Northern Territory Irrigated Agriculture Feasibility Study - Stage 2 - Site Feasibility and Economic Assessment
Details:
Title
Northern Territory Irrigated Agriculture Feasibility Study - Stage 2 - Site Feasibility and Economic Assessment,
Other title
Stage 2 - Site Feasibility and Economic Assessment,
Creator
Lennon, Louise,
Dean, Frankie,
Branson, Jane,
Jacobs Group (Australia) Pty Limited,
Northern Territory. Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Collection
E-Publications,
E-Books,
PublicationNT,
15/2019,
Date
2018-06-15,
Location
Upper King River,
Lower King River,
Stray Creek,
Fergusson River,
Roper Creek,
Elsey Creek,
Swim Creek,
Wildman River Catchment,
Ti tree,
Description
Background The overall objective of the Northern Territory Irrigated Agriculture Feasibility Study (NTIAFS) is to assess the feasibility of using groundwater and surface water conjunctively to increase the available water and level of water security for irrigated agriculture in selected sites across the Northern Territory. The project has been completed in three phases:
· Master Planning – completed in May 2017
· Site Feasibility and Economic Assessment (this report)
· Business Case – (Jacobs, 2018 in preparation)
The Master Planning phase involved assessing a range of sites around the Northern Territory to determine the feasibility of using either groundwater only, managed aquifer recharge (MAR) or conjunctive water use to support irrigation development. MAR was found to be best approach in most areas to overcome the seasonal imbalance in water availability, characteristic of the Top End of the NT.
MAR in seven locations around the Northern Territory were considered during the initial Master Planning phase
including:
· Option 1 – Upper King River
· Option 2 – Lower King River
· Option 3 – Stray Creek
· Option 4 – Fergusson River
· Option 5 – Roper Creek and Elsey Creek near Mataranka
· Option 6 – Swim Creek in Wildman River catchment
· Option 7 – Ti Tree
The technical feasibility was assessed for each site and high level cost estimates were provided for five of the seven locations. A cost estimate was not completed for Roper Creek and Elsey Creek near Mataranka (option 5) or Swim Creek in Wildman River catchment (option 7).
Phase 1 recommended two sites for further assessment – Stray Creek and Lower King River. These sites were the most economical sites and involved using recharge weirs to recharge the unconfined aquifer. The technical feasibility assessment involved a high level pre-feasibility assessment and further effort was required to confirm the feasibility of these sites during Phase 2. The objective of the Phase 2 – Site Feasibility and Economic
Assessment is to confirm the feasibility of MAR at the recommended locations and complete a cost benefit
analysis.,
Notes
Made available via the Publications (Legal Deposit) Act 2004 (NT).,
Table of contents
Executive Summary -- 1. Introduction -- 1.1 Project context -- 1.2 Background -- 1.3 Phase 1 Master planning – Key findings -- 1.4 Phase 2 Site feasibility and economic assessment – Objective and approach -- 1.5 Report structure -- 2. Overview of Phase 1 – Master Planning -- 2.1 Approach -- 2.2 Results and recommendations -- 3. Daly River Catchment -- 3.1 Climate -- 3.2 Hydrology -- 3.3 Hydrogeology -- 3.4 Water availability -- 3.5 Water allocation policy -- 3.5.1 Water control districts -- 3.5.2 Oolloo aquifer -- 3.5.3 Tindall Limestone Aquifer, Katherine WAP 2016-2019 -- 3.6 Groundwater use -- 4. Stray Creek -- 4.1 Streamflow -- 4.2 Hydrogeological conceptual model of area -- 4.2.1 Hydrogeology -- 4.2.2 Groundwater flow direction -- 4.2.3 Recharge -- 4.2.4 Groundwater discharge -- 4.3 Groundwater model scenarios -- 4.4 Conclusion and Recommendation -- 5. Lower King River -- 5.1 Streamflow -- 5.2 Hydrogeological conceptual model of the area -- 5.2.1 Hydrogeology -- 5.2.1.1 Drilling program -- 5.2.2 Grounwater levels -- 5.2.3 Groundwater flow direction -- 5.2.4 Recharge -- 5.2.5 Groundwater discharge -- 5.3 Groundwater model scenarios -- 5.4 Conclusions and recommendations -- 6. Upper King River -- 6.1 Streamflow -- 6.2 Hydrogeological conceptual model -- 6.2.1 Hydrogeology -- 6.2.2 Groundwater flow directions -- 6.2.3 Recharge -- 6.2.4 Groundwater discharge -- 6.3 Groundwater model scenarios -- 6.4 Soil suitability -- 6.5 Conclusion and recommendation -- 7. Concept design of using MAR to support irrigation development -- 7.1 Source water -- 7.1.1 Data -- 7.1.2 Hydrological assessment -- 7.1.3 Results -- 7.1.4 Assessing the 20% inflow legislative rule -- 7.3 Weir concept design -- 7.4 Pumping station and distribution concept design -- 7.5 Injection borefield concept design -- 7.5.1 Target aquifer -- 7.5.2 Bore design -- 7.5.3 Bore field concept design -- 7.6 Crop selection, water use and irrigation methods -- 7.6.1 Crop selection -- 7.6.2 Crop water use -- 7.6.3 Irrigation type and area -- 7.7 Grounwater extraction bores for irrigation supply -- 7.8 Summary of concept design -- 8. Cost benefit analysis -- 8.1 Approach -- 8.2 Costs (off-farm) -- 8.2.1 Capital costs for MAR -- 8.2.2 Maintenance costs for MAR -- 8.2.3 Operating costs for MAR -- 8.3 Levelised costs for MAR -- 8.4 Costs (on-farm) -- 8.4.1 Capital costs (on-farm) -- 8.4.2 Annual operation and maintenance costs (on-farm) -- 8.5 Benefits -- 8.5.1 Melons -- 8.5.2 Mango -- 8.5.3 Okra -- 8.5.4 Fodder -- 8.6 Comparison of costs and benefits -- 8.6.1 Sensitivity analysis -- 8.6.2 Conclusions -- 9. Feasibility of MAR to support irrigation development throughout the NT -- 9.1 Key criteria for a successful MAR scheme -- 9.1.1 Source water -- 9.1.2 Suitable target aquifer -- 9.1.3 Demand -- 9.1.4 Overview of Phase 1 sites -- 9.2 MAR potential in the Daly River catchment -- 9.2.1 Katherine River -- 9.2.2 Lower King River upstream of Victoria Highway -- 9.3 MAR potential in the Northern Territory -- 10. Conclusions and Recommendations -- 10.1 Conclusions -- 10.2 Recommendations -- 11. References -- Appendix A. Lower King bore logs and summary table,