conservation action planning - seamlesscms · map 1 soil conservation action planning sub‐regions...

Conservation Action Planning June 2016 Summary

Lower North Sustainable Soils

A Collaborative, Landscape Planning Approach to Soil Conservation in the Lower North Agricultural Districts,

South Australia

Compiled by:

James McGregor (Greening Australia) for the Northern and Yorke Natural Resources Management Board and the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources

Lower North Sustainable Soil Conservation Action Planning Summary 2016 2

Cover Images

1

2

3

4

1) Non arable country at Mt Ngadjuri, 2) No Till seeding into standing stubble, 3) Precision sown crop, 4) Vines at Sevenhill. All images supplied by Mary‐Anne Young, Rural Solutions SA.

Acknowledgements Current and previous participants of the Lower North Sustainable Soil Conservation Action Planning process including Andrew Harding, Andy Sharp, Anne Hallett, Ashley Kessle, Bonney Maynard, Carly Dillon, Cathy Bowman, Claudia Smith, Dave Grieg, David Sloper, Eric Sommerville, Graham Hayes, Grant Chapman, Grantley Dodd, Greg Butler, Ian Falkenberg, Ian Radford, James McGregor, Jarrod White, Jill Wilsden, Julia Alessio, Kathie Bowman, Kerry Ward, Kevin Teague, Mary‐Anne Young, Michael Richards, Neil Smith, Pat Connell, Paul O’Leary, Peter Stocking, Robert Tilley, Simon Goodhand, Susan Sweeney, Syd Kyloh, Tim Herrmann, Trevor Gum, Trevor Naismith. Mapping data presented throughout this document comes from a variety of sources including the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources and Geosciences Australia. This document may be cited as: McGregor, J. (2016) Lower North Sustainable Soils Conservation Action Planning Summary 2016. Report to the Northern and Yorke Natural Resources Management Board and Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources. Greening Australia. Version: 30/06/16


Contents Page

1. Background 5 1.1. Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……. 5 1.2. Regional Planning Context……………………………………………………..…………………………………………………..………..... 6 1.3. Lower North Sustainable Soils Project Area………………………………………………………………………………………………… 8 1.4. Social Context……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……………………… 15

2. Identification of Conservation Assets 16 2.1. Methodology for Identifying Conservation Assets ……………………………………………………………………………………… 16 2.2. Conservation Assets of the Northern and Yorke Region…………………………..…………………………………………….…. 16

3. Viability of Conservation Assets 22 3.1. Methodology for Assessing Viability …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 22 3.2. Viability of the Conservation Assets of the Northern and Yorke Region …..…………………….……………………….… 22

4. Threats to Conservation Assets 24

4.1. Methodology for Assessing Threats…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 24 4.2. Threats to the Conservation Assets of the Northern and Yorke Region.……………………………………………………… 24

5. Setting Conservation Objectives 27

5.1. Methodology for Setting Conservation Objectives………………………………………………………….…………………………… 27 5.2. Conservation Objectives of the Northern and Yorke Region……………………………………………………………………….. 27

6. Conservation Strategies, Actions Steps and Key Programs 28

6.1. Methodology for Developing Conservation Strategies, Action Steps and Key Programs……………………………… 28 6.2. Conservation Strategies, Action Steps and Key Programs ……..……………………………………………………………..…….. 29

7. Monitoring and Evaluation 34 7.1. Methodology for Developing a Monitoring Program…………………………………………………………………………………… 34 7.2. Monitoring Indicators for the Northern and Yorke Region…………………..……………………………………………………... 35

8. Appendices 37 Appendix 1: Northern and Yorke Natural Resources Management Board Goals………………………………………………………… 37 Appendix 2: Participants of the Sustainable Soils CAP process………………………………………………………………………………….. 38

9. References 39


Contents Page

Tables and Charts Table 1 Existing Soil Programs and Legislation ………………….……………………………………………………….……….….............. 6 Chart 1 Median Monthly Rainfall…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 8 Chart 2 Extent of Various Soil Types in the Lower North CAP region…………………………………………………………………….. 10 Table 2 Cropped Areas and Yield in the Mid North and Lower North Regions……………………………………………………… 13 Table 3 Selected Demographic Statistics from the Australian Bureau of Statistics…..………………………………….………. 14 Table 4 Soil Type by Asset…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 21 Table 5 Key Attributes for Conservation Assets ……………..………………..……………………………………………………….……….. 23 Table 6 Viability Ratings for Conservation Assets ………………………………………………………………………….…...………………. 23 Table 7 Key Threats to Conservation Assets ………………………………………………..…………………………………….………………. 25 Chart 3 Situation Analysis…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 26 Table 8 Prioritisation of Strategies……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 29 Table 9 Monitoring Indicators of Key Attributes……………………………………………..…………………………………….………………. 35

Maps Map 1 Soil Conservation Action Planning Sub‐regions within the Northern and Yorke NRM Region…………………... 7 Map 2 Upper North Sustainable Soils CAP Region………………………………………………………………………………………………. 9 Map 3 Soil Types in the Project Region ………………………………………………………………………………….………………………….. 11 Map 4 Land Use in the Project Region ……..……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 12 Map 5 Local Government Areas ……………………………………………………………………….……………………………………………….. 15 Map 6 Conservation Assets of the Upper North Sustainable Soil Project Area ………………….……..………………………… 20

Abbreviations CAP Conservation Action Planning DEWNR Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources DWLBC Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation GA Greening Australia GRDC Grains Research and Development Corporation NRM Natural Resources Management NRNY Natural Resources Northern and Yorke PIRSA Primary Industries and Regions South Australia (formerly Primary Industries and Resources SA) SA South Australia CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation


1. Background 1.1. Introduction

This document summarises the progress of the Lower North Sustainable Soils Conservation Action Planning (CAP) process to the 30th June 2016. The process commenced in March 2014 and the planning team (refer Appendix 4) has met four times to develop the conservation plan for the region. This report is the first iteration of the CAP. The aim of the Lower North Sustainable Soils Conservation Action Plan is to

“Protect Soil Health and Condition for Agricultural Production”

