Conservation Action Planning · 2016. 1. 7. · A Collaborative, Landscape Planning Approach to ....

Conservation Action Planning June 2015 Summary

Yorke Peninsula Sustainable Soils

A Collaborative, Landscape Planning Approach to Soil Conservation on the Yorke Peninsula and adjacent Districts,

South Australia

Compiled by: James McGregor (Greening Australia)

for the Northern and Yorke Natural Resources Management Board and the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources

Yorke Peninsula Sustainable Soil Conservation Action Planning Summary 2015 2

Cover Images

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1) Cropping around saline ground water lake at Agery, 2) Wind erosion (courtesy A. Harding), 3) Clay spreading on sandy soils near Bute (courtesy A. Harding), 4) Cropping adjacent to saline land, Port Broughton (courtesy D. Sloper), 5) Soil test pit in sand over clay soils near Stansbury Scrub (courtesy A. Harding), 6) Bumbunga Lake below the Hummocks Range (courtesy A. Harding), 7) Gully erosion (courtesy D. Sloper), 8) Stock on a saline discharge area (courtesy M. Young), 9) Soil pit in shallow soils at Paskeville (courtesy D. Sloper).

Acknowledgements Current and previous participants of the Sustainable Soil Conservation Action Planning process including Andrew Harding, Andy Sharp, Anne Hallett, Barry Mudge, Cathy Bowman, Claudia Smith, Dave Grieg, David Sloper, Dean Dolling, Deb Furbank, Eric Sommerville, Fabian Dee, Graham Hayes, Grant Chapman, Grantley Dodd, James McGregor, Janet Moore, Jarrod White, Kerry Ward, Kevin Teague, Leonie Kerley, Mary-Anne Young, Michael Richards, Neil Smith, Paul O’Leary, Peter Stockings, Rebecca Brown, Robert Tilley, Sarah Voumard, Simon Goodhand, Susan Sweeney, Terry Boise and Tim Herrmann. Mapping data presented throughout this document comes from a variety of sources including the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, and Geosciences Australia. This document may be cited as: McGregor, J. (2015) Yorke Peninsula Sustainable Soils Conservation Action Planning Summary 2015. Report to the Northern and Yorke Natural Resources Management Board and Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources. Greening Australia. Version: 30/06/15


Contents Page 1. Background 5 1.1. Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……. 5 1.2. Regional Planning Context……………………………………………………..…………………………………………………..………..... 6 1.3. Yorke Peninsula Sustainable Soils Project Area………………………………………………………………………………………… 8 1.4. Social Context……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……………………… 14 2. Identification of Conservation Assets 16 2.1. Methodology for Identifying Conservation Assets ……………………………………………………………………………………… 16 2.2. Conservation Assets of the Northern and Yorke Region…………………………..…………………………………………….…. 16 3. Viability of Conservation Assets 23 3.1. Methodology for Assessing Viability …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 23 3.2. Viability of the Conservation Assets of the Northern and Yorke Region …..…………………….……………………….… 23 4. Threats to Conservation Assets 26 4.1. Methodology for Assessing Threats…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 26 4.2. Threats to the Conservation Assets of the Northern and Yorke Region.……………………………………………………… 26 5. Setting Conservation Objectives 28 5.1. Methodology for Setting Conservation Objectives………………………………………………………….…………………………… 28 5.2. Conservation Objectives of the Northern and Yorke Region……………………………………………………………………… 28 6. Conservation Strategies, Actions Steps and Key Programs 29 6.1. Methodology for Developing Conservation Strategies, Action Steps and Key Programs……………………………… 29 6.2. Conservation Strategies, Action Steps and Key Programs ……..……………………………………………………………..……. 30 7. Monitoring and Evaluation 37 7.1. Methodology for Developing a Monitoring Program…………………………………………………………………………………… 37 7.2. Monitoring Indicators for the Northern and Yorke Region…………………..……………………………………………………... 37 8. Appendices 38 Appendix 1: Northern and Yorke Natural Resources Management Board Goals………………………………………………………… 38 Appendix 2: Participants of the Southern Flinders Ranges CAP process…………………………………………………………………….. 39 9. References 40


Contents Page

Tables and Charts Table 1 Existing Soil Programs and Legislation ………………….……………………………………………………….……….….............. 6 Chart 1 Monthly Median Rainfall…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 8 Table 2 Crop Estimates for the 2013/14 Season…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 13 Table 3 Selected Demographic Statistics from the Australian Bureau of Statistics…..………………………………….……… 14 Table 4 Soil Type by Asset……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 22 Table 5 Key Attributes for Conservation Assets ……………..………………..……………………………………………………….……….. 24 Table 6 Viability Ratings for Conservation Assets ………………………………………………………………………….…...………………. 25 Table 7 Key Threats to Conservation Assets ………………………………………………..…………………………………….……………….. 27 Maps Map 1. Soil Conservation Action Planning Sub-regions within the Northern and Yorke NRM Region…………………... 7 Map 2. Yorke Peninsula Sustainable Soils CAP Region………………………………………………………………………………………. 9 Map 3. Soil Types in the Project Region ………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………. 11 Map 4. Land Use in the Project Region ……..………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 12 Map 5. Local Government Areas ……………………………………………………………………….………………………………………………. 15 Map 6. Conservation Assets of the Yorke Peninsula Sustainable Soil Project Area ………………….……..………………….. 18 Abbreviations CAP Conservation Action Planning DEWNR Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources DWLBC Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation GA Greening Australia GRDC Grains Research and Development Corporation NRM Natural Resources Management PIRSA Primary Industries and Regions South Australia (formerly Primary Industries and Resources SA) SA South Australia CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation


1. Background 1.1 Introduction This document summarises the progress of the Yorke Peninsula Sustainable Soils Conservation Action Planning (CAP) process to the 30th June 2015. The process commenced in March 2014 and the planning team (refer Appendix 4) has met five times to develop the conservation plan for the region. The aim of the Yorke Peninsula Sustainable Soils Conservation Action Plan is to

“Protect Soil Health and Condition for Agricultural Production” 1.1.1. Conservation Action Planning (CAP) The planning process for the Yorke Peninsula Sustainable Soils Project uses the Conservation Action Planning (CAP) framework developed by the US-based conservation group The Nature Conservancy www.nature.org as its basis. This framework is widely used in the development of international conservation projects and is becoming more widely adopted in Australia for planning large scale conservation projects with multiple stakeholders. One of the underpinning goals of CAP planning is to move conservation projects from the paddock scale (10’s or 100’s of hectares) to the conservation and preservation of functional landscapes (100,000’s hectares) which are able to sustain biodiversity at an eco-regional scale (Low 2003). This CAP utilises the same principals of biodiversity conservation for soil conservation. The CAP process typically involves a series of conservation planning workshops with 5-10 participants from multiple organisations. The process is facilitated by a trained CAP coach and uses a standard step-by-step methodology (refer Low 2003) and an Excel-based program, or Miradi software, to guide participants through the development of a 1st iteration landscape conservation plan. Whilst built on solid scientific principles, the approach recognises that there are often large gaps in knowledge and data sets and hence a strong on-going adaptive management ethic is implied throughout the process. It also recognises that a large amount of knowledge exists with local practitioners and therefore incorporates local practitioner input into the planning process. The major steps in the CAP process, as outlined in this document, are:

• an analysis of the regional context in which conservation is to occur; • the identification of conservation assets and nested assets (i.e. ecosystems, communities and species); • an analysis of the viability (i.e. health) of the conservation assets and the key threats; • the development of measurable objectives to achieve the long-term conservation of the assets; • the development of conservation strategies, action steps and key programs to achieve the conservation

objectives; • the development of a practical monitoring and evaluation program and adaptive management framework.

http://www.nature.org/


1. Background 1.2 Regional Context 1.2.1 Northern and Yorke Natural Resources Management (NRM) Board Region The NRM region extends from the northern Adelaide plains in the south to the Southern Flinders Ranges in the north, and includes the whole of the Yorke Peninsula. In total the Northern and Yorke NRM region covers over 3 million hectares and supports a population of approximately 95,000 people (Northern and Yorke NRM Board, 2009). The Northern and Yorke NRM Board region has been split into three Sustainable Soil CAP regions based primarily on soil types, rainfall and land uses (see map 1). These three sub-regions are:

