MURRAY-DARLING BASIN AUTHORITY - mdba.gov.au … · Web viewMURRAY-DARLING BASIN AUTHORITY. Basin Salinity Management Strategy. 2009–10 Annual Implementation Report. January 2011

MURRAY-DARLING BASIN AUTHORITY

Basin Salinity Management Strategy2009–10 Annual Implementation Report

January 2011

Published by Murray-Darling Basin AuthorityPostal Address GPO Box 1801, Canberra ACT 2601Office location Level 4, 51 Allara Street, Canberra CityAustralian Capital TerritoryTelephone (02) 6279 0100 international + 61 2 6279 0100Facsimile (02) 6248 8053 international + 61 2 6248 8053E-Mail [email protected] http://www.mdba.gov.au

For further information contact the Murray-Darling Basin Authority office on (02) 6279 0100This report may be cited as: Basin Salinity Management Strategy Annual Implementation Report

MDBA Publication No. 118/11 ISBN 978-1-921783-74-6 (on-line)ISBN 978-1-921783-75-3 (print)

© Copyright Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA), on behalf of the Commonwealth of Australia 2011.This work is copyright. With the exception of photographs, any logo or emblem, and any trademarks, the work may be stored, retrieved and reproduced in whole or in part, provided that it is not sold or used in any way for commercial benefit, and that the source and author of any material used is acknowledged. Apart from any use permitted under the Copyright Act 1968 or above, no part of this work may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from the Commonwealth. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the Commonwealth Copyright Administration, Attorney General’s Department, National Circuit, Barton ACT 2600 or posted at http://www.ag.gov.au/cca.The views, opinions and conclusions expressed by the authors in this publication are not necessarily those of the MDBA or the Commonwealth. To the extent permitted by law, the MDBA and the Commonwealth excludes all liability to any person for any consequences, including but not limited to all losses, damages, costs, expenses and any other compensation, arising directly or indirectly from using this report (in part or in whole) and any information or material contained within it.Australian Government Departments and Agencies are required by the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) to ensure that information and services can be accessed by people with disabilities. If you encounter accessibility difficulties or the information you require is in a format that you cannot access, please contact us.Front Cover Image Photographer: Arthur Mostead

FOREWORD

I have pleasure in releasing the 2009-10 Annual Implementation Report of the Basin Salinity Management Strategy (BSMS).In September 2001, the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council released a 14-year strategy to manage salinity in the Basin. The strategy is an essential part of the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement and forms Schedule B of the Agreement. This annual report conforms to the reporting requirements set out in Schedule B and includes details of implementation of the BSMS.The BSMS has contributed to gradual reduction of river salinity over a long period by investing in salt interception schemes and improved land and water management practices. Through these investments, the BSMS aims to achieve the Basin salinity target which is to maintain the average daily salinity at Morgan, South Australia, at a simulated level of less than 800 EC for at least 95% of the time, during a dry and wet climatic sequence. This year’s simulated results indicate, for the first time since the inception of BSMS in 2001, that the Basin salinity target has been achieved. The river salinity at Morgan remained low in 2009-10, largely due to drought affected hydrogeological conditions in the southern Basin and the long-term impacts of salinity management works and measures. While the low river salinity is a good outcome for 2009-10, there is an on-going process of salt accumulation in the floodplains and risk of its mobilisation when wet periods return. The MDBA and the contracting governments are currently working on managing such a salt spike if it occurs in the river.The Independent Audit Group for Salinity conducted the eighth audit of the strategy in November 2010. The Auditors reviewed the implementation of the strategy by the MDBA and the contracting governments in accordance with Schedule B and the associated BSMS Operational Protocols. The executive summary of the Report of the Independent Audit Group for Salinity 2009-10 with their recommendations is included in this report.Implementation of the Basin Salinity Management Strategy would not be possible without the cooperation of the contracting governments. In particular, their work in delivering salinity management activities in the valleys across the Basin and the cooperation extended to the MDBA in maintaining a rigorous salinity accountability framework are greatly appreciated.

Rob FreemanChief ExecutiveMurray-Darling Basin Authority

CONTENTS

Foreword...........................................................................................................................................................................

Abbreviations................................................................................................................................................................

Executive summary....................................................................................................................................................

1. The Basin Salinity Management Strategy..............................................................................................

1.1 Objectives and elements........................................................................................................................................................

1.2 Governance of BSMS..................................................................................................................................................................

1.3 BSMS into the future..................................................................................................................................................................

1.4 BSMS Annual Implementation Report objectives................................................................................................

2. The nine BSMS elements..................................................................................................................................

2.1 Element 1: Capacity to implement.................................................................................................................................

2.2 Element 2: Values and assets at risk............................................................................................................................

2.3 Element 3: Setting salinity targets..................................................................................................................................

2.4 Elements 4 to 7...........................................................................................................................................................................

2.5 Element 8: Salt interception works..............................................................................................................................

2.6 Element 9: Basin-wide accountability: monitoring, evaluating and reporting...........................

3. Valley reports........................................................................................................................................................

4. Response to the Independent Ausit Group-Salinity.....................................................................

5. Key projects for 2010–11...............................................................................................................................

6. References..............................................................................................................................................................

Appendix I: Extract from the report of the IAG-Salinity 2009–10................................................

Appendix II: BSMS salinity register 2010...................................................................................................

Appendix III: Baseline conditions.....................................................................................................................

Appendix IV: Flow and salinity data for end-of-valley target sites............................................

Appendix V: Comparison of 2009–10 with long-term in-stream salinity and salt load data for end-of-valley target sites......................................................................................................................................

Appendix VI: BSMS operational processes during 2009–10............................................................

Appendix VII: Associated Reports and further information............................................................

List of tablesTable 1: Summary of salinity levels (EC) recorded at Morgan, South Australia

7Table 2: Simulated salinity levels (EC) summary statistics at Morgan, South Australia for baseline and 2010 conditions over the 1975 to 2000 climatic period

10Table 3: Joint salt interception scheme performance report 2009–10

13Table 4: Summary of the 2010 salinity register

15Table 5: Status of rolling five-year reviews for all Salinity Register A entries as at 13 October 2010

16Table 6: Status of rolling five-year reviews for all Salinity Register B entries as at 13 October 2010

18Table 7: Availability of monitoring data 2000–2010

22Table 8: Sites with less than 95% data availability for 2009–10

22Table 9: End-of-valley summary report card

24Table 10: 2008–09 audit recommendations and the MDBA’s response and progress

28Table 11: BSMS end-of-valley baseline conditions 5

0

List of figuresFigure 1: Mean daily salinity levels from July 2009 to June 2010 compared to modelled salinity levels without salt interception schemes, improved land and water management actions and additional dilution flows (‘no further intervention’ scenario). The difference is assumed to be the effect of salinity management. 8Figure 2: Effect of salinity management in the Murray–Darling Basin: comparing recorded mean daily salinity levels and modelled salinity levels without salt interception schemes, land and water management actions and additional dilution flows over a 25-year period (July 1985 to June 2010)

8Figure 3: River Murray salinity profile: comparison of median salinity levels of 2009–10 with that of recent past years and the baseline median salinity level for the benchmark period (1975–2000) 9Figure 4: Map of end-of-valley target site locations

26Figure 5: 2010 Salinity Register A

44Figure 6: 2010 Salinity Register B

48

ABBREVIATIONS

AWRC Australian Water Resource Council BSMS Basin Salinity Management Strategy BSM AP Basin Salinity Management Advisory PanelCwlth CommonwealthEC Electrical conductivity unit (measured as µS/cm)EM1 Eastern Mallee version 1 modelIAG-Salinity Independent Audit Group for Salinity MDB Murray–Darling BasinMDBA Murray–Darling Basin AuthorityMDBC Murray–Darling Basin CommissionMSM-BIGMOD Daily flow and salinity model for the River MurrayMTR Mid-term review (of Basin Salinity Management Strategy)SIS Salt interception schemeTLM The Living MurrayWQSMP Water quality and salinity management plan

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Basin status during 2009–10During the 2009–10 water year, significant rain fell in northern parts of the Murray-Darling Basin. However, hydrological conditions across the southern part of the Basin were mainly influenced by consecutive droughts over the past nine years. Consecutive drought years led to a general decline in groundwater levels and catchment tributary flows in the southern part of the Basin. River Murray flow was mostly dominated by water released from headwater dams in the upper Murray system.The combination of low rainfall in the southern Basin, drought-affected groundwater levels, salinity mitigation actions and release of fresh water into the River Murray from reservoirs have resulted in less salt entering the river. The low daily average salinity (427 EC) and peak salinity (701 EC) recorded at Morgan, a key Basin salinity monitoring point on the River Murray in South Australia, reflects the drought affected hydrological conditions in the southern Basin and the cumulative benefits of salinity mitigation actions.The Murray–Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) with the support of the partner governments is committed to managing long-term salinity in the Basin—the main aim of the Basin Salinity Management Strategy. In addition, there is a need for real-time monitoring and management of short-term (peak) changes in river salinity which can impact on agricultural production systems and aquatic ecosystems at risk. Projects are being undertaken to develop understanding of salt mobilisation processes from floodplains with a view to managing short-term peak river salinities in the future.

The Basin Salinity Management StrategyThe Basin Salinity Management Strategy (BSMS) and its forerunner the Salinity and Drainage Strategy have effectively managed salinity in the Murray–Darling Basin and have considerably reduced salinity levels in the River Murray over the last two decades. The BSMS (established in 2001) has enabled a coordinated and transparent approach to controlling salinity and protecting assets across the Basin. Through agreements between MDBA, and the Commonwealth, state and territory governments, on-ground actions have reduced the risk of continued salinisation of land and water in the Basin.When the MDBA assumed responsibility for all functions of the former Murray–Darling Basin Commission (MDBC) in December 2008, a new chapter in the management of salinity across the Basin commenced. The water quality and salinity management plan, which is to be included in the Basin Plan, will build on the successes of the BSMS to date, as well as incorporating key BSMS mid-term review recommendations (MDBC 2008).

Key achievements of the BSMSThroughout 2009–10, considerable time and resources were committed by the MDBA to deliver the requirements of the Water Act 2007 (cwlth), in addition to progressing recommendations of the BSMS mid-term review and Independent Audit Group for Salinity reports. Implementation of the BSMS by the MDBA and state and territory governments has been streamlined by establishing the Basin Salinity Management Advisory Panel. Highlights for 2009–10 include:• simulated results showing, for the first time since the BSMS inception in 2001, that

the Basin salinity target has been achieved (Basin salinity target is to maintain the average daily salinity at Morgan, South Australia, at a simulated level below 800 EC for at least 95% of the time, during the 1975 to 2000 benchmark period)

• achieving, through long-term actions, a recorded (or real-time) daily average salinity level at Morgan of 427 EC

• diverting approximately 490,000 tonnes of salt away from entering the River Murray system through the operation of salt interception schemes

• progressing key projects to improve the technical understanding of flood-recession salt mobilisation from floodplains, an environmental watering salinity impact assessment framework, and BSMS models for assessing salinity impacts arising from activities in the Mallee zone.

Details of these and other MDBA achievements and reporting requirements under Schedule B of the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement are provided in this report. In addition, companion reports produced by state and territory governments provide information about BSMS implementation throughout the Basin. A summary of BSMS achievements is also provided in the Basin Salinity Management Strategy 2009–10 Summary brochure.

Key projects in 2010–11The priorities for 2010–11 financial year and beyond include:a. completion of regular Schedule B obligations:

• annual reporting• annual audit• rolling five-year reviews of accountable actions• further development and review of BSMS models• assessment of new accountable actions

b. continuation of work (conceptual model and salinity mitigation options) on managing flood-recession salt mobilisation risks from the floodplains

c. development of operational response plans to manage real-time river salinityd. development of accountability arrangements for salinity impacts of environmental

watering (The Living Murray, Commonwealth and state actions)e. review of Schedule B under sections 152 of the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement and

progression of subsequent changes to BSMS Operational Protocols as required (section 151 of the agreement)

f. further work required to establish consistency in irrigation salinity assessment across jurisdictions

g. continuation of joint works and measures program which will include new investigations of opportunities, an accelerated construction program, and improvements to the operational performance of existing salt interception schemes

h. review of current catchment salinity management strategiesi. assessment of climate change impacts on salinity dynamics within the Murray–Darling

Basin.

1. THE BASIN SALINITY MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

The Basin Salinity Management Strategy (BSMS) provides a framework enabling communities and governments to work together in implementing salinity control activities to protect assets and natural resource values across the Murray–Darling Basin. This strategy provides partner governments with clear and transparent accountability arrangements with mandatory elements incorporated into the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement, which forms part of the Water Act 2007 (cwlth).