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

an analysis of the regional context in which conservation is to occur;

the identification of conservation assets and nested assets (i.e. land uses, crop types, highly productive areas);

an analysis of the viability (i.e. health) of the conservation assets and the key threats;

the development of measurable objectives to achieve the long‐term conservation of the assets;

the development of conservation strategies, action steps and key programs to achieve the conservation objectives;

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


1. Background

1.2 Regional Context

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

Lower North Region

Upper North Region

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

National State (SA) Regional (N&Y NRM) National and State Legislation

Grain and Graze

Caring For Our Country

State Strategic Plan

Tackling Climate Change

State Natural Resources Management Plan

Northern and Yorke NRM Plan

Natural Resources Management Act 2004 (SA)

Genetically Modified Crops Management Act 2004 (SA)

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

Development Act 1993 (SA)


1. Background

Map 1: Sustainable Soils CAP Sub‐regions in the Northern and Yorke NRM Region


1. Background

1.3 Lower North Sustainable Soils Project Area

The Lower North Sustainable Soil project area covers approximately 1.2 million hectares of undulating, inland terrain. The region is generally regarded as being prime agricultural country supporting a broad range of primary production enterprises as well as several regional population and administration centres (refer Map 2). 1.3.1 Climate and Rainfall The project area is subject to a typical Mediterranean climate with mild wet winters and hot dry summers. The average annual rainfall is greatest in the western parts of the region corresponding to the significant relief of the range in this area (refer Map 2). The region is prone to periodic droughts which have occurred with relative regularity since records began (Schwertfeger & Curran in Davies et al, 1996). Not entirely coincidentally, Goyder’s Line, historically regarded as marking the point at which cropping is not viable, closely aligns with the regional boundary. Average annual rainfall is between 300mm on the eastern plains near Eudunda, up to 600mm in the ranges about Clare. Chart 1: Median Monthly Rainfall

(Bureau of Meteorology, Climate Data Online, 2014) 1.3.2 Regional Landforms The project area is characterised by a series of roughly north‐south oriented ranges. Some ranges are steep and sharply ridged whilst others are lower, forming rolling hills. This range‐valley landscape significantly influences soil characteristics and therefore land use; generally cropping is practiced on the deeper soils of the valleys and grazing practiced on the shallow‐soiled ranges. Most of the NYNRM region’s major watercourses at least partially run through and originate in this CAP region including the Burra Creek, Hutt River, Wakefield River, Broughton River, Rocky River, Light River, Willochra Creek and the Gilbert River.


1. Background Map 2: Lower North Sustainable Soils Project Area


1. Background

1.3.3 Soil Types The following analysis is based on the Soils of SA report and associated distribution mapping by PIRSA (2002) and DWLBC (2005). Large parts of the region, namely the northern most (around Hawker) and western most (Port Augusta and the Eyre Peninsula) are not captured in this mapping dataset. Statistics below relate to the mapped areas only. Refer to Map 3 for soil type distribution. The most common soil type in the project region is ‘Hard red‐brown texture contrast soils with alkaline subsoil’ which makes up around 49% of the area and is found throughout the region, predominantly on the plains and low hills. These soils are firm to hard loamy sands to clay loam surface soils over red or brown sandy clay loam to clay subsoils. Topsoils are usually in the 10‐40cm range. Topsoil waterlogging is common early in the season, but thee soils dry out rapidly and tend to seal over and set hard and this can result in patchy crop establishment. Inherent fertility is moderate to high, depending on clay and organic matter content. Leaching losses of nutrients are low in these soils and problems of mineral fixation and deficiencies are minimal. Phosphorus and Nitrogen are widely deficient however fertility levels are relatively easy to maintain. The next most common soil type is ‘Calcareous soils’ which makes up around 30% of the area and are predominantly found on the plains and low hills in the northern parts of the region. They are well drained, except when overlying clayey subsoils, and can be excessive in deep soils with light textured subsoils. Hard carbonate fragments on the land surface hinder tillage, seeding and harvesting of some crops and often stone picking or rolling are required. Soil pH is alkaline in the surface and alkaline to strongly alkaline in the subsoil. Surface soils often have high organic matter contents because biological activity and the corresponding rate of decomposition is reduced in calcareous soils. Inherent fertility varies with nutrient retention capacities, which are directly related to soil texture and organic matter levels. Phosphorus, Nitrogen and Zinc are widely deficient. Although Phosphorus is not leached in these soils, it suffers from reduced availability and applications of phosphorus fertiliser are needed to maintain productivity. Legumes and Nitrogen fertiliser are used to maintain Nitrogen at productive levels. The next most common soil type is ‘shallow soil on rock’, covering approximately 13% of the area. These soils are predominantly found on and near the ranges. They are generally unsuitable for cropping. Chart 2: Extent of various soil types in the Lower North CAP region

1.3.4 Land Use

The most common land use by area in the region is cropping (55% of area). The next most common land use is grazing which covers 32% of the land. This is probably an under estimate as much of the Southern Flinders Ranges are mapped as “other minimal land use” which is probably grazing on remnant vegetation. Other significant land uses include transport and communication (2%) and nature conservation (1.9%). Irrigated perennial horticulture, such as vines, covers 0.7% of the region.


1. Background

Map 3: Soil Types in the Project Region


1. Background

Map 4: Land Use in the Project Region

1. Background

1.3.5 Production The following is derived from PIRSA’s Crop and Pasture Reports for the Mid and Lower North regions regarding the production for the past three seasons based on Australian Bureau of Statistics estimates. Note that these regions do not align exactly with the Lower North Soil CAP region. Table 2: Cropped areas and yield in the Mid North and Lower North Regions (PIRSA, 2013‐ 2015)

Area (ha) Harvest (t)

Mid North Lower North Mid North Lower North

Crop 2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015

Wheat 240,000 242,000 244,500 44,200 48,500 53,300 528,000 751,000 623,000 123,000 141,000 160,000

Durum 13,000 12,500 10,000 5,900 5,900 5,000 27,300 37,000 19,000 14,160 17,000 12,000

Barley 93,100 87,000 83,000 32,300 30,000 27,000 228,100 277,000 232,000 97,000 84,000 87,000

Oats 8,000 8,000 8,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 13,600 17,000 17,000 4,000 4,400 4,500