• Yorke Peninsula Region • Mid North Region • Upper North Region

1.2.2 Soil Management Organisations, Programs and Legislation The CAP process is a planning process which complements existing plans and strategies (refer Appendix 1 for Northern and Yorke NRM regional goals). The principle organisations involved in soil management in the region are the Northern and Yorke Natural Resources Management Board, the State Government Department for Environment, Water and Natural Resources, Rural Solutions South Australia and Primary Industries and Regions South Australia (PIRSA). The former two organisations underwent a merger in 2010/2011 and now function primarily as one organisation. Rural Solutions is effectively the commercial arm of PIRSA. The Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC) and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) are responsible for advancing research and adoption of practices which improve production. Local landholders, farmers and pastoralists are also supported by organisations such as Ag Excellence Alliance and local grower groups (e.g. Yorke Peninsula Alkaline Soils Group) to improve the sustainability and profitability of farming practices. Table 1: Existing Soil Programs, Strategies and Legislation National State (SA) Regional (N&Y NRM) National and State Legislation • Grain and Graze • Caring For Our Country

• State Strategic Plan • Tackling Climate

Change • State Natural

Resources Management Plan

• Northern and Yorke NRM Plan

• Natural Resources Management Act 2004 (SA)

• Genetically Modified Crops Management Act 2004 (SA)

• Agricultural and Veterinary Products (Control of Use) Act 2002 (SA)

• Development Act 1993 (SA)


1. Background Map 1: Sustainable Soils CAP Sub-regions in the Northern and Yorke NRM Region


1. Background 1.3 Yorke Peninsula Sustainable Soils Project Area The Yorke Peninsula Sustainable Soil project area covers approximately 1.3 million hectares which includes the entire Yorke Peninsula as well as the adjoining plains and low hills districts to the west of the Southern Flinders Ranges and Mount Lofty Ranges near Port Pirie and Clare respectively (refer Map 2). 1.3.1 Climate and Rainfall The project area is subject to a typical Mediterranean climate with mild wet winters and hot dry summers. This pattern is most pronounced in the south of the region and becomes less so in the north where summer rainfall events are common. Although the climate and rainfall are strongly influenced by the topography the lack of significant changes in relief means that average annual rainfall across the region varies only 200mm, from 500mm near Clare and Maitland to 300mm near Mambray Creek (refer Map 2). The region is prone to periodic droughts which have occurred with relative regularity since records began (Schwertfeger & Curran in Davies et al, 1996). Goyder’s Line, historically regarded as marking the point at which cropping is not viable, dissects the project area from about Moonta to Crystal Brook. Chart 1: Median Monthly Rainfall

(Bureau of Meteorology, Climate Data Online, 2015) 1.3.2 Regional Landforms The project area is characterised by gently undulating plains and low hills, with the Hummocks Range being the only area of significant relief, reaching a height of around 430m above sea level. The highest point within the project region is 450m above sea level at Bungaree Station. Around 80 percent of the project area is less than 100m above sea level.


1. Background Map 2: Yorke Peninsula Sustainable Soils Project Area


1. Background 1.3.3 Soil Types The following analysis is based on the Soils of SA report and associated distribution mapping by PIRSA (2002) and DWLBC (2005). Refer to Map 3 for soil type distribution. The most common soil type in the project region is ‘calcareous soil’ which makes up around 42% of the area and is commonly found across the northern and central parts of the region. These soils are usually associated with mallee vegetation. They are well drained, except when overlying clayey subsoils, and can be excessive in deep soils with light textured subsoils. Hard carbonate fragments on the land surface hinder tillage, seeding and harvesting of some crops and often stone picking or rolling are required. Soil pH is alkaline in the surface and alkaline to strongly alkaline in the subsoil. Surface soils often have high organic matter contents because biological activity and the corresponding rate of decomposition is reduced in calcareous soils. Inherent fertility varies with nutrient retention capacities, which are directly related to soil texture and organic matter levels. Phosphorus, Nitrogen and Zinc are widely deficient. Although Phosphorus is not leached in these soils, it suffers from reduced availability and applications of phosphorus fertiliser are needed to maintain productivity. Legumes and Nitrogen fertiliser are used to maintain Nitrogen at productive levels. The next most common soil type is ‘shallow soil on calcrete or limestone’ which makes up around 22% of the region, primarily in the southern to central areas. These soils are characterised by a hard carbonate layer or calcrete or limestone within 50cm of the soil surface. Calcrete is formed when carbonate-enriched soil horizons at or near the surface harden after being subjected to many years of seasonal wetting and drying or by dissolution and recrystallization of carbonate where there are fluctuating water tables. This carbonate layer can vary in thickness from a few centimetres to many metres and restricts plant root growth. Agricultural productivity varies depending on soil depth, texture, fine carbonate content and the extent of cracking in the underlying calcrete or limestone. The majority of these soils are well drained. Soil pH rages from slightly acidic to alkaline. Soils of this type can be non-calcareous throughout, calcareous in the subsoil only, or calcareous throughout. This has implications for nutrient availability. Phosphorus and Nitrogen are widely deficient, as can be Zinc. The regular application of Phosphorus and Nitrogen fertilisers are required to maintain productivity. ‘Deep sands’ are the third most common soil type in the region, making up around 13% of the area. These soils are sandy throughout, resulting from the deposition and reworking of sandy material by wind. These soils are manifest in two forms on the Yorke Peninsula; sand ridges of distinctly varying relief around Balaklava, Port Broughton and Moonta and the gently undulating topography of the southern tip of the Yorke Peninsula. Topsoils are loose and sandy, often with only a thin organically enriched surface. Drainage is excessive and can result in nutrient leaching and low fertility. Phosphorus, Nitrogen, Sulphur, Potassium and occasionally Calcium and Magnesium can be deficient. Nutrient retention can only be increased by building up organic matter or spreading clay. Hard red-brown texture contrast soils over alkaline subsoils are the other major soil type in the region, making up 8% of the area. These soils are firm to hard loamy sands to clay loam surface soils over red or brown sandy clay loam to clay subsoils. Topsoils are usually in the 10-40cm range. Topsoil waterlogging is common early in the season, but thee soils dry out rapidly and tend to seal over and set hard and this can result in patchy crop establishment. Inherent fertility is moderate to high, depending on clay and organic matter content. Leaching losses of nutrients are low in these soils and problems of mineral fixation and deficiencies are minimal. Phosphorus and Nitrogen are widely deficient however fertility levels are relatively easy to maintain.

1.3.4 Land Use The most common land use by area in the region is broad acre cropping (66% of area), followed by stock grazing (23%). Other significant land uses in the region include public and private conservation reserves (2%) and transport (2%) with river, creeks, lakes and wetlands occupying 4% of the project area probably frequently used for grazing also (refer Map 4).


1. Background Map 3: Soil Types in the Project Region


1. Background Map 4: Land Use in the Project Region

1. Background 1.3.5 Production The following is an excerpt from PIRSA’s Crop and Pasture Report (2015) for the Yorke Peninsula region regarding the production for the past three seasons which in turn is based on Australian Bureau of Statistics estimates. Table 2: Cropped areas and yield in the Yorke Peninsula Region (PIRSA, 2013- 2015)

Area (ha) Harvest (t)

Crop 2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015 Wheat 153,000 161,000 175,000 480,000 644,000 580,000 Durum 32,400 24,000 18,000 90,700 77,000 45,000 Barley 154,000 146,000 146,000 477,000 527,000 482,000 Oats 5,000 5,000 5,000 11,000 14,000 11,000

Triticale 2,000 2,000 2,000 4,400 7,000 5,500 Peas 21,000 21,000 20,000 32,550 32,000 30,000

Lupins 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 2,500 2,000 Beans 12,000 12,000 12,500 16,800 26,500 20,000

Chickpeas 10,000 10,000 9,500 12,000 15,000 10,500 Lentils 62,400 68,000 78,000 68,500 124,000 117,00 Vetch 2,000 2,000 2,000 1,600 3,000 1,500 Canola 35,900 34,000 32,000 52,000 66,000 42,000 Total 491,200 486,500 501,500 1,248,050 1,538,000 1,229,500 Hay 19,800 21,000 19,000 99,000 146,000 95,000


1. Background 1.4 Social Context 1.4.1 Population The main population centre in the region is Port Pirie with a little over 13,000 people. Most other towns in the region are much smaller with around 4,500 people at Kadina, 1850 at Balaklava, 1,200 at Crystal Brook, 1,100 at Ardrossan, 1,050 at Maitland and 1,000 at Port Broughton. Although Port Wakefield’s population base is only around 650 people, it is a major town as a major thoroughfare for people travelling from Adelaide to the Yorke Peninsula and also as a potential emerging recreation destination. Total population is difficult to assess as the CAP boundary does not correspond to statistical boundaries (see Map 5), however an approximation using Local Government Areas gives a figure of approximately 51,700 people (refer to Table 4 below). Table 3a: Selected Demographic Statistics from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (www.abs.gov.au)