1.1 Objectives and elementsThe objectives of the strategy are to:• maintain water quality of shared water resources of the Murray and Darling rivers

for all beneficial uses — agricultural, environmental, urban, industrial and recreational

• control the rise in salt loads in all tributary rivers of the Basin and, through that control, protect their water resources and aquatic ecosystems at agreed levels

• control land degradation and protect important terrestrial ecosystems, productive farm land, cultural heritage, and built infrastructure at agreed levels Basin-wide

• maximise net benefits from salinity control across the Basin.The BSMS brings together nine elements to manage salinity and achieve the objectives. These elements are deliberately broad to cover Basin-scale coordination and accountability, and provide a joint approach to large-scale works and measures for in-stream salinity management, such as the salt interception schemes. They also include regional-scale priorities, such as improving catchment planning, farming systems and vegetation management.The nine BSMS elements are:1 Developing capacity to implement the strategy.2 Identifying values and assets at risk.3 Setting salinity targets.4 Managing trade-offs with the available within-valley options.5 Implementing salinity and catchment management plans.

6 Redesigning farming systems.7 Targeting reforestation and vegetation management.8 Constructing salt interception works.9 Ensuring Basin-wide accountability: monitoring, evaluating and reporting.

1.2 Governance of BSMSThrough the BSMS, partner governments have agreed to share responsibility for actions to meet the end-of-valley salinity targets at various valleys and the Basin salinity target at Morgan in South Australia. Specific responsibilities have been assigned to the Murray–Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) and state and territory governments within the Basin. On behalf of state and territory governments, the MDBA is responsible for whole-of-Basin issues and outcomes associated with implementing the strategy.

The state and territory governments, in partnership with catchment management organisations, are responsible for implementing state and regional components of the strategy, and are accountable for catchment actions, assessment and monitoring. Accountabilities are explicit in relation to actions that are expected to have a significant salinity impact upon the river. Together they deliver:• within-valley actions and tools to control and predict salinity and salt load trends• on-ground investment to address salinity risks and their impacts• assessments of the effects and trade-offs associated with salinity management

options• monitoring and assessment of salinity as part of reporting progress against targets.The mid-term review of the BSMS was undertaken in 2007. The mid-term review report documented significant successes in BSMS implementation during the first seven years of the strategy’s fourteen year life (MDBC 2008). Recommendations from the review report covered policy and operational issues as well as the scientific and technical understanding of salinity processes in the Basin. However, the review did not contemplate a change in governance arrangements.Subsequently however, the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement was incorporated into the Water Act 2007 (cwlth), and in doing so, established the Murray–Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) that took over the roles of the former Murray–Darling Basin Commission. The MDBA is a statutory body accountable for administering the Murray–Darling Basin Agreement, included as Schedule 1 of the Water Act (cwlth). Schedule B of the Murray–Darling Basin Agreement specifies the role of MDBA in salinity management, including responsibilities for: • construction and operation of joint works and measures and coordinate other

actions to reduce or limit the rate at which salinity increases in rivers, tributaries and landscapes within the Basin

• setting salinity targets• establishment of registers to record salinity impacts and to allocate salinity credits

and salinity debits to contracting governments• monitoring, assessing, auditing and reporting on progress in implementing the

strategy.The Australian Government’s role in the BSMS and Schedule B is to report on investment programs that may have an impact on salinity management in the Basin.

1.3 BSMS into the future A key requirement of the Water Act 2007 (cwlth) is the development of the Basin Plan, which will include a water quality and salinity management plan (including objectives and targets) and an environmental watering plan. Water resource plans prepared at the regional level will also include water quality and salinity objectives and management requirements. As the Basin Plan is yet to be completed, it is uncertain as to the implications for the future of the BSMS, however the Murray–Darling Basin Agreement requires that Schedule B be reviewed prior to the Basin Plan coming into effect to identify any inconsistencies. Proposed changes to the Schedule B arising from that review must be recommended to Ministerial Council.

1.4 BSMS Annual Implementation Report objectives The BSMS Annual Implementation Report is a Basin-wide progress report for the financial year 2009–10. A draft of this report is presented to the Independent Audit Group for Salinity to enable the auditors to assess MDBA’s progress in salinity management in the Basin.

The report also fulfils the statutory reporting requirements of Schedule B (clause 32) including: • a consolidated summary of results and recommendations from the Report of the

Independent Audit Group for Salinity• a program setting out the timetable for rolling five-year reviews• updated versions of salinity register as at 30 November of each year• details of other activities which have been taken to meet the objectives of the

strategy since the last annual report• a report on the operation and implementation of existing joint works and measures

as well as progress of newly proposed works• results of each five-year review carried out by state governments within the

reporting period• a list of MDBA reports related to the management of salinity in the preceding

financial year.In meeting their own reporting obligations, state, territory and Australian governments produce companion salinity reports. The partner governments have provided these reports to the MDBA as follows:• South Australia: South Australia’s 2009–10 Report to the Basin Salinity

Management Strategy• Victoria: Murray–Darling Basin Salinity Management Strategy: Victoria’s 2009–10

Annual Report• New South Wales: Murray–Darling Basin Salinity Management Strategy: NSW

Annual Implementation Report 2009–2010• Queensland: Basin Salinity Management Strategy Annual Report 2009–2010

Queensland Murray–Darling Basin• Australian Capital Territory: ACT Annual Salinity Report 2009–10• Australian Government: Basin Salinity Management Strategy 2009–10: Australian

Government Report.

2. THE NINE BSMS ELEMENTS

As indicated above, Basin scale salinity management under the BSMS is guided by nine elements. These elements therefore provide a basis for assessing progress in implementing the strategy during 2009-10.

2.1 Element 1: Capacity to implement The capacity to implement the BSMS requires Basin-wide and within-valley planning and implementation of initiatives to help manage salinity. Through this element, the BSMS improves the knowledge of biophysical and socio-economic processes, Basin-scale salinity management strategies and operation of salinity accountability arrangements. In 2009–10, emphasis was put into future planning, including input to the Basin Plan, to ensure that salinity management in the Basin continues to progress. The direction and recommendations from the BSMS mid-term review and Independent Audit Group for Salinity were incorporated into this planning and considered in the prioritisation of activities to ensure effective strategy implementation.Key Element 1 projects progressed in 2009–10 relate largely to the development of Basin-wide knowledge and accountability frameworks, and information dissemination. These are discussed below.

2.1.1 Flood-recession salt mobilisation risksDue to the extended drought, the amount of salt accumulated in the Lower Murray floodplains is likely to be high. The accumulated salt in floodplains is highly likely to be mobilised by significant flooding. Historical flood events indicate that river salinity may increase after floods recede. In 2008–09, the Independent Audit Group for Salinity recommended that MDBA develop a conceptual model on flood-recession salt mobilisation from floodplains and prepare an operational response plan to manage salinity following flood events (MDBA 2010 a). In 2009–10, MDBA commissioned a project to develop a conceptual model for flood-recession salt mobilisation from the floodplains and prepare a set of potential operational responses to manage salinities following flood events. The BSMS progressed this project with the support of a technical advisory panel involving river operators and modellers, The Living Murray and River Operations Review programs from the MDBA, and an independent external expert. Phase one of this project, scheduled to be completed in November 2010, is expected to deliver a conceptual model, a risk assessment of floodplain salt mobilisation and an understanding of biophysical processes. It will also investigate options for potential operational strategies for mitigating the river salinity spikes in the event of high flows. However, substantial further work will be required to develop both a predictive model to estimate floodplain salt loads to the river and a more sophisticated yet practical operational management response plan to cope with high salinity events following flood events.

2.1.2 Assessing environmental watering impactsThe Living Murray program and, more recently, the Commonwealth Government water buy back scheme, have purchased or recovered through water use and/or efficiency measures a significant share of water within the Murray–Darling to maintain and improve the Basin’s water-dependent ecosystems. Such a shift in water use creates temporal and spatial tertiary impacts such as the changes in salt movement within valleys and the Basin as a whole.During 2009–10, the MDBA has made progress in developing an understanding of the issues related to environmental watering that impact on the accountability arrangements

of the BSMS. Since establishing the BSMS Environmental Watering Salinity Accountability program in 2009, MDBA has continued to work closely with the Basin Salinity Management Advisory Panel members and key stakeholders to develop a procedure to account for the salinity impacts of environmental watering actions on the MDBA salinity register.

The MDBA is developing a case-study using preliminary salinity assessments from The Living Murray Initiative. The outcome of this work will assist contracting governments to agree on a procedure to account for environmental watering actions on the MDBA salinity register. MDBA expects a procedure will be agreed upon and ready for environmental watering actions to be entered onto the 2011 salinity register.

2.1.3 Irrigation salinity assessment framework The BSMS salinity register indicate that irrigation related actions are responsible for an estimated approximate value of $13 million credits and $20 million debits. The Basin Salinity Management Advisory Panel is keen on improving consistency in approaches to account for irrigation salinity impacts within the Basin. However, improvements to the draft irrigation salinity assessment framework have been delayed until the release of the proposed Basin Plan. Once the framework is developed, essential and appropriate elements will be included in the next review of the BSMS Operational Protocols.In 2009–10 MDBA commissioned a project to develop district-scale root zone drainage from irrigated areas of the Basin’s Mallee zone. Deep drainage, or root zone drainage, arising from water use in the Mallee zone contributes to groundwater recharge causing salt mobilisation to the river. District-scale root zone drainage values developed through this project provide a key dataset and inform future improvement of the irrigation salinity assessment framework.

2.1.4 Information coordination and dissemination A key role for the MDBA is to coordinate Basin-scale information on progress towards BSMS implementation. This role includes the publication of BSMS annual reports and other technical reports in seeking opportunities to further disseminate information to the scientific and broader community. Four key reports were produced and distributed through the MDBA and its partner governments during 2009–10. These are:• BSMS 2008–09 Annual Implementation Report • BSMS 2008–09 Summary• Report of the Independent Audit Group for Salinity 2008–09• Irrigated Agriculture in the Mallee — Estimating Root Zone Drainage.In June 2010, the BSMS program presented a paper titled ‘Opportunities to improve root zone drainage values of the groundwater models used for lower River Murray salinity predictions’ at the Australian Irrigation 2010 conference, which was sponsored by the MDBA.

2.2 Element 2: Values and assets at risk Protecting key values and assets at risk of salinity is fundamental to how salinity is managed within the Basin. Maintaining the water quality of rivers, controlling land degradation, and protecting important terrestrial ecosystems, productive farm land, cultural heritage and built infrastructure are integral components of the four BSMS objectives. At the local catchment scale, Basin partner governments work with communities to identify values and assets that require protection from the impacts of salinity.This element is largely a responsibility of the BSMS partner governments and further information can be found in each state’s 2009–10 salinity annual report.

2.3 Element 3: Setting salinity targets MDBA reports on performance against the Basin salinity target. The Basin salinity target established under the BSMS is to maintain the average daily salinity at Morgan in South Australia at a simulated level of less than 800 EC for at least 95 % of the time, modelled during the benchmark period (1975-2000) under the current land and water management regime. The benchmark period is a climatic sequence used in models to estimate the effects of various combinations of salinity management actions. In response to the 1999 salinity audit and as part of the overall approach to a Basin-wide salinity strategy, the BSMS established a suite of end-of-valley salinity targets for valleys within the Basin. This was primarily to measure progress towards achieving the strategy’s objectives. During 2004–05, the Murray–Darling Basin Ministerial Council adopted all the state-based end-of-valley targets, with the Australia Capital Territory end-of-valley target expected to be adopted by the council in November 2010. These targets provide a basis for commitment from partner governments not only to develop catchment actions to improve catchment health, but also to contribute to meeting the objectives of the BSMS, including the Basin salinity target at Morgan. States have implemented monitoring programs for the end-of-valley sites to assist in the five-yearly reviews of progress against targets. Data from these monitoring programs is summarised and presented in Section 3.In addition, details of the work achieved by the partner governments during 2009–10 can be found in their individual salinity annual reports.

