© Commonwealth of Australia, 2015
The Reef Trust Phase Three Investment Prioritisation Guide is licensed by the Commonwealth of
Australia for use under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Australia licence with the exception of the Coat of Arms of the Commonwealth of Australia, the logo of the agency responsible for publishing the report, content supplied by third parties, and any images depicting people. For licence conditions see: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . Attribute this document as
‘
Reef Trust Phase Three Investment Prioritisation Guide
, Commonwealth of Australia 2015’.
The Commonwealth of Australia has made all reasonable efforts to identify content supplied by third parties using the following format ‘© Copyright, [name of third party]’.
Cover images: Wheat Harvester (Dragi Markovic)
Sugar Cane Farm – Wet Tropics (Naomi Wind)
Beef Cattle grazing near Proserpine Queensland (Arthur Mostead)
Dugong (Commonwealth of Australia)

Overview ............................................................................................... 1
Relative Priorities and Indicative Funding Allocations ........................... 1
Grazing .................................................................................................. 2
Cane ...................................................................................................... 2
Grains, Horticulture and Dairy ............................................................... 3
Component 1: Supporting cane farmers to move beyond industry best practice for nutrient, irrigation, pesticide and soil management .......... 4
Executive Summary ........................................................................................... 4
Component Description .................................................................................... 5
Priority Practices – Cane ................................................................................... 9
Component 2: Improving grazing land management to reduce erosion losses to the Reef ................................................................................ 13
Executive Summary ......................................................................................... 13
Component Description .................................................................................. 14
Priority Practices – Grazing ............................................................................. 18
Component 3: Maintaining water quality improvement momentum in
Reef catchment grains, dairy and horticulture industries ................... 22
Executive Summary ......................................................................................... 22
Component Description .................................................................................. 23
Priority Practices – Bananas ............................................................................ 27
Priority Practices – Other Horticulture Crops .................................................. 30
Priority Practices – Grains ............................................................................... 31
Priority Practices – Dairy ................................................................................. 34
Programme Delivery Principles ........................................................... 35
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY ...................................................................... 37

This document provides information to supplement that provided in the Reef Trust
Phase Three Investment Programme Applicant Guidelines 2015-16. Indicative funding allocations across the six Great Barrier Reef natural resource management (NRM) regions are provided to help Applicants frame their applications against realistic funding targets.
Further detail is provided on the design of the three Reef Trust Phase Three
Investment Programme (Programme) components, the priority practices to be supported under the Programme on an industry-by-industry basis and some general guidance on Programme delivery principles.
(Across Natural Resource Management Regions)
The purpose of this section of the Investment Prioritisation Guide is to provide guidance to Applicants on the indicative Reef Trust Phase 3 Programme funding ranges for the cane and grazing industries across the Reef catchment NRM regions.
Some general guidance on principles for prioritisation of funding across regions for grains/broad acre cropping, horticulture and dairy is also provided. This information should be used by Applicants to frame their proposals against realistic funding targets.
Strong justification will need to be provided by the Applicant if significant variance from the indicative funding allocations is proposed.
Indicative NRM regional funding allocation ranges have been developed by the
Department based on the 2013 Reef Plan Investment Prioritisation project report
(available on the Australian Government Department of Agriculture website ), with some minor modifications to account for other factors, including other Reef protection investments by both the Australian and Queensland governments under Reef Plan
2013, and key recommendations from regional Water Quality Improvement Plans
(WQIPs) where available.
The Reef Plan Investment Prioritisation project used a spatial multi-criteria analysis approach and the results of the Reef Plan 2013 Scientific Consensus Statement risk assessment component (available on the Reef Plan website ) coupled with additional factors (anthropogenic reef water pollutant loads and room for improvement in the level of adoption of improved practices by graziers and cane growers) to develop relative investment priority ratings for sub-catchments and NRM regions. Crown-ofthorns starfish outbreaks are a major cause of coral loss and high nutrient levels the initiation zone are a key factor in increasing the frequency of outbreak. For this reason, a crown-of-thorns starfish factor was included to give priority to sub-catchments contributing nitrogen pollution to the crown-of-thorns starfish outbreak initiation zone.
The Reef Plan investment prioritisation process was guided by a science advisory panel and peer-reviewed before publication.
Prioritisation Guide | 1

($24.5 million 2015-16 to 2018-19)
Under The Australian Government’s Reef Rescue (2008-2013) and Reef Programme
(2013-2018) initiatives, support was provided to graziers to improve their land management practices across all Reef NRM regions. The Reef Trust Phase 3
Programme will target extensive grazing properties where ground cover is lowest and erosion risk is highest. The priority NRM regions are therefore the Burdekin and
Fitzroy, with the Cape York and Burnett Mary regions being significantly lower priority.
Indicative funding allocations from the Reef Trust Phase 3 grazing component for these regions are shown in the table below.
Region Cape York
Indicative funding range
10 to 15 per cent
($2.5 to $3.7 million)
Burdekin
37.5 to 42.5 per cent
($9.2 to $10.4 million)
Fitzroy Burnett Mary
35 to 40 per cent
($8.6 to $9.8 million)
7.5-12.5 per cent
($1.8 to $3.1 million)
($25.0 million 2015-16 to 2018-19)
Under Reef rescue and Reef Programme, all cane growers across the Reef catchment were eligible to receive support to improve their land management practices. Cane land occupies a relatively small footprint in the Reef catchment (approximately 1 per cent of land area) but contributes disproportionately high pollutant loads to the Reef due to high nutrient and pesticide inputs and due to its coastal location. The Reef Plan
Investment Prioritisation report, Scientific Consensus Statement and 2014 Report
Card , and regional WQIPs indicate there is room for continued improvement in cane land management across all regions, with significant differences in relative priority across regions. The Reef Trust Phase 3 Programme will therefore provide continued assistance to cane growers across all cane producing regions to help the industry move to best practice for water quality and industry sustainability outcomes.
Indicative funding allocations from the Reef Trust Phase 3 cane component for these regions are shown in the table below.
Region
Indicative funding range
Wet Tropics
37.5 to 42.5 per cent
($9.4 to $10.6 million)
Burdekin
27.5 to 32.5 per cent
($6.9 to $8.1 million)
Mackay
Whitsunday
Isaacs
20 to 25 per cent
($5.0 to $6.3 million)
Burnett Mary
7.5 to10 per cent
($1.9 to $2.5 million)
2 | Reef Trust Phase Three Investment

($6.5 million 2015-16 to 2018-19)
Allocations across these three land uses have been set in consideration of their footprint (area) and risk posed to the Reef (i.e. ground cover, fertiliser and pesticide use, and geographic location).
The highest priority for investment is the Fitzroy due to the large area of grains cropping in this region. The grains/broad acre cropping industries of the Burdekin,
Burnett Mary and Wet Tropics (i.e. Atherton Tablelands catchment) are of significantly lower priority, in proportion to the smaller footprints of the industry in these regions.
The highest priority for investment in horticulture is the banana industry, located primarily in the Wet Tropics, with rapid expansion occurring from a low base in the
Cape York region. The banana industry has by far the highest footprint of any single horticultural crop in the Reef catchment (approximately 100 km 2 of 600 km 2 total horticulture) and is a high priority for Reef Trust Phase 3 Programme investment due to high risk of fertiliser and soil loss from this land use. Other horticulture comprises over 100 different crops, with variable and largely unquantified water quality risk.
The dairy industry in the Reef catchment is located mainly in the Wet Tropics and
Burnett Mary regions, with a relatively small number of farms in the Fitzroy region. Due to the higher water quality risk rating of the Wet Tropics region, the relative investment priority for dairy farms across NRM regions is Wet Tropics>Burnett Mary>>Fitzroy.

