soil condition and land management in new south wales · 2018. 2. 4. · final results from the...

Soil condition and land management

in New South Wales

Final results from the 2008-09 monitoring, evaluation and

reporting program

km

Soil condition and land management in NSW:

Acknowledgements: This report was prepared by Jonathan Gray and Greg Chapman, Ecosystem Management Science Branch, Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH). Many current and former staff from OEH were involved in the development and undertaking of the NSW monitoring, evaluation and reporting soil and land programs, with assistance of staff from NSW Department of Primary Industries and the catchment management authorities. Constructive review comments were provided by Richard Greene (Australian National University).

Published by:

Office of Environment and Heritage 59–61 Goulburn Street, Sydney PO Box A290, Sydney South NSW 1232

Phone: (02) 9995 5000 (switchboard) Phone: 131 555 (environment information and publications requests) Phone: 1300 361 967 (national parks information and publications requests) Fax: (02) 9995 5999 TTY: (02) 9211 4723 Email: [email protected] Website: www.environment.nsw.gov.au

ISBN 978 1 74359 644 9 OEH 2014/0389 September 2014

Preferred citation:

OEH (2014). Soil condition and land management in New South Wales: final results from the 2008-09 monitoring, evaluation and reporting program, OEH Technical Report, NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, Sydney.

© Copyright State of NSW and the Office of Environment and Heritage NSW. The Office of Environment and Heritage and the State of NSW are pleased to allow this material to be reproduced in whole or in part for educational and non-commercial use, provided the meaning is unchanged and its source, publisher and authorship are acknowledged.

The Office of Environment and Heritage NSW (OEH) has compiled Soil condition and land management in New South Wales: final results from the 2008-09 monitoring, evaluation and reporting program in good faith, exercising all due care and attention. OEH does not accept responsibility for any inaccurate or incomplete information supplied by third parties. No representation is made about the accuracy, completeness or suitability of the information in this publication for any particular purpose. OEH shall not be liable for any damage which may occur to any person or organisation taking action or not on the basis of this publication. This document is subject to revision without notice and it is up to the reader to ensure that the latest version is being used. Readers should seek appropriate advice when applying the information to their specific needs.

final results from the 2008-09 MER program

Summary There is a need for ongoing monitoring of NSW’s soil and land resources, as was declared by the NSW Natural Resource Commission in 2005 with natural resource management targets relating to (i) soil condition and (ii) land management within capability. These targets were the focus of a monitoring evaluation and reporting (MER) program by the NSW Department of the Environment, Climate Change and Water, now Office of Environment and Heritage, in 2008–09.

Results from that MER program were presented at the catchment level in State of the Catchment reports and at the NSW level in the 2009 State of the Environment report. However, at the time of writing of those publications, full results from the MER programs were not available. Since then, however, data collection, laboratory analysis and database entry from the 2008–09 MER program have been completed. In addition, a need for modifications to the methodology and rule sets had become apparent. A reanalysis of the full MER data repository as at 2012 was considered necessary, the results of which are presented in this report.

Results for both (i) soil condition and (ii) land management within capability are presented for each soil monitoring unit, catchment management authority and for the state as a whole. Results are also broken down by the eight individual soil condition/hazard indicators: sheet erosion, gully erosion, wind erosion, acidity, organic carbon decline, structure decline, acid sulfate soils and salinity.

The overall indices for soil condition and land management within capability across the state, as derived from the updated MER data, both fall in the ‘fair’ range. However, some indicators in particular parts of the state are in an overall poor condition or land management state. For soil condition, 74% of soil monitoring units had ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’ ratings for at least one indicator; for land management within capability, 54% of sites had poor or very poor ratings for at least one hazard. The results suggest that on a state-wide basis for soil condition, low organic carbon and sheet erosion are moderate issues of concern, while for land management within capability, acidification, wind erosion, salinity/waterlogging and organic carbon decline are the issues of most concern.

Recent data is also presented on (i) land use within capability preliminary mapping, (ii) Australian Bureau of Statistics land management survey data across the state, and (iii) ground cover, sheet erosion and wind erosion modelling. First approximation tables that indicate the range of sustainable land management practices for each capability class of land for each hazard are presented in Appendix 1.


Contents 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Report deliverables ................................................................................................ 1

2 Methods .......................................................................................................................... 2

2.1 Overview of the monitoring, evaluation and reporting program for soil condition ... 2

2.2 Land management within capability ....................................................................... 3

2.3 Update process ...................................................................................................... 5

2.3.1 Soil condition update approach ................................................................... 5

2.3.2 Land management within capability update approach ................................ 5

3 Results ............................................................................................................................ 6

3.1 Results and key findings by CMA ........................................................................... 6

3.1.1 Border Rivers – Gwydir CMA ...................................................................... 6

3.1.2 Central West CMA ...................................................................................... 8

3.1.3 Hawkesbury Nepean CMA ....................................................................... 10

3.1.4 Hunter – Central Rivers CMA ................................................................... 12

3.1.5 Lachlan CMA ............................................................................................ 14

3.1.6 Lower Murray–Darling CMA ..................................................................... 16

3.1.7 Murray CMA ............................................................................................. 18

3.1.8 Murrumbidgee CMA ................................................................................. 20

3.1.9 Namoi CMA .............................................................................................. 22

3.1.10 Northern Rivers CMA ............................................................................... 24

3.1.11 Southern Rivers CMA ............................................................................... 26

3.1.12 Sydney Metro CMA .................................................................................. 28

3.1.13 Western CMA ........................................................................................... 30

3.2 State-wide results and key findings ...................................................................... 32

3.2.1 Soil condition data .................................................................................... 32

3.2.2 Summary of soil condition across NSW, 2008–09 .................................... 34

3.2.3 Land management within capability data .................................................. 35

3.2.4 Summary of land management within capability across NSW, 2008–09 ... 37

4 Complementary data ..................................................................................................... 38

4.1 Land use within capability map ............................................................................ 38

4.2 Australian Bureau of Statistics land management data ........................................ 39

4.3 Groundcover and sheet and wind erosion products ............................................. 39

4.3.1 Time series ground cover products ........................................................... 39

4.3.2 Time series sheet erosion modelling......................................................... 40

4.3.3 Wind erosion and DustWatch products ..................................................... 42

4.4 Modelling of soil properties .................................................................................. 42

5 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 44

Appendix 1: Management practices appropriate for each land and soil capability class for each hazard (first approximation) ................................................................... 45

Appendix 2: Land management statistics by CMA from Australian Bureau of Statistics ......... 2009–10 survey ............................................................................................. 55

References .......................................................................................................................... 64


Figures Figure 1: Overview of the soil condition assessment process .................................. 3

Figure 2: Overview of the land management within capability assessment process. 4

Figure 3: Derivation of land management within capability indices .......................... 4

Figure 4: Soil monitoring units in Border Rivers – Gwydir CMA ............................... 7

Figure 5: Soil monitoring units in Central West CMA ............................................... 9

Figure 6: Soil monitoring units in Hawkesbury–Nepean CMA ................................ 11

Figure 7: Soil monitoring units in Hunter – Central Rivers CMA ............................. 13

Figure 8: Soil monitoring units in Lachlan CMA ..................................................... 15

Figure 9: Soil monitoring units in Lower Murray–Darling CMA ............................... 17

Figure 10: Soil monitoring units in Murray CMA ....................................................... 19

Figure 11: Soil monitoring units in Murrumbidgee CMA ........................................... 21

Figure 12: Soil monitoring units in Namoi CMA........................................................ 23

Figure 13: Soil monitoring units in Northern Rivers CMA ......................................... 25

Figure 14: Soil monitoring units in Southern Rivers CMA ........................................ 27

Figure 15: Soil monitoring units in Sydney Metro CMA ............................................ 29

Figure 16: Soil monitoring units in Western CMA ..................................................... 31

Figure 17: Proportion of sites or soil monitoring units in each soil condition class .... 32

Figure 18: Dominant soil health issues within soil monitoring units .......................... 33

Figure 19: Proportion of sites or soil monitoring units in each land management

within capability class ............................................................................. 35

Figure 20: Dominant land management within capability issues within

soil monitoring units ................................................................................ 36

Figure 21: Land use within capability map ............................................................... 38

Figure 22: Baseline sheet erosion for NSW, 2000–10 ............................................. 41

Figure 23: Sheet erosion for NSW 2009 and 2010 .................................................. 41

Figure 24: Area of Murray–Darling CMA exceeding moderate wind erosion levels .. 42

Figure 25: Predictive map of topsoil organic carbon in Hunter – Central Rivers CMA43

Tables Table 1: Soil condition index classes ...................................................................... 3

Table 2: Soil condition indices for Border Rivers – Gwydir CMA ............................. 6

Table 3: Land management within capability indices for Border Rivers – Gwydir

CMA ......................................................................................................... 7

Table 4: Soil condition indices for Central West CMA ............................................. 8

Table 5: Land management within capability indices for Central West CMA ........... 9

Table 6: Soil condition indices for Hawkesbury–Nepean CMA ............................. 10


Table 7: Land management within capability indices for Hawkesbury–Nepean

CMA ....................................................................................................... 11

Table 8: Soil condition indices for Hunter – Central Rivers CMA .......................... 12

Table 9: Land management within capability indices for Hunter – Central Rivers

CMA ...................................................................................................... 13

Table 10: Soil condition indices for Lachlan CMA ................................................... 14

Table 11: Land management within capability indices for Lachlan CMA ................. 15

Table 12: Soil condition indices for Lower Murray–Darling CMA ............................ 16

Table 13: Land management within capability indices for Lower Murray–Darling

CMA ....................................................................................................... 17

Table 14: Soil condition indices for Murray CMA .................................................... 18

Table 15: Land management within capability indices for Murray CMA .................. 19

Table 16: Soil condition indices for Murrumbidgee CMA ........................................ 20

Table 17: Land management within capability indices for Murrumbidgee CMA ...... 21

Table 18: Soil condition indices for Namoi CMA ..................................................... 22

Table 19: Land management within capability indices for Namoi CMA ................... 23

Table 20: Soil condition indices for Northern Rivers CMA ...................................... 24

Table 21: Land management within capability indices for Northern Rivers CMA .... 25

Table 22: Soil condition indices for Southern Rivers CMA ...................................... 26

Table 23: Land management within capability indices for Southern Rivers CMA .... 27

Table 24: Soil condition indices for Sydney Metro CMA ......................................... 28

Table 25: Land management within capability indices for Sydney Metro CMA ....... 29

Table 26: Soil condition indices for Western CMA .................................................. 30

Table 27: Land management within capability indices for Western CMA ................ 31

Table 28: Soil condition indices for each hazard by CMA ....................................... 32

Table 29: Percentage of SMUs in each CMA with poor or very poor soil condition

rating ...................................................................................................... 33

Table 30: Land management within capability indices for each hazard by CMA ..... 35

Table 31: Percentage of sites in each CMA with poor or very poor land

management within capability rating ....................................................... 36

Abbreviations ABS Australian Bureau of Statistics

ASS acid sulfate soil

CMA catchment management authority

DECCW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water, NSW (now OEH)

LMwC land management within capability

LSC land and soil capability

MER monitoring, evaluation and reporting


NRC Natural Resources Commission

OC organic carbon

OEH Office of Environment and Heritage, NSW

SMU Soil Monitoring Unit

final results from the 2008-09 MER program 1

1 Introduction The need for adequate monitoring of soil and land resources throughout Australia is now clearly recognised as vital to the ongoing protection of these valuable natural resources (McKenzie et al. 2002; Dixon et al. 2007; Campbell 2008; Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists 2008).

NSW agencies commenced a program of monitoring, evaluation and reporting (MER) in 2008. It was initiated in response to the development of key natural resource management targets for NSW by the NSW Natural Resources Commission (NRC) (NRC 2005). These included:

By 2015, there will be an improvement in soil condition.

By 2015, there is an increase in the area of land managed within its capability.

Intensive programs were carried out for these two targets in 2008 and 2009 by the then NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW), now Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH). Appropriate methodologies were developed and implemented, and by May 2009 approximately 850 monitoring sites had been established throughout the state’s 13 catchment management authorities (CMAs),1 with almost 500 having detailed associated land management data.

Methodologies and broad state level results were presented in a number of technical reports (DECCW 2009a; Chapman et al. 2011; Gray et al. 2011) and the NSW 2009 State of the Environment report (DECCW 2009b). Catchment level results were presented in a series of State of the Catchment reports (e.g. DECCW 2010).

At the time of writing of those publications, full results from the MER programs were not available. For example, not all laboratory analysis, entry of field surveys into appropriate databases or retrieval of land management surveys were complete. Since then, however, data collection, laboratory analysis and database entry from the 2008–09 MER program have been completed and a reanalysis of the full data repository was considered necessary. In addition, some modification to the methodology and rule sets was required to address particular problems and weaknesses that became evident during the initial analyses.

1.1 Report deliverables

This report presents the results of the reanalysis of the full MER 2008–09 data sets. More specifically, it:

• provides overviews of the assessment methodologies for soil condition and land management within capability (LMwC) themes, and details of the recent update process; it also includes updated LMwC rating tables (section 2 and Appendix 1)

• presents updated results for both MER soil themes for each of the 13 CMAs (section 3.1)

• presents updated results, summary charts and discussion for both MER soil themes for NSW as a whole (section 3.2)

• reports on recent developments with associated MER activities such as (i) land use within capability analysis, (ii) application of Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) land management data, and (iii) advances in modelling of ground cover, sheet erosion and wind erosion (section 4).

1 The CMAs joined the Livestock Health and Pest Authorities and the Department of Primary Industries agriculture extension to

form Local Land Services in January 2014.

Soil condition and land management in NSW: 2

2 Methods The MER program carried out by DECCW in 2008–09 aimed to address the two natural resource management targets set by the NRC (NRC 2005) relating to soil and land management. It aimed to establish baselines for both (i) soil condition and (ii) land management within capability through the establishment of a permanent network of monitoring sites. The intention was to establish up to 10 monitoring sites within each of 10 SMUs in each of the 12 extensive rural CMA regions and four SMUs in the Sydney Metropolitan CMA – making a total target of 1240 sites.

The SMUs were selected in conjunction with CMA staff on the basis of their importance, expected changes in use and number of soils issues present. Where possible, sites were paired on the same soil type but across different land uses, including undisturbed ‘reference’ sites where the soil is considered to be in an undisturbed pre-European natural state. A program of soil data collection, with laboratory analysis, was undertaken at each site, together with the collection of land management data. Each site consisted of a 25 m x 25 m quadrate.

An overview of the MER process adopted by DECCW is provided in Protocols for soil condition and land capability monitoring (DECCW 2009a). That document includes details on the establishment of formal monitoring sites, soil sampling methodology, sample handling and storage, land management data collection and associated field assessment methodologies.

2.1 Overview of the monitoring, evaluation and repo rting program for soil condition

Soil condition is a product of numerous physical and chemical attributes and processes, so it was assessed using a number of key ‘indicators’: sheet erosion, gully erosion, wind erosion, soil acidity, soil organic carbon, soil structure, soil salinity and acid sulfate soils.

Details of the 2008–09 MER program for soil condition are outlined in Monitoring Evaluation and Reporting of Soil Condition in NSW (Chapman et al. 2011). Rigorous protocols (DECCW 2009a), training and quality control checks were used to ensure that errors from field data collection, sample handling and laboratory testing were minimised as far as practical to ensure that future changes in the condition of these indicators could be detected.

The concept was the evaluation of the key indicators at the individual sites against a reference condition. The more a soil indicator has deteriorated relative to the reference condition, the poorer is its condition.

Each indicator was evaluated for each site and rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being at or better than reference condition, and one being severely deteriorated against reference condition, as shown in Table 1. For example, in relation to soil acidity, if a soil in a given region has a reference pH of 7.0 but the measured pH is now 4.0, it was allocated a soil condition index of 2 (poor condition). Tables with reference values are presented in Chapman et al. (2011).

An overview of the process for assessing soil condition is presented in Figure 1.

Soil condition indices were prepared by averaging the results for individual hazards at sites up to various spatial entities. The results were initially averaged for the individual sites, then up to SMU, CMA region and ultimately state-wide level. Results are presented for each indicator as well as the overall combined soil condition.