Triticale 3,000 3,000 2,500 500 500 500 6,600 10,000 6,500 1,300 1,500 1,300

Peas 24,200 24,000 25,000 8,100 7,700 7,300 266,020 34,000 32,000 12,960 13,000 11,500

Lupins 3,000 3,000 3,000 900 900 900 3,300 4,500 3,500 900 1,400 1,400

Beans 14,200 14,200 14,200 6,400 6,000 6,000 19,170 34,000 21,000 8,960 10,500 8,500

Chickpeas 5,000 5,000 5,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 5,250 7,000 4,500 1,200 2,000 1,200

Lentils 12,000 12,000 12,000 5,400 5,400 6,000 13,800 19,000 15,500 5,940 7,500 9,000

Vetch 2,600 2,600 5,000 300 300 300 2,340 3,200 2,500 240 350 300

Canola 50,600 55,600 54,000 11,100 11,000 10,500 58,000 90,000 65,00 16,000 16,500 14,500

Total 468,700 468,900 466,200 118,100 119,200 119,800 1,171,480 1,283,700 976,500 285,660 294,750 311,200

Hay 24,900 27,000 34,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 87,200 143,000 142,000 24,500 35,000 35,000


1. Background 1.4 Social Context 1.4.1 Population The main population centre in the region is Clare with around 3,300 people. Other significant regional centres include Jamestown (1,400), Crystal Brook (1,300), Burra (900), Eudunda (600) and Orroroo (540). Total population is difficult to assess as the CAP boundary does not correspond to statistical boundaries (see Map 5), however an approximation using Local Government Areas gives a figure of approximately 23,200 people (refer to Table 4 below).

Table 3: Selected Demographic Statistics from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (www.abs.gov.au)

Location Population

2001 Population

2013 12 Year Change % No.

Population Density

(people/km²)

Orroroo Carrieton DC 926 886 ‐4.3 ‐40 0.3

Mount Remarkable DC 2,891 2,893 0.1 2 0.8

Peterborough DC 1,945 1,745 ‐10.3 ‐200 0.6

Northern Areas DC 4,549 4,554 0.1 5 1.5

Goyder DC 4,224 4,218 ‐0.1 ‐6 0.6

Clare and Gilbert Valleys DC 8,072 8,933 10.7 861 4.7

TOTAL 22,607 23,229 2.8 361 1.1


1. Background

Map 5: Local Government Areas


2. Identification of Conservation Assets

2.1. Methodology for Identifying Conservation Assets The first step in this conservation action planning process involves the identification of a small number of focal conservation assets (i.e. soil types, climatic regions, land uses) that collectively represent the soils of a region. The explicit assumption within this process is that by protecting these examples of broad‐scale soil types the majority of land uses and productivity will also be conserved. The list of focal conservation assets therefore need not be long and exhaustive; rather, it should be short and representative. In general, the CAP methodology recommends that no more than eight conservation assets are selected to be the focus of a landscape conservation program. The asset selection process begins by identifying the coarse‐scale soil types and land uses for conservation. The issue of whether to lump individual soil types together or split into individual conservation assets is often a difficult one. In general, soil types are lumped together if they: ● co‐occur across the landscape; ● share similar land management practices; ● share similar threats. Source: Adapted from Low (2003)

2.2. Soil Conservation Assets of the Northern and Yorke Region

Five key conservation assets have been identified by the Lower North Sustainable Soil planning team. Each conservation asset is associated with numerous nested assets (i.e. soil types and land uses) which are an important focus of conservation efforts and help further define the asset. The five conservation assets are

1. High Rainfall (>400mm) Plains and Valley Floors 2. Medium Rainfall (<400mm) Plains and Valley Floors 3. High Rainfall Mid Slopes 4. Medium Rainfall Mid Slopes 5. Non‐arable Ranges

Assets were determined based on landscape position and rainfall as these are the primary drivers of land use and exacerbating factors behind threatening processes. Plains and Valley Floors are generally deep, fertile soils which are used for broad acre cropping. Mid slopes’ soils generally shallower than the Plains and Valley Floors however they still support extensive broad acre cropping. These two broad categories of landscape position were split between greater than or less than 400mm average annual rainfall. Non‐arable Ranges are generally very shallow soils, usually with significant rock outcropping, which are therefore not suitable for cropping and are primarily utilised for grazing. As the amount of rainfall these ranges receive is not a driver of land use it was not seen as necessary to split the asset by rainfall.

The spatial distribution of the assets are presented in Map 6. This mapping is derived from the DEWNR SA Soils spatial layer by re‐attributing the “Type_TXT” field.


2. Identification of Conservation Assets

2.2.1. High Rainfall (>400mm) Plains and Valleys

2.2.2. Medium Rainfall (<400mm) Plains and Valleys


2. Identification of Conservation Assets 2.2.3. High Rainfall Mid Slopes

2.2.4. Medium Rainfall Mid Slopes


2. Identification of Conservation Assets 2.2.5. Non‐arable Ranges


2. Identification of Conservation Assets Map 6: Conservation Assets of the Lower North Sustainable Soil Project Area


Table 4: Soil Type by Asset

High Rainfall Mid Slopes

High Rainfall Plains and Valley

Floors

Medium Rainfall Mid Slopes

Medium Rainfall Plains and Valley

Floors

Non‐arable Ranges

LN CAP Region

Soil Type Area (%)

Area (ha)

Area (%)

Area (ha)

Area (%)

Area (ha)

Area (%)

Area (ha)

Area (%)

Area (ha)

Area (%)

Area (ha)

Calcareous soils 16.2% 50,280 7.6% 28,448 60.9% 65,560 15.0% 25,994 16.7% 37,099 17.4% 207,381

