008/09 ............. ha 4.2 Of the area landformed in 2008/09,

what was previously dryland? (e.g. never been irrigated) ................. ha

4.3 Did you undertake any

paddock improvements, 2008/09? (Not incl. landforming, but including conversion to side ditch, installing permanent bay outlets etc)


4.4 If Yes, what was spent on paddock improve-ments in 2008/09?

4.5 Did you convert an area of flood irrigation to a pressurised irrigation system on this holding in 2008/09? (e.g, Micro Irrigation, Centre Pivot)


4.6 If Yes, how many hectares was converted to a pressurised system? (Note: Exclude land that was previously dryland)

.………………..ha

4.7 What type of pressurised system was in-stalled? ………………………………………………………

4.8 Did you undertake EM 31 surveying in 2008/09?


4.9 If Yes, what was the area surveyed?

..................... ha

Item Amount ($)

a) Contractors

b) Own time (hours @ $20 per hour)

c) Fuel

d) Fencing / structures

e) Other ………………………

f) TOTAL

5: Soil management 5.1 Did you apply lime to pasture or cropping

paddocks in 2008/09? Yes No If No, then go to Q 6.1. 5.2 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 2008/09? Yes No If No, then go to Q 7.1.

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

SURVEYOR NOTE: It is not essential that pastures be included in the land

use table (Q1.2) to respond to this question



5

8.1 Do you have a groundwater bore pump/ bore pumps in operation on this holding? (not stock and domestic bores)

Yes No

8.2 If Yes, what are the number of bores:

8.3 What volume did you pump from the shallow

bore/s in 2008/09? ............................... ML

8: Groundwater pumping

7.1 Did you carry out any maintenance of native vegetation on this holding during 2008/09 (both remnant and planted areas >10 meters wide), and have not and do not intend to access an LWMP incentive? Yes No If No, then go to Q 8.1.

7.2 If Yes, what did you spend on maintaining

native vegetation in 2008/09?

7: Native vegetation

Item Amount ($)

a) Materials


c) Contractors

d) Chemicals

e) Other

f) TOTAL


Item Number of bores

a) Shallow (less than 10 metres)

b) Deep (more than 10 metres deep)


1




LWMP District: Cadell






2




Dairying ................................................

Horticulture ...........................................

Other ......................................................


Land use Area (ha)



Dryland pastures

Winter crops




Fallowed land



Dryland

Infrastructure

Other

Total




or drainage plan?





2.5 What was the purpose of the 2008/09 farm

planning? a) Introduce changes to an existing plan


Yes No c) Develop part of the farm (paddock scale sur-

veying).


……………………………

2.6 What was spent on farm planning in 2008/09?

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?


c) Storage ...……….ML


seepage tested? Yes No 3.4 What is the size of the area within the holding

that can be drained to a recycle point/s? ................ ha 3.5 What is the size of the irrigated area within




Yes No If No, then go to Q 3.9. 3.7 What was spent on constructing the irriga-

tion recycling system in 2008/09?

Item Amount ($)


b) Fuel

c) Contractors


e) Other …………..

f) Total

3.8 What was spent on constructing the storage in 2008/09?



3.10 Did you carry out any maintenance of supply

channels on this holding in 2008/09? Yes No If No, then go to Q 4.1.

3.11 What was spent on maintaining supply

channels in 2008/09?


Item Amount ($)



c) Contractors


e) Other ………………………

f) Total

Item Amount ($)


b) Fuel

c) Contractors


e) 0ther …………

f) Total

Item Amount ($)

a) Contractors


c) Fuel

d) Desilting

e) Chemicals

f) Other …………………….

g) Total


4

4: Irrigation development

4.1 What area of this holding is landformed (laser graded)? (Note: cannot be greater than area stated in Q2.1) a) Total area landformed on holding ............ ha


what was previously dryland? (e.g. never been irrigated) .................. ha

4.3 Did you undertake any paddock improvements, 2008/09?

(Not incl. landforming, but including conversion to side ditch, installing permanent bay outlets etc)


4.4 If Yes, what was spent on paddock improvements in 2008/09?

4.5 Did you convert an area of flood irrigation to a

pressurised irrigation system on this holding in 2008/09? (e.g. Micro Irrigation, Centre Pivot)


4.6 If Yes, how many hectares were converted to a pressurised system?

(Note: Exclude land that was previously dryland).

................... ha

4.7 What type of pressurised system was installed?

........................................................................... 4.8 Did you undertake EM 31 surveying in

2008/09? Yes No If No, then go to Q 5.1.


..................... ha

Item Amount ($)

a) Contractors


c) Fuel


e) Other …………….

f) TOTAL

5: Irrigation management

5.1 Did you apply any of the following tech-niques to schedule irrigations in 2008/09?

If No, then go to Q 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 land uses did you practise irrigation

scheduling and what area was laid out to those land uses?


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 2008/09?


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 2008/09 as a dryland break crop for wheat or barley?

Yes No

6.6 Did you apply lime to pasture or cropping paddocks in 2008/09? Yes No If No, then go to Q 7.1.

6.7 If yes, what was the

a) application rate ........................ tonnes/ha

b) area .................................... ha

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 2007/2008 rice stubble

Direct drilled, ie no cultivation, winter crop into other crop stubble, eg soybeans or barley

Other techniques, eg one cultivation

Other:

Other:

7.1 Did you sow perennial species (e.g., lucerne, phalaris) into annual pastures on this holding in 2008/09? Yes No If No, then go to Q 8.1.






b) Dryland pasture


7: Pasture




8.1 Did you carry out any maintenance of

native vegetation on this holding during 2008/09 (both remnant and planted areas >10 meters wide), and have not and do not intend to access an LWMP incentive?

Yes No 8.2 If Yes, what did you spend on maintaining



Item Amount ($)

a) Materials


c) Contractors

d) Chemicals

e) Other …………….

f) TOTAL


1




LWMP District: Denimein






2



Mixed enterprises – livestock ................

Dairying ................................................

Horticulture ...........................................

Other ......................................................


Land use Area (ha)


Irrigated perennial pasture, including lucerne

Dryland pastures

Winter crops




Fallowed land



Dryland

Infrastructure

Other

Total




or drainage plan?





2.5 What was the purpose of the 2008/09 farm planning?

a) Introduce changes to an existing plan





..................................................................

..................................................................

2.6 What was spent on farm planning in 2008/09?

2. Farm Planning

Item Amount ($)


b) Soil drilling



e) Total




3




b) Storage …………ML


seepage tested? Yes No 3.4 What proportion of the entire holding can be

drained to a recycle point/s? ................. % 3.5 What is the size of the irrigated area within





3.7 What was spent on constructing the

irrigation recycling system in 2008/09? (e.g.: drains, sump, recycle channels and

associated equipment)


2008/09?



Item Amount ($)


b) Fuel

c) Contractors


e) Other ………………………

f) Total


Item Amount ($)


b) Fuel

c) Contractors


e) Other ………………………

f) Total

Item Amount ($)



c) Contractors


e) Other ………………………

f) Total


4





4.3 Did you undertake any

paddock improvements, 2008/09? (Not incl. landforming, but including conversion to side ditch, installing permanent bay outlets etc)



4.5 Did you convert an area of flood irrigation to a pressurised irrigation system on this holding in 2008/09? (e.g, Micro Irrigation, Centre Pivot) Yes No If No, then go to Q 4.8.

4.6 If Yes, how many hectares was converted to a

pressurised system? (Note: Exclude land that was previously dryland)

.………………..ha


4.8 Did you undertake EM 31 surveying in 2008/09?



…………….ha

Item Amount ($)

a) Contractors


c) Fuel


e) Other ………………………

f) TOTAL

5: Soil management

6.1 Did you sow perennial species (e.g., lucerne, phalaris) into annual pastures on this holding in 2008/09?





6.4 If you have established perennial pastures, 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 year

iii) Grazing and or slashing of dry residue



b) Dryland pasture


6: Pasture

5.1 Did you apply lime to pasture or cropping paddocks in 2008/09?

Yes No If No, then go to Q 6.1. 5.2 If yes, what was the application rate? a) Application rate ……………..tonnes/ha b) Area …………………………..hectares





5

7.1 Did you carry out any maintenance of native vegetation on this holding during 2008/09 (both remnant and planted areas >10 meters wide), and have not and do not intend to access an LWMP incentive?

Yes No If No, then go to Q 8.1. 7.2 If Yes, what did you spend on maintaining



Item Amount ($)

a) Materials


c) Contractors

d) Chemicals

e) Other …………………….

f) TOTAL


9.1 Do you have a groundwater bore pump/ bore pumps in operation on this holding? (not stock and domestic bores)

Yes No 9.2 If Yes, what are the number of bores:

9.3 What volume did you pump from the shallow

bore/s in 2008/09? ............................... ML

9.4 What volume did you pump from the deep

bore/s in 2008/09? ............................... ML

9.5 Did you install or upgrade a deep bore/deep bores in 2008/09?

9: Groundwater pumping

Item Amount ($)

a) Drilling/Construction

b) Pumps and associated equipment

c) Other …………………….

d) TOTAL

8: Vegetation to reduce salinity

8.1 Did you establish saltbush or lucerne/native grasses in dryland areas on this holding in 2008/09, or were trees planted along seeping channels, and have not and do not intend to access an LWMP incentive?

Yes No If No, then go to Q 9.1. 8.2 If Yes, what size area was established?……..ha 8.3 If Yes, what was spent on establishing vegeta-

tion to reduce salinity in 2008/09?

Item Amount ($)

a) Seed/Seedlings


c) Fuel

d) Contractors

e) Fences

f) Other ………………………

e) TOTAL

Item Number of bores

a) Shallow (less than 10 metres)

b) Deep (more than 10 metres deep)

SURVEYOR NOTE: This question's focus is upon establishing saltbush or lucerne/

native grasses in dryland areas, specifically for the purpose of salinity management


1




LWMP District: Wakool






2




Dairying .................................................

Horticulture ...........................................

Other ......................................................

1.2 What were the landuses on this holding as at 30th June 2009?

Land use Area (ha)



Dryland pastures

Winter crops




Fallowed land



Dryland

Infrastructure

Other

Total




or drainage plan?


area is represented on the plan? ............... %



2.5 What was the purpose of the 2008/09 farm planning?

a) Introduce changes to an existing plan





..................................................................

..................................................................

2.6 What was spent on farm planning in

2. Farm Planning

Item Amount ($)


b) Soil drilling



e) Total




3




c) Storage ...……….ML


seepage tested? Yes No 3.4 What proportion of the entire holding can be

drained to a recycle point? ................. % 3.5 What is the size of the irrigated area within


................ ha

3.6 Did you undertake irrigation recycling and/or storage works in 2008/09, and have not and do not intend to access an LWMP incentive?


3.7 What was spent on constructing the

irrigation recycling system in 2008/09? (e.g.: drains, sump, recycle channels and

associated equipment)


2008/09?



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



b) Area landformed in 2008/09 .............. ha 4.2 Of the area landformed in 2008/09,


4.3 Did you undertake any paddock improvements, 2008/09?

(Not incl. landforming, but including conversion to side ditch, installing permanent bay outlets etc)



4.5 Did you convert an area of flood irrigation to a pressurised irrigation system on this holding in 2008/09? (e.g, Micro Irrigation, Centre Pivot)


4.6 If Yes, how many hectares was converted to a pressurised system? (Note: Exclude land that was previously dryland)

.………………..ha


4.8 Did you undertake EM 31 surveying in

2008/09? Yes No If No, then go to Q 5.1.


...................... ha

Item Amount ($)

a) Contractors


c) Fuel


e) Other ………………………

f) TOTAL

5: Soil management

5.1 Did you apply lime to pasture or cropping paddocks in 2008/09?

Yes No If No, then go to Q 6.1. 5.2 If yes, what was the application rate? a) Application rate .......................... tonnes/ha b) Area ...............................................hectares

6.1 Did you carry out any maintenance of native vegetation on this holding during 2008/09 (both remnant and planted areas >10 meters wide), and have not and do not intend to access an LWMP incentive? Yes No

6.2 If Yes, what did you spend on maintaining



Item Amount ($)

a) Materials


c) Contractors

d) Chemicals

e) Other ………………………

f) TOTAL


MURRAY LWMP

ANNUAL SURVEY

SURVEYORS NOTES

June 2009

Murray Irrigation Limited A.B.N. 23067 197 933

Land and Water Management Plans

M URRAY

Surveyors notes 2009 1

INTRODUCTION

Background. The Murray Land and Water Management Plans (LWMPs) are a natural

resource management program aimed at ensuring the sustainability of the mid-Murray

region. The LWMPs were developed between government and the local community. The

costs of works relating to the LWMPs are shared between government and the community.

Some of the community costs are in-kind contributions and cash contributions that cannot

be tracked by the LWMP accounting, however they are still required to be accounted for.

We therefore have the LWMP annual survey to capture the additional money spent by the

community in implementing the LWMPs.

Survey period. The responses from landholders are for the financial year 2008/09 where

the commencing date is 1 July 2008 and the concluding one is 30 June 2009.

The Notes are presented in the same order as the questions.

Completing the form. When completing the form please:

Use a black / blue pen;

Leave boxes blank if not applicable, eg tick only yes or no;

Show whole dollars only;

Where a landholder revises their response ensure the revised response is clear;

Include totals where sought.

Surveying landholders. When you attend a landholders home and are conducting the

interview please ensure you cover the following points:

Explain the purpose of the survey (see ‘Background’ section);

Remind the landholder that all survey responses are confidential and will only be

published in a summarised form for the whole LWMP district;

Ensure data you are recording is as accurate as possible;

Ensure the entire survey is completed before leaving the landholders property.

Returning survey forms. Please return surveys as you complete them (i.e. on

weekly/fortnightly basis). Please do not complete all surveys before returning any forms.

Re-surveying landholders. If you require a landholding to be re-surveyed, please record

the reason why the landholder could not be surveyed.

Common conversions. Please note the following conversions as they may be useful to

you in completing the survey forms:

1 hectare = 2.471 acres

ML = megalitres = 1,000,000L = 1,000m3

Photographs and Figures. These have been sourced from a range of publications (pg. 9).

GENERAL NOTE 1: Ensure $ VALUES are SPLIT across available categories in the TABLES provided (i.e. do not provide just totals)

GENERAL NOTE 2: Where the ‘OTHER’ category is selected and the expenditure is GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO $2,500 a note on TYPE OF EXPENDITURE IS REQUIRED

GENERAL NOTE 3: All items of expenditure are to be recorded EXCLUSIVE of GST and other rebates


SURVEY THEME COMMENTS 1. HOLDING ENTERPRISES AND LAND USES Responses to reflect a typical year on this holding. 1.1 Holding enterprises

Enterprises are the businesses of the holding, eg the growing of rice for sale; dairying is the milking of cows. Mixed enterprises are farms where the land produces two or more major sources of income, e.g. rice, wheat, cattle. Mixed enterprises – cropping / rice. Where rice income represents in a ‘normal’ year 25% or higher from the survey holding. Other enterprises may include winter crops (wheat, barley, oats, canola), sheep and cattle. Mixed enterprises – cropping / no rice. When rice is not normally grown on this mixed enterprise holding. Mixed enterprises – livestock. Where 75% of the income is from the running of cattle and or sheep on pastures, with the remaining 25% sourced from cropping, e.g. oats or wheat. Dairying. Where the principal use of the holding is for milking or dry cows or for raising bobby calves. Horticulture. Principal income is from the growing of trees for fruit or nuts, grapevines, vegetables etc. Other. Examples are piggery, cattle feedlot, fish farming (aquaculture).

