IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROPOSED ONE PLAN NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PROVISIONS

(1)

Councillors’ Workshop 11 June 2013

Implementation of the Proposed One Plan Nutrient Management Provisions ^{Page 1}

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROPOSED ONE PLAN NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PROVISIONS

1. PURPOSE

1.1. The purpose of this report is to set out potential options available to Council for selection to implement the restricted discretionary nutrient management rule contained in the Proposed One Plan (POP) (as decided by the Environment Court). This options report, regarding implementation, has been prepared at the request of the Council as a result of the resolution at the Council meeting on 28 May 2013.

1.2. The report will be presented at a workshop on 11 June, where options can be refined before a final report is made to Members.

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2.1. There are two decisions required of Council. The first relates to the consent process for restricted discretionary activities. The second involves deciding on the possible methods that will support the consent process.

2.2. Four options for the consent process are included in this paper. The options operate on a continuum between requiring the farm to operate as it currently does with no specific mitigation required through to applying good management (mitigation) practices. The continuum runs from a more hands-off process through to a more hands-on process.

These options are included in Annex 1.

2.3. The methods included in Annex 2 are suggested to apply regardless of the consent process option that is selected.

2.4. This paper is in response to Council’s resolution on 28 May to:

(a) “Notes the concern in the community about the possible economic impact of nutrient management rules.

(b) Notes that Council is currently engaged in undertaking further economic analyses of the potential impacts of the nutrient management policies and rules with the Ministry of Primary Industries and Dairy NZ.

(c) Directs the Chief Executive to scope ways to implement the nutrient management policies and rules in the Proposed One Plan and bring these options as a matter of urgency to a Councillor workshop (11 June).

(d) Notes that Council will look to introduce a plan change should the programme for implementing nutrient management policies and rules suggest that managing the effects of nutrient leaching is not economically and environmentally sustainable for the community.”

(2)

3. DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS (to be formally considered in a Council meeting) That the Committee recommends that Council:

(a) Confirms the option(s) for implementation of the nutrient management policies and rules in the Proposed One Plan.

(b) Directs the Chief Executive to communicate the selected implementation option(s) to all interested parties.

(c) Directs the Chief Executive to provide Council with an analysis of the cost implications of assisting with funding soil maps, nutrient management plans and farm optimisation studies and the costs of additional internal resources required to implement the nutrient management provisions.

(d) Directs the Chief Executive to develop an implementation protocol for approval by the Council.

4. FINANCIAL IMPACT

4.1. Any financial impact associated with funding the method options contained within Annex 2 will be reported separately to Council.

5. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

5.1. Various mechanisms for achieving community engagement are needed once the option(s) for implementation are selected.

6. BACKGROUND

6.1. The nutrient management provisions are part of a package of mechanisms designed to maintain and improve water quality. It is useful to reflect on the package of mechanisms to understand where the nutrient management provisions fit.

6.2. Section 6.1.4 of the POP provides a summary of the issues regarding water quality:

“In the past, the biggest threats to water quality were municipal (e.g., sewage), industrial (e.g., meat works and fellmongers) and agricultural (dairy shed effluent) discharges.

Although considerable improvements have been made to discharges to water, further improvement is still possible and necessary.”

6.3. Maintaining and enhancing water quality is signaled in the POP, and is required to be managed under the RMA and the National Policy Statement – Freshwater Management 2011. As stated in the Horizons 2013 State of the Environment Report: “62% of sites are classified as poor or very poor for nitrogen concentrations.¹” Other contaminants are also an issue for the Region e.g. sediment in the Whanganui River.

6.4. Schedule AB in the POP establishes values for each water management sub-zone in the Region. Targets for water quality are set in Schedule D. These were developed to provide a benchmark for activities that are regulated e.g. the point source discharges. In the

1 P15 “Embark on a Journey Into the World Around You” 2013 State of the Environment Report. Horizons Regional Council.

(3)

development of the Schedules it was accepted that there are four drivers all of which need to be considered. The drivers are environmental, economic, social and cultural.

6.5. There are a range of regulatory and non-regulatory methods which holistically provide for the maintenance and enhancement of water quality and manage contaminant levels. It is this mix of approaches that will achieve Council’s publicly stated environmental outcome of: “Where water quality targets are not met prior to this Plan becoming operative, they are either met or improved from the current state where targeted for action or, where they are not targeted for action, they are no worse than prior to this Plan becoming operative².”

6.6. The POP regulates a range of activities that discharge to water e.g., consents are required in relation to industrial and territorial authority discharges and the discharge of untreated human effluent to water is a prohibited activity meaning consent cannot be applied for.

6.7. There are also a range of non-regulatory actions the Council is involved in to achieve the maintenance and enhancement of water quality e.g., the SLUI Programme (designed to manage sediment amongst other things) and the Manawatu River Leaders Accord (which is a collaborative process with industry, territorial authorities and iwi to amongst other things reduce discharges of contaminants to the Manawatu River).

6.8. The nutrient management provisions in the POP are then only one of the methods used for maintaining and enhancing water quality. The sole focus for achievement of the maintenance and enhancement of water quality and the achievement of the targets does not rest with the nutrient management provisions. Therefore choices made regarding implementation of these provisions can be made in the knowledge that they are part of a package all of which require time to achieve. The pace of implementation is provided for within this package. The concept of pace of change is supported by the NPS Freshwater Management which does not expect change to occur immediately.