Cracking clay soils 0.2% 555 7.9% 29,895 ‐ 0 ‐ 0 ‐ 0 2.6% 30,450

Deep loamy texture contrast soils with brown or dark subsoil

0.1% 140 1.1% 4,278 ‐ 0 0.1% 14 ‐ 0 0.4% 4,432

Deep uniform to gradational soils

‐ 0 5.5% 20,602 ‐ 0 1.9% 3,372 0.1% 114 2.0% 24,088

Gradational soils with highly calcareous lower subsoil

11.3% 34,995 5.8% 21,662 3.1% 3,324 19.6% 34,108 2.4% 5,443 8.4% 99,532

Hard red‐brown texture contrast soils with alkaline subsoil

63.2% 195,730 71.6% 269,631 26.0% 28,026 63.3% 109,995 6.3% 14,120 51.9% 617,503

Ironstone soils ‐ 0 ‐ 0 ‐ 0 0.1% 198 ‐ 0 0.1% 198

Rock ‐ 0 ‐ 0 0.1% 115 ‐ 0 ‐ 0 0.1% 115

Sand over clay soils

‐ 0 0.5% 1,972 ‐ 0 ‐ 0 ‐ 0 0.2% 1,972

Shallow soils on calcrete or limestone

1.2% 3,663 0.1% 6 ‐ 0 0.1% 81 0.3% 720 0.4% 4,470

Shallow soils on rock

2.6% 7,927 ‐ 0 9.8% 10,569 ‐ 0 56.7% 126,130 12.2% 144,627

Shallow to moderately deep acidic soils on rock

5.3% 16,488 ‐ 0 ‐ 0 ‐ 0 17.5% 38,818 4.6% 55,307


3. Viability of Conservation Assets

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

3.2. Viability of the Conservation Assets of the of the Northern and Yorke Region

The overall viability of the conservation assets, as assessed by the planning team, is displayed in Table 5. Viability was determined by identifying and rating the current status of the key attributes of each conservation asset based on considerations of size, condition and landscape context (refer Table 5). These assessments were supported by existing monitoring data and reports for some key attributes and in other cases were based on local expert opinion. The absence of quantitative data for assessing the viability of some key attributes highlights a gap in the existing monitoring programs and an area for future development (refer section 7).


3. Viability of Conservation Assets

Table 5: Key Attributes of Conservation Assets

Conservation Asset Landscape Context

Condition

Size

High Rainfall Plains and Valley Floors

• Erosion Resilience • Soil Fertility ‐ pH • Soil Biota • Soil Stability • Soil Fertility –Toxic Elements

• Soil Depth

Medium Rainfall Plains and Valley Floors

• Erosion Resilience • Soil Fertility – pH • Soil Biota • Soil Stability • Soil Fertility –Toxic Elements

• Soil Depth

High Rainfall Mid Slopes


• Soil Depth

Medium Rainfall Mid Slopes


• Soil Depth

Non‐arable Ranges


• Soil Depth

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

Table 6: Overall Viability Ratings for Conservation Assets

Conservation Asset Landscape Context

Condition Size Overall Viability

1 High Rainfall Plains and Valley Floors

Good Fair Good Good

2 Medium Rainfall Plains and Valley Floors

Good Good Good Good

3 High Rainfall Mid Slopes Good Fair Fair Fair

4 Medium Rainfall Mid Slopes Good Fair Fair Fair

5 Non‐arable Ranges Good Good Good Good

Overall Landscape Viability Good

Table 6 shows that the region overall has ‘good’ viability, however both Mid Slopes assets have ‘fair’ viability. The assessment of the Key Attributes highlights the issues in the region being linked to erosion (i.e. soil stability and soil depth indicators) and acidity (soil fertility – pH indicator). Soil Biota were recognised as being a key component of healthy soils, but it was felt there was not enough knowledge present in the group, or possibly the industry, the accurately determine a suitable indicator let alone assign a ranking to the state of this Key Attribute. It has been kept in the CAP to highlight the knowledge gap.


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

4.2. Threats to the Conservation Assets

The key threats to the conservation assets are displayed in Table 7. As identified in the Viability Assessment above (Section 3) many threats impact on erosion. The wording of the threats captures the stress‐source interaction to better conceptually manage the contribution of each source to the stress. This has been captured diagrammatically using Miradi to develop a Situation Analysis (see Diagram 1 below).


4. Threats to Conservation Assets

Table 7: Key Threats to Conservation Assets

Threats Across Assets

High Rainfall (>400mm) Plains and

Valley Floors

Medium Rainfall

(<400mm) Plains and

Valley Floors

High Rainfall (>400mm+) Mid Slopes

Medium Rainfall

(<400mm) Mid Slopes

Non‐Arable Ranges

Overall

Threat Rank

Project-specific threats 1 2 3 4 5

Erosion caused by Lack of Surface Cover (Cropping practices)

High High High High High

Erosion caused by Climate Change ‐ Increased Extreme Wind/Rain Events

Medium Medium High High High High

Erosion caused by loss of surface cover caused by Overgrazing

Medium Medium High High Medium High

Acidity caused by Higher Production

High Low High Medium High

Erosion by loss of cover by fire coinciding with high rainfall event

Medium Medium Medium Medium High Medium

Erosion by Reduced Soil cover by Inappropriate Chemical Use (Wrong product or rate)

Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium

Erosion caused by Climate Change ‐ Changed Rainfall Pattern


Erosion caused by Climate Change ‐ Increased Temperature


Erosion caused by Confined Surface flows (gullying) Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium

Erosion caused by Reduced infiltration caused by Compaction (sheep and machinery)


Erosion by Reduced infiltration by Loss of root channels from perennial plants

Low Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium

Erosion caused by loss of cover caused by Transient Salinity

Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium

Erosion caused by loss of surface cover and soil structure Cultivation and Soil Disturbance

Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium

Increased Erosion by Inappropriate Infrastructure (Roads, Rail, Pipelines, Fire control breaks, etc)

Medium Medium Medium Medium

Reduced Fertility by Incorrect Fertiliser Application

Low Low Low Low Low Low

Increased Acidity by Poor Plant Choice (N fixing) Low Low Low Low Low

Reduced Fertility by Nutrient Leaching Low Low Low Low Low

Increased Salinity and reduced root zone by Raised SWL

Low Low Low

Sodicity/salinity caused by Irrigation Low Low Low

Threat Status High High High High High Very High


4. Threats to Conservation Assets Chart 3: Situation Analysis

Contributing Factor Stress

Direct Threat Asset * ‐ note that the diagram covers a generic asset and that situation may not necessarily apply to all assets


5. Setting Conservation Objectives

5.1. Methodology for Setting Conservation Objectives The fourth step in the conservation action planning process involves setting measurable objectives that, if achieved, would ensure the long term conservation of the assets. In particular, objectives are developed in line with the S.M.A.R.T principles (i.e. specific, measurable, attainable, realistic and time‐bound) and are aimed at addressing high priority threats or achieving improvements in size, condition and landscape context attributes.