The key threats to the Reef to be addressed through this component, in order of priority, are the loss of nutrients (primarily nitrogen) and pesticides, and sediment and associated particulate nutrients from cane lands across the Reef catchments. Losses of nitrogen from cane, particularly from the Wet Tropics region, are linked to more frequent crown-of-thorns starfish outbreaks and to coral to macroalgae phase shifts. In addition, poor water quality decreases reef resilience to other stressors such as climate change.
To address these key threats this component will build on the learnings and momentum gained from eight years of on-ground water quality improvement projects and associated farm planning and extension under Reef Plan. The component will target investment to support the adoption of the most cost effective, proven management practices on the highest risk cane farms, for example according to geographical location, soil type and estimated nitrogen surplus, and the benchmarking of the current level of adoption of improved management practices of individual cane enterprises.
A proportion of funding for this component (up to 20 per cent) will be available to support development and validation of highly innovative practices and programme delivery mechanisms. Support provided for all innovation projects will be subject to water quality improvement cost effectiveness analysis. The component will seek to gain a better understanding of the social and behavioural drivers and impediments to the adoption of improved land management practices in the cane industry. These insights may be used to deliver social marketing and engage previously unengaged cane farmers.
The aims of this component include a reduction of the annual average Reef-wide anthropogenic dissolved inorganic (DIN) load delivered to the Reef by at least 493 tons, or ten per cent. The funding allocated across all cane regions is $25 million over
3.5 years. This component seeks to move cane farmers to more efficient and sustainable practices and for this reason it is expected that the component will have ongoing legacy in terms of pollutant load reductions.
4 | Reef Trust Phase Three Investment

The highest risks to the Reef from cane production remain fertiliser (especially nitrogen) and pesticide (primarily herbicide) losses. A range of validated improved management practices and decision support tools are available to reduce these losses, as well as practices to prevent off-farm movement of topsoil and improve water use efficiency in irrigated cane production systems (2013 Scientific Consensus
Statement – Land use impacts on Great Barrier Reef water quality and ecosystem condition).
Under Reef Rescue and Reef Programme, significant Australian Government investment, with at least matching land manager co-investment, has been directed to upgrading farm infrastructure and equipment, updating farmer skills through provision of training and extension, and implementing new cane farming systems (for example precision agriculture, minimum tillage and controlled traffic farming). The programmes have also provided grants to growers to trial innovative practices to improve farm sustainability and profitability. These programmes have fundamentally underpinned the encouraging progress made towards meeting Reef Plan water quality targets to date (Reef Plan 2014 Report Card).
The cane component will build on the momentum and delivery capacity established through previous large-scale on-ground delivery programmes over an eight year period. Continuity of funding will ensure delivery capacity is maintained for future catchment-based Reef protection projects.
The effectiveness of past investments has been evaluated over seven years, including through the Reef Plan ‘Paddock to Reef’ programme, with many important lessons learned that facilitate improved targeting of actions and spatial locations according to water quality risk and the predicted cost effectiveness of pollutant load reductions. This component will utilise this information and build on past investments and current initiatives to deliver more targeted and cost effective reductions in nutrient and pesticide loads. The component will be implemented to align with regulatory requirements and with other new initiatives to maximise outcomes.
One or more Delivery Partners will be selected through a competitive process set out in the programme guidelines to deliver the programme at a regional or industry-wide scale. The required services are defined by the programme guidelines, with applications assessed against these guidelines. Delivery Partners will be required to use a holistic approach to addressing water quality risks on an individual enterprise basis. Farm risk assessment should be aligned to the current Reef Plan Sugarcane
Water Quality Risk Framework with prioritisation of pollutants and spatial prioritisation aligned with the risk assessment component of the Reef Plan 2013 Scientific
Consensus Statement, the Reef Plan 2013 Investment Prioritisation project report ,

available regional water quality improvement plans, Reef Plan ‘Paddock to Reef’ reports and other key scientific documents such as the Sugar Research Australia report ‘A
Review of Nitro gen Use Efficiency in Sugarcane’.
Delivery Partners should use local, trusted extension providers to deliver highly targeted farm risk assessment, training, extension and (in some instances) incentives, tailored to individual business needs. Financial incentives should be provided for high priority projects, with land manager co-investment requirements based on relative public/private benefit of the project and the regional practice demonstration potential of the project. Estimation of the cost effectiveness of individual on-ground projects with land managers should be informed by performance assessment of similar projects assessed through ‘Paddock to Reef’.
Financial incentives for specific management practices should be delivered via the
Delivery Partners through grant processes. Potential on-ground projects should be ranked based on merit and the cost effectiveness of pollutant load reductions.
Smartcane BMP is recommended as the initial land manager engagement, self assessment and action planning tool. Reporting requirements of all projects will need to meet Reef Trust and ‘Paddock to Reef’ requirements.
Nutrient management actions (in order of priority) include improved nutrient budgeting
(matching nutrient inputs to crop target yield and class requirements, and accounting for all sources of nutrient inputs), fertiliser form, timing and placement. Priority should also be given to improving nutrient use efficiency (NUE) by overcoming yield constraints, especially on blocks/management units where persistent low yields have been identified from past yield records and where NUE is therefore lowest. Strategies for improving NUE should be tailored to individual business needs and may include improved irrigation efficiency, mitigation/amelioration of intrinsic soil health constraints, use of seasonal climate forecasting and improved nutrient input formulation/delivery.
Consideration should be given to management of nutrient losses from all pathways, including leaching, runoff, denitrification and volatilisation, according to specific soil/site characteristics and other environmental factors.
For irrigated cane systems, improved irrigation efficiency and/or tail water recycle capacity should be a high priority to minimise environmental losses of nutrients, pesticides and soil. Activities supported should be tailored according to soil type, landscape position, and other risk factors. For rain-fed production systems, consideration should also be given to maintaining ground cover and reducing run-off through practices such as fallow cover maintenance, minimum/zero tillage, controlled traffic farming and improved farm layout.
The focus of actions to support more efficient pesticide usage/retention on-farm should be on training and extension to ensure compliance with current industry best practice.
Priority practices for this component are described in the following section.
6 | Reef Trust Phase Three Investment

A portion of the component funding for on-ground projects/incentives (up to 20 per cent) is available for innovation. Innovation may take two forms:

Funding for cane farmers to trial and/or validate highly innovative land management practices that have water quality and productivity benefits above and beyond current best practice. These ‘A-class’ practices, if validated, will become the ‘B-class’ practices of the future. This continual improvement in best practice is required to help meet the ambitious Reef 2050 Plan water quality targets.
Proposed innovation projects will be evaluated by an independent technical panel to ensure funding is targeted to the highest priority practices, in the highest priority locations.