7. INTERESTS/OBJECTIVES

7.1. Parts of the community have expressed concern about the nutrient management provisions and there is genuine fear amongst some as to what the provisions will mean.

Council’s interests, as well as understanding the sector’s and other interested parties interests/concern is critical to making an informed choice regarding implementation. The interests of all parties, as currently understood, were expressed in the paper provided to the Council Meeting on 28 May 2013, as eight objectives being:

(a) Provide time for the sector to achieve the outcomes.

(b) Provide certainty to the sector in a timely manner.

(c) Engage with the sector including key stakeholders.

(d) Be economically as neutral as possible on individual farm holdings and the sector at large.

(e) Achieve progressive steps to maintain and enhance water quality at a rate envisaged by the NPS.

(f) Recognise and reward good management practice.

(g) Not reinvent the wheel i.e. build on industry good management practice including the Dairy Accord and technological improvements.

22 P6-32 Section 6.6 Anticipated Environmental Results Proposed One Plan

(4)

(h) Monitor the economic and environmental indicators over time and refine statutory Plan processes as necessary.

7.2. In addition, when selecting appropriate options for implementation, it is considered important to manage the following two interests:

(a) Provide farmers with the opportunity to make a choice as to what works best for them. [A key criticism has been the inability to make an individual choice and have control over the decision.]

(b) Ensure the option operates within the legal bounds of the POP provisions. [The rule exists and to select an option that would be unlawful would potentially open the Council up to Judicial Review proceedings.]

7.3. The following options have been assessed with the above interests/objectives in mind.

Before outlining the options it is helpful to understand what the policies and rules require.

8. WHAT DO THE NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT RULES AND POLICIES REQUIRE?

8.1. As noted above, one of the interests is ensuring any option(s) operates within the legal bounds of the policies and rules. To determine what the legal bounds are it is important to know what the rules require. There has been uncertainty in the community regarding what the rules require, with a number of parties assuming all activities must meet Table 13.2 – the Cumulative Nitrogen Leaching Maximums. In essence, the rules require achievement of these maximums to remain a Controlled Activity and otherwise the consent process requires consideration of measures taken to mitigate potential effects based on information contained in a nutrient management plan. The policies outline that mitigation of effects can be achieved through the adoption of good management practices.

8.2. As a minimum the rules require that a nutrient management plan is prepared for the farm, is provided with the application and is then complied with. In order to prepare an effective nutrient management plan a soil map at farm/paddock scale is important and a properly prepared nutrient budget. (The funding implications of a soil map at paddock scale and the preparation of a nutrient management plan is discussed in section 11 below).

8.3. There is scope within the rule framework to determine what is expected in the way of good management practices and how these may be dealt with over time (in the knowledge that technology will improve over time). This is considered in relation to each of the options in Annex 1.

8.4. The options provided in Annex 1 are all considered to operate within the legal bounds of the policies and rules albeit the levels of mitigation would increase as you proceed down the options ladder as would the adoption of good management practice.

9. THE OPTIONS

9.1 The Restricted Discretionary consent process allows for an activity which cannot meet the Controlled Activity numbers to continue to operate whilst requiring good management to provide a reduction in leaching over time. Included in Annex 3 is a “mock” example resource consent decision which would be relevant for any of the options selected. It should be noted it is possible to write the decision in a way that does not refer to the Restricted Discretionary” category. The words Restricted Discretionary have been a concern for some in the community as they consider it implies the Council has too much discretion and the activity will be restricted. Whilst this is not the case removing the words from the consent decision may assist with the perception.

9.2 In approaching the development of options regarding the consent process for a Restricted Discretionary activity, it was considered necessary to separate out the actual consent

(5)

process options from options that may be chosen to support the consent process. This separation is shown graphically in Annexures 1 and 2.

9.3 The first choice to be made is what consent process option(s) is appropriate. The consent process options are shown in Annex 1.

9.4 Regardless of the option selected the basic requirement will be the preparation of a nutrient management plan as this is a requirement of the rule. Not to require this is outside the bounds of the rule and would be unlawful. Under all options consent will be granted to the existing intensive farming activity.

Options One and Two

9.5 Option One requires a nutrient management plan to be prepared. Consent would be granted at the existing leaching levels on the farm with no other specific requirements or mitigation.³

9.6 Option Two again requires a nutrient management plan. Within this option the farmer chooses to reduce their leaching levels or they are “close” to the nitrogen leaching maximums. [Note: the definition of “close” should be determined in conjunction with the sector.]

9.7 If these options are selected then it is considered best to select both as a package. The reasons for this are:

(a) Provides farmers with a choice.

(b) Recognises good management practice.

(c) Cost implications are minimised and any change is selected by the farmer and is at their pace.

(d) Provides a degree of equity in that those that want to adopt mitigation options and reduce from their current leaching levels are provided with an incentive of a longer consent term.