Location Population 2003

Population 2008

Population 2013

10 Year Change % No.

Population Density

(people/km²) Barunga West (DC) 2,596 2,575 2,452 -6 -144 1.5 Copper Coast (DC) 11,144 12,382 13,687 23 2,543 17.7 Mount Remarkable (DC) 2,937 2,915 2,785 -3 -97 0.8 Port Pirie City and Districts (M) 17,536 17,619 17,625 1 89 10.0 Wakefield (DC) 6,552 6,585 6,826 4 274 2.0 Yorke Peninsula (DC) 11,519 11,360 11,119 -3 -400 1.9

TOTAL 52,284 53,436 54,494 4 2,210 3.2 Table 3b: Selected Demographic Statistics from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (www.abs.gov.au)

Location Population 2006

Labour Force 2006

Farming Labour Force 2006

% Involved in Farming

Barunga West (DC) 2,546 996 285 30.5 Copper Coast (DC) 11,446 4,417 241 6.0 Mount Remarkable (DC) 2,842 1,302 329 26.2 Port Pirie City and Districts (M) 17,142 6,857 246 4.0 Wakefield (DC) 6,372 2,802 560 20.8 Yorke Peninsula (DC) 11,190 4,363 1,009 24.4

TOTAL 48,992 19,741 2,385 12.1

http://www.abs.gov.au/

http://www.abs.gov.au/


1. Background Map 5: Local Government Areas


2. Identification of Conservation Assets 2.1. Methodology for Identifying Conservation Assets The first step in this conservation action planning process involves the identification of a small number of focal conservation assets (i.e. soil types, climatic regions, land uses) that collectively represent the soils of a region. The explicit assumption within this process is that by protecting these examples of broad-scale soil types the majority of land uses and productivity will also be conserved. The list of focal conservation assets therefore need not be long and exhaustive; rather, it should be short and representative. In general, the CAP methodology recommends that no more than eight conservation assets are selected to be the focus of a landscape conservation program. The asset selection process begins by identifying the coarse-scale soil types and land uses for conservation. The issue of whether to lump individual soil types together or split into individual conservation assets is often a difficult one. In general, soil types are lumped together if they: ● co-occur across the landscape; ● share similar land management practices; ● share similar threats. Source: Adapted from Low (2003) 2.2. Soil Conservation Assets of the Northern and Yorke Region Eight key conservation assets have been identified by the Yorke Peninsula Sustainable Soil planning team. Each conservation asset is associated with numerous nested assets (i.e. Soil types, Land uses, etc.) which are an important focus of conservation efforts and help further define the asset. The eight key conservation assets and associated nested assets are described in more detail in the following section.

1. Naturally Saline Lands and Wetland Fringes 2. Fertile Uplands and Plains 3. Pirie Plains 4. Shallow Soils 5. Calcareous Soils 6. Sand Dune / Swale Systems 7. Sand over Clay Systems 8. Non-Arable Hummock Range 9. Carbonate Sands

The spatial distribution the assets are presented in Map 6. Although the mapping has been significantly refined from previous iterations it is expected that ongoing refinement of this mapping will occur.


2. Identification of Conservation Assets 2.2.1. Naturally Saline Lands and Wetland Fringes Naturally Saline Lands are low laying areas which currently are, or historically were, subjected to inundation by seawater or are internally or poorly draining systems which promoted saline soils. These areas and their associated wetland fringes occur in three main areas within the project area. Coastal and internal draining landforms between Port Wakefield and Redhill, the coastal plains between Port Broughton and Port Pirie and the internally drained and ocean connected Peesey Swamp and ‘The Drain’. These areas are too salt affected for most crop types, but, where the salinity is lower in some fringing areas, are sown with salt tolerant varieties. Generally agriculture in these areas has an emphasis on grazing on the perennial samphire vegetation and/or planted saltbush.

Nested Assets KEY AREAS Port Pirie – Port Broughton Coastal Plains KEY AREAS Boucaut System KEY AREAS Bumbunga Lake KEY AREAS Diamond Lakes KEY AREAS Peesey Swamp KEY AREAS The Drain KEY AREAS Cape Elizabeth LAND USE Grazing

2.2.2. Fertile Uplands and Plains The Fertile Uplands and Plains extend to the east of the Hummocks Range (above the salt affected soils), between Maitland and Ardrossan and around Warooka. Soils here tend to be calcareous but also include areas of hard red-brown texture contrast soils with alkaline subsoil, gradational soils with highly calcareous lower subsoil and small areas of deep sands. Soil surface texture is highly variable from sand through to clay loam. As suggested by the ‘fertile’ prefix, cropping in this area is highly productive. Right: Sheep grazing in crop. D. Sloper, NYNRM.

Nested Assets KEY AREAS Northern Mount Lofty Ranges to the Hummocks KEY AREAS Maitland to Ardrossan KEY AREAS Warooka (“The Golden Mile”) SOIL TYPE Calcareous soils SOIL TYPE Hard red-brown texture contrast soils with alkaline subsoil SOIL TYPE Gradational soils with highly calcareous lower subsoil

2. Identification of Conservation Assets


Map 6: Conservation Assets of the Yorke Peninsula Sustainable Soil Project Area


2. Identification of Conservation Assets 2.2.3. Pirie Plains The Pirie Plains extend along the coastal plains south of Port Pirie to Mambray Creek in the north, being bound by the Southern Flinders Ranges to the east. Soils are primarily Calcareous and Hard red-brown texture contrast soils with alkaline subsoil. Soil surface texture is highly variable from sand through to clay loam. Cropping in this area is highly productive when adequate rainfall is received. Right: Cropped plains around Port Germein viewed from the range.

Nested Assets KEY AREAS Plains from Crystal Brook to Mambray Creek SOIL TYPE Calcareous Soils SOIL TYPE Hard red-brown texture contrast soils with alkaline subsoil

2.2.4. Shallow Soils Shallow soils are abundant on the Yorke Peninsula proper, extending along the eastern edge of the Peninsula and expanding to the entire width of the Peninsula around Paskeville and Warooka. The most common soil types are Shallow soils on calcrete and Calcareous soils. Common terminology for these soils includes ‘mallee soils’ and ‘grey soils’. Right: Soil Pit at Paskeville. D. Sloper, NYNRM.

Nested Assets KEY AREAS Paskeville KEY AREAS Eastern Yorke Peninsula KEY AREAS Warooka SOIL TYPE Shallow Soils on Calcrete SOIL TYPE Calcareous Soils


2. Identification of Conservation Assets 2.2.5. Calcareous Soils Calcareous soils (the asset not the soil type) primarily occur in two locations; extending along the western foothills of the Hummocks range, and along edge of the Peninsula from around Maitland to Minlaton. The main soil type is Calcareous soils. Right: Crop and remnant vegetation, Minlaton. D. Sloper, NYNRM.

Nested Assets KEY AREAS Western Yorke Peninsula from Maitland to Minlaton KEY AREAS Western Yorke Peninsula SOIL TYPE Calcareous Soils

2.2.6. Sand Dune / Swale Systems Sand Dune/Swale Systems are distinctive features in the landscape with plains dissected by a series of near parallel sand ridges. Often the dune tops retain some remnant vegetation with the slopes and swales often used for cropping. These systems occur in three distinct areas of the CAP region; south of Port Broughton, around Balaklava (Avon and Stow) and south of Moonta. The main soil types include Deep sands and Calcareous soils. Right: Bare soils at Bute. D. Sloper, NYNRM.

Nested Assets KEY AREAS Avon / Stow KEY AREAS Port Broughton - Bute KEY AREAS Moonta - Weetulta SOIL TYPE Deep Sands SOIL TYPE Calcareous Soils

2.2.7. Sand over Clay Systems Sand over Clay systems are an asset aligned almost entirely to a mapped soil group (Sand over clay soils) and confined to a relatively small area between Yorketown, Minlaton and Ardrossan. Average annual rainfall in this area is between 400mm and 450mm. Right: Clay brought to the sandy surface by ants. D. Sloper, NYNRM.

Nested Assets KEY AREAS East of Minlaton SOIL TYPE Sand over Clay


2. Identification of Conservation Assets 2.2.8. Non-Arable Hummocks Range The Non-Arable Hummocks Range includes parts of the Hummocks and Barunga ranges. Soils are mainly loams of Calcareous soils, Gradational soils with highly calcareous lower subsoil and Hard red-brown texture contrast soils with alkaline subsoil. These areas are not suitable for cropping due to a number of limiting factors including shallow soils (often with surface rock outcropping) and steep slopes. Remnant perennial native grasslands cover much of this asset, with some grassy woodland in the south, making them very suitable for grazing. Average annual rainfall is around 350mm to 450mm. Right: Treed slopes on the Hummocks Range. D. Sloper, NYNRM.