Funding for Delivery Partners to trial innovative approaches to communicating and engaging with cane farmers who would otherwise not participate in the component.
An example of a current approach used by Canegrowers is the ‘Cane Tube’ You
Tube competition for the best cane industry sustainability videos.
The number of cane farms to be engaged and the area of these farms will vary according to the nature of project proposals received from cane farmers in each region. An estimate of the area of cane area over which nutrient management should be improved is 150,000 ha, or approximately 1000 farms. These figures correspond to approximately 37 per cent of cane land and 30 per cent of cane farms.
The aim of this component is to reduce the annual average Reef-wide anthropogenic
DIN load delivered to the Reef by 493 tons, or ten per cent. The funding available is
$25 million over 3.5 years. This was calculated based on the average total cost estimate of DIN reductions achieved under Reef Rescue over all cane growing regions over five years. This is an ambitious target, as the rate of DIN reduction has declined markedly in the 2014 Reef Plan report card due to the ‘early wins/low hanging fruit’ already having been taken (for example the ‘early engager’ segment of the industry).
This ambitious target is justified under this proposed component due to the much higher level of spatial, land manager and management practice targeting that will be used.
This component seeks to move cane farmers to more efficient and sustainable practices (i.e. more modern farming systems). For this reason it is expected that the component will have ongoing legacy in terms of pollutant load reductions beyond the
3.5 year component timeframe, as reversion to outdated or less efficient practices would be disadvantageous for growers who will have made significant cash and/or inkind investment in their projects.
Monitoring and evaluation will use the MERIT online tool set (monitoring, evaluation, reporting and improvement tool). An early milestone for project implementation, included in Funding Agreements, will be to develop an approved Project plan

(Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting and Improvement (MERI) plan). The MERI plan will provide detailed information to guide Project implementation, monitoring and evaluation. Annual review of the MERI plan will be required.
To date, the design and management of investment programmes has been linear and as a result learning, adaptation and knowledge transfer have all been slower than required. There is a clear need to accelerate the pace of practice change across the
Great Barrier Reef. This can be enhanced and supported through strong adaptive management of investment programmes, enabled through regional Water Quality
Improvement Plans, and through ensuring that effective learning opportunities are built into Reef Trust investments. This will ensure effective and wide-spread knowledge transfer.
Project level data needs will be i n accordance with Reef Trust and Reef Plan ‘Paddock to Reef’ requirements. Engaged land managers will be required to answer the cane practice benchmarking questions before and after project completion. Delivery
Partner(s) will need to provide Project spatial data and financial information as per the current Reef Progra mme ‘master table’ requirements.
8 | Reef Trust Phase Three Investment

Priority practices (management tactics) for support under Reef Trust Phase 3 Programme should be aligned with the relevant Reef
Plan industry water quality risk framework and industry best management programme. The relative level of funding to support each priority practice within an industry should be consistent with the priority and weighting (water quality risk assessment) of the practice within the framework.
Link to Cane Risk Framework Link to Smartcane BMP
Priority Management tactic
Matching fertiliser rate to crop requirements
1
2
3
Timing of fertiliser application
Application method/form
Weighting Practices/support
60%
30%
Training and extension for development, implementation and monitoring of individual farm nutrient plans/budgets in line with all nutrient inputs, crop stage and spatially relevant target yield
Yield and soil mapping/testing to identify different production zones within farms
Identification of historically low yielding blocks/zones and development of strategies to manage these areas
Tools/equipment/onground works supported
Smartcane BMP
Variable rate/precision fertiliser application technologies
Training and extension for development, implementation and monitoring of individual farm risk assessment, including use of seasonal rainfall forecasting as part of an individual farm nutrient management plan
BoM seasonal forecasting information
10% Sub-surface fertiliser application where recommended by local extension staff
Expert extension support for trialling of enhanced efficiency fertiliser technology (e.g. controlled release and/or denitrification inhibitor blends) – as part of an individual farm nutrient management plan, including seasonal rainfall forecasting
Sub-surface application technology
9 | Reef Trust Phase Three Investment

Priority Management tactic
Irrigation water budgeting and management
1
2
Managing surface runoff
Weighting Practices/support
80% Extension, training and farm planning to assist growers to ensure volume of irrigation water applied is less than, or matches the soil water deficit
Improved irrigation application efficiency, appropriate for soil type and other environmental conditions
Irrigation system performance assessments
20%
(100% for nonirrigated cane)
Extension, training and farm planning to assist growers move to drainage systems that ensure:

Crop row orientation and surface topography ensures runoff is directed from all blocks without causing soil loss or waterlogging

All drainage lines are designed to minimise erosion, are maintained with grass cover, and filter sediment before entering trap or pit. Farm layout directs all runoff safely to these structures

Runoff from the first 15 mm of rainfall is captured and retained on farm

All irrigation runoff is able to be captured and stored on-farm

Recycle pits have sufficient pumping capacity to re-use stored water.
Tools/equipment/onground works supported
Irrigation water monitoring and scheduling technology
Soil moisture monitoring technology
Shortening of long furrow runs
Improved irrigation technology – e.g. low pressure overhead, trickle tape
Smartcane BMP
Recycle pits and associated infrastructure
Contour banking
Cane drain remediation
(e.g. spoon drains)
Laser levelling
10 | Reef Trust Phase Three Investment

Priority Management tactic
1
2
3
Timing application of residual herbicides
Targeted application of residual herbicides
Residual herbicide use in ratoons
Weighting Practices/support
40%
40%
Tools/equipment/onground works supported
Training and extension for development, implementation and monitoring of farm herbicide (including risk) management strategies
Ensuring irrigation management is managed to minimise herbicide runoff risk
Use of best available rainfall forecasting tools
Use of SafeGuage for pesticides or equivalent risk minimisation tool
Smartcane BMP
BoM rainfall and seasonal forecasting information
SafeGuage for pesticides
Hooded/banded spray application technology, including calibration.
20%
Area treated with residual herbicides is reduced through use of banded spraying where appropriate
Inter-rows managed with knockdown products through directed or shielded spraying
Training and extension support
Training and extension to support the use of knock-down herbicides and minimisation of the use of residual herbicides in ratoons where appropriate
SageGuage for pesticides
Smartcane BMP

Priority Management tactic
Ground cover management
1
2
Weighting Practices/support
75%
Tools/equipment/onground works supported
Cover crop during fallow phase, direct-drill planted into sprayed-out previous cane crop. Plant cane planted into fallow cover crop after minimum or zero tillage
Zero or minimal tillage in plant and ratoon cane
Extension and training to support shift to zero/minimum tillage
Smartcane BMP
Direct drill planting equipment
Zonal tillage equipment
Controlled traffic farming
25% Permanent wheel tracks, with all machinery using same wheel spacing
GPS guidance for all machinery, with appropriate training/extension support
Wheel spacing modification
Smartcane BMP
GPS guidance
12 | Reef Trust Phase Three Investment