By May 2009, data was available for 797 sites, but laboratory data for over 772 sites was preliminary only, being based on just one of the 10 subsamples from each site. Results were presented in the NSW 2009 State of the Environment report (DECCW 2009b) and in a series of State of the catchment reports (e.g., DECCW 2010).


Table 1: Soil condition index classes

5 Very good No loss of soil function. Either no deterioration or an improvement on reference condition.

4 Good Slight loss of soil function. Noticeable but not significant deterioration against reference condition.

3 Fair Noticeable loss of soil function. Noticeable deterioration against reference condition.

2 Poor Significant loss of soil function. Considerable deterioration against reference condition.

1 Very poor Profound loss of soil function. Severe deterioration against reference condition.

Figure 1: Overview of the soil condition assessment process

2.2 Land management within capability

The LMwC process attempts to quantify the potential impacts of specific land management actions and compare these with the inherent physical capability of the land in relation to a range of land degradation hazards. Details of the 2008–09 MER program for LMwC are outlined in Land Management within Capability, a NSW Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Project (Gray et al. 2011). An overview of the assessment process is presented in Figure 2.

The key concept is the comparison of the actual land and soil capability (LSC) (OEH 2012) at a site with the upper sustainable LSC for the land management, that is, the LSC above which the management is not sustainable. Rating tables that present the allowable LSC classes for various land management actions in relation to each of the main hazards guide this comparison (updated tables are presented in Appendix 1). From this comparison, LMwC indices of 1 to 5 are derived as shown in Figure 3, which also indicates ‘desired’ and ‘non-desired’ states from the resilience framework (Walker and Salt 2006).


Figure 2: Overview of the land management within capability assessment process

Figure 3: Derivation of land management within capability indices

The LMwC indices were progressively combined to give indices for each site, SMU, CMA region and finally the whole state. The index indicates the degree to which land is being managed sustainably.


As of May 2009, required data was available for only 497 sites. Results had to be based partly on expert opinion derived from DECCW and CMA staff. They were presented in the NSW 2009 State of the Environment report (DECCW 2009b) and in a series of State of the catchment reports (e.g. DECCW 2010).

2.3 Update process

A reanalysis of all available MER data for both soil condition and LMwC themes was warranted in 2012. Previous results as had been reported in the State of the Environment and State of the Catchment reports had been based on incomplete data. Specifically, there had been incomplete laboratory analysis, data entry and return of landholder land management surveys, but by 2012 this data was substantially complete. Several problems and weaknesses in the methodologies and rule sets for both themes had been identified and needed to be addressed.

2.3.1 Soil condition update approach

The update involved the following.

• The master MER database was updated with the completed profile and laboratory data. As of February 2012 there were 866 sites, with full laboratory data available for 777 sites (based on 10 subsamples per site).

• For acidity, structure decline and organic carbon (OC) indicators, the Excel spreadsheets were rerun with the updated data.

• For sheet erosion, updated modelling using MODIS time series ground cover products was applied.

• For acid sulfate soils, the assessment approach was rerun using data from additional sites (from 32 to 40 sites).

• For gully and wind erosion no update was possible.

• A slight adjustment to the description of different soil condition classes was applied, for example, poor is now defined as index 2.0 to 3.0 compared to 1.5 to 2.5 previously.

New results were achieved for each site, SMU, CMA and for the state.

2.3.2 Land management within capability update appr oach

The update involved the following.

• The MER Master database was updated with complete profile and laboratory data as above and with the additional land management survey results and LSC determinations. By February 2012, there were 661 sites with all required data in the system, out of the total 866 sites visited.

• Data was rectified and formatted as required for the Excel spreadsheets. For example, fertiliser and lime application rates were translated into consistent annual average rates; in cases where no application rate was recorded it was assumed there was zero application.

• Rule sets in the Excel spreadsheets were updated as required to reflect the slightly modified methodology, LMwC rating tables (from Appendix 1) and definitions of LMwC index classes. Many of the modifications served to give a more realistic penalty in the rating system where land management actions were considered to be unsustainable relative to the LSC (inherent capability) of the site. For example, an index of 2 for a particular action was applied where upper sustainable LSC minus actual LSC was <0 rather than <–0.5.

• The updated data sets were applied to the updated Excel spreadsheets to produce new LMwC results for each site, SMU, CMA and for the state.


3 Results

3.1 Results and key findings by CMA

3.1.1 Border Rivers – Gwydir CMA

Soil condition (refer to Table 2)

• Overall soil condition index: 4.0 (fair to good)

• SMUs with at least one issue of concern (<3.0): 8 of 10 (80%)

• Broad issues of concern: sheet erosion and wind erosion

• Particular issues of concern: sheet erosion in SMUs 4, 6, 8 and 10; wind erosion in SMUs 1, 2, 3, and 5

Land management within capability (refer to Table 3)

• Overall LMwC index: 3.7 (fair)


• Broad issues of concern: acidification

• Particular issues of concern: acidification in SMUs 7, 8 and 9; wind erosion in SMU 7 and 9; salinity/waterlogging in SMU 3

Table 2: Soil condition indices for Border Rivers – Gwydir CMA

SMU no. SMU name Sheet

erosion Gully

erosion Wind

erosion Acidity OC decline

Struct. decline ASS Salinity Average Lowest

score Worst hazard

1 Lower Gwydir Floodplains 4.2 5.0 2.6 5.0 3.7 3.1 – 4.3 4.0 2.6 wind erosion

2 Croppa Creek Outwash

3.8 4.9 2.6 5.0 3.7 3.6 – 3.8 3.9 2.6 wind erosion

3 Boomi Whalan Floodplains

4.1 4.9 2.6 5.0 4.3 2.9 – 4.0 4.0 2.6 wind erosion

4 Inverell Basalts 2.6 3.5 4.5 5.0 4.8 3.8 – 4.0 4.0 2.6 sheet erosion 5 Rowena Floodplain 4.5 4.9 2.6 – – – – 4.5 4.1 2.6 wind erosion 6 Tenterfield Granites 2.1 3.5 4.0 – – – – 4.3 4.0 2.1 sheet erosion 7 Bundarra Granites 3.1 3.9 5.0 3.8 3.0 3.9 – 3.9 3.8 3.0 OC decline 8 Bingara Rises 2.6 3.0 5.0 5.0 4.6 4.4 – 3.6 4.0 2.6 sheet erosion

9 Northern Tableland Basalts 3.2 4.0 5.0 – – – – 3.9 4.0 3.2 sheet erosion

10 Warialda Sands 2.7 4.0 3.6 4.6 3.1 3.4 – 4.6 3.7 2.7 sheet erosion Average 3.3 4.2 3.8 4.8 3.9 3.6 – 4.1 4.0 3.3 sheet eros ion

4.5-5.0 Very good No loss of soil function. Either no deterioration or an improvement on reference condition

4.0-4.4 Good Slight loss of soil function. Noticeable but not significant deterioration against reference condition

3.0-3.9 Fair Noticeable loss of soil function. Noticeable deterioration against reference condition

2.0-2.9 Poor Significant loss of soil function. Considerable deterioration against reference condition

1.0-1.9 Very poor Profound loss of soil function. Severe deterioration against reference condition

- No data Not included for change monitoring


Table 3: Land management within capability indices for Border Rivers – Gwydir CMA


erosion Gully

erosion Wind

erosion Acidifi -cation

OC decline

Struct. decline ASS Salinity/

waterlog Average Lowest score Worst hazard

1 Lower Gwydir Floodplains 4.2 4.2 3.8 5.0 4.0 4.2 - 4.0 4.2 3.8 wind erosion

2 Croppa Creek Outwash 4.4 4.4 3.0 4.7 3.6 3.7 - 3.1 3.8 3.0 wind erosion

3 Boomi Whalan Floodplains 4.3 4.3 3.5 4.2 3.8 4.2 - 2.0 3.8 2.0 salinity/

waterlogging

4 Inverell Basalts 3.7 3.7 3.7 4.1 4.3 4.5 - 3.9 4.0 3.7 sheet/gully/ wind erosion

5 Rowena Floodplain - - - - - - - - - - - 6 Tenterfield Granites - - - - - - - - - - - 7 Bundarra Granites 3.6 3.6 2.3 2.2 4.8 4.8 - 4.9 3.7 2.2 acidification 8 Bingara Rises 3.3 3.3 4.1 2.5 3.4 3.4 - 4.0 3.4 2.5 acidification

9 Northern Tableland Basalts 3.3 3.3 2.4 1.4 3.4 3.4 - 4.8 3.1 1.4 acidification

10 Warialda Sands 4.0 4.0 3.1 2.8 4.2 4.3 - 4.0 3.8 2.8 acidification Average 3.9 3.9 3.2 3.4 3.9 4.1 - 3.8 3.7 3.2 wind eros ion

4.5-5.0 Very good Managed well within capability, very low risk of soil and land degradation

4.0-4.4 Good Managed within capability, low risk of soil and land degradation.

3.0-3.9 Fair Managed at capability, acceptable risk of soil and land degradation

2.0-2.9 Poor Managed slightly beyond capability, high risk of soil and land degradation

1.0-1.9 Very poor Managed well beyond capability, very high risk of soil and land degradation


Figure 4: Soil monitoring units in Border Rivers – Gwydir CMA


3.1.2 Central West CMA


• Overall soil condition index: 3.8 (fair)


• Broad issues of concern: sheet erosion, salinity

• Particular issues of concern: sheet erosion in SMUs 1 and 7; salinity in SMUs 2 and 4; OC decline in SMU 5




• Broad issues of concern: salinity/waterlogging, OC decline

• Particular issues of concern: salinity/waterlogging in SMU 1; OC decline in SMU 6

Table 4: Soil condition indices for Central West CM A

SMU no.

SMU name Sheet erosion

Gully erosion

Wind erosion

Acidity OC decline

Struct. decline

ASS Salinity Average Lowest score

Worst hazard

1 Hill End Trough 2.1 2.5 5.0 3.2 4.5 3.5 – 3.6 3.5 2.1 sheet erosion

2 Cowra Trough Red Soils – Wellington 3.0 4.0 5.0 4.8 4.6 3.7 – 2.0 3.9 2.0 salinity

3 Central Tablelands Red Chromosols 2.9 3.5 4.8 3.9 3.0 3.6 – 3.9 3.6 2.9 sheet erosion

4 Ballimore – Curban Red Soils

2.8 4.0 4.6 4.1 3.6 3.2 – 2.0 3.5 2.0 salinity

5 Girilambone Red Soils

4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 2.2 2.9 – 3.5 3.7 2.2 OC decline

6 Bogan Sodic Soils 3.9 4.0 4.3 4.1 4.0 3.5 – 3.9 4.0 3.5 OC decline 7 Molong Rise 2.7 4.0 5.0 4.7 4.8 4.3 – 3.6 4.2 2.7 sheet erosion

8 Carrabear Alluvial Soils 4.1 5.0 3.8 4.0 3.5 3.2 – 3.3 3.8 3.2 struct. decline

9 Parkes Platform Red Soils 3.4 4.0 5.0 – – – – 3.1 3.9 3.1 salinity

10 Central Tablelands Tertiary Volcanics 3.3 3.0 3.6 – – – – 4.2 3.5 3.0 gully erosion

Average 3.2 3.8 4.6 4.1 3.8 3.5 – 3.3 3.8 3.2 sheet eros ion








Table 5: Land management within capability indices for Central West CMA


erosion Gully

erosion Wind


OC decline



1 Hill End Trough 3.4 3.4 4.4 2.6 3.8 3.8 – 2.0 3.3 2.0 salinity/w’log

2 Cowra Trough Red Soils – Wellington

3.6 3.6 4.0 3.6 3.4 3.6 – 4.1 3.7 3.4 OC decline

3 Central Tablelands Red Chromosols

3.4 3.4 3.9 3.8 4.0 4.0 – 4.9 3.9 3.4 sheet/gully/ wind erosion

4 Ballimore – Curban Red Soils

3.7 3.7 3.8 3.2 3.5 3.4 – 3.8 3.6 3.2 acidification

5 Girilambone Red Soils 4.3 4.3 3.0 5.0 3.0 3.7 – 4.0 3.9 3.0 OC decline/

wind erosion 6 Bogan Sodic Soils 4.0 4.0 3.9 4.0 2.4 2.6 – 3.4 3.5 2.4 OC decline

7 Molong Rise 3.6 3.6 4.0 4.3 5.0 5.0 – 3.7 4.2 3.6 sheet/gully erosion

8 Carrabear Alluvial Soils

5.0 5.0 2.8 4.3 3.3 3.7 – 3.7 4.0 2.8 wind erosion

9 Parkes Platform Red Soils

– – – – – – – – – – –

10 Central Tablelands Tertiary Volcanics

– – – – – – – – – – –

Average 3.9 3.9 3.7 3.9 3.6 3.7 – 3.7 3.8 3.6 OC decline







Figure 5: Soil monitoring units in Central West CMA


3.1.3 Hawkesbury Nepean CMA




• Broad issues of concern: OC decline, salinity, sheet erosion

• Particular issues of concern: salinity in SMUs 1 and 5; OC decline in SMUs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7; sheet erosion in SMU 2




• Broad issues of concern: acidification

• Particular issues of concern: acidification in SMUs 2, 3, 5 and 7; sheet and gully erosion in SMU 2; OC and structure decline in SMU 7

Table 6: Soil condition indices for Hawkesbury–Nepe an CMA


erosion Gully

erosion Wind



score Worst hazard

1 Wianamatta Rural Fringe 3.2 4.7 5.0 4.0 3.4 4.4 – 1.5 3.7 1.5 salinity

2 Coxs River Granite Soils 2.4 4.4 5.0 3.3 2.5 4.6 – 3.8 3.7 2.4 sheet erosion

3 Mid Wollondilly Lands 2.8 4.6 5.0 3.5 1.8 3.4 – 3.0 3.5 1.8 OC decline

4 Upper Wollondilly Lands 2.7 4.7 5.0 3.2 2.0 3.5 – 3.1 3.5 2.0 OC decline

5 Capertee and Wolgan Lower Slopes 3.0 4.0 5.0 3.5 2.3 3.9 – 1.5 3.3 1.5 salinity

6 Mulwaree Plains 3.3 5.0 5.0 4.1 2.1 4.0 – 3.3 3.8 2.1 OC decline 7 Nepean Alluvials 4.0 – 5.0 4.0 2.0 3.1 – 3.3 3.6 2.0 OC decline Sommersby Plateau 2.7 – 5.0 – – – – 4.3 4.0 2.7 sheet erosion

9 Wingecarribee Hills 3.3 – 5.0 3.5 3.8 4.3 – 4.3 4.0 3.3 sheet erosion 10 Robertson Basalts 2.9 – 5.0 – – – – 4.3 4.1 2.9 sheet erosion

Average 3.0 4.6 5.0 3.6 2.5 3.9 – 3.3 3.7 2.5 OC decline








Table 7: Land management within capability indices for Hawkesbury–Nepean CMA


erosion Gully

erosion Wind


OC decline



1 Wianamatta Rural Fringe 3.8 3.8 5.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 – 4.2 4.3 3.0 acidification

2 Coxs River Granite Soils 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.2 4.2 4.2 – 5.0 3.3 2.2 acidification,

sheet erosion 3 Mid Wollondilly Lands 4.0 4.2 2.7 1.7 4.0 4.0 – 4.5 3.6 1.7 acidification

4 Upper Wollondilly Lands

3.3 3.5 2.7 2.8 3.3 3.7 – 4.7 3.4 2.7 wind erosion

5 Capertee and Wolgan Lower Slopes 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.5 3.8 3.8 – 2.8 3.4 1.5 acidification

6 Mulwaree Plains 4.5 4.6 2.6 3.4 3.5 3.3 – 4.3 3.7 2.6 wind erosion 7 Nepean Alluvials 4.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 – 3.0 2.4 1.0 acidification 8 Sommersby Plateau – – – – – – – – – – – 9 Wingecarribee Hills 4.3 4.3 3.7 3.3 5.0 5.0 – 3.7 4.2 3.3 acidification 10 Robertson Basalts – – – – – – – – – – –