Nested Assets KEY AREAS Bumbunga Range KEY AREAS Hummock Range SOIL TYPE Calcareous soils SOIL TYPE Hard red-brown texture contrast soils with alkaline subsoil SOIL TYPE Gradational soils with highly calcareous lower subsoil LAND USE Grazing

\

2.2.9. Carbonate Sands The Carbonate Sands asset is another which aligns very closely with a synonymous mapped soil type (Carbonate sand). This asset is restricted to the south western tip of the Yorke Peninsula following the coast from Foul Bay, through Inneston and up to Daly Head. Although some cropping does occur on this asset, it has generally retained much of its native vegetation and is more commonly grazed or reserved for conservation. Right: West of Warooka. A. Harding, PIRSA.

Nested Assets KEY AREAS South western Yorke Peninsula SOIL TYPE Carbonate Sands LAND USE Conservation LAND USE Grazing

\

Table 4: Soil Type by Asset

Calcareous Soils Carbonate Sands Fertile Uplands and Plains

Naturally Saline Lands and Wetlands

Non-Arable Hummocks Range Pirie Plains Sand Dune Swale

Systems Sand over Clay Shallow Soils YP CAP Region

Soil Type Area (%) Area (ha) Area (%) Area

(ha) Area (%) Area (ha) Area (%) Area (ha) Area (%) Area

(ha) Area (%) Area (ha) Area (%) Area (ha) Area (%) Area

(ha) Area (%) Area (ha) Area (%) Area (ha)

Calcareous soils 83.4% 83,677 1.7% 1,053 53.9% 168,229 16.9% 17,931 53.4% 11,568 48.8% 45,220 53.9% 119,621 2.4% 1,038 28.6% 94,958 42.0% 543,296

Cracking clay soils 0.1% 83 - 0 0.6% 2,019 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 0.2% 2,102

Deep sands 4.3% 4,363 65.8% 41,657 1.3% 4,090 13.6% 14,365 - 0 10.0% 9,232 32.9% 73,121 - 0 4.8% 15,961 12.6% 162,788

Deep uniform to gradational soils - 0 - 0 0.2% 653 0.4% 453 - 0 7.9% 7,370 - 0 - 0 - 0 0.7% 8,476 Gradational soils with highly calcareous lower subsoil 1.1% 1,090 - 0 17.1% 53,267 0.2% 199 34.1% 7,391 4.9% 4,527 - 0 0.3% 132 0.2% 554 5.2% 67,161

Hard red-brown texture contrast soils with alkaline subsoil 1.5% 1,466 - 0 17.5% 54,464 2.7% 2,856 12.5% 2,716 23.8% 22,089 2.0% 4,424 3.0% 1,329 4.4% 14,579 8.0% 103,923

Not applicable (includes urban, reservoirs, lakes, quarries, evaporation pans)

- 0 0.1% 21 - 0 1.7% 1,804 - 0 0.1% 96 0.1% 3 - 0 0.1% 348 0.2% 2,273

Rock - 0 0.1% 32 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 0.1% 5 0.1% 37

Sand over clay soils - 942 - 0 0.6% 1,951 0.2% 212 - 0 - 0 2.0% 4,541 67.0% 29,341 1.2% 3,871 3.2% 40,858

Shallow soils on calcrete or limestone 6.8% 6,853 26.7% 16,931 8.5% 26,394 12.2% 12,876 - 0 0.1% 109 8.2% 18,289 23.3% 10,203 58.3% 193,883 22.1% 285,538

Shallow soils on rock - 0 - 0 0.1% 446 - 0 - 0 0.2% 199 - 0 - 0 0.1% 189 0.1% 834

Shallow to moderately deep acidic soils on rock - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 0.2% 139 - 0 - 0 - 0 0.1% 139

Wet Soils 0.1% 20 4.5% 2,871 0.2% 490 48.4% 51,290 - 0 3.6% 3,381 0.5% 1,113 4.0% 1,771 1.1% 3,669 5.0% 64,604


3. Viability of Conservation Assets 3.1. Methodology for Assessing the Viability of Conservation Assets The second step in the conservation action planning process is an assessment of the viability (or overall health) of the conservation assets. This is a four step process. Step 1 Identification of a small number (3 – 5) of key attributes for each conservation asset. Key attributes represent the critical factors required for the long term viability of the conservation assets. These factors relate to the size, condition and landscape context of the assets and include attributes such as soil health, productivity and soil cover (refer Table 4). Step 2 Identification of appropriate monitoring indicators for each key attribute. Monitoring indicators are easily measurable factors closely related to the status of the key attributes. For example, the amount of standing vegetation soil cover may be an appropriate monitoring indicator for soil stability. Step 3 Development of criteria for rating the current status of each indicator. The development of criteria for rating the status of each indicator is an iterative process that typically starts as a simplified qualitative assessment (e.g. lots, some, few) and is progressively developed into more refined, numeric value ranges (e.g. 100% cover for 95% of the total area). Step 4 Ranking the current status of each indicator to determine the overall viability of the conservation assets. The final step in assessing the viability of the conservation assets is to rank the current status of each indicator based on the criteria for poor, fair, good and very good (described below). These individual ratings are rolled up in the Conservation Action Planning software to provide an assessment of the overall viability for each asset (refer table 4). POOR – allowing the factor to remain in this condition for an extended period of time will make restoration or preventing extirpation practically impossible. FAIR – the factor is outside its range of acceptable variation and requires human intervention. If unchecked, the target will be vulnerable to serious degradation. GOOD – the factor is functioning within its range of acceptable variation; it may require some human intervention. VERY GOOD – the factor is functioning at an ecologically desirable status, and requires little human intervention. Source: adapted from Low (2003) 3.2. Viability of the Conservation Assets of the of the Northern and Yorke Region The overall viability of the conservation assets, as assessed by the planning team, is displayed in Table 5. Viability was determined by identifying and rating the current status of the key attributes of each conservation asset based on considerations of size, condition and landscape context (refer Table 5). These assessments were supported by existing monitoring data and reports for some key attributes and in other cases were based on local expert opinion. The absence of quantitative data for assessing the viability of some key attributes highlights a gap in the existing monitoring programs and an area for future development (refer section 7). Table 6 shows that the two assets described as ‘fertile’, Fertile Uplands and Fertile Flats have ‘Good’ viability. The remainder of the conservation assets were assessed to be of Fair overall viability. Overall the soil viability, or health, was rated as Fair.


3. Viability of Conservation Assets Table 5: Key Attributes of Conservation Assets

Conservation Asset Landscape Context

Condition

Size

Naturally Saline Lands and Wetland Fringes

• Ground Water Hydrology • Rainfall • Surface Water Hydrology

• Pollution Level • Salinity • Soil Fertility • Soil Stability • Soil Structure

• Extent • Potential Productivity

Fertile Uplands and Plains


• Depth of Soil • Pollution Level • Salinity • Soil Fertility • Soil Stability • Soil Structure

• Potential Productivity

Fertile Flats




Shallow Soils


• Depth of Soil • Pollution Level • Salinity • Soil Fertility • Soil Stability • Soil Structure • Water Infiltration


Calcareous Soils




Sand Dune / Swale Systems




Sand over Clay Systems


• Depth of Soil • Pollution Level • Salinity • Soil Fertility • Soil Stability • Soil Structure • Depth to Clay • Water Infiltration


Non-Arable Hummock Range

• Rainfall • Surface Water Hydrology

• Depth of Soil • Pollution Level • Soil Fertility • Soil Stability • Soil Structure


Calcareous Carbonate Sands

• Ground Water Hydrology • Surface Water Hydrology

• Depth of Soil • Pollution Level • Salinity • Soil Fertility • Soil Stability • Soil Structure • Water Infiltration


