Farm Environmental Management Plan
Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme (RWSS)
Property name
Notes
Physical address
Property Owner
Phone no.
Postal address
Postcode
Mobile no.
Email address
Contact person for
owner (if different)
Postal address
Phone no.
Postcode
Is whole property leased?
Mobile no.
Yes /No If yes, provide details:
Name of lessee:
Postal address
Phone no.
Postcode
Mobile no.
Email address
Farm Manager name
(if different to owner)
Postal address
Position (manager,
sharemilker etc)
Phone no.
Postcode
Mobile no.
Email address
Person responsible for implementing Farm Plan
This Farm Environment Plan sets out the management practices that will be used to actively manage environmental issues on the property,
with a focus on managing water quality and quantity within limits, as specified by Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (HBRC) and the Ruataniwha
Water Storage Scheme (RWSS) consent conditions. The Plan will be audited regularly by independent assessors in accordance with the
required audit, compliance and enforcement procedures as set out in the RWSS, Irrigation Environmental Management Plan (IEMP).
RWSS FARM PLAN NO: xxx
Version no: xx
Document1
Responsibility for Implementing this Farm Plan
As the person responsible for implementing this plan, I confirm that the information provided is correct:
Name (plan implementer): …………………………………………..……….
Signature: ……………………………….……..…….
Position (e.g. owner/manager): ………………………….…………………
Date: …………………………………………………….
Owner and Lessee Commitment
As owner/s of this farming business I/we are committed to ensuring that all activities on our property are undertaken in an environmentally sustainable
and culturally sensitive manner. We agree to monitor our performance in meeting the management objectives and outcomes in this Plan, and take
appropriate actions to address any areas where improvement is needed.
Name (Owner or owner representative) ……………………………………………………….. Signature ………………………………………..
Date:
/
/
Name (Lessee or lessee representative) ……………………………………………………….. Signature ………………………………………..
Date:
/
/
Technical approval by RWSS
Comments
A. I have reviewed this plan and believe that it:
1. Is technically sound and feasible
Yes
No
2. Identifies all relevant environmental risks and causes
Yes
No
3. Addresses or otherwise adequately mitigates the risks Yes
No
4. Is able to meet this farm plan objectives
Yes
No
Yes
No
B. Completed nutrient budgets as required by RWSS
resource consents are attached:
Name:
Signature:
Date:
2
Document1
Farm Information
(for farm system using RWSS water)
General
Is there a change in farm system
between pre/post RWSS land
use (Y/N)
Farm Plan Areas (ha)
Total area covered by plan
Effective area
Irrigated areas (RWSS)
Irrigated area (other water)
Total Irrigated Area
Labour units to operate property
(No.)
Enterprise Type (tick) (√)
Dairy
Sheep/beef
Cattle/dairy support
Mixed cropping
Orchard/vineyard
Nursery
Lifestyle
Other
Notes (e.g. rainfall):
Enterprise Details
Irrigation & Effluent Details
Cattle (numbers unless specified)
Irrigation type / water supply (ha)
Cows
R1 & R2 cattle
Cattle trading (Y/N)
No. Winter grazers
Young stock dairy support
Irrigation type (water)
Sheep (numbers unless specified)
Ewes
Hoggets
W.lambs
Lamb/sheep trading (Y/N)
Dairy (numbers unless specified)
Peak. Cows milked
Winter Milking (Y/N)
No. Cows wintered off farm
No. R1 & R2 heifers grazed on farm
Scheme
Water
Irrigated
area (ha)
Other
Water
Irrigated
area (ha)
Pivot
Linear move
K-line / pod
Gun
Rotary boom
Linear boom
Long lateral
Solid set
Drip/micro
Other..
Total Irrigation (ha)
Collected Effluent
Effluent
irrigation type
Area irrigated
by irrigator
type (ha)
Pivot
Crops
Ha in crop
Standard Crop rotation (list example rotation)
Other – vineyards, orchards etc. (describe)
Deer (numbers unless specified)
Hinds
R1 & R2 deer
Velveting Stags
Linear move
K-line/pod
Travelling
irrigator
Other
Total effluent
area
Effluent
storage
Less 5 days
Tick Box
5 – 15 days
16 – 30 days
31 – 60 days
> 2 months
Other
Stock type/No.
3
Document1
INSERT FARM MAP/S HERE
Name key roads and show North direction, to enable farm to be located on a road map.
Show on map, if present:
 Land management units (these should align with the blocks used in the nutrient budget)
 Irrigated area by irrigation type
 Effluent area
 Bores/wells
 Water races
 Conservation or covenanted areas/ indigenous bush/scrub or any areas within or adjoining the property that are identified in a
District Plan as “significant indigenous biodiversity”
 The location of permanent or intermittent rivers, streams1, lakes, drains (open/tile), ponds or wetlands1, including stock crossing
points - Show which streams are fenced
 Standoff areas, feed pads
 The location of storage facilities, offal or refuse disposal pits, feeding or stock holding areas, effluent blocks, raceways, tracks and
crossings
 Lease blocks – including owner name (If the whole farm is leased from one owner, then record this information on page 1)
1
As defined in the Regional Resource Management Plan
4
Document1
SLOPE
Tick (√) relevant boxes
Flat
Rolling
Irrigation
Type
None
Water
Effluent
Block Strengths
Moveable
Spray
Mod. steep
Fixed
Spray
Steep
Drip/
micro
LAND
USE
Land Management Unit A: (name as shown on map)
Pastoral
Forage
Crops
%
Arable
Crops
%
Area of block (ha)
Small
seeds
%
Vegetables
%
Stream/s present Wetland/s present
Yes / No
Yes / No
Other………..
%
Soil type
Block Weaknesses
Environmental Risk Assessment for this Land Management Unit
Adequacy of current practices to manage risks2
Drain
Cleaning
Earth works /
construction4
N leaching5