Average 3.8 3.9 3.0 2.4 3.9 3.9 – 4.0 3.5 2.4 acidificatio n







Figure 6: Soil monitoring units in Hawkesbury–Nepean CMA


3.1.4 Hunter – Central Rivers CMA




• Broad issues of concern: salinity, sheet erosion

• Particular issues of concern: salinity in SMUs 1, 3, 4, 9 and 10; sheet erosion in SMUs 2, 3, 6, 7 and 9; OC decline in SMUs 4 and 9




• Broad issues of concern: acidification, OC decline, structure decline

• Particular issues of concern: OC and structure decline in SMUs 3 and 10; acidification in SMUs 1 and 5; sheet and gully erosion in SMU 7

Table 8: Soil condition indices for Hunter – Centra l Rivers CMA


erosion Gully

erosion Wind



score Worst hazard

1 Singleton Valley Floor 2.9 3.0 5.0 2.8 3.0 3.7 – 1.5 3.1 1.5 salinity 2 Merriwa Plateau 2.3 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.8 4.3 – 3.3 4.1 2.3 sheet erosion

3 Muswellbrook Valley Floor

2.5 3.5 5.0 5.0 1.6 3.2 – 1.5 3.2 1.5 salinity

4 Hunter Floodplains 4.1 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.3 3.2 – 2.3 3.8 2.3 OC decline, salinity

5 Landsdowne Terraces 3.6 4.9 5.0 3.8 3.1 4.5 – 4.7 4.2 3.1 OC decline 6 Chichester Hills 2.0 4.0 5.0 – – – – 3.8 3.7 2.0 sheet erosion

7 Cooplacurripa Footslopes 2.0 4.8 5.0 3.8 2.8 3.5 – 3.8 3.7 2.0 sheet erosion

8 Goulburn River Valley Floor 3.1 3.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.7 – 3.3 4.2 3.1 sheet erosion

9 Mining Rehabilitation 2.7 5.0 5.0 4.8 2.1 3.0 – 1.5 3.4 1.5 Salinity 10 Acid Sulfate Estuaries 4.1 5.0 5.0 1.8 3.2 – 3.8 2.9 3.7 1.8 Acidity

Average 2.9 4.3 5.0 4.1 3.1 3.8 3.8 2.9 3.7 2.9 sheet erosio n, salinity








Table 9: Land management within capability indices for Hunter – Central Rivers CMA


erosion Gully

erosion Wind


OC decline



1 Singleton Valley Floor 4.1 4.1 4.4 2.6 4.1 4.4 - 3.6 3.9 2.6 acidification

2 Merriwa Plateau 3.5 3.5 3.2 4.0 4.9 4.9 - 4.7 4.1 3.2 wind erosion

3 Muswellbrook Valley Floor

3.6 3.6 5.0 3.7 2.4 2.4 - 3.4 3.4 2.4 OC decline, struct. decline

4 Hunter Floodplains 4.4 4.4 4.8 3.3 3.9 3.9 - 4.0 4.1 3.3 acidification

5 Landsdowne Terraces

5.0 5.0 5.0 2.3 3.7 3.9 - 4.0 4.1 2.3 acidification

6 Chichester Hills - - - - - - - - - - -

7 Cooplacurripa Footslopes 2.4 2.4 4.8 3.6 3.8 3.8 - 4.4 3.6 2.4

sheet/gully erosion

8 Goulburn River Valley Floor 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.6 4.2 4.2 - 4.2 4.5 3.6 acidification

9 Mining Rehabilitation 4.3 4.3 4.5 4.3 3.8 4.3 - 4.1 4.2 3.8 OC decline

10 Acid Sulfate Estuaries 5.0 5.0 3.4 2.8 1.0 1.1 3.4 1.0 2.8 1.0 OC decline,

sal/wlg

Average 4.1 4.1 4.5 3.4 3.5 3.7 3.4 3.7 3.8 3.4 acidificat ion , ASS







Figure 7: Soil monitoring units in Hunter – Central Rivers CMA


3.1.5 Lachlan CMA




• Broad issues of concern: salinity

• Particular issues of concern: salinity in SMUs 2,3 and 7




• Broad issues of concern: insufficient results

• Particular issues of concern: salinity/waterlogging in SMU 1, sheet and gully erosion in SMU 2; acidification in SMU 7

Table 10: Soil condition indices for Lachlan CMA


erosion Gully

erosion Wind



score Worst hazard

1 Bland Riverine Lands 4.1 4.0 5.0 4.5 4.6 3.7 – 3.9 4.3 3.7 struct. decline

2 Young Greenethorpe Earths 3.4 4.0 5.0 3.7 3.8 3.4 – 2.8 3.7 2.8 salinity

3 Murringo Bevandale Metasediments 2.5 2.5 5.0 – – – – 1.5 2.9 1.5 salinity

4 Mid Lachlan Floodplain 4.2 5.0 3.9 – – – – 3.4 4.1 3.4 salinity 5 Ivanhoe Mallee 4.4 4.0 2.8 – – – – 3.8 3.8 2.8 wind erosion

6 Tullibigeal – Naradhan Red Soils 3.7 5.0 5.0 – – – – 4.0 4.4 3.7 sheet erosion

7 Cowra Trough Red Soils – Cowra 3.3 4.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 3.6 – 2.0 3.4 2.0 salinity

8 Trundle Red Soils 3.3 4.0 5.0 – – – – 3.7 4.0 3.3 sheet erosion 9 Humbug Creek Lands 3.5 3.0 4.9 – – – – 3.8 3.8 3.0 gully erosion

10 Parkes Platform Red Soils 3.3 4.0 5.0 – – – – 3.4 3.9 3.3 sheet erosion

Average 3.6 4.0 4.7 3.7 3.8 3.6 – 3.2 3.8 3.2 salinity








Table 11: Land management within capability indices for Lachlan CMA


erosion Gully

erosion Wind


OC decline



1 Bland Riverine Lands 4.0 4.0 2.8 4.5 2.8 2.8 – 2.5 3.3 2.5 salinity/wlg

2 Young Greenethorpe Earths

2.8 2.8 3.2 3.0 3.3 3.0 – 3.5 3.1 2.8 sheet/gully erosion

3 Murringo Bevandale Metasediments

– – – – – – – – – – –

4 Mid Lachlan Floodplain – – – – – – – – – – – 5 Ivanhoe Mallee – – – – – – – – – – –

6 Tullibigeal – Naradhan Red Soils – – – – – – – – – – –

7 Cowra Trough Red Soils – Cowra 4.0 4.0 4.3 2.8 3.5 3.5 – 3.5 3.7 2.8 acidification

8 Trundle Red Soils – – – – – – – – – – – 9 Humbug Creek Lands – – – – – – – – – – –

10 Parkes Platform Red Soils

– – – – – – – – – – –

Average 3.6 3.6 3.4 3.4 3.2 3.1 – 3.2 3.4 3.1 structure decline







Figure 8: Soil monitoring units in Lachlan CMA


3.1.6 Lower Murray–Darling CMA




• Broad issues of concern: OC decline

• Particular issues of concern: OC decline in SMUs 2,3,6,8 and 10; wind erosion in SMUs 3 and 7




• Broad issues of concern: wind erosion

• Particular issues of concern: wind erosion in SMUs 1, 2, 3 and 4

Table 12: Soil condition indices for Lower Murray–D arling CMA


erosion Gully

erosion Wind



score Worst hazard

1 Overnewton Flats 3.5 – 4.6 5.0 3.2 3.6 – 3.8 4.0 3.2 OC decline

2 Lower Darling River Alluvials 4.1 4.5 2.6 5.0 1.7 3.0 – 2.2 3.3 1.7 OC decline

3 Lower Murray River Alluvials 4.1 4.5 2.6 4.9 2.7 3.0 – 2.9 3.5 2.6 wind erosion

4 Arumpo Mallee Lands 4.1 – 4.9 5.0 4.5 4.0 – 3.7 4.4 3.7 salinity 5 Guthul Sand Plain 4.0 – 4.3 – – – – 3.3 3.9 3.3 salinity 6 East Pooncarie Sands 5.4 – 4.9 5.0 2.3 2.7 – 4.2 4.1 2.3 OC decline 7 Hatfield Plains 4.1 – 2.7 – – – – 3.8 3.5 2.7 wind erosion

8 Southern Barrier Range Footslopes 4.0 3.0 2.3 5.0 1.3 3.7 – 3.8 3.3 1.3 OC decline

9 Roo Roo Plains 3.6 4.5 5.0 – – – – 3.2 4.1 3.2 salinity 10 Border Mallee Soils 4.3 – 5.0 4.3 1.3 3.7 – 4.2 3.8 1.3 OC decline Average 4.1 4.1 3.9 4.9 2.4 3.4 – 3.5 3.8 2.4 OC decline





1.0-1.9 Very poor Profound loss of soil function. Severe deterioration against reference condition - No data Not included for change monitoring


Table 13: Land management within capability indices for Lower Murray–Darling CMA


erosion Gully

erosion Wind


OC decline



1 Overnewton Flats 3.8 4 1.4 4.6 3.4 3.6 – 3.2 3.4 1.4 wind erosion

2 Lower Darling River Alluvials

5 5 1 4 4 4.5 – 2.5 3.7 1.0 wind erosion

3 Lower Murray River Alluvials

4.5 4.5 1 4.5 3.5 4 – 3.5 3.6 1.0 wind erosion

4 Arumpo Mallee Lands 4.6 4.6 1.4 4.8 3.8 4.2 – 3.2 3.8 1.4 wind erosion 5 Guthul Sand Plain – – – – – – – – – – – 6 East Pooncarie Sands – – – – – – – – – – – 7 Hatfield Plains – – – – – – – – – – –

8 Southern Barrier Range Footslopes

– – – – – – – – – – –

9 Roo Roo Plains – – – – – – – – – – – 10 Border Mallee Soils – – – – – – – – – – –

Average 4.5 4.5 1.2 4.5 3.7 4.1 – 3.1 3.6 1.2 wind eros ion







Figure 9: Soil monitoring units in Lower Murray–Darling CMA


3.1.7 Murray CMA


• Overall soil condition index: 4.0 (good)


• Broad issues of concern: sheet erosion, salinity, structure decline

• Particular issues of concern: sheet erosion in SMU 4, wind erosion in SMUs 7 and 10; salinity in SMU 6




• Broad issues of concern: structure decline

• Particular issues of concern: structure decline in SMU 1; salinity/waterlogging in SMU 5

Table 14: Soil condition indices for Murray CMA


erosion Gully

erosion Wind



score Worst hazard

1 Grey Box Plains 4.7 4.9 4.6 4.4 4.2 3.5 – 3.3 4.2 3.3 salinity

2 Mid-Murray Metasediments 3.5 4.9 5.0 3.9 4.2 3.7 – 3.0 4.0 3.0 salinity

3 Tumbarumba Wet Granodiorites 2.3 4.0 5.0 3.4 4.5 3.5 – 4.3 3.9 2.3 sheet erosion

4 Khancoban Granites 1.8 3.5 5.0 – – – – 5.0 3.8 1.8 sheet erosion

5 Mid-Murray Prior Streams and Dunes 4.9 4.0 3.9 4.6 3.4 3.5 – 4.3 4.1 3.4 OC decline

6 Coreinbob Low Hills 2.7 4.5 5.0 4.0 5.0 3.5 – 2.0 3.8 2.0 salinity

7 Edwards River Red Gum Floodways 5.0 4.9 2.6 – – – – 4.4 4.2 2.6 wind erosion

8 Tooleybuc Mallee Sands 4.3 3.0 3.4 – – – – 4.3 3.8 3.0 gully erosion 9 Yerong Creek Plains 4.2 4.9 5.0 – – – – 3.6 4.4 3.6 salinity 10 Moulamein Plain 4.8 4.9 1.6 – – – – 3.8 3.8 1.6 wind erosion Average 3.8 4.4 4.1 4.1 4.2 3.5 – 3.8 4.0 3.5 struc t. decline








Table 15: Land management within capability indices for Murray CMA


erosion Gully

erosion Wind


OC decline



1 Grey Box Plains 4.8 4.8 3.5 – 2.5 2.1 – 2.6 3.4 2.1 structure decline

2 Mid-Murray Metasediments

– – – – – – – – – – –

3 Tumbarumba Wet Granodiorites

2.8 2.8 3.3 2.8 3.3 3.4 – 4.6 3.3 2.8 acidification, sheet/gully erosion

4 Khancoban Granites – – – – – – – – – – –

5 Mid-Murray Prior Streams and Dunes

5.0 5.0 3.3 – 3.5 3.0 – 2.5 3.7 2.5 salinity/ waterlogging

6 Coreinbob Low Hills – – – – – – – – – – –

7 Edwards River Red Gum Floodways – – – – – – – – – – –

8 Tooleybuc Mallee Sands – – – – – – – – – – –

9 Yerong Creek Plains – – – – – – – – – – – 10 Moulamein Plain – – – – – – – – – – –

Average 4.2 4.2 3.4 2.8 3.1 2.8 – 3.2 3.4 2.8 struc t. decline, acidification







Figure 10: Soil monitoring units in Murray CMA


3.1.8 Murrumbidgee CMA




• Broad issues of concern: salinity, sheet erosion, wind erosion

• Particular issues of concern: salinity in SMU 2, 3 and 6; wind erosion in SMU 1 and 4; sheet erosion in SMU 7




• Broad issues of concern: acidification, OC decline, structure decline

• Particular issues of concern: acidification in SMUs 3 and 5; OC decline in SMUs 4 and 6; structure decline in SMUs 1 and 9

Table 16: Soil condition indices for Murrumbidgee C MA


erosion Gully

erosion Wind



score Worst hazard

1 Boree Plains 4.9 4.0 2.8 4.1 3.7 2.9 - 3.3 3.7 2.8 wind erosion

2 Murrumburrah Harden Hills 2.4 4.7 5.0 4.2 4.3 3.8 - 1.5 3.7 1.5 salinity

3 Cullarin Metasediments 2.3 4.0 5.0 3.5 4.7 4.0 - 1.5 3.6 1.5 salinity 4 Lowbidgee Delta 4.5 5.0 2.6 5.0 4.2 3.0 - 4.3 4.1 2.6 wind erosion 5 Coolamon Plains 3.4 4.9 5.0 4.4 3.5 3.7 - 3.8 4.1 3.4 OC decline 6 Wantabadgery Rises 3.2 4.5 5.0 3.6 3.9 4.1 - 1.5 3.7 1.5 salinity 7 Murrumbidgee Alps 2.0 4.0 5.0 3.0 3.6 4.0 - 4.3 3.7 2.0 sheet erosion Ariah Park Plains 3.5 4.9 5.0 - - - - 4.0 4.4 3.5 sheet erosion 9 Murrumbidgee Alluvials 4.2 5.0 4.3 5.0 4.5 3.5 - 3.3 4.3 3.3 salinity

10 Monaro Murrumbidgee Basalts

4.0 4.3 5.0 - - - - 4.7 4.5 4.0 sheet erosion

Average 3.4 4.5 4.5 4.1 4.0 3.6 - 3.2 3.9 3.2 salinity








Table 17: Land management within capability indices for Murrumbidgee CMA


erosion Gully

erosion Wind


OC decline



1 Boree Plains 4.5 4.5 3.1 – 2.6 2.4 – 2.9 3.3 2.4 structure decline

2 Murrumburrah Harden Hills

3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 – 4.5 3.6 3.5 erosion, acidification, OC/struct. decline

3 Cullarin Metasediments 3.7 3.7 4.8 1.9 3.6 3.8 – 3.8 3.6 1.9 acidification 4 Lowbidgee Delta 4.5 4.5 3.1 – 2.3 2.4 – 2.8 3.3 2.3 OC decline 5 Coolamon Plains 4.3 4.3 4.8 1.0 2.8 2.5 – 3.8 3.4 1.0 acidification 6 Wantabadgery Rises 3.4 3.4 3.4 – 2.0 2.4 – 4.0 3.1 2.0 OC decline 7 Murrumbidgee Alps 4.0 4.0 4.1 2.9 4.3 4.1 – 4.7 4.0 2.9 acidification 8 Ariah Park Plains – – – – – – – – – – – 9 Murrumbidgee Alluvials 5.0 5.0 4.5 3.5 2.5 2.0 – 4.0 3.8 2.0 structure decline