9.8 A key difference between Options One and Two relates to consent term with those selecting Option One having a shorter term than under Option Two. The reason for the difference being further mitigation is being adopted under Option Two and this should be recognised. The consent terms would need to align with the common catchment expiry dates. A shorter term would be between 4 and 7 years. A longer term would be between 10 and 20 years. It is suggested that the exact bounds of the consent term be confirmed in consultation with the sector. The shorter term provides a solid period of time in which monitoring of the maintenance and enhancement of water quality can be gauged which will then inform any Plan Review process.

9.9 Under Option One nothing to little is required in the way of adopting good management practice with the exception of complying with the Supply Fonterra requirements. This will only be applicable to dairy activities. Therefore the option would not meet the interests/objectives of recognising and rewarding good practice and would require other activities to not comply with even a basic industry standard. An adaption of Option One would be to require the adoption of industry good management practice across all four activities (cropping, intensive sheep and beef, commercial vegetable growing and dairy).

9.10 Included in Annex 4 is a document prepared by Waikato Regional Council and other industry parties. The document outlines what good management practice (mitigation) looks like and has industry endorsement. One of the methods included in Annex 2 is to

3 Refer to the assumptions contained in Annex 1.

(6)

develop good management practice in conjunction with industry. As a minimum with Option One good management practice could be defined.

Option Three

9.11 Under Option Three there is still a requirement for a nutrient management plan. The selection of potential mitigation options is selected by industry and an independent referral committee, which would include industry representatives, will mediate any concerns/disputes regarding mitigation options within a nutrient management plan.

Option Four

9.12 Option Four requires a nutrient management plan. The consent process is dealt with by HRC. Protocols would be developed with industry as to what are good management practices and potential mitigation options. An independent referral committee would mediate any concerns/disputes with the consent process. Consent term would depend on whether mitigation options are chosen i.e. where there is engagement in the process and a trajectory of reduction is achieved a longer consent term would be given.

9.13 The second choice is what methods are selected to support the consent process. The methods are included in Annex 2. The methods are essentially an overlay and are tools that will assist with any of the consent process options. The methods are self explanatory although if there any questions these can be discussed further at the workshop. It is considered that regardless of the consent process option selected, all of the methods should be adopted or in the case of funding (in whole or part) soil maps and farm optimisation modeling that Council is presented with further information on the financial implications (refer section 11 below). The principle reason for suggesting they all be pursued is they are sensible and practical mechanisms for assisting with the consent process.

9.14 It should be noted that the chances of Judicial Review proceedings can be minimised through having memoranda of understanding with the key parties. This is one of the options included in Annex 2.

10. PLAN REVIEW

10.1 The Plan Review process enables a reassessment to ensure the provisions are doing what they are supposed to and at a pace that achieves sustainable management of the resource whilst providing for social, economic and cultural well-being.

10.2 In selecting implementation of the POP, the Council has decided that it will: “look to introduce a plan change should the programme for implementing nutrient management policies and rules suggest that managing the effects of nutrient leaching is not economically and environmentally sustainable for the community.⁴”

10.3 This is a sensible approach. The Plan Review process has previously been presented to Council by way of a flow diagram (refer below).

4 Minutes of Council meeting of 28 May 2013.

(7)

DEVELOP (PLAN)

IMPLEMENT (DO)

MONITOR (CHECK) REVIEW (IMPROVE)

GENERIC PLANNING/IMPROVEMENT CYCLE

10.4 The Plan Review process enables the Council to check what is being achieved and to:

(a) Provide a basis for developing a shared understanding of nutrient issues in the water management sub-zones.

(b) Provide a shared understanding of the costs (economically, environmentally, socially and culturally) of maintaining and enhancing water quality.

(c) Determine what actions are required at an individual and catchment level that contribute to the maintenance and enhancement of water quality.

10.5 In selecting an option(s) for implementation it is done so in the knowledge that the Plan Review cycle provides the mechanism for checking implementation is working and the pace of change is achievable. An implementation protocol, taking a whole of catchment approach, is a mechanism to signal what would be required to inform a Review process, allow information to be shared and provide certainty to inform business decisions.

11. FUNDING

11.1 As discussed in section 8 above, there is a minimum requirement as part of the consent process for a nutrient management plan for each farm which includes a nutrient budget and a soil map at paddock scale. There are costs associated with the preparation of these.

It may be that Council wishes to assist in the funding of some of these requirements e.g.

obtaining the soil map at paddock scale.

11.2 In addition, if a farmer wishes to go further and opt to undertake mitigation practices on farm, the farm optimisation model is a method that may be able to assist. There is an opportunity for Council to work more proactively with each farmer in regards to farm optimisation and Council may wish to assist with funding (in part) this work. The data from the optimisation reports would prove valuable for any Plan Review process.

11.3 In the time available, it has not been possible to fully assess the cost implications to Council of assisting with funding of these. Staff can provide further analysis for Council’s consideration in relation to cost implications and there is a recommendation made in regard to this.

(8)

12. CONSULTATION/COLLABORATION

12.1 There remains uncertainty in the community regarding the nutrient management rules – where they apply, to whom and to what extent. It is considered crucial that one of the actions, once Council selects the preferred option(s), is to communicate the implementation approach with the community. A multi pronged communications approach will be required to reach:

(a) All of those parties within the targeted catchments (i.e. dairy, intensive sheep and beef, cropping and commercial vegetable growing).

(b) Farming activities outside of the targeted catchments (some farmers still consider they are regulated by the nutrient management provisions and they are not).