Note: Status of Key Attribute – Poor, Fair, Good, Very Good, Not Assessed


3. Viability of Conservation Assets Table 6: Overall Viability Ratings for Conservation Assets

Conservation Asset Landscape Context Condition Size Overall Viability

1 Naturally Saline Lands and Wetland Fringes Fair Fair Poor Fair

2 Fertile Uplands and Plains Fair Fair Very Good Good

3 Pirie Plains Good Fair Good Good

4 Shallow Soils Fair Fair Good Fair

5 Calcareous Soils Fair Fair Fair Fair

6 Sand Dune / Swale Systems Fair Fair Good Fair

7 Sand over Clay Systems Fair Fair Good Fair

8 Non-Arable Hummock Range Fair Fair Fair Fair

9 Calcareous Carbonate Sands Good Fair Fair Fair

Overall Landscape Viability Fair


4. Threats to Conservation Assets 4.1. Methodology for Assessing Threats The third step in the conservation action planning process involves the identification of high priority threats to the conservation assets. This is a two-step process. The first step involves an assessment of the severity of the key stresses to the conservation assets. Stresses are inversely related to the key attributes (refer section 3) and may include altered rainfall patterns, increased pollutants, reduced productivity, reduced water infiltration, etc. Stresses are ranked from very high to low based on: ● severity of damage where it occurs i.e. what level of damage can reasonably be expected within 10 years under current circumstances (Very High – destroys or eliminates the conservation asset, High – seriously degrades, Medium – moderately degrades, Low – slightly impairs); ● scope of the damage i.e. what is the geographic scope of impact on the conservation asset that can be reasonably expected within 10 years under current circumstances (Very High – very widespread, High – widespread, Medium – localised, Low – very localised). The second step in the process involves the identification and ranking of the source of stresses (i.e. the direct threats). For example, the source of stress for increased standing water level may be vegetation clearance or the source of stress for reduced productivity may be introduced pests. Sources of stress are ranked from very high to low based on: ● contribution of the source to the stress i.e. expected contribution of the source, acting alone, to the full expression of the stress under current circumstances (i.e. Very High – very large contributor, High – large contributor, Medium – moderate contributor, Low – small contributor). ● irreversibility of the stress caused by the source (Very High – not reversible, High – reversible, but not practically affordable, Medium – reversible with reasonable commitment of resources, Low – easily reversible at low cost). Once the stresses and sources are ranked according to the above criteria, a summary rating for each threat is generated by the Conservation Action Planning (CAP) software. This results in the threats summary table (refer Table 6) that allocates a ranking for each threat from very high to low, both in terms of the threat to the individual conservation assets and to the collective impact of the threat across the landscape. Source: adapted from (Low 2003) 4.2. Threats to the Conservation Assets The key threats to the conservation assets are displayed in Table 7. This shows that the greatest threats to the region across all assets include climate change, herbicide resistance, crop diseases, introduced weeds, incorrect fertiliser application and pest snails. The most threatened assets were Fertile Uplands, Fertile Flats, Shallow Soils, Highly Calcareous Soils and Dune / Swale Systems.


4. Threats to Conservation Assets Table 7: Key Threats to Conservation Assets

Threats Across Assets

Naturally Saline Lands and

Wetland Fringes

Fertile Uplands

Fertile Flats

Shallow Soils

Highly Calcareous Soils

Dune / Swale

Systems

Sand over Clay Systems

Non-Arable

Hummock Range

Calcareous

Carbonate Sand

Overall Threat Rank

Project-specific threats 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Short term climate variability

High Very High

Very High High Very

High High High High Very High

Long term climate variability

Medium High Very High

Very High High Very

High High Medium High Very High

Introduced Pests (Snails, Rabbits, Mice, Locusts)

Medium High High High High High High Medium Very High

Very High

Loss of soil structure by soil disturbance

High High High High High High High Very High

Loss of cover by inappropriate soil disturbance

Medium High High High High High High Very High

Bushfire Medium High Medium Medium High High High High High

Inappropriate Burning Medium Medium High High Medium High High

Incompatible Grazing Regimes

Low Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium High High Medium High

Water Repellent Soils Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium High High High

Misuse of Chemicals (Herbicides/ Pesticides)

Medium Medium High Medium Medium Medium Medium High

Landuse Change to Non-agricultural (development, urbanisation, mining, etc)

Low Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium

Loss of Vegetation Low Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium

Loss of Soil microbes by Fungicide Application

Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium

Compaction by Heavy Machinery

Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium

Loss of cover by crop diseases Low Low Low Low Low Low High Medium

Excess or deficient Ground Water Levels

Low Medium Low Low Low Medium Medium Low Medium

Threat Status Medium Very High

Very High

Very High

Very High

Very High

Very High High Very

High Very High


5. Setting Conservation Objectives 5.1. Methodology for Setting Conservation Objectives The fourth step in the conservation action planning process involves setting measurable objectives that, if achieved, would ensure the long term conservation of the assets. In particular, objectives are developed in line with the S.M.A.R.T principles (i.e. specific, measurable, attainable, realistic and time-bound) and are aimed at addressing high priority threats or achieving improvements in size, condition and landscape context attributes. 5.2. Conservation Objectives Surface Cover (Regional) Objective 1: By 2020 the number of days that erosion prone soils are protected (score 1-5) from erosion is increased greater than 340 days of the year. Climate Change (Regional) Objective 2: By 2025 methods to increase resilience to extreme weather are investigated and findings are implemented. Objective 3: By 2020 the effective use of predictive climate tools is increased by 20% on 2015 levels to proactively manage the soil degradation risks, i.e. soil salinity and erosion, due to climate variability. Transient Salinity (Fertile Uplands and Plains, Pirie Plains) Objective 4: Increase soil cover to 70% to reduce evapotranspiration, during the Spring to Autumn period in areas affected by transient salinity by 2025. Soil Structure / Fertility / compaction (Regional) Objective 5: Maintain or improve soil friability (as measured by infiltration (TBC), penetrometer (<5kPa TBC) or bulk density (<1.5 g/cc)) across 70% of at risk soils, including sodic soils, by 2020. Water Repelling Soils (Sand over Clay Systems) Objective 6: 60% of suitable (within economic/soil constraints) untreated (as at 2015) water repelling soils, are effectively ameliorated by 2025. Salinity / Waterlogging (Fertile Uplands and Plains, Dune/Swale Systems and Sand over Clay Systems) Objective 7: By 2025 the field capacity is not exceeded for greater than 2 weeks in 95% of arable soil, under 'normal' conditions. Acidity (TBC) Objective 8: By 2025 restore pH to above 5 across xx% of at risk land.


6. Conservation Strategies, Action Steps and Key Programs 6.1. Methodology for Developing and Prioritising Conservation Strategies The fifth step in the conservation action planning process involves the identification of effective strategies and action steps to achieve the conservation objectives developed in Section 5. This is a three step process. Step 1 Conduct a thorough situation analysis of the key factors related to the conservation objectives. This includes consideration of the causal factors underlying particular threats and potential hurdles for enhancing the condition of conservation assets (e.g. social, cultural, economic and individual motivations). This can help pinpoint opportunities for intervention and guide decisions about which delivery mechanisms are best employed to achieve the conservation objectives (e.g. direct landholder targeting, use of volunteers or contractors, market based instruments, education programs, or legislative and policy changes). Step 2 Brainstorm conservation strategies and action steps. Conservation strategies and action steps are the broad courses of action required to achieve the conservation objectives. There are essentially three “pathways” for strategy development that should be considered for threat abatement objectives. These include: ● direct protection or management of land or water; ● influencing a key decision maker; ● addressing a key underlying factor. Once the major strategies are identified, they may be broken down into smaller, more detailed action steps. Step 3 Prioritise conservation strategies and action steps according to a cost-benefit and feasibility analysis. Useful considerations for prioritising strategies and action steps include the relative value of the asset (e.g. highly productive area), its level of threat, the contribution of the strategy to meeting the conservation objective, the duration of the benefit achieved and the potential leverage of the action (e.g. high profile site that provides a catalyst for further action). Feasibility of implementation should also be considered including the total cost and time required to implement the strategy, the ease of land access and the degree to which a lead individual / institution exists to implement the strategy. It may be useful to initially prioritise a small number of conservation strategies that provide a mix of high benefit and high feasibility (i.e. low hanging fruit) actions. In particular the high feasibility actions ensures that projects can get some early ‘runs on the board’ to leverage investment into the more complex and costly strategies. The use of specialised prioritisation tools such as the Investment Framework for Environmental Resources – INFFER (http://www.inffer.org/) can aid this process. Use of Conceptual Models Conceptual models are increasingly being used for strategy development in conservation planning. A conceptual model is a visual method (diagram) of representing a set of causal relationships between factors that are believed to impact on one or more of the conservation assets. A good model should explicitly link the conservation assets to the direct threats impacting them, the factors (i.e. indirect threats) influencing the direct threats, and the strategic activities proposed to mitigate those factors (WWF 2005). The Miradi software program (www.miradi.org) can be used to develop conceptual models and fully supports the Conservation Action Planning (CAP) process. It is recommended that conservation projects that have applied the CAP process investigate the use of the Miradi software and conceptual models during the strategy development stage.

http://www.inffer.org/

http://www.miradi.org/


6. Conservation Strategies, Action Steps and Key Programs Objective 1: By 2020 the number of days that erosion prone soils are protected (score 1-5) from erosion is increased greater than 340 days of the year. Strategy 1.1: Improve machinery and practices for establishing crops and pastures (minimum tillage / stubble retention) and managing heavy stubbles Priority: TBC Action Steps

1. Monitoring of burning and surface cover 2. Develop communications strategy

• Determine the best extension activities to enable/maximise adoption • Promote ‘best practice’ methods through champions and demonstration sites

3. Identify heavy stubble sticking points – harvest time/sowing time (talk to SANTFA, AgEx, Machinery manufacturers, Universities, etc)