10 Monaro Murrumbidgee Basalts

– – – – – – – – – – –

Average 4.1 4.1 3.9 2.6 3.0 2.9 – 3.8 3.5 2.6 acidificat ion







Figure 11: Soil monitoring units in Murrumbidgee CMA


3.1.9 Namoi CMA




• Broad issues of concern: sheet and wind erosion, salinity, OC decline

• Particular issues of concern: salinity in SMU 5; sheet erosion in SMUs 1, 6, and 9; wind erosion in SMUs 3 and 9; OC decline in SMUs 8 and 10; structure decline in SMU 10




• Broad issues of concern: salinity/waterlogging, wind erosion, OC decline

• Particular issues of concern: salinity/waterlogging in SMUs 3 and 10; wind erosion in SMUs 8, 9 and 10; OC decline in SMU 4

Table 18: Soil condition indices for Namoi CMA


erosion Gully

erosion Wind



score Worst hazard

1 Liverpool Plain Red Earths 2.7 5.0 3.7 4.5 3.9 3.6 – 3.1 3.8 2.7 sheet erosion

2 Duri Hills 3.0 3.5 4.5 4.8 3.9 – – 3.3 3.8 3.0 sheet erosion 3 Doreen Plain 4.2 5.0 2.6 5.0 3.5 3.0 – 4.0 3.9 2.6 wind erosion 4 Cryon Plain 4.0 5.0 1.7 5.0 2.9 3.7 – 4.5 3.8 1.7 wind erosion 5 Liverpool Black Plains 3.9 4.8 4.1 5.0 4.9 3.9 – 1.5 4.0 1.5 salinity

6 Liverpool Black Footslopes 2.8 4.0 4.9 5.0 4.9 4.1 – 3.4 4.2 2.8 sheet erosion

7 Burburgate Alluvials 4.1 4.8 4.7 4.9 4.4 3.6 – 3.2 4.2 3.2 salinity 8 Pilliga Outwash 3.6 4.8 4.4 4.1 2.4 3.3 – 3.1 3.7 2.4 OC decline

9 Maules Creek valley floor 2.6 4.5 2.6 4.9 4.5 3.7 – 4.3 3.9 2.6

sheet and wind erosion

10 Come by Chance Plain 3.8 5.0 4.7 5.0 2.7 2.8 – 5.0 4.1 2.7

OC and struct. decline

Average 3.5 4.6 3.8 4.8 3.8 3.5 – 3.5 3.9 3.5 sheet eros ion , struct. decline,

salinity








Table 19: Land management within capability indices for Namoi CMA


erosion Gully

erosion Wind


OC decline



1 Liverpool Plain Red Earths 3.4 3.4 3.6 2.4 3.4 3.2 – 3.2 3.2 2.4 acidification

2 Duri Hills – – – – – – – – – – – 3 Doreen Plain 3.4 3.5 3.4 4.9 3.3 3.6 – 2.4 3.5 2.4 salinity/wlg 4 Cryon Plain 4.3 4.3 3.5 4.9 2.5 2.9 – 3.0 3.6 2.5 OC decline 5 Liverpool Black Plains 4.3 4.3 3.7 4.2 3.7 3.8 – 3.0 3.9 3.0 salinity/wlg

6 Liverpool Black Footslopes

3.6 3.6 4.8 4.9 3.6 3.7 – 3.9 4.0 3.6 OC decline, sheet/gully

erosion

7 Burburgate Alluvials 4.3 4.3 4.0 3.5 3.3 3.0 – 3.0 3.6 3.0 struct. decline,

salinity/wlg 8 Pilliga Outwash 3.4 3.4 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 – 2.8 3.1 2.8 wind erosion

9 Maules Creek valley floor 2.9 3.0 2.7 3.6 2.8 3.0 – 4.2 3.2 2.7 wind erosion

10 Come by Chance Plain 3.8 3.8 2.8 5.0 2.9 3.1 – 2.1 3.4 2.1 salinity/wlg

Average 3.7 3.7 3.5 4.0 3.2 3.3 – 3.1 3.5 3.1 salinity/wlg







Figure 12: Soil monitoring units in Namoi CMA


3.1.10 Northern Rivers CMA




• Broad issues of concern: OC decline, sheet erosion, acidity

• Particular issues of concern: OC decline in SMUs 1 and 5; sheet erosion in SMUs 3, 4, 7 and 9; acidity in SMU 10




• Broad issues of concern: salinity/waterlogging, sheet and gully erosion

• Particular issues of concern: salinity/waterlogging in SMUs 6 and 10; sheet and gully erosion in SMU 7

Table 20: Soil condition indices for Northern River s CMA


erosion Gully

erosion Wind



score Worst hazard

1 North Coast Floodplains 3.6 5.0 5.0 3.6 1.1 4.0 – 4.4 3.8 1.1 OC decline

2 Dorrigo-Comboyne Plateau

2.7 4.0 5.0 – – – – 5.0 4.2 2.7 sheet erosion

3 Alstonville Plateau 2.2 4.0 5.0 3.9 4.0 4.6 – 5.0 4.1 2.2 sheet erosion 4 Casino Alluvials 2.4 4.0 3.1 3.9 3.2 3.1 – 4.1 3.4 2.4 sheet erosion 5 Walcha Metasediments 2.9 3.5 5.0 3.7 2.1 3.4 – 3.0 3.4 2.1 OC decline 6 Clarence Sodic Soils 2.9 2.0 4.0 3.1 2.6 3.7 – 4.2 3.2 2.0 gully erosion 7 Kempsey Hills 2.5 2.5 5.0 2.7 2.7 4.0 – 5.0 3.5 2.5 sheet erosion

8 Granite Borderlands 2.8 3.0 3.0 3.5 2.8 4.1 – 3.8 3.3 2.8 sheet erosion, OC decline

9 Wauchope Low Hills 2.4 4.0 5.0 3.9 3.5 4.3 – 4.7 4.0 2.4 sheet erosion

10 North Coast Acid Sulfate Soils

3.7 5.0 5.0 2.2 3.3 5.0 3.0 5.0 4.0 2.2 acidity

Average 2.8 3.7 4.5 3.4 2.8 4.0 3.0 4.4 3.6 2.8 sheet eros ion , OC decline








Table 21: Land management within capability indices for Northern Rivers CMA


erosion Gully

erosion Wind


OC decline



1 North Coast Floodplains 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.0 4.4 4.4 – 4.9 4.1 3.0 acidification

2 Dorrigo-Comboyne Plateau

2.9 2.9 4.4 3.3 5.0 5.0 – 5.0 4.1 2.9 sheet/gully erosion

3 Alstonville Plateau 2.8 2.9 4.2 3.3 4.8 5.0 – 5.0 4.0 2.8 sheet erosion 4 Casino Alluvials 4.7 4.7 4.8 3.2 4.2 4.2 – 4.6 4.3 3.2 acidification 5 Walcha Metasediments 2.8 2.8 4.0 2.9 3.1 3.1 – 3.8 3.2 2.8 sheet/gully erosion 6 Clarence Sodic Soils 3.8 3.8 4.7 2.2 3.2 3.3 – 1.7 3.2 1.7 salinity/wlg 7 Kempsey Hills 1.7 1.7 4.7 3.7 4.7 4.7 – 4.7 3.7 1.7 sheet/gully erosion 8 Granite Borderlands 4.5 4.7 4.6 3.0 4.6 4.4 – 5.0 4.4 3.0 acidification

9 Wauchope Low Hills 3.0 3.0 4.5 3.0 4.1 4.1 – 4.9 3.8 3.0 sheet/gully erosion, acidification

10 North Coast Acid Sulfate Soils 4.9 4.9 2.6 2.3 1.4 1.7 3.7 1.0 2.7 1.0 salinity/wlg

Average 3.5 3.6 4.3 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.7 4.1 3.8 3.0 acidificatio n







Figure 13: Soil monitoring units in Northern Rivers CMA


3.1.11 Southern Rivers CMA




• Broad issues of concern: sheet erosion, salinity, OC decline

• Particular issues of concern: sheet erosion in SMUs 3, 4 and 5; salinity in SMU 1; OC decline in SMUs 2 and 6




• Broad issues of concern: acidification, salinity/waterlogging

• Particular issues of concern: acidification in SMUs 4 and 5; salinity/waterlogging in SMU 9; wind erosion in SMUs 2 and 9

Table 22: Soil condition indices for Southern River s CMA


erosion Gully

erosion Wind



score Worst hazard

1 Bungonia Tablelands 3.0 4.9 5.0 3.4 3.6 3.5 – 1.5 3.6 1.5 salinity 2 Jindabyne Hills 2.7 4.1 5.0 4.7 2.2 3.4 – 5.0 3.9 2.2 OC decline 3 Bega Valley 2.3 5.0 5.0 3.8 2.5 3.6 – 4.1 3.8 2.3 sheet erosion 4 Ulladulla Coast 2.2 2.0 5.0 2.3 2.8 3.7 – 4.7 3.2 2.0 gully erosion 5 Upper Shoalhaven Valley 2.5 4.7 5.0 3.9 2.6 3.8 – 3.7 3.7 2.5 sheet erosion 6 Braidwood Granites 2.9 4.9 5.0 3.2 2.7 3.5 – 3.7 3.7 2.7 OC decline 7 Moss Vale Plateau 2.8 5.0 5.0 – – – – 3.9 4.2 2.8 sheet erosion 8 Bombala Metasediments 2.9 4.8 5.0 – – – – 4.3 4.3 2.9 sheet erosion 9 Monaro Basalts 2.9 4.6 5.0 4.7 3.8 4.2 – 4.7 4.3 2.9 sheet erosion

10 Nowra Shoalhaven Floodplain 3.9 4.0 5.0 – – – – 4.7 4.4 3.9 sheet erosion

Average 2.8 4.4 5.0 3.7 2.9 3.7 – 4.0 3.8 2.8 sheet eros ion








Table 23: Land management within capability indices for Southern Rivers CMA


erosion Gully

erosion Wind


OC decline



1 Bungonia Tablelands 2.7 2.7 3.4 3.1 3.9 4.3 – 2.5 3.2 2.5 salinity/wlg 2 Jindabyne Hills 3.4 3.5 2.5 3.0 3.8 4.1 – 4.8 3.6 2.5 wind erosion 3 Bega Valley 4.0 4.0 2.6 2.9 3.7 3.7 – 4.4 3.6 2.6 wind erosion

4 Ulladulla Coast 3.8 3.8 2.4 2.4 4.4 4.6 – 3.4 3.5 2.4 acidification, wind erosion

5 Upper Shoalhaven Valley 3.0 3.0 3.3 1.8 3.3 3.8 – 4.5 3.2 1.8 acidification

6 Braidwood Granites 3.6 3.6 3.3 2.9 4.2 4.2 – 4.0 3.7 2.9 acidification 7 Moss Vale Plateau – – – – – – – – – – –

8 Bombala Metasediments

– – – – – – – – – – –

9 Monaro Basalts 3.8 4.0 2.8 – 4.2 4.2 – 1.8 3.5 1.8 salinity/wlg

10 Nowra Shoalhaven Floodplain – – – – – – – – – –

Average 3.5 3.5 2.9 2.7 3.9 4.1 – 3.6 3.5 2.7 acidificatio n







Figure 14: Soil monitoring units in Southern Rivers CMA


3.1.12 Sydney Metro CMA




• Broad issues of concern: salinity, OC decline

• Particular issues of concern: salinity in SMUs 3 and 4; OC decline in SMUs 1 and 4; sheet erosion in SMU 3




• Broad issues of concern: salinity/waterlogging, acidification

• Particular issues of concern: salinity/waterlogging in SMU 2; acidification in SMUs 2 and 4

Table 24: Soil condition indices for Sydney Metro C MA


erosion Gully

erosion Wind



score Worst hazard

1 Sydney Urban Fringe Bushland

2.7 – 5.0 2.8 1.8 3.4 – 4.7 3.4 1.8 OC decline

2 Urban Acid Sulfate Estuaries

5.0 – 5.0 5.0 3.0 – 5.0 4.0 4.5 3.0 OC decline

3 Wianamatta Urban Fringe

2.5 4.0 5.0 – – – – 1.7 3.3 1.7 salinity

4 Madden Wetlands 3.0 4.0 5.0 1.7 2.1 4.2 – 4.0 3.4 1.7 acidity Average 3.3 4.0 5.0 3.2 2.3 3.8 5.0 3.6 3.8 2.3 OC decline





1.0-1.9 Very poor Profound loss of soil function. Severe deterioration against reference condition - No data Not included for change monitoring


Table 25: Land management within capability indices for Sydney Metro CMA


erosion Gully

erosion Wind

erosion Acidifi -cation OC decline Struct.

decline ASS Salinity/ waterlog Average Lowest

score Worst hazard

1 Sydney Urban Fringe Bushland 5.0 5.0 4.0 3.2 5.0 5.0 – 5.0 4.6 3.2 acidification

2 Urban Acid Sulfate Estuaries 5.0 5.0 3.8 1.8 1.3 1.5 3.7 1.0 2.8 1.0 salinity/wlg

3 Wianamatta Urban Fringe – – – – – – – – – – –

4 Madden Wetlands 5.0 5.0 3.9 2.7 3.0 3.5 – 4.0 3.9 2.7 acidification Average 5.0 5.0 3.9 2.6 3.1 3.3 3.7 3.3 3.7 2.6 acidificatio n







Figure 15: Soil monitoring units in Sydney Metro CMA


3.1.13 Western CMA




• Broad issues of concern: wind erosion, OC decline, structure decline

• Particular issues of concern: wind erosion in SMUs 4, 6 and 8; OC decline in SMUs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7; structure decline in SMUs 3 and 9


• Overall LMwC index: 4.0 (good)


• Broad issues of concern: wind erosion, acidification

• Particular issues of concern: wind erosion in SMUs 2, 6, 8 and 10; acidification in SMU 3

Table 26: Soil condition indices for Western CMA


erosion Gully

erosion Wind



score Worst hazard

1 Cobar Peneplain Flats 4.2 – 4.1 4.2 2.3 2.8 – 3.9 3.6 2.3 OC decline

2 Murray–Darling Depression 3.5 3.0 2.6 5.0 2.3 3.3 – 4.3 3.4 2.3 OC decline

3 Cobar Peneplain Rises 3.6 2.0 4.9 3.3 2.3 2.5 – 3.7 3.2 2.0 OC decline 4 Wanaaring Sandplains 3.6 3.0 1.6 3.0 2.2 – – 5.0 3.1 1.6 wind erosion

5 Mid-Darling River Coolabah 3.3 – 2.6 5.0 3.7 2.9 – 5.0 3.7 2.6 wind erosion

6 Broken Hill Fans 4.9 4.0 1.6 5.0 1.8 3.2 – 5.0 3.6 1.6 wind erosion 7 Bree Clay Grasslands 3.9 – 2.2 5.0 2.4 3.2 – 4.1 3.5 2.2 wind erosion

8 Simpson Strezlecki Swales 4.7 – 1.0 5.0 1.2 3.4 – 5.0 3.4 1.0 wind erosion

9 Old Western Darling Floodlands 3.7 – 5.0 5.0 3.0 2.8 – 4.0 3.9 2.8 struct. decline

10 White Cliff Gibber Rises 4.4 4.0 2.6 5.0 1.7 3.4 – 4.2 3.6 1.7 OC decline Average 4.0 3.2 2.8 4.6 2.3 3.0 – 4.4 3.5 2.3 OC decline








Table 27: Land management within capability indices for Western CMA


erosion Gully

erosion Wind


OC decline



1 Cobar Peneplain Flats 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 – 5.0 4.6 4.0 OC decline, acidifi-cation, struct. decline

2 Murray–Darling Depression 4.6 4.6 2.6 3.4 3.2 3.4 – 3.0 3.5 2.6 wind erosion

3 Cobar Peneplain Rises 3.0 3.3 4.8 2.5 3.3 3.0 – 4.0 3.4 2.5 acidification

4 Wanaaring Sandplains 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 – 5.0 4.7 4.0 wind erosion, acidification

5 Mid-Darling River Coolabah

3.5 3.5 4.5 4.3 3.3 3.3 – 3.8 3.7 3.3 OC and struct. decline

6 Broken Hill Fans 4.3 4.3 1.0 4.7 3.7 4.0 – 3.0 3.6 1.0 wind erosion 7 Bree Clay Grasslands 5.0 5.0 4.4 5.0 4.4 4.2 – 3.6 4.5 3.6 salinity/wlg

8 Simpson Strezlecki Swales 5.0 5.0 1.3 3.5 4.8 4.8 – 3.0 3.9 1.3 wind erosion

9 Old Western Darling Floodlands 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 3.8 4.0 – 3.5 4.4 3.5 salinity/wlg

10 White Cliff Gibber Rises 3.2 3.2 2.6 4.2 3.2 3.8 – 2.8 3.3 2.6 wind erosion Average 4.3 4.4 3.5 4.0 3.9 4.0 – 3.7 4.0 3.5 wind eros ion







Figure 16: Soil monitoring units in Western CMA


3.2 State-wide results and key findings

3.2.1 Soil condition data

A summary of soil condition indices for each hazard for each CMA is presented in Table 28. The proportion of sites or SMUs that fall into each class for each hazard is presented in Figure 17.