(c) The Mangatainoka farmers currently involved with the farm plans funded through the separate farm plan process funded through the Ministry for the Environment Fresh Start for Clean-Up Fund.

(d) Interested parties including the Ministry of Primary Industries, Ministry for the Environment, Dairy NZ, Fonterra, Federated Farmers, Fish and Game, Department of Conservation and the Manawatu River Leaders Forum.

12.2 Communications should as a minimum involve various face to face meetings, further detail (including a possible video link) on the Council web site and letters to the parties.

12.3 A process for developing memoranda of understanding regarding implementation, with the interested parties, is also required.

12.4 If Council is comfortable that communication is critical then it could endorse recommendation (b) above.

13. SIGNIFICANCE

13.1. This is not a significant decision according to the Council’s Policy on Significance.

Clare Barton

PRINCIPAL PLANNER

ANNEXES

A Existing Intensive Farming Activities Consent Process Options B Methods to Support Consent Process

C Consent Example (Conversion)

D Practices to Improve Water Quality: Dairy Farms

(9)

Existing Intensive Farming Activities – Consent Process Options

Controlled Activity = All intensive activities must meet the table 13.2 cumulative nitrogen leaching maximum and provide nutrient management plans. Consent granted.

Restricted Discretionary Activity

HANDS OFF

HANDS ON

Option Provide Time Certainty to Sector Economic Impact Progressive Steps to Maintain

and Enhance Water Quality

Recognise and Reward Good

Management Build on Industry Practice

1. Status Quo. Provide nutrient management plan. Consent the farm

at current N leaching. No specific mitigation required.

Acknowledges some farms are not in a position to do anything at this point.

Certainty of consent process –

automatic. Shorter consent term. Neutral. No change required.

Least progression achieved. (To be confirmed through plan review

process.)

No good management practice required.

No requirement for industry good practice. Assumes dairy farms will

meet any Supply Fonterra requirements.

2. Steps taken to reduce N leaching. Provide nutrient management plan. Steps will be or have been taken to reduce such that there is a trajectory of reduction or the farm is close to the N numbers.

Already applying mitigation options or are choosing to.

Acknowledge some farms already are or are choosing to adopt mitigation.

Certainty of consent process – automatic. Longer term consent.

Quantum of costs is chosen by farm, i.e. willing adopter. Some will have no additional cost as they have already

applied mitigations.

Increased progression achieved. (To be confirmed through plan review

process.)

Good management adopted. May choose farm optimisation as a tool to

maintain production.

Builds on industry good practice.

3. Industry makes the decision regarding mitigation. Nutrient

management plan prepared in conjunction with industry who defines

the mitigations to be applied. HRC sign off the consent.

Time for achieving the mitigation can be provided through the consent i.e.

time given to make changes.

Consent will be granted.

Control provided to Sector – providing them with certainty – but less certainty of mitigation selection for the individual although assumes the individual is informed and knows

what is expected in advance.

Costs variable depending on mitigation.

process.)

Good management is defined by

industry and required to be adopted. Builds on industry good practice.

4. HRC sign off the consent.

Nutrient management plan prepared – negotiation with HRC (assumes

protocols will be developed with industry).

Time for achieving the mitigation can be provided through the consent i.e.

time given to make changes.

Consent will be granted.

Less certainty of mitigation selection for individual although assumes the

individual is informed and knows what mitigation is expected in

advance.

Costs variable depending on mitigation

process.)

Good management is defined by

industry and required to be adopted. Builds on industry good practice.

Assumptions:

 Generally waterbodies will be fenced.

 Generally stock crossings will be bridged / culverted.

 Technology will improve over time, i.e. mitigation options will grow over time.

 All consent process options presented are within the legal boundary of the Proposed One Plan provisions.

(10)

Methods to Support Consent Process

Good management

mitigation established collaboratively with the Sector. Protocols

developed.

Ensure all parties are “on

board” with implementation option. Memoranda of

Understandings developed and signed

with key parties.

Run Table 13.2 numbers using Overseer 5.4 + 6.

Select V6 numbers for consent.

Council offers to work with farmers.

e,g,, provide soil maps and part fund farm optimisation modeling.

Annual Report on water quality state and trends to

inform Plan Review

Hold water management zone meetings to let the

community develop creative solutions and

share knowledge.

e.g. A collective resource consent application from a

number of parties.

Encourage “one”

consent package to cover all consents

required.

e.g. water permit, farm dairy effluent, land

consent.

Develop

implementation protocols. One pre-requisite will be that the approach taken to the consent process does not alter until water quality outcomes are monitored and assessed.

(11)

CONSENT GRANTED

To

Bloggs Farming Limited

To

use land for a dairy farming operation

SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONSENT CONDITIONS

General

1. This consent authorises the use of the property legally described as Lot 2 DP90970 and Lot 2 DP418469 located at approximate NZMS260 map reference S23:284-014 and NZTopo50 map reference BM34:184-395, for a dairy farming operation.

2. The consent holder shall undertake the activity in general accordance with the Nutrient Management Plan submitted to the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council (hereafter referred to as the Regional Council) on 5 April 2013.