4. Develop partnerships with researchers and advisors to address research and promotion 5. Investigate and develop alternative techniques (inc. discussions machinery manufacturers) 6. Consider ability to address new industries and implication for surface cover

Strategy 1.2: Alternative management to whole of paddock burning for pest, disease and weed control Priority: TBC Action Steps

1. Monitoring of burning and surface cover 2. Identify the issue that people are trying to manage 3. Develop communications strategy

• Establish/maintain communications with stakeholders (Industry bodies, etc. including interstate) 4. Determine alternative management strategies (investigate crop rotation strategies that discourage pests) 5. Research and develop new management strategies (understand pest biology/ecology, determine

holistic/integrated practices) 6. Utilise burning/ wind-row burning as a strategic tool (determine trigger points and risks) 7. Determine the best extension activities to enable/maximise adoption 8. Promote ‘optimum practice’ methods through champions and demonstration sites 9. Ensure legislation / regulation matches best practice (e.g. burning after dark). 10. Collaboration of landholders and advisors (education and working with)

Strategy 1.3: Maintaining adequate cover within crop phase and through a complete crop rotation (pre, during, post years) and grazing pre-sowing/post harvest (are you managing to land capability?) Priority: TBC Action Steps

1. Monitoring of burning and surface cover 2. Identify areas of risk e.g. growing grain legumes (when am I most at risk, crops which pose greatest risk) including grazing pressure 3. Develop communications strategy (obtaining and disseminating knowledge)

• Establish/maintain communications with stakeholders (Industry bodies, etc. including interstate) 4. Maintain previous years’ stubble (grain legumes) 5. Diversity of species – cover crops that provide economic benefits 6. Consult with landholders and the broader industry to determine/understand the barriers and limitations to achieving this. 7. Investigate alternative strategies to maintaining cover (e.g. forums, machinery) 8. Education/Communication – Promote the known benefits (e.g. stubble trellis for grain legumes), give people a compelling reason to do it.

• Plan crop rotation to provide surface cover through crop phases of higher risk • Manage grazing to retain surface cover between crops

9. Promote ‘best practice’ methods through champions and demonstration sites


6. Conservation Strategies, Action Steps and Key Programs Strategy 1.4: Implement suitable grazing system (total grazing pressure) to maintain cover Priority: TBC Action Steps 1. Monitoring of surface cover in grazing systems 2. Identify barriers to adoption and drivers of change 3. Education and livestock/pasture management

• Timing, DSE, livestock condition monitoring • Pasture productivity/Nutrition, Feed testing, Pasture utilisation • Paddock Design, water point and fencing –design for improved pasture utilisation • Strategic approach(stock changes: agistment/selling/lambing/confined feeding) • Increase understanding of different stock (Cattle, Sheep, Goats and breeds) and pests’ grazing habits • Demonstrate and promote feed and cover crops

4. Investigate strategies for managing non-domesticated grazing pressure 5. Establish/maintain communications with stakeholders (Industry bodies, etc. including interstate) 6. Improve technical support for grazing with ongoing advice across all management practices (inc. interstate

experts) 7. Identify and promote beneficial pasture varieties, especially summer active annual/perennials 8. Encourage and facilitate the installation of suitable infrastructure including water points and additional water

sources, fencing and feed on hand management. Objective 2: By 2025 methods to increase resilience to extreme weather are investigated and findings are implemented. Strategy 2.1: Investigate and implement methods to increase resilience to extreme weather. Priority: TBC Action Steps

Mitigation / Adaptation 1. Conduct hydrological modelling 2. Review existing infrastructure (including farm tracks and recovery associated infrastructure)

and modify where necessary 3. Identify appropriate mitigation strategies (plant breeds, stubble retention, perennial

vegetation including carbon sinks/wind breaks, technologies) and implement where possible

4. Utilise traditional and latest advances in technology for improved management of weather events

5. Education: ensure all stakeholders are aware of potential impacts (impacts on business, as well as infrastructure, crops, stock etc.) and mitigation strategies.

6. Identify communication channels for best practice to landholder groups 7. Scenario role playing stress test (having a plan and being able to implement it)

8. Support for decision making and mental health

Recovery 1. Increase contingency planning in farm/business planning which factors in the potential

requirement for fertilising, cleaning (silt, burnt trees, etc.), infrastructure, pasture reestablishment.

2. Develop a response plans (on-ground and communication) at farm (as above), regional and state levels

3. Conduct assessment to understand true impact of extreme event and provide support for decision making

4. Support for decision making (technical support, people with experience, BlazeAid, networks may be beyond the immediate area) and mental health


6. Conservation Strategies, Action Steps and Key Programs Objective 3: By 2020 the effective use of predictive climate tools is increased by 20% on 2015 levels to proactively manage the soil degradation risks, i.e. soil salinity and erosion, due to climate variability. Strategy 3.1: Increase the effective use of weather forecasting services to inform property management decisions Priority: TBC Action Steps

1. Determine 2015 usage levels 2. Promote existing information sources 3. Education on interpretation – how can you use/not use this information and supplement with other

information/knowledge sources 4. Climate champions to share information on how they use it for business outcomes

Objective 4: Increase soil cover to 70% to reduce evapotranspiration, during the Spring to Autumn period in areas affected by transient salinity by 2025 Strategy 4.1: Increase spreading of organics to increase soil cover by 2020. Priority: TBC Action Steps

1. Promote advantages of spreading organics • demonstrate cost:benefits (fact sheet and case studies) • establish/promote demonstration sites 2. Improve access to specialised machinery for processing organics (chaff)

Strategy 4.2: By 2025 1,000 ha of salt affected land planted with suitable salt tolerant perennials in catchments affected by salinity. Priority: TBC Action Steps 1. Promote advantages of planting salt tolerant perennials

• demonstrate cost:benefits (fact sheet and case studies) • establish/promote demonstration sites

2. For non-grazing properties explore alternative salt tolerant varieties/species (Perennial Wheat, Lucerne, Rye). Objective 5: Maintain or improve soil friability (as measured by infiltration (indicator TBC), penetrometer (<5kPa TBC) or bulk density (<1.5 g/cc)) across 70% of at risk soils, including sodic soils, by 2020. Strategy 5.1: Investigate trends of no-till over time. Priority: TBC Action Steps

1. Locate known age no-till paddocks 2. Measure trends of indicators to determine curve • How much change is there left to make?

3. Use findings to inform Objective 5 (i.e. is improvement possible, or have we maximised it at say year 5?) Strategy 5.2: Increase effective gypsum spreading on sodic soils Priority: TBC Action Steps 1. Promote gypsum use (fact sheets, extension, field days) 2. Education around dispersion testing - how to identify issue 3. Education around gypsum spreading rates (required rate and actual application rate) 4. Demonstrate cost:benefits 5. Education around quality of gypsum used 6. Investigate quality of existing and new deposits/sources


6. Conservation Strategies, Action Steps and Key Programs Strategy 5.3: Increase the use of controlled traffic practices / precision agriculture Priority: TBC Action Steps 1. Promote benefits of controlled traffic 2. Education on how to setup complementary machines 3. Demonstrate precision agriculture (field days) 4. Investigate precision agriculture technologies Strategy 5.4: Encourage soil testing / grain testing Priority: TBC Action Steps

1. Determine 2015 testing levels (landholder survey) 2. Promote soil testing methods (yield mapping, improved reliability, etc.) and grain testing methods

and availability 3. Education on fertiliser needs - limiting factors (links to acidity issues) 4. Education on interpretation – how can you use/not use this information and supplement with other

information/knowledge sources - agronomists as well as landholders Strategy 5.5: Match fertiliser application to requirements Priority: TBC Action Steps 1. Encourage use of testing (strategy 5.4) 2. Ground truth yield maps 3. Education of agribusiness 4. Increase uptake of precision ag / variable rate spreading

• Education, promotion, demonstration 5. Monitoring response to fertiliser regime Note: Strategy 1.1 stubble retention in no-till will also contribute towards Objective 5. Objective 6: 60% of suitable (within economic/soil constraints) untreated (as at 2015) water repelling soils, are effectively ameliorated by 2025 Strategy 6.1: Encourage effective clay delving and spreading Priority: TBC Action Steps

1. Maintain support for 'new horizons' programme - demonstration sites, fact sheets, etc. 2. Promote cost:benefits 3. Provide educational material and resources to land managers 4. Provide resources (extension staff) for site assessments to ensure clay is suitable (chemistry, depth, etc.) 5. Promotion of contractors as resources 6. Improve machinery for delving • Establish partnerships with universities and agricultural groups • Establish trials to evaluate machinery/techniques

7. Monitoring of results


6. Conservation Strategies, Action Steps and Key Programs Objective 7: By 2025 the field capacity is not exceeded for greater than 2 weeks in 95% of arable soil, under 'normal' conditions. Strategy 7.1: Increase water use Priority: TBC Action Steps

Note: Strategies which improve soil friability (see Objective 5 above) contribute to this strategy. 1. Increase the planting of perennial vegetation (Strategy 4.2 above) in recharge and discharge areas (‘upslope

strategies’) 2. Promote early seeding - summer crops / out of season crops / longer growing season crops to increase period

of water use 3. Promote excluding stock - increased vegetation growth /water use (is this likely to be adopted in productive

areas?) 4. Increase the addition of organics for increased vegetation growth /water use

Strategy 7.2: Remove water Priority: TBC Action Steps 1. Maintain water dissipation infrastructure

• Identify malfunctioning infrastructure • Remedy as soon as possible • drain excess water /clean culverts • Establish ongoing inspection/ maintenance regime

2. Explore opportunities for new/more effective drains • Identify organisations/experts with knowledge in this field • Determine landholder willingness to implement

3. Explore new technologies such as tile drains / mole drains and evaluate for implementation 4. Promote the benefits of improved water removal

• Develop and utilise extension staff, fact sheets, demonstration sites, etc.


6. Conservation Strategies, Action Steps and Key Programs Objective 8: By 2025 restore pH to above 5 across xx% of at risk land. Strategy 8.1: Increase awareness and education of the problem Priority: TBC Action Steps 1. Investigate extent of low pH issue

• Survey of landholders and field samples to inform extent 2. Increase awareness of problem

• Increase simple soil pH measurements, monitoring and awareness of condition – target advisors who conduct soil testing for their clients

• Communication extension on the extent and severity of the problem (this needs emphasis because impacts are less visible (how do we elevate priority when action is required over many consecutive years?)

• People are losing money by not doing anything 3. Recognising the cost to production in agribusiness and advisors (not a capital improvement cost but

a maintenance/operation cost) • Incorporate pH management into land-lease agreements • Explore links between land value and pH – Raise awareness of financial institutions, land

valuers, accountants and lawyers who have primary producer clients of effect of soil acidification on productivity and value of land

4. Increase simple soil pH measurements, monitoring and awareness of condition 5. Managing soil acidity as part of the clean, green image of agriculture 6. Increase awareness of problem

• Communication extension on the extent and severity of the problem (this needs emphasis because impacts are less visible (how do we elevate priority when action is required over many consecutive years?)

• People are losing money by not doing anything • Ensure N inputs match requirements Strategy 8.2: Reduce acidity rate Priority: TBC Action Steps

1. Educate and facilitate the appropriate crop and pasture choice 2. Educate and facilitate the appropriate N fertiliser rate, timing and type/product used

• Investigation into what ‘appropriate’ is • Increased understanding of plant N requirements in long-term no-till stubble retention

farming systems (probably need less N than what is traditionally thought) • Ensure N inputs match requirements

Strategy 8.3: Increase the spreading of lime and associated products for amelioration Priority: TBC Action Steps

1. Spread lime 2. Improve efficacy of processes

• Quality of product(s) • Variable rate • Understanding and applying appropriate rate

3. Precision measurements, variable/targeted applications (paddock mapping including machine sampling)

4. Provide technical support to advisors, land managers and contractors • Decision support tools are already available (‘acidity cost calculator’) • Develop networks/groups • Improve landholders knowledge of total treatment costs


6. Conservation Strategies, Action Steps and Key Programs Strategy 8.4: Develop a method for evaluating progress against the objective Priority: TBC Action Steps

1. Adjust existing model based on ground-truthing at a finer, targeted scale. 2. Develop sampling methodology to support above 3. Look at lime sales data from different sources - difference between use and predicted required

amount


7. Monitoring, Evaluation and Adaptive Management 7.1. Methodology for Developing a Monitoring Program The final step in the conservation action planning process is an ongoing one which involves the development and implementation of a rigorous monitoring, evaluation and adaptive management program. This serves a number of important functions including: ● determining whether the strategies and actions are achieving the conservation objectives; ● showing trends in the condition of conservation assets and the levels of threat; ● demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of investment into the conservation program; ● linking local conservation outcomes with other programs to describe the local-global biodiversity outlook In particular two types of monitoring and evaluation are identified in the conservation action planning process: 1) strategy effectiveness monitoring, and 2) resource condition monitoring (i.e. asset condition and / or level of threat). Appropriate Level of Resourcing for Monitoring and Evaluation Many researchers and conservation practitioners agree that a monitoring effort of 10-20% of the total program budget is an appropriate level of resourcing. However the level of resources allocated to monitoring should vary in proportion to the level of certainty surrounding an assumption that action A will lead to outcome B. Higher levels of uncertainty may necessitate greater monitoring effort (i.e. replicated experiments and trials) to test a particular conservation theory. Use of Results chains Results chains are a relatively recent tool to assist conservation planners test assumptions that an action will achieve a desired objective. Results chains are broadly based on principles of logical framework analysis (developed in the 1960’s) and are supported by Miradi software (www.miradi.org ). By identifying interim results or milestones along a trajectory towards the delivery of an outcome, results chains make implicit assumptions about the expected results of activities explicit. This process typically results in more rigorous strategy development by the project team. Once a sequence of outputs and outcomes are represented as a results chain diagram, it is relatively easy to visualise and identify monitoring indicators and milestones along the way to a conservation goal. 7.2. Monitoring Indicators An effective monitoring program for the region should achieve two major outcomes: 1) RESOURCE CONDITION MONITORING ● provide quantitative data to confirm or revise the current status of the key attributes and overall viability of the conservation assets & / or the current status of the key threats; ● establish baseline data to monitor future changes in the status of the key attributes and overall viability of the conservation assets &/ or status of the key threats; 2) STRATEGY EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING ● provide quantitative data to assess the effectiveness of the conservation strategies and action steps and identify areas for refinement. Monitoring indicators should be closely associated to the status of the key attributes and address landscape context, condition and size attributes of the conservation assets. A monitoring program should also make use of any existing monitoring data to ensure resources are used efficiently. This may involve creating links with other organisations that have complimentary aims or legislative requirements to undertake monitoring.

http://www.miradi.org/


8. Appendix Appendix 1: Northern and Yorke Natural Resources Management Board Goals

TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS By 2030, maintain the condition of the region’s 1,200,000 ha of remnant native vegetation, and improve the condition of 15% from 2008 levels. By 2015, sustainable grazing guidelines have been developed with industry for native pastures, to ensure grassy ecosystems are not degraded. PEST PLANTS AND ANIMALS By 2030, there is a net reduction in the impact caused by pest plants and animals on the environment, primary production and the community. By 2030, the distribution and abundance of introduced pest plants has not increased compared with 2008. By 2030, the distribution and abundance of pest animals has not increased compared with 2008. By 2015, pest risk assessment and management plans are operational for priority pest plants and animals By 2015, 50% of priority areas are managed to control feral animals. By 2015, 90% of roadsides are managed with effective weed control programs By 2030, no new significant introduced pest species have become established. By 2015, biosecurity and incursion response plans are operational for priority pest plants and animals. SOILS By 2030, the number of days that erosion-prone soil is protected from erosion is increased to at least 335 days per year By 2015, there is an increase in the proportion of erosion prone soil undisturbed at high risk times 2015, there is an increase in the proportion of erosion prone soil with adequate protection at high risk times, such as at sowing, e.g. adequate ground cover and contour banks. By 2030 the physical, chemical and biological condition of the region’s soil resource will be maintained or improved from 2000 benchmark data By 2015, the Water Use Efficiency of dryland agricultural crops and pastures is improved by at least 5%, due mainly to improvements in soil physical and nutritional condition. By 2015, 225,000 ha of poorly structured top-soils are no-tilled. By 2015, 13,000 tonnes of gypsum has been applied on sodic soils since 2008 By 2015, lime rates will restore pH to above 5.0 and maintain them at those levels on 75% of at-risk land. By 2015, salinity management plans are implemented in high priority catchments


9. Appendix Appendix 2: Current and Previous Participants of the Yorke Peninsula Sustainable Soils Conservation Planning Team

Member Organisation

Simon Goodhand Department of Agriculture Andy Sharp Department for Environment, Water and Natural Resources David Sloper Department for Environment, Water and Natural Resources Deb Furbank Department for Environment, Water and Natural Resources Fabian Dee Department for Environment, Water and Natural Resources Janet Moore Department for Environment, Water and Natural Resources Jarrod White Department for Environment, Water and Natural Resources Kevin Teague Department for Environment, Water and Natural Resources Paul O’Leary Department for Environment, Water and Natural Resources Rebecca Brown Department for Environment, Water and Natural Resources Sarah Voumard Department for Environment, Water and Natural Resources Susan Sweeney Department for Environment, Water and Natural Resources Terry Boise Department for Environment, Water and Natural Resources Tim Herrmann Department for Environment, Water and Natural Resources James McGregor Greening Australia Michael Richards Landcare / Ag Excellence Alliance Graham Hayes Landholder Dave Grieg Landholder Barry Mudge Landholder Cathy Bowman Northern & Yorke Natural Resources Management Board Eric Sommerville Northern & Yorke Natural Resources Management Board Grantley Dodd Northern & Yorke Natural Resources Management Board Anne Hallett Northern & Yorke Natural Resources Management Sub Group Claudia Smith Northern & Yorke Natural Resources Management Sub Group Grant Chapman Northern & Yorke Natural Resources Management Sub Group Kerry Ward Northern & Yorke Natural Resources Management Sub Group Neil Smith Northern & Yorke Natural Resources Management Sub Group Peter Stockings Northern & Yorke Natural Resources Management Sub Group Robert Tilley Northern & Yorke Natural Resources Management Sub Group Andrew Harding Rural Solutions SA Mary-Anne Young Rural Solutions SA Dean Dolling District Council of Barunga West Leonie Kerley District Council of Barunga West


9. References Barson, M.; 2013; Land Management Practice Trends in South Australia's Broadacre Cropping Industries. Caring for our Country Sustainable Practices Fact Sheet 28. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Barson, M.; 2013; Land Management Practice Trends in South Australia's Grazing (Beef Cattle / Sheep) Industries. Caring for our Country Sustainable Practices Fact Sheet 28. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Barson, M.; 2013; Land Management Practice Trends in South Australia's Horticulture Industry. Caring for our Country Sustainable Practices Fact Sheet 28. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Brown, W. and Jaunay, L.; 2008; Diamond Lakes Management Plan. Rural Solutions SA. Conservation Measures Partnership; 2007; Open standards for the practice of conservation. Available online at: www.conserveonline.org. Deane, D., Phipps L. and Magarey, P.; 2006; Ecological Condition Assessment: Streams of the Mambray Coast. Department for Water; 2011; Baroota PWRA Groundwater Status Report 2009-10. Department for Water; 2011; Walloway Basin Groundwater Level and Salinity Status Report 2009-10. Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources; 2012; Walloway Basin Groundwater Level and Salinity Status Report 2011. Department of Environmetn and Natural Resources; 2010; Protection of Agricultural Land Against Erosion in the Northern & Yorke Region, Seasonal Report November 2010. Department of Environmetn and Natural Resources; 2011; Protection of Agricultural Land Against Erosion in the Northern & Yorke Region, Seasonal Report April 2011. Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation; 2002; Assessing Agricultural Land. Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation; 2005; Soil Landscapes Mapping Data. Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation; 2005; Soil and Landscape Attribute Maps. Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation; 2009; Protection of Agricultural Land Against Erosion in the Northern & Yorke Region, Seasonal Report November 2009. Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation; 2010; Protection of Agricultural Land Against Erosion in the Northern & Yorke Region, Seasonal Report April 20010. Dobson, A.P.; 1996; Conservation and Biodiversity. New York: Scientific American Library. Durant, M.; 2013; Scoping Report : Peesey Swamps, Southern Yorke Peninsula, Report to the Northern and Yorke Natural Resources Management Board and the Yorke Peninsula CAP Working Group. Forward, G. R.; 2008; Land Management Monitoring in the Agricultural Districts of South Australia: Report No 2. Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation. Forward, G.; 2009; Assessment of Ground Cover Monitoring Sites in South Australia. Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation. Forward, G.; 2011; Soil Erosion Protection Field Survey Manual, Agricultural Cropping Districts. Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Forward, G.; 2014; Seasonal Report for Protection of Agricultural Land from Soil Erosion, Northern and Yorke Region, March 2014. Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources.

http://www.conserveonline.org/


Foundations of Success; 2007; Using Results Chains to Improve Strategy Effectiveness: An FOS How-To Guide. http://fosonline.org/Site_Documents/Grouped/FOS_Results_Chain_Guide_2007-05.pdf Groves, C.R.; 2003; Drafting a Conservation Blueprint: A Practitioners Guide to Planning for Biodiversity. The Nature Conservancy. Island Press, Washington. Harding, A., Henschke, C., Evans, T. and Dooley, T.; 2008; Lochiel - Port Broughton and Surrounding Districts Salinity Management Plan. Rural Solutions SA. Harding, A., Henschke, C., Evans, T., Ciganovic, P. and Dooley, T.; 2003; Minlaton-Ramsay Salinity Management Plan. Rural Solutions SA. Harris, J. A., Hobbs, R., Biggs, E. and Aronson, J.; 2006; Ecological restoration and global climate change. Restoration Ecology 14(2): 170-176. Henschke, C., Harding, A. and Wright, S.; 2008; Mid to Lower Light River Salinity Management Plan. Henschke, C., Longbottom, H., Dooley, T. and Ciganovic, P.; 2004; Winulta – Yorke Valley (North Maitland Flat, Winulta Creek, Winulta South & Yorke Valley Sub-catchments) Salinity Management Plan. Henschke, C., Longbottom, H., Evans, T., Dooley, T. and Ciganovic, P.; 2003; Upper Yorke Catchments Salinity Management Plan. Rural Solutions SA. Henschke, C., Longbottom, T., Dooley, T. and Ciganovic, P.; 2004; Winulta - Yorke Valley Salinity Management Plan. Rural Solutions SA. Landres, P.B., Morgan, P. and Swanson, F.J.; 1999; Overview of the use of natural variability concepts in managing ecological systems. Ecological Applications 9: 1179-1188. Liddicoat, C., Hayman, P., Alexander, B., Rowland, J., Maschmedt, D. Young, M-A., Hall, J., Herrmann, T. and Sweeney, S.; 2012; Climate Change, Wheat Production and Erosion Risk in South Australia’s Cropping Zone: Linking Crop Simulation Modelling to Soil Landscape Mapping. Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources. Low; 2003; Landscape-scale Conservation: A Practitioners Guide. The Nature Conservancy, 4th Edition. Lukasiewicz , A., Finlayson, C. M. and Pittock, J.; 2013; Incorporating Climate Change Adaptation into Catchment Management: A User Guide. Report No. 76. MacNally, R., Bennett, A.F., Brown, G.W., Lumsden, L.F., Yen, A., Hinkley, S., Lillywhite, P. and Ward, D. (2002). How Well do Ecosystem-based Planning Units Represent Different Components of Biodiversity? Ecological Applications 12: 900-912. Margules, C.R. and Pressey, R.L.; 2000; Systematic Conservation Planning. Nature 405: 243-253. McCord, A. and Rix, R.; 2007; Land Management Monitoring in the Agricultural Areas of South Australia: Report No 1. Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation. McCord, A.K. and Payne, R.A.; 2004; Report on the Condition of Agricultural Land in South Australia. The Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation and the Soil Conservation Council South Australia. Northern and Yorke Natural Resource Management Board; 2009; Northern and Yorke Regional NRM Plan. Noss, R. F.E., Dinerstein, B., Gilbert, M., Gilpin, B.J., Miller, B.J., Terbough, J. and Trmbulak, S.; 1999; Core Areas: Where Nature Begins. In J. Terbough and M. Soule, eds., Continental Conservation: Scientific Foundations of Regional Reserve Networks, pp 99-128. Washington DC: Island Press. Primary Industries and Regions SA; 2014; Crop and Pasture Report South Australia 2013-14. Crop Performance Summary and Final Crop Estimates Report. March 2014.

http://fosonline.org/Site_Documents/Grouped/FOS_Results_Chain_Guide_2007-05.pdf


Rural Solutions SA; 2014; Soil Smart: Understanding Your Soils. Rix, R. and Parry, K.; 2006; SA Land Condition Monitoring Review.Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation. Stokes, Z.; 2008; Landholders, Landholdings and Land Use in the CAP sub-regions of the Northern & Yorke NRM Board Region. Rural Solutions SA. Wray, R.; 2012; Australian Soils and Soil Classification. Improved Soil Protection by Clay Spreading / Delving Sands in the Northern And Yorke Region. Northern and Yorke NRM Board and Rural Solutions SA. Woodard, D. and Harding, A.; 2010; WWF; 2005; Basic Guidance for Cross-Cutting Tools: Conceptual Models. www.panda.org/standards or http://assets.panda.org/downloads/1_4_conceptual_model_11_08_05.pdf Young, M-A.; 2007; Report on the Condition of Agricultural Land in the Northern and Yorke Natural Resources Management Region. Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation.

http://assets.panda.org/downloads/1_4_conceptual_model_11_08_05.pdf

Date post:	14-Oct-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times