The key threat to the Reef to be addressed through this component is the runoff of excessive sediment and associated particulate nutrients from grazing lands in the Reef catchments. To address this threat investment will be targeted to poorly managed and degraded grazing land where very low ground cover and erosion features such as gullies and unstable stream banks are delivering disproportionately high fine sediment loads to the Reef. The geographic focus will be rangelands grazing, especially in the
Burdekin and Fitzroy natural resource management (NRM) regions. To a lesser degree the extensive grazing properties in the Cape York and Burnett Mary regions will also be targeted.
The component will be delivered in partnership with the Queensland Government. The
Grazing BMP supported by the Queensland Government, which has a high level of grass-roots industry support, will continue to be used as the initial grazier engagement tool. This component would provide the follow-up local extension to help graziers implement the highest priority actions identified through the BMP process, with a strong focus on improving herd management, forage budgeting, setting and adaptively managing stocking rates and improving ground cover. Engaged graziers will be eligible to receive financial support to undertake accredited one-on-one training, other suitable engagement approaches and specific on-ground projects such as protecting and remediating erosion hotspots.
A proportion of funding (up to 10 per cent) is available to support development and validation of highly innovative land management practices and programme delivery mechanisms. Support provided for all on-ground projects should be subject to water quality improvement cost effectiveness analysis, based on the outcomes of past project evaluation. The component will seek to gain a better understanding of the social and behavioural drivers and impediments to the adoption of improved land management practices in the extensive grazing industry. These insights may be used to deliver social marketing and engage previously unengaged graziers.
The water quality outcome sought from this component is at least a five per cent
(191,000 ton) reduction in the Reef-wide annual average anthropogenic sediment load derived from grazing land for a cost of $24.5 million. Additional reductions in particulate nutrient loads will also occur as a result of this investment and these will be estimated by modelling.
13 | Reef Trust Phase Three Investment

Grazing lands comprise 75 per cent of the Great Barrier Reef Catchment and contribute an estimated 45 per cent of the sediment and associated particulate nutrient loads to the Reef from hillslope and gully erosion. Approximately 81 per cent of this load comes from the large rangelands grazing-dominated catchments of the Burdekin and Fitzroy rivers. An estimated 33 per cent of sediment and associated particulate nutrient loads to the Reef come from streambank erosion, primarily from grazing landscapes, meaning that grazing landscapes contribute around 70 per cent of the total sediment and associated particulate nutrient loads delivered to the Reef
(Paddock to Reef Whole of GBR Technical Report 2013).
A range of validated improved grazing management practices and decision support tools are available to reduce these losses, but the rate of uptake of the practices and tools at a whole of industry scale needs to be accelerated (‘Better Beef and Reef
Report’
, QDAFF 2014; 2014 Reef Plan Report Card ).
Previous and current investments through Reef Plan during the period 2008 to 2014 have delivered the encouraging progress made towards meeting Reef Plan water quality targets to date, including an estimated 12 per cent reduction in Reef-wide sediment loads, primarily from improved grazing land management (Reef Plan 2014
Report Card).
The effectiveness of these investments has been evaluated in detail over seven years, including through the Reef Plan ‘ Paddock to Reef’
integrated monitoring, modelling and reporting programme. Many important lessons learned have facilitated improved targeting of actions and spatial locations according to water quality risk and the predicted cost effectiveness of sediment load reductions.
This component builds on past investments and current initiatives to deliver more targeted and cost effective reductions in sediment loads. The primary aim is to enable graziers to match their long term stocking rates to their land carrying capacities and respond appropriately to changing environmental conditions to maintain ground cover above critical thresholds. Graziers will also be encouraged to improve their herd performance/production efficiency through adoption of practices such as improved breeder genetics and reproduction management, which should also have benefits for land management through achieving higher profits with lower herd numbers. Where appropriate, assistance will also be given to help graziers remediate erosion hotspots such as areas of low groundcover (e.g. scalds), gullies and unstable stream banks to reduce erosion losses to the Reef. The component will be implemented to align or integrate with other existing and new initiatives.
Grazing enterprises of the Burdekin and Fitzroy NRM regions and to a lesser degree the high priority catchments of the Cape York and Burnett Mary NRM regions will be engaged. One or more Delivery Partners will be selected through a competitive process to deliver the programme at a regional or industry-wide scale. The required services are defined by the Programme guidelines, with applications assessed against these guidelines. Delivery Partners are required to use a holistic approach to
14 | Reef Trust Phase Three Investment

addressing water quality risks on an individual enterprise basis using the Reef Plan
Grazing Water Quality Risk Framework .
Spatial prioritisation across and within NRM regions should be aligned with the risk assessment component of the Reef Plan 2013 Scientific Consensus Statement , the
Reef Plan 2013 Investment Prioritisation project report , available regional water quality improvement plans, Reef Plan ‘Paddock to Reef’ reports and other key scientific documents such as the QDAF 2013 ‘Better Beef and Reef report .
One or more Delivery Partners will be selected through a competitive process set out in the programme guidelines to deliver the programme at a regional or industry-wide scale. Delivery Partners would engage graziers identified through the Grazing BMP, using ground cover remote sensing across Reef catchments (where ground cover trends will provide indications of poor ground cover management), results of Reef Plan management practice benchmarking surveys and the knowledge of local extension officers. Engagement will focus on properties that will provide the best return on investment. With Queensland Government Grazing BMP support, graziers will be taken through the farm risk assessment and action planning process under the
Grazing BMP. This Reef Trust funding will then provide support to implement priority actions, such as accredited training, extension, and incentives for specific on-ground projects. This approach will ensure grazing investments across governments are complimentary and coordinated, and that the extension network provides consistent messages.
Financial incentives should be provided only for very high priority actions, with land manager co-investment requirements based on public/private benefit and regional practice demonstration capacity of the funded Project. Financial incentives will be delivered via the Delivery Partner through grant processes. Potential on-ground projects should be ranked based on cost effectiveness of pollutant load reductions.
Reporting requirements of all pro jects will need to meet Reef Trust and ‘Paddock to
Reef’ requirements.
Priority practices for this component are described in the following section.
A portion of the component funding for on-ground projects (up to 10 per cent) will be available for innovation. This innovation funding will support graziers to trial and/or validate highly innovative land management practices that have water quality and productivity benefits above and beyond current best management practice. These ‘Aclas s’ practices, if validated, will become the ‘B-class’ practices of the future. This continual improvement in best practice is required to help meet the ambitious Reef
2050 Plan water quality targets. Proposed innovation projects will be assessed by an independent grazing technical panel to ensure funding is targeted to the highest quality projects and priority practices, in the highest priority locations. Subject to high quality proposals being received, a portion of this innovation funding may be made

available for Delivery Partners to trial cutting edge communication or engagement approaches.
Achieving behavioural and attitudinal change is key to achieving long term grazing industry sustainability. The Reef Programme funded ‘Better Beef and Reef’ report
2015 highlighted that grazing best management practices are well known and validated, but there is an issue around capacity and/or willingness of some graziers to engage with extension providers to implement sustainable and profitable practices.
The literature suggests that there are significant numbers of graziers that fall within the
‘slow adopter’ or ‘non engager’ category. This component will seek to increase non-engagers involvement in adopting improved management practices by addressing the social dimension of practice change.
The number of graziers to be engaged and the area of these properties will vary according to the nature of project proposals received from graziers in each region. An estimate of the area of grazing properties over which grazing management will be improved is at least 1.5 million hectares, or approximately 150 properties. These figures correspond to approximately five per cent of grazing land and 1.7 per cent of grazing enterprises.
The water quality outcome sought from this component is a five per cent reduction in the Reef-wide sediment load derived from grazing land. This equates to at least a 191 kiloton reduction in the long term, annual average sediment load delivered to the Reef.
Additional reductions in particulate nutrient loads will also occur as a result of this investment.
The funding for this component is $24.5 million over 3.5 years. This was calculated based on the estimated average total cost of sediment reductions from grazing investments (approximately $128 per ton) achieved under Reef Rescue over all NRM regions over five years. This is an ambitious target, as the rate of sediment reduction has declined markedly in the 2014 Reef Plan report card due to the ‘early wins/low hanging fruit’ already having been taken (for example the ‘early engager’ segment of the industry). This ambitious target is justified under this proposed component due to the much higher level of spatial, land manager and management practice targeting that will be used.
This component seeks to move graziers to more efficient and more sustainable practices that will increase enterprise resilience. For this reason it is expected that the component will have ongoing legacy in terms of pollutant load reductions beyond the
3.5 year component timeframe, as reversion to less efficient practices would be disadvantageous for graziers who will have made significant cash and/or in-kind investment in their projects.
Monitoring and evaluation will use the MERIT online tool set (monitoring, evaluation, reporting and improvement tool). An early milestone for Project implementation, included in Funding Agreements, will be to develop an approved Project plan
16 | Reef Trust Phase Three Investment

(Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting and Improvement (MERI) plan). The MERI plan will provide detailed information to guide Project implementation, monitoring and evaluation. Annual review of the MERI plan will be required.
To date, the design and management of Reef investment programmes has been linear and as a result learning, adaptation and knowledge transfer have all been slower than required. There is therefore a clear need to accelerate the pace of practice change across the Great Barrier Reef. This can be enhanced and supported through strong adaptive management of investment programmes, enabled through regional Water
Quality Improvement Plans, and through ensuring that effective learning opportunities are built in to the Reef Trust investments. This will ensure effective and wide-spread knowledge transfer.
Project level data needs will be in accordance with Reef Trust and Reef Plan ‘Paddock to Reef’ requirements. Engaged land managers will be required to answer the grazing practice benchmarking questions before and after Project completion. Delivery
Partner(s) will need to provide Project spatial data and financial information as per the current Reef Programme ‘master table’ requirements.
Monitoring and evaluation should consist of biophysical and social components. The biophysical component should include information such as fencing length and area under improved management, consistent with Reef Trust and Reef Plan ‘Paddock to
Reef’ requirements. Remote sensing of ground cover could also be used to assess trends in response to management actions at a property level. The social component should include exploring social motivations and impediments to grazier engagement and the adoption of improved land management practices.

Priority practices (management tactics) for support under Reef Trust Phase 3 Programme should be aligned with the relevant Reef
Plan industry water quality risk framework and industry best management programme. The relative level of funding to support each priority practice within an industry should be consistent with the priority and weighting (water quality risk assessment) of the practice within the framework.
Land manager co-investment in on-ground projects should be guided by the relative private and public (i.e. water quality) benefit of the project.
The relative priorities of the management tactics in the table below are as per the Reef Plan Grazing Risk Framework.
Link to Grazing Risk Framework
Link to Grazing BMP
Priority Management tactic
1
Stocking rates are matched to carrying capacity of paddocks and adjusted to suit changing environmental conditions
Practices/support
Accredited training (e.g. GLM or equivalent) and targeted, accredited extension to ensure:

Stocking rates are consistent with district benchmarks, and any that are significantly above have a solid rationale for being so.

Estimates account for key factors (as in GLM), or an equivalent process.
 Stocking rates are reviewed when there is a change in land condition, subdivisional fencing, or location of water points.

Graziers have a detailed property map, including positions of fences, watering points, areas of paddocks, and mapping of grazing land types and erosion prone or sensitive features such as gullies, streams and wetlands.
Tools/equipment/onground works supported
Grazing BMP
Farm planning
Fencing and/or water points when linked directly to improved grazing land management
GIS mapping
18 | Reef Trust Phase Three Investment

2
3

Numbers of cattle in each paddock are tracked over time.

Adult Equivalents (AE) or Livestock Units (LSU) are used to account for effects of animal class and size/age when comparing stocking rates for different mobs or different paddocks.

Land condition is objectively assessed against a recognised framework.
 Pasture growth potential is related to pasture condition using GLM or equivalent process.
Active management strategy to ensure retention of adequate pasture and groundcover at the end of the dry season
Accredited training (e.g. GLM or equivalent) and targeted, accredited extension to ensure:

Before the start of the dry season, forage budgets are calculated for each paddock, preferably using GLM or StockTake, or with Grazing Charts, or other equivalent process. Cattle numbers in paddocks are adjusted promptly to ensure adequate residual pasture and groundcover.

Ground cover and land conditions are assessed several times during the year at monitoring sites and/or during bore runs, combined with analysis of ground cover trends via VegMachine or similar.

Planned burning, where practiced, is done in a way that reduces risk of poor pasture regrowth and associated slow recovery of groundcover.
Grazing BMP
Strategies implemented to recover any land in poor or very poor condition
Accredited training (e.g. GLM or equivalent) and targeted, accredited extension to ensure:

Stocking rates are reassessed in relation to long-term carrying capacity; paddocks are sub-dividing for improved land condition management, and where possible, a planned program of wet season spelling is implemented for all affected land.

Specific management actions are instigated, such as fencing, construction of diversion banks upslope if safe to do so, remediation of scalded areas and gullies; allowing the accumulation of litter and other organic matter.
Grazing BMP
Strategic fencing, contour banking and basic gully and scald remediation works in line with recommended techniques such as porous check dams, gypsum treatment and revegetation

4
5
6
7
The condition of selectively-grazed land types is effectively managed
.
Timing and intensity of grazing is managed in frontages of rivers and major streams, including associated riparian and wetland areas.
Accredited training (e.g. GLM or equivalent) and targeted, accredited extension to ensure:

Selectively-grazed land types are fenced where practical and cost-effective.

Elsewhere, regular wet season spelling, with or without fire, is used to help preferentially grazed areas recover. Consideration is given to using other means (e.g. supplement feeding sites, water points locations) to even out grazing pressure.
Accredited training (e.g. GLM or equivalent) and targeted, accredited extension to facilitate:

Installation of fencing and/or off-stream watering points to enable these ecologically sensitive areas to be maintained or improved.

Where selectively grazed, grazing pressure is kept low, with consideration given to regular wet season spelling, weed control through fire or other means and feral pig control where required.
Grazing BMP
Strategic fencing, water points
Grazing BMP
Strategic fencing
Off-stream watering points
Weed and pest management
Strategies implemented, where practical and affordable, to remediate gullied areas
Linear features (roads, tracks, fences, firebreaks, and water points located and constructed to minimise their risk of initiating erosion
Professional advice to inform:

An appropriate mix of actions, which may include stock exclusion, mechanical reshaping of gully heads and sides, installation of porous check dams, gypsum treatment and reseeding.
Grazing BMP
Accredited training (e.g. GLM or equivalent) and targeted, accredited extension to ensure:

Roads and tracks are planned and built with due attention to erosion risk.
Where there are significant risks, an appropriate mix of mitigation actions are undertaken, such as locating tracks on contour where possible; avoiding disturbance of sodic subsoils, using whoa boys or similar means to allow runoff to cross tracks; installation of table drains where required; installation of outfalls for low usage, cross-slope roads on steep country, etc.