Advice Note: The purpose of the Nutrient Management Plan is to satisfy the Regional Council that the consent holder can operate in a way that will achieve the requirements of the Rule and therefore the conditions of consent. It is not intended that there will be enforcement of any specific management practices as it is acknowledged these can vary depending on, particularly, climatic conditions. Rather, it is an assurance that the framework within which the farm will operate will not be altered to the extent that may compromise the ability of the consent holder to achieve compliance with the following conditions.

3. The cumulative nitrogen leaching maximums on the land authorised by this consent shall not exceed the maximums specified in the Nutrient Management Plan submitted in accordance with Condition 2.

4. The consent holder shall ensure that the maximum number of lactating or dry dairy cows (hereafter referred to as the herd) on the property does not exceed 300 cows.

(12)

Consent number: 107000 File Ref: 2/1/BFL

Stock exclusion

5. The consent holder must ensure that:

a. cattle are excluded from the Manawatu River and Mangapatea Stream as shown on Plan C107000A (attached to and forming part of this consent); and b. where the Manawatu River and Mangapatea Stream are crossed by cattle these

water bodies are bridged or culverted, and cattle are crossed via these structures at all times.

Advice Note: A separate resource consent may be required to install a bridge or a culvert.

Please contact the Consents Team on 0508 800 800 to discuss whether another consent is necessary.

Reporting

6. Prior to 30 June each year, commencing June 2014, the consent holder must submit to the Regional Council’s Environmental Protection Manager:

a. a new Nutrient Management Plan which details the farm management practices undertaken over the previous 12 month period; and

b. records of all fertiliser and feed supplements purchased and used (including any invoices and/or receipts of purchase) on the property described in Condition 1.

Advice Note: For the purposes of this resource consent, invoices and receipts to be provided to the Regional Council need to have the suppliers name and the amount of product visible (i.e. tonnes of supplement), but do not need to have any further details.

Other details (i.e. cost of product, bank details) can be removed from the documents (i.e. blacked out, whited out or electronically removed).

Review

7. The Regional Council, under section 128 of the Act, may initiate a review of all conditions of this resource consent annually during the month of July for the purpose of reviewing the effectiveness of these conditions in avoiding or mitigating any adverse effects on the environment. The review of conditions shall allow for:

a. following receipt of the annual Nutrient Management Plan, ensuring adverse effects from nutrient loss are appropriately mitigated; or

b. deletion or amendments to any conditions of this resource consent to ensure adverse effects are appropriately mitigated; or

c. addition of new conditions as necessary, to avoid, remedy or mitigate any unforeseen adverse effects on the environment; or

d. if necessary and appropriate, the adoption of the best practicable options to avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse effects on the environment.

(13)

DETAILS OF RESOURCE CONSENT

Consent number: 107000

Granted: 1 July 2014

Expiry: 1 July 2021

Review: Annually in July

LOCATION

Address for activity: 17 Bloggs Road, Dannevirke

Legal description: Lot 2 DP90970 and Lot 2 DP418469 Valuation Number: 14410/020/00 and 14410/020/00

Map reference: NZMS260 S23:284-014

NZTopo50 BM34:184-395

Dairy No. 47985

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

Reasons for the Decision

1. A Nutrient Management Plan has been provided as part of this application. This plan has identified nutrient leaching figures which have been set as the maximum to be leached annually over the term of this consent.

2. The application and Nutrient Management Plan has been reviewed and the actual and potential adverse effects of this activity will be no more than minor.

3. Conditions of this consent include completing and submitting a Nutrient Management Plan annually. This will ensure that the consent holder is maintaining accurate farm records and will make the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council aware of how the dairy farm operation is operating, with regard to complying with consent conditions. It will also ensure that the consent holder is running the operation in accordance with their latest Nutrient Management Plan.

4. A review condition providing for annual reviews has been included.

5. The activity is consistent with the relevant provisions of the Resource Management Act 1991.

6. The activity is consistent with the relevant Objectives and Policies of the One Plan.

Recommended by:

CONSENTS PLANNER

(14)

DECISION

For the reasons reported below, the Policy and Consents Manager of the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council (pursuant to delegated authority), grants resource consent to Bloggs Farming Limited under sections 104, 104C and 108 of the Resource Management Act 1991 to use land for a dairy farming operation at 47 Bloggs Road, Dannevirke for a term of 7 years expiring on 1 July 2021 (aligning with the Common Catchment Expiry Date of 2021).

Richard Munneke

POLICY AND CONSENTS MANAGER

1 May 2013

(15)

(16)

Dairy farms

This menu provides a range of practices for dairy farms to improve nutrient management and reduce impacts on water quality. It is designed to help identify the best options for individual circumstances. The practices listed are generally a step ahead of current regulatory expectations. They will also help farmers to better meet future sustainability challenges.

The menu should be used together with a farm management team and consultant to support current industry initiatives, such as the Upper Waikato Sustainable Milk Project and the Sustainable Dairying: Water Accord.

The starting point for using this menu is a nutrient budget and a farm system analysis, which looks at farm goals, management approaches and feed supply.

These tools will help identify the water quality improvement practices that best fit an individual farm, taking into account flow on effects on feed budgets and other farm policies. Looking at the big picture will help ensure changes in one area do not create deficits or unbudgeted costs in another.

What’s the issue?