5.2. Conservation Objectives Objective 1: By 2020 the number of days that erosion prone cropping soils is protected (score 1‐5) from erosion is increased to 340 days of the year. Objective 2: By 2020 the number of days that erosion prone grazing soils is protected (score 1‐5) from erosion is increased to 340 days. Objective 3: By 2025 methods to increase resilience to extreme weather are investigated and findings are implemented. Objective 4: By 2025 restore pH to, and maintain above 5.5 across xx% of at risk land. Objective 5: By 2020, adequate surface cover is maintained in 80% of hilly un‐arable land (Non‐arable asset) to reduce erosion risk while managing fuel loads. Objective 6: By 2025 the infiltration rate of the of top 10cm of soil in priority areas is improved to reduce the incidence of water erosion.


6. Conservation Strategies, Action Steps and Key Programs

6.1. Methodology for Developing and Prioritising Conservation Strategies

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


6. Conservation Strategies, Action Steps and Key Programs

Table 8: Prioritisation of Strategies

Strategy Benefit Feasibility Overall

Strategy 4.1: Increase awareness and education of the Acidity problem

High High Very High

Strategy 4.3: Spread lime and associated products for amelioration

High High Very High

Strategy 1.2: Alternative management to burning for pest, disease and weed control

High Medium High

Strategy 1.3: Maintaining adequate cover within crop phase and through a complete crop rotation (pre, during, post years).

High Low High

Strategy 4.2: Reduce acidity rate High Low High

Strategy 1.1: Improve machinery and practices for establishing crops and managing heavy stubbles

Medium Medium Medium

Strategy 2.1: Implement suitable grazing system (total grazing pressure) to maintain cover


Strategy 4.4: Develop a method for evaluating progress against the objective


Strategy 5.1: Increase and maintain the proportion of less flammable pasture plants (e.g. native perennial grasses)

Low Medium Low

Strategy 5.2: Manage grazing to reduce height prior to and during fire season while maintaining ground cover (greatest fire risk is tall, dry, senesced grass)

Low Medium Low

Strategy 6.1: Improve soil friability in cropped and grazed paddocks

Low Medium Low

Strategy 3.1: Investigate and implement methods to increase resilience to extreme weather.

Medium Low Low


6. Conservation Strategies, Action Steps and Key Programs Objective 1: By 2020 the number of days that erosion prone cropping soils is protected (score 1‐5) from erosion is increased to 340 days of the year. Strategy 1.1: Improve machinery and practices for establishing crops and managing heavy stubbles Priority: Medium Action Steps

1. Monitoring of burning and surface cover

2. Develop communications strategy

Determine the best extension activities to enable/maximise adoption

Promote ‘best practice’ methods through champions and demonstration sites

3. Identify sticking points – harvest time/sowing time (talk to SANTFA, AgEx, machinery manufacturers,

universities, etc.)

4. Develop partnerships with researchers and advisors to address research and promotion

5. Investigate and develop alternative techniques (including discussions with machinery manufacturers)

6. Consider ability to address new industries and implication for surface cover

Strategy 1.2: Alternative management to burning for pest, disease and weed control Priority: High Action Steps


2. Identify the issues that people are trying to manage

3. Develop communications strategy

Establish/maintain communications with stakeholders (Industry bodies, etc. including interstate)

4. Determine alternative management strategies (investigate crop rotation strategies that discourage pests)

5. Research and develop new management strategies (understand pest biology/ecology, determine

holistic/integrated practices)

6. Utilise burning as a strategic tool (determine trigger points and risks)

7. Determine the best extension activities to enable/maximise adoption

8. Promote ‘optimum practice’ methods through champions and demonstration sites

9. Collaboration of landholders and advisors (education and working with)

Strategy 1.3: Maintaining adequate cover within crop phase and through a complete crop rotation (pre, during, post

years). Priority: High Action Steps


2. Identify areas of risk e.g. growing grain legumes (when am I most at risk, crops which pose greatest risk)

3. Develop communications strategy (obtaining and disseminating knowledge)

Establish/maintain communications with stakeholders (Industry bodies, etc. including interstate)

4. Maintain previous years’ stubble (grain legumes)

5. Diversity of species – cover crops that provide economic benefits

6. Consult with landholders and the broader industry to determine/understand the barriers and limitations to

achieving this.

7. Investigate alternative strategies to maintaining cover (e.g. forums, machinery)

8. Education/Communication – Promote the known benefits (e.g. stubble trellis for grain legumes), give people

a compelling reason to do it.

Plan crop rotation to provide surface cover through crop phases of higher risk

Manage grazing to retain surface cover between crops

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


6. Conservation Strategies, Action Steps and Key Programs . Conservation Strategies, Action Steps and Key Programs Objective 2: By 2020 the number of days that erosion prone grazing soils is protected (score 1‐5) from erosion is increased to 340 days. Strategy 2.1: Implement suitable grazing system (total grazing pressure) to maintain cover Priority: Medium Action Steps

1. Monitoring of surface cover in grazing systems

2. Identify barriers to adoption and drivers of change

3. Education and livestock/pasture management

Timing, DSE, livestock condition monitoring

Pasture productivity/Nutrition, Feed testing, Pasture utilisation

Paddock Design, waterpoint and fencing –design for improved pasture utilisation

Strategic approach(stock changes: agistment/selling/lambing/confined feeding)

Increase understanding of different stock (Cattle, Sheep, Goats and breeds) and pests’ grazing habits

Demonstrate and promote feed and cover crops

4. Investigate strategies for managing non‐domesticated grazing pressure

5. Establish/maintain communications with stakeholders (Industry bodies, etc. including interstate)

6. Improve technical support for grazing with ongoing advice across all management practices (inc. interstate

experts)

7. Identify and promote beneficial pasture varieties, especially summer active annual/perennials

8. Encourage and facilitate the installation of suitable infrastructure including waterpoints and additional water

sources, fencing and feed on hand management.