2.3.1 End-of-valley targets reviewTo ensure the end-of-valley targets continue to meet the objectives of the BSMS, the MDBA, under clause 9 (1) of Schedule B of the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement ‘must at intervals of not more than 5 years, review the adequacy and appropriateness of each end-of-valley Target’ (Commonwealth of Australia 2009). The MDBA commissioned the salinity targets review project to meet clause 9 obligation, and also provide up-to-date information on the status of existing salinity targets to assist in developing salinity objectives and targets for the proposed Basin Plan. The review examined whether targets were set adequately in terms of location and target value, and whether different targets would now be more appropriate (MDBA 2010 b). The review took into account the improved knowledge and understanding gathered through the five-year rolling reviews of each of the valleys since the setting of the targets, and also the broader framework of proposed complementary salinity targets for the Basin.The review of the existing BSMS end-of-valley targets, concluded that the jurisdictions and the former Murray–Darling Basin Commission (now MDBA) have done a creditable job in setting up end-of-valley targets and monitoring arrangements. These salinity targets continue to provide an important role in monitoring the future threats of salt mobilisation at both temporal and spatial scales within the Basin. The review also recommended setting up additional target sites and using more recent predictions of salt mobilised from dryland areas to revise current target values.During 2010–11, it is anticipated that the end-of-valley targets review will be independently peer reviewed and submitted to the MDBA for approval. Timing of the independent peer review will depend on the release of the proposed Basin Plan and salinity targets review project reports that have supported the development of the proposed Basin Plan, in particular the water quality and salinity management plan.

2.3.2 River salinity outcomes This section reports real-time river salinity outcomes and how the salinity levels compare with previous years. Real-time salinity outcomes detailed in this section consider end-of-Basin target at Morgan only. Graphs showing salinity and flow data for end-of-valley

target sites are included in Appendix IV and further information can be found in the 2009–10 individual reports from each jurisdiction.Table 1 summarises salinity levels recorded at Morgan over four time intervals (1, 5, 10 and 25 years) to June 2010. Real-time (i.e. observed or recorded) mean daily salinity levels at Morgan from 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010 are compared to observed long-term mean, median, 95 percentile and peak salinity levels in Table 1.

These results indicate that the mean, median, 95 percentile salinity for the current year are marginally lower than the respective salinities for the 5- and 10-year intervals, but are about 100 EC lower than those for the25-year interval. Another important observation is that the 95 percentile salinity did not exceed 800 EC at Morgan during the last 10 years. Over the 25-year period though, the 800 EC at Morgan has exceeded 6% of the time.Although the peak values seem to be in decline over the 12-month period, this should not be interpreted as an indication of improved salinity levels. Periods of less than 10 years are unlikely to encompass the full range of possible salinity levels, including those related to extreme events. The comparison of salinity levels for these intervals shows a long-term reduction of peak salinity, which reflects the combined effects of reduced salt mobilisation into the river as a result of the cumulative benefits of salinity mitigation works and measures, and drought conditions prevalent in recent years.Table 1: Summary of salinity levels (EC) recorded at Morgan, South Australia

Time interval Average Median95

percentile Peak

Percentage time

> 800 EC

1 yearJuly 2009 — June 2010 427 412 687 701 0

5 yearsJuly 2005 — June 2010 440 434 696 785 0

10 yearsJuly 2000 — June 2010 456 439 694 826 0

25 yearsJuly 1985 — June 2010 530 507 838 1220 6

The salinity at Morgan in 2009–10 varied between 226 and 701 EC. The highest salinity occurred in mid-November 2009, and the lowest in mid-March 2010, as seen in Figure 1. The peak in 2009–10 is considerably less than the peak of the previous five years (785 EC), which occurred in late September 2007. However these peak levels are lower than the highest peak recorded over the 25-year period (1220 EC) as seen in Table 1.Although reducing the mean long-term river salinity is the ultimate aim of the salinity targets, peak salinity levels can affect aquatic ecosystems and use of river water for drinking and irrigation purposes. Therefore, it is also important to manage these short-term salinity peaks that can result from management decisions and climatic variability (floods or droughts).Due to prolonged drought, the Basin has experienced a significant reduction of runoff during the last 10 years. This has resulted in continued low flows within the lower reaches of the River Murray. The combination of reduced rainfall and less water recharging into groundwater systems has meant that salt has remained in the landscape, particularly in the floodplains of the lower Murray. The resulting low mean salinity levels recorded at Morgan in 2009–10 are as expected during drought conditions.On the other hand, when inflows and storage levels in the Basin are extremely low, salinity levels can peak because the river flow is not adequate to dilute salt loads

entering the river from saline aquifers, weir pools and wetlands. Evidence for this occurrence is the peak salinity level observed in September 2007, as shown in Figure 2.

2.3.3 Impacts of salinity management actionsFigure 1 presents mean daily salinity levels recorded at Morgan and simulated (modelled) salinity levels representing a ‘no further intervention’ scenario for the same period. The ‘no further intervention’ scenario simulates river salinity levels that would have occurred if post-1975 salt interception works, improved land and water management actions and dilution flows were not undertaken. The word ‘further’ is used because a number of salt interception schemes were operating before 1975 and their effects are not included in the simulation. The difference between observed and the simulated ‘no further intervention’ salinity levels is assumed to be the result of management interventions. During 2009–10 this difference is estimated to vary between 53 and 1,411 EC. Figure 1 also shows that the impact of the management interventions is greater when salinity levels are high (reducing salinity peaks) than when salinity is low.

Figure 1: Mean daily salinity levels from July 2009 to June 2010 compared to modelled salinity levels without salt interception schemes, improved land and water management actions and additional dilution flows (‘no further intervention’ scenario). The difference is assumed to be the effect of salinity management.

Figure 2 shows the long-term difference, over 25 years (July 1985 to June 2010), between recorded or observed mean daily salinity and simulated salinity under the ‘no further intervention’ scenario. The progressive increase in the difference between the observed and simulated salinity indicates a long-term reduction in salinity (both average trend and peak levels) linked to number of management interventions (salt interception schemes, improved land and water management actions and dilution flows).

Figure 2: Effect of salinity management in the Murray–Darling Basin: comparing recorded mean daily salinity levels and modelled salinity levels without salt interception schemes, land and water management actions and additional dilution flows over a 25-year period (July 1985 to June 2010).River salinity levels increase due to both natural and human actions as shown in Figure 3. The cumulative effects of these actions result in an increase in salinity levels at the mouth of the river (at Lake Alexandrina). Figure 3 illustrates four sets of salinity levels at specific points along the River Murray. The baseline median line is made up of simulated median values using the baseline conditions for the year 2000. These are baseline salinity levels at Morgan which were set at the beginning of BSMS so future progress could be assessed. For South Australia, New South Wales and Victoria, baseline conditions are set at the salinity levels of 1 January 1988, while for Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory, baseline conditions are those of 1 January 2000. The plot in Figure 3 indicates that salinity levels for 2007–2010 are lower than the 2000 simulated levels. However, salinity in 2009–10 in Murray Bridge was higher than the preceding year and 2000 levels, with a significant increase in salinity at Lake Alexandrina. The rise in salinity at Lake Alexandrina is associated with the cumulative effect of evaporation and low river inflow into the lakes.

Figure 3: River Murray salinity profile: comparison of median salinity levels of 2009–10 with that of recent past years and the baseline median salinity level for the benchmark period (1975–2000)

2.3.4 Performance against the Basin Salinity target The effects of any action that has a ‘significant effect’ on the salinity levels at Morgan needs to be included when estimating the progress of salinity management. ‘Significant effect’ refers to an estimated change in the mean daily salinity level at Morgan of 0.1EC within 100 years after the estimate is made. These actions (known as ‘accountable actions’) are recorded in the salinity register and updated annually by MDBA. The effects of these actions are measured in terms of both salinity levels (EC) and economic costs and benefits ($) — see Element 9 for more details.Another important technique for assessing progress towards reaching the salinity target is to compare baseline (2000) salinity levels with current year (2009–10) salinity levels modelled over the same climate (benchmark period). The difference in EC between the two model results reflects the effects of management actions between the years 2000 and 2009–10. Results from the two model predictions are summarised in Table 2. Results from model predictions indicate that, when the 2009–10 level of land and water use is assessed against the benchmark period (1975–2000), in-river salinity at Morgan is less than 800 EC for 96% of the time. This result is important because the Basin salinity target at Morgan is to maintain salinity below 800 EC for 95% of the time, modelled over the benchmark period. This result shows that the BSMS, for the first time since its inception in 2001, has achieved the Basin salinity target. The simulated data presented in Table 2 demonstratethat the exceedence of 800 EC at Morgan has decreased substantially since the Baseline Conditions were established in the Basin. These model outcomes, as well as observed salinity levels recorded at Morgan (Figure 2), reflect the significant long-term benefits that salinity mitigation activities have brought to the Basin.

Table 2: Simulated salinity levels (EC) summary statistics at Morgan, South Australia for baseline and 2010 conditions over the 1975 to 2000 climatic period

Time Interval Average Median95

percentile

Percentage time over

800 EC

Percentage Time less than 800

EC

25 years

Modelled 1988 conditions over benckmark period 1975–2000 665 666 1058 28 72

25 years

Modelled 2010 conditions over benckmark period 1975–2000 510 484 787 4 96

2.3.4 Modelling challenges The BSMS mid-term review (MDBC 2008) considered the effectiveness of the simulated target approach and found that it was sound for its current purpose. However, the use of a climatic dataset from 1975 to 2000 (benchmark period) to evaluate long-term effects of end-of-Basin predictions may not adequately reflect the climate variability experienced in the last decade, and future changes in climate. Recognising these deficiencies, MDBA has commissioned a project to investigate the risks of climate change impacts on salinity dynamics and salt mobilisation processes in the Basin.

2.4 Elements 4 to 7Primarily elements 4 to 7 are state and territory governments responsibilities where progress against end-of-valley targets and catchment salinity management actions are reported. The following paragraphs provide a guide to the key directions intended to be achieved through these elements; however the reader is referred to each specific state or territory government’s report for 2009–10 for information on progress to date.

Element 4: Managing trade-offs with available within-valley optionState and territory governments are expected to analyse and review the best mix of land management, engineering, river flow, and ‘living with salt’ options to achieve salinity targets while meeting other catchment health objectives and social and economic needs. These activities include providing assistance to communities to understand salinity management options, and reaching agreement on options with affected groups, industries and people through best-practice planning processes.

Element 5: Implementation of salinity management plansThis element encompasses the recognition that communities have made significant contributions to land and water management through the development of plans for regions and catchments. Nevertheless, existing and new plans and actions that have significant effects on land or water management require assessment and reporting against the end-of-valley and Basin targets and must be recorded on the salinity register. Continuing support by state and territory governments for land and water management plans in irrigation regions, and the development and implementation of salinity and catchment management plans in dryland regions, is required for successful implementation of BSMS.

Element 6: Redesigning farming systemsThis element considers the improvements needed in farming and forestry to control groundwater recharge in dryland cropping and pastoral systems. It also acknowledges the need for research and development to improve farming systems and reduce salinity risk without jeopardising the viability of farming enterprises.

It is also worth noting that the BSMS mid-term review (MDBC 2008) stated that “a major emphasis should be on irrigated land since it is these areas that are likely to have the greatest impacts on salinity targets. Opportunities for proactive intervention to influence salinity outcomes from new developments and retirement of irrigation should also be contemplated for implementation under this element.”

Element 7: Targeting reforestation and vegetation management This element refers to partner governments’ recognition that landscape changes specifically targeted at salinity control may be required in addition to changes to farming systems. Such landscape changes may include native vegetation management, rehabilitation and land stewardship. Commercial planting of short-rotation tree crops may also be considered under this element.

2.5 Element 8: Salt interception works The Joint Works and Measures program provided for under Schedule B has focused on the commitment to construct salt interception schemes to maintain water quality in the River Murray for agriculture, environmental, urban, industrial and recreational uses. BSMS’s intention to achieve a 61 EC reduction in average salinity at Morgan by 2007 comprised 31 EC to offset the impact of past actions (pre-1988) and 30 EC shared equally between New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia to offset state accountable actions (post-1988). Since 1988 New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia, together with the Australian Government, have funded the construction of nine salt interception schemes. In addition, the following work is under way: construction of four schemes investigation of two new interception opportunities that could be constructed in the

future.The total expenditure under the investigations and construction program for the 2009–10 year was just over $16,490,000. The complexity of planning, investigations and construction prevented achievement of the 61 EC program by 2007 as was envisaged in the strategy. However with funding committed by the Australian Government in 2005–06, completion of the program is expected to be achieved by 2011–12.

2.5.1 Joint Works investigations The focus for 2009–10 was continuing the development of the Sunraysia integrated package of works and measures which includes a business case to rehabilitate the Mildura–Merbein salt interception scheme , the peer review of the Eastern Mallee 2 groundwater model for the Sunraysia region, a feasibility concept for a potential new scheme in the Red Cliffs area and a joint claim by New South Wales and Victoria for reduced irrigation salinity impacts in the Sunraysia region.Sunraysia Integrated Package of Works and MeasuresAs all engineering and catchment actions in the Sunraysia region have some interrelationship, the integration of all works for the region, including improved irrigation efficiencies, has been an important part of these investigations. In June 2010 the Murray–Darling Basin Ministerial Council authorised construction of stage 1 of the rehabilitation of the Mildura–Merbein scheme and noted that the development of stage 2 (disposal pipeline system) would be considered in 2012–13 when stage 1 will be nearing completion.

Woolpunda ExtensionDuring the year, South Australia (through the Department for Water) undertook a preliminary assessment of the salinity impact on the River Murray immediately upstream of the existing Woolpunda scheme. It is expected to report on the feasibility of extending the existing scheme to address salt loads in this area.

2.5.2 Design and construction of new schemesUpper Darling (near Bourke)Progress has been achieved in the construction of the Upper Darling scheme with all the pipelines and access roads being completed. The New South Wales Office of Water drillers were mobilised late in the year and are expected to commence the drilling program in 2010–11. The disposal basin design has been finalised and a contract let for construction during 2010–11.LoxtonAt the Loxton salt interception scheme, construction of an extension to the “cliff toe drain” adjacent to the Loxton town centre has been completed and construction of the highland borefields in the areas known as Rillis Cliffs and Proud Avenue is expected to be completed by September 2010.Pyramid CreekThe full borefield for the Pyramid Creek scheme has now been operational for 12 months. Following a program of pumping optimisation and the installation of a number of additional valves to assist with scheme maintenance, it is anticipated that the full scheme will be formally commissioned later in 2010.MurthoIn March 2008, Ministerial Council authorised the construction of the Murtho salt interception scheme, which is expected to achieve an estimated benefit of 20.2 EC at Morgan at an estimated cost of $30.2 million. Considerable progress has been achieved with the construction of this scheme. Some 38 km of collection and disposal pipelines have been constructed, including 600 m of directional boring under the River Murray. By the end of 2009–10 all the proposed production bores and associated monitoring bores were drilled. Testing of these bores has commenced.Waikerie 2LIn September 2007, the Murray–Darling Basin Commission approved the construction of the Waikerie 2L salt interception scheme, an extension to the existing Waikerie scheme. This scheme was formally commissioned during 2009–10 and the salinity benefits included on the MDBA’s salinity register.Pike RiverDuring the year, South Australia (through SA Water) commenced the detailed design phase of this scheme together with the identification of staging options for the work. The detail design will support the development of the first stage of the Pike River scheme. Based on this work a proposal will be developed for South Australia to invest national action plan for salinity and water quality funds.

2.5.3 Scheme operation and maintenanceOperation of the various salt interception schemes has continued to be highly successful in terms of in-river outcomes as illustrated in Figures 1 and 2. As detailed in Table 3, the currently commissioned salt interception schemes diverted approximately 490,000 tonnes of salt away from the River Murray in 2009-10. In 2009-10, operation and maintenance of the existing MDBA salt interception scheme assets continued to focus on minimising running costs, in particular the energy costs

associated with pumping. By careful monitoring, it has been possible to maintain target groundwater levels while scheduling pumping times to coincide with periods of lower power tariffs. As a consequence, significant cost reductions have been achieved.

Table 3: Joint salt interception scheme performance report 2009–10

Salt interception scheme

Volume pumped

Salt load diverted

Average salinity

Target achieved

Power consumption

kWh

(ML) (Tonnes) (EC Units)(Percentage

of Time) Totals

Pyramid Creek 1,427 42,739 43,115 100 258,775

Barr Creek 1,801 3,580 6,566 100 17,713

Mildura-Merbein 1,034 25,106 43,269 63 38,098

Mallee Cliffs 2,059 56,900 51,453 80 737,500

Buronga 2,602 66,000 44,410 97 488,744

Bookpurnong 1,428 43,836 38,550 100 581,272

Loxton 1,537 36,282 36,700 100 593,710

Woolpunda 5,491 115,860 34,000 96 4,709,233

Waikerie 3,784 83,626 35,300 93 1,616,692

Rufus River (RR)

Line 1 236 1,605 11,758 100 20,484

Line 2 102 3,877 56,713 100 29,243

Line 3 46 2,249 70,695 100 33,127

Line 4 54 1,899 53,390 100 29,030

Minor Pump Station 0 0 145,911 100 0

Major Pump Station 326 5,542 28,138 100 1,645

Total Rufus River diversions 764 15,172 61,100 100 113,529

Total water and salt diverted 21,927 489,101 – – –

2.6 Element 9: Basin-wide accountability: monitoring, evaluating and reporting Element 9 refers to Basin-wide accountability, focusing on MDBA’s responsibility to maintain the salinity register which record the salinity effect and salinity costs of accountable actions and delayed or ‘legacy-of-history’ salinity impacts. This element also ensures that salinity is monitored appropriately, progress on salinity targets at a Basin-wide scale is reported, and an independent audit of the registers and contracting governments progress on meeting salinity targets and implementing BSMS is undertaken. The state and territory governments have committed through annual reporting process to provide the MDBA with information on any action considered to have a significant salinity effect. This information is used for the purpose of updating salinity register and the independent audit.

2.6.1 Independent audit of the BSMSThe Schedule B requires that an Independent Audit Group for Salinity (IAG –Salinity) be appointed by the MDBA to carry out an annual audit. Auditing is an integral part of the BSMS, ensuring a fair and accurate annual assessment of the contracting governments’ and MDBA’s performances against provisions of Schedule B to the Murray–Darling Basin Agreement. The IAG-Salinity undertook the eighth BSMS audit in 2009-10 and provided the report to MDBA. The report included an assessment of the state and territory governments’ and MDBA’s implementation of the strategy and recommendations for improvement. The executive summary of the 2009–10 IAG-Salinity report, including the auditors’ recommendations, are in Appendix I. Progress on activities in response to audit recommendations will be reported to Ministerial Council during the next 2010-11 year.

2.6.2 The BSMS salinity registerThe salinity register are an important part of the BSMS and a working example of an effective environmental accountability framework. The registers provide a primary record of jurisdictional accountability for actions that affect river salinity. The salinity register are an accounting tool providing a record of debit and credit balance of accountable actions that significantly affect salinity at Morgan (i.e. that would result in a change of average daily salinity by at least 0.1EC within 100 years). This accounting system allows Basin-wide trade-offs among the states, as well as joint works and measures by governments, to be managed in a transparent way.Credits are actions that reduce river salinity, while debits are actions likely to increase river salinity. Actions such as new irrigation developments can generate a debit on the salinity register because in some areas they may result in increased salt loads to the River Murray. Actions such as constructing salt interception schemes and improving irrigation practices can generate a credit on the salinity register.State and territory governments report annually to MDBA, providing new or updated information on accountable actions. This information is then collated and the registers are re-calculated each year. The updated registers are then reviewed by the Independent Audit Group for Salinity. The updating, reviewing and maintenance of the salinity register track the modelled salinity effects of accountable actions on river salinity levels at Morgan, as well as estimating the economic costs and benefits arising from these salinity effects. There are two salinity register, register A and register B. • Register A includes each accountable action that occurred after the baseline date

(1988 for New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia, 2000 for Queensland) and

jointly funded works and measures. • Register B accounts for ‘legacy of history’ or delayed salinity impacts, which have

an effect on salinity levels after 2000, but which are the result of actions taken before 1988.

Joint works and measures refer to salt interception schemes constructed as part of the 1988 Salinity and Drainage Strategy and those constructed more recently under the current BSMS. State shared works and measures refer to actions carried out by the states, such as adopting targeted river operating rules that provide downstream salinity benefits. These benefits are shown as ‘shared measures’ in the salinity registers. Individual state actions are land and water management actions which affect river salinity levels at Morgan, South Australia.The updated salinity register including new and updated entries are summarised in Table 4.New entries or updates on register AThe MDBA, during 2009–10, approved the following register A entries: • two new entries for New South Wales and Victoria related to Reduced Irrigation

Salinity Impacts in the Sunraysia region• update of the New South Wales register entry associated with the Murray Irrigation

Limited Land and Water Management Plan• update of joint works and measures register entries for Waikerie lock 2 salt

Interception scheme • South Australian component of irrigation development behind Waikerie Lock 2 salt

interception scheme• commissioning of the final stages of Pyramid Creek salt interception scheme an

associated decommissioning of Church’s Cut.New entries or updates on Register BThe MDBA, during 2009–10, approved the update of Mallee ‘legacy of history’ for New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia related to the following Register B entries:• New South Wales Mallee Legacy of History — dryland clearance• New South Wales Mallee Legacy of History — irrigation development• Victoria Mallee Legacy of History — dryland clearance • Victoria Mallee Legacy of History — irrigation development• South Australia Mallee Legacy of History — dryland clearance.

Table 4: Summary of the 2010 salinity register

ActionsNSW

($m/yr)VIC

($m/yr)SA

($m/yr)QLD

($m/yr)ACT

($m/yr)

Common-wealth

contribution (EC)

Joint works & measures 2.638 2.638 0.767 0.000 0.000 32.100

State shared works & measures 0.191 0.191 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

State actions 2.652 2.190 2.209 tbd tbd 2.600

Total Register A 5.481 5.020 2.976 tbd tbd 34.800

Transfers to Register B 0.578 0.461 1.339 0.000 0.000 0.000

Total Register B* 0.404 -0.025 1.154 0.000 0.000 0.000

Balance — Registers A & B 5.885 4.994 4.129 0.000 0.000 34.800

* Total Register B includes Transfers from Register ABlack numbers indicate a credit entry. Negative red number indicate a debit entrytbd = to be determined

Rolling reviewsSchedule B requires that each accountable action incorporated into the salinity registers undergo a rolling five-year review to provide for progressive improvement in the estimate of the salinity and cost impact of actions in both the short and long term. Independent technical peer review of each rolling five-year review is also undertaken to provide rigour to any changes recommended to the salinity registers. Tables 5 and 6 summarise the status of rolling five-year reviews.

Table 5: Status of rolling five-year reviews for all Salinity Register A entries as at 13 October 2010

Authority Register Accountable ActionsLast

ReviewReview

Deadline Status of Review

JOINT WORKS and MEASURES

Former Salinity and Drainage Works

Woolpunda SIS 2007 2012 Scheduled to be completed in 2012–13

Improved Buronga and Mildura–Merbein Interception scheme

2005 2010 Buronga being re-built — 5 yr review not required; Mildura Merbein being investigated for rebuilding — 5 yr review expected following investigations.

New Operating Rules for Barr Creek Pumps 2005 2010 Scheduled to be completed in 2010–11

Waikerie Interception scheme 2007 2012 Scheduled to be completed in 2012–13

Waikerie SIS Phase 2A 2007 2012 Scheduled to be completed in 2012–13

Changed MDBC River Operations 1988 to 2000

2005 2010 Scheduling not advised

Mallee Cliffs SIS 2005 2010 Scheduled to be completed in 2010–11

Changed Operation of Menindee and Lower Darling


Changed MDBC River Operations 2000 to 2002

2006 2011 Not currently required

Basin Salinity Management Strategy

Changed MDBC River Operations after 2002 2005 2010 Scheduling not advised

Pyramid Creek Stage 1 (Joint scheme) 2010 2015 Scheduled to be completed in 2014–15

Bookpurnong Joint Salt Interception scheme 2006 2011 Scheduled to be completed in 2010–11

Improved Buronga scheme 2006 2011 Scheduled to be completed in 2010–11

Loxton SIS 2008 2011 Scheduled to be completed in 2010–11 in conjunction with Bookpurnong review

Waikerie Lock 2 SIS 2010 2015 Scheduled to be completed in 2012–13

STATE WORKS and MEASURES

Shared New South Wales and Victoria

Permanent Trade Accounting Adjustment — NSW to Victoria


Barmah-Millewa Forest Operating Rules 2006 2011 Not currently required


ReviewReview


New South Wales

Boggabilla Weir 2007 2012 Formal submission to be completed.

Pindari Dam Enlargement 2007 2012 Formal submission to be completed.

Tandou pumps from Lower Darling 2005 2010 Scheduling not advised

NSW MIL LWMPs 2010 2015 Not currently required

NSW Changes to Edward-Wakool and Escapes


Permanent Trade Accounting Adjustment — NSW to SA


NSW Sunraysia Irrigation Development 1997-2006

2007 2012 Formal submission of final documentation to be updated.

NSW SandDS Commitment Adjustment n/a n/a One of adjustment — five year review not required.

RISI NSW 2010 2015 Not currently required

Victoria

Barr Creek Catchment Strategy 2006 2011 Review initiated will be submitted in 2011

Tragowel Plains Drains at 2002 level 2006 2011 Review initiated will be submitted in 2011

Shepparton Salinity Management Plan 2008 2013 Not currently required

Nangiloc-Colignan Salinity Management Plan 2008 2013 Not currently required

Nyah to SA Border Salinity Management Plan — Irrigation Development


Kerang Lakes/Swan Hill Salinity Management Plan

2003 2008 This register entry, known as the Lake Charm outfall channel, 5 year review was submitted to the MDBA in 2010. It is anticipated that this entry will be superseded by a new Mid-Murray Storages Register A entry.

Campaspe West Salinity Management Plan 2002 2007 Review Report submitted to MDBA

(July 2010) requires peer review

Psyche Bend 2000 2005 Completed signed off by VIC Salt Disposal Working group. Will be submitted in December 2010.

Permanent Trade Accounting Adjustment –Victoria to SA


Woorinen Irrigation District Excision 2006 2011 Review Report submitted to MDBA

(July 2010) requires peer review


ReviewReview


Sunraysia Drains Drying up 2003 2008 Completed signed off by VIC Salt Disposal Working group. Will be submitted in December 2010.

Lamberts Swamp 2004 2009 Completed signed off by VIC Salt Disposal Working group. Will be submitted in December 2010.

Churchs Cut decommissioning 2010 2015 Scheduling not advised

Mallee Drainage bore decommissioning 2008 2013 Not currently required

VIC RISI 2010 2015 Not currently required

Victorian SandDS Commitment Adjustment Not required

South Australia

SA Irrigation Development 1988 to 2009 2003 2008 Scheduling not advised

SA Component of Bookpurnong scheme 2006 2011 Scheduled to be completed in 2010–11 in conjunction with Loxton Review

SA Component of Loxton SIS 2008 2011 Scheduled to be completed in 2010–11 in conjunction with Bookpurnong Review

SA Irrigation scheme Rehabilitation 2005 2010 Response to peer review recommendations completed. Seeking Authority approval.

Waikerie Lock 2 SA Component 2010 2015 Not currently required

SA Irrigation Development Waikerie Lock 2 2010 2015 Not currently required

Qualco Sunlands GWCS 2007 2012 Not currently required

Irrigation Development behind Bookpurnong SIS


Irrigation Development behind Loxton SIS 2008 2011 Scheduled to be completed in conjunction with the Bookpurnong review

SA Improved Irrigation Efficiency Reg A 2010 2015 Response to peer review recommendations completed. Seeking Authority approval.

Table 6: Status of rolling five-year reviews for all Salinity Register B entries as at 13 October 2010


ReviewReview


New South Wales

Darling Catchment Legacy of History — Macquarie

Darling Catchment Legacy of History — Macintyre

1999 2004 Final Report to be submitted to the Authority

Darling Catchment Legacy of History — Gil 1999 2004 Final Report to be submitted to


ReviewReview


Gil Ck the Authority

Darling Catchment Legacy of History — Gwydir


Darling Catchment Legacy of History — Namoi


Darling Catchment Legacy of History — Castlereagh


Darling Catchment Legacy of History — Bogan


Lachlan Legacy of History 1999 2004 Final Report to be submitted to the Authority

Murrumbidgee Catchment Legacy of History 1999 2004 Final Report to be submitted to the Authority

NSW Mallee Legacy of History — Dryland 2010 2015 Not currently required

NSW Mallee Legacy of History — Irrigation 2010 2015 Not currently required

Victoria

Campaspe Catchment Legacy of History 2003 2008 Modelling currently in progress and will be reported shortly. Estimated timing for submission to Authority is 2012.

Goulburn Catchment Legacy of History 2003 2008 Modelling currently in progress and will be reported shortly. Estimated timing for submission to Authority is 2011.

Loddon Catchment Legacy of History 2003 2008 Modelling currently in progress and will be reported shortly. Estimated timing for submission to Authority is 2012.

Kiewa Catchment Legacy of History 2003 2008 Modelling currently in progress and will be reported shortly. Estimated timing for submission to Authority is 2013.

Ovens Catchment Legacy of History 2003 2008 Modelling currently in progress and will be reported shortly. Estimated timing for submission to Authority is 2013.

Victoria Mallee Legacy of History — Dryland 2010 2015 Not currently required

Victoria Mallee Legacy of History — Irrigation 2010 2015 Not currently required

South Australia

SA Mallee Legacy of History — Dryland 2005 2010 Review request submitted to Authority for approval

SA Mallee Legacy of History — Irrigation 1998 2003 Response to peer review recommendations completed. Seeking Authority approval.

SA Improved Irrigation Efficiency Reg B 2010 2015 Not currently required


ReviewReview


SA Irrigation scheme Rehabilitation Reg B 2010 2015 Not currently required

Queensland

Queensland Legacy of History 2009 2012 Rolling 5-year review report is expected to be submitted to Authority in 2011.

Queensland Irrigation Development pre 1 Jan 2000

2010 Rolling 5-year review report is expected to be submitted to Authority in September 2011.

Register AVictorian reviewsIn July 2010, Victoria submitted to the MDBA five-year reviews for the North Central Catchment Management Authority encompassing the Lake Charm Outfall Channel (register entry name: Kerang Lakes/Swan Hill Salinity Management Plan), Woorinen Irrigation District Excision and Campaspe West Salinity Management Plan. At the same time, Victoria submitted a revised salinity impact of the Shepparton Salinity Management Plan reflecting the decision to discontinue winter disposal from groundwater pumps to the regional surface drainage system.These five-year reviews, excluding Lake Charm Outfall Channel (as this register entry is expected to be included in a new Mid-Murray Storages register A entry), will be subject to independent peer review to be coordinated by the MDBA during 2010–11.New South Wales reviewsThe MDBA approved the New South Wales Murray Irrigation Limited Land and Water Management Plans five-year review in response to the supplementary information provided by New South Wales to the independent peer review recommendations. South Australia reviewsIn September 2010, South Australia submitted to the MDBA a response to the peer review recommendations for the Berri-Renmark and Pyap to Kingston groundwater models. A final independent peer review of these models will be conducted during 2010–11 to determine whether the models are ‘fit for purpose’. Approval of these models is likely to change many of the South Australian register A entries.Register BVictorian reviewsIn October 2010, the MDBA approved the five-year review of the Victorian Mallee zone ‘legacy of history’ salinity impacts, which covers both dryland clearance and irrigation development components.During 2010, Victoria initiated a five-year review of all the Victorian Valley Register B ‘legacy of history’ entries (excluding the Mallee entries). It is expected that the review of each of the valleys will be completed within the next two years.New South Wales reviewsIn October 2010, the MDBA approved the five-year review of the New South Wales Mallee zone ‘legacy of history’ salinity impacts, which covers both dryland clearance and irrigation development components.Queensland ReviewsThe Queensland Condamine Balonne Valley Review is expected to be finalised within the next two years. This is expected to inform whether there is a need for a ‘legacy of history’ register entry for this valley.

2.6.3 Salinity models MDBA’s salinity register are underpinned by a suite of models that assist in assessing progress against end-of-valley salinity targets and the Basin salinity target at Morgan, and in estimating salinity impacts of accountable actions. These models require periodic review and approval of the MDBA as ‘fit for purpose’ to ensure continuous improvement in predictions of impacts of land and water management actions and progress against in-stream salinity targets. Jurisdictional surface water and groundwater models and other analytical techniques are used to generate estimates of salinity, salt load and flow to the River Murray. Some of these models are used for determination of the salinity, salt load and flow regimes at the end-of-valley sites (discussed in Section 2.6.5) and have established baseline conditions

(Appendix III) for the Basin catchments. The MDBA uses these data sets as input to MSM-BIGMOD (the River Murray model). MSM-BIGMOD is used in the assessment of all register entries. With the aid of cost functions, the MDBA is also able to provide estimates of the salinity cost effect of progressive increases in salinity along the river. The costs appear in the salinity registers as a $m/y figure for each entry, and are used by the jurisdictions and the MDBA to assess the benefit/cost of investment in salinity mitigation works and measures.As the groundwater and surface water processes are of variable complexities across the Basin, a model may be required to be highly complex to accurately predict salt loads or flow regimes to the river. While models are generally independently reviewed to ensure that they are ‘fit-for-purpose’, the BSMS Operational Protocols (MDBC 2005) provide some guidance as to the level of complexity required for a modelling tool, with “the effort required for the assessment of proposals” being “commensurate with the likely extent of potential salinity impacts and their associated uncertainty”. Achievements in salinity modelling during the 2009–10 are summarised below.• Consistent with independent peer review recommendations, the MDBA approved

the following models as ‘fit for purpose’:• Eastern Mallee Model Version 1.2 (EM1.2) for evaluating Victorian and NSW register

B debits for ‘legacy of history’ impacts of dryland clearing and irrigation developments.

• Eastern Mallee Model Version 2.3 (EM2.3) for determining salinity benefits of SISs in the Sunraysia region and the reduced irrigation salinity impacts of both the New South Wales and Victorian Mallee Zones.

• Australian Capital Territory (ACT) baseline conditions model which provides estimates of baseline conditions and net salt exported from the ACT.

• South Australia continues to develop a suite of numerical groundwater models for the entire River Murray in South Australia to refine quantitative estimates of salt load entering the River Murray.

• South Australia is currently addressing the peer review recommendations for the Chowilla groundwater model underpinning the detailed salinity assessment for the proposed environmental watering regime for The Living Murray icon site. It is expected that South Australia submit the revised model report to MDBA in 2010-11.

2.6.4 Salinity register governanceThe continued focus on improved accountability includes the governance arrangements for the salinity registers. Currently, each potential entry is assessed by groundwater and hydrological models using the most recent data available. The process, supported by appropriate documentation, includes notification of actions, modelling the expected impacts, and the formal decision making which oversees model accreditation and the endorsement of changes to the registers.This process will be greatly enhanced by the use of a purpose-built database, the development of which has been an on-going task. In 2009-10 significant improvements were made to the initial version of the database. The database, when completed, will enable the relationship between decisions, correspondence and technical documentation associated with each register entry and documents to be transparent and auditable.

2.6.5 Monitoring Stream monitoring is a key aspect of BSMS implementation. The data collected at the end-of-valley target sites provide salinity, salt load and flow information for the Basin’s catchments, or in some cases a series of interpretation sites along the river. Interpretation sites are used to monitor salinity levels for shared rivers or valleys that cross state boundaries.

Over time, data from both end-of-valley sites and interpretation sites will inform the review of end-of-valley targets and the register B ‘legacy of history’ impacts from tributary valleys. Monitoring involves the collection, analysis, reporting and use of information to support BSMS implementation. Monitoring of flow and salinity is critical to assessing real-time salinity levels and current progress towards salinity targets (see Section 2.3).Table 7 summarises progress in monitoring at BSMS sites over the last 11 years (2000–10). The middle column provides the percentage of time salinity (EC) measurements that have been monitored for each site. The available daily salinity measurements over the last 9 years have significantly increased and remains between 76% to 83% since 2006.The third column (Table 7) represents the percentage of time that salt load can be calculated for all monitoring stations. The slight reduction in the percentage of time between the middle and third column reflects occasions when only EC or flow is recorded. Salt load is unable to be computed without both parameters.Table 7: Availability of monitoring data 2000–2010

YearAggregate percentage of days with EC

recordsAggregate percentage of days with flow and EC

records2000 43 342001 48 382002 64 562003 69 602004 85 762005 75 672006 83 752007 79 702008 80 722009 82 752010 76 72

Table 8 provides a list of BSMS sites for which data gaps in either flow or EC for specific end-of-valley and interpretation sites have been identified for the 2009–10 year. Data gaps are deemed to have occurred where EC or flow is recorded less than 95% of the time over the 2009–10 year. Data gaps arise as a consequence of equipment malfunction, dry conditions or poor quality data. Salinity is unable to be recorded if the water level at a site falls below the measuring probe; a condition indicative of negligible or zero flow.

Table 8: Sites with less than 95% data availability for 2009–10

Site MeasuredNo. of days with

recordsPercentage of days

with recordsAvoca at Quambatook Flow 0 0Avoca at Quambatook Salinity 0 0Broken at Casey’s Weir Salinity 0 0Campaspe at Campaspe Weir Flow 0 0River Murray at Murray Bridge Flow 0 0

River Murray at Redcliffs Flow 0 0Lachlan at Forbes Flow 48 13River Murray at Redcliffs Salinity 49 13Barwon at Mungindi Salinity 58 16Murrumbidgee at Hall’s Crossing# Salinity 203 56Cuttaburra at Turra Salinity 233 64Warrego at Barringun No 2 Salinity 233 64Culgoa at Brenda Salinity 241 66Culgoa at Brenda Flow 242 66Castlereagh at Gungalman Bridge Salinity 265 73Wimmera at Horsham Weir Salinity 270 74Campaspe at Campaspe Weir Salinity 277 76Darling at Wilcannia Flow 280 77Loddon at Laanecoorie Salinity 287 79Darling at Wilcannia Salinity 335 92River Murray at Lock 6 Salinity 336 92

# EC sensor disabled from 20/1/2010

3. VALLEY REPORTS

As performance against end-of-valley targets requires complex modelling over the benchmark period, such progress is only required to be reported in rolling five-year reviews of valleys for which an end-of-valley target has been set. However it is deemed useful to provide an indication of actual salinity outcomes over the reporting year for each of the valley sites. Table 9 is a summary ‘report card’ which contains flow and salinity data for each end-of-valley site (see Figure 4 for site locations). The full reports detailing partner governments valley actions are provided in the individual governments reports.Appendix V provides a comparison of the salinity levels and salt loads for 2009–10 against long-term records. The length of the record may vary from site to site. Owing to extended dry conditions across much of the Basin over the last decade, there are some sites where river flows ceased for long periods of time. At these times measurements of salinity and flow are not accurate and therefore salinity and salt load records may be incomplete.

4. RESPONSE TO THE INDEPENDENT AUDIT GROUP-SALINITY

In April 2010, Basin Salinity Management Advisory Panel with representatives from contracting governments and the MDBA–BSMS program held a workshop to formulate a collective set of actions to address the 14 recommendations contained in the 2008–09 Report of the Independent Audit Group for Salinity. The workshop enabled the Basin Salinity Management Advisory Panel to appreciate the implications of the Basin plan on timing of action on some of the recommendations, and the differences in significance and the order of priority for specific jurisdictions. Progressing some of these recommendations (eg. where strategies to be developed for Basin-wide application) require assistance and resources from partner governments.The audit recommendations which are applicable to the MDBA are itemised and progress reported in Table 10.

5. KEY PROJECTS FOR 2010–11

Key priorities for 2010–11 financial year and beyond include completion of the obligations contained in the Schedule B of the Murray–Darling Basin Agreement and continuation of ongoing projects and initiation of new projects to implement the broad objectives set out in the Basin Salinity Management Strategy. The priorities are normally aligned with Schedule B obligations, outstanding mid-term review recommendations (excluding those expected to be addressed in the Basin Plan) and the high priority recommendations made by the Independent Audit Group for Salinity. In the 2010–11 year, the main priorities for the BSMS program include:a. completion of regular Schedule B obligations

• annual reporting• annual audit• rolling five-year reviews of accountable actions• further development and review of BSMS models• assessment of new accountable actions.

b. continuation of work (conceptual model and salinity mitigation options) on managing flood-recession salt mobilisation risks from the floodplains

c. development of operational response plans to manage real-time river salinityd. development of accountability arrangements for salinity impacts of environmental

watering (TLM, Commonwealth and state actions)

e. review of Schedule B under sections 152 of the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement and progress subsequent changes to BSMS Operational Protocols as required (section 151 of the agreement)

f. further work required to establish consistency in irrigation salinity assessment across jurisdictions

g. continuation of joint works and measures program which will include new investigations of opportunities, an accelerated construction program, and improvements to the operational performance of existing salt interception schemes

h. review of current catchment salinity management strategiesi. assessment of climate change impacts on salinity dynamics within the Murray–Darling

Basin.These priorities require substantial resources within the BSMS program. Current capacity within the BSMS program may not be sufficient to drive all of these priorities simultaneously, and hence some delays may occur in progressing items (h) and (i), listed above.

6. REFERENCES

Commonwealth of Australia (2009). Water Act 2007: Act No. 139 — Reprint.Murray-Darling Basin Authority (2010 a). Report of the Independent Audit Group for Salinity 2008-09. Murray-Darling Basin Authority, Canberra.Murray-Darling Basin Authority (2010 b). SalinityTargets Review: Review of Basin Salinity Management Strategy end-of-valley sites, monitoring and targets (Report 2). Report prepared for the MDBA by Sinclair Knight Merz (SKM).Murray–Darling Basin Commission, 2008, BSMS Mid-Term Review — Final Report, Murray–Darling Basin Commission, Canberra (11/08).Murray–Darling Basin Commission, 2005, Basin Salinity Management Strategy Operational Protocols, Version 2.0, Murray–Darling Basin Commission, Canberra (35/05).Murray–Darling Basin Commission, 2001, Basin Salinity Management Strategy 2001–2015, Murray–Darling Basin Commission, Canberra.

APPENDIX I: EXTRACT FROM THE REPORT OF THE IAG-SALINITY 2009–10

Executive summary and recommendationsIntroductionIn August 2001 the Murray–Darling Basin Ministerial Council (the Council) launched the Basin Salinity Management Strategy (BSMS)1. In December 2008 the Murray–Darling Basin Commission (MDBC) was succeeded by the Murray–Darling Basin Authority (MDBA). Schedule C to the Murray–Darling Basin Agreement, which set down the legislative framework for the implementation of the BSMS, became Schedule B to the Murray–Darling Basin Agreement, which is Schedule 1 to the Water Act 2007 (Commonwealth). Schedule B provides for the appointment of ‘independent auditors for the purpose of carrying out an annual audit’, whose task is to review progress on implementing the BSMS. The three members of the current Independent Audit Group for Salinity (IAG-Salinity) were appointed in October 2008.The terms of reference for the IAG-Salinity and Schedule B require IAG-Salinity to review progress on the BSMS both broadly and in terms of the steps laid down in the Schedule. The terms of reference also require it to focus on measuring and recording progress of the BSMS, and the outcomes at 30 June each year. This report presents the consensus view that IAG-Salinity has reached in undertaking the audit covering the 2009–10 financial year. The following summarises the most important of our findings. The main text provides context, the findings and recommendations in detail.The state contracting governments, including the Australian Capital Territory and the MDBA submitted reports on their activities, valley reports, the status of five-year rolling reviews and BSMS salinity register entries or adjustments. These reports contained the necessary information to make an assessment. The Australian Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities also submitted a very brief report.The audit process adopted by IAG-Salinity included reviewing these reports and the salinity registers and their supporting documentation. This was followed by meetings with staff representatives of the jurisdictions and MDBA. The recommendations were developed with their involvement.

The 2009–10 context for Basin Salinity Management Strategy implementationIn 2009–10, thinking on the BSMS has been influenced by the increasing rainfall in the northern Basin and recovery of the water levels in the River Murray, a continuing gap in funding, the purchase of large quantities of water by governments and the release of the Guide to the proposed Basin Plan. The long-term drought in the southern Basin has had a significant impact on the salinity of the region. The low river flows have led to significantly increased salinity levels in the Lower Lakes and the Coorong and many short-term decisions had to be made to manage the risks salinity posed to critical human water needs and the ecology of the region.

1 Murray–Darling Basin Ministerial Council 2001, Basin Salinity Management Strategy 2001–2015, MDBC, Canberra.

This is the first year that the Basin salinity target, as defined in Schedule B at Morgan of 800 EC for 95% of the time during the benchmark period, has been reached. The delivery of low salinity water from upstream storages down the River Murray and the operation of salt interception schemes to reduce salt inflows from regional watertables to the river meant that water quality has been good although river flows have been low. The lack of high river flows for 14 years in the River Murray has meant that salt has not been exported from the Basin and is most likely building up along the river valleys. From previous experience, river salinities following a high river flow may increase significantly. Watertable levels have been falling throughout the Basin during the drought but the recent higher rainfall may result in watertables rising quickly in previously salted areas. The impact of rising watertables on the landscape, irrigation and river salinities is unknown at this stage. The purchase of water from irrigation, the improvement of irrigation practice and the use of that water for ecological purposes can effect salinity outcomes within the Basin. The salt mobilisation that may occur from watering wetlands is currently being quantified, but the total impact is not yet known. The impact that retiring some irrigation activity may have on watertables and the accounting of salinity flows from these sites into the river is unknown. The manipulation of flow regimes with the large volumes of water now purchased for environmental watering may also have a positive impact if undertaken at the appropriate time. This has added to the complexity of managing salinity in the river. Protocols need to be developed for optimal operational efficiency.The funding of salinity programs directly from national programs has not occurred during the current year. The lack of specific funding for salinity, together with lowered watertables during the drought reducing the visual expression of the salinity problem, has led many catchment management authorities to invest in more generic programs, reducing the momentum on tackling the salinity issue. Most states have maintained a program in salinity but it is evident that skilled staff numbers at a state level are reducing.The Guide to the proposed Basin Plan was released at the time of the audit and, while not considered by the IAG-Salinity, it was pleasing to recognise from MDBA’s briefing to the IAG, that the proposed implementation will build on the work of the BSMS and that the Guide had embraced a number of the new directions proposed by the mid-term review and recommendations of previous audits.

Progress in implementing Schedule B – Items for special mentionImplementation of the Basin Salinity Management StrategyIt is evident that the implementation of the BSMS has progressed in three phases. The first phase has been the implementation of the works and measures program where salt interception schemes were investigated and constructed. This, together with intense model development by the partners, has decreased uncertainty in the salinity registers. The works and measures program has been highly successful and will deliver a salinity reduction of greater than 61 EC at Morgan by 2012, and has the potential to deliver a further reduction of 50 EC. Beyond that there is little scope for any cost effective works and measures programs for mitigating salinity.The second phase has been the considerable purchase of large quantities of water by governments and the use of that water for watering of ecological sites. The recent acknowledgement that there may be salinity accountability implications from doing this has led to a joint activity between the jurisdictions to understand the processes and start some analysis of the accountability for these actions.The third phase is the remaining elements of the BSMS that relate to land-based mitigation. Further studies of catchments and sub-catchments, particularly the upper

catchment areas, has demonstrated that with close analysis, priority catchments which contribute saline water can be selected for remedial investment. Using the tools developed by jurisdictions to prioritise catchments for investment across the Basin has greater merit than the current practice of investing small amounts of funds over large areas where the impact of those investments on salinity cannot be measured and accounted for. Given the works and measures program is all but complete, a concerted effort into the land management elements of the BSMS may provide the opportunity to make progress on all the nine elements of the strategy.

Current salinity management in the BasinDuring previous droughts, River Murray real-time salinities were much higher than those recorded in the current drought. The reduced salinities during the drought can be attributed both to the low salinity water coming from the main storages in the upper catchments and to the salt interception schemes protecting this water from regional salinity inflows. Table 1 shows that the model predictions for river salinity at Morgan over the benchmark period (1975–2000), are less than 800 EC for 95% of the time. This is the first time since the inception of the BSMS in 2001 that the Basin salinity target has been achieved. Figure 1 shows the effect of salinity management in the Murray–Darling Basin on salinity at Morgan, based on actual measurements and predicted salinity if management had not occurred. Without management, salinity at Morgan would have been in the range 53 to 1,411 EC above the observed levels during 2009-–10 and would have been destructive to most irrigated plantings and urban areas, including significant populations downstream of Morgan that source water from the River Murray.These results show the relevance of the BSMS in protecting the assets of the Basin. It is important to continue to monitor these targets as irrigation footprints change and river flows adjust over time.Table 1: The simulated salinity levels (EC) summary at Morgan, South Australia for baseline and 2010 conditions over the 1975–2000 benchmark period

Simulation period Mean Median 95 percentile

Percentage time over

800 EC

Percentage time less

than 800 EC

Simulated baseline (1988) conditions over benchmark period (1975–2000)

665 666 1,058 28 72

Simulated 2010 conditions over benchmark period (1975-–2000)

510 484 787 4 96

Figure 1: Mean daily salinity levels from July 2009–June 2010 compared to modelled salinity levels without salinity mitigation actions (‘no further intervention’ scenario). The difference is assumed to be the effect of salinity management.

Flood recession salt risksThe progress being made since the last audit has explored the risks of salt entering the rivers following a flood. This is timely with the recent changes in the weather patterns and increased flows through the Basin. It is essential that this work is completed and operational response plans are developed to manage flood recession salinity.

Environmental wateringIt is essential that the progress being made on the accountability for salinity impacts from environmental watering is continued and taken through to a conclusion. Environmental watering is taking place and the salt risks from this in-valley activity need to be determined. Purchasing water from irrigation schemes does not immediately provide salinity credits for the purchased water as it takes a long time for groundwater levels below a retired irrigated area to fall. Methods of delivering water into wetlands compared with natural flows over banks may have different effects on the concentration of salinity in the streams. Timing of river flows around an environmental watering can change the real-time instream water quality. There is a lot of goodwill by the jurisdictions for this work and it is important it is completed.

Land management strategiesGood information and tools have been developed to tackle the elements of the BSMS that target salinity management for the dryland areas of the Basin. The tools for prioritising those catchments that respond to land management strategies are maturing and it may be possible to measure the difference being made instream. It is important that the different approaches being taken by the jurisdictions are shared and common programs developed for the dryland areas across the Basin. A focus on the dryland would also assist the catchment management authorities to prioritise their work rather than, in some cases, continuing to invest small amounts in land management where the impact is not measurable. It may also lead to the policy makers understanding the return that can be achieved and lead to an increase in funding for dryland areas.

Salinity outlook

While Basin instream salinity has met the target at Morgan for the first time, the on-going risk from increasing salinity is still a concern. The BSMS forward predictions may have been too high given the improved information now available about the upland catchments, the current buy back of water for environmental use and the impending impact of climate change. It is important to again determine the salinity risk leading up to a revised BSMS as required in Schedule B for 2012. It is also important to develop a relationship between the accountable actions in the registers and the target at Morgan to determine whether the credits in the registers can be used for development without affecting the target at Morgan. In the meantime, as a precaution, IAG-Salinity suggests that it is important that the second round of 40 EC credits achievable from the works and measures program, as recommended in the mid-term review, be progressed while the impetus is there.The IAG-Salinity’s opinion regarding the balance of salinity credits and debits for each stateSchedule B, Clause 16 (1) provides as follows:16. (1) A state contracting government must take whatever action may be

necessary:(a) to keep the total of any salinity credits in excess of, or equal to, the total of any

salinity debits, attributed to it in Register A; and(b)to keep the cumulative total of all salinity credits in excess of, or equal to, the

cumulative total of all salinity debits, attributed to it in both Register A and Register B.Register A currently shows New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia to be in net credit, while register B (including provisional items) shows New South Wales and South Australia to be in net credit, and Victoria slightly in debit. For the combined registers, all three states are in credit.Opinion on register balances: IAG-Salinity has examined the registers as provided for this audit, and has come to the opinion that New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia are in a net credit position. In line with a recommendation of the IAG-Salinity’s 2007–08 report, the methods of calculating the entries in registers A and B were harmonised in 2009–10.

The accuracy of the MDBA in maintaining the salinity registersDuring 2010, the MDBA had a significant meeting with each of the jurisdictions and examined every line in the register. Decisions from the meetings were documented and with the current information the registers reflect the best information available at this time. Technical issues concerning some South Australian groundwater models prompted low confidence in the state’s A and B register entries until the issues have been well sorted. Outstanding reviews of Victorian and Queensland entries are the subject of Recommendation 7 in this report.Opinion on the MDBA accuracy in maintaining the registers:The IAG-Salinity found no inaccuracies in the MDBA’s maintenance of the registers, as provided for incorporation into this report.Updating the MDBA’s salinity registersThe audit did not identify any requirement to update individual entries in the registers incorporated in this report, aside from the matters that need addressing for the next audit, referred to above and in the main body of this report.

RecommendationsThe following are the recommendations of the IAG-Salinity, given in two groups – high and normal priority. Within the high priority group, the recommendations are in

descending order of priority.The IAG-Salinity recommends:

High priority:

1. Flood recession salinity risks: That the MDBA, with advice from the Basin Salinity Management Advisory Panel, continue this program as a matter of urgency and prepare operational plans required to manage the salinity risks.

2. Accountability for salt mobilisation by environmental watering: That the MDBA with advice from Basin Salinity Management Advisory Panel complete a framework for accountability for the salinity effects of environmental watering to enable such actions to be entered onto the salinity registers.

3. Re-assessing salinity risk in the Basin: A comprehensive review of the currently projected salinity risk in the Basin for 2050 should be undertaken by the MDBA with advice from Basin Salinity Management Advisory Panel while the Basin Plan and the environmental watering plans are being developed as a first step in producing the next phase of salinity management. The review should take into account the re-assessment of salt loads from individual catchments, the water buyback, and climate change scenarios.

4. Prioritising catchments and sub-catchments for salinity management: The MDBA should facilitate assessment of currently available tools that prioritise catchments with high salinity outflows or salinity risk and allow the reduction in salinity outflows from the application of a range of recommended land and water management actions to be measured.

5. Coal seam gas

(a) Queensland should formally document and provide to the MDBA the policy framework and processes it is using to manage coal seam gas developments to minimise salinity risks to the Basin.

(b) New South Wales should report to the MDBA on its policy framework for coal seam gas developments in New South Wales, identifying the processes that can be used to minimise any potential salinity risk in the Basin.

6. Joint works and measures program Pike River: Pike River salt interception scheme construction should be implemented as a precautionary approach to salinity management in the Basin given the predicted 2050 salinity outcome based on current models and the minimal credits available from retiring irrigated lands show that the probability of meeting the Morgan Basin salinity target into the future is low.

7. Outstanding reviews of register items: (a) Queensland outstanding reviews of registers A and B items need to be progressed (b) All outstanding reviews of Victorian register B items need be completed, in

particular the Goulburn Broken and Loddon catchments legacy of history salinity impacts should be assessed using detailed modelling

(c) South Australia salinity groundwater modelling technical review be completed so it can be accepted by MDBA

(d) New South Wales formally submits to the MDBA each of the register B valley five-year reviews so they can be finalised.

8. Resourcing of salinity in catchment plans: Funding for catchment plans to address salinity issues needs to be increased to ensure the skills, knowledge and actions built up during the first nine years of BSMS are not lost.

9. Relationship between registers and the target at Morgan: The consistency between the credit and debit balances of the registers and the target at Morgan needs to be established, taking into account the likely effects of environmental watering and the Basin Plan, given that 2010 is the first year that the target at Morgan has been met while register A has been in credit for each jurisdiction for some years.

10.Irrigation Salinity Accountability Framework: The MDBA, with advice from Basin Salinity Management Advisory Panel, facilitate the development of a consistent framework for the accountability of irrigation salinity impacts including improved knowledge of district-scale irrigation related groundwater recharge. MDBA should continue capturing the irrigation improvement measures and unbundling water from lands to inform this process. MDBA should promote irrigation as a special application case in revised groundwater modelling guidelines being prepared by the National Water Commission.

11.Salinity expertise for the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder: To facilitate appropriate salinity accounting and operating conditions for environmental watering activities, and strategic water purchasing, the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder should consider including skills in floodplain salt mobilisation on its Environmental Water Scientific Advisory Committee. Increased collaboration is also required between the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder and partner governments to incorporate the considerable existing knowledge and expertise.

Normal priority:

12.Consistent Basin-wide land use databases: The MDBA should facilitate the development of a set of databases that describe land use at catchment scale across the Basin for use in prioritising dryland catchments for land management improvement.

13.Science skills audit to support the salinity program: MDBA and the jurisdictions should review their sources of science expertise to support the BSMS and propose strategies to enable the program to be supported with ongoing appropriate skills into the future.

14.Updating the valuations in the registers: That the registers reflect the current dollar value of the assets at risk and these be updated annually.

15.Defining the uncertainty in the register items: Uncertainties in the registers need to be more transparent and the meaning of high, medium and low confidences defined.

16.Recording the mitigation decisions required during the drought: That South Australia should document the recent actions taken (particularly below Lock 1) during

the drought to mitigate the salinity issues and also the recent recovery within an ecosystem response and resilience context.

17. End-of-valley salinity-flow interpretations: That the MDBA facilitate a whole-of-basin analysis ofsalinity-flow hydrographs over the past wet season in order to provide insight into the natural processes that release salt to streams. This could involve synthetic models to demonstrate the key processes.18.Environmental water and salt export: In developing environmental watering

guidelines, multiple objectives such as the export of salt from the Basin and ecological health of the Coorong and Lower Lakes should be considered.

Determining prioritiesThe recommendations in this report were arrived at through a review of the jurisdictions’ reports, the annual BSMS implementation reports, and past IAG-Salinity reports, followed by discussion with representatives of the jurisdictions and the catchment management authorities (where present). Most of the recommendations and their relative priorities were discussed with the relevant jurisdictions. The priorities arrived at, and the rationales for the priority ranking, are similar to those of the IAG-Salinity 2008–09 report.

Recommendations of previous IAG-Salinity reportsImportant recommendations from the 2008–09 audit report not included above are: Salinity targets below Morgan (Recommendation 4)This recommendation has been covered by the proposals in the Guide to the proposed Basin Plan where drinking water guidelines will be applied in short-term targets down to Wellington, South Australia. A new recommendation has been made in this report to record actions taken during the drought to mitigate the salinity risk to communities below Lock 1 and its impact on the ecology.Within-valley targets (Recommendation 5)Some progress has been made in New South Wales but within-valley targets need to be rolled out across the Basin, as indicated in the new recommendations 4 and 17 above.Water management for climate change and salt (Recommendation 8)Progress has been made on common climate change scenarios by the MDBA and a published report is expected in early 2011. Flood and high flow salt interception scheme rules (Recommendation 10)The MDBA has undertaken a review of all salt interception scheme operations and is adjusting infrastructure installations so that all except two schemes can be operated under high flow conditions. Alignment of BSMS with catchment action plans (Recommendation 11)Some progress has been made in New South Wales but further alignment is expected from their pending salinity statement and review of catchment action plans and administrative arrangements.Inclusion of Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder in the audit (Recommendation 14)Progress has been made and ongoing discussion is expected to resolve the arrangements during 2010–2011 and is part of the new recommendations.

Previous auditsFinalising register entries with low confidence ratings (2007–8 Recommendation 7)Completed for the New South Wales and Victorian Mallee Legacy of History entries.Synergies in activities and funding (2007–8 Recommendation 10)

Still reliant on funding that may be available when the Basin Plan commences its implementation phase.Harmonising entries in A and B salinity registers (2007–8 Recommendation 15)Completed.Salinity registers and targets for Queensland (2007–8 Recommendation 16)Little progress has been made in completing the blank entries in the salinity registers and is part of the new recommendation 7 in this report.

BSMS mid-term review and Basin PlanDevelop methods to account for and achieve environmental outcomes from salinity mitigation actions through integration across MDBA programsThe Living Murray program has addressed this issue and it is also a part of the actions in the Guide to the proposed Basin Plan. Support integration and alignment of national funding initiatives and reporting with regional catchment strategies that reflect BSMS objectives and integrated catchment outcomesWith the completion of the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality there is no national program that directly funds salinity management. Increased emphasis on catchment actions to address salt mobilisation and more innovative measures to deal with the effects such as real-time operationThis has been proposed in the Guide to the proposed Basin Plan where operational targets in the water quality and salinity management plan are proposed.

APPENDIX II: BSMS SALINITY REGISTER 2010

The BSMS salinity register 2010 show individual accountable actions as credits and debits and are expressed both in EC impacts and cost effects in dollar values. Register A includes each accountable action taken after the baseline conditions date (1988 for New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia, 2000 for Queensland) and jointly funded works and measures. Accountable actions that are predicted to cause increases in salinity are referred to as debits and are shown in red. Recorded actions that result in a decrease in salinity levels are referred to as salinity credits and are written in green.Register B accounts for ‘legacy of history’ or delayed salinity impacts which continue to appear after the baseline conditions were adopted, but are the result of actions that have occurred before the date of baseline conditions. These salinity debits (in red) can be offset by credits (in green) arising from joint works and catchment management programs of actions.

Explanation of salinity register lines and headingsJoint works and measuresThe first line of the table summarises the economic benefits in the river arising from joint works and measures. Joint works and measures refer to salt interception schemes constructed as part of the 1988 Salinity and Drainage Strategy and those under the current BSMS. The registers demonstrate the benefits of the shared schemes between the investing states. The Australian Government has provided significant financial input to the schemes, which is reflected in the right-hand column showing a salinity benefit

equivalent to this contribution. A proportion of credits generated by the joint works and measures program is assigned to individual states to off-set the debits recorded in Register B. In the registers summary (Table 4), these transfers are shown in the ‘Transfers to Register B’ column.State shared works and measures Some states have carried out actions such as adopting targeted river operating rules that provide downstream salinity benefits. These benefits are shown as ‘shared measures’ in the salinity registers.State actionsThe individual state actions reflect the land and water use salinity cost and benefits to the river. Typical examples of activities that increase salinity costs include new irrigation developments and the construction of new drainage schemes that mobilise salt to the river and wetland flushing. Off-setting activities include improved irrigation efficiencies and improved river operations.Total Registers A and BThe overall cumulative accountability for salinity impacts on the river in 2009-10 is summarised in the lines ‘total register A’ and ‘total register B’. Register A maintains accountability for actions after 1 January 1988 for New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia, and 1 January 2000 for Queensland. The total for register A reflects the sum of the salinity cost of the state actions offset by joint works and measures or shared works and measures shown in the preceding lines. Register B accounts for actions that occurred before the above dates but where the impacts were not experienced until after the year 2000 because of the slow movement of groundwater and salt to the river. Balance Register A & BThe register balance provides an overall assessment of whether each Basin partner is in net credit or debit. Interpretation of this balance needs to be considered in light of different levels of confidence in individual register entries on the A and B registers.