Farmers, iwi, industry, local government and others have already done much to improve water quality, and continue to do so. However, more is needed to meet community desires for fresh water.

Water quality varies across the Waikato region from excellent to poor. This is largely due to variations in land use type and intensity, and also due to geology. In less developed parts of the region conditions are excellent and there have been few signs of deterioration. But water quality is poorer in intensively farmed areas. In some areas, urban and other non-agricultural point sources also contribute to poor water quality.

In waterways across the region, slowly but steadily rising levels of nitrogen over the last 20 years are cause for concern. Nitrogen in groundwater can take decades to emerge into surface water, and this indicator of water quality will worsen before it improves. Levels of micro-organisms are moderate to high, but stable. Sediment levels are high in places, and phosphorus levels vary.

Menu of practices to improve water quality: dairy farms

(20)

Dairy farms 3

Water quality benefits

To help determine the most effective water quality improvement practices for an individual farm, each practice’s likely water quality benefits are rated.

The ratings are based on latest research and indicate likely effectiveness in reducing the amount of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), sediment and micro-organisms entering waterways.

Topography and management regimes vary from farm to farm, as does the need for and effectiveness of each practice listed. The ratings are an indicative best estimate and assume generally accepted industry good practice is followed.

Likely water quality benefits: estimated reduction (at whole farm scale) in contaminant reaching waterways

Nitrogen (N) Phosphorus (P) ^Sediment Micro-organisms

Low

L Less than 10% Less than 20%

Medium

M From 10 to 25% From 20 to 50%

High

H More than 25% More than 50%

Farm business impacts

Each practice’s potential cost and economic benefit to the farm business are also rated. Individual farm circumstances will influence costs and benefits.

However, the menu can help you identify a short list of practices for the farm management team and consultant to consider in more detail. Many of the practices’ cost ratings are different to their benefit ratings. For example, a low cost practice may provide a high farm benefit. Also, some of the benefits may take some time to be realised.

Potential impact on farm business

Cost Benefit

Low

$

Limited input of farmer time and expenditure. Limited practice change required.

Little change to farm profit as a result of this practice, or may require small changes to farm infrastructure.

Medium

$$

Moderate input of farmer time and expenditure. Some practice change required.

Practice likely to result in a moderate increase in profitability or improved management.

High

$$$

Significant input of farmer time and significant expenditure. Significant practice change required.

Very profitable practice or results in improved management e.g. large reduction in farm operational costs.

Tell us what you think and register for updates

This menu reflects current knowledge and future editions will be produced as knowledge develops. We value your feedback, so if you have any concerns or suggestions, please contact a Waikato Regional Council Agricultural Advisor on freephone 0800 800 401 or [email protected].

To automatically receive future editions of this menu, please register at www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/menus.

(21)

Dairy farms

Management

area On farm practice Likely water quality benefit Potential impact on farm

business Factors to consider

N P ^Sediment _organisms^Micro- Cost Benefit

Whole farm planning

Whole farm business and systems analysis

Whole farm analysis will identify water quality risks. Likely water quality benefits depend on farm contour, management challenges and practices used to manage risks on farm.

$ $$$ Involves assessment of farm resources, stocking policies and farm business risks. A good starting point that will help clarify the most useful practices to consider in this menu.

Nutrient management

Do a whole farm nutrient budget

Likely water quality benefits will depend on the range of practices used to manage nutrients as a result of nutrient budget recommendations.

$ $$ Farm consultant/advisor should use OVERSEER® 6¹ to create a nutrient budget for the whole farm, with recommendations to be included in a nutrient management plan.

Apply N fertiliser in accordance with feed budget and soil conditions, with no winter N use

M ^- ^- ^- $ $$$ Requires sound nutrient and feed budgeting, soil and pasture

monitoring and accurate timing of N applications to avoid feed shortfalls. Higher benefits will be achieved through overall reductions in N fertiliser use.

Achieves much better N conversion to dry matter and is more cost efficient. Fertiliser should be applied in accordance with the Code of Practice for Nutrient Management – see www.fertiliser.org.nz.

Keep Olsen P at biological optimum using soil testing

- M ^- ^- $ $$$ Avoiding unnecessary application of P will reduce costs.

To minimise run off, apply P fertiliser when soil moisture is good and no large rainfall events are forecasted.

Consider use of lower solubility P fertiliser if soil conditions allow.

Diet substitution to reduce overall N input (use low protein supplement e.g. maize instead of high protein/

high N pasture)

M ^- ^- ^- $$ $ Requires good quality maize silage and careful feed monitoring and

budgeting. Addition of a feed pad will reduce feed wastage, but increases costs.

Can improve overall nutrient budget compared to N boosted pasture in spring because low protein supplement is more N use efficient.

The benefit of substitution will be lost if the farmer continues to offer the same quantity of high protein feed as well as the new low protein feed to their herd.

1 The OVERSEER® nutrient budgeting programme assumes many ‘low’ rated practices, such as stock exclusion from waterways and following effluent management guidelines, are already in place. If these practices haven’t yet been implemented, OVERSEER® is likely to underestimate nutrient losses. Making these changes over time may result in little change to your OVERSEER® nutrient budget even though you are achieving positive change on the ground.