Table 28: Soil condition indices for each hazard by CMA

CMA Sheet erosion Gully erosion Wind erosion Acidity Organic carbon Structure ASS Salinity Average Border – Rivers Gwydir 3.3 4.2 3.8 4.8 3.9 3.6 – 4.1 4.0 Central West 3.2 3.8 4.6 4.1 3.8 3.5 – 3.3 3.8 Hawkesbury –Nepean 3.0 4.6 5.0 3.6 2.5 3.9 – 3.3 3.7 Hunter – Central Rivers 2.9 4.3 5.0 4.1 3.1 3.8 3.8 2.9 3.7 Lachlan 3.6 4.0 4.7 3.7 3.8 3.6 – 3.2 3.8 Lower Murray –Darling 4.1 4.1 3.9 4.9 2.4 3.4 – 3.5 3.8 Murray 3.8 4.4 4.1 4.1 4.2 3.5 – 3.8 4.0 Murrumbidgee 3.4 4.5 4.5 4.1 4.0 3.6 – 3.2 3.9 Namoi 3.5 4.6 3.8 4.8 3.8 3.5 – 3.5 3.9 North Coast 2.8 3.7 4.5 3.4 2.8 4.0 3.0 4.4 3.6 Southern Rivers 2.8 4.4 5.0 3.7 2.9 3.7 – 4.0 3.8 Sydney Metro 3.3 4.2 4.4 3.2 2.3 3.8 5.0 3.6 3.7 Western 4.0 3.2 2.8 4.6 2.3 3.0 – 4.4 3.5 State 3.4 4.2 4.3 4.2 3.3 3.7 3.4 3.6 3.8







Figure 17: Proportion of sites or soil monitoring u nits in each soil condition class

Note: Acidity, OC, structure decline and acid sulfate soils based on site data; others based on SMU results.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Sh

ee

t e

ros

Gu

lly e

ros

Win

d e

ros

Aci

dity

Org

C

Str

uct

ure

AS

S

Sa

linity

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Very poor Poor Fair Good Very good


The percentage of SMUs in each CMA that have poor or very poor ratings (indices <3.0) for each hazard is shown in Table 29. The dominant soil health issues in each SMU are presented in Figure 18.

Table 29: Percentage of SMUs in each CMA with poor or very poor soil condition rating

CMA Sheet erosion 1

Gully erosion

Wind erosion Acidity Organic

carbon Structure ASS n/a Salinity Lowest ranked

hazard 2 Border Rivers – Gwydir 40 0 40 0 0 14 0 80 Central West 40 10 0 0 13 13 20 60 Hawkesbury–Nepean 50 0 0 0 75 0 20 90 Hunter – Central Rivers 60 0 0 22 44 0 50 80 Lachlan 10 10 10 0 0 0 30 40 Lower Murray–Darling 0 0 40 0 71 29 20 60 Murray 30 0 20 0 0 0 10 50 Murrumbidgee 30 0 20 0 0 13 30 60 Namoi 30 0 30 0 30 20 10 80 Northern Rivers 80 20 0 22 56 0 0 100 Southern Rivers 80 10 0 14 71 0 10 90 Sydney Metro 50 0 0 67 67 0 25 75 Western 0 20 70 0 80 44 0 100 State (percentage of SMUs in state) 38 6 19 7 41 12 17 74

1 Indicates, for example, that in Border Rivers – Gwydir, 40% of SMUs have sheet erosion rated as poor or very poor.

2 Indicates, for example, that in Border Rivers – Gwydir, 80% of SMUs have one or more hazards rated as poor or very poor.

Figure 18: Dominant soil health issues within soil monitoring units

km


3.2.2 Summary of soil condition across NSW, 2008–09

From Table 28 and Figure 17 it is evident that, on a state-wide basis, soils in NSW are assessed as being in fair condition. On average, there has been a noticeable and moderately significant decline in the condition of NSW soils relative to their reference condition, that is, their condition at the time of European arrival. There has been a moderate loss of soil function for ecosystem services and agricultural productivity. The overall index for soil condition across the state, as derived from updated MER data, is 3.8, indicating overall fair soil condition.

Some parts of the state and some particular soil condition indicators, however, have overall poorer condition, and a significant loss of soil function. Of the 124 SMUs examined, 74% had poor or very poor ratings for at least one hazard (Table 29).

The results suggest that on a state-wide basis, low organic carbon and sheet erosion are moderate issues of concern, with soil structure and salinity also being of concern. Acid sulfate soils are of significant concern in some coastal and drying inland riverine areas.

A brief summary of the each of the soil condition indicators across NSW for the 2008–09 period is given below, based on Tables 28 and 29 and Figures 17 and 18.

• Organic carbon is assessed as being a moderate issue of concern across the state with an index of 3.3 (fair). Thirty-four per cent of sites and 41% of SMUs have indices in the poor or very poor range. It is a significant concern (poor in 25% or more of SMUs) in eight of the 13 CMA regions.

• Sheet erosion is also assessed as a moderate issue of concern across the state, with a soil condition index of 3.4 (fair). Thirty-eight per cent of SMUs have indices in the poor or worse range. It is a significant concern (poor in 25% or more of SMUs) in 10 of the 13 CMA regions.

• Salinity is assessed as being a slight issue of concern with an index of 3.6 (fair). Fifteen per cent of sites and 17% of SMUs have indices in the poor or worse range and it is a significant concern in four CMA regions.

• Acidity has an overall current state-wide soil condition index of 4.2 (good). Ten per cent of sites and 7% of SMUs have indices in the poor or worse range. It is a significant concern in just one CMA region.

• Soil structure is also a slight issue of concern, with an index of 3.7 (fair). Fifteen per cent of sites and 12% of SMUs have indices in the poor or worse range. It is a significant concern in just one CMA region and is a particular issue in areas with sodic surface soils.

• Acid sulfate soils, potentially hazardous soils, are in overall fair condition but in some locations they are in poor condition, with an index of 3.4. Twenty-three per cent of sites have indices in the poor or worse range.

• Gully erosion is a concern in several areas. It has a soil condition index of 4.2 (good). Just 6% of sites and SMUs have indices in the poor or worse range and it is not rated a significant concern in any CMA regions.

• Wind erosion has a soil condition index of 4.3 (good); however, the index for the Western CMA region is only 2.8 (poor). Nineteen per cent of SMUs have indices in the poor or worse range. It is a significant issue of concern in four of the western-most CMA regions.


3.2.3 Land management within capability data

A summary of LMwC indices for each hazard by CMA is shown in Table 30. The proportion of sites or SMUs that fall into each class for each hazard is shown in Figure 19.

Table 30: Land management within capability indices for each hazard by CMA

CMA Sheet erosion

Gully erosion

Wind erosion

Acidifi -cation

OC decline

Structure decline ASS Salinity /

waterlog Index

Border Rivers – Gwydir 3.9 3.9 3.2 3.4 3.9 4.1 – 3.8 3.7 Central West 3.9 3.9 3.7 3.9 3.6 3.7 – 3.7 3.8 Hawkesbury–Nepean 3.8 3.9 3.0 2.4 3.9 3.9 – 4.0 3.5 Hunter – Central Rivers 4.1 4.1 4.5 3.4 3.5 3.7 3.4 3.7 3.8 Lachlan 3.6 3.6 3.4 3.4 3.2 3.1 – 3.2 3.4 Lower Murray–Darling 4.5 4.5 1.2 4.5 3.7 4.1 – 3.1 3.3 Murray 4.2 4.2 3.4 2.8 3.1 2.8 2.5 3.2 3.3 Murrumbidgee 4.1 4.1 3.9 2.6 3.0 2.9 – 3.8 3.5 Namoi 3.7 3.7 3.5 4.0 3.2 3.3 – 3.1 3.5 Northern Rivers 3.5 3.6 4.3 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.7 4.1 3.8 Southern Rivers 3.5 3.5 2.9 2.7 3.9 4.1 3.5 3.6 3.5 Sydney Metro 5.0 5.0 3.9 2.6 3.1 3.3 4.7 3.3 3.9 Western 4.3 4.4 3.5 4.0 3.9 4.0 – 3.7 4.0 State 3.9 3.9 3.6 3.3 3.6 3.7 3.6 3.7 3.6







Figure 19: Proportion of sites or soil monitoring units in each land management

within capability class

The proportion of SMUs in each CMA that have poor or very poor ratings for each hazard is shown in Table 31. The dominant land management within capability issues in each SMU are presented in Figure 20.


Table 31: Percentage of sites in each CMA with poor or very poor land management within capability rating

CMA Sheet erosion 1

Gully erosion

Wind erosion

Acidifi-cation

OC decline

Structure decline ASS Salinity/

waterlogging

Lowest ranked hazard 2

Border Rivers – Gwydir 13 13 31 37 11 9 0 7 52 Central West 5 5 5 4 9 5 0 11 29 Hawkesbury–Nepean 15 15 33 51 10 10 0 5 62 Hunter – Central Rivers 7 7 9 19 19 16 30 15 40 Lachlan 7 7 14 7 14 14 0 36 43 Lower Murray–Darling 14 7 86 0 7 0 0 14 86 Murray 25 25 14 7 25 36 0 18 61 Murrumbidgee 4 4 20 20 38 36 0 24 60 Namoi 10 9 16 7 21 15 0 23 33 Northern Rivers 18 18 11 24 22 21 12 29 52 Southern Rivers 18 16 36 35 4 0 0 31 73 Sydney Metro 0 0 15 55 45 40 0 20 70 Western 11 8 33 8 19 8 0 8 56 NSW 13 12 23 23 20 16 15 20 54

1 Indicates, for example, that in Border Rivers – Gwydir, 13% of sites have sheet erosion rated as poor or very poor.

2 Indicates, for example, that in Border Rivers – Gwydir, 52% of sites have one or more hazards rated as poor or very poor.

Figure 20: Dominant land management within capability issues within soil monitoring units

km


3.2.4 Summary of land management within capability across NSW, 2008–09

The analysis of land management within capability was carried out over 662 sites over the 13 CMA areas of NSW. On a state-wide basis, the results as presented in Tables 30 and 31 and Figures 19 and 20 suggest that land in NSW is overall being managed at a level in accordance with its inherent physical capability; however, there are widespread issues of concern. The overall index for LMwC is 3.6, suggesting overall fair land management relative to capability; however, individual hazards are being unsustainably managed over many areas. Of the examined sites, 54% had a poor or very poor rating (with index <3) for at least one hazard. In these areas, there is a risk of ongoing land degradation from particular hazards that are currently not being adequately managed.

The results suggest that on a state-wide basis, acidification, wind erosion, salinity/ waterlogging and organic carbon decline are the land degradation issues that are being managed the least sustainably. A brief summary of each land degradation issue in terms of management relative to land and soil capability as revealed by the LMwC assessment process is given below.

• Acidification – management is poor relative to the capability of the land over extensive areas of the state, being a widespread concern over the majority of CMA regions. It has an average index of 3.3 (fair). The index fell in the poor or very poor range in 23% of sites. It is a significant issue of concern (>25% of sites) in five CMAs.

• Wind erosion – poor management of this issue is common across much of the state. It has an index of 3.6 (fair). Indices fell in the poor or very poor range over 23% of the sites. It is a significant issue of concern (>25% of sites) in five CMAs.

• Salinity/waterlogging – this is subject to poor management relative to capability for extensive parts of the state. It has an index of 3.7 (fair). Indices fell in the poor or very poor range over 20% of the sites. It is a significant issue of concern (>25% of sites) in three CMAs, with two others borderline. It is most critical in certain parts of the state, particularly those areas with sodic surface soils.

• Organic carbon decline – poor management of this issue relative to capability is common throughout the state. It has an index of 3.6 (fair). Indices fell in the poor or very poor range over 20% of the sites. It is a significant issue of concern (>25% of sites) in three CMAs.

• Soil structure decline – poor management of this issue relative to capability is common throughout the state. It has an index of 3.7 (fair). Indices fell in the poor or very poor range over 16% of the sites. It is a significant issue of concern (>25% of sites) in three CMAs.

• Sheet and gully erosion – management of these issues relative to capability is typically fair; however, it is poor in some areas, particularly where there are moderate slopes. They both have an index of 3.9 (fair) with indices falling in the poor or very poor range over 12–13% of the sites. It is a significant issue of concern (>25% of sites) in just one CMA.

• Acid sulfate soils – the assessment suggests most of the coastline is managed within capability for this issue, but areas of concern remain. It has an index of 3.7 (fair). Indices fell in the poor or very poor range over 15% of the sites. It is a significant issue of concern (>25% of sites) in one of the three coastal CMAs examined. Poor management of these soils is also now a problem in some inland areas along the Murray–Darling River system.


4 Complementary data 4.1 Land use within capability map

This broad-scale preliminary map indicates areas where land may be being used within and potentially beyond capability (Figure 21). It deals with broader land use data rather than more detailed land management data. It is based on assumptions of the upper sustainable land and soil capability (LSC) class of each land use, that is, the LSC class beyond which a given land use is considered unsustainable and liable to cause land degradation. For example, standard cropping is generally considered unsustainable at LSC classes beyond 4 and standard grazing unsustainable above LSC class 6.

This preliminary land use within capability map was derived by overlaying a NSW land-use layer (with associated upper sustainable limit values) against the NSW LSC map (OEH 2012). The land use was derived from the 2000–07 NSW land use mapping program, generally at scales of 1:25 000 or 1:50 000. Where the upper sustainable LSC class for a particular land use is within LSC shown on the LSC map, land use is considered as at or above capability; in other words it is sustainable. Where the upper sustainable LSC class for the land use exceeds the mapped LSC by one class, then the land use within capability map will show a slight risk of land degradation. As the gap between the upper sustainable limit for a land use and the mapped LSC grows, the risk of land degradation increases.

The land use within capability map provides another avenue for scoping which areas require close attention to address possible land degradation issues and the possible need for land use change. This preliminary map is suitable only for first order approximations due to the broad assumptions of upper sustainable LSC classes made for the different land uses, and its reliance on the broad scale LSC map, with its scale-related drawbacks. It complements the land management within capability maps and data which are, in contrast, based on specific site soil and land management data.

Figure 21: Land use within capability map


4.2 Australian Bureau of Statistics land management data

Land management data from the ABS 2009–10 Agricultural Resource Management survey is available. In addition to the data at CMA level currently available on the ABS website, as presented in Appendix 2, further data subdividing the state into nine LSC management zones is being supplied to OEH by the ABS under a contractual arrangement. These zones spatially group areas with similar LSC signatures, that is, those that require similar land management.

This land management data may be further subdivided into individual CMAs depending on ABS confidentiality requirements. The data includes answers to 22 key land management questions such as the nature of tillage, stubble management and lime addition practices. Results will be analysed by OEH and made available to the CMAs, possibly in MCAS data layer format.