1.2 Land uses Irrigated annual pasture. Where the dominant species germinate each year from seed, e.g. subterranean clover and rye grass (Sub and Rye). Must be grown in an area laid out for irrigation but does not have to have been watered in 2008/09. Perennial pasture. Where the dominant species grow all year round but produce mostly in either the winter / spring (phalaris) or summer (paspalum, kikuyu). Other species generally a legume such as sub. clover or white clover. Dryland pastures. Dryland paddocks (not laid out to irrigation) that have a predominance of sown species, eg sub. clover, medics, lucerne with minor species being native species or rye grass and wild oats. Winter crops. Crops grown for grain, hay or grazing but principally for grain such as wheat, barley, oats, triticale, canola, faba beans, field peas. Summer crops. Crops grown for grain, hay or grazing but principally for grain such as maize (corn), sorghum, millet, forage sorghums, soybeans, adzuki beans. Fallowed land. A paddock that was prepared for a crop but wasn’t sown (insufficient water) or is being made ready for growing a summer crop in 2009/10. Stubble. Straw remains standing from a recently harvested crop, e.g. 2008/09 rice or wheat. Sheep or cattle may have grazed. Include as stubble paddocks those where straw has been baled. (Note: ceases to be classed as stubble after 12 months) Irrigable Land. Where irrigation infrastructure is present but has not been used for the purpose of irrigation for over 12 months.

Dryland. Areas not laid out to irrigation, not used for dryland cropping or pasture. Predominately grazing areas. Infrastructure. Roads, channels, sheds, yards, storage dam etc.


SURVEY THEME COMMENTS 2. FARM PLANNING 2.1 Area laid out to irrigation

Use aerial photograph to determine the area laid out to irrigation.

2.4 Farm planning activities – access to LWMP incentives

The aim of this question is to determine whether or not the landholder is undertaking works, outside of the LWMPs. Please ensure that the landholder never intends to claim LWMP incentives before answering yes to this question. Works that fall under farm planning activities are desktop planning, surveying, and soil testing for the purpose of irrigation design and layout.

2.5 Purpose of farm planning

Having established that the landholder is doing works outside of the LWMPs, we need to determine the purpose/extent of the activity to determine if the plan would still meet LWMP surveyor-designed standards. If they have only surveyed and designed one or two paddocks then the plan would not meet LWMP standards.

3. IRRIGATION RECYCLING AND STORAGE An irrigation recycling and storage system drains irrigation tail water off

paddocks, moves it through drains to a storage system or sump, and this water is then able to be used to irrigate the paddocks again.

3.1 Irrigation recycling system

Answer to question can be yes even if system does not service the entire holding and the storage does not meet LWMP requirements.

3.2 Storage volumes Volume (m3)= Length (m) x Width (m) x Depth (m) Drain storage volume – when calculating the storage capacity of drains, just measure the main drain, not the small paddock drains that feed into it. If the main storage is a dam/sump, do not include storage volumes in drains.

3.5 Recycled water Check: Area irrigated cannot be greater than land laid out to irrigation (Q2.1).

3.6 Irrigation recycling activities – access to LWMP incentives

Before ticking the box that the irrigation recycling works will not be funded through the LWMPs, please enquire as to whether or not they intend to claim their works through the plans in the future, or if they have exhausted their funds or do not wish to access funds to ensure you are answering the question correctly.

3.7 & 3.8 Irrigation Recycling & Storage construction materials

Materials / equipment. Include purchase of pump or motor; extension of electricity; provision of fuel tank

3.9 Operation and maintenance

Materials / equipment. Include purchase of replacement pump or motor.


SURVEY THEME COMMENTS 4. IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT 4.1 Landforming

Landforming. Landforming includes such activities as laser grading, landplaning and activities that involve moving soil from one area of a paddock to another. The aim of landforming is usually to produce an even surface or a set grade to assist in irrigation efficiency. Note: Landforming does not include lasering within natural contoured layouts. Check: Area landformed cannot be greater than land laid out to irrigation (Q2.1).

4.3 Paddock Improvements

Paddock improvements. Paddock improvements are not to include landforming. However, lasering within natural contour layouts can be included as a paddock improvement. Other paddock improvements include: roof topping, side and centre ditches and permanent bay outlets. Situations where conversion to a pressurised system has occurred are addressed in Section 4, Irrigation Development (questions 4.5-4.7). Fencing becomes a paddock improvement when it is used to protect infrastructure/assets e.g. dairy farmers fencing off a channel to prevent stock access.

4.3 Paddock Improvements

Roof-topping Side ditch


SURVEY THEME COMMENTS 4.3 Paddock Improvements (continued)

Centre ditch Traditional contour – reference purposes

4.5 Pressurised Irrigation

Pressurised irrigation. Common names are spray irrigation, sprinkler, travelling irrigators, centre pivot (see picture), lateral move.

4.5 Micro Irrigation Micro irrigation. Comprise either small

sprinklers and microjets or drippers designed to apply small volumes of water, for example 4, 8, 12 or more litres per hour, over an 8 to 10 hour period. The small sprinklers and microjets operate a few centimetres above ground level and the dripper lines are laid on the soil. This system is ideal for orchards, and selected vegetable and flower crops.

4.8 EM31

Electromagnetic soil survey. The EM machine is usually attached to a 4-wheel motorbike. Local contractors include Lloyd Angove (Finley based) and Ken Bates (Deniliquin based).


SURVEY THEME COMMENTS 5. CADELL LWMP – IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT 5.1 Cadell LWMP – Irrigation management

On-farm evaporation /rainfall

On-farm evaporation

Gopher soil moisture monitoring

Gypsum blocks (similar to tensiometer)

5.2 Land uses for irrigation scheduling

The land uses included here do not need to match the land use table in Q1.2.

6. CADELL LWMP – SOIL MANAGEMENT 6.2.1 Conservation Tillage

Direct drilling. Any technique which involves the drilling of seed directly into undisturbed soil. See photographs below. Operations may involve one of the following:

Disc drill and / or spray Triple disc and / or spray Sod seed and / or spray Modified combine and / spray

Check: If answering no to this question, make sure you don’t miss Q6.4 to 6.7. Reduced tillage. Any series of operations that is substantially less than the normal conventional cultivation. Operations may involve one of the following:

Cultivate / sow Cultivate / spray / sow Skim plough / sow and / spray

Direct drilling – sowing boot

Direct drilling – pastures

5.1/6.6 Lime Note: Gypsum is NOT lime. (Gypsum is calcium sulfate and lime is calcium carbonate) (Dolomite is a lime with some magnesium in it’s chemical structure and can be considered lime for this question)


SURVEY THEME COMMENTS 6/7 Pastures (N/A for Wakool)

NOTE: It is not essential that pastures be included in the Land use table (Q1.2) to respond to this question. This allows for those farmers who, within the financial year, have sown a perennial pasture into an annual pasture, or under-sown beneath a winter crop. Perennial species / varieties 1. Grasses Phalaris (Australian II); Perennial ryegrass (Avalon, Victorian, Kangaroo Valley, Matilda) Kikuyu Paspalum 2. Legumes Lucerne (Aurora, Aquarius, Pioneer brand L34 HQ ) Note: if the pasture paddock is a pure lucerne stand, it cannot be counted in this section.

Annual species / varieties 1. Grasses Annual ryegrass (Progrow); Tetraploid italian ryegrass (Galaxy); 2. Legumes Subterranean clover (Goulburn , Junee) White clover (Victorian Irrigation, Grasslands Prestige) Strawberry clover (Palestine) Balansa clover (Paradana); Berseem clover (Carmel [‘Multicut’]); Persian clover (Maral [Shaftal])

6.4 Denimein LWMP – Pasture management

Rotational grazing. Stock are moved in accordance with the stage of growth of the pasture and its productivity. Extensively practiced by dairy farmers. Set stocking. Stock remain in the paddock throughout the year at approximatly the same rate per hectare.

6/7/8 Native Vegetation

Maintaining native vegetation can include: replacement of trees pest weed control e.g. boxthorn pest animal control e.g. rabbits fencing monitoring wetland watering

Remnant vegetation = natural areas of native vegetation. Check: Ensure that if costs for maintenance of native vegetation stated that there is an area of native vegetation in Q1.2.

8. Denimein LWMP – Vegetation to Reduce Salinity

The Vegetation to Reduce Salinity program provides incentives for the establishment of saltbush, lucerne and native grasses. These deep rooted perennials are ideal groundwater pumps, effective in controlling watertable recharge (especially after summer rains) and reducing shallow watertables. In turn, they provide a valuable source of feed, and when managed correctly, saltbush provides shelter for stock and habitat for native birds and animals. Refer to the Denimein Vegetation to Reduce Salinity Guidelines for detail, relevant Essential Criteria for incentives are:

A permanent stock proof fence has been erected where required. Site preparation has been completed and meets requirements. Plant establishment has been successful. Only dryland lucerne and lucerne planted into sub clover is eligible

for a rebate. Summer watered crops are not eligible.


PHOTOGRAPHS AND FIGURES PHOTOGRAPH AND/OR FIGURE

REFERENCE

Landforming Htpp://www.sunrice.com.au/rice/paddocktoplate-farmplan.asp Roof Topping Farmers’ Newsletter, Large Area Edition, No. 161, Spring 2002,

page 17 Side ditch Salt Action Information Sheet, No. 10, First Edition, March 1994,

page 9 Centre ditch Salt Action Information Sheet, No. 10, First Edition, March 1994,

page 8 Traditional contour Salt Action Information Sheet, No. 10, First Edition, March 1994,

page 8 Pressurised irrigation Irrigation & Water Resources. Autumn 2005, page5 Micro Irrigation South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Natural Resources

Management Board, Fact Sheet Land and Water 3 EM 31 Surveying MIL photo library On-farm evaporation Irrigation Management and Systems Choice – a guide for dairy

farmers. Dept. Primary Industries, Rutherglen. 2004, page19 Gopher soil moisture monitoring Farmers’ Newsletter, Large Area Edition, No 152, August 1999,

page 28 Gypsum blocks Farmers’ Newsletter, Horticulture Edition, No 183, June 1999,

page 13 Direct drilling – sowing boot Direct drilling pastures. Dept. Agriculture NSW. Agfact P2.2.5.

Second Edition 1984 Direct drilling – pastures Direct drilling pastures. Dept. Agriculture NSW. Agfact P2.2.5.

Second Edition 1984

ATTACHMENT: Full Checklist for Surveyors and Murray Irrigation Staff Contact Details

Full Surveyor Checklists Page 1 of 2

Initial Surveyor’s Checklist

A checklist of things that we will be providing you that you will need prior to surveying is:

Briefing Session and Training Notes

Surveyor’s Notes

Survey Forms

List of landholders to be surveyed with contact details (and amended list as needed

following you booking the surveys with landholders)

Maps showing holdings to be surveyed, roads, holding numbers and area in hectares

overlaid on satellite images

Notes for making Survey Bookings

Survey Purpose

The survey provides us with detailed information on the important works our

shareholders are completing on their farms.

The costs of works relating to the Murray Land and Water Management Plans are

shared between government and the community. The LWMP annual survey captures

the additional money spent by the community in implementing the LWMPs, including

in-kind and cash contributions that cannot be tracked by the LWMP accounting.

Results of the survey then form important components of our annual reporting and

compliance reporting that is a requirement of State Government for us to continue our

operations.

Most importantly it allows us to highlight to both the State and Federal government that

our community is committed to the ongoing sustainability of the Murray region,

maximising the potential for support from those bodies.

It is noted that:

All survey responses are confidential and will only be published in a summarised form

for the whole LWMP district.

We are required to survey 6 per cent of landholders each year, however some areas and

size categories are sampled at varying rates based on statistical calculations that allow

for the most accurate representation of data.

A small number of holdings have been surveyed previously (some more than once)

however the survey is run using a strict set of regulated guidelines that ensures selection

is completely random.

Full Surveyor Checklists Page 2 of 2

Survey Checklist (note: have map and Surveyors Notes available during survey):

Before start – look at the map with the landholder and confirm a cross road or holding

boundary road/laneway appears correctly in relation to the holding discussed (e.g. the

north east corner of this holding appears to be the corner of Smith and Jones Street,

does that sound right to you?) Start of survey while filling in front page – ask the landholder to confirm that the farm

area (hectares) appears correctly on the page and also on the map During survey (if possible) – choose one landmark discussed (e.g. a particular

paddock, a drain, a sump or storage, a landformed area, a patch of native vegetation, a

groundwater bore/pump) and point it out on the map, asking the landholder to confirm

that this is what you are discussing. If a phone interview, you may need to describe

the feature in some detail (e.g. there looks to be a large storage dam on the eastern

boundary, is that the one you are talking about?) During survey – ensure Question 4 (Irrigation development) areas landformed quoted

and Question 6/7/8 (Native vegetation) areas quoted (even if nil) match areas on the

map image (as best can be estimated) During survey – observe carefully questions with Yes/No qualifiers that are worded

‘If No, then go to Q-.-.’ cross out (put a line through) questions missed on that basis. During survey – where questions require hectare values, wherever possible ask the

landholder to point it out on the map for you to a quick check (e.g. can you show me

the area that has been laser graded? It looks like that is about half of your irrigation

area?) At end of survey – ask the landholder to quickly check that all $ values provided are

correct. At end of survey – check that hectares stated make sense and that they check against

‘Land Use’ Table 1.2. Survey Contacts

Contact Details

Survey Coordinator

Danielle Ewington

Natural Resource and Policy Analyst

Murray Irrigation Limited

Ph: 03 5888 3011

Fax: 03 5888 3001

Mob: 0428 819 331

Email: [email protected]

LWMP Officers

Cadell/Denimein/West Berriquin/Wakool

Kirsty Swinton

Ph: 03 5898 3342

Fax: 03 5898 3301

Mob: 0428 819 316


Berriquin

Felicity Steel

Ph: 03 5888 3012

Fax: 03 5888 3001

Mob: 0427 839 172


mailto:[email protected]



Murray Land & Water Management Plans

Audit of Landholder Survey 2008/2009

17 September 2009

D e n n i s E T o o h e y

Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

Murray Land & Water Management Plans


Review of MIL methodology for determining community (in kind)

contributions to the LWMPs and verify the authenticity of data

collected during the 2008/2009 Landholder Survey.

Prepared by:

Dennis E Toohey

362 David Street

ALBURY NSW 2640

Telephone: (02) 6041 4955

Facsimile: (02) 6041 4350

E-mail: [email protected]

17 September 2009

Disclaimer

Dennis E Toohey makes no representations or warranties as to the accuracy or completeness of the Report entitled Murray Land & Water Management Plans – Audit of Landholder Survey 2008/2009 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 2009.doc


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 .................................... 7 4 MIL REPORTING OF LANDHOLDER ACTIVITIES ................... 12 5 FUTURE DIRECTIONS.............................................................. 17 6 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................ 19 7 ANNEXES .................................................................................. 19

TABLES Table 1.1: Audits (Level 1 and 2), summary ........................................ 2

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: Commercial holding numbers within Murray LWMPs ......... 5

Table 2.4: Holdings second round selection - 2008/2009 ................... 6

Table 4.1: Selected performance of HOAs, 2008/2009 and 2007/2008 ................................................................................................... 15

Table 4.2: 2008/2009 Summary - Land and Water Management; Farm (In kind) contributions ................................................................. 16

FIGURES Figure 2.1: 2008/2009 Holdings Surveyed .......................................... 6

Figure 4.1: Landholder contributions, regional extrapolated, 2005 - 2009 ........................................................................................... 14

Figure 4.2: Landforming, regionally extrapolated, 2005 - 2009 ......... 14

Figure 4.3: Farm planning, regionally extrapolated, 2005 - 2009 ...... 15


Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

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 Danielle Ewington, Natural Resource and Policy Analyst and the staff for each Plan in organising the farm level audits is gratefully acknowledged.

