SIF3 Tour of North Central Region, 13-15 December 2005
Report by David Pannell (Univ. of WA; CRC Salinity) & Anna Ridley (DPI Victoria; CRC Salinity)
The SIF3 framework has been developed in an attempt to help investors improve the cost-effectiveness of dryland salinity investments. The SIF3 project is a collaboration between CRC Salinity and two regional NRM bodies (the North Central Catchment Management Authority in Victoria and the South Coast regional body (SCRIPT) in WA). The project, which aims to test and improve the framework, is funded by the CRC Salinity and the Cooperative Venture for Capacity Building. As part of the project, the team held a field tour in areas of the North Central region where we are focussing our analysis. The aims were:
(a) to understand threats to the assets and possible responses;
(b) to collect local knowledge on the assets from community members and experts;
(c) to identify issues not adequately accounted for in the current version of SIF3; and
(d) to build credibility of the project team with the CMA and with local communities.
This document is a brief summary for participants of the tour, including preliminary observations about the regions, assets and institutional issues. It documents key local knowledge, expert knowledge, and some of our initial reactions. It does not contain our recommendations about management of any of the assets. We welcome feedback from participants, especially if we have misunderstood or misrepresented any issues.
Raeburn’s (catchment view), Reedy Creek, Paradise (catchment works), Faulkner’s Creek (sedimentation), Reseigh’s Ford (saline intrusion to Richardson River).
On the steep slopes the main issue of concern is prevention of erosion through runoff reduction. The main management response suggested by DPI extension staff on steep country is low cost regeneration/revegetation (‘retirement’ from agriculture). The consensus from hydrogeologists was that the upper catchments contribute relatively little to salinity issues on the plains. It is very difficult to contain salinity on the flatter country due to the presence of large ‘deep lead’ aquifers. The main benefits from works in the upper catchment are for biodiversity, flood reduction and sedimentation, rather than salinity, and this raises questions about this being a target area from a salinity management perspective. The demographic trends are an ageing farmer population, but with some movement into the area by people with lifestyle goals. There is an increasing reliance on off-farm income and opportunities for employment within the area. Some smaller allotments are available in the hills areas.
There are very high salt stores in this part of the landscape, and large potential for saline discharge to land and streams. Other concerns are stream sedimentation from infrequent major flooding events, gully erosion, and protection of rare creekline vegetation (from salinisation). Groundwater systems are complex, operating from local systems to regional deep-lead systems and also Parilla sands. Lucerne has strong potential to reduce watertables locally only. This is mainly broadacre farming country, with farm consolidation occurring. Landholders appear to have less sense of community than in the past.
Avon Plains Lakes – Lake Batyo Catyo, Donald Seaweed Project, Lake Buloke, Richardson River at Donald.
Salinity processes are largely driven by regional groundwater systems and investment in the upper catchment is not likely to have much influence on salinity outcomes, except perhaps through flood reduction and reduced sedimentation. Most of the recharge comes from the floodplains themselves. There may be some local systems sitting on top of regional systems around the Avon Plains lakes and wetlands. These lakes and wetlands are of high biodiversity significance. Some, such as Lake Batyo Catyo, have high value to the community for recreation. Use of engineering (pumping) to reduce saline discharge into lakes in the region assessed to be not very effective. Perennials are thought to be a technically feasible response to protect biodiversity assets where groundwater systems are localised. However, the probability of getting sufficient land-use change seems low in view of the productivity of cropping. The Richardson River has high salinity. Lake Buloke is the terminal end of the catchment and is salinising. In both cases, prevention of salinity seems impractical due to the regional groundwater system. The shire and community of Donald are taking an innovative approach to trying to make productive use of high quality saline water. They are at an early stage in these efforts at industry development, but it seems a very valid response in their situation, in view of the difficulty of containing salinity in this region. Donald township is affected by salinity but people were more interested in the new industry development.
Carapooee (target area), Moyreisk (Redbank target area), Smoky Creek (Natte Yallock target area), Rathscar (Natte Yallock).