Objective 3: By 2025 methods to increase resilience to extreme weather are investigated and findings are implemented. Strategy 3.1: Investigate and implement methods to increase resilience to extreme weather. Priority: Low Action Steps

Mitigation

1. Conduct hydrological modelling

2. Review existing infrastructure (including farm tracks and recovery associated infrastructure) and modify

where necessary

3. Identify appropriate mitigation strategies (plant breeds, technologies) and implement where possible

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

5. Education: ensure all stakeholders are aware of potential impacts (impacts on business, as well as

infrastructure, crops, stock etc.) and mitigation strategies.

6. Identify communication channels for best practice to landholder groups

7. Scenario role playing stress test (having a plan and being able to implement it)

8. Support for decision making and mental health

Recovery

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

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

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

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

4. Support for decision making (technical support, people with experience, BlazeAid, networks may be beyond

the immediate area) and mental health


6. Conservation Strategies, Action Steps and Key Programs Objective 4: By 2025 restore pH to, and maintain above 5.5 across xx% of at risk land. Strategy 4.1: Increase awareness and education of the problem Priority: Very High Action Steps

1. Increase awareness of problem

Increase simple soil pH measurements, monitoring and awareness of condition – target advisors

who conduct soil testing for their clients

Communication extension on the extent and severity of the problem (this needs emphasis because

impacts are less visible (how do we elevate priority when action is required over many consecutive

years?)

People are losing money by not doing anything

2. Recognising the cost to production in agribusiness and advisors (not a capital improvement cost but a

maintenance/operation cost)

Incorporate pH management into land‐lease agreements

Explore links between land value and pH – Raise awareness of financial institutions, land valuers,

accountants and lawyers who have primary producer clients of effect of soil acidification on

productivity and value of land

3. Increase simple soil pH measurements, monitoring and awareness of condition

4. Managing soil acidity as part of the clean, green image of agriculture

5. Increase awareness of problem

Communication extension on the extent and severity of the problem (this needs emphasis because

impacts are less visible (how do we elevate priority when action is required over many consecutive

years?)

People are losing money by not doing anything

Ensure N inputs match requirements

Strategy 4.2: Reduce acidity rate Priority: High Action Steps

1. Educate and facilitate the appropriate crop and pasture choice

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

Investigation into what ‘appropriate’ is

Increased understanding of plant N requirements in long‐term no‐till stubble retention farming

systems (probably need less N than what is traditionally thought)

Ensure N inputs match requirements

Strategy 4.3: Spread lime and associated products for amelioration Priority: Very High Action Steps

1. Spread lime

2. Improve efficacy of processes

Quality of product(s)

Variable rate

Understanding and applying appropriate rate

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

4. Provide technical support to advisors, land managers and contractors

Decision support tools are already available (‘acidity cost calculator’)

Develop networks/groups

Improve landholders knowledge of total treatment costs


6. Conservation Strategies, Action Steps and Key Programs Strategy 4.4: Develop a method for evaluating progress against the objective Priority: Medium Action Steps

1. Adjust existing model based on ground‐truthing at a finer, targeted scale.

2. Develop sampling methodology to support above

Objective 5: By 2020, adequate surface cover is maintained in 80% of hilly un‐arable land (Non‐arable asset) to reduce erosion risk while managing fuel loads. Strategy 5.1: Increase and maintain the proportion of less flammable pasture plants (e.g. native perennial grasses) Priority: Low Action Steps

1. Educating landholders to assess pasture composition

Increase plant identification skills/ability

understand growth habits (summer/winter active, seeding times, palatability) of desired species

2. Manipulate total grazing pressure to encourage growth of less flammable species

Strategy 5.2: Manage grazing to reduce height prior to and during fire season while maintaining ground cover

(greatest fire risk is tall, dry, senesced grass) Priority: Low Action Steps

1. Engage hilly grazing country land manager networks

2. Educate landholders on appropriate timing, intensity (DSE/Ha), duration and livestock species/stock type

(lambs, etc), infrastructure limitations

3. Implement appropriate grazing framework (timing, density, duration etc.)

4. Provide support to deliver property specific advice (prior to and during implementation)

Objective 6: By 2025 the infiltration rate of the of top 10cm of soil in priority areas is improved to reduce the incidence of water erosion. Strategy 6.1: Improve soil friability in cropped and grazed paddocks Priority: Low Action Steps

1. Target areas where management practices can be improved

2. Continued adoption of reduced till/no till systems

Alternative methods to full cultivation for pest and weed control

Improved methods of crop preparation/seeding in the post‐pasture phase

Work with industry bodies, grower groups (SANTFA)

3. Promote growing and retention of organic matter (per obj 1 above)

4. Improved biomass production (tops and roots) in grazing systems

Greater use of perennials

Grazing management for improved pasture production

5. Reduce stock traffic on wet soils

Confined feeding, paddock management

6. Investigate the risks of herbicides/fungicides/insecticides on microbial function/activity

7. Continued promotion of the application of gypsum to sodic soils


7. Monitoring, Evaluation and Adaptive Management

7.1. Methodology for Developing a Monitoring Program The final step in the conservation action planning process is an ongoing one which involves the development and implementation of a rigorous monitoring, evaluation and adaptive management program. This serves a number of important functions including: ● determining whether the strategies and actions are achieving the conservation objectives; ● showing trends in the condi on of conserva on assets and the levels of threat; ● demonstra ng the effectiveness and efficiency of investment into the conservation program; ● linking local conservation outcomes with other programs to describe the local‐global biodiversity outlook In particular two types of monitoring and evaluation are identified in the conservation action planning process: 1) strategy effectiveness monitoring, and 2) resource condition monitoring (i.e. asset condition and / or level of threat). Appropriate Level of Resourcing for Monitoring and Evaluation Many researchers and conservation practitioners agree that a monitoring effort of 10‐20% of the total program budget is an appropriate level of resourcing. However the level of resources allocated to monitoring should vary in proportion to the level of certainty surrounding an assumption that action A will lead to outcome B. Higher levels of uncertainty may necessitate greater monitoring effort (i.e. replicated experiments and trials) to test a particular conservation theory. Use of Results chains Results chains are a relatively recent tool to assist conservation planners test assumptions that an action will achieve a desired objective. Results chains are broadly based on principles of logical framework analysis (developed in the 1960’s) and are supported by Miradi software (www.miradi.org ). By identifying interim results or milestones along a trajectory towards the delivery of an outcome, results chains make implicit assumptions about the expected results of activities explicit. This process typically results in more rigorous strategy development by the project team. Once a sequence of outputs and outcomes are represented as a results chain diagram, it is relatively easy to visualise and identify monitoring indicators and milestones along the way to a conservation goal.