The ABS data (publically available and OEH contracted data) represent a potential wealth of land management data for each CMA. It may potentially be important in:

• assisting in identifying areas where land management issues require the greatest attention; for example, results may reveal that particular CMAs and subregions have high rates of multiple tillage or low rates of lime application, suggesting that the CMA may need to address these causes of structure decline and soil acidification

• deriving LMwC indices and thereby assessing the immediacy of reaching tipping points in the resilience framework

• providing a focus for ongoing MER activity, as the quantitative results can be compared with similar results in future years.

There are a number of issues to be aware of when using this data.

• ABS census responses are considered to be biased as landholders tend to provide aspirational views of their land management.

• There may be information gaps where data cannot be reported due to respondent spatial density issues.

• The land management zones layer is very broad.

• The approach is experimental and untested.

Publicly available data down to the CMA level is available from the ABS Agricultural Resource Management (ARM) survey, as presented in Appendix 2 (for 2009–10) with more recent data provided on the Land Management and Farming in Australia ABS website.2

4.3 Groundcover and sheet and wind erosion products

4.3.1 Time series ground cover products

MODIS-derived time series fractional vegetation cover products at 500 m pixels are available from February 2000 on an 8-daily basis to December 2010 and are expected to be ongoing (Guerschman et al. 2009, 2012). Monthly fractional cover metrics were constructed by OEH for NSW and the CMAs including percentage of bare soil, green vegetation and non-green vegetation. These time series products are important for management of soil erosion, soil carbon, soil salinity and pH.

As a time series this can be particularly useful for identifying chronically low ground cover and areas where land is not being managed within capability. It may be particularly useful as an overall assessment and monitoring tool.

Some issues to note include the large pixel size and the fact they are not yet masked for snow, urban or disturbed terrain. The methodology is not fully calibrated for NSW conditions

2 www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/productsbytitle/A311E8F2D1E2FDFFCA2575C40017D718?OpenDocument


and does not work well on some soil types, for example grey clays. The results may be unreliable if using discrete thresholds near moderate cover levels but are reliable when identifying low ground cover and high ground cover.

4.3.2 Time series sheet erosion modelling

Advanced sheet erosion modelling products have been recently developed by OEH. They use a Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) raster model with the best available NSW DEM (SRTM – space shuttle radar) for slope and slope length (LS factor); NSW LSC map Great Soil Groups for soil erodibility (K factor); daily time step rainfall for rainfall erosivity (R factor) and time series ground cover from MODIS for cover factor (C factor). The final products use 50-m pixels.

Surfaces are now available for every month from February 2000 to December 2011 and onwards. Data has also been compiled into a 10-year baseline and three-year reporting periods. Annual updates are expected. The modelling represents a major advance on any previous sheet erosion prediction; see Yang et al. (2011).

Some examples of the available products are given in Figures 22 and 23. Their uses include to:

• identify chronic sheet erosion locations and seasons (e.g. summer)

• assess critical ground covers and priority seasons to prevent erosion beyond sustainable limits

• identify potential areas with water quality problems due to high delivery of nutrients and suspended turbid materials

• provide neighbourhood peer comparisons, that is, in areas with the same land use, soil map unit and landscape position, to compare sheet erosion from 10 years of data to identify best and poorest soil managers.

The model appears to be reliable and sensible according to sheet erosion experts and relative to long-term measured losses from Soil Conservation Service erosion plots (now discontinued). Further validation methods are being explored. Further work will include assessments of which areas donate the largest amounts of nutrients and suspended sediments.

Note that the modelling does not work for pixels close to the coast, for urban areas, or for snow-covered ground. Ground cover does not take into account surface covering of coarse fragments.


Figure 22: Baseline sheet erosion for NSW, 2000–10

Figure 23: Sheet erosion for NSW 2009 and 2010


4.3.3 Wind erosion and DustWatch products

Numerical modelling of wind erosion that offers the capacity to monitor the extent, severity and trends in wind erosion has been carried out. The CEMSYS5 wind erosion and dust transport model was used to produce national and NSW maps which identify key areas where investment in land management practices can reduce wind erosion and give the biggest environmental benefit.

The CEMSYS model has been run at 10-km resolution within the NSW domain for five consecutive years. The data has been cut to each NSW CMA on monthly time steps and suggested target levels of erosion given for each CMA. The concept is that if there is significant wind erosion in a catchment, there is inadequate ground cover, the land is being used beyond capability and therefore land management practices could be improved.

For each month, the area of each CMA where moderate erosion (i.e., where the average monthly erosion rate is >80 mg/m/s) was calculated. Arc grids were used for the calculations. The grids are available for both monthly and annual (July to June) time periods. An example of a time series plot for the Murray–Darling CMA is given in Figure 24 (see Leys et al. 2012).

Figure 24: Area of Murray–Darling CMA exceeding moderate wind erosion levels

Data from the DustWatch program is being made available. Approximately 25 DustWatch nodes (instrumented sites) set up at priority locations throughout NSW (and another nine in other states) provide objective measurements of dust activity throughout the state. Targets for dust levels for each CMA may be set, based on the premise that dust levels should not exceed the dust level for ‘average’ rainfall years. Data to assist this target setting is provided; see Leys and Heidenreich (2012).

All CMAs in NSW apart from Sydney Metro are covered by the CEMSYS data which extends back to June 2000. The data can assist in identifying:

• the extent of wind erosion and dust problems in each CMA

• suitable targets for dust levels

• appropriate ground cover and land management recommendations

• ongoing monitoring of wind erosion and dust levels.

4.4 Modelling of soil properties

Tools to understand and predict the behaviour and spatial distribution of soil carbon, pH, nutrients and other soil properties in the landscape at local, regional and national levels is being undertaken by OEH and other scientists using a number of approaches. These


include:

• quantitative soil property modelling and mapping – developing multiple regression models that describe the relationship of soil carbon and other properties to key soil forming factors (climate, lithology, topography and land use) from data mining of available soil databases in NSW and eastern Australia (Gray et al. 2012; Gray et al. (accepted). These relationships can be easily applied with readily available data and used in (i) prediction of soil property levels over specific sites and areas, (ii) broader modelling programs, and (iii) preparation of predictive soil property maps such as shown in Figure 25.

• soil carbon benchmark matrices – developing a matrix of key environmental, land use and land management factors influencing soil carbon to allow preparation of maps with zones of expected soil carbon content. The matrices have been developed for the Central West, Lachlan and Hawkesbury Nepean CMAs (Murphy et al. 2010; Keith et al. 2013).

These products will improve our knowledge, understanding and predictive ability of soil property variation throughout the NSW landscape under different management systems. They can form the basis of assessment of soil condition at individual sites relative to an expected modelled condition. The soil carbon products could reduce costs of on-site soil carbon measurements and provide a framework for participation by farmers in potential carbon trading schemes. They may assist in identifying areas of potential low soil carbon and the land management practices needed to improve soil carbon levels.

Figure 25: Predictive map of topsoil organic carbon in Hunter – Central Rivers CMA


5 Conclusion This report finalises the MER program for the soil and land themes over the 2008–09 period. For both the (i) soil condition theme and the (ii) land management within capability (LMwC) theme it has presented final results for each of the 13 CMA areas and for the state as a whole. It has presented other more recent sources of additional data that can be incorporated into future soil and land monitoring programs.

The results reveal that soil condition and LMwC across the state may generally be classed as fair during that 2008–09 monitoring period. However, there are particular issues of concern over many areas. For soil condition, almost three-quarters of SMUs had poor or very poor ratings for at least one indicator; for LMwC, over half of all sites had poor or very poor ratings for at least one hazard. The results suggest that, on a state-wide basis, soil condition, low organic carbon and sheet erosion are moderate issues of concern, while for LMwC, acidification, wind erosion, salinity/waterlogging and organic carbon decline are the issues of most concern.

The results provide an important summary of the status of soil condition and land management sustainability throughout NSW and its CMA areas over the 2008–09 period. They reveal particular issues and locations that require additional attention to avoid further degradation to NSW’s valuable soil and land resources. They provide a benchmark of conditions which can be compared to conditions revealed in the future.


Appendix 1: Management practices appropriate for each land and soil capability class for each hazard (first approximation)

The tables are essentially a reformat of data presented in Appendix 2 of Gray et al. (2011).

Table A1-1: Management practices and allowable land and soil capability classes for water erosion (first approximation)

Table A1-2: Management practices and allowable land and soil capability classes for wind erosion (first approximation)

Table A1-3: Management practices and allowable land and soil capability classes for soil structure decline (first approximation)

Table A1-4: Management practices and allowable land and soil capability classes for acidification (first approximation)

Table A1-5: Management practices and allowable land and soil capability classes for salinity (first approximation)

Table A1-6: Management practices and allowable land and soil capability classes for organic carbon decline (first approximation)

Table A1-7: Management practices and allowable land and soil capability classes for mass movement hazard (first approximation)

Table A1-8: Management practices and allowable land and soil capability classes for acid sulfate soil hazard (first approximation)


Table A1-1: Management practices and allowable land and soil capability classes for water erosion (first approximation)

Land use Impact Allowable LSC classes Land management actions

Cropping Very high Class 1 >2 crops per year Very long fallow (>3 months) Multiple tillage (4 or more passes) Stubble – hot burn, heavy grazing, ploughed in Cultivation equipment – very high disturbance (e.g. rotary hoe)

High Classes 1 and 2 2 crops per year Long fallow (1–3 months) Multiple tillage (2–3 passes) Stubble – cold burn, light grazing, baled Cultivation equipment – high disturbance (e.g. one-way disc)

Moderate Classes 1–3 1 crop per year Short to moderate length fallow (1– 28 days) Single tillage (1 pass) Stubble – left intact, killed with chemicals Cultivation equipment – moderate disturbance (e.g. two-way disc, narrow or wide-spaced tine) Moderate erosion controls (e.g. contour banks, cultivation along contour)

Low Classes 1–4 1 crop per 2–4 years No fallow (<1 day) No tillage Stubble – slashed, mulched High erosion controls (e.g. pasture cropping)

Very low Classes 1–5 1 crop per 5 or more years (fodder or pasture establishment) Other actions as above

Grazing High Classes 1–4 Moderate ground cover (50–60% average, significant periods with low cover) Perennial or annual grasses No erosion controls

Moderate Classes 1–5 Moderate ground cover (60–70% average, minor periods with low cover) Predominantly perennial grasses Moderate erosion controls (e.g. occasional control banks)

Low Classes 1–6 High ground cover (>70% average, no periods with low cover) All perennial grasses High erosion controls (e.g. frequent control banks)

Horticulture High Classes 1–3 Low ground cover between rows (<50%) Tillage between rows Erosion controls

Moderate Classes 1–4 Moderate ground cover between rows (50–70%) Tillage between rows Erosion controls

Low Classes 1–5 High ground cover between rows (>70%) Tillage between rows Erosion controls

Forestry High Classes 1–5 Woody vegetation and ground cover – average cover 60–70% High ground disturbance by vehicles and equipment

Moderate Classes 1–6 Woody vegetation and ground cover – average cover 70–80% Moderate ground disturbance by vehicles and equipment

Low Classes 1–7 Woody vegetation and ground cover – average cover >80% Low ground disturbance by vehicles and equipment


Table A1-2: Management practices and allowable land and soil capability classes for wind erosion (first approximation)


Cropping Very high Class 1 Low ground cover (<30% average) Very long fallow (>3 months) Multiple tillage (4 or more passes) Stubble – hot burn, heavy grazing, ploughed in Cultivation equipment – very high disturbance (e.g. rotary hoe)

High Classes 1 and 2

Low–moderate ground cover (30–50% average) Long fallow (1–3 months) Multiple tillage (2–3 passes) Stubble – cold burn, light grazing, baled Cultivation equipment – high disturbance (e.g. one-way disc) Poor or no effective wind breaks

Moderate Classes 1–3 Moderate ground cover (50–70% average) Short to moderate length fallow (1– 28 days) Single tillage (1 pass) Stubble – left intact, killed with chemicals Cultivation equipment – moderate disturbance (e.g. two-way disc, narrow- or wide-spaced tine) Moderately effective wind breaks

Low Classes 1–4 Good ground cover (>70% average) No fallow (<1 day) No tillage Stubble – slashed, mulched Low disturbance cultivation equipment (e.g. wide-spaced tine) or no cultivation Effective wind breaks

Very low Classes 1–5 1 crop per 5 or more years (fodder or pasture establishment) Other actions as above

Grazing High Classes 1–4 Moderate ground cover (50–60% average, significant periods with low cover) Perennial or annual grasses Moderately effective wind breaks

Moderate Classes 1–5 Moderate–good ground cover (60–70% average, minor periods with low cover) Predominantly perennial grasses Moderate erosion controls (e.g. occasional control banks) Effective wind breaks

Low Classes 1–6 Good ground cover (>70% average, no periods with low cover) All perennial grasses Very effective wind breaks

Horticulture High Classes 1–3 Low ground cover between rows (<50%) Tillage between rows No effective wind breaks (apart from crop trees)

Moderate Classes 1–4 Moderate ground cover between rows (50–70%) Tillage between rows Moderately effective wind breaks (apart from crop trees)

Low Classes 1–5 High ground cover between rows (>70%) Tillage between rows Effective wind breaks (apart from crop trees)





Table A1-3: Management practices and allowable lan d and soil capability classes for soil structure decline (first approximation)


Cropping Very high Class 1 Very high frequency of cropping (with tillage), >2 per year Multiple tillage (4 or more passes) Very high disturbance cultivation equipment (e.g. rotary hoe Stubble removal by very hot burn Very long fallow (>3 months) No traffic control, frequent traffic in wet conditions

High Classes 1 and 2

High frequency of cropping (with tillage), 2 per year Multiple tillage (3 passes) High disturbance cultivation equipment (one way disc) Stubble – hot burn, heavy grazing, ploughed in Long fallow (1–3 months) No traffic control, moderate traffic in wet conditions

Moderate Classes 1–3 Moderate frequency of cropping (with tillage), 1 per year Minor tillage (2 passes) Moderate disturbance cultivation equipment (e.g. two-way disc, narrow-spaced tine) Stubble management – cold burn, baling, light grazing Moderate fallow (1–4 weeks) Minor traffic control, rare traffic in wet conditions

Low Classes 1–4 Low–moderate frequency of cropping (with tillage), 1 per 2–3 years Minimum or no tillage (one or no passes) Low disturbance cultivation equipment (e.g. broad-spaced tine) Stubble management – slashed/mulched, killed with chemicals Short fallow (<1 week) Traffic control, no traffic in wet conditions Minor addition of gypsum for sodic problems

Very low Classes 1–5 Low frequency of cropping (with tillage) 1 per 4 years or more Zero tillage Stubble management – left intact No fallow Traffic control, no traffic in wet conditions Significant addition of gypsum for sodic problems

Grazing High Classes 1–4 High grazing intensity leading to low–moderate ground cover Shallow rooted perennial pastures Regular stock trampling in wet conditions

Moderate Classes 1–5 Moderate grazing intensity leading to moderate ground cover Predominantly long term deep rooted perennial pastures Occasional stock trampling in wet conditions

Low Classes 1–6 Low grazing intensity leading to good ground cover Deep rooted perennial pastures No stock trampling in wet conditions

Horticulture High Classes 1–3 Low ground cover and biomass between rows High compaction between rows by vehicles and stock, regular movement in wet conditions

Moderate Classes 1–4 Moderate ground cover and biomass between rows Some compaction between rows by vehicles and stock, occasional movement in wet conditions

Low Classes 1–5 High ground cover and biomass between rows Minor compaction between rows by vehicles and stock, no movement in wet conditions

Forestry High Classes 1–5 Some compaction by vehicles and stock, occasional movement in wet conditions Relatively low ground cover for forests (25–50%)

Moderate Classes 1–6 Minor compaction by vehicles and stock, no movement in wet conditions Moderate ground cover for forests (50–70%)

Low Classes 1–7 No compaction by vehicles and stock, no movement in wet conditions Relatively high ground cover for forests (>70%)


Table A1-4: Management practices and allowable land and soil capability classes for acidification (first approximation)


Cropping Very high Class 1 Annual legume pastures in cropping rotations Removal of biomass in large quantities (frequent removal of hay and plant material) Stubble removal by very hot burn Very high use of nitrogen based fertilisers (in relation to crop requirements) Very high irrigation levels with deep soil drainage