Abbreviations: HOA Heads of Agreement ha Hectare LWMP Land and Water Management Plan MIL Murray Irrigation Limited


Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

i

SUMMARY and RECOMMENDATIONS

AUDIT PROCESS

The 2008/2009 audit followed closely the process introduced after the revision in 2004/2005 of the Landholder Survey. The desk audits were undertaken on 18-19 August and the field audits on 25-27 August 2009.

AUDIT FINDINGS

Findings emerging from the combined desk and field audits are presented in three categories as follows:

1. Transposing errors. One error of transposition was detected in transferring information from the Survey forms to the Survey Report. The last occasion for such an error was in 2005/2006 when one detected.

2. Desk and Field audits. Seven surveys were found to have errors which overstated the value of on-farm works by $544 036.00. One survey, which had been conducted over the telephone, accounted for $542 016 of the total of detected errors. Errors detected elsewhere were of a scale experienced in previous years. See table below. Claim category Item Survey form value($)

Incorrect claims O&M Shallow bore Farm planning Recycling construct Storage construct Landformed area O&M native vegetation O&M recycling

-$540.00 -$38 000.00

-$460 000.00 -$90 000.00 -$33 516.00 -$15 000.00

-$2 000.00 Adjusted claims Area flood to

pressurised +$94 500.00

Omitted claims O&M recycling +$520.00

Total (+ less -) -$544 036.00

3. Calculation errors. None detected.

REPORTING OF ACTIVITY FINDINGS

Landholders invested $35.72 million in LWMP activities in 2008/2009 compared to $23.32 million in 2007/2008.


Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

ii

The leading activity for the first time was Irrigation Development – Conversion of flood irrigation to pressurised (Cadell Plan only target) – representing $13.2 million or 37% of the $35.72 million invested in 2008/2009. Other leading activities in 2008/2009 were improving irrigation layouts representing $7.36 million or 21% (55% in 2007/2008) of total investment. Introducing perennials into pastures is the next highest area of investment of $3.48 million ($3.7 million in 2007/2008) or 10%.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Several recommendations arise from the findings of the 2008/2009 to guide Murray Irrigation Limited in undertaking in the future a survey of landholders.

1. Establish very clearly the objectives of future surveys of landholders by considering:

1.1 Who are the users of the information and what are they seeking. 1.2 What level of accuracy is required of the information collected, e.g. sample size and survey methodology. 1.3 What are the trade-offs between accuracy of information and costs - to the landholder and to MIL.

Note. These are basic questions to be addressed should MIL seek to continue the conduct of an annual survey or for that matter any repeatable survey of landholders.

2. Institute a survey interview protocol that addresses the following:

2.1 A protocol for the method of surveying, i.e. whether telephone or in-person.

Note. Addresses matters of privacy of information, purpose for gathering information, interviewee exercising a right to withdraw at any stage of the interview and the addressing of sensitive issues.

2.2 Undertaking a pilot of the survey methodology.

Note. A pilot provides a basis for testing the survey on a small population where findings are used to amend or confirm matters such as the expression of the questions, sequence and layout of the survey.

2.3 Initiating a training program for surveyors.

Note. Brings all surveyors up to the same standard. 2.4 Undertaking a rigorous post survey review.

Note. An essential component of MILs quality assurance program.


Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

iii

3. For MIL to seek advice on the safe, long-term storage of electronically recorded Landholder Surveys.

Note. Enables at some future time for data to be re-analysed for management or research project purposes.

3.2 For MIL to consider within any future surveys the comments as recorded in the Survey Debrief (Annex Table 7)

Note. Debrief meeting made a number of comments on the content, structure and survey methodology of any future landholder surveys.


Skmmil Rpt 2009.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 LWMPs is in accordance with Heads of Agreement (HOA) signed by the community representatives, MIL and Murray Shire, as implementation authorities and the NSW Government. A codicil to the HOA of 21 February 2008 outlines changes from the Murray LWMP December 2006 review and associated budget adjustments proposed in June 2007.

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 (ID) 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 ID, 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 uptake. These changes have operated since the 1 October 2004 and confirmed in a codicil signed-off by the Murray CMA board in October 2007.

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


Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

2

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 2008/2009 Survey instrument was essentially the same as the 2006/2007 with some minor changes to reflect the February 2008 HOA codicil and in the wording of some questions arising from the 2008 debriefing meeting with surveyors.

1.3 REDESIGNED AUDITING FRAME

A revised audit frame was implemented in 2004/2005 to bring the auditing methodology into alignment with the substantially revised Landholder Survey.

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. Two changes were made to the auditing frame for the 2007/2008 survey so as to include two Denimein Plan targets - Vegetation to Reduce Salinity (DN2) and Deep Groundwater Pumping, Capital (D9). There are, as a result of the 2008 codicil a maximum of 56 audits undertaken per year in the updated audit frame. In Annex Table 6 a full listing of audits by in-kind targets is presented with a summary in Table 1.1. Table 1.1: Audits (Level 1 and 2), summary

Audits by levels 2004-2009 (number)

Berriquin Cadell Denimein Wakool Total

Level 1 9 12 12 5 38

Level 2 9 6 1 2 18

Total 18 18 13 7 56 Source: Toohey (2005) with amendments to the Denimein Plan to reflect the codicil to the HOA of 21 February 2008.


Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

3

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 review report of 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, i.e. number of holdings per Plan and holding size (hectares) 1

o Stratification on the boundaries 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 an area equal to or greater than 50 ha and with a water entitlement equal to or greater than 20 ML;

Cadell (Deniboota and East Cadell) – equal to or greater than 50 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.

In 2007 the Land and Water Management Plan Management Committee introduced two changes to the methodology for sampling holdings. The changes are:

1. All targets expressed in terms of Commercial holdings.

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 3 095 holdings– see column three, Table 2.2.


Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

4

2. A new definition of a Commercial holding as one with 50 irrigated hectares applied across LWMPs. The Mid-Term Review and the Survey Review Report (Toohey 2005) defined a Commercial holding as being equal to or greater than 50 hectares with a water entitlement of equal to or greater than 50 ML (Berriquin, Denimein and Wakool) and for Cadell, a holding equal to or greater than 50 hectares and irrigated.

Notwithstanding the new commercial holding definition the sampling frame developed in the Survey Review Report (Toohey 2005) has been retained for surveys conducted as from 2006/2007 with one change - increasing the minimum area of a holding to 50 ha (up from 10 ha). 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)

(Total)

Holdings (number)

(Total)

# Amalga-mated or Null1

Av. area (ha)

Qualifying Holding size (hectares)

50-100 100-200 200-300 300-500 500+ Total

Berriquin 341 540 1 467 0 231 114 316 411 196 94 1 131

Cadell 298 830 1 049 69 285 80 163 145 176 181 745

Denimein 53 894 194 0 278 11 28 19 34 25 117

Wakool 210 147 385 0 546 11 40 47 89 150 337

Total LWMPs

904 411 3 095 69 - 216 547 622 495 450 2 330

Source: Pers. comm. Danielle Ewington, Natural Resource & Policy Analyst, MIL 9 June 2009.

NOTE 1: # Amalgamated or Null data provided by Danielle Ewington June 2009 based on calculations from raw data file – this is those holdings listed with area of 0 ha and includes holdings that were listed as amalgamated (50 holdings) or null values, i.e. listed for deletion (19 holdings).

The definition that produces the largest number of holdings across the Murray LWMP region is ‘all holdings’, (Column three in Table 2.2) at 3 095 holdings. The definition that achieves the lowest number of holdings is ‘commercial’, (Column two in Table 2.3) at 1 996 holdings. Qualifying holdings - the one used for achieving the stratified sample - are in between with 2 330 holdings (Column 11 in Table 2.2).


Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

5

Table 2.3: Commercial holding numbers within Murray LWMPs

Plan Commercial Holdings (Number) 1

Commercial Holdings (Area Ha)

Berriquin 1 113 317 897

Cadell 424 203 362

Denimein 119 50 777

Wakool 340 206 831

Total LWMPs 1 996 778 867 Source: Pers. comm. Danielle Ewington, Natural Resource & Policy Analyst, MIL 9 June 2009.

NOTE 1: Holdings with 50 irrigated hectares.

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, where a qualifying holding was as per that defined in Section 2.1.

The target, as per Table 2.1: Landholder survey sampling by size stratum, is a sample of 169 holdings from within the four Plans. In 2008/2009, MIL was able to achieve these target number of holdings by size category and by Plan.

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. A composite of the 2008/2009 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 2008/2009 may be gleaned from Figure 2.1: 2008/2009 Holdings Surveyed.

The randomness of selecting holdings gives rise to questioning by some landholders. Across all four Plans, 6% of qualifying holdings are surveyed each year – total columns of Table 2.1 and Table 2.2 - however there is variability with Berriquin and Cadell at 5%; Denimein at 15% and Wakool at 8%. This variation arises from the adoption of a minimum sample size of 5 holdings per stratum which increases the overall number sampled in those Plans with fewer holdings, i.e. Denimein with 162 and Wakool with 360 holdings, (Toohey 2005).

The sampling methodology recognises that the randomly selected holding may not be surveyed for a variety of reasons. MIL recorded the number of second round selections of holdings by Plan with results presented in Table 2.4: Holdings second round selection - 2008/2009.

The number of holdings required to be selected in a second round was 35 (down from 42 in 2007/2008) or 21% to achieve a sample size of 169 holdings. Two findings emerge:

1. Landholders unable to be contacted. 12 (or 34% of the 35) of the second round of initially selected holdings were unable to be contacted. A possible reason is the increased number of landholders seeking off-farm employment or other business activity due to the droughts that takes them away their holding during the day.

2. Contact details not current. Maintenance of an up to-date database of contacts is a most challenging task. MIL has to work within its privacy policy and that of the Murray Shire Council for capturing East Cadell landholders. With the limited availability of incentives over the past two years there has been a lessening of leverage that MIL can apply within East Cadell for maintaining currency of contact details.


Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

6

Table 2.4: Holdings second round selection - 2008/2009

Reason for re-sampling Number of re-sampled landholdings

(2007/2008 Landholder Survey)

Berriquin Cadell Denimein Wakool

Unable to be contacted 4 (5) 5 (12) 2 (1) 1 (1)

Declined to be involved 1 (3) 4 (1) 1 (0) 0 (1)

On holidays/away 1 (1) 1 (1) 3 (0) 0 (0)

Other 0 (4) 8 (11) 4 (1) 0 (0)

Total number re-sampled 6 (13) 18 (25) 10 (2) 1 (2)

Figure 2.1: 2008/2009 Holdings Surveyed

Note: Red areas indicate Holdings included in Survey.


Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

7

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 2008/2009 Landholder Survey commenced on 18 August 2009.

The contracted auditors were provided with all of the Landholder Surveys, a printout detailing responses by holdings to the survey questions collated by survey theme and a second document, the Survey Report. The latter presents information at two levels, namely the aggregated survey data for each HOA item and their extrapolation to the area of the Plan.

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 number of audits of the 2008/2009 Landholder Survey was as per Annex Table 6: Auditing framework, in-kind works.

Auditing of Level one or ‘desk’ HOAs was undertaken over two days, commencing on 18 August 2008. The procedure was as follows.

1. Review the Microsoft Excel® reports for each auditable work. MIL after keying in all the Landholder Survey data produce two reports. One records for each Plan the level of activity for all the surveyed items. The second report is an extrapolation of data in the first report. Note: Method of extrapolation is the aggregated expenditure of the item divided by the ratio of the area of the surveyed holdings to that of the Plan area expressed as a percentage, e.g. Farm Planning – Cadell Plan survey of 48 holdings found an aggregated investment of $33 175 in planning. To establish the extrapolated investment across all holdings in the Cadell Plan, the ratio of surveyed holding’s area

2 The words Heads of Agreement (HOA) and targets have an identical meaning in this report.


Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

8

to that of the Plan is established. With the area of the 48 holdings being14 932 ha and the area of the Cadell Plan being 298 830 ha, the area ratio is 0.049969. Survey investment of $33 175 is divided by the area ratio - 0.049969 - which gives an extrapolated Cadell Plan Farm Planning investment of $663 913. The survey and extrapolated data are presented in Annex Table 4: MIL 2007/2008 Landholder Survey Report.

2. Randomly select, for each auditable work, the required number of holdings per Plan from a Microsoft Excel® query list. This list records all holdings that reported activity on the HOA.

3. Test the level of agreement between the works 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 25 to 27 August 2009 in the company of an MIL Officer.

Steps one to three as per Level One were completed in the office with steps four to five 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 MIL Officer was always able to provide quite detailed information on the property and of the work. Telephone / E-mail enquiries were necessary for one audit.

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 2008/2009 Landholder survey.

1. Transposing errors.

One detected.

Holding C490, incomplete recording of O&M of native vegetation. Desk audit found the amount spent on O&M of native vegetation was $6 500.00 with $1 500 on chemicals not recorded in the Survey report.

The high level of accuracy is being maintained with none detected in 2007/2008 and in 2006/2007 with one detected in 2005/2006.


Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

9

2. Desk and Field audit findings.

Holding E276, an adjustment of land uses. Field survey noted the presence of an airstrip on the holding of an area of 12 ha with holding’s infrastructure increased. As a consequence adjustments made to area of winter crops (Q1.2); area laid out to irrigation (Q2.1) potential irrigated area irrigated with recycled water (Q3.5); and area landformed (Q4.1a).

Holding E453, an omission of a shallow bore. At Field audit landholder informed of a spear point system (shallow bore) but no pumping had taken place during the year (Q8.1).

Holding E215, incorrect claim of volume pumped from shallow bore. At Field audit landholder informed of providing the entitlement volume not the volume pumped. Adjusted Q8.2 from 225 ML to 180 ML. Holding C239 B, an omission of O&M on recycling system. Field audit interview with landholder found an amount of $520.00 had not been accounted for in O&M of recycling system (Q3.9). Holding D021 D, several incorrect claims and consequent adjustments. Field audit and communications with business principals and contractors found as follows:

• Overstatement of farm planning. Reduced from $50 000 to $12 000. (Q2.6).

• Incorrect claim for irrigation recycling system. The holding does not have such a system (Q3.1) resulting in removal of claim of their being a 90 ML storage. Farm plan includes the building of a storage.

• Incorrect claim for construction of recycling system. Full removal of claim of $460 000 as system does not exist but farm plan provides for one to be installed. (Q3.7).

• Incorrect claim for construction of storage. Full removal of claim for $90 000 as storage does not exist but farm plan provides for one to be installed. (Q3.8).

• Overstatement of area landformed. Landformed area on holding reduced from 343 ha to 301 ha. (Q4.1a)

• Overstatement of dryland area landformed. Area not previously irrigated but landformed in 2008/2009, reduced from 83 ha to 34 ha. (Q4.2).

• Understatement of area of pressurised irrigation. Area increased from 125 ha to 146 ha. (Q4.6).

• Incorrect claim for EM31 surveying. No surveying was undertaken in 2008/2009 but farm plan provides for this form of survey. (Q4.8). Note not a HOA item.

• Incorrect claim for native vegetation. O&M of native vegetation was not undertaken on the holding but may have on another.

Holding C041, an incorrect claim for recycling system. At field audit found O&M of system had been overstated which the landholder on reflection was in agreement. Adjusted expenditure from $5 000.00 to $3 000.00. (Q3.9). Holding M055, an adjustment to pasture management. Disallowed pasture management technique as holding on the grounds of their being only newly established pastures on the holding. (Q6.4). 3. Calculation errors.

No calculation errors were detected.


Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

10

3.3 DISCUSSION

For the 2008/2009 Survey extensive usage was made of telephone interviews with landholders, notably in the Cadell Plan. The telephone is increasingly being used in marketing and survey research where it is especially popular form of interview for qualitative research. The Landholder Survey, as constructed, seeks to gather physical and financial data, hence it is quantitative research tool.

Telephone interviewing has logistical advantages and disadvantages, e.g. obviates the necessity for travel. Telephone-based interviews like in-person ones, are subject to constraints as to what can reasonably be asked of the interviewee in terms of specifics within an acceptable period of time. For these reasons the method of survey - telephone or in-person - has a substantial bearing upon the phrasing of questions. Survey questions can range from:

• a simple yes/no,

• to that of interviewee expressing a preference for one statement within a collection (Five-level Likert: Strongly disagree, Disagree, Neither agree nor disagree, Agree or Strongly agree) or

• capturing physical and financial data as occurs with the present Survey.

The Survey form has been constructed for in-person interviews which are underpinned by the surveyor training program and the survey’s protocol. The training program acknowledges that it is not always possible to conduct the interview in-person. From experience, telephone interviewing is a last resort technique for use by experienced surveyors who have considerable prior knowledge of the property and of the landholder.

It can be conclusively stated from this year’s survey there are limits to the use of the survey instrument in its present form for conducting telephone interviews.

It is problematic whether an in-person interview would have avoided all the errors that arose from telephone interviews which peaked with the survey of Holding D021 D. Had this survey being conducted on the property the most glaring one - there wasn’t a storage dam - would have been confirmed as the interviewer undertook checks as to where it was located.

For future surveys there needs to be careful consideration of the information being sought - is it qualitative or quantitative - and on the survey method where each method’s advantages and disadvantages are assessed.

3.4 RECOMMENDATIONS

Several recommendations arise from the preceding discussion.

1. Establish very clearly the objectives of future surveys of landholders by considering:

1.1 Who are the users of the information and what are they seeking

1.2 What level of accuracy is required of the information collected, e.g. sample size and survey methodology

1.3 What are the trade-offs between accuracy of information and costs - to the landholder and to MIL

Note. These are basic questions to be addressed should MIL seek to continue the conduct of an annual survey or for that matter any repeatable survey of landholders.


Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

11

2. Institute a survey interview protocol that addresses the following: 2.1. A protocol for the method of surveying, i.e. whether telephone or in-person.

Note. Addresses matters of privacy of information, purpose for gathering information, interviewee exercising a right to withdraw at any stage of the interview and the addressing of sensitive issues.

2.2. Undertaking a pilot of the survey methodology. Note. A pilot provides a basis for testing the survey on a small population where findings are used to amend or confirm matters such as the expression of the questions, sequence and layout of the survey.

2.3. Initiating a training program for surveyors. Note. Brings all surveyors up to the same standard.

2.4. Undertaking a rigorous post survey review. Note. An essential component of MILs quality assurance program.


Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

12

4 MIL REPORTING OF LANDHOLDER ACTIVITIES

As in previous years, MIL has extrapolated the Survey findings from Qualifying holdings on the basis of All holdings within each Plan. The results of actual survey and extrapolations for each Plan are presented in summary form within Table 4.2: 2008/2009 Summary - Land and Water Management; Farm (In kind) contributions. This table reflects a post audit situation following rectification of the findings from the desk and field audits.

MIL continues to apply benchmark values for a number of items of expenditure that are revised every second year. These values were revised for the 2007/2008 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 $35.72 million ($23.32 million in 2007/2008) in LWMP activities during 2008/2009. This improved level of investment due to conversion of 146 ha to pressurised irrigation of a previously flood irrigated area in the Cadell Plan - the only plan with this target. Whilst there have been many such conversions across the Murray LWMP area this was the first time a conversion was captured in a random sample drawn from within the Cadell Plan. The extrapolated value of this one target is $13 148 million or 27% of all landholders’ investment in 2008/2009.

During this decade irrigation allocations have ventured into historically low numbers as exampled by 9% in 2008/2009, zero allocations in 2007/2008 and 2006/2007 and 8% in 2002/2003, for MIL customers. These allocations are history making as the historical long-term average for the NSW Murray General Security water entitlement is 76% (100% of allocation, 76 years in 100), (Pisasale, 2001).

The allocations for MIL customers for the years 2005/2006 through to 2008/2009 appear in Figure 4.1: Regional extrapolated landholder contributions, 2005 – 2008 along with regionally extrapolated landholder in-kind contributions across the Murray LWMP area. By plotting allocations against landholder contributions one quickly sees the economic impact upon landholders and the implications this has on their capacity to invest in the Plans.

Findings from Figure 4.1, Figure 4.2 and Figure 4.3 are:

• Landholder investments have held up very well. The investment of $35.72 million is a most inspiring figure in a year of 9% water allocation given an investment of $46 million took place in 2005/2006 when water allocations were 56%. Investments appear to have bottomed-out with the last two years. (Figure 4.1).

• Landforming activity trending downwards. With few exceptions any landforming is now associated with improving existing layouts. Landforming as a percentage of total landholder investment has declined to 14% (Table 4.2) whereas in 2005/2006 it represented 37% of $46.10 million. The rate of decline in landforming is lineal over the years 2005/2006 through to 2008/2009. (Figure 4.2).

• Farm planning activity beyond that which attracts incentives is minimal. For the past two years Cadell landholders undertook planning. In 2008/2009, four landholders undertook farm planning in Cadell with one in Wakool. Non-incentive farm planning in


Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

13

Berriquin and Denimein ceased in 2007/2008. See additional comments on planning in relation to Table 4.1. (Figure 4.3).

The leading activity for the first time was Irrigation Development – Conversion of flood irrigation to pressurised (Cadell Plan only target) – representing $13.2 million or 37% of the $35.72 million invested in 2008/2009. Other leading activities were improving irrigation layouts representing $7.36 million or 21% (55% in 2007/2008) of total investment. Introducing perennials into pastures is the next highest area of investment of $3.48 million ($3.7 million in 2007/2008) or 10%. (Table 4.2).

Some leading indicators of the workings of the Plans are provided in Table 4.1: Selected performance of HOAs, 2008/2009 and 2007/2008 where comparisons of performance undertaken of identical HOAs over the two most recent years, i.e. 2008/2009 and 2007/2008 with these results:

o Farm planning activity has peaked. In Berriquin 52 or 76% of surveys (68 in total) have a plan; Cadell 20 or 42% (48 surveys); Denimein 23 or 92% (25 surveys); and Wakool 22 or 79% (28 surveys).

o Farm planning insignificant this period. In Cadell, 4 or 8% reported undertaking some level of farm planning (48 surveys in total) however three of the four informed planning was to ‘commence a plan’ when they already had a surveyor designed plan. Again these inconsistencies in responses are attributed to telephone-based surveying (See discussion in Section 3.3). For Wakool there were 2 reports of planning but associated with making changes to an existing plan. In Berriquin and in Denimein there was no planning undertaken.

o Irrigation layout improvement (Paddock Improvements). Activity in 2008/2009 fell sharply over that of 2007/2008 in Cadell and Wakool whereas activity in Berriquin and Denimein was similar. Low farm cash levels arising from low water allocations are the likely cause as dairy farmers with much better cash flows feature in investments in paddock improvements.

o Irrigation development (Flood to pressurised system). The Cadell Plan has a target for measuring the area of flood irrigation converted to pressurised systems. In the other Plans an identical question is asked in the Landholder Survey however it is non-target item in these plans. The first recording of activity in this target occurred in 2008/2009 with 146 ha converted to a pressurised system – a lateral move on a Cadell holding.

o Introduction of perennials into pastures. Sowing of perennial pastures species also fell away sharply most notably in Cadell: 8% of surveys compared to 65% of surveys in 2007/2008.


Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

14

Figure 4.1: Landholder contributions, regional extrapolated, 2005 - 2009

Regional Extrapolation Murray LWMPs ($)

$46,070,266

$35,719,520$33,340,761

$23,322,868

56.0%

0.0%

0.0%

9.00%

$0

$5,000,000

$10,000,000

$15,000,000

$20,000,000

$25,000,000

$30,000,000

$35,000,000

$40,000,000

$45,000,000

$50,000,000

2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009

Expe

ndit

ure

Aus

$

-10.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

Wat

er

Allo

cati

on %

TOTAL MIL water allocations (end of season) (%)

Figure 4.2: Landforming, regionally extrapolated, 2005 - 2009

Landforming - Regional extrapolations, Murray LWMPs ($)

$16,995,258

$12,089,990

$9,298,187

$5,044,371

R2 = 0.9901

0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

14,000,000

16,000,000

18,000,000

2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009

Aus $ Landforming

Linear (Landforming)


Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

15

Figure 4.3: Farm planning, regionally extrapolated, 2005 - 2009

Farm planning - regional extrapolations, Murray LWMPs ($)

$438,002

$505,793

$864,275

$809,116R2 = 0.7912

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

1,000,000

2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009

Aus $

Table 4.1: Selected performance of HOAs, 2008/2009 and 2007/2008

Plan Head of Agreement

(% Landholder Surveys)

Farm planning undertaken

Paddock improvements undertaken

Perennials in pastures sown

08/09 07/08 08/09 07/08 08/09 07/08

Berriquin 68 surveys 0 0 7 7 2 10

Cadell 48 surveys 4 4 2 10 4 31

Denimein 25 surveys 0 0 3 4 3 8

Wakool 28 surveys 1 0 1 11 n.a.

Source: Landholder Surveys, 2007/2008 and 2008/2009.

The Farm Planning for 2007/2008 as presented in Figure 4.3 reflects activity within the Cadell and Wakool Plan’s. Note that farm planning in both Figure 4.3 and in Table 4.1 reflects responses to the question: ‘Did you undertake farm planning activities in 2008/2009 and have not and do not intend to access LWMP incentive?’


Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

16

Table 4.2: 2008/2009 Summary - Land and Water Management; Farm (In kind) contributions Regional

extrapolationItem Survey No. Extrapolated Survey No. Extrapolated Survey No. Extrapolated Survey No. Extrapolated Total

($) Unit ($) ($) Unit ($) ($) Unit ($) Unit ($) ($)

Farm planning 0 $33,175 $663,913.24 0 0 $8,400.00 $145,203.16 $809,116

Vegetation Native O & M $8,945 $167,184 $47,570 $1,039,603 $3,580 $20,594 $3,290 $56,871 $1,284,252

Vegetation to reduce salinity $1,500 2 $8,629 $8,629

Irrigation layout Landforming $77,406 97 $1,446,737 $165,984 208 $3,321,748 $15,960 20 $275,886 $5,044,371

Paddock improv. $58,820 $1,099,360 $2,000 $40,025 $29,670 $170,673 $50,000 $864,305 $2,174,363

Channel maint. $6,820 $136,485 $136,485

Irrig. Recycle/storage Irrig. recycle const. $48,500 $906,477 $90,000 $1,801,121 $35,100 $606,742 $3,314,340

Irrig. storage const. $11,500 $214,938 $75,000 $1,500,934 $10,500 $181,504 $1,897,376

Irrig. recycle O & M $10,515 $196,528 $29,220 $584,764 $5,500 $31,638 $19,920 $344,339 $1,157,269

Groundwater Shallow O & M $87,167 830 $1,629,175 $1,248 104 $7,179 $1,636,354

Deep O & M $76,000 950 $437,180 $437,180

Deep bore install/upgrade

Pastures Perennial. Irrig. $81,840 220 $1,529,610 $9,817 135 $1,005,026 $7,440 20 $42,798 $2,577,433

Perennial Dry $32,550 310 $608,368 $251 104 $218,536 $12,600 120 $72,480 $899,384

Con. farming $59,702 5,970 $1,194,784 $1,194,784

Irrig. Development $657,000 146 $13,148,184 $13,148,184

TOTAL $7,798,378 $11,506,938 $791,170 $2,474,850 $35,719,520

Landholder Survey estimate ($)

Notes. Regional multipliers are on area of all holdings basis (percent).

Berriquin Cadell Denimein Wakool

Source: Annex Table 4.


Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

17

5 FUTURE DIRECTIONS

This was the final year of the Landholder Survey for the Murray Land and Water Management Plans which commenced in 1995. Over this 14 year period the Survey instrument has undergone some significant changes with the most notable being:

• 1995/1996 through to 1997/1998 a sub-sample of the landholder population was surveyed.

• 1998 review of the 1995 survey methodology by Drs Crase and Jackson of La Trobe University Campus Wodonga (Crase and Jackson, 1998) recommended:

o Sample size of 320 holdings

o Stratification on the basis of the four former government-administered irrigation areas; and

o Extra stratification on holding size and enterprise type.

• 1998/1999 through to 2003/2004 surveys applied the recommendations of Crase and Jackson.

• 2000/2001 the introduction of questions on management of native vegetation.

• 2005 review of the survey form and of the sample frame, (Toohey, 2005) and the adoption of its key recommendations in time for the 2004/2005 survey. From 2004/2005 sample population reduced to 169 surveys with each Plan having its own survey form.

• 2007/2008 onwards the introduction of the February 2008 HOA codicil.

There are two stand-out features of these annual surveys.

1. A large volume of data. Annual surveys have generated a lot of data driven by the number of questions and holdings surveyed. The following illustrates the volume of data:

Parameter 1999/2000 2003/2004

Questionnaire size 8, A4 pages; 1, A3 pages

9, A4 pages; 2, A3 pages

Number of questions

152 177

Number of question themes

14 17

Source: Toohey, 2005.

2. Storage of data. Data is held in two forms: paper (original surveys) and electronic. The paper copies of each survey have been archived by MIL. For all the years except 2008/2009 it is understood the data is stored in the Microsoft Access® program on MILs computer system. This year’s data is on Microsoft Excel®. Over these years MIL has upgraded its versions of Access as they were released, however anecdotal information is that Access is not a common desktop program in use within MIL. This raises concerns as to it being a safe, long-term storage application for MIL especially given external expertise has had to be sought to undertake periodic programming changes to the Access files in response to changes in the survey questions.


Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

18

5.1 RECOMMENDATIONS

1. For MIL to seek advice on the safe long-term storage of electronically recorded Landholder Surveys.

Note. Enables at some future time for data to be re-analysed for management or research project purposes.

2. For MIL to consider within any future surveys the comments as recorded in the Survey Debrief. (Annex Table 7).

Note. Debrief meeting made a number of comments on the content, structure and survey methodology of any future landholder surveys.


Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

19

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.

Pisasale, M., Varley, Nicole and McLeod, Jenny. (2001). Profile of the NSW Murray Irrigated Area. Murray Regional Development Board and Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Albury. December.

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 2008/2009 Landholder survey ....................................... 20

Annex Table 2: Alphanumeric coding of On-Farm Targets by Plans ...................................... 36

Annex Table 3: Landholder survey – composite ..................................................................... 37

Annex Table 4: MIL 2008/2009 Landholder Survey Report .................................................... 51

Annex Table 5: Landholder Survey Benchmark values (GST Exclusive) ............................... 62

Annex Table 6: Auditing framework, in-kind works ................................................................. 63

Annex Table 7: 2009 Annual Survey Interview debrief ........................................................... 64


Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

20

Annex Table 1: Audit of HOA works 2008/2009 Landholder survey

Plan H.O.A. Item

Works Audit level Comments

Berriquin B 1 Farm Planning Level 1 (desk) 0 entries

Berriquin B2 Irrigation recycling and storage

Level 2 (on-farm) 3 entries - recycling; 1 entries – storage; and 14 entries – O&M irrigation recycling system

a) Property E280. (324 ha holding with principal land use of mixed enterprises with rice). 277 ha laid out to irrigation of which all landformed. 13.8 ML storage; 100% of holding’s irrigated area drained with 90% of irrigated area capable of receiving recycled water. Irrigation recycling system construct - $3 500.00 (Materials $2 500.00; Own time $1 000.00). System has been in place for many years. A pipe laid to achieve a connection between the north and southern areas of the holding.