7.2. Monitoring Indicators An effective monitoring program for the region should achieve two major outcomes: 1) RESOURCE CONDITION MONITORING ● provide quantitative data to confirm or revise the current status of the key attributes and overall viability of the conservation assets & / or the current status of the key threats; ● establish baseline data to monitor future changes in the status of the key attributes and overall viability of the conservation assets &/ or status of the key threats; 2) STRATEGY EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING ● provide quantitative data to assess the effectiveness of the conservation strategies and action steps and identify areas for refinement. Monitoring indicators should be closely associated to the status of the key attributes and address landscape context, condition and size attributes of the conservation assets. A monitoring program should also make use of any existing monitoring data to ensure resources are used efficiently. This may involve creating links with other organisations that have complimentary aims or legislative requirements to undertake monitoring. It is acknowledged that the current indicators are not fully fleshed out. It will be a necessary action for this CAP group to more fully outline the Monitoring Plan in upcoming workshops.


7. Monitoring, Evaluation and Adaptive Management Table 9: Monitoring indicators for Key Attributes

Asset Rating Key Attribute Indicator

High Rainfall (400mm+) Plains and Valley Floors

Good Erosion Resilience (Landscape Context)

Surface Cover (DEWNR methodology)

Fair pH (Condition) Acidity

‐ Soil Biota (Condition) Beneficial Biological Activity (TEMPORARY

INDICATOR)

Good Soil Stability (Condition) Aggregation / Friability

Good

Toxic Elements (Condition) Aluminium, Salt, chemical residues

Good Soil Depth (Size) Depth

Medium Rainfall (300‐400mm) Plains and Valley Floors



Good pH (Condition) Acidity


INDICATOR)


Good Toxic Elements (Condition) Aluminium, Salt, chemical residues

Good Soil Depth (Size) Depth to constraint (rock, toxicity, water,

compaction etc)

High Rainfall (400mm+) Mid Slopes

Good

Erosion Resilience (Landscape Context)


Fair pH (Condition) Acidity


INDICATOR)

Fair Soil Stability (Condition) Aggregation / Friability


Fair Soil Depth (Size) Depth


Medium Rainfall (300‐400mm) Mid Slopes





INDICATOR)

Fair Soil Stability (Condition) Aggregation / Friability


Fair Soil Depth (Size) Depth

Non‐Arable Ranges Good

Erosion Resilience (Landscape Context)



‐

Soil Biota (Condition) Beneficial Biological Activity (TEMPORARY INDICATOR)



Good Soil Depth (Size) Depth


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

TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS

By 2030, maintain the condition of the region’s 1,200,000 ha of remnant native vegetation, and improve the condition of 15% from 2008 levels.

By 2015, sustainable grazing guidelines have been developed with industry for native pastures, to ensure grassy ecosystems are not degraded.

PEST PLANTS AND ANIMALS

By 2030, there is a net reduction in the impact caused by pest plants and animals on the environment, primary production and the community.

By 2030, the distribution and abundance of introduced pest plants has not increased compared with 2008.

By 2030, the distribution and abundance of pest animals has not increased compared with 2008.

By 2015, pest risk assessment and management plans are operational for priority pest plants and animals

By 2015, 50% of priority areas are managed to control feral animals.

By 2015, 90% of roadsides are managed with effective weed control programs

By 2030, no new significant introduced pest species have become established.

By 2015, biosecurity and incursion response plans are operational for priority pest plants and animals.

SOILS

By 2030, the number of days that erosion‐prone soil is protected from erosion is increased to at least 335 days per year

By 2015, there is an increase in the proportion of erosion prone soil undisturbed at high risk times

2015, there is an increase in the proportion of erosion prone soil with adequate protection at high risk times, such as at sowing, e.g. adequate ground cover and contour banks.

By 2030 the physical, chemical and biological condition of the region’s soil resource will be maintained or improved from 2000 benchmark data

By 2015, the Water Use Efficiency of dryland agricultural crops and pastures is improved by at least 5%, due mainly to improvements in soil physical and nutritional condition.

By 2015, 225,000 ha of poorly structured top‐soils are no‐tilled.

By 2015, 13,000 tonnes of gypsum has been applied on sodic soils since 2008

By 2015, lime rates will restore pH to above 5.0 and maintain them at those levels on 75% of at‐risk land.