Carapooee, Redbank and Natte Yallock are all current target areas. Carapooee has infertile soils, mainly used for low-intensity grazing. Low profitability. There is scope for more productive systems in the region, but there may be a range of difficulties in achieving adoption of these systems (e.g. small non-commercial farms, management skills, lack of capital, demand on manager’s time for off-farm employment). The area of salinity was quite small, and has shrunk during the recent dry phase. Moyreisk has a small local groundwater system, with salt outbreaks around the creek. Highly weathered soils, so low conductivity of water, hence need to use perennials placed locally to salinity problems. Farming systems would need major change and would need to be pushed hard to generate profits (which may compromise salinity containment). There are some large-scale commercial farmers in this region on the flat country but some lifestylers and absentee landholders in the hills. The lifestylers are interested in regeneration of vegetation but the usefulness of this from a salinity perspective might be marginal. Natte Yallock area has low groundwater responsiveness to land-use change (regional systems). This apparently was not considered when selecting this as a target area. Adoptability of the desired land-use changes appears low.
Divide between Avoca and Loddon catchments, Greenhill Creek (catchment overview), Yalong Road (salinisation and catchment works), Blackbottom Road (catchment works).
Rocky hill tops, with high infiltration and low carrying capacities. A lot of surface water, causing gully formation on hill sides – very expensive to attempt to contain. There remain some differences of opinion about the most appropriate response (prioritising the hill tops or lower down). DPI hydrologists recommended that interventions lower in the catchment should be the priority. Most farmers consider themselves commercial, but the majority are reliant on off-farm income. Economics of perennial farming systems in the lower catchment are not compelling, but appear to have some potential. The local Landcare group has been active and has an outstanding coordinator. However an interesting contrast was drawn between their efforts in planting 300,000 trees over 18 years, and the millions of blue gums planted privately for commercial forestry. Land prices are high in relation to farming capability, partly due to blue gums. The trade-offs between lower groundwater and reduced runoff from blue gums have not been quantified. It may not be too late to attempt low-cost natural regeneration (land ‘retirement’). Whether Bet Bet should be a high priority for intervention seems open to question (are the downstream benefits sufficient to justify the considerable funds being expended?). One discussion was over whether purchase of the area may be more cost effective than the current strategy.
Tullaroop Reservoir (water resources and infrastructure), Long Swamp (salinity processes & wetland), Sheoak Hill (landscape overview), Boundary Gully (salinisation).
Nutrient and biodiversity issues appear at least as important as salinity. Relatively large areas of salt-affected land occur between Cairn Curran and Tullaroop reservoirs, both of which are used as water supplies. Reducing salt in these areas is considered impractical due to local hydrogeology requiring levels of land-use change that are highly unlikely. There were also smaller areas of salt some way upstream from the worst affected areas, and these too seemed difficult to mitigate. There are also major nutrient issues, with algal bloom problems regularly in both reservoirs. Large areas of reservoirs not fenced from stock. Farmers in this district are largely commercially oriented. Incentive payments were paid in the past for establishment of perennial pastures, but many have been dis-established due to changes in market relativities. Long Swamp is a significant biodiversity asset which is being impacted on by salinity and altered drainage. It was drained in the 1960s. Blocking the drain and allowing the lake to refill appears to have considerable potential to generate biodiversity benefits at modest cost, especially in light of a recent land ownership change. At Boundary Gully, local establishment of perennials may have reduced salinity in the creek (although dry years helped). It was not clear how significant this creek is in regional terms. Some local farmers around the creek are cropping intensively, and apparently not interested in downstream salinity impacts. Landcare burnout is a significant issue in this area.
Lake Eppalock (water resources and infrastructure), Upper catchment (transitional landscape), landscape overview and catchment works.
The Wild Duck Creek sub-catchment and Axe Creek missed out on being target salinity priority areas because they didn’t have ‘traditional’ farming systems solutions, not because of lesser salinity problems and asset values. Wild Duck is one of four tributaries feeding Lake Eppalock, and its large salt input is diluted by the other tributaries. Water quality in Lake Eppalock is still good. Its water is currently used largely to support struggling dairy farmers, but in future it may face demands due to urban development in Bendigo. The salt inputs come from the McHarg Ranges, with discharge occurring along drainage lines and partly from the groundwater mound under the lake itself. Within drainage lines of both Wild Duck Creek and Axe Creek sub-catchments there is some potential for revegetation to generate biodiversity benefits. Preliminary modelling of revegetation in the hills (11,000 ha) indicated that runoff reductions would be a major concern. However, the modelling was relatively simplistic.
Axe Creek is below Lake Eppalock and salt enters waterways due to the deeply incised landscape. Issues at Axe Creek (upper catchment) include saline water flows into irrigation areas before fresher water from Lake Eppalock has been released. For both Axe Creek and Wild Duck there seem to be issues around whether DPI has sufficient engagement with lifestyle-oriented farmers.
DPI-CAS plays a very major role in delivery of NCCMA investments. CAS staff in each of the target regions have a very high level of responsibility and autonomy in selecting on-ground works for funding. In view of the complexity of natural resource management in this region, strong training and mentoring support for extension staff is needed.
An issue where we thought that additional training may be particularly valuable is in understanding the research that has been done on adoption of new practices by landholders. There seems to be inadequate consideration given to the long-term adoptability of land-use practices that are being promoted by extension or incentives. Another area where we noted a need for improved understanding was around principles for public investments for public benefit versus private benefit. This observation applied quite broadly across the people with whom we held discussions.
A substantial share of the region’s resources for the dryland area is apparently directed towards CAS salaries. In comparison with other programs in the region, the ratio of salaries to on-ground works is higher in the salinity program. The size of some of the target areas serviced by CAS staff seems small.
The level of expenditure on CAS salaries would appear to constrain the sorts of tools that the CMA can apply. It means that extension is the main plank of the program. Based on our observations, we suspect that there is an over-reliance on extension, and that (from a salinity perspective) incentives are not being sufficiently well targeted based on considerations of the adoptability of practices, groundwater responsiveness, and other criteria.
Despite the relatively low budgets allocated to incentives for works, in most (but not all) target areas, CAS officers have had trouble spending all of the money on works. Willing farmers were not forthcoming in sufficient numbers. While this may be partly due to the relatively dry recent climate, we believe it indicates some problems in the assumptions behind the overall strategy. This is not a criticism of the staff. Rather, it suggests that the task they have been set (of getting land-use change through payment of small incentives) may not be appropriate. The scale of land-use change being achieved is probably too small to contain salinity in most (although not all) cases.
The choice of target regions by the CMA was strategic to some extent but neglected some important considerations:
the likely impacts of extension and incentives on adoption (it was assumed that available farming systems options are sufficiently profitable, or otherwise attractive, to be readily adoptable, but it appears that the assumption was not sufficiently tested);
persistence of exotic perennials, where adopted;
cause and effect relationships between specific land-use changes and impacts on salinity and water yield, including response times between cause and effect;
biodiversity;
demographic changes towards lifestyle landholders.
Given the assumption that available farming systems options are adoptable by farmers, it is appropriate that the levels of incentives used were not large (per ha). If incentives were to be used to compensate farmers for adopting unattractive land uses, they would need to be significantly larger than current levels, and backed up with contracting, monitoring and enforcement. Also, as noted, the assumption about adoptability should be revisited.
Although there is some strategic analysis behind the selection of target areas, there seems to be little or no analysis when selecting works within a target area. The choice is primarily driven by landholder willingness, rather than by the achievement of outcomes. This is partly due to the difficulty of fully spending budgets, so that there was no budget constraint forcing some selectivity in the location of investments. This lack of strategic targeting appears to be a risk for the CMA.
Across the region there is little focus on development of new practices or technologies for salinity prevention or adaptation. Donald Landcare group is an encouraging exception. They are exploring commercial and other uses for saline groundwaters. Elsewhere we note that the implicit assumption that existing land-use options for salinity containment are sufficiently attractive to farmers seems unjustified in most of the areas we visited. This points to the need for new technology development, especially for commercially oriented farmers. A different strategy will be needed for non-commercially oriented landholders.
There seems to be a need for improved communication between PIRVIC and CAS staff. We thought that PIRVIC staff could work harder on communicating their technical information in more accessible, easy to understand ways, focussing on aspects that are most relevant to decision making. Conversely, CAS staff could make more use of PIRVIC expertise and be more demanding of information and of how it is communicated.
Although there is a wealth of technical and other information available in reports from many different sources, there has been a lack of integration of this information for decision purposes. This became particularly apparent during parts of the tour. Most of the information is still highly discipline based, and not necessarily useful for decision making. A relatively small subset of available information is currently used for decision making.
The proposed sequence is as follows.
Confirm the accuracy of this report on initial observations from NCCMA tour;
Consider any need to refine the framework before initial application;
Apply framework using limited information. Identify investment recommendations;
Apply framework using all available information. Refine investment recommendations;
Report findings and recommendation to the CMA Board;
After discussion with CMA Board, and any necessary revisions to report, circulate it to other stakeholders;
Conduct similar process in South Coast region of WA;
In meantime, conduct further analysis on demographic issues in the North Central region and identify implications for SIF3 and the CMA.
University of WA: David Pannell*, Sally Marsh, Geraldine Pasqual
Department of Primary Industries, Vic: Anna Ridley* (Rutherglen), Roger Wilkinson* (Bendigo), Austin Brown (Werribee)
*CRC for Plant-Based Management of Dryland Salinity
NC-CMA Staff: Geoff Park, Malory Weston
Consultant: Phil Dyson
Upper Avon: Raeburn’s (catchment view), Reedy Creek, Paradise (catchment works), Faulkner’s Creek (sedimentation), Reseigh’s Ford (saline intrusion to Richardson River). Lower Avon: Avon Plains Lakes – Lake Batyo Catyo, Donald Seaweed Project, Lake Buloke, Richardson River at Donald. Dinner (and breakfast the next day) at Donald with additional locals and IC members (e.g. Dr Leon, Peter Russell).
Day 1 Participants:
Department of Primary Industries, Vic: Eloise Seymour (Rutherglen), Olivia Kemp (Bendigo), Lindsay Ezard (St Arnaud), Cameron Morrison (St Arnaud), Peter Hekmeijer, Tony Fay (Geelong)
NC-CMA Staff: Aaron Gay, Tony Watson
Donald community: At Donald Shire offices: Keith McPherson, Trevor Campbell (farmer), Leo Tellefson (Landcare President & shire councillor), Graeme Harris (Shire Economic Development Officer), Fred Goldsmith, John Watson (Drilling contractor), James Goldsmith
Redbank and Natte Yallock: Carapooee (target area), Moyreisk (Redbank target area), Smoky Creek (Natte Yallock target area), Rathscar (Natte Yallock).
Bet Bet: Divide between Avoca/Loddon catchments, Greenhill Creek (catchment overview), Yalong Road (salinisation, catchment works), Blackbottom Road (catchment works).
Day 2 Participants:
Dept of Primary Industries, Vic: Eloise Seymour (Rutherglen), Olivia Kemp , Mark Reid, Leah Thompson, Kieran Ransom (Bendigo), Jamie Deason, Sarah Cuthbertson, Brian Mottram (Maryborough), Tony Fay (Geelong), Doug Crawford (Werribee)
NC-CMA Staff: Jenny Alexander, Tony Watson (part-day). NCCMA Board, Implementation Committee and primary producers: Jock Leishman, Ian MacBean, David Clark, Ken Coates (dinner)
Department of Sustainability & Environment: Kim Lowe, Steve Platt, Shayne Annett
Mooloort Plains: Tullaroop Reservoir (water resources and infrastructure), Long Swamp (salinity processes & wetland), Sheoak Hill (landscape overview), Boundary Gully (salinity).
Eppalock / Wild Duck: Lake Eppalock (water resources and infrastructure), Upper catchment (transitional landscape), landscape overview and catchment works.
Day 3 Participants:
Department of Primary Industries, Vic: Olivia Kemp, Jon Fawcett, Fred Shea and Greg Turner (Bendigo), Brian Mottram (Maryborough), Rob Sewell (Maryborough)
NC-CMA Staff: Jenny Alexander, Tony Watson. NC-CMA Board: Malcolm Fyffe, Ian MacBean,
Mooloort community: Sally Bryant, Helen Galloway, Trish Coutts, Jeff Mikkelson
Department of Sustainability & Environment: Kim Lowe, Steve Platt, Shayne Annett