n/a
n/a
P leaching5
n/a
n/a
Risk
category
Inherent
risk1
L/M/H
Reasons for risk rating
Stock
grazing3
Winter
grazing3
Runoff
contamination
Erosion
Fertiliser
application
Irrigation
n/a
Soil
compaction
n/a
Dairy
effluent
Cultivation
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
1
Estimate the Inherent Risk of the problem occurring – High, Medium or Low – H, M, L
How adequate are your current management practices to management the risk? Use a scale of 1 -5 where: 1 = risk not managed at all, 5 = risk fully managed
3
Under ‘Stock grazing’ consider general environmental risks arising from stock on this block, and under ‘winter grazing’ assess specific issues arising in winter
4
Tracks, races, recontouring etc.
5
Leaching’ is the loss of nutrients when water drains through the soil profile below the root zone
2
5
Document1
SLOPE
Irrigation
Type
None
Water
Effluent
Block Strengths
Moveable
Spray
Mod. steep
Fixed
Spray
Steep
Drip/
micro
LAND
USE
Land Management Unit B: (name as shown on map)
Tick (√) relevant boxes
Flat
Rolling
Pastoral
Forage
Crops
%
Arable
Crops
%
Area of block (ha)
Small
seeds
%
Vegetables
%
Stream/s present Wetland/s present
Yes / No
Yes / No
Other………..
%
Soil type
Block Weaknesses
Environmental Risk Assessment for this Land Management Unit
Adequacy of current practices to manage risks2
Drain
Cleaning
Earth works /
construction4
N leaching5
n/a
n/a
P leaching5
n/a
n/a
Risk
category
Inherent
risk1
L/M/H
Reasons for risk rating
Stock
grazing3
Winter
grazing3
Runoff
contamination
Erosion
Fertiliser
application
n/a
Irrigation
Dairy
effluent
Cultivation
n/a
Soil
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
compaction
1
Estimate the Inherent Risk of the problem occurring – High, Medium or Low – H, M, L
2
How adequate are your current management practices to management the risk? Use a scale of 1 -5 where: 1 = risk not managed at all, 5 = risk fully managed
3
Under ‘Stock grazing’ consider general environmental risks arising from stock on this block, and under ‘winter grazing’ assess specific issues arising in winter
4
Tracks, races, recontouring etc.
5
Leaching’ is the loss of nutrients when water drains through the soil profile below the root zone
6
Document1
SLOPE
Tick (√) relevant boxes
Flat
Rolling
Irrigation
Type
None
Water
Effluent
Block Strengths
Moveable
Spray
Mod. steep
Fixed
Spray
Steep
Drip/
micro
LAND
USE
Land Management Unit C: (name as shown on map)
Pastoral
Forage
Crops
%
Arable
Crops
%
Area of block (ha)
Small
seeds
%
Vegetables
%
Stream/s present Wetland/s present
Yes / No
Yes / No
Other………..
%
Soil type
Block Weaknesses
Environmental Risk Assessment for this Land Management Unit
Adequacy of current practices to manage risks2
Drain
Cleaning
Earth works /
construction4
N leaching5
n/a
n/a
P leaching5
n/a
n/a
Risk
category
Inherent
risk1
L/M/H
Reasons for risk rating
Stock
grazing3
Winter
grazing3
Runoff
contamination
Erosion
Fertiliser
application
Irrigation
n/a
Soil
compaction
n/a
Dairy
effluent
Cultivation
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
1
Estimate the Inherent Risk of the problem occurring – High, Medium or Low – H, M, L
How adequate are your current management practices to management the risk? Use a scale of 1 -5 where: 1 = risk not managed at all, 5 = risk fully managed
3
Under ‘Stock grazing’ consider general environmental risks arising from stock on this block, and under ‘winter grazing’ assess specific issues arising in winter
4
Tracks, races, recontouring etc.
5
Leaching’ is the loss of nutrients when water drains through the soil profile below the root zone
2
7
Document1
SLOPE
Tick (√) relevant boxes
Flat
Rolling
Irrigation
Type
None
Water
Effluent
Block Strengths
Moveable
Spray
Mod. steep
Fixed Spray
Steep
Drip/
micro
LAND
USE
Land Management Unit D: (name as shown on map)
Pastoral
Forage
Crops
%
Arable
Crops
%
Area of block (ha)
Small
seeds
%
Vegetables
%
Stream/s present Wetland/s present
Yes / No
Yes / No
Other………..
%
Soil type
Block Weaknesses
Environmental Risk Assessment for this Land Management Unit
Adequacy of current practices to manage risks2
Drain
Cleaning
Earth works /
construction4
N leaching5
n/a
n/a
P leaching5
n/a
n/a
Risk
category
Inherent
risk1
L/M/H
Reasons for risk rating
Stock
grazing3
Winter
grazing3
Runoff
contamination
Erosion
Fertiliser
application
Irrigation
n/a
Soil
compaction
n/a
Dairy
effluent
Cultivation
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
1
Estimate the Inherent Risk of the problem occurring – High, Medium or Low – H, M, L
How adequate are your current management practices to management the risk? Use a scale of 1 -5 where: 1 = risk not managed at all, 5 = risk fully managed
3
Under ‘Stock grazing’ consider general environmental risks arising from stock on this block, and under ‘winter grazing’ assess specific issues arising in winter
4
Tracks, races, recontouring etc.
5
Leaching’ is the loss of nutrients when water drains through the soil profile below the root zone
2
8
Document1
Irrigation System Design and Installation
Management Objective: To ensure that all new irrigation systems and significant upgrades2 meet industry best practice standards
Required outcomes
1. New irrigation infrastructure is designed and installed to deliver water to industry best practice standards
Acceptability of
practices
Baseline Practices (examples of
practices, others may be added)
Current
Practices
(Y/N or
N/A)
Additional actions & timeframes to meet
outcomes
Evidence for Compliance
Required outcome: 1. New irrigation infrastructure is designed and installed to deliver water to industry best practice standards
Good
Minimum
Requirements



2
Provide certificate from INZ
accredited designer or from a
suitably qualified independent
reviewer
All new on-farm irrigation infrastructure is
designed in accordance with Design
Standards for Piped Irrigation Systems in
New Zealand (Irrigation NZ, October
2012); Code of Practice for the Design of
Piped Irrigation Systems in New Zealand
(Irrigation NZ, October 2012) and meets
scheme contract requirements for flow
meter, and limits on flow rate, volume and
area irrigated; and telemetry
All new irrigation infrastructure is installed
in accordance with Installation Code of
Practice for Piped Irrigation Systems
(Irrigation NZ, January 2012);
Commissioning tests show that system
performs to desired specifications for:
o System capacity
o Application depth
o Application intensity
o Application Uniformity (DU>=85%)
o Return interval
Provide commissioning report
Manuals available
Define ‘significant upgrade’ e.g. conversion border to spray; k-line to pivot
9
Document1
Acceptability of
practices
Baseline Practices (examples of
practices, others may be added)

Premium
Required to ensure
design can achieve
effective and efficient
use of water


Current
Practices
(Y/N or
N/A)
Additional actions & timeframes to meet
outcomes
Evidence for Compliance
Operation and maintenance manuals
obtained.
“Good” plus:
Comprehensive evaluation and decisionmaking process used (e.g. INZ Decision
support process).
Independent evaluation of design/s
10
Document1
Irrigation Management
Management Objective: To ensure efficient on-farm water use that meets crop needs and minimises losses.
Required outcomes
1. All irrigation applications are justified by monitoring and/or other assessment or information
2. Farm practices optimise water applications from irrigation system
3. All staff involved in the operation and maintenance of the irrigation system are suitably trained
Acceptability of Baseline Practices (examples of
Current Additional actions & timeframes
practices
practices, others may be added)
Practices to meet outcomes
(Y/N or
N/A)
Evidence for Compliance
Required outcome: 1. All irrigation applications are justified by monitoring and/or other assessment or information
Good
Required
minimum
Measurements taken and used
 Rainfall measured and recorded
 Consideration of rain/weather forecast
 Soil temperature monitored
 Soil moisture assessment actively used:
o Buried sensors
o Scheduling service
o Hand held probe
o Modelling e.g. Aqua Trac
o Water balance calculation

Crop irrigation scheduling model used

Use basic checks (holes / fence
standard) to check technology /
calculations
Other …

Premium
Required to fully
demonstrate
efficient water
“Good” plus:
 Farm-wide water balance modelling
using local climate data and groundtruthed with soil moisture monitoring
11




Rainfall records
Soil moisture records
Soil temperature records
Staff questioning of irrigation scheduling


Provide records
Staff questioning of irrigation scheduling
Document1
Acceptability of
practices
Baseline Practices (examples of
practices, others may be added)
use



Current Additional actions & timeframes
Practices to meet outcomes
(Y/N or
N/A)
Evidence for Compliance
Records of measurements and
irrigation decisions kept to
demonstrate how soil moisture levels
are managed between field capacity
and the Management Allowable Deficit
(irrigation trigger point)
Sensor records stored on computer or
in notebook and reviewed regularly or
provided by scheduling service
Variable rate irrigation
Required outcome: 2.
Farm practices optimise water applications from irrigation system
Only fill in sections relevant to your irrigation type:
Go to “Optimise applications for spray systems” for linear, pivot, travelling gun/boom, rotary boom, pod systems
Go to “Optimise applications for micro /drip” for micro sprinkler or drip systems
Optimise applications for spray
systems
Good
Required
minimum for
most systems





Daily checks for excessive runoff or
ponding and adjust system, if
necessary
System closed down if excessive runoff
and/or ponding occurs
Application to non-productive areas
(tracks, impermeable surfaces, rivers
streams) is minimised
Daily checks for blocked nozzles,
leaking hydrants or hoses, irrigator
alignment and problems fixed
Rotation / irrigator speeds adjusted
according to ET, soil moisture status
and rainfall
12

Provide irrigation application calibration record
(e.g. a spreadsheet).



Application rate check results
Staff questioning of irrigation operations
Irrigation incident records

Baseline evaluation report
Document1
Acceptability of
practices
Baseline Practices (examples of
practices, others may be added)

Moveable 
systems


Pivots






Current Additional actions & timeframes
Practices to meet outcomes
(Y/N or
N/A)
Evidence for Compliance

Spray line shifts made to suitable plan
(e.g. GPS on bike; follow map)
Lines moved to cover any dry patches
that occur
Spray line shifts made to suitable plan
(e.g. GPS on bike; follow map)
Wetted width widened on outer spans
on long pivots or on slopes to ensure
application rate does not exceed soil
infiltration rate (e.g. by fitting boombacks or clipping hoses over truss rods
and fitting wide spray sprinklers)
Irrigation and effluent application not
duplicated on the same land i.e.
irrigation lines shut down where/when
effluent irrigation is being applied
Monitor pasture/crop growth and
development
Application rate checks with buckets or
rain gauge pre-season and keep
records
Water distributed evenly (DU>=85%)
System evaluation report that sets out the
system performance and upgrade workplan
System in place for staff to report/fix
problems
A baseline audit of the irrigation
system is completed by an Irrigation
NZ accredited evaluator to identify
efficiency improvements (only
required for irrigation systems installed
prior to RWSS becoming operational,
to be done at the time RWSS water is
accessed).
13
Document1
Acceptability of
practices
Baseline Practices (examples of
practices, others may be added)

Premium
Required to fully
demonstrate
efficient water
use
Current Additional actions & timeframes
Practices to meet outcomes
(Y/N or
N/A)
Evidence for Compliance
Any required upgrades are included in
a work-plan with timelines for
completion
“Good” plus:
 Application depth and uniformity
checks with buckets or rain gauge preseason, and regularly through season
 System evaluation by certified
evaluator 5 yearly, and programme to
remedy problems implemented


Application rate checks
System evaluation report and workplan
Optimise applications for micro /drip
Good
Required
minimum for
most systems






Provide irrigation application rate record (e.g. a
spreadsheet). See example at:
http://www.pagebloomer.co.nz/resources/irrigationcalibration/
System layout plan and control points
available at system on/off control
station
Pre-season calibration check of each
block. Run-time adjustment factors
applied
Sight system layout plan
Sight calibration sheets
Sight log book
Regular readings of operating pressure
and flow logged by block
System flushing at least annually
Determine cause of and manage
identified wet or dry spots
A baseline audit of the irrigation
system is completed by an Irrigation
NZ accredited evaluator (only required
for irrigation systems installed prior to
RWSS becoming operational, to be
done at the time RWSS water is
accessed).
Baseline audit sighted
Upgrade workplan sighted
14
Document1
Acceptability of
practices
Baseline Practices (examples of
practices, others may be added)

Premium
Required to fully
demonstrate
efficient water
use
Current Additional actions & timeframes
Practices to meet outcomes
(Y/N or
N/A)
Evidence for Compliance
If required, upgrades should be
included in a work-plan with timelines
for completion
“Good” plus:
 System maintenance plan in place and
records kept
 System evaluation by certified
evaluator within last 5 years; and
programme to remedy problems
implemented
Required outcome: 3.
Maintenance plan and records
Evaluation report
All staff involved in the operation and maintenance of the irrigation system are suitably trained
Good
Required
minimum for
most irrigators

Premium
Required to fully
demonstrate
efficient water
use
At least 1 staff member with Irrigation
System Operator Training Standard (from
Irrigation NZ). This staff member to be
responsible for managing the irrigation
systems on-farm.
Relative to their responsibilities,
provide on-farm training for all staff
involved in irrigation management,
including but not limited to:
o Understand RWSS requirements
o How to avoid runoff and/or ponding
o Correct application depths
o Emergency procedures
o System monitoring for problem
identification
o System maintenance
o Individual staff responsibilities and
accountability
15


Staff questioning to determine competency
Irrigation management data and information is
available to staff

Certificate of attendance
Document1
Nutrient and Soil Management
Management Objective: To minimise nutrient and sediment losses from farming activities to ground and surface water.
Required outcomes
1. All sources and potential losses of nutrients, sediment and effluent are clearly identified
2. Nitrogen loss allowance for property, as set by RWSS, is not exceeded.
3. Phosphorus (P) and sediment losses to freshwater are minimised.
4. Soils are well-managed to optimise infiltration and minimise runoff
Acceptability of
practices
Baseline Management Practices
(other practices may be added)
Current
Practices
(Y/N or
N/A)
Additional actions & timeframes to meet
outcomes
Evidence for Compliance
Required outcome: 1. All sources and potential losses of nutrients (including effluent) and sediment and are clearly identified
Good
Required minimum
Nutrient budget
 Nutrient loss determined by an OVERSEER
budget (or an alternative model approved
by the HBRC Group Manager, Resource
Management) and prepared by a suitably
qualified operator.
 Whole farm nutrient budget uses budgets
for each land management unit/block
using agreed input parameter protocol
(e.g. industry or regional council)
 Whole farm nutrient budget up-dated
every two years (by a person with
experience and qualification approved by
the HBRC Group Manager, Resource
Management) and a copy supplied to the
consent holder (RWSS) by 31 August on
the same two yearly rotation.
 Nutrient budget calculations take full
account of all nutrient inputs and outputs
Particular note is taken of N and P
requirements and losses from the
property.
16

Provide the nutrient
budget & parameter
report (input data)

Map showing critical
source areas plus plan to
reduce nutrient and
sediment losses from
these areas.
Document1
Acceptability of
practices
Baseline Management Practices
(other practices may be added)
Current
Practices
(Y/N or
N/A)
Additional actions & timeframes to meet
outcomes
Evidence for Compliance
Critical sites for P and sediment loss
 Identify locations that are key sites for P
and sediment losses
Premium
Required to show
excellence in nutrient
management
Required outcome: 2. Nitrogen loss allowance3 for property, as set by RWSS, is not exceeded.
Good
Required minimum for
most situations
N losses minimized by selecting amount
/type of fert to apply:
 Use recommendations on type and
amount from qualified person (fertiliser
consultant or farm advisor) or
Application decisions based on:
o Soil testing
o Plant analysis
o Nutrient budget results
o Assessment of pasture quality
o Deep soil nitrogen testing for arable
crops
o Crop models
o Matching nitrogen applications in
proportion to other nutrients,
according to plant and animal
requirements
Copy of nutrient management
plan prepared by qualified
person, including:
 nutrient budget
 soil test results and
nutrient analysis (if
available)
 fertiliser
recommendations from
fertiliser representative.
 Application records
 Proof of placement maps
 Soil moisture records and
application records
 Crop rotation records
 Record of wintering
adjustment practices
 Stock numbers
 Record of supplements
purchased and used on
property, and made and
sold from property
Application techniques and timing
 Using “Spreadmark” standards or using
suitably calibrated equipment for N
applications.
3
Nitrogen allowance is the nutrient loss modelled for the ‘post’ land use as supplied for contract approval
17
Document1
Acceptability of
practices
Baseline Management Practices
(other practices may be added)


Current
Practices
(Y/N or
N/A)
Additional actions & timeframes to meet
outcomes
Evidence for Compliance
Rates of N are applied to match growth
cycle of pasture and soil moisture
conditions.
Timing of nitrogen applications are
matched to times of high plant growth
and crop requirements

Pasture is at least 25mm high (approx
1000kg DM/Ha) before nitrogen is applied
 Nitrogen is not applied when the 10cm
soil temperature at 9am is less than 6
degrees Celsius
 Nitrogen fertiliser is not applied when the
ground is saturated and/or when the tile
drains are running
 Nitrogen not applied to excessively dry or
compacted soil
 Other ….
Other management practices to reduce N
losses:
 Cultivation practices and timing adjusted
to minimise N losses.




Crop rotations adjusted to maximise the
use of residual N in the soil and minimise
N losses
Stock wintering practices adjusted to
minimise nutrient losses.
Soil compaction from stock grazing and/or
heavy machinery movement minimised.
Stock numbers adjusted to meet N Loss
allowance set under RWSS contract.
18
Document1
Acceptability of
practices
Baseline Management Practices
(other practices may be added)


Premium
Required to show
excellence in minimising
nitrogen loss from
farming activities

Current
Practices
(Y/N or
N/A)
Additional actions & timeframes to meet
outcomes
Evidence for Compliance
Harvest supplements and export from
property.
N fertiliser reduced by replacing a portion
applied with supplements (e.g. maize
silage).

GPS technology is used for precise
application and for a digital record of
fertiliser proof of placement, for all N
fertiliser spread on-farm
Evidence of technology
use
Required outcome: 3. Phosphate (P) & sediment losses to groundwater and waterways are minimised and critical source areas managed.
Good
Required minimum for
most situations to show
minimisation of
phosphate and
sediment losses from
farming activities

Phosphate and sediment losses managed by:
Selecting amount /type of fert to apply:
 Use recommendations on type and rate of
P applications, as recommended by
qualified person (fertiliser consultant or
farm advisor) based on:
o Soil testing
o Plant analysis
o Nutrient budget results
o Assessment of pasture quality
o Need for capital or maintenance
fertiliser
Application techniques and timing
 Use “Spreadmark” standards or using
suitably calibrated equipment for P
applications.







19
Soil test and fertiliser
recommendations.
Fertiliser application
records
Nutrient budget
Spreadmark accreditation
certificate
Fertiliser application
records
Field observation
Proof of placement charts
Critical source map and
action plan
Document1
Acceptability of
practices
Baseline Management Practices
(other practices may be added)
Current
Practices
(Y/N or
N/A)
Additional actions & timeframes to meet
outcomes
Evidence for Compliance

Premium
Required to show
excellence
Use split applications where the single
application rate would exceed 100kgP/ha,
unless there is sound justification around
not adhering to this e.g. dry autumn and
winter conditions leading to a potential
animal welfare issue
 Limit phosphate application between
June-August
 Fertiliser is not applied when the soil is
saturated and/or excessively dry
 Fertiliser is not applied to severely
compacted soils
 Appropriate vegetation buffer strips of
sufficient widths are in place (width as
defined by nutrient model)
 Other …..
Managing key sites to reduce P and sediment
losses
 Mitigation actions identified and
timetabled to reduce P losses from
identified critical source areas
 GPS technology is used for precise
application and for a digital record of
fertiliser proof of placement, for all
phosphate fertiliser spread on-farm

Evidence of technology
use.


Field inspection
Soil aeration records
Required outcome: 4. Soils are well-managed to optimise infiltration and minimise runoff
Good
Required minimum for
most situations


Check for soil compaction
Actively reduce adverse effects of
significant soil compaction on water and
effluent infiltration rates (e.g. using soil
aerator etc)
20
Document1
Acceptability of
practices
Baseline Management Practices
(other practices may be added)



Premium
Required to show
excellence in soil
management

Current
Practices
(Y/N or
N/A)
Additional actions & timeframes to meet
outcomes
Evidence for Compliance
Recognize the difference in soil types and
soil properties and manage accordingly to
minimise soil compaction damage
Increased crop residue is left in the soil
Heavy machinery restricted to specified
pathways

Soil map of property and
plan to manage major soil
differences
Regular soil quality monitoring
undertaken e.g. Visual Soil Assessments
(VSA) and records kept.

Records e.g. VSA
21
Document1
Collected Effluent Management4
Management Objective: To manage the operation of the effluent system to avoid adverse effects on water quality
Required outcomes
1. Effluent management and discharge comply fully with all regional council consent requirements 365 days / year
2. Effluent discharge correctly applied to avoid contamination of surface or ground water
Acceptability of
Baseline Practices (examples of
Current
Additional actions & timeframes to meet
practices
practices, others may be added)
Practices outcomes
(Y/N or
N/A)
Required outcome: 1. Effluent system and application fully compliant with regulations 365 days / year
Good
Minimum for most
effluent management


All required consents are current and
system fully compliant
Operation and maintenance of effluent
system fully compliant with consent
conditions
Required outcome: 2. Effluent discharge correctly applied to avoid contamination of surface or ground water
Good
 High risk effluent disposal areas identified
Minimum for most
 Effluent applied at rates that do not lead
effluent management
to ponding and/or runoff.
 Input to effluent system reduced by
diverting clean yard and shed roof water
appropriately.



4
Pond storage area is sized in accordance
with Pond Calculator recommendations
Effluent irrigation system is capable of
delivering the correct amount of effluent
for soil type and slope.
Correct amounts of effluent applied for
specific soil properties and slope i.e.
effluent application does not exceed soil
infiltration rate in accordance with Farm
Evidence for Compliance

Regional council
compliance report

Map showing risk areas

Bucket test information

System set-up
specifications and
follow-up tests

Bucket tests & visual
observation
Map of effluent area.

This section of this FEP may be covered by an approved audited Dairy Supplier plan or similar.
22
Document1
Acceptability of
practices
Baseline Practices (examples of
practices, others may be added)


Premium
Necessary to show
excellence in effluent
management


Current
Practices
(Y/N or
N/A)
Dairy Effluent (FDE) Design code of
Practice (Dairy NZ)
Take immediate action if incident or
breakdowns occurs including:
o Rectify the problem
o Clean up if possible
o Take action to minimise the risk
of the incident / breakage
occurring again
Staff who are involved in the management
of the effluent system are fully trained in
the use of the system.
Proof of placement technology used to
identify areas of effluent application
Fail safe systems such as Gator-buddy and
variable rate irrigation to minimize risk of
incidents, and application of effluent to
high risk areas.
Additional actions & timeframes to meet
outcomes
Evidence for Compliance

Map or dairy record of
effluent applications.

Visual observation +
map showing exclusion
zones

Staff training schedule

Proof of placement
printouts
Visual observation

23
Document1
Waterway and Wetland Management
Management Objective: To manage waterways, wetlands and their margins to avoid stock damage and minimise inputs of nutrients, sediment and faecal contamination
Required outcomes
1. Stock damage to waterways and wetlands is minimized
2. Farm practices minimise soil, nutrient and faecal contamination of waterways
Acceptability of
practices
Baseline Practices (examples of
practices, others may be added)
Current
Practices
Y/N or
N/A
Required outcome: 1. Stock damage to waterways and wetlands minimised
Good
Minimum requirements
for most waterways,
wetlands and regularly
wet areas


Premium
Necessary to show
excellence in water body
management
A bridge or culvert is in place where
formed stock races cross streams.

Approaches to stock crossings managed to
avoid runoff to waterways
All stock crossings (where water ways and
stock races/tracks intersect) have bridge
or culvert
Evidence for Compliance

Stock excluded from streams and
wetlands in accordance with HBRC
Regional Council rule TT1. Record as
compliant if meeting the weed control
grazing conditions. (Refer to summary of
stock exclusion rules in glossary):
Paddocks identified on map where stock
exclusion is required


Additional actions & timeframes to meet
outcomes


Field inspection of
waterways and
wetlands
Maps identifying slope,
permanent &
intermittent streams
Visual inspection of
stock exclusion and or
stock exclusion
methods

Field inspection of
waterways and
wetlands

Field inspection of
waterways and
wetlands
Required outcome: 2. Farm practices minimise soil, nutrient and faecal contamination of waterways
Good
Minimum requirements
for most waterways

Strip next to riparian margin grazed last
when break feeding winter feed crops.

Minimum or no-till cultivation techniques
used when high risk of run-off from
cultivated blocks.
24
Document1
Acceptability of
practices
Baseline Practices (examples of
practices, others may be added)

Premium
Necessary to show
excellence in water body
management



Current
Practices
Y/N or
N/A
Runoff from formed stock races does not
flow directly into waterways. Where
necessary this runoff is directed to open
pasture.
Appropriate vegetation buffer strips of
sufficient width for land type and slope (as
defined by nutrient model )
Provide adequate filtering of sediment
and nutrients e.g. by appropriate riparian
buffers at low points.
Additional actions & timeframes to meet
outcomes
Evidence for Compliance