By 2015, salinity management plans are implemented in high priority catchments


8. Appendix

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

Member Organisation

Simon Goodhand Department of Agriculture

Andy Sharp Department for Environment, Water and Natural Resources

Ashley Kessel Department for Environment, Water and Natural Resources

Bonney Maynard Department for Environment, Water and Natural Resources

Carly Dillon Department for Environment, Water and Natural Resources

David Sloper Department for Environment, Water and Natural Resources

Ian Falkenberg Department for Environment, Water and Natural Resources

Jarrod White Department for Environment, Water and Natural Resources

Julia Alessio Department for Environment, Water and Natural Resources

Kevin Teague Department for Environment, Water and Natural Resources

Paul O’Leary Department for Environment, Water and Natural Resources

Susan Sweeney Department for Environment, Water and Natural Resources

Tim Herrmann Department for Environment, Water and Natural Resources

Trevor Naismith Department for Environment, Water and Natural Resources

James McGregor Greening Australia

Michael Richards Landcare / Ag Excellence Alliance

Graham Hayes Landholder

Dave Grieg Landholder

Trevor Gum Landholder

Cathy Bowman Northern & Yorke Natural Resources Management Board

Claudia Smith Northern & Yorke Natural Resources Management Board

Eric Sommerville Northern & Yorke Natural Resources Management Board

Grant Chapman Northern & Yorke Natural Resources Management Board

Grantley Dodd Northern & Yorke Natural Resources Management Board

Kathy Bowman Northern & Yorke Natural Resources Management Board

Peter Stocking Northern & Yorke Natural Resources Management Board

Anne Hallett Northern & Yorke Natural Resources Management Sub Group

Ian Radford Northern & Yorke Natural Resources Management Sub Group

Jill Wilsden Northern & Yorke Natural Resources Management Sub Group

Kerry Ward Northern & Yorke Natural Resources Management Sub Group

Neil Smith Northern & Yorke Natural Resources Management Sub Group

Robert Tilley Northern & Yorke Natural Resources Management Sub Group

Andrew Harding Rural Solutions SA

Mary‐Anne Young Rural Solutions SA

Greg Butler SA No Till Farmers Association

Pat Connell Mid North High Rainfall Zone Group

Syd Kyloh Taylors Wines

Current and previous participants of the Lower North Sustainable Soil Conservation Action Planning process including, Trevor Gum, Trevor Naismith.


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


Foundations of Success; 2007; Using Results Chains to Improve Strategy Effectiveness: An FOS How‐To Guide. http://fosonline.org/Site_Documents/Grouped/FOS_Results_Chain_Guide_2007‐05.pdf Groves, C.R.; 2003; Drafting a Conservation Blueprint: A Practitioners Guide to Planning for Biodiversity. The Nature Conservancy. Island Press, Washington. Harding, A., Henschke, C., Evans, T. and Dooley, T.; 2008; Lochiel ‐ Port Broughton and Surrounding Districts Salinity Management Plan. Rural Solutions SA. Harding, A., Henschke, C., Evans, T., Ciganovic, P. and Dooley, T.; 2003; Minlaton‐Ramsay Salinity Management Plan. Rural Solutions SA. Harris, J. A., Hobbs, R., Biggs, E. and Aronson, J.; 2006; Ecological restoration and global climate change. Restoration Ecology 14(2): 170‐176. Henschke, C., Harding, A. and Wright, S.; 2008; Mid to Lower Light River Salinity Management Plan. Henschke, C., Longbottom, H., Dooley, T. and Ciganovic, P.; 2004; Winulta – Yorke Valley (North Maitland Flat, Winulta Creek, Winulta South & Yorke Valley Sub‐catchments) Salinity Management Plan. Henschke, C., Longbottom, H., Evans, T., Dooley, T. and Ciganovic, P.; 2003; Upper Yorke Catchments Salinity Management Plan. Rural Solutions SA. Henschke, C., Longbottom, T., Dooley, T. and Ciganovic, P.; 2004; Winulta ‐ Yorke Valley Salinity Management Plan. Rural Solutions SA. Landres, P.B., Morgan, P. and Swanson, F.J.; 1999; Overview of the use of natural variability concepts in managing ecological systems. Ecological Applications 9: 1179‐1188. Liddicoat, C., Hayman, P., Alexander, B., Rowland, J., Maschmedt, D. Young, M‐A., Hall, J., Herrmann, T. and Sweeney, S.; 2012; Climate Change, Wheat Production and Erosion Risk in South Australia’s Cropping Zone: Linking Crop Simulation Modelling to Soil Landscape Mapping. Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources. Low; 2003; Landscape‐scale Conservation: A Practitioners Guide. The Nature Conservancy, 4th Edition. Lukasiewicz , A., Finlayson, C. M. and Pittock, J.; 2013; Incorporating Climate Change Adaptation into Catchment Management: A User Guide. Report No. 76. MacNally, R., Bennett, A.F., Brown, G.W., Lumsden, L.F., Yen, A., Hinkley, S., Lillywhite, P. and Ward, D. (2002). How Well do Ecosystem‐based Planning Units Represent Different Components of Biodiversity? Ecological Applications 12: 900‐912. Margules, C.R. and Pressey, R.L.; 2000; Systematic Conservation Planning. Nature 405: 243‐253. McCord, A. and Rix, R.; 2007; Land Management Monitoring in the Agricultural Areas of South Australia: Report No 1. Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation. McCord, A.K. and Payne, R.A.; 2004; Report on the Condition of Agricultural Land in South Australia. The Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation and the Soil Conservation Council South Australia. Northern and Yorke Natural Resource Management Board; 2009; Northern and Yorke Regional NRM Plan. Noss, R. F.E., Dinerstein, B., Gilbert, M., Gilpin, B.J., Miller, B.J., Terbough, J. and Trmbulak, S.; 1999; Core Areas: Where Nature Begins. In J. Terbough and M. Soule, eds., Continental Conservation: Scientific Foundations of Regional Reserve Networks, pp 99‐128. Washington DC: Island Press. Primary Industries and Regions SA; 2015; Crop and Pasture Report South Australia 2014‐15. Crop and Pasture Report South Australia. 2014‐15 Harvest Summary. January 2015.


Primary Industries and Regions SA; 2014; Crop and Pasture Report South Australia 2013‐14. Crop Performance Summary and Final Crop Estimates Report. March 2014. Rural Solutions SA; 2014; Soil Smart: Understanding Your Soils. Rix, R. and Parry, K.; 2006; SA Land Condition Monitoring Review. Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation. Stokes, Z.; 2008; Landholders, Landholdings and Land Use in the CAP sub‐regions of the Northern & Yorke NRM Board Region. Rural Solutions SA. Wray, R.; 2012; Australian Soils and Soil Classification. Improved Soil Protection by Clay Spreading / Delving Sands in the Northern And Yorke Region. Northern and Yorke NRM Board and Rural Solutions SA. Woodard, D. and Harding, A.; 2010; WWF; 2005; Basic Guidance for Cross‐Cutting Tools: Conceptual Models. www.panda.org/standards or http://assets.panda.org/downloads/1_4_conceptual_model_11_08_05.pdf Young, M‐A.; 2007; Report on the Condition of Agricultural Land in the Northern and Yorke Natural Resources Management Region. Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation.