22-Feb-2013 - Clinnick - Deniliquin effluent disosal project

154 views
112 views

Published on

Presentation made by Peter Clinnick to the Riverina branch of the Australian Society of Soil Science at a workshop held at 'Old Coree', Jerliderie, NSW on 22 February 2013. Presentation outlined how recommendations for effluent disposal on a sodic heavy clay were determined.

Published in: Science, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
154
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

22-Feb-2013 - Clinnick - Deniliquin effluent disosal project

  1. 1. DeniliquinDeniliquin Effluent Disposal ProjectEffluent Disposal Project Land Resource, IrrigationLand Resource, Irrigation and Enterprise Optionsand Enterprise Options Peter ClinnickPeter Clinnick Advanced Environmental Systems Pty LtdAdvanced Environmental Systems Pty Ltd Creating a Sustainable FutureCreating a Sustainable Future Tel (03) 5482 5882 Email:Tel (03) 5482 5882 Email: AES@Echuca.net.auAES@Echuca.net.au
  2. 2. The key management considerations were: • Flooding • Soil sodicity • Nutrient loading • Soil and wastewater salinity impacts • Leaching and drainage management • Hydraulic loading and watertable impacts • Winter storage volumes and seasonal water use
  3. 3. •A landlocked depression dominates the centre of the site
  4. 4. Methods
  5. 5. SOILS Red brown earth and (Sodosol) Deniboota sandy loam/loam -Highest elevations and midslopes. Transitional Red brown earth (Sodosol) Marah clay loam - Mid and lower slopes. Non self mulching clay (Vertosol) Riverina clay -Drainage depressions.
  6. 6. Site No 62 64 65 66 69 78 80.0 84.0 85 ECe (dS/m) (0-10 cm) 5.46 0.90 0.74 1.67 1.98 1.41 1.04 0.52 0.58 ECe (dS/m) (10-40 cm) 5.67 6.01 3.08 10.26 6.05 13.50 0.31 1.06 7.65 Salinity 0.668 dS/m wastewater
  7. 7. Sodicity in the root zone Site No 62 64 65 66 69 78 80.0 84.0 85 ESP % 0-10cm 17.40 8.30 0.70 18.70 0.71 16.40 6.50 11.20 8.40 ESP % ~10-40cm 25.80 21.60 3.08 36.30 3.04 22.80 5.90 7.95 33.10
  8. 8. Effects of sodicity and compaction
  9. 9. Controlled traffic • Lasered furrow irrigation is the preferred option in this instance • Some land (laser) grading may be required before furrows can be constructed • It is important for plant productivity that the extent of land grading be minimised The system advantage : • It is compatible with controlled traffic management • Less capital intensive than dripper or sprinkler systems
  10. 10. Economic: High establishment costs and low returns c. f. irrigated crops. Unsecured sales. Social: Non identified. Environmental: Low fire risk Insect attack. Carbon emissions in harvesting. Economic: Substitute for agricultural production. Social: Flow-on employment with value adding. Environmental: Expensive set-up cost (`$8,000 per ha) Rapid growth rates. Estab $6-10,000 GM $700-1,000 ha/yr Farm forestry (Irrigated) Economic: Waterlogging losses in wet years. Social: Non identified. Environmental: Carbon emissions in harvesting. Economic: Opportunities for value adding, summer feed possibilities. Good markets close-by. Social: Employment in value adding activities Assists in maintaining demographics. Environmental: Almost full use of applied water. Estab 800-3,000 (Crop only $ 250-300) GM~ $2,450/ha Lucerne (Irrigated) Other costs and disadvantages Benefits and advantagesEstablishment cost and gross margin (per ha) Enterprise Option Enterprise Options
  11. 11. Economic: None identified. Social: Low labour requirement. Environmental: Fire damage/loss. Insect attack. Carbon emissions in harvesting. Economic: Excellent gross margins. Social: Flow-on employment. Maintains demographics. Environmental: Periodic labour inputs. Estab $3,000 GM ~$3-30,000 Years 4-5 1-2 kg/ha =>$2-3,000 Years 10=> 10 kg/ha $2- 3,000/kg=$30,000 /ha Forestry / horticultural seed orchard (Irrigated) Economic: Skills need to be acquired or purchased. Social: Non identified. Environmental: Risk of fire or insect attack. Economic: Good GM’s if well managed and marketed. Social: Flow-on employment Maintains demographics. Environmental: Improves water balance. Estab $6-10,000 GM $10-20,000 Cut foliage (predominantly eucalypts Irrigated) Other costs and disadvantages Benefits and advantagesEstablishment cost and gross margin (per ha) Enterprise Option
  12. 12. Other crops considered • Plums - Soil too sodic waterlogging in winter, irrigation problems unless soil is well managed • Olives – Could grow, but not likely to be an economic yield • Grapes - ditto
  13. 13. Rec 11. Root zone sodicity requires close monitoring some leaching, balance with watertable. Rec 12. Irrigation control in line with associated drainage requirements Rec 13. Deep ripping and mounding and substantial gypsum application 30T/ha Rec 14. Nitrogen (N) (0-10 cm) depleted: Requirement for N of 20kg/ha. Similarly, phosphorus requirements from 10-18 kg/ha. Rec 15. Essential micronutrients depleted Cu 0.5-1.5 kg/ha, Zn 3.75 kg/ha, Mo 0.025 kg/ha, Mn 0.5-1.5 kg/ha. Rec 16. Subsurface drainage and serial biological disposal systems required in the future if salinity / watertable levels increase Rec 17. Green manure crops for several years to build up soil organic matter
  14. 14. Soil Mapping & Land Capability Water & Wastewater (EPA Approvals) Flora and Fauna Surveys Environmental Impact Assessments Cultural Heritage Management Plans Energy Assessments & Carbon Accounting (03) 5482 5882 pc@environmentalsystems.com.au

×