(22)

Dairy farms 5

Management

Riparian management

Fence stock out of

waterways L M H H $ $$ Lower stock losses in waterways are a key benefit. Fencing can

sometimes be used to improve subdivision and pasture utilisation.

Put in culverts or bridges at regular stock crossings

L M H H $

$$$-

$$ Cost will depend on whether culvert or bridge is required. Bridges also require resource consent.

Improved crossings reduce lameness and reduce stock and vehicle travel time.

Fence stock out of wetlands and maintain water levels (i.e. avoid drainage)

M_on

flat land

L _on

steeper land

L H M $

$$-

$$ N removal effectiveness depends on wetland type, paddock slope, how long water stays in the wetland (the longer the better), and stock management (no pugging or erosion).

Fenced wetlands reduce stock losses and improve habitat for wildlife and fish. Appropriate planting and weed/pest management can further increase benefits.

Constructed wetlands M M M M $$$ $ High cost option to improve water quality of run off before it enters a stream or river e.g. from tile drainage. Not effective if little or no surface run off.

Factors to consider include optimal wetland size for catchment area, ability to harvest vegetation occasionally and weed and pest control.

Can provide habitat for wildlife and fish.

Riparian planting L M H H $$$ $ Effectiveness improves with a grass margin to help filter run off,

especially on steeper slopes. Effectiveness depends on species planted.

Ongoing weed and pest management is an added cost but reduces with time.

Can improve bank stability, provide habitat for wildlife and instream shade for fish and insects.

(23)

Dairy farms

Management

Riparian management (cont.)

Sediment trap (an engineered structure to slow water flows, reduce energy, filter sediment and allow grass growth e.g. decanting dam, detainment bunds)

L M M L $$$ $ Most useful where steady flow of run off to waterways during wet

periods and sediment/P is an issue.

Detainment bunds designed to allow ponding for no more than three days to maintain pasture. Require water storage of around 120m³/ha of contributing catchment.

Can be costly where not using existing structures.

Requires sound engineering design and ongoing maintenance.

Effluent management²

Increase land

application area L L L M $ $$ Can be beneficial where effluent K loads are above pasture requirements

with potential to affect animal health. Maximum nutrient gains can be achieved by using a whole farm nutrient budget.

Will depend whether further suitable land (topography and soil type) is available. Is likely to require changes to irrigation system design.

Can allow better fit with grazing rotation.

Move to land

application system from two pond discharge to water system

M H L H $$

$$$-

$$$ Very effective for reducing nutrients to waterways but increases farm labour requirements.

Can be a more cost effective alternative to upgrading old pond systems and allows for reuse of nutrients in the farm system, potentially reducing fertiliser requirements over time.

Maximum nutrient gains can be achieved by using a whole farm nutrient budget. Less feasible in steep areas or areas with poor soils.

For more information, check the soil map at

www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/soilsmapinfo for effluent areas.

Minimise effluent volumes at source (by reducing wash water volumes and rainwater in the system)

L L L L $ $$ Reduces pumping cost and need for storage. Improves water efficiency

on farm.

(24)

Dairy farms 7

2 Any changes to effluent storage systems must be undertaken in accordance with Industry Practice Note 21. Land application of effluent must be undertaken in accordance with best practice.

See www.dairynz.co.nz/effluentcode for more information on effluent management best practice.

Management

Effluent management (cont.)

Grow maize on the

effluent block L L ^- ^- $ $$ Effective for N and K removal and allows lower cost maize growth on

farm with less fertiliser.

Requires good maize management to minimise leaching, including direct drilling, avoiding mid-winter cultivation and timing any N applications to match peak plant uptake using split applications or slow release N. Use of additional N fertiliser will reduce benefit of N loss, so should be done in accordance with soil tests.

Affects stock rotations in summer if effluent block not available for grazing.

Export effluent solids to run off or cropping areas

M L L M $ $$ Most useful in Dairy System 5 and assumes solid separation already

occurs. See www.dairynz.co.nz/systems.

Water quality benefits only realised if fertiliser use remains unchanged.

Suits low rate effluent application systems (<6mm application depth).

Higher cost and labour for solids separation and transport but option to lower N and K for high input system in sensitive catchment. Receiving farm will ideally have a nutrient budget to manage effect of imported nutrients.

Low rate effluent

irrigation L M L M $$

$$$-

$$ Requires some solid separation.

Allows more ’safe‘ irrigation days per year and lowers overall effluent storage need.

Allows application to steeper land but can be challenging to keep application rates consistent. Cost dependent on system choice.

Increase storage volume and using deferred irrigation

L M M H $$$ $$ Can be high cost as most existing pond systems are not able to be used for storage.

Can be challenges with mechanical desludging. Lowers risk of effluent run off during wet and/or busy periods.

(25)

Dairy farms

Management

Off pasture options

Use controlled grazing regimes (within paddocks, on-off grazing or opening up more feed ahead of storms) to reduce risk of N leaching, run off, soil loss and compaction

L M M M $

$$$-

$$$ On-off grazing requires a stand-off pad and effluent storage, but feed wastage and soil compaction are reduced.

Low cost if existing stand-off facilities on farm. Benefit is greatest on farms with high risk soils.

Use of off pasture facility (e.g. shelters or loafing pads) suitable for removing stock from pasture during prolonged wet or dry periods (using bought in feed)

H H H H $$

$$$-

$$ Requires feeding and effluent capture facilities with adequate storage and land application area.