Field inspection of
waterways and
wetlands
Sight nutrient model
recommendations
Riparian planting programme prepared
and implemented.
25
Document1
Summary check list
Sections
General Details
Signature Page
Farm Information –farm
system under RWSS
Farm Map
Land Management Units
Irrigation System Design and
Installation
Irrigation Management
Nutrient and Soil Management
Collected Effluent
Management5
Waterway and Wetland
Management
Nutrient Budget Summary –
pre & post RWSS water access
Required Outcome
Completed
(Y/N or
N/A)
Acceptability of
practices (Poor/Good
/Premium)
-
-
All land management units profiled
1. New irrigation infrastructure is designed and installed to deliver water to
industry best practice standards
1. All irrigation applications are justified by monitoring and/or other assessment
or information
2. Farm practices optimise water applications from For spray systems
irrigation system:
For micro /drip systems
3. All staff involved in the operation and maintenance of the irrigation system are
suitably trained
1. All sources and potential losses of nutrients (including effluent) and sediment
are clearly identified
2. Nitrogen loss allowance for property, as set by RWSS, is not exceeded
(Nitrogen allowance is the nutrient loss modelled for the ‘post’ land use as
supplied for contract approval)
3. Phosphate (P) & sediment losses to groundwater and waterways are minimised
and critical source areas managed.
4. Soils are well-managed to optimise infiltration and minimise runoff
1. Effluent system and application fully compliant with regulations 365 days /
year
2. Effluent discharge correctly applied to avoid contamination of surface or
ground water
1. Stock damage to waterways and wetlands minimised
2. Farm practices minimise soil, nutrient and faecal contamination of waterways
-
Covered by
alternative audited
farm plan? (Y/N &
name)
-
26
Document1
Summary of agreed actions
Agreed actions
Completion date
Person
responsible
Completed
Irrigation management
Nutrient and soils management
Collected animal effluent management
Waterways and wetland management
27
Document1
Appendix 1: Pre-RWSS Farm Information and Budget
1. Summary of Pre-RWSS Farm Information (fill in table)
2. Nutrient budget & Nitrogen Conversion Efficiency for Pre-RWSS water supply (must be attached below)
28
Document1
Pre-RWSS farm system Information
General
Enterprise Details
Irrigation & Effluent details
Farm Plan Areas (ha)
Total area covered by plan
Effective area
Irrigated areas (RWSS)
Irrigated area (other water)
Total Irrigated Area
Cattle (numbers unless specified)
Irrigation type / water supply (ha)
Labour units to operate property
(No.)
Sheep (numbers unless specified)
Enterprise Type (tick) (√)
Dairy
Sheep/beef
Cattle/dairy support
Mixed cropping
Orchard/vineyard
Nursery
Lifestyle
Other
Notes (e.g. rainfall):
Cows
R1 & R2 cattle
Cattle trading (Y/N)
No. Winter grazers
Young stock dairy support
Irrigation type (water)
Ewes
Hoggets
W.lambs
Lamb/sheep trading (Y/N)
Total Irrigation (ha)
Peak. Cows milked
Winter Milking (Y/N)
No. Cows wintered off farm
No. R1 & R2 heifers grazed on farm
Collected Effluent
Crops
Pivot
Ha in crop
Standard Crop rotation (list example rotation)
Linear move
Deer (numbers unless specified)
Hinds
R1 & R2 deer
Velveting Stags
Other
Water
Irrigated
area (ha)
Pivot
Linear move
K-line / pod
Gun
Rotary boom
Linear boom
Long lateral
Solid set
Drip/micro
Other..
Dairy (numbers unless specified)
Other – vineyards, orchards etc. (describe)
Scheme
Water
Irrigated
area (ha)
Effluent
irrigation type
Area irrigated
by irrigator
type (ha)
K-line/pod
Travelling
irrigator
Other
Total effluent
area
Effluent
storage
Less 5 days
Tick Box
5 – 15 days
16 – 30 days
31 – 60 days
Other
> 2 months
Stock type/No.
29
Document1
Nutrient budget for Pre-RWSS water supply (must be attached)
30
Document1
Nitrogen Conversion Efficiency: Pre-RWSS
31
Document1
Appendix 2: Post-RWSS Nutrient Budget
Nutrient budget for Post-RWSS water supply (must be attached)
32
Document1
Nitrogen Conversion Efficiency: Post-RWSS
33
Document1
Appendix 3: Nutrient Budget Summary – pre & post RWSS water access
Nutrient budgets are to be updated every two years by a person with experience and qualifications approved by the HBRC Group Manager, Resource Management, and a
copy supplied to the consent holder by 31 August every second year. Each update shall utilise the farming records from the preceding two years ended 30 June to ensure
that it reflects the current farm practice. Nutrient loss is to be determined by an OVERSEER budget (or an alternative model approved by the HBRC Group Manager,
Resource Management). Different sections need to be filled in depending on if/when RWSS water has been accessed:
1. First time access to RWSS water: fill in table 1, 2 and 3. A farm nutrient budget for the farming system as at 6 May 2013 (pre land use) and one for the proposed
farming system (post) is required to fill in these tables.
2. Existing access to dam water: For farm enterprises that are submitting the second or subsequent FEMP nutrient budget fill in table 1, 2 and 4. The already developed
farm nutrient budget for the farming system as at 6 May 2013 (pre land use) and one for the post farming system (to be done every two years)are required to fill in
these tables.
Table 1: Background
Nutrient budget prepared by (Person, company,
contact details):
Table 3: Pre and Post irrigation scheme nutrient budget
Nutrient loss for the ‘Pre’ farming system as at 6 May 2013 (a)
Nutrient loss for the ‘Post’ farming system (b)
Change in nutrient outputs from the ‘Pre’ farm system to the ‘Post’ farm
system (b-a)
Program/method for deriving nutrient
budget e.g. Overseer
Farm in Phosphorus Management
Priority Catchment (Y/N)
N loss allowance (from benchmark year = ‘Post’ farm system nutrient
budget N Loss)
P loss limit (= Scheme approved P loss that maintains a P neutral status)
Phosphorus mitigation necessary to maintain a phosphorous neutral
position relative to 6 May 2013 (RWSS requirement) (Y/N)
Further phosphorus mitigation necessary due to Phosphorus
Management Priority Catchment requirements (Y/N)
Table 2: Nitrogen Conversion
Efficiency (NCE)6
For ‘Pre’ farm system
For ‘Post’ farm system
NCE (%)
N Loss kg/ha
P Loss kg/ha
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Table 4: Two yearly review of nutrient budget for existing scheme users
P loss from nutrient budget review
N loss allowance7 (from benchmark year) (a)
N loss from nutrient budget review (utilising previous two year period) (b)
Calculate % difference = ((b-a) / (a)) x 100
Loss kg/ha
(If the % increase in nitrogen loss from the land is more than 10% then farm plan is to be reviewed to
reduce this increase to no more than 10% over the benchmark N loss6nutrient budget.)
6
7
Nitrogen conversion efficiency = Product N / Input N. N inputs include: fertiliser, supplements and N fixation.
‘Benchmark N loss’ is the N loss modelled in the initial proposed farm system nutrient budget.
34
Document1