Fences follow contour lines where possible, or ridge lines in steep country.
Where fence line is not on the contour, and slope is steep, whoa-boys are used as required.
Grazing BMP
20 | Reef Trust Phase Three Investment

8
Use of agricultural chemicals
Accredited training (e.g. GLM or equivalent) and targeted, accredited extension to ensure:

Records are kept of all agrochemicals applied, including rates, methods and dates of applications.

Label instructions for agrochemicals such as Tebuthiuron are followed.

Professional advice is sought regarding application rates, application methods and timing, to minimise the risk of environmental losses of agrochemicals.
Grazing BMP

The scientific consensus is that water quality remains the key local stressor on the
Great Barrier Reef. To date there has been no commitment of Reef Trust funding to support agricultural industries other than cane and grazing to reduce the sediment, nutrient and chemical losses. Although smaller in scale, these other 'second tier’ industries (broad acre cropping, dairy and horticulture) can have very high pollutant loss rates per hectare. It is therefore appropriate the Reef Trust supports a holistic approach to engaging with the broader agricultural sector.
This component will build on the learnings and momentum gained from eight years of on-ground water quality improvement projects and associated farm planning and extension under Reef Plan. The component will target investment to support the adoption of the most cost effective, proven management practices on the highest risk farms using factors such as geographical location, soil type, ground cover and estimated nitrogen surplus, and the benchmarking of the level of adoption of improved management practices of individual enterprises.
A proportion of funding (up to 15 per cent) is available to support the development and validation of highly innovative practices and delivery mechanisms. Support provided for all innovation projects will be subject to water quality improvement and nutrient use efficiency cost effectiveness analysis. The component will seek to gain a better understanding of the social and behavioural drivers and impediments to the adoption of improved land management practices in the targeted industries. These insights may be used to deliver social marketing and engage previously unengaged farmers.
The grains/broad acre cropping (other than sugarcane) industry funding allocation is
$3.6 million over 3.5 years to achieve at least a 10 per cent (18,000 ton) annual average reduction in sediment and associated particulate nutrient loads from these industries, primarily in the Fitzroy and Burdekin regions. For horticulture
(approximately 56,000 ha across the Reef catchments, including 11,000 ha of bananas) the funding allocation is $2.4 million over 3.5 years, with a strong focus on the banana industry. The investment allocation for the dairy industry across the Reef catchment is approximately $500,000 over 3.5 years.
22 | Reef Trust Phase Three Investment

Under Reef Rescue and Reef Programme, the Australian Government provided funding for farm planning, training, extension and water quality grants across all Reef
NRM regions and major agricultural industries.
The funding provided under Reef Rescue and Reef Programme has enabled regional
NRM organisations and peak industry bodies to develop significant capacity and technical expertise to prioritise and implement industry extension and on-ground activities to deliver water quality benefits.
At over 9 000 km 2 , the grains industry occupies approximately three per cent of the
Fitzroy NRM region, with additional cropping areas found in the Burdekin,
Burnett-Mary and Wet Tropics NRM regions. Cropping areas can generate high rates of sediment per hectare and are considered erosion hotspots due to low ground cover
(e.g. R. Packett et al., Marine Pollution Bulletin, 2009). This component will provide continued investment in extension, training and practices such as zero till and construction of contour banks to provide cost effective water quality improvements.
At approximately 595 km 2 , the horticulture industry is a small proportion
(approximately 0.14 percent) of the Reef catchment. However, on a per hectare basis, runoff generation rates can be very high due to high pesticide and fertiliser inputs and low groundcover. This is especially true for bananas (approximately 100 km 2 ) that are grown in the very high rainfall and steep terrain environment of the Wet Tropics region.
Banana cultivation is expanding rapidly in the relatively pristine/low development Cape
York region due to the impacts of tropical cyclones and Panama disease on the industry in the Wet Tropics in recent years. Under this component, sufficient horticulture extension capacity will be maintained in high risk areas and cropping systems to continue to move the industry towards best practice and ensure new farms are using best practice from the time of establishment. Incentives will also be available for specific practices (e.g. fertigation) that deliver cost effective water quality improvements.
The dairy industry (approximately 200 farms) occupies an area approximately the same as horticulture in the Wet Tropics and Burnett Mary regions, with a small number of farms located in the Fitzroy region. Whilst surface runoff from dairy is considered to be a low risk due to maintenance of high year-round ground cover, nutrient losses due to leaching may be significant. Through this component, investment will be made in the dairy industry to maintain extension capacity for the delivery of the Dairying Better n’ Better for the Reef farm management system, soil and nutrient management plans, and incentives for specific high priority actions such as improving irrigation efficiency and preventing stock from accessing waterways.

Through consultation undertaken during the development of this component, the dairy, horticultural and grains industries have all identified the best return on investment in achieving water quality outcomes will be achieved through chemical, nutrient and soil management efficiencies, for example: precision pesticide application, improved irrigation systems or contour banks for broad acre cropping. These assertions are supported by the estimation of the cost effectiveness of previous investments under
Reef Rescue and Reef Programme through ‘Paddock to Reef’ (Kevin McCosker and
Adam Northey, personal communication).
To date, the dairy, grains and horticulture industries have been engaged through the
Reef Programme to facilitate the adoption of improved management practices to reduce pollutant run-off. Industry and regional NRM data indicates that the early adopters within these industries are now successfully implementing practice improvements ( Reef Plan 2014 Report Card ). The effectiveness of these investments has been evaluated over se ven years, including through the Reef Plan ‘Paddock to
Reef’ programme, with many important lessons learned that will facilitate improved targeting of actions and spatial locations according to water quality risk and the predicted cost effectiveness of pollutant load reductions.
One or more Delivery Partners will be selected through a competitive process set out in the programme guidelines to deliver the programme at a regional or industry-wide scale. The required services are defined by the programme guidelines, with applications assessed against these guidelines. Delivery Partners will be required to use a holistic approach to addressing water quality risks on an individual enterprise basis. The Delivery Partners will also be required to utilise industry and historical investment information and leverage current initiatives to deliver more targeted and cost effective reductions in sediment, nutrient and pesticide loads. The component should be implemented to align with regulatory requirements and any new initiatives to maximise outcomes.
Delivery Partners will be required to use industry management practice data to target land managers who are operating at sub-optimal levels for management practices that affect water quality. The risk assessment for each farm should be aligned where possible to the current Reef Plan Water Quality Risk Framework with spatial prioritisation of pollutants aligned with the risk assessment component of the Reef
Plan 2013 Scientific Consensus Statement , the Reef Plan 2013 Investment
Prioritisation project report , available regional Water Quality Improvement Plans and
Reef Plan ‘Paddock to Reef’ reports.
The funding for this component is $6.5 million over 3.5 years (2015 to 2019). The aim of this component is to reduce the annual average Reef-wide anthropogenic pollutant loads delivered to the Reef by the 'second tier' agricultural industries. This should include at least a 10 per cent (18,000 ton) reduction in sediment and associated particulate nutrients from grains and other broad acre cropping (excluding sugarcane)
24 | Reef Trust Phase Three Investment

in the Fitzroy and Burdekin regions. This is based on the total cost of previous annual average sediment reductions from these industries of approximately $200 per ton obtained over five years of Reef Rescue. This target is ambitious in view of the fact that the early adopters have already been engaged through Reef Rescue and Reef
Programme and the 2014 Reef Plan report card shows a marked decline in the rate of water quality improvement post 2013. The ambitious target is however justified due to the much greater accuracy and sophistication of spatial, land manager and management practice data available for prioritisation of investment. The water quality outcomes for other pollutants and from investments in horticulture and dairy will be estimated based on the specific projects funded, and are expected to be of similar cost effectiveness to those obtained from sugarcane and grazing.
Priority practices for this component are described in the following section.
A portion of the component funding for on-ground projects/incentives (15 per cent) will be available for innovation. Innovation may take two forms:

Funding for farmers to trial and/or validate highly innovative land management practices that have water quality and productivity benefits above and beyond current best practice. These ‘A-class’ practices, if validated, will become the ‘Bclass’ practices of the future. This continual improvement in best practice is required to help meet the ambitious Reef 2050 Plan water quality targets.
Proposed innovation projects would be assessed by an independent technical panel to ensure funding is targeted to the highest quality projects and priority practices, in the highest priority locations.