Also requires a revised nutrient budget to take into account the value of supplementary feed. Requires different set of management skills from pasture-based farming systems.

Benefits depend on soil type and climate.

Cut and carry pasture management with feeding facilities

H H H H $$$ $ Requires a feed pad and appropriate effluent capture facilities.

Management skills required are very different to those developed in traditional NZ farm systems.

Graze cows off farm in

winter M M M M $$ $$ Water quality benefit for catchment but exports the issue elsewhere.

Farmer loses some control of stock health and condition when stock off farm.

(26)

Dairy farms 9

Management

Managing critical source areas (high sediment, phosphorus or faecal loads coming from small areas of high run off)

Reduce run off from tracks and races (using cut-offs and shaping)

L M M M $ $$ Cost and effectiveness depends on contour of farm (higher risk of soil loss on steeper land but will also require more work).

Requires regular maintenance but can reduce lameness, water damage and long term maintenance costs.

Move troughs and gateways away from water flow paths

L M M M $ $ These areas of concentrated stock use have high nutrient loads and

reduced vegetative cover so are higher risk for run off.

Cost and effectiveness depends on contour of farm (higher risk of soil loss on steeper land but greater benefit).

Protecting soil health with good grazing management

Avoid grazing heavy stock on steeper or more vulnerable soils especially when wet

L M M M $ $

$$$-

Keeping stock off saturated soils may be as easy as shifting stock to a different soil type on farm through to stand-off facilities. Cost-benefit depends on options chosen to take stock off pasture. Highest benefit on high risk soils.

(27)

Dairy farms

Management

Cropping management

Reduce soil cultivation by adopting strip tillage or direct drilling

M H H ^- $ $$ Effective for reducing run off and soil loss, and improving soil quality and infiltration.

Soils that have been grazed over the winter may be compacted or pugged, requiring more cultivation or resulting in rough paddocks.

Requires modified planter machinery to deliver good seed placement for even plant establishment.

Additional expenditure might be required for insect pest control.

FAR trials show cost-benefit of $200/ha if crop establishes/yields similarly.

Cultivate along contours (rather than up and down the slope) where slopes greater than 3°

L H H ^- $ $$ Slows down run off and reduces erosion.

Row orientation should follow contour.

Time N application to meet crop demand using split applications or slow release N

H ^- ^- ^- $ $$ By targeting crop demand better uptake of nutrients by crops and

lower losses occur. Split applications are more costly and management intensive.

Actively manage grazing of winter forage crop areas to reduce risk of N leaching, run off, soil loss and compaction

L M M M $$ $$ Graze from top to bottom of paddock contour.

Avoid leaving stock on during wet periods, for long periods, or concentrated on small sections of the crop.

Use placement tools e.g. GPS guidance, crop sensing, where possible

H H ^- ^- $$$ $$$ Delivers more precise nutrient inputs for expected crop yield.

Likely to become more widely used as tractors are upgraded over time.

(28)

Dairy farms 11

Management

Cropping management (cont.)

Include grass buffer strips (2m or more) for cultivated land next to waterways

L M L ^- $$ $ Effective for filtering run off and reducing the risk of fertiliser loss during spreading. More benefit on greater slope but wider buffer required.

Grazing of buffers only appropriate for ephemeral waterways during summer dry.

May require weed management but can provide habitat for beneficial predatory insects, reducing need for pest control.

Emerging technologies currently in development

Precision fertiliser

applications L M ^- ^- $ $ GPS application of fertiliser is currently used to improve accuracy of

application and can result in improved N conversion efficiency and reduced fertiliser use. Maximum benefits achieved where waterways or critical source areas (high sediment, P or faecal loads) are avoided.

Use of gibberellic acid

to boost pasture growth L ^- ^- ^- $ $ Only provides water quality benefit if used as an N substitute to reduce overall N inputs.

Plant hormones should be used with care.

Please note: This document assumes generally accepted industry good practice is followed in all aspects of farm management.

See www.dairynz.co.nz/wateraccord for more information and advice on overall environmental good practice for dairy farms.

(29)

Menu of practices to improve water quality: dairy farms ISBN 978-0-9876661-3-0 (Print)

ISBN 978-0-9876661-4-7 (Online) May 2013

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROPOSED ONE PLAN NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PROVISIONS

Existing Intensive Farming Activities – Consent Process Options

Methods to Support Consent Process

CONSENT GRANTED

Bloggs Farming Limited

use land for a dairy farming operation

SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONSENT CONDITIONS

DETAILS OF RESOURCE CONSENT

LOCATION

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

DECISION

Dairy farms

Menu

Practices to improve water quality

Also available at www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/menus

Menu

Menu

Proudly supported by: Thank you for technical input from:

This menu has been developed by Waikato Regional Council and the Upper Waikato Primary Sector Partnership, a group of representatives from agricultural industry organisations working in the Upper Waikato catchment.

The group aims to work together

to help farmers improve nutrient

efficiency and reduce losses.

About this menu

What’s the issue?

Menu of practices to improve water quality: dairy farms

Water quality benefits

Farm business impacts

Tell us what you think and register for updates

Dairy farms

Dairy farms

Dairy farms

Dairy farms