High Classes 1 and 2 Annual legume pastures in cropping rotations Removal of biomass (removal of hay and plant material) Stubble removal by hot burn, heavy grazing, baling High use of nitrogen based fertilisers (in relation to crop requirements) High irrigation levels with some deep soil drainage

Moderate Classes 1–3 Perennial pastures in cropping rotation Ground cover managed to maintain water use and minimise nitrate leaching Stubble removal by cold burn, light grazing Limited removal of biomass (grain and animal products) Moderate use of nitrogen based fertilisers (in relation to crop requirements) Moderate irrigation with minimal deep drainage

Low Classes 1–4 Perennial pastures in cropping rotation Special management practices (e.g. pasture cropping) to manage ground cover to maintain water use and minimise nitrate leaching Limited removal of biomass (grain and animal products) Stubble left intact, killed with chemicals, ploughed in Low use of nitrogen based fertilisers (in relation to crop requirements), most fertilisers are non-acidifying Balanced irrigation for crops with no deep drainage High use of lime

Very low Classes 1–5 Use of acid tolerant species Perennial pastures in cropping rotation Special management practices (e.g. pasture cropping) to manage ground cover to maintain water use and minimise nitrate leaching Very limited removal of biomass (grain and animal products) Very low use of nitrogen based fertilisers (in relation to crop requirements), fertilisers are non-acidifying Balanced irrigation for crops with no deep drainage Very high use of lime

Grazing

High Classes 1–4 Annual legume pastures High grazing intensity leading to low–moderate ground cover High use of nitrogen fertilisers, in relation to pasture requirements High irrigation levels for pasture with some deep soil drainage

Moderate Classes 1–5 Predominantly long term perennial pastures Moderate grazing intensity leading to moderate ground cover managed to maintain water use and minimise nitrate leaching Minimal use of nitrogen fertilisers, in relation to pasture requirements Moderate irrigation for pasture with minimal deep drainage

Low Classes 1–6 Long term perennial pastures Low grazing intensity leading to good ground cover to maintain water use and minimise nitrate leaching Fertilisers are non-acidifying Balanced irrigation for pasture with no deep drainage

Continued over



Horticulture High Classes 1–3 Low ground cover and biomass between rows High use of nitrogen based fertilisers, in relation to crop requirements High irrigation levels for crop with some deep soil drainage

Moderate Classes 1–4 Moderate ground cover and biomass between rows Minimal use of nitrogen fertilisers, in relation to crop requirements Moderate irrigation for crop with minimal deep drainage

Low Classes 1–5 High ground cover and biomass between rows Very low use of nitrogen based fertilisers (in relation to crop requirements), most fertilisers are non-acidifying Balanced irrigation for crop with no deep drainage

Forestry High Classes 1–5 Extended periods with low ground cover and tree growth

Moderate Classes 1–6 Moderate ground cover and tree growth

Low Classes 1–7 Continuous high ground cover and tree growth


Table A1-5: Management practices and allowable land and soil capability classes for salinity (first approximation)


Cropping Very high Class 1 Clearing of native vegetation Very long fallow (>3 months) Low yielding crops Very low ground cover (<20% average) Very high irrigation levels with deep soil drainage

High Classes 1 and 2 Long fallow (1–3 months) Low yielding crops Long term annual based pastures in rotation Low ground cover (20–30% average) High irrigation levels with some deep soil drainage

Moderate Classes 1–3 Moderate fallows (1–4 weeks) Moderate yielding crops Low–moderate ground cover (30–50% average) Cropping rotations with pastures Moderate irrigation with minimal deep drainage

Low Classes 1–4 Short fallow (<1 week) Moderate to high yielding crops Moderate ground cover (50–60% average) Low crop frequency, rotations with perennial pastures Full adoption of advanced conservation tillage principles Balanced irrigation with little deep drainage

Very low Classes 1–5 No fallows High yielding crops Moderate–good ground cover (60–70% average) Very low crop frequency, rotations with perennial pastures Full adoption of advanced conservation tillage principles Balanced irrigation with no deep drainage

Grazing High Classes 1–4 Moderate ground cover and biomass for long periods (50–60% average cover) Low–moderate proportion of perennial grasses (>50%)

Moderate Classes 1–5 Moderate to good ground cover and biomass (60–70% average cover) High proportion of perennial grasses (50–80%)

Low Classes 1–6 High levels of ground cover and biomass maintained (>70% average cover) Very high proportion of perennial grasses (>80%)

Horticulture High Classes 1–3 Low ground cover and biomass between rows (<50% average) Regular tillage between rows

Moderate Classes 1–4 Moderate ground cover and biomass between rows (50–70% average cover) Occasional tillage between rows

Low Classes 1–5 High ground cover and biomass between rows (>79% average) No tillage between rows





Table A1-6: Management practices and allowable land and soil capability classes for organic carbon decline (first approximation)


Cropping Very high Class 1 Very high frequency of cropping (with tillage) Multiple tillage (4 or more passes) Very high disturbance cultivation equipment (e.g. rotary hoe) Stubble removal by very hot burn Very long fallow (>3 months) Excessive use of herbicides

High Classes 1 and 2 High frequency of cropping (with tillage) Multiple tillage (3 passes) High disturbance cultivation equipment (one way disc) Stubble – hot burn, heavy grazing, ploughed in Long fallow (1–3 months) Large use of herbicides

Moderate Classes 1–3 Moderate frequency of cropping (with tillage) Minor tillage (2 passes) Moderate disturbance cultivation equipment (e.g. two-way disc, narrow-spaced tine) Stubble management – cold burn, baling, light grazing Moderate fallow (1–4 weeks) Moderate to high use of herbicides

Low Classes 1–4 Low frequency of cropping (with tillage) Minimum or no tillage (one or no passes) Low disturbance cultivation equipment (e.g. broad-spaced tine) Stubble management – slashed/mulched, killed with chemicals Short fallow (<1 week) Moderate use of herbicides

Very low Classes 1–5 Very low frequency of cropping (with tillage) Zero tillage Stubble management – left intact No fallow Low use of herbicides

Grazing High Classes 1–4 High grazing intensity leading to low–moderate ground cover and biomass Shallow rooted perennial pastures

Moderate Classes 1–5 Moderate grazing intensity leading to moderate ground cover and biomass Predominantly long term deep rooted perennial pastures

Low Classes 1–6 Low grazing intensity leading to good ground cover and biomass Deep rooted perennial pastures

Horticulture High Classes 1–3 Low ground cover and biomass between rows

Moderate Classes 1–4 Moderate ground cover and biomass between rows

Low Classes 1–5 High ground cover and biomass between rows

Forestry High Classes 1–5 Relatively low ground cover for forests (25–50%)

Moderate Classes 1–6 Moderate ground cover for forests (50–70%)

Low Classes 1–7 Relatively high ground cover for forests (>70%)


Table A1-7: Management practices and allowable land and soil capability classes for mass movement hazard (first approximation)


All uses Very high Class 1 Concentration of water flows and seepage flows Increased deep drainage Very large loads on soils (e.g. very heavy vehicles and equipment) Removal of trees and stabilising vegetation Cutting of high batters (>8 m)

High Classes 1 and 2 Concentration of water flows and seepage flows Increased deep drainage Large increased loads on soils (e.g. heavy vehicles and equipment) Removal of trees and stabilising vegetation cutting of high batters (<8 m)

Moderate to high

Classes 1–3 Controlled concentration of water flows and seepage flows Controlled increases in deep drainage Moderate increases in load on soils (e.g. large standard vehicles and equipment, heavy stock) Partial removal of trees and stabilising vegetation cutting of high batters (<5 m)

Moderate Classes 1–4 Small controlled concentration of water flows and seepage flows Small increases in deep drainage Controlled moderate increases in load on soils (e.g. standard vehicles and equipment, stock) Minor removal of trees and stabilising vegetation Cutting of high batters (<3 m)

Moderate to low

Classes 1–5 Very small controlled concentration of water flows and seepage flows Small increases in deep drainage Minor increases in load on soils (stock) cutting of high batters (<2 m)

Low Classes 1–6 No concentration of water flows and seepage flows Very minor increases in deep drainage Very minor increases in load on soils (e.g. small stock) Cutting of high batters (<1 m)

Very low Classes 1–7 Insignificant modification or movement on the site

Nil Classes 1–8 No modification or movement on the site


Table A1-8: Management practices and allowable land and soil capability classes for acid sulfate soil hazard (first approximation)


Cropping Very high Class 1 Soil disturbance to any depth Drains to any depth High density of drains

High Classes 1 and 2 Soil disturbance to >5 m Drains to >5 m High density of drains

Moderate to high

Classes 1–3 Soil disturbance to 4 m Drains to 4 m High density of drains

Moderate Classes 1–4 Soil disturbance to 2 m Drains to 2 m Moderate density of drains

Moderate to low

Classes 1–5 Soil disturbance to 1 m Drains to 1 m Moderate density of drains

Low Classes 1–6 Soil disturbance to 0.5 m Drains to 0.5 m Low density of drains

Very low Classes 1–7 No disturbance or drainage

Nil Classes 1–8 No active land use


Appendix 2: Land management statistics by CMA from Australian Bureau of Statistics 2009–10 survey

Tables A2-1 to A2-9 have been extracted from Land Management and Farming in Australia, 2009–10 survey.3 Figure A2-1 is taken from the 2007–08 survey.4

Table A2-1 Major agricultural activity by CMA, 2009–10

Table A2-2: Land use on agricultural holdings by CMA, 2009–10

Table A2-3: Land management for environmental protection by CMA, 2009–10

Table A2-4: Land preparation for crops and horticulture by CMA, 2009–10

Table A2-5: Land preparation for pastures by CMA, 2009–10

Table A2-6: Fertiliser use by CMA, 2009–10

Table A2-7: Fertiliser application rates by CMA, 2009–10

Table A2-8: Ground cover monitoring by CMA, 2009–10

Table A2-9: Crop residue management practices by CMA, 2009–10

Figure A2-1 Agricultural businesses applying lime or dolomite to prevent or manage

soil acidity 2007–08

Table A2-1 Major agricultural activity by CMA, 2009 –10

CMA Total no.

Cropping no.

Horticulture no.

Grazing no.

Border Rivers – Gwydir 2,822 959 69 2,625

Central West 5,405 2,814 419 5,115

Hawkesbury–Nepean 3,131 1,400 1,301 1,788

Hunter – Central Rivers 3,660 772 585 3,204

Lachlan 5,228 3,079 264 4,574

Lower Murray–Darling 568 393 343 231

Murray 3,073 1,989 173 2,542

Murrumbidgee 5,483 3,509 919 4,143

Namoi 3,319 1,501 43 3,034

Northern Rivers 7,476 2,280 1,619 5,765

Southern Rivers 2,186 360 206 2,035

Sydney Metro 246 120 117 68

Western 631 94 7 606

NSW 43,228 19,269 6,067 35,730

3 www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Latestproducts/4627.0Main%20Features12009-10 4 www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/7CAF008176640264CA2575C40017E313/$File/46270_2007-08.pdf


Table A2-2: Land use on agricultural holdings by CM A, 2009–10

NSW Border

Rivers –Gwydir

Central West

Hawkes -bury–

Nepean

Hunter – Central Rivers

Lachlan Lower

Murray–Darling

Murray Murrum-bidgee Namoi Northern

Rivers Southern

Rivers Sydney Metro Western

Agricultural businesses and land area Agricultural businesses (no.) 43,228 2,822 5,405 3,131 3,660 5,228 568 3,073 5,483 3,319 7,476 2,186 246 631 Area of holding (ha) 58,588,455 4,378,770 6,396,495 416,812 1,164,480 7,126,825 6,039,593 3,312,728 5,657,477 3,616,901 1,644,714 724,039 26,810 18,082,810 Land use on agricultural holdings (%)

Land use for agricultural production Crops 16.1 36.9 25.5 9.5 5.8 27.7 3.2 35.0 25.6 25.3 5.9 1.7 26.6 1.5

Grazing Improved pasture 24.0 32.6 34.7 54.6 51.1 30.2 14.7 31.2 31.7 30.7 54.1 48.0 79.0 7.4 Other grazing land 55.1 24.0 34.6 15.0 35.9 35.7 77.1 28.9 35.7 37.9 29.3 36.5 11.2 89.9

Forestry plantation 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.7 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 Other agricultural purposes 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0

Land use not for agricultural production Land set aside for

conservation/protection purposes 2.2 2.6 1.3 9.0 4.7 3.2 3.8 2.3 3.0 2.2 4.1 6.2 19.3 0.7

Other land not used for agricultural production 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.4 2.9 3.0 1.3 2.7 1.9 2.3 2.9 3.4 8.8 0.4

Total 99.7 99.3 100.5 92.2 100.5 100.0 100.1 100.6 98.8 98.6 96.9 96.0 144.9 99.9

Table A2-3: Land management for environmental prote ction by CMA, 2009–10

NSW Border Rivers – Gwydir

Central West

Hawkes -bury–

Nepean


Lachlan Lower

Murray–sDarling

Murray Murrumbidgee Namoi Northern Rivers

Southern Rivers

Sydney Metro Western

Protection of the natural environment

Agricultural businesses Agricultural businesses 43,228 2,822 5,405 3,131 3,660 5,228 568 3,073 5,483 3,319 7,476 2,186 246 631 Native vegetation on

holding 29,607 2,287 3,890 1,797 2,568 3,878 283 2,050 3,148 2,449 4,799 1,759 167 534

Wetlands on holding 4,249 153 526 247 297 301 53 470 414 190 1,099 159 Rivers or creeks on holding 24,865 1,979 3,197 1,362 2,650 2,818 180 1,384 2,501 1,858 5,022 1,473 75 365

Undertook activities to protect natural environment areas (%) Protected native vegetation 51 43 47 52 38 56 51 68 60 48 49 55 31 27 Protected wetland areas 54 57 53 72 51 34 64 55 57 39 32 Protected river or creek

banks 50 53 45 55 46 50 59 47 56 45 59 38


Table A2-4: Land preparation for crops and horticul ture by CMA, 2009–10

NSW Border Rivers–Gwydir

Central West

Hawkes -bury–

Nepean

Hunter –Central Rivers

Lachlan Lower Murray Darling


Rivers Southern


Agricultural businesses and land area Agricultural businesses (no.) 43,228 2,822 5,405 3,131 3,660 5,228 568 3,073 5,483 3,319 7,476 2,186 246 631 Agricultural businesses preparing land for crops and horticulture (no.) 18,915 1,316 3,129 772 764 3,337 260 2,074 3,280 1,879 1,574 393 44 91

Total area of land prepared for crops and horticulture (ha) 6,971,859 1,378,372 1,312,479 19,840 38203 1,255,410 122,114 898,033 996,275 728,531 39,851 10,037 3,619 169,094

Land prepared for crops and horticulture

Agricultural businesses preparing land (no.) No cultivation 10,616 866 1,750 228 358 2,015 85 1,603 1,920 931 633 152 12 63 One or two cultivations only 9,845 745 1,752 403 330 1,930 110 837 1,847 990 600 253 15 34 Three or more cultivations 2,622 161 247 228 216 217 81 145 311 418 557 24 17 0

Area prepared (ha) No cultivation 4,739,588 910,690 902,288 9,930 24279 782,347 23,747 763,942 678,119 486,453 17,398 6,466 2,614 131,316 One or two cultivations only 1,831,926 407,470 368,154 8,019 9,005 382,888 51,509 110,211 280,110 160,941 11,501 3,370 970 37,778 Three or more cultivations 400,346 60,213 42,037 1,891 4,919 90,175 46,859 23,880 38,047 81,137 10,953 202 35 0

Table A2-5: Land preparation for pastures by CMA, 2 009–10

NSW Border

Rivers – Gwydir

Central West

Hawkes -bury–

Nepean


Lachlan Lower

Murray–Darling


Rivers Southern


Agricultural businesses and land area Agricultural businesses (no.) 43,228 2,822 5,405 3,131 3,660 5,228 568 3,073 5,483 3,319 7,476 2,186 246 631 Agricultural businesses reporting land for pastures (no.) 31,351 2,120 4,420 1,633 2,818 4,252 85 2,468 3,817 2,583 4,923 1,938 109 187