Funding for Delivery Partners to trial innovative approaches to communicating and engaging with farmers who would otherwise not participate in the component.
The component will utilise specific industry targets: for example, a sediment and associated particulate nutrient reduction of 10 per cent for the grains and other broad acre cropping industries (excluding sugarcane) based upon further adoption of current industry best management practices. An average of 70 per cent of growers currently operate at B class (above industry standard), leaving only 30 per cent with room for transition to best practice.
The grains/broad acre cropping (other than sugarcane) industry funding proposed is
$3.6 million over 3.5 years to achieve at least a 10 per cent (18,000 ton) annual average reduction in sediment and associated particulate nutrient loads from these industries, mainly in the Fitzroy and Burdekin regions. This is based on estimates of 10 per cent and 1 per cent respectively for the proportion of anthropogenic sediment loads arising from grains/broad acre cropping in these two regions (‘Paddock to Reef’ modelling reports). This cost was estimated based on the annual average estimate of sediment reduction (approximately $200 per ton) achieved under Reef Rescue

grains/broad acre cropping projects over five years, including all associated project delivery costs.
This component seeks to move farmers to more efficient and sustainable practices, i.e. more modern farming systems. For this reason it is expected that the component will have ongoing legacy in terms of pollutant load reductions beyond its 3.5 year timeframe, as reversion to outdated or less efficient practices would be disadvantageous for farmers who will have made significant cash and/or in-kind investment in their projects.
Monitoring and evaluation will use the MERIT online tool set (monitoring, evaluation, reporting and improvement). An early milestone for Project implementation, included in
Funding Agreements, will be to develop an approved Project plan (Monitoring,
Evaluation, Reporting and Improvement (MERI) plan). The MERI plan will provide detailed information to guide Project implementation, monitoring and evaluation.
Annual review of the MERI plan will be required.
To date, the design and management of reef protection investment programmes has been largely linear and as a result learning, adaptation and knowledge transfer have all been slower than required. There is therefore a clear need to accelerate the pace of practice change across the Great Barrier Reef. This can be enhanced and supported through strong adaptive management of investment programmes, enabled through regional Water Quality Improvement Plans, and through ensuring that effective learning opportunities are built in to the Reef Trust investments. This will ensure effective and wide-spread knowledge transfer.
Project level data needs are in accordance with Reef trust and Reef Plan ‘Paddock to
Reef’ requirements. Engaged land managers will be required to answer the standard management practice benchmarking questions before and after project completion.
Delivery Partner(s) would need to provide project spatial data and financial information as pe r the current Reef Programme ‘master table’ requirements.
26 | Reef Trust Phase Three Investment

Priority practices (management tactics) for support under Reef Trust should be aligned with the relevant Reef Plan industry water quality risk framework and industry best management programme. The relative level of funding to support each priority practice within an industry should be consistent with the priority and weighting (water quality risk assessment) of the practice within the framework.
Link to Banana BMP
Priority Management tactic
1 Ground cover management
2 Inter-row and headland management
Weighting Practices/support
50%
50%
Volunteer grass fallow or fallow crop between crop cycles
At end of crop cycle, banana plants are treated with herbicide and left to break down, or incorporated into soil with minimal soil disturbance
Any tillage is limited to the rows only, with timing to minimise erosion risk
Permanent beds used, with planting timed to minimise erosion risk
Tools/equipment/onground works supported
Banana BMP
Mulching, discing equipment
Zonal tillage machinery
Ground cover (e.g. grass or mulch) maintained on headlands and inter-rows
Traffic minimised to avoid disturbance of cover
Banana BMP
27 | Reef Trust Phase Three Investment

Priority Management tactic
1 Matching nutrient supply to crop requirements
2 Fertiliser application method/form
3 Fertiliser application frequency
4 Soil testing
Weighting Practices/support
60%
Tools/equipment/onground works supported
Annual nutrient budgeting based on yield data, and soil and leaf test results Banana BMP
Extension advice
15%
15%
10%
Fertigation, with banded surface if wet weather prevents fertigation
Adjust frequency to match crop demand
All blocks rested before planting to determine required rates
Fertigation equipment, including scheduling and soil monitoring
Training and extension
Banana BMP
Extension advice
Banana BMP
Extension advice
28 | Reef Trust Phase Three Investment

Priority Management tactic
1
2
Managing surface runoff
Irrigation management
Weighting Practices/support
20%
20%
10%
25%
25%
100%
Tools/equipment/onground works supported
With professional advice:

For slopes of over 3 per cent, contour banks and constructed waterways are used, with plant rows following contours

Drains are shallow, vegetated spoon type

Roads are permanent to prevent erosion

Silt traps are appropriately designed and constructed to capture runoff from entire farm

Maintenance activities are timed to minimise erosion risk

Where necessary, laser levelling is used to prevent pooling of water
Scheduled automated drip/micro-sprinkler system with scheduling based on capacitance probes/weather stations
Banana BMP
Contour bank and spoon drain construction
Silt trap construction
Efficient irrigation and scheduling equipment
Extension support

Priority Management tactic
1 Integrated Pest
Management
40%
2 Resistance management
3
40%
Monitoring and record keeping
20%
Weighting Practices/support
Integrated pest management approach is used to prevent over-reliance on chemical control
Pesticides used are rotated to prevent resistance from developing
Pest levels are monitored regularly and records are kept
Tools/equipment/onground works supported
Banana BMP
Extension advice
Banana BMP
Extension advice
Banana BMP
Extension advice
Due to the large number of horticultural crops in addition to bananas grown in the Great Barrier Reef Catchment, priority practices
(management tactics) for other horticultural crops for support under Reef Trust should be aligned with the principles of the Reef Plan
Banana Water Quality Risk Framework and priority practices identified in this Reef Trust Investment Prioritisation document. The
Growcom Farm Management System (FMS) should be used as the benchmarking and farm planning tool to identify specific practices that have direct, tangible outcomes for improving the quality of water leaving horticulture farms (i.e. decreased loss of nutrients, sediments and pesticides). The relative level of funding to support each priority practice should be consistent, where possible, with the priority and weighting (water quality risk assessment) of the practices within the banana water quality risk framework.
30 | Reef Trust Phase Three Investment