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk level, of recording of irrigation recycling.

b) Property E112 A. (106 ha holding with principal land use of mixed enterprises with

livestock). 94 ha laid out to irrigation with 90 ha landformed. 17 ML storage; 100% of holding drained with 69% of irrigated area capable of receiving recycled water. Irrigation recycling system maintenance - $140.00 (Materials $100.00; Own time $40.00). Dam and recycling pump in existence for several years. Property changed ownership in last few years with new owner reconfiguring layout to reduce labour and improve efficiency of application of water.

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk level, of recording of irrigation recycling. Verified correctness, at on-farm level, of recording of $140.00 on irrigation recycling.

c) Property E276. (257 ha holding with principal land uses of mixed enterprises with

rice). 227 ha laid out to irrigation with 232 ha landformed. 15 ML storage; 100% of holding drained with 57% of irrigated area capable of receiving recycled water. Irrigation recycling system maintenance - $1 500.00 (Materials $1 300.00; Own time $200.00). Holding has a fully developed farm plan with an integrated drainage water recycle system with deferment of installing fixed pumping station pending a change in irrigation allocations. Overall system is well maintained - weed spraying. Field audit adjustment to land uses by recording an additional 12 ha as infrastructure - air strip - with consequential adjustments to winter crop area, area laid out to irrigation.


Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

21

Plan H.O.A. Item


Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk level, of recording of irrigation recycling. Verified correctness, at on-farm level, of recording of $1 500.00 on irrigation recycling

d) Property E435 A. (98 ha holding with principal land use of mixed enterprises with

livestock). 91 ha laid out to irrigation with 22 ha landformed. 1 ML sump; 73% of holding drained with 24% of irrigated area capable of receiving recycled water. Irrigation recycling system maintenance - $250.00 (Contractors $250.00). Weeds sprayed in channels. Major redevelopment of holding’s irrigation infrastructure is on hold pending a change in irrigation allocations.

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk level, of recording of irrigation recycling maintenance. Verified correctness, at on-farm level, of recording of $250.00 on irrigation recycling.

Comments All four holdings reflect the strong commitment to optimising their irrigation management through having recycling systems. Minimal usage of recycling systems under low to zero water allocations since 2006 coupled with well below average rainfall has reduced maintenance expenditure to low levels. Notwithstanding these issues, landholders express strongly the importance of having a system that is of a size which matches the holding’s irrigated area.


Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

22

Plan H.O.A.

Item Works Audit level Comments

Berriquin B6 Irrigation development Level 2 (on-farm) 3 entries - landforming; 7 entries - paddock improvements

a) Property E453. (215 ha holding with principal land use of mixed enterprises). 95 ha laid out to irrigation of which all landformed. Landforming – 24 ha in 2008/2009 with 15% slope created in border check bays. Area soil tested with EM 38. Paddock sown to oats and Shaftal clover. A field audit found the holding has a shallow bore - spear point - which was not used in 2008/2009.

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk level, of recording of landforming. Verified correctness, at on-farm level, of undertaking 24 ha of landforming.

b) Property E215. (172 ha holding with principal land use of dairying). 111 ha laid out to

irrigation with 55 ha landformed. Paddock improvements – $2 280.00 (Contractors $125.00; Structures - bay outlets $2 000.00; Own $80.00; Fuel $75.00). Six outlets installed in paddock growing wheat as fodder crop. A field audit found volume pumped from shallow bore was 180 ML not 225 ML, which is the holding’s entitlement.

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk level, of recording of landforming. Verified correctness, at on-farm level, $2 280.00 of paddock improvements.

c) Property E305. (392 ha holding with principal land use of mixed enterprises with rice).

335 ha laid out to irrigation of which all landformed. Paddock improvements - $1 520.00 (Contractors $500.00; Structures - bay outlets $900.00; Own $120.00). Three outlets installed in a paddock previously landformed.

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk level, of recording of landforming. Verified correctness, at on-farm level, of $1 520.00 of paddock improvements.

d) Property E450. (402 ha holding with principal land use of dairying). 329 ha laid out to

irrigation of which all landformed with 62 ha in 2008/2009. Paddock improvements - $26 000.00 (Contractors $2 000.00; Bay outlets $24 000.00). 20, 1.8 metre wide outlets installed within 20 bays of around 50 metre width and 400 metres in length. A weakness is the small on-farm storage but a larger is planned.

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk level, of recording of improved irrigation layout. Verified correctness, at on-farm level, of $26 000.00 of paddock improvements.


Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

23

Plan H.O.A. Item


e) Property Q556 B. (307 ha holding with principal land use of horticulture - potatoes and

mixed enterprises with rice). 125 ha laid out to irrigation with 40 ha landformed. Paddock improvements - $7 360.00 (Contractors $800.00; Own time $160.00; Structures $6 400.00). 40 ha re-landformed with changed slopes to accommodate border check layout in lieu of rice bays. 20 bay outlets installed into a freshly constructed supply channel.

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk level, of recording of paddock improvements. Verified correctness, at on-farm level, of $7 360.00 of paddock improvements.

Comments All five holdings have implemented landforming / paddock improvements in accordance with a farm plan. Each holding has an on-farm storage used in conjunction with recycling system. Trend to installing larger bay outlets apparent as landholders seek to achieve gains from raising water application efficiency.

Berriquin B7 Pastures Level 1 (desk) 2 entries

a) Property E371 A. (120 ha holding with principal land use of dairying). 60 ha laid out to irrigation with 40 ha landformed. Perennial species seeded into 20 ha, irrigated pasture at 4 kg/ha.

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk level, of recording of 20 ha of irrigated perennial pasture sowing.

b) Property E797. (2 182 ha holding with principal land use of mixed enterprises and

livestock). 520 ha laid out to irrigation with 425 ha landformed. Perennial species seeded into 200 ha, irrigated pasture at 2 kg/ha and 300 ha, dryland pasture at 2 kg/ha.

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk level, of recording of 200 ha of irrigated perennial pasture sowing and 300 ha dryland pasture sowing.

Comments Both properties information correctly recorded in the Survey Report.


Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

24

Plan H.O.A. Item


Berriquin B3 Native vegetation Level 1 (desk audit) 6 entries

a) Property E215. (172 ha holding with principal land use of dairying). 111 ha laid out to irrigation with 55 ha landformed. 6 ha native vegetation. O&M native vegetation -$355.00 (Own time $160.00; Materials $195.00).

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk level, of recording of $355.00 on O&M of native vegetation.

b) Property E749. (380 ha holding with principal land use of mixed enterprises with rice).

250 ha laid out to irrigation of which all landformed. 40 ha native vegetation. O&M native vegetation - $500.00 (Own time $25.00; Chemicals $250.00).



Berriquin B8 Groundwater pumping Level 1 (desk audit) 5 entries

a) Property E171. (227 ha holding with principal land use of mixed enterprises with rice). 166 ha laid out to irrigation with 36 ha landformed. 174 ha winter crops and 28 ha irrigated pastures. O&M Groundwater - 250 ML pumped from shallow bore.

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk level, of recording of 250 ML pumped from shallow bore.

b) Property E172 J. (274 ha holding with principal land use of mixed enterprise with

rice). 60 ha laid out to irrigation with 40 ha landformed. 233 ha winter crops. O&M Groundwater - 40 ML pumped from shallow bore.




Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

25

Plan H.O.A. Item


Cadell C2 Farm Planning Level 1 (desk) 4 entries

a) Property C843. (70 ha holding with principal land use of mixed enterprises with livestock). No irrigation. Planning in 2008/2009 of $1 800.00 (Surveyor, $1 800.00) for part of farm.

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk level, of recording of $1 800.00 on farm planning.

b) Property D103. (143 ha holding with principal land use of mixed enterprises with

livestock). 20 ha laid out to irrigation with none landformed. Planning in 2008/2009 of $18 600.00 (Surveyor $17 000.00; Soil drilling $1 600.00) to commence planning of the farm.

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk level, of recording of $18 6000.00 on farm planning.

Comments Both properties information correctly recorded in Survey Report.

Cadell C3 Irrigation recycling and storage

Level 2 (on-farm) 2 entries – recycling construct; 2 entries - storage construct and 8 entries – O&M irrigation recycling system

a) Property C524. (312 ha holding with principal land use of mixed enterprises with livestock). 50 ha laid out to irrigation of which all landformed. 100 ha winter crops. Sump of 3 ML + 12 ML storage; 50 ha of holding drained with 50 ha of irrigated area capable of receiving recycled water. Irrigation recycling system maintenance - $300.00 (Materials $300.00). Visually, a well-planned and maintained system.

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk level, of maintenance of recycling system. Verified correctness, at on-farm level, of recording of $300.00 on maintenance of recycling system.

b) Property D021 E. (965 ha holding with principal land use of mixed enterprises with

livestock). 343 ha laid out to irrigation of which all landformed. 80 ha winter crops. Sump of 50 ML + 200 ML storage; 400 ha of holding drained with 343 ha of irrigated area capable of receiving recycled water. Irrigation recycling system maintenance - $1 000.00 (Fuel $1 000.00). Property has a bore - 10 ML/day. Visually, a well-planned and maintained system for recycling water from three sources: MIL channel, bore and Wakool River.


Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

26

Plan H.O.A. Item


Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk level, of maintenance of recycling system. Verified correctness, at on-farm level, of recording of $1 000.00 on maintenance of recycling system.

Comments Zero, effectively, allocations have meant that groundwater is the principal water source generating activity within drainage water recycling systems.

Cadell C11 Supply channel maintenance

Level 2 (on-farm) 7 entries

a) Property C239 B. (202 ha holding with principal land use of mixed enterprises with livestock). 100 ha laid out to irrigation with 45 ha landformed. Sump 50 ML + 84 ML storage; 150 ha of holding drained with 100 ha of irrigated area capable of receiving recycled water. Maintaining supply channel - $2 520 (Contractors $1 120.00; Own time $400.00; Chemicals $1 000.00). Channel bed maintained with excavator removing silt and sand. Storage used for harvesting rains of January 2008 with stored water subsequently used for irrigating lucerne in 2008/2009. Contractors restored channel following development of ‘sink holes’.

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk level, of recording of maintenance of supply channels. Verified correctness, at on-farm level, of recording of $2 520.00 on channel maintenance. Found at field audit under recording of expenditure on O&M of recycling system amounting to $520.00.

b) Property C654. (130 ha holding with principal land use of mixed enterprises and

livestock). 40 ha laid out to irrigation of which all landformed. 53 ha winter crops. Maintaining supply channel - $1 000.00 (Chemicals $500.00; Own time $500.00). Storage on adjoining holding.

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk level, of recording of maintenance of supply channels. Verified correctness, at farm level, of recording of $1 000.00 on channel maintenance.

Comments Channel maintenance activity remains very low due to near zero water allocations.


Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

27

Plan H.O.A. Item


Cadell C9 Irrigation development Level 2 (on-farm) 1 entry - landforming; 2 entries - paddock improvements

a) Property D021 D. (343 ha holding with principal land use of mixed enterprises with no rice). Audit adjusted area laid out to irrigation - down from 343 ha to 301 ha - to reflect previously unaccounted for 8 ha native vegetation and 34 ha infrastructure. 208 ha of 301 ha of irrigated land landformed in 2008/2009 Landforming – 208 ha in 2008/2009.

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk level, of recording of landforming with an adjustment to area of irrigation. Verified correctness, at on-farm level, of undertaking 208 ha of landforming.

b) Property C041. (574 ha holding with principal land use of mixed enterprises and

livestock). 160 ha laid out to irrigation of which all landforming. Paddock improvements – $1 000.00 (Own time $1 000.00). Prior to sowing a paddock to irrigated wheat inserted bay outlets removed at an earlier time from elsewhere on the holding. At field audit reduced O&M on irrigation recycling system to $3 000.00 with landholder’s agreement by deleting $2 000.00 on materials/equipment.

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk level, of recording of paddock improvements. Verified correctness, at on-farm level, of $1 000.00 on paddock improvements.

Comments Both properties irrigation development information correctly recorded in Survey Report. An adjustment made to irrigation recycling expenditure.

Cadell CN2 Irrigation conversion Level 2 (on-farm) 1 entry

a) Property D021 D. (343 ha holding with principal land use of mixed enterprises with no rice). 301 ha laid out to irrigation with 208 ha landformed. Convert from flood irrigation – 125 ha claimed as having being converted with field audit and subsequent discussions with landholder agreeing area converted was 146 ha to accommodate a lateral move irrigator. Several other changes made arising from field audit: Farm planning reduced to $12 000 - down from $50 000; On-farm storage claim of 90 ML disallowed as storage has yet to be constructed; Construction of irrigation recycling system claim of $460 000 disallowed as system as yet to be constructed; Storage claim of $90 000 disallowed for same reason; EM 31 surveying claim of 208 ha disallowed as has yet to be undertaken; and O&M claim of $15 000 on native vegetation disallowed as vegetation on another holding.


Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

28

Plan H.O.A. Item


Audit findings. Verified as incorrect, at desk level, conversion from flood irrigation. Verified as incorrect, at on-farm level, conversion claim and disallowed a number of other claims.

Cadell C8 Irrigation scheduling Level 1

(desk) 7 entries

a) Property C274. (411 ha holding with principal land uses of mixed enterprises with livestock). 320 ha laid out to irrigation with 170 ha landformed. Landholder used external evaporation data for scheduling of 25 ha irrigated pastures.

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk level, of recording of scheduling of irrigations.

Cadell C7 and

C10 Farming system Level 1

(desk) 33 entries – conservation farming 9 entries – break cropping

a) Property D026 A (363 ha holding with principal land uses of mixed enterprises with livestock). 80 ha laid out to irrigation with none landformed. Crop establishment - Direct drilled 117 ha winter crop in 2008/2009 into crop stubble.

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk level, of recording of conservation farming practices.

b) Property C396 (390 ha holding with principal land uses of mixed enterprises with

livestock). 120 ha laid out to irrigation with 20 ha landformed. 170 ha winter crops. Stubble management - summer crop stubble grazed and baled.

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk level, of recording of stubble management practices.

Comments

Both properties information correctly recorded in Survey Report. Cadell C5 Pastures Level 1

(desk) 4 entries

a) Property C239 B. (202 ha holding with principal land uses of mixed enterprises with livestock). 100 ha laid out to irrigation with 45 ha landformed. Pasture establishment - 15 ha perennial species seeded into dryland pasture at 4 kg/ha.

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk level, of recording of 15 ha of dryland perennial pasture sowing.

b) Property D086 B. (652 ha holding with principal land uses of mixed enterprises with

rice). 110 ha laid out to irrigation of which all landformed. Pasture establishment - 24 ha perennial species seeded into dryland pasture at 2.5 kg/ha.


Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

29

Plan H.O.A. Item


Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk level, of recording of 24 ha of dryland perennial pasture sowing.

c) Property D279. (590 ha holding with principal land uses of mixed enterprises with

rice). 200 ha laid out to irrigation of which all landformed. Pasture establishment - 120 ha perennial species seeded into irrigated pasture at 6 kg/ha.


Comments All three properties information correctly recorded in Survey Report.