Total area of land prepared for pastures (ha) 1,147,304 210,058 44,677 61,113 158,634 129,091 153,028 105,198 99,233 53,309 754 653 Land prepared for pastures

Agricultural businesses preparing land (no.) No cultivation 8,933 441 1,076 529 860 991 1,018 1,253 669 1,474 571 37 One or two cultivations only 4,768 465 602 190 485 704 0 471 454 685 Three or more cultivations 982 75 134 69 227 79 0 25 65 212 88 0

Area prepared (ha) No cultivation 830,434 141,499 37,928 43,873 112,458 105,145 122,783 79,621 43,460 574 One or two cultivations only 280,408 47,923 60,597 4,900 14,096 42,043 0 21,856 26,443 17,534 Three or more cultivations 36,462 4,430 7,962 1,850 3,143 4,133 0 2,089 3,802 6,738 2,078 0


Table A2-6: Fertiliser use by CMA, 2009–10

NSW Border

Rivers – Gwydir

Central West

Hawkes -bury–

Nepean


Lachlan Lower

Murray–Darling


Rivers Southern


Agricultural businesses Agricultural businesses (no.) 43,228 2,822 5,405 3,131 3,660 5,228 568 3,073 5,483 3,319 7,476 2,186 246 631 Agricultural businesses reporting fertiliser use (no.) 25,288 1,644 2,982 1,615 1,902 3,658 341 2,241 3,680 1,979 4,055 1,001 134 57

Agricultural businesses reporting fertiliser use (%) 58.5 58.3 55.2 51.6 52.0 70.0 60.0 72.9 67.1 59.6 54.2 45.8 54.5 9.0

Types of fertiliser used (%) Urea 27 34 11 32 30 14 52 38 24 40 30 24 12 38 Ammonium sulfate 5 6 7 5 5 4 4 14 2 Urea ammonium nitrate 3 1 5 1 16 2 4 5 4 0 Anhydrous ammonia 2 6 0 1 0 1 11 0 0 0 Single superphosphate 32 35 27 21 45 35 35 38 21 25 43 14 Double/triple superphosphate 8 2 11 3 5 13 8 11 11 5 6 36 Muriate of potash/sulfate of potash 4 2 3 6 11 7 1 1 1 7 Potassium nitrate 3 0 1 21 1 3 21 0 1 3 Ammonium phosphates 33 21 51 12 14 51 36 61 46 22 10 12 18 36 All other manufactured fertiliser 22 32 15 33 27 8 30 9 12 25 42 28 19 5 Animal manure 14 9 5 46 22 7 4 6 14 25 18 26 Total 151.0 147.7 130.1 181.7 156.1 137.2 169.5 165.0 148.4 157.2 153.1 125.4 87.8 114.5

Table A2-7: Fertiliser application rates by CMA, 20 09–10


Central West

Hawkes -bury –

Nepean


Lachlan Lower

Murray–Darling


Rivers Southern


Urea Urea – area (ha) 1,382,147 427,054 84,987 6,903 26,099 115,779 9,513 226,365 144,937 263,717 41,534 21,498 Urea – tonnes applied (t) 243,643 59,428 61,871 1,917 5,994 9,944 1,101 23,818 20,044 39,833 12,132 4,037 Urea – application rate (t/ha)

0.18 0.14 0.73 0.28 0.23 0.09 0.12 0.11 0.14 0.15 0.29 0.19

Ammonium sulfate Ammonium sulfate – area (ha) 258,525 37,772 48,774 19,960 15,804 21,078 17,891 94,117 1,011

Ammonium sulfate – tonnes applied (t) 37,994 4,890 6,152 409 1,654 1,809 20,793 125

Ammonium sulfate – application rate (t/ha) 0.15 0.13 0.13 0.02 0.10 0.10 0.22 0.12

Urea ammonium nitrate Urea ammonium nitrate – area (ha)

105,613 7,172 7,511 188 5,475 9,661 20,651 40,823 0



Central West

Hawkes -bury –

Nepean


Lachlan Lower

Murray–Darling


Rivers Southern


Urea ammonium nitrate – tonnes applied (t) 13,215 859 414 29 563 2,371 2,486 2,065 3,652 0

Urea ammonium nitrate – application rate (t/ha) 0.13 0.12 0.06 0.15 0.10 0.26 0.10 0.09 0.00

Anhydrous ammonia Anhydrous ammonia – area (ha)

227,218 87,657 2,391 3,991 0 6,740 107,117 0 0 0

Anhydrous ammonia – tonnes applied (t) 27,917 10,209 389 371 0 954 13,566 0 0 0

Anhydrous ammonia – application rate (t/ha) 0.12 0.12 0.16 0.09 0.00 0.14 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00

Single superphosphate Single superphosphate – area (ha) 1,544,762 242,468 157,581 33,191 83,003 286,770 109,458 336,041 102,333 156,133

Single superphosphate – tonnes applied (t) 202,609 27,018 12,711 19,244 36,367 15,592 43,016 13,263 23,262 6,351

Single superphosphate – application rate (t/ha) 0.13 0.11 0.08 0.23 0.13 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.15

Double or triple superphosphate

Double or triple superphosphate – area (ha) 623,917 8,905 83,912 893 27,865 180,551 103,929 101,464 60,780 25,471

Double or triple superphosphate – tonnes applied (t)

75,395 457 7,471 3,155 21,058 6,888 26,382 6,215 2,205 42

Double or triple superphosphate – application rate (t/ha)

0.12 0.05 0.09 0.11 0.12 0.07 0.26 0.10 0.09

Muriate of potash or sulfate of potash

Muriate of potash or sulfate of potash – area (ha) 40,960 4,950 3,979 3,024 10,091 943 696 4,309 4,455

Muriate of potash/sulfate of potash – tonnes applied (t) 3,959 647 412 337 657 83 54 91 352 795

Muriate of potash or sulfate of potash – application rate (t/ha)

0.10 0.13 0.10 0.11 0.07 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.18

Potassium nitrate Potassium nitrate – area (ha) 25,078 219 568 1,577 509 7,223 2,086 2,257 55 10,099

Potassium nitrate – tonnes applied (t) 3,122 6 318 62 596 216 1,534 13 253



Central West

Hawkes -bury –

Nepean


Lachlan Lower

Murray–Darling


Rivers Southern


Potassium nitrate – application rate (t/ha)

0.12 0.03 0.20 0.12 0.08 0.10 0.68 0.23 0.03

Ammonium phosphates Ammonium phosphates – area (ha) 3,790,706 291,612 709,870 10,998 23,694 1,038,490 61,965 750,222 763,241 112,667 12,281 7,610 2,818 5,238

Ammonium phosphates – tonnes applied (t) 268,378 15,045 51,816 1,085 1,947 64,796 2,798 60,467 58,212 7,538 2,901 894 531 351

Ammonium phosphates – Application rate (t/ha) 0.07 0.05 0.07 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.24 0.12 0.19 0.07

All other manufactured fertiliser

All other manufactured fertiliser – area (ha) 851,637 166,541 150,610 7,302 39,909 67,802 59,711 74,283 126,921 89,966 10,215 144

All other manufactured fertiliser – tonnes applied (t) 151,099 34,145 10,711 4,491 20,358 32,007 7,082 8,822 10,002 15,627 3,370 27

All other manufactured fertiliser – application rate (t/ha)

0.18 0.21 0.07 0.62 0.51 0.47 0.10 0.08 0.17 0.33 0.18

Animal manure Animal manure – area (ha) 192,448 13,682 36,172 6,574 16,682 25,524 17,723 29,874 31,324 7,917 159 Animal manure – tonnes applied (t) 523,410 73,277 37,470 41,668 55,469 26,429 53,222 126,852 70,629 16,398 145

Animal manure – application rate (t/ha) 2.72 5.36 5.70 2.50 2.17 3.00 4.25 2.25 2.07 0.91

Total all types Total all types – area (ha) 9,043,010 1,288,031 1,286,353 70,733 256,849 1,748,351 145,058 1,300,591 1,445,506 922,541 413,097 80,477 15,656 69,766 Total all types – tonnes applied (t) 1,550,742 225,981 160,155 51,198 94,559 222,907 21,773 144,682 216,572 240,491 131,580 31,058 1,457 8,330

Total all types – application rate (t/ha) 0.17 0.18 0.12 0.72 0.37 0.13 0.15 0.11 0.15 0.26 0.32 0.39 0.09 0.12


Table A2-8: Ground cover monitoring by CMA, 2009–10

NSW Border

Rivers – Gwydir

Central West

Hawkes -bury–

Nepean


Lachlan Lower

Murray–Darling


Rivers Southern


Agricultural businesses

Agricultural businesses (no.) Agricultural businesses 43,228 2,822 5,405 3,131 3,660 5,228 568 3,073 5,483 3,319 7,476 2,186 246 631 Monitor ground cover in paddocks 31,351 2,120 4,420 1,633 2,818 4,252 85 2,468 3,817 2,583 4,923 1,938 109 187 Have a minimum target for pasture ground cover levels

12,366 961 1,952 647 919 1,725 38 897 1,196 1,245 1,987 664 63 72

Agricultural businesses grazing stock (%) Monitor ground cover in paddocks 73 75 82 52 77 81 15 80 70 78 66 89 44 30 Have a minimum target for pasture ground cover levels 39 45 44 40 33 41 45 36 31 48 40 34 58 39

Main method for monitoring ground cover (%) Visual estimates 87 88 85 87 88 89 87 88 87 87 Step pointing 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 Photo monitoring standards 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Counting number of plants in a defined area 2 1 0 4 2 2 7 0 0 Satellite imagery and remote sensing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other 1 0 1 0 0 2 None 9 8 12 12 9 5 9 8 9 3 Total 100 96 99 0 99 99 0 100 99 99 98 98 0 0


Table A2-9: Crop residue management practices by CM A, 2009–10


Central West

Hawkes -bury–

Nepean


Lachlan Lower

Murray–Darling


Rivers Southern


Agricult ural businesses (no.) Agricultural businesses 43,228 2,822 5,405 3,131 3,660 5,228 568 3,073 5,483 3,319 7,476 2,186 246 631 Agricultural businesses managing crop residue 17,044 1,254 2,996 422 550 3,193 175 1,984 2,946 1,797 1,284 337 19 88 Crop residu e management practices used (%) Stubble was left intact (no cultivation) 49 68 52 14 21 51 24 59 52 49 32 84 Most stubble or trash removed by baling or heavy grazing 24 16 23 24 31 27 7 32 29 20 22 6

Stubble or trash removed by a hot burn (early season) 3 1 4 0 5 4 4 0

Stubble or trash removed by a cool burn (late season) 8 3 0 7 0 17 17 5 3 0

Stubble or trash was ploughed into the soil 34 35 36 55 39 30 58 21 25 45 54 25 90 16 Stubble or trash was mulched 10 13 6 17 21 7 18 6 8 10 22 38 0 5 Total 128 137 117 110 110 126 107 139 135 129 114 84 90 109 Area of crop residue management (ha) Stubble was left intact (no cultivation) 4,646,300 1,009,927 813,387 5,297 9,415 781,049 10,356 638,557 637,697 507,838 11,702 215,599 Most stubble or trash removed by baling or heavy grazing 585,592 30,068 102,835 3,452 145,292 8,145 132,695 119,953 1,239 1,000

Stubble or trash removed by a hot burn (early season) 66,207 19,008 11,144 0 10,555 11,836 799 0

Stubble or trash removed by a cool burn (late season) 163,276 11,894 0 22,951 0 46,434 66,304 7,839 2,190 0

Stubble or trash was ploughed into the soil 1,050,670 196,154 268,839 4,157 3,563 207,171 94,579 52,288 91,173 102,341 11,446 426 60 18,474 Stubble or trash was mulched 330,538 83,786 58,451 428 3,047 54,086 1,684 18,430 30,885 51,490 8,200 3,065 0 16,986


Figure A2-1 Agricultural businesses applying lime or dolomite to prevent or manage soil acidity 2007–08

Source: ABS Land Management and Farming in Australia 2007–08, 2009, 4627.0, Australian Bureau of Statistics.5

Note: tabulated data (for 2007–08 or 2009–10) not available on the website.

5 www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/7CAF008176640264CA2575C40017E313/$File/46270_2007-08.pdf


References Campbell A 2008, Managing Australia’s Soils: A policy discussion paper, prepared for the

National Committee on Soil and Terrain through the Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council.

Chapman GA, Gray JM, Murphy BW, Atkinson G, Leys JF, Muller R, Peasely B, Wilson BR, Bowman, G, McInnes-Clarke SK, Tulau MJ, Morand, DT and Yang X 2011, Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting of Soil Condition in New South Wales: 2008 program, Department of the Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW, Sydney.

DECCW 2009a, Protocols for Soil Condition and Land Capability Monitoring, Department of the Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW, Sydney.

DECCW 2009b, NSW State of the Environment 2009, Department of the Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW, Sydney.

DECCW 2010, State of the Catchments 2010: Land management within capability, Hunter – Central Rivers catchment, Department of the Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW, Sydney.

Dixon J, McKenzie NJ, Crawford D, Gazey C, Grose C, Hughes B, Merry R, Moody P and Wilson B 2007, Soil Acidification, in Monitoring Soil Condition Across Australia – Recommendations from the Expert Panels to the National Committee on Soil and Terrain Information and the National Land and Water Resources Audit Advisory Council, Canberra, ACT.

Gray JM, Chapman GA and Murphy BW 2011, Land Management within Capability, a NSW Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Project, Technical Report, NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, Sydney.

Gray JM, Bishop TA, Smith PL, Robinson N and Brough D 2012, A pragmatic quantitative model for soil organic carbon distribution in eastern Australia, in Digital Soil Assessments and Beyond, B Minasny, BP Malone and AB McBratney (eds), pp. 115–20, CRC Press/Balkema: The Netherlands.

Gray JM, Bishop TFA and Yang X, Pragmatic models for prediction and digital mapping of soil properties in eastern Australia, accepted by Soil Research.

Guerschman JP, Hill MJ, Renzullo LJ, Barrett DJ, Marks AS and Botha EJ 2009, Estimating fractional cover of photosynthetic vegetation, nonphotosynthetic vegetation and bare soil in the Australian tropical savanna region upscaling the EO-1 Hyperion and MODIS sensors, Remote Sensing of Environment 113, 928–45.

Guerschman JP, Oyarzábal M, Malthus T, McVicar TR, Byrne G, Randall L and Stewart J 2012, Evaluation of the MODIS-based vegetation fractional cover product, CSIRO, Canberra.

Keith H, Carter L, Murphy B and Greene R 2013, Report to the Hawkesbury – Nepean Catchment Management Authority, FSES, ANU.

Leys JF and Heidenreich S 2012, Using DustWatch Node Data For CAP Review, NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, Sydney.

Leys JF, Yang X and Butler H 2012, Modelled Wind Erosion Data (CEMSYS 5) for CAP Review, NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, Sydney.

McKenzie NJ, Henderson B and McDonald WS 2002, Monitoring soil change: Principles and practices for Australian conditions, Land and Water Technical Report 18/02, CSIRO, Canberra.

Murphy B, Wilson B and Rawson A 2010, Development of a soil carbon benchmark matrix for central west NSW, in 19th World Congress of Soil Science, Soil Solutions for a Changing World, 1–6 August, Brisbane.


NRC 2005, Recommendations: State-wide standards and targets, NSW Natural Resources Commission, Sydney.

OEH 2012, The Land and Soil Capability Scheme – A general rural land evaluation scheme for NSW, Second approximation, Technical Report, Office of Environment and Heritage NSW, Sydney.

Walker B and Salt D (2006) Resilience thinking: Sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing world, Washington, DC: Island Press.

Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists 2008, Accounting for Nature – A model for building the National Environmental Accounts for Australia, Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, www.wentworthgroup.org/blueprints/accounting-for-nature-a-model-for-building-the-national-environmental-accounts-of-australia.

Yang X, Chapman G and Yeomans R 2011, Soil erosion risk assessment after severe bushfires in New South Wales, Australia, using RUSLE and MODIS, 7th International Symposium on Digital Earth, 23–25 August, Perth.

soil condition and land management in new south wales · 2018. 2. 4. · final results from the...

Documents