Priority practices (management tactics) for support under Reef Trust should be aligned with the relevant Reef Plan industry water quality risk framework and industry best management programme. The relative level of funding to support each priority practice within an industry should be consistent with the priority and weighting (water quality risk assessment) of the practice within the framework.
Link to Grains BMP
Priority Management tactic
Weighting Practices/support Tools/equipment/onground works supported
1 Ground cover management and tillage practices
40%
2 Controlled traffic farming
30%
Crop stubble is retained and new crop sown directly into stubble. Tillage is only used strategically to deal with issues such as compaction, nutrient stratification or resistant weeds.
Grains BMP
Upgrade to direct drill planter
3 Erosion control 30%
All machinery operates on same wheel spacing, with GPS guidance
Extension/training in controlled traffic farming
Grains BMP
Machinery wheel spacing modification
Contour banks and diversion banks designed with professional advice, installed and regularly maintained. Sediment retention ponds constructed where practical.
Farm drainage planning/design and earthworks

Priority Management tactic
1 Matching nutrient supply to crop requirements
2 Influence of soil moisture store on fertiliser decisions
40%
3 Fertiliser application timing
20%
Weighting Practices/support
40% Yield data or yield mapping data informs soil testing strategy and nutrient management by productivity zone, or via variable rate fertiliser application.
Grains BMP
Extension advice – nutrient budgeting
Upgrade to variable rate control fertiliser application
Soil moisture is monitored during fallow to inform yield potential and fertiliser rate, including use of relevant decision support tools
Tools/equipment/onground works supported
Grains BMP
Training and extension
Fertiliser is split across two or more applications to match crop demand and minimise risk of loss
Grains BMP
Extension advice
32 | Reef Trust Phase Three Investment

Priority Management tactic
1 Targeted
2 herbicide application
Efficient herbicide application
Weighting Practices/support
50%
50% GPS guidance and section or nozzle control of boomspray to minimise overlap and off-paddock application
Tools/equipment/onground works supported
Residual herbicides are banded, or used for specific zones within paddocks according to weed pressure. Weed seeking technology may be supported where economically feasible.
Grains BMP
Extension advice
Upgrading to hooded/banded spray rig or ’Weedseeker’ technology
Grains BMP
Extension advice
Boom spray upgrade
GPS guidance

Dairy priority practices (management tactics) for support under Reef Trust should have or enable the improvement of the quality of water leaving dairy farms (reduction off-farm movement of nutrients, sediments and pesticides). Practices should be identified through the
Dairying Better n’ Better industry farm management system, and build on current initiatives including Dairying Better n’ Better for the Reef, Dairying Better n’ Better for Tomorrow and Dairying Better n’ Better on the Moove. The Dairying Better n’ Better industry farm management system is designed to use the QDairySAT self assessment/benchmarking tool to provide farm-specific Action Plans and Property Maps.
Land manager co-investment in on-ground projects should be guided by the relative private and public (i.e. water quality) benefit of the project.
Eligible practices for support, in order of priority are:
1. QDairySAT self assessment and action planning
2. Development of farm specific Soil and Nutrient Management Plans (SNMPs)
3. Property Mapping
4. Riparian zone and wetland protection via cattle exclusion
5. Improved irrigation efficiency measures to reduce nutrient losses in runoff and deep drainage
6. Improved creek crossing infrastructure
7. Infrastructure for the implementation of SNMP’s to improve on-farm nutrient use efficiency and decrease environmental losses.
Other practices may be eligible for support following consultation with and approval by the Department.
34 | Reef Trust Phase Three Investment

Funding allocations across NRM regions and agricultural industries will be specified through MERI plans. Service Providers will need to seek approval for variations to their
MERI plans, including moving funding across regional or industry allocations
Evaluation and reporting of management practice improvement outcomes from all funded activities will be required. This will include quantifiable, verified outcomes from delivery of farm planning, training, extension and incentives. Delivery Partners should not invest in activities that do not directly facilitate, or result in quantifiable practice change by land managers.
Funding provided through this Programme is to provide assistance to agricultural land managers to improve their land management practices to improve water quality and business sustainability and resilience. Funding provided through this programme cannot be used for research projects, consultancies, or other activities not directly linked to achieving Programme outcomes.
Multiple grants to individual land managers is recognised as being of value to fund sediment, nutrient and pesticide management improvements, and for the adoption of new farming systems where multiple changes are required. However, funding in excess of $40,000 for any individual land manager or project within one financial year will require justification and will be subject to approval by the Department. Cost effective, quantifiable practice change leading to a measureable water quality outcome should be the overriding factor for selection of activities to assist land managers.
Delivery Partners will be responsible for the quality control of all land manager projects funded under the Programme to ensure accurate reporting of project outcomes. Land mangers receiving funding under the programme will be required to agree that the spatial location (GIS information) regarding their project is recorded and used for the modelling of water quality outcomes by Queensland Government scientists.
Innovation (A-class) practice support provided to land managers should be consistent with the overall investment priorities for the Programme. Proposals for innovation projects should be assessed by a technical advisory panel and approved by the
Department. As for other funded activities, these projects should have quantifiable, cost effective water quality outcomes. Funding allocations for innovation incentives/support should not exceed agreed allocations, as defined in the Programme
Guidelines.
35 | Reef Trust Phase Three Investment

Delivery Partners will need to report on the method and results of their investment prioritisation/project selection processes to ensure these are efficient and aligned with
Programme priorities.
Any action requiring financial incentive payments to land managers for on-ground projects, such as fencing and equipment acquisition, will require land manager coinvestment. Land manager co-investment should be commensurate with the relative private/public benefit of the project and Delivery Partners may impose a sliding scale for co-investment for projects based on the relative private/public benefit of the specific project. Delivery Partners should ensure that at a whole of industry level land manager co-investment in on-ground projects (including in-kind/labour) should be 50 per cent or greater.
The Australian Government will not support land managers to move from D class
(outdated/unacceptable practices, as defined by industry farm management systems) to minimum industry standard or legally required or ‘duty of care’ standard practices.
Projects that seek to move land managers from D to C class are ineligible for incentives support. Projects that seek to move land managers from D to B class may be eligible, if the land manager funds the D to C transition through their co-investment.
A key driver of adoptability/cost effectiveness of new farming systems is farm size.
Multi-farm projects are therefore encouraged through the Programme where such projects are acceptable to land managers and will improve cost effectiveness of outcomes.

Term
Applicant
Delivery
Partner
Department
Funding
Agreement
Guidelines
Programme
Project
Definition
An entity that makes an Application for funding under the
Programme. An Applicant may become a Delivery Partner should their Programme be awarded funding.
An Applicant who has been awarded funding under the
Programme for their Programme.
The Commonwealth Department of the Environment.
A legally enforceable, performance-based contract between the
Department and a successful Applicant that sets out the terms and conditions governing the funding to be provided under the
Programme.
The Reef Trust Phase Three Investment Programme Applicant
Guidelines 2015-16 (this document) which provide information to help interested organisations to prepare an Application for a
Programme. These Guidelines include information on the
Application Process and criteria that will be used to assess
Applications submitted under the Programme.
The Reef Trust Phase Three Investment Programme designed to engage with the agricultural industry operating in the Great Barrier
Reef NRM regions to facilitate adoption of improved management practices.
An agreed schedule of work activity/activities, funded by the
Programme in accordance with these Guidelines.

Photo: Dugong (Commonwealth of Australia)