APPENDIX III: BASELINE CONDITIONS

The Basin Salinity Management Strategy baseline conditions are the agreed suite of conditions in place within the catchments and rivers of the Basin on 1 January 2000. They incorporate: land use (level of development); water use (level of diversions); land and water management policies and practices; river operating regimes; salt interception schemes; run-off generation; and salt mobilisation processes, and groundwater status and conditions.The baseline conditions given below have been set for all four Basin states. Baseline conditions for the ACT will be tabled at Ministerial Council in November 2010. Table 11: BSMS end-of-valley baseline conditions

Valley

Salinity (EC)Salt load

(t/y)mean Valley reporting site

AWRC site

numberMedian

(50%ile)Peak

(80%ile)

Victoria

Vic Upper Murray 54 59 150,000 Murray R at Heywoods 409016

Kiewa 47 55 19,000 Kiewa R at Bandiana 402205

Ovens 72 100 54,000 Ovens R at Peechelba-East 403241

Broken 100 130 15,000 Broken Ck at Casey’s Weir 404217

Goulburn 100 150 166,000 Goulburn R at Goulburn Weir 405259

Campaspe 530 670 54,000 Campaspe R at Campaspe Weir 406218

Loddon 750 1,090 88,000 Loddon R at Laanecoorie 407203

Avoca 2,060 5,290 37,000 Avoca R at Quambatook 408203

Wimmera 1,380 1,720 31,000 Wimmera R at Horsham Weir 415200

Vic Riverine Plains 270 380 630,000 Murray R at Swan Hill 409204

Vic Mallee Zone 380 470 1,300,000

Flow to SA 426200

Australian Capital Territory

ACT tba tba tba Murrumbidgee R at Hall’s Crossing

410777

New South Wales

NSW Upper Murray 54 59 150,000 Murray R at Heywoods 409016

Lachlan 430 660 250,000 Lachlan R at Forbes (Cottons Weir)

412004

Murrumbidgee 150 230 160,000 Murrumbidgee R d/s Balranald Weir

410130

NSW Riverine Plains 310 390 1,100,000

Murray R at Red Cliffs 414204

NSW Border Rivers 250 330 50,000 Macintyre R at Mungindi 416001

Valley



AWRC site

numberMedian

(50%ile)Peak

(80%ile)

Gwydir 400 540 7,000 Mehi R at Bronte 418058

Namoi 440 650 110,000 Namoi R at Goangra 419026

Castlereagh 350 390 9,000 Castlereagh R at Gungalman Bridge

420020

Macquarie 480 610 23,000 Macquarie R at Carinda (Bells Bridge)

421012

Bogan 440 490 27,000 Bogan R at Gongolgon 421023

Barwon–Darling 330 440 440,000 Darling R at Wilcannia Main Channel

425008

NSW Mallee Zone 380 470 1,300,000

Flow to SA 426200

Queensland

Qld Border Rivers 250 330 50,000 Barwon R at Mungindi 416001#

Moonie 140 150 8,700 Moonie R at Fenton 417204A

Condamine–Balonne 160 210 10,000 Narran R at New Angeldool 422030 #

170 210 5,000 Bohkara R at Hebel 422209A

170 210 4,200 Ballandool R at Hebel–Bollon Rd 422207A

150 280 6,500 Briaire Ck at Woolerbilla–Hebel Rd

422211A

170 210 29,000 Culgoa R at Brenda 422015 #

Warrego 101 110 4,800 Warrego R at Barringun No.2 423004 #

100 130 5,500 Cuttaburra Ck at Turra 423005 #

Paroo 90 100 24,000 Paroo R at Caiwarro 424201A

South Australia

SA Border 380 470 1,300,000

Flow to SA 426200

Lock 6 to Berri 450 600 1,500,000

Murray R at Lock 4 (Flow) 426514

Berri Pumping Station (Salinity) 426537

Below Morgan 600 820 1,600,000

Murray R at Murray Bridge 426522

Valley



AWRC site

numberMedian

(50%ile)Peak

(80%ile)

All PARTNER GOVERNMENTS

Murray–Darling Basin

570 920(95%ile)

1,600,000

Murray R at Morgan (Salinity)Murray R at Lock 1 (Flow)

426554426902

# These sites are operated by New South Wales for Queensland.

APPENDIX IV: FLOW AND SALINITY DATA FOR END-OF-VALLEY TARGET SITES

APPENDIX V: COMPARISON OF 2009–10 WITH LONG-TERM IN-STREAM SALINITY AND SALT LOAD DATA FOR END-OF-VALLEY TARGET SITES

Under the Basin Salinity Management Strategy, the jurisdictions monitor flow and salinity data for the nominated end-of-valley target sites and also, where applicable, for the interpretation sites (monitoring of salinity for shared rivers or valleys that cross state boundaries). Table 12 considers the in-stream EC at each monitored site in the Basin. Records indicating the mean EC and the EC at the 80th percentile for 2009-10, as well as the long-term mean and 80th percentile EC values are shown; the length of the long-term record is also indicated. Most variation in EC between 2009-10 and the long-term estimates is due to the extended dry periods that have been occurring throughout the Basin. Salt load estimates were calculated when both EC and flow data were adequately recorded. Table 13 illustrates mean annual salt load for 2009-10 compared to the long-term mean annual loads. With the exception of Queensland end-of-valley sites, salt loads in 2009-10 are generally less than the long-term average, indicating a reduction of salt mobilisation in the Murray–Darling river system.Table 12 Comparison of 2009–10 in-stream salinity data with longer-term records

Site

Length of record (years)

50th percentile 80th percentile

2009–10 All data 2009–10 All data

NSW/Victoria shared

Murray at Heywoods 37 47 51 50 58

Victoria

Kiewa at Bandiana 37 34 44 40 56

Ovens at Peechelba East 31 47 65 57 96

Broken at Casey’s Weir@ 0 NA NA NA NA

Goulburn at Goulburn Weir^ 21 65 71 87 121

Campaspe at Campaspe Weir@ 20 836 656 855 839

Loddon at Laanecoorie 2 1237 1617 2499 2355

Murray at Swan Hill 43 58 237 65 352

Avoca at Quambatook$ 24 NA 4200 NA 8160

Wimmera at Horsham Weir 18 998 1226 1092 1665


Murrumbidgee at Hall’s Crossing# 20 186 251 361 394

Site

Length of record (years)

50th percentile 80th percentile

2009–10 All data 2009–10 All data

New South Wales

Lachlan at Forbes 11 485 492 490 646

Murrumbidgee at Balranald 44 137 156 181 227

Murray at Redcliffs~ 43 124 284 154 375

Mehi at Bronte 9 594 452 1150 635

Namoi at Goangra 18 313 406 545 556

Castlereagh at Gungalman 9 403 632 857 1073

Macquarie at Carinda 18 452 565 487 677

Bogan at Gongolgon 10 174 326 205 516

Darling at Wilcannia 46 220 383 301 763

New South Wales/Queensland shared

Barwon at Mungindi 18 215 254 231 571

Queensland

Moonie at Fenton 7 122 126 182 160

Narran at New Angledool 8 114 132 203 191

Bokhara at Hebel 8 199 190 231 221

Ballandool at Hebel-Bollon Road 8 200 174 302 244

Braire at Woolerbilla-Hebel Road 7 NA 268 NA 333

Culgoa at Brenda 8 180 164 201 190

Warrego at Barringun 9 75 60 116 141

Cuttaburra at Turra 9 123 103 184 152

Paroo at Caiwarro 6 82 78 134 120

New South Wales/Victoria shared

Murray at Lock 7 (flow) Lock 6 (EC) 48 189 339 213 450

South Australia

Berri Pumping Station (EC) 68 259 419 423 584

River Murray at Murray Bridge& 76 676 565 718 803

Basin Target Site

Murray at Morgan* 72 412 542 602 1090

* 95%ile for BSMS Target at Morgan^ Used flow data for 405200A (Goulburn River at Murchison)# EC sensor disabled from 20/1/2010& Site with no flow

@ Site with no salinity$ Spot salinity data ends in January 2008~ Flow data stops in October 1994

Table 13: Comparison of 2009-10 salt load data with longer term records

SiteLength of record

(years)

Mean annual salt load (tonnes)

2009–10 All data

NSW/Victoria shared

Murray at Heywoods 37 62200 119200

Victoria

Kiewa at Bandiana 37 8400 14000

Ovens at Peechelba East 31 22500 39000

Broken at Casey’s Weir@ 0 NA NA

Goulburn at Goulburn Weir^ 2 6900 NA

Campaspe at Campaspe Weir& 0 NA NA

Loddon at Laanecoorie 2 4800 5300

Murray at Swan Hill 43 56400 591400

Avoca at Quambatook$ 24 NA Limited data

Wimmera at Horsham Weir 18 5700 10800


Murrumbidgee at Hall’s Crossing# 20 9500 28900

New South Wales

Lachlan at Forbes 11 1600 84200

Murrumbidgee at Balranald 44 15300 75300

Murray at Redcliffs~ 27 NA 1235500

Mehi at Bronte 9 300 5100

Namoi at Goangra 18 45100 68400

Castlereagh at Gungalman 9 2700 5800

Macquarie at Carinda 18 1200 12800

Bogan at Gongolgon 10 5100 6400

Darling at Wilcannia 46 345400 205100

New South Wales/Queensland shared

Barwon at Mungindi 18 10500 43400

Queensland

Moonie at Fenton 7 20600 7200

Narran at New Angledool 8 32000 5100

Bokhara at Hebel 8 8600 2000

Ballandool at Hebel-Bollon Road 8 15300 3300

SiteLength of record

(years)

Mean annual salt load (tonnes)

2009–10 All data

Braire at Woolerbilla-Hebel Road 7 76700 23200

Culgoa at Brenda 8 72800 11600

Warrego at Barringun 9 20600 17300

Cuttaburra at Turra 9 15700 16100

Paroo at Caiwarro 6 72200 32000

New South Wales/Victoria shared

Murray at Lock 7 (flow) Lock 6 (EC) 16 86700 194700

South Australia

Berri Pumping Station 16 200000 496400

River Murray at Murray Bridge& 0 NA NA

Basin Target Site

Murray at Morgan* 43 225400 1470100

* 95%ile for BSMS Target at Morgan^ Used flow data for 405200A (Goulburn River at Murchison)# EC sensor disabled from 20/1/2010& Site with no flow@ Site with no salinity$ Spot salinity data ends in January 2008~ Flow data stops in October 1994

APPENDIX VI: BSMS OPERATIONAL PROCESSES DURING 2009–10

The Basin Salinity Management Advisory Panel terms of reference and membership (with representatives from MDBA, South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales, Australian Capital Territory, Queensland and Australian Government) were approved by the MDBA in June 2010. This advisory panel provides advice to the MDBA through the Natural Resources Management Committee.Advice of the Basin Salinity Management Advisory Panel is valuable in implementation of monitoring, evaluation and reporting components, essential to ensure accountability under the Basin Salinity Management Strategy 2001–2015. The advisory panel provides the necessary co-ordination, quality assurance and auditing functions, and liaises closely with the Technical Working Group on Salt Interception. Table 14 provides details of the meetings held during the 2009–10 year. Table 14: Meeting schedule for the BSMS Implementation during 2009–10

Meeting No. Meeting date Location Representation

BSM AP 2 26 October 2009 Sydney, NSW MDBA, SA, VIC, NSW, QLD, AG

BSM AP 3 4 November 2009 Teleconference

MDBA, SA, VIC, NSW, QLD, AG

BSM AP 4 11 February 2010 Adelaide, SA MDBA, SA, VIC, NSW, QLD, AG

Environmental Watering Workshop

12 April 2010 Melbourne, VIC

MDBA, SA, VIC, NSW, QLD, AG

Audit Recommendations Workshop

13 April 2010 Melbourne, VIC

MDBA, SA, VIC, NSW, QLD

Documents

MURRAY-DARLING BASIN AUTHORITY - mdba.gov.au … · Web viewMURRAY-DARLING BASIN AUTHORITY. Basin Salinity Management Strategy. 2009–10 Annual Implementation Report. January 2011