Cadell C4 Native vegetation Level 1 (desk audit) 15 entries

a) Property C490. 63 ha holding with principal land uses of grazing). No irrigation. 62 ha native vegetation. O&M on native vegetation - $6 500.00 (Own time $5 000.00; Chemicals $1 500.00).

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk level, of recording of $6 500.00 on O&M of native vegetation.

b) Property C553. (821 ha holding with principal land uses of mixed enterprises with

livestock). 130 ha laid out to irrigation of which all landformed. 24 ha native vegetation. O&M on native vegetation - $50.00 (Chemicals $50.00).


Comments Both properties expenditure information correctly recorded in the Survey Report.


Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

30

Plan H.O.A. Item


Denimein D1 Farm Planning Level 1 (desk audit) 0 entries

Denimein D2 Irrigation recycling and storage

Level 2 * (on-farm) 0 entries – recycling construct; 0 entries – storage; and 6 entries – O&M irrigation recycling system. * Note: Field auditing every second year. In 2007/2008 for O&M recycling system.

a) Property M064 A. (438 ha holding with principal land uses of mixed enterprise with rice). 168 ha laid out to irrigation of which all landformed. 12 ML sump + 99 ML storage; 90% of holding drained with 100% of irrigated area capable of receiving recycled water. Irrigation recycling system maintenance – $600.00 (Fuel $200.00; Own time $200.00; Chemicals $200.00). At field audit, all drains and channels were clean and ready to function.


Comments Property’s information correctly recorded in the Survey Report.


Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

31

Plan H.O.A.

Item Works Audit level Comments

Denimein D8 Irrigation development Level 2 * (on-farm) 0 entries - landforming; 3 entry - paddock improvements * Note: Field auditing every second year. In 2007/2008 for O&M recycling system.

a) Property M051 A. (777 ha holding with principal land uses of mixed enterprises with rice). 545 ha laid out to irrigation of which all landformed. Paddock improvements – $19 670.00 (Contractors $550.00; Own time $3 200.00; Fuel $4 000.00; Structures $11 920.00). Through-the-bank bay outlets inserted to enhance watering of irrigated and landformed pasture paddock with border check bays of a slope of 0.8% and a length of 430 metres.

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk level, of recording of paddock improvements. Verified correctness, at on-farm level, of recording of $19 670.00 on paddock improvements.


Denimein D4 Pastures Level 1 (desk) 3 entries

a) Property M036 C. (264 ha holding with principal land uses of mixed enterprises with no rice). 200 ha laid out to irrigation of which all landformed. 80 ha of perennial species seeded into dryland annual pasture at rate of 6 kg/ha.


b) Property M055. (955 ha holding with principal land uses of mixed enterprises with

livestock). 325 ha laid out to irrigation with 270 ha landformed. Pasture establishment - 40 ha perennial species seeded into irrigated pastures at 6 kg/ha. Pasture management - Rotational spelling.

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk level, of recording of 40 ha of irrigated perennial pasture sowing. Disallowed pasture management technique as the newly sown pasture was the only perennial pasture paddock on the holding.

Comments Both properties pasture sowing information correctly recorded in the Survey Report with an adjustment made to pasture management.


Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

32

Plan H.O.A. Item


Denimein D3 Native vegetation Level 1 (desk audit) 5 entries

a) Property M018 B. (50 ha holding with principal land uses of mixed enterprises with livestock). 46 ha laid out to irrigation of which all landformed. 4.3 ha native vegetation. O&M native vegetation - $900.00 (Own $800.00; Chemicals $100.00).


b) Property M032 Q. (255 ha holding with principal land uses of mixed enterprises with

livestock). 175 ha laid out to irrigation with 113 ha landformed. 42 ha native vegetation. O&M native vegetation - $150.00 (Own $100.00; Chemicals $50.00).


Comments Both properties pasture sowing information correctly recorded in the Survey Report.


Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

33

Plan H.O.A. Item


Denimein D N 2 Vegetation to reduce salinity

Level 1 (desk audit) 1 entry

a) Property M032 Q. (255 ha holding with principal land uses of mixed enterprises with livestock). 175 ha laid out to irrigation with 113 ha landformed. 42 ha native vegetation. Vegetation to reduce salinity - $1 500.00 (Seeds $750.00; Own time $500.00; Ground preparation $250.00)

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk level, of recording of $1 500.00 on establishment of vegetation to reduce salinity.

b) Property M073B. (319 ha holding with principal land uses of mixed enterprises with

rice). 222 ha laid out to irrigation of which all landformed. Vegetation to reduce salinity - $900.00 (Seed $900.00).

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk level, of recording of $900.00 on establishing vegetation to reduce salinity.


Denimein D5 Groundwater pumping Level 1 (desk audit) 4 entries - O&M shallow bore. 1 entry O&M deep bores and 0 entries install deep bore

a) M032 Q. (255 ha holding with principal land uses of mixed enterprises with livestock). 175 ha laid out to irrigation with 113 ha landformed. 47 ha irrigated annual pastures and 47 ha winter crops. O&M shallow bore - 2 ML pumped from shallow bore.


b) Property M051 A. (777 ha holding with principal land uses of mixed enterprises with

rice). 545 ha laid out to irrigation of which all landformed. O&M deep bore - 950 ML pumped from deep bore.

Audit findings.

Verified correctness, at desk level, of recording of 950 ML pumped from deep bore. Comments Both properties information correctly recorded in the Survey Report.


Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

34

Plan H.O.A. Item


Wakool W1 Farm Planning Level 1 (desk audit) 1 entry

a) Property W220 B. (773 ha holding with principal land use of mixed enterprises with rice). 260 ha laid out to irrigation of which all landformed. Planning in 2008/2009 to finalise existing plan. Farm planning - $400.00 (Own time $400.00).

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk level, of recording of $400.00 on farm planning.

Wakool W2 Irrigation recycling and storage

Level 2 (on-farm) 2 entries – recycling construct; 1 entry – storage construct; and 8 entries – O&M irrigation recycling system

a) Property W186 A. (392 ha holding with principal land uses of mixed enterprises with rice). 213 ha laid out to irrigation of which all landformed. Sump 4 ML + 60 ML storage on adjoining holding (W187); 93% of holding drained with 160 ha of irrigated area capable of receiving recycled water. Irrigation recycling system maintenance - $500.00 (Own $200.00; Chemicals $300.00). Activity was spraying of weeds in the channels. System well maintained.



Wakool W7 Irrigation development Level 2 (on-farm) 1 entry - landforming 1 entry - paddock improvements

a) Property W271. (140 ha holding with principal land uses of mixed enterprises, no rice - lucerne). 130 ha laid out to irrigation with 100 ha landformed. Landforming - 20 ha landformed in 2008/2009 in border check bays of a slope of 1:750, which is well suited to lucerne. Paddock seeded to lucerne since 30 June 2009 at 10 kg/ha; 1.9 tonnes/ha of gypsum applied pre-sowing as some cuts were up to 30 cm in depth but typically in the range of 10-12 cm.

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk level, of recording of landforming. Verified correctness, at on-farm level, of undertaking of 20 ha of landforming.



Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

35

Plan H.O.A. Item


Wakool W3 Native vegetation Level 1 (desk audit) 4 entries

a) Property W051 A. (390 ha holding with principal land uses of mixed enterprises with livestock). 200 ha laid out to irrigation with 50 ha landformed. 30.2 ha native vegetation along creek lines. O&M on native vegetation - $950.00 (Chemicals $350.00; Own time $600.00).


b) Property W186. (282 ha holding with principal land uses of mixed enterprises with

rice). 200 ha laid out to irrigation of which all landformed. 5 ha native vegetation at southern end of holding. O&M on native vegetation - $1 000.00 (Materials $600.00; Own time $400.00).

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk level, of recording of $1 000.00 on O&M of native vegetation.

c) Property W238. (297 ha holding with principal land uses of mixed enterprises with

livestock). 125 ha laid out to irrigation of which all landformed. 15 ha native vegetation comprised of two largish areas and several fence line areas. O&M on native vegetation - $340.00 (Materials $140.00; Own time $200.00).


Comments All three properties information correctly recorded in Survey Report.


Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

36

Annex Table 2: Alphanumeric coding of On-Farm Targets by Plans

Note: Struck through targets or components – landholder information, where applicable, fully captured via incentive applications to MIL or its monitoring programs. Else wise, Landholder Survey captures expenditure where landholder has not and does not intend to access an LWMP incentive. Source: Toohey, 2005, Table 10.2 plus changes arising from Codicil to HOA of 21 February 2008 to include two Denimein targets - D N 2 and Deep Groundwater Pumping, Capital, D 9.

Abbreviation Plan Target Abbreviation Plan Target Berriquin Cadell B 1 1. Farm Planning C 1 1. Cadell Card B 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 (Supply channel O&M)

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 (Shallow and deep bores O & M)

C N 2 New 2. Improved Irrigation Efficiencies

D 6 6. Farm Channel Sealing C N 3 New 3. Education D 7 7. Channel Escapes & Box

Creek upgrade

D 8 8. Landforming, including ‘improved irrigation layouts’

Wakool

D N 1 Education W 1 1. Farm Planning D N 2 New 3. Saltbush

(Vegetation to reduce salinity, O & M)

W 2 2. Irrigation Recycling (Drainage, Reuse & Storage)

D N 3 Box Creek Upgrade W 3 3. Vegetation & Biodiversity (O &M)

D 9 9. Deep bores (Capital) W 4 4. Vegetation to reduce salinity W 5 District Surface Drainage W 6 Sub-surface drainage W 7 Improved irrigation layouts


Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

37

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.



Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

38

Target / Indicator / Licence - policy


L 1.2. What were the land uses on this holding in 2008/2009? Surveyor note: Total area in Land Use table must equal the size of the holding.

Land use Area Land use Area Irrigated annual pasture

Fallowed land

Irrigated perennial pasture, (including lucerne)

Stubble

Dryland pastures

Irrigable land (Infrastructure present but has not been used for irrigation for over 12 months)

Winter crops Dryland Horticulture – perennial (Fruit, vine and nuts)

infrastructure


Other

Native vegetation (grass / shrub / tree



Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

39

Theme 2. Farm planning Plan Targets: B 1, D 1, C 2, W 1. Target performance - All ‘qualifying’ 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: Target / Indicator / Licence - policy


T B 1, D 1, C 2, W 1

2.1. What is the area laid out to irrigation on this holding?


T B 1, D 1, C 2, W 1

2.2. Do you have a surveyor designed irrigation or drainage plan? Y/N. If No, then go to Q2.4.


T B 1, D 1, C 2, W 1

2.3. What proportion of this holding’s irrigated area is represented on the plan? …….%


T B 1, D 1, C 2, W 1

2.4. Did you undertake farm planning activities (irrigation surveying and / or design) in 2008/09 and have not and do not intend to access an LWMP incentive?, Y/N. If No, then go to Q3.1.


T B 1, D 1, C 2, W 1

2.5. What was the purpose of the 2008/2009 farm planning? a Introduce changes to an existing 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)

……………………………


T B 1, D 1, C 2, W 1

2.6. What was spent on farm planning in 2008/2009? a Surveyor / Designer $………… b Soil drilling $………… c Own time (hours @ $20 per hour) $………… d Other $………… e TOTAL $………….



Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

40

Theme 3. Irrigation water recycling, drainage and storage Plan Targets: B 2, D 2, C 3, C 11 and W 2. Target performance - All ‘qualifying’ 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. Plan environmental indictors program: NA MIL Licences and / or policies: NA Questions: Target / Indicator / Licence - policy


L 3.1. Do you have an irrigation recycling system on this holding? Y/N. If No, then Q 4.1.


T B 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 entire holding can be drained to a recycle point/s? …...ha

3.5. What is the size of the irrigated area within the holding that can be irrigated with recycled water? …...ha


T B 2, D 2, C 3, W 2

3.6. Did you undertake irrigation recycling and / or storage works in 2008/2009 and have not and do not intend to access an LWMP incentive? Y/No. If No, then go to Q3.9.


T B 2, D 2, C 3, W 2

3.7. What was spent on constructing the irrigation recycling system in 2008/2009? (e.g. drains, sump, recycle channels and associated equipment.) a Materials / equipment $………… b Fuel $………… c Contractors $………… d Own time (hours @ $20 per hour) $………… e Other $………… f TOTAL $…………



Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

41



T B 2, D 2, C 3, W 2

3.8. What was spent on constructing the storage in 2008/2009? a. Materials / equipment $………… b. Fuel $…………. c. Contractors $…………. d. Own time (hours @ $20 per hour) $…………. e. Other $…………. f. TOTAL $…………..


T B 2, D 2, C 3, W 2

3.9. What was spent on operating and maintaining the irrigation recycling system in 2008/2009? (e.g. drains, sump, recycle channels and associated equipment.) a. Materials / equipment $…………. b. Fuel / electricity $…………. c. Contractors $…………. d. Own time (hours @ $20 per hour) $………….. e. Other $………….. f. TOTAL $…………..


T C 11

3.10. Did you carry out any maintenance of supply channels on this holding in 2007/2008?. Y/N. If No, then go to Q4.1.


T C 11

3.11. What was spent on maintaining supply channels in 2008/2009? a. Contractors $…………. b. Own time (hours @ $20 per hour) $…………. c. Fuel $…………. d. Desilting $…………. e. Chemicals $…………. f. Other $…………. g. TOTAL $…………..



Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

42

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. To capture paddock improvements. Plan environmental indictors program: NA 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: Target / Indicator / Licence - policy


T B 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 2008/2009 ……..ha

All qualifying holdings.

T B 6, D 8, C 9, W 7

4.2. Of area landformed in 2008/2009 what was previously dryland? (e.g. never been irrigated.)………ha

All qualifying holdings.

T B 6, D 8, C 9, W 7

4.3. Did you undertake any paddock improvements in 2008/2009? (Not including lasering, but including, conversion to side ditch, install permanent bay outlets, etc.). Y/N. If No, then to Q4.5.


T B 6, D 8, C 9, W 7

4.4. If Yes, what was spent on paddock improvements in 2008/2009? a. Contractors $………. b. Own time (hours @ $20 per hour) $………. c. Fuel $………. d. Fencing / structures $………. e. Other $………. f. TOTAL $……….


T C N 2 L

4.5. Did you convert an area of flood irrigation to a pressurised irrigation system on this holding in 2008/2009? (e.g. Micro irrigation, Centre Pivot.) Y/N. If No, then to Q4.8.

C All qualifying holdings. L All qualifying holdings


Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

43



T C N 2 L

4.6. If Yes, how many hectares were converted to a pressurised system? …… ha. (Note exclude land that was previously dryland)

C. All qualifying holdings. L All qualifying holdings

T C N 2 L

4.7. What type of pressurised system was installed? ………………………..

C. All qualifying holdings. L All qualifying holdings

L 4.8. Did you undertake EM 31 surveying in 2008/2009? Y?N. If No, then go to Q5.1.


L 4.9. If Yes, what was the area surveyed area? ...ha All qualifying holdings


Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

44

Theme 5. Irrigation management Plan Targets: C 8 Target performance – All ‘qualifying’ holdings. Irrigation scheduling is the process of calculating both the timing and volume of irrigation applications required to meet crop yield and quality objectives. Plan environmental indictors program: NA MIL Licences and / or policies: NA Questions: Target / Indicator / Licence - policy


T C 8 5.1. Did you apply any of the following techniques to schedule irrigations in 2008/2009? If No, then to Q6.1. 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



Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

45

Theme 6. Soil management / Farming systems Plan Targets: C 7, C10. Target performance – Target ‘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 MIL Licences and / or policies: NA Questions: Target / Indicator / Licence - policy


T C 7

6.1. Did you practice any conservation farming on this holding in 2007/2008? Y/N. If No, then to Q6.4.


T C 7

6.2. What crop / pasture establishment techniques did you apply?

Crop establishment technique Area (ha) Direct drilling of pasture paddock Direct drilled, i.e. no cultivation, winter crop into 2008/2009 rice stubble

Direct drilled, i.e. no cultivation, winter crop into other crop stubble, e.g. soybeans or barley

Other techniques, e.g. one cultivation Other Other


T C 7

6.3. How did you manage your previous crop residues / stubble? (tick whichever applies)

Management method

Winter crops

Rice Summer crops

Grazing Burning Baling Mulching Other


T C 10

6.4. Is dryland wheat or barley normally grown on this holding? Y/N. If No, then go to Q 6.6.



Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

46



T C 10

6.5. Were either canola, field peas, lupins or vetch grown in 2008/2009 as a dryland break crop for wheat or barley? Y/N.


I 6.6. Did you apply lime to pasture or cropping paddocks in 2008/2009? Y/N. If No, then go to Q7.1.


I 6.7. If Yes, what was the a. Application rate …….tonnes/ha b. Area ……...tonnes



Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

47

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. Plan environmental indictors program: NA MIL Licences and / or policies: NA Questions:



T B 7, D 4 and C 5

7.1. Did you sow perennial species (e.g., lucerne, phalaris) into annual pastures on this holding in 2008/2009? Y/N. If No, then go to Q8.1.


T B 7, D 4 and C 5

7.2. If yes, was the pasture paddock: a Irrigated Y/N b Dryland Y/N


T B 7, D 4 and C 5

7.3. What was the rate of sowing and area sown to perennial species?

a Irrigated pasture b Dryland pasture

Seeding rate (kg/ha)

Area sown (ha)

Seeding rate(kg/ha)

Area sown (ha)


T D 4

7.4. If you have established perennial pastures, 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.



Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

48

Theme 8. Native vegetation Plan Targets: B 3, D 3, C 4 and W3. Target performance – All ‘qualifying’ holdings. Plan environmental indictors program: NA MIL Licences and / or policies: NA Questions: Target / Indicator / Licence - policy


T B 3, D 3, C 4 and W 3

8.1. Did you carry out any maintenance of native vegetation on this holding during 2008/2009? (both remnant and planted areas > 10m wide) and have not and do not intend to access an LWMP incentive. Y/N. If No, then go to Q9.1.


T B 3, D 3, C 4 and W 3

8.2. If Yes, what did you spend on maintaining native vegetation in 2008/2009? a. Materials $……… b. Own time (hours @ $20 per hour) $……… c. Contractors $……… d. Chemicals $……… e. Other $………. f. TOTAL $……….



Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

49

Theme 9. Vegetation to reduce salinity Plan Targets: D N 2. Target performance – All qualifying holdings. Plan environmental indictors program: NA MIL Licences and / or policies: NA Questions: Target / Indicator / Licence - policy


T D N 2

9.1. Did you establish saltbush or lucerne / native grasses in dryland areas on this holding, or were trees planted along seeping channels, and have not and do not intend to access an LWMP incentive. Y/N. If No, then go to Q10.1.


T D N 2

9.2. If Yes, what did you spend on establishing vegetation to reduce salinity in 2008/2009? a. Materials $……… b. Own time (hours @ $20 per hour) $……… c. Contractors $……… d. Chemicals $……… e. Other $………. f. TOTAL $……….



Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

50

Theme 10. Groundwater pumping Plan Targets: B 8, D 5 and D 9. Target performance – All ‘qualifying’ holdings. Plan environmental indictors program: NA MIL Licences and / or policies: NA Questions: Target / Indicator / Licence - policy


T B 8, D 5 and D 9

10.1. Do you have a groundwater bore pump(s) in operation on this holding? (Not a stock and domestic bore). Y/N.


T B 8, D 5 and D 9

10.2. If Yes, what are the number of bores: a. Shallow (less than 10 metres deep) b. Deep (more than 10 metres deep).


T B 8, D 5 and D 9

10.3. What volume did you pump from the shallow bore/s in 2008/2009? ………..ML.


10.4. What volume did you pump from the deep bore/s in 2008/2009? ………ML.


T D 9 10.5. Did you install or upgrade a deep bore / deep bores in 2008/2009? a. Drilling / Construction $……… b. Pumps and associated equipment $……… c. Other $………. d. TOTAL $……….


Thank you for your time in completing this questionnaire


Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

51

Annex Table 4: MIL 2008/2009 Landholder Survey Report3

FARM PLANNING REPORT 2008/2009

Date Run: 2 September 2009

Number Holdings

with Irrigation/ Drainage

Plan

Irrigation/ Drainage

Plan Irrigated

Area (ha)

Not Access

Incentive

Purpose - Changes to Plan

Purpose - Commence

Plan

Purpose - Farm

Planning

Purpose - Other

Spent Farm

Planning ($)

Plan Meet

Standard


Purpose - Commence

Plan

Purpose - Farm

Planning

Purpose - Other

Spent Farm

Planning ($)

Berriquin 52 8,244.22 0 0 0 0 0 $0.00 0 0 0 0 0 $0.00

Total Irrigated Area

10,539.60

Total Surveys

68

Cadell 20 2,457.60 5 0 3 1 0 $33,175.00 3 0 2 0 0 $19,375.00


3,556.00

Total Surveys

48

Denimein 23 3,912.90 0 0 0 0 0 $0.00 0 0 0 0 0 $0.00


4,106.20

Total Surveys

25

Wakool 22 4,399.67 2 1 0 0 1 $8,400.00 2 1 0 0 1 $8,400.00


5,477.72

Total Surveys

28

3 The extrapolation tables in Annex Table 4 derived from All Holdings basis.


Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

52

FARM PLANNING REPORT 2008/2009 - EXTRAPOLATED Date Run: 2 September 2009

Number Holdings

with Farm Plan

Farm Plan Irrigated

Area (ha)

Not Access

Incentive


Purpose - Commence

Plan

Purpose - Farm

Planning

Purpose Other

Spent Farm Planning

($)

Plan Meet

Standard

Purpose Changes to Plan

Purpose Commence

Plan

Purpose - Farm

Planning

Purpose - Other

Spent Farm

Planning ($)

Berriquin 1,122 154,086.52 0 0 0 0 0 $0.00 0 0 0 0 0 $0.00


196,987.75

Total Surveys

68

Cadell 437 49,182.61 109 0 66 22 0 $663,913.24 66 0 44 0 0 $387,741.34


71,164.29

Total Surveys

48

Denimein 178 22,508.47 0 0 0 0 0 $0.00 0 0 0 0 0 $0.00


23,620.40

Total Surveys

25

Wakool 303 76,053.09 28 14 0 0 14 $145,203.16 28 14 0 0 14 $145,203.16


94,688.36

Total Surveys

28


Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

53

IRRIGATION, RECYCLING AND STORAGE REPORT 2008/2009 Date Run: 2 September 2009

Irrigation Recycling System

Total Storage Volume

(ML)

Average Storage Volume

(ML)

Meet Min

Storage Volume

Storage Drilled

Average Area

Drained (%)

Average Area

Irrigated By

Recycle (%)

Irrigation Construct-ion Cost

($)

Storage Construct-ion Cost

($)

Operation and

Mainten-ance Cost

($)

Irrigation System Meet

Standard

Irrigation Construct-ion Cost

($)

Irrigation &

Storage Meet

Standard

Storage Construct-ion Cost

($)

Supply Channel

Mainten-ance (only

recorded for Cadell)

Operat-ion and

Mainten-ance Cost

(only recorded

for Cadell)

Berriquin 53 1,045.10 19.72 40 41 59.4 44.3 $48,500.00 $11,500.00 $10,515.00 1 $3,500.00 0 $0.00

(note: not recorded for Berriquin)


10,539.60

Total Surveys

68

Cadell 15 833.00 55.53 9 14 11.7 9.0 $90,000.00 $75,000.00 $29,220.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 7 $6,820.00


3,556.00

Total Surveys

48

Denimein 20 900.00 45.00 14 18 76.4 49.4 $0.00 $0.00 $5,500.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00

(note: not recorded for Denimein)


4,106.20

Total Surveys

25

Wakool 25 2,602.00 104.08 14 20 73.9 43.4 $35,100.00 $10,500.00 $19,920.00 1 $0.00 0 $0.00

(note: not recorded for Wakool)


5,477.72

Total Surveys

28


Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

54

IRRIGATION, RECYCLING AND STORAGE REPORT 2008/2009 - EXTRAPOLATED Date Run: 2 September 2009

Irrigation Recycling System

Total Storage Volume

(ML)

Average Storage Volume

(ML)

Meet Min

Storage Volume

Storage Drilled

Average Area

Drained (%)

Average Area

Irrigat-ed By

Recycle (%)

Irrigation Construct-

ion Cost ($)

Storage Construct-

ion Cost ($)

Operation and

Mainten-ance Cost

($)

Irrigation System Meet

Standard

Irrigation Construct-

ion Cost ($)

Irrigation & Storage

Meet Standard

Storage Construct-

ion Cost ($)

Supply Channel

Mainten-ance (only

recorded for Cadell)

Operat-ion and

Mainten-ance Cost

(only recorded

for Cadell)

Berriquin 1,143 19,533 17.08 863 885 59.4 44.3 $906,477.07 $214,937.86 $196,527.97 22 $65,415.87 0 $0.00



196,987.75

Total Surveys

1,467

Cadell 328 16,670 50.85 197 306 11.7 9.0 $1,801,121.07 $1,500,934.22 $584,763.97 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 153 $136,484.95


71,164.29

Total Surveys

1,049

Denimein 155 5,177 33.36 109 140 76.4 49.4 $0.00 $0.00 $31,638.06 0 $0.00 0 $0.00



23,620.40

Total Surveys

194

Wakool 344 44,978 130.85 193 275 73.9 43.4 $606,741.77 $181,503.95 $344,338.92 14 $0.00 0 $0.00



94,688.36

Total Surveys

385


Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

55

PADDOCK IMPROVEMENT & IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2008/2009


Irrigation Area (ha)

Area Landformed

(ha)

Area Landformed This Period

(ha)

Landform Total (using

Benchmark) ($)

Paddock Improve-

ment ($)

Number of EM31 Surveys

EM31 Area (ha)

EM31 Cost (using

Benchmark) ($)

Number Converted

to Pressurised

System

Area Converted to Pressurised

System (ha)

Cost Conversion

to Pressurised

System (using

Benchmark) ($)

Techniques To Schedule Irrigation (only recorded for Cadell)

External Evapor-

ation

On-farm Evapor-

ation

Soil Moisture

Other

Berriquin 10,539.60 8,064.20 97.00 $77,406.00 $58,820.00 2 60.50 $1,815.00 0 0.00 $0.00 (note: not recorded for Berriquin)

Cadell 3,556.00 2,286.00 208.00 $165,984.00 $2,000.00 0 0.00 $0.00 1 146.00 $657,000 7 2 0 0

Denimein 4,106.20 3,437.00 0.00 $0.00 $29,670.00 3 415.00 $12,450.00 0 0.00 $0.00 (note: not recorded for Denimein)

Wakool 5,477.72 4,574.00 20.00 $15,960.00 $50,000.00 0 0.00 $0.00 0 0.00 $0.00 (note: not recorded for Wakool)

Totals 23,679.52 18,361.20 325.00 $259,350.00 $140,490.00 5 475.50 $14,265.00 1 146.00 $657,000 7 2 0 0


Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

56

PADDOCK IMPROVEMENT & IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2008/2009 - EXTRAPOLATED


Irrigation Area (ha)

Area Landformed

(ha)

Area Landformed This Period

(ha)

Landform Total (using

Benchmark) ($)

Paddock Improvement

($)

Number of EM31 Surveys

EM31 Area (ha)

EM31 Cost (using

Benchmark) ($)

Number Converted

to Pressurised

System

Area Converted

to Pressurised

System (ha)

Cost Conversion

to Pressurised

System (using

Benchmark) ($)

Techniques To Schedule Irrigation (only recorded for Cadell)

External Evapor-

ation

On-farm Evapor-

ation

Soil Moisture

Other

Berriquin 196,988 150,722 1,812.95 $1,446,737.40 $1,099,360.44 43 1,131 $33,922.80 0 0.00 $0.00


Total Area (Ha)

341,540

Total Holdings

1,467

Cadell 178 45,748 4,162.59 $3,321,747.55 $40,024.91 0 0 $0.00 22 2,921.82 $13,148,184 153 44 0 0

Total Area (Ha)

298,830

Total Holdings

1,049

Denimein 23,620 19,771 0.00 $0.00 $170,672.96 23 2,387 $71,617.07 0 0.00 $0.00


Total Area (Ha)

53,894

Total Holdings

194

Wakool 317 79,067 345.72 $275,886.00 $864,304.52 0 0 $0.00 0 0.00 $0.00


Total Area (Ha)

210,147

Total Holdings

385


Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

57

IRRIGATION SCHEDULING REPORT 2008/2009 Date Run: 2 September 2009 (only recorded for Cadell)

Irrigation Scheduling Type Total Number Area (ha)

% of surveys

Cadell Total Surveys Irrigated Annual Pasture 2 40 4.17

48 Irrigated Perennial Pasture 2 35 4.17 Viticulture 1 22 2.08 Winter Crops 3 171 6.25 Crops 0 0 0.00 Dryland Pasture 0 0 0.00 Infrastructure 0 0 0.00 Native Vegetation 0 0 0.00

IRRIGATION SCHEDULING REPORT 2008/2009 - EXTRAPOLATED Date Run: 2 September 2009 (only recorded for Cadell)

Irrigation Scheduling Type Total Number Area (ha)

% of surveys

Cadell Total Surveys Irrigated Annual Pasture 44 800 4.17

1,036 Irrigated Perennial Pasture 44 700 4.17 Viticulture 22 440 2.08 Winter Crops 66 3,422 6.25 Crops 0 0 0.00 Dryland Pasture 0 0 0.00 Infrastructure 0 0 0.00 Native Vegetation 0 0 0.00


Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

58

FARMING SYSTEMS REPORT 2008/2009 Date Run: 2 September 2009 (only recorded for Cadell)

Conservation Farming

Crop Establishment Techniques Stubble Management Break Crops

Type Area (ha)

Cost (using Benchmark)

Management Method

Stubble Type

Wheat/ Barley Canola/Peas Winter Crops Rice

Summer Crops

Cadell

32 Direct Drill Pasture 688 $6,880.00 Grazing 17 0 2 33 9

Direct Drill Rice Stubble 356 $3,560.00 Burning 1 0 0

Direct Drill Other 4,926 $49,262.00 Baling 7 0 1

Mulching 6 0 0

Other 1 0 0

FARMING SYSTEMS REPORT 2008/2009 - EXTRAPOLATED Date Run: 2 September 2009 (only recorded for Cadell)

Conservation Farming

Crop Establishment Techniques Stubble Management Break Crops

Type Area (ha)

Cost (using Benchmark)

Management Method

Stubble Type

Wheat/ Barley Canola/Peas Winter Crops Rice

Summer Crops

Cadell

699 Direct Drill Pasture 13,769 $137,685.70 Grazing 372 0 44 721 197

Direct Drill Rice Stubble 7,124 $71,244.34 Burning 22 0 0

Direct Drill Other 98,585 $985,853.62 Baling 153 0 22

Mulching 131 0 0

Other 22 0 0


Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

59

SOIL MANAGEMENT, FARMING SYSTEMS AND NATIVE VEGETATION REPORT 2008/2009 Date Run: 2 September 2009

Sow perennial

into annual

pastures

Pasture Paddock Irrigated

Pasture Paddock Dryland

Irrigated Area Sown

to Perennial

(ha)

Irrigated Area Cost (using benchmark)

($)

Dryland Area Sown

to Perennial

(ha)

Dryland Area Cost (using

benchmark) ($)

Techniques To Balance Pasture (only recorded for Denimein) Number

Maintained Native

Vegetation

Cost Maintained

Native Vegetation

($) No Specific

Intervention Rotational

Spelling

Set Stocking

Rate

Grazing/ Slashing

Dry Residue

Berriquin 3 2 2 220.0 $81,840.00 310.0 $32,550.00 (note: not recorded for Berriquin) 6 $8,945.00

Cadell 4 2 2 135.0 $9,817.20 104.0 $250.64 (note: not recorded for Cadell) 14 $47,570.00

Denimein 3 1 2 20.0 $7,440.00 120.0 $12,600.00 1 5 0 0 5 $3,580.00 Wakool (note: not recorded for Wakool) 4 $3,290.00

Totals 10 5 6 375.0 $99,097.20 534.0 $45,400.64 1 5 0 0 29 $63,385.00

SOIL MANAGEMENT, FARMING SYSTEMS AND NATIVE VEGETATION REPORT 2008/2009 - EXTRAPOLATED Date Run: 2 September 2009

Sow perennial

into annual

pastures

Pasture Paddock Irrigated

Pasture Paddock Dryland

Irrigated Area Sown

to Perennial

(ha)

Irrigated Area Cost (using benchmark)

($)

Dryland Area Sown

to Perennial

(ha)

Dryland Area Cost (using

benchmark) ($)

Techniques To Balance Pasture (only recorded for Denimein) Number

Maintained Native

Vegetation

Cost Maintained

Native Vegetation

($) No Specific

Intervention Rotational

Spelling

Set Stocking

Rate

Grazing/ Slashing

Dry Residue

Berriquin 65 43 43 4,111.9 $1,529,609.96 5,794.0 $608,367.60 (note: not recorded for Berriquin) 129 $167,184.28

Cadell 87 44 44 2,701.7 $1,005,025.56 2,081.3 $218,536.02 (note: not recorded for Cadell) 306 $1,039,602.71

Denimein 23 8 16 115.0 $42,797.67 690.3 $72,479.92 8 39 0 0 39 $20,593.50 Wakool (note: not recorded for Wakool) 55 $56,871.24

Totals 175 95 102 6,928.6 $2,577,433.19 8,565.6 $899,383.55 8 39 0 0 529 $1,284,251.72


Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

60

GROUNDWATER PUMPING REPORT 2008/2009 Date Run: 2 September 2009 (only recorded for Berriquin and Denimein)

Have Groundwater

Pump Shallow Bore Deep Bore

Volume Pumped Shallow

(ML)

Volume Pumped Deep (ML)

Cost O & M Shallow Bore

(using benchmark)

($)

Cost O & M Deep Bore (using benchmark)

($)

Cost Construct/ Install Deep Bore

($)

Berriquin 11 10 4 830.16 (not recorded for Berriquin)

$87,167.12 (not recorded for Berriquin)

Denimein 7 8 1 104.00 950.00 $1,248.00 $76,000.00 $0.00

GROUNDWATER PUMPING REPORT 2008/2009 - EXTRAPOLATED Date Run: 2 September 2009 (only recorded for Berriquin and Denimein)

Have Groundwater

Pump Shallow Bore Deep Bore

Volume Pumped Shallow

(ML)

Volume Pumped Deep (ML)

Cost O & M Shallow Bore

(using benchmark)

($)

Cost O & M Deep Bore (using benchmark)

($)

Cost Construct/ Install Deep Bore

($)

Berriquin 237 216 86 15,515.95 (not recorded for Berriquin)

$1,629,175.07 (not recorded for Berriquin)

Denimein 54 62 8 598.25 5,464.76 $7,178.96 $437,180.49 $0.00


Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

61

VEGETATION TO REDUCE SALINITY 2008/2009 Date Run: 2 September 2009 (only recorded for Denimein)

Number of Holdings Vegetation to Reduce

Salinity

Area Established (Ha)

Spent on Establishing Vegetation to Reduce

Salinity ($)

Denimein 1 2 $1,500.00

VEGETATION TO REDUCE SALINITY REPORT 2008/2009 - EXTRAPOLATED Date Run: 2 September 2009 (only recorded for Denimein)

Number of Holdings Vegetation to Reduce

Salinity

Area Established (Ha)

Spent on Establishing Vegetation to Reduce

Salinity ($)

Denimein

Total Area (Ha) 8 12 $8,628.56

53,894

Total Holdings

194


Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

62

Annex Table 5: Landholder Survey Benchmark values (GST Exclusive)

Section Benchmark specifications Benchmark unit and value Reference Unit Value ($) 1. Paddock Information Landforming

Based on typical field earthworks of 570 m3 @ $1.40/m3

Hectare 798.00 LWMP Implementation Officers.

2. EM31 EM 31 surveying Hectare 30.00 MIL Compliance Officer (value set half way between basic survey only and full rice survey including soil coring and sodicity analyses).

3. Pastures - Irrigated lucerne Cultivation Sowing Fertiliser Herbicide & Insecticide Irrigation (3 ML/ha @ $34.26/ML) TOTAL (Rounded)

Hectare Hectare Hectare Hectare Hectare Hectare

25.32 106.75

78.30 72.72 88.83

372.00

NSW Department of Primary Industries Farm Budget, Summer 2007/2008 (Adapted).

MIL 2007/08 Berriquin B1.

4. Pastures – dryland lucerne Direct drilled establishment Seed +Inoculant. 5 kg/ha Fertilizer Insecticide Sowing TOTAL (Rounded)

Hectare Hectare Hectare Hectare

26.10 65.91

2.41 10.48

105.00

NSW Department of Primary Industries Farm Budget, Lucerne & Sub Clover, dryland winter, East zone 2007 (Adapted).

Farm Budget, Direct drill irrigated wheat, 2007.

5. Management practices Direct drilling Hectare 10.00 Contract rate 6. Groundwater pumping Shallow - operation and maintenance

Deep - operation and maintenance

Megalitre

Megalitre

12.00

80.00

LWMP Implementation Officers, Environment Manager

Deep - Dennis E Toohey based on DPI data

7. Lime Cost of lime and application $67/tonne Tonne 88.00 Dennis E Toohey 8. Centre pivot/Lateral move Converting from flood irrigation to

sprinkler Hectare 4 500.00 RM Consulting Group / NSW DPI

research project (updated from $2 200 in 2008 based on advice from Adrian Smith, DPI and Dennis Toohey)


Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

63

Annex Table 6: Auditing framework, in-kind works

Source: Toohey, 2005, Table7.3 plus changes arising from Codicil to HOA of 21 February 2008 to include two Denimein targets - Vegetation to reduce salinity (DN2) and Deep Groundwater Pumping, Capital, (D 9).

Plan Target Estimated sites audited over 5 yrs.

Audit Class

No. audits

Level 1 Level 2 Berriquin Farm Planning 10 1 2 Irrigation Recycling (Drainage, Reuse & Storage)

21 2 4

Vegetation & Biodiversity (O&M) 10 1 2 Landforming and Topsoiling, including ‘improved irrigation layouts’

24 2 5

Perennial species in annual pastures 15 1 3 Groundwater pumping – shallow (O&M)

10 1 2

Cadell Farm Planning 10 1 2 Irrigation Recycling (Drainage, Reuse & Storage)

10 2 2

Vegetation & Biodiversity (O&M) 10 1 2 Perennial Pasture 15 1 3 Soil Management 5 1 2 Irrigation Scheduling 5 1 1 Landforming, including ‘improved irrigation layout’

15 2 3

Alternative Farming Practices 5 1 1 On-Farm Infrastructure (Supply channel O&M)

10 1 1

New 2. Improved Irrigation Efficiencies

5 2 1

Denimein Farm Plans 10 1 2 Irrigation Recycling (Drainage, Reuse and Storage)

2 2 0.5

Vegetation & Biodiversity (O&M) 10 1 2 Dryland Pasture 15 1 3 Groundwater Pumping – shallow (O&M)

10 1 2

Landforming, including ‘improved irrigation layout’

3 2 0.5

Vegetation to reduce salinity 3 1 2 Groundwater Pumping - deep (Capital)

3 1 1

Wakool Farm Planning 10 1 2 Irrigation Recycling (Drainage, Reuse & Storage)

4 2 1

Vegetation & Biodiversity (O&M) 15 1 3 Landforming, including ‘improved irrigation layout’

7 2 1


Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

64

Annex Table 7: 2009 Annual Survey Interview debrief

Survey Debrief Meeting Murray Irrigation Board Room, Deniliquin

3rd September 2009

11.00am-1.00pm

Present: Dennis Toohey, Danielle Ewington, Michael Pisasale, Lyndall Horne, John van der Zwaan, Robert Glenn, Fiona Farrant.

Apologies: Felicity Steel, Kirsty Swinton, Christina Swinton, Diane Allan, Jeff Barrie, Janet Manzin, Maria McCaw, Colin Bryce.

Meeting Discussion 1. Overall use of data and presentation of trends by Dennis Toohey: Dennis Toohey presented trend data for the past 4 years based on the annual survey data for annual expenditure vs. allocations, farm planning and landforming data. Dennis noted that trends appear to indicate a stabilisation of expenditure by landholders despite the current climatic and economic conditions. Farm planning has maintained a high level rate this year while landforming has, as would be expected steadily declined, but not totally disappeared. Michael Pisasale suggested that the high level of planning expenditure is likely associated with the conclusion of incentives this year and people spending their own funds in conjunction with LWMP funds. 2. 2009 survey queries and comments: See Attachment A (Table 1) for Queries and Possible Amendments brought up during the survey period. Comments made and actions suggested by those present have been added.

1) Q1.2 – Data is not used in reporting and this question generates the greatest level of errors during data entry and processing. Fiona Farrant mentioned that table land use categories are confusing at times and there is some overlap. Dennis Toohey mentioned that this has historically been useful data that has not been collected elsewhere. ACTION: As the data is not used currently in reporting, should the survey be ongoing in any capacity, the LWMP/environment management need to define their reporting requirements in this area and the table is to be reproduced to align with management reporting requirements. Additionally, any overlap or discrepancies between categories needs to be eliminated and supporting data is to clearly define category criteria.

2) Q1.2 – Andi White noted that infrastructure was eliminated from the land use categories for a large proportion of surveys. Fiona Farrant mentioned that this was likely a surveyor oversight as the supporting data and training clearly defined a need to have data for the infrastructure category and the problem did not occur in other regions of the survey. Lyndall Horne additionally mentioned that the use of clear maps has been a major advantage in the completion of this data. All surveyors


Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

65

present concurred that the table Q1.2 could not be accurately completed with any level of confidence through a phone interview, which most of the Cadell surveys had been. ACTION: Should the survey continue in any capacity, either, the survey form and supporting information needs to be rewritten using formal phone interview techniques, or phone interviews to be kept below a reasonable level (e.g. less than 10%). Additionally, use of maps is to continue.

3) Q3.4 - Berriquin area drained given as a hectare value for Berriquin and Cadell and as a % for Denimein and Wakool. ACTION: Should this question remain in any future surveys, amend Denimein and Wakool survey forms to provide hectare values in line with Q3.5 as people are already thinking in hectares and the outcome is likely to be more accurate this way.

4) Q4.2 (Of the area landformed in 2008/09, what was previously dryland?) - this data is not extracted into reports at all, query its validity. ACTION: It was confirmed by Dennis Toohey and Michael Pisasale that this is no longer a reporting requirement and if the survey continues, this question is to be omitted.

3. Additional comments and proposed amendments:

• Dennis Toohey general comment: that there are a disproportionally high number of questions in the Denimein and Cadell surveys.

• Michael Pisasale suggested that any ongoing surveys will need to greatly reduced in size and much more closely aligned with reporting requirements as defined by management.

Suggestion accepted – to action in future survey years.

4. Ongoing survey review requirements:

• As per above, any ongoing surveys will need to greatly reduced in size and much more closely aligned with reporting requirements as defined by management.

• The best methods for conducting future surveys are to be defined prior to ongoing surveys (e.g. phone interview, landholder completion of form etc.) and the survey form and supporting information restructured accordingly.

• Where questions 1.2, 3.4 or 4.2 continue in any capacity, above Section 2 ACTIONS are to be applied.

• Any ongoing survey sample requirements will need to be supported by statistically sound methods. A statistical analysis will be likely required as per that for the current survey.

5. Data and storage issues:

• Dennis Toohey has noted that there is 15 years of survey data in the system and while there is possibly no immediate usage there is a need for the data to be compiled in a uniform format at some stage. This could perhaps be a good project for a student at some stage.

Actions proposed: Danielle Ewington to compile an inventory of data and discuss with management and IT staff as to the best place to store the data at this stage.

6. Concluding remarks:

• The surveyors present concurred that it is essential to have briefing sessions should the survey continue and is to be completed using external survey staff.


Skmmil Rpt 2009.doc

66

Attachment A: Surveyors Debrief meeting

Debrief Query Current Survey Amendment Action

Q1.2 - Land Uses - it has been questioned as to why we have so many categories, the data does not appear to be reported anywhere in this context and this question appears to generate a high level of errors during data entry and processing phases.

High number of corrections during data entry and processing.

Should the survey be ongoing in any capacity, the LWMP/environment management need to define their reporting requirements in this area and the table is to be reproduced to align with management reporting requirements. Additionally, any overlap or discrepancies between categories needs to be eliminated and supporting data is to clearly define category criteria.

Q1.2 - Land Uses - a number of the Cadell surveys had no inclusion in Table 1.2 for Infrastructure when clearly on the imagery there was infrastructure present.

Where data was missing, Andi White (data entry) has calculated out an infrastructure figure at a rate of 5% of block size where little infrastructure appears to be present on the map and 10% of block size where significant infrastructure appears to be present on the map (or other depended on what appears on map -rounded) and deducted that figure from the main land use.

It was identified that this is likely a function of the high number of phone interviews completed in the Cadell survey area. Should the survey continue in any capacity, either, the survey form and supporting information needs to be rewritten using formal phone interview techniques, or phone interviews to be kept below a reasonable level (e.g. less than 10%). Additionally, use of maps is to continue.

Q3.4 - Berriquin area drained given as a ha-value for Berriquin and Cadell and as a % for Denimein and Wakool.

This year averages have been calculated on 3.4/1.2 * 100 for Berriquin and Cadell and averages of % for Denimein and Wakool, amend surveys to be consistent in future years.

Should this question remain in any future surveys, amend Denimein and Wakool survey forms to provide ha values in line with Q3.5 as people are already thinking in hectares and the outcome is likely to be more accurate this way.

Q4.2 (Of the area landformed in 2008/09, what was previously dryland?) - this data is not extracted into reports at all, query its validity.

Date recorded for this year. Confirm that the data is still valid but if not used in the reporting process at all, remove.

It was confirmed by Dennis Toohey and Michael Pisasale that this is no longer a reporting requirement and if the survey continues, this question is to be omitted.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

General comment by Dennis Toohey: There are a disproportionally high number of questions in the Denimein and Cadell surveys.

Michael Pisasale suggested that any ongoing surveys will need to greatly reduced in size and much more closely aligned with reporting requirements as defined by management. Suggestion accepted – to action in future survey years.

Documents

ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORT - Murray Irrigation · Annual Compliance Report 2008/09 Murray Irrigation Limited Page 4 PREFACE The Annual Compliance Report 2008/09 is written to meet the