South Coastal Canterbury Streams (SCCS)

Colin Hurst

Outline

• SCCS background• Tension and protest• Forming a “NARG” group• Key features of the NARG process• Where did we get to?• Proposed SCCS N-Allocation framework• Concluding thoughts• Questions & discussion?

SCCS background• We have red, orange and

green catchments under LWRP

• Consented new schemes (WD & HDI) would add 27,000 ha new irrigation

Tension and protest

• Feb 19th – Draft ZIP Addendum (N-allo based on Selwyn-Waihora framework)

• Land owners confused? Uncertainty of what all this means !

• Protest at Zone committee meeting• Equity concerns

Forming a “NARG” group

• Ok you farmers sort it out! - formation of Nitrogen Allocation Reference Group (NARG)

• 20 members – open to public

NARG Purpose:

“To work with ECan to assess and describe the consequences of different options for allocating N load in the South Canterbury

Coastal Streams (SCCS) area”

Key features of NARG process

• NARG to operate within guidelines and total N allocation already agreed

• Come up with allocation method• Working to a tight deadline!• Ten meetings, at times meeting weekly• Technical support

Key features of NARG process

• Negotiation between high and low emitting land users

• Support of Federated Farmers • Informal meetings behind the scene • Invaluable support of regional council

staff and the technical lead• Trust and Respect• Land and Water Partnership

Considered a range of (7+) options… see next

Grand-parentingProtects investment of existing high emitting land uses but does not provide others with opportunity to develop

Simple averagingAllows low emitting land users some flexibility to develop, but does not recognise existing investment

Solution Space!!!

(as also described by Land &Water Partnership on Tuesday 13 May)

Range of N-Allocation Options

Change from current situation

GMP at Current land use

GMP based on land use

+ flex cap

+ max

Modified Equal Allocation

Land Use Capability (Natural Capital)

Grand-parenting

Simple Averaging

Range of N-Allocation Options

At NARG’s request we shortlisted three options…

1 2

3GMP based on soil, rainfall (single land use)

Where did we get to? – key principles

• Protecting property owners equity • Enabling low emitters to intensify up to

flex cap• Protecting high emitters investment by

making reductions over time• Recognise water quality outcomes must

be met

Proposed SCCS N-Allo framework• Everyone starts at their 2009-13 N “baseline” as

per LWRP• Everyone to be at least at GMP for their baseline

landuse – as per MGM project numbers.• High emitters reduce through time – “Max Caps”• Low emitters can intensify up to “Flexibility Cap”• Flexibility cap increases through time as

mitigation occurs (flow augmentation) and gains are realised from the Max Caps

Maximum Caps

High emitters must reduce through time…(better than GMP for high emitters on light soils)

Maximum Cap for Waihao Wainono and Northern Streams (kg/ha/yr)

Soils New Users (HDI + WD +

any other new converters)

Existing Users

35 XL, VL, L Achieve immediately

on conversion

Must prepare a plan by 2020 showing how

to achieve

Achieve by 202525 M, H, D

20 Pd, Pdl

Flexibility caps for low emitters

Increase through time…• Start at 10 kg/ha/yr for Wainono (red zone)• Increase to 15kg once flow augmentation• Increase to 17kg once Max Caps achieved,

provided WQ outcomes being met

Note “steep hill” areas get 5kg/ha/yr

(can’t transfer load from steep hills to “average out” high losses on flat)

Implications of Max & Flex Caps?Red land uses must reduce to meet Max Caps (35, 25, 20)

Orange land uses carry on at GMP but can’t increase

Green land uses may increase to Flex Cap of 15 (but still at GMP)

Land Use XL VL L M H Pdl Pd

Arable (mixed grazing+dry) std mgmt 24 19 21 15 7 3 11

Arable (mixed grazing+irrig) std mgmt 27 21 23 21 15 8 12

Arable (seasonal grazing+dry) std mgmt 28 15 15 7 1 1 8

Arable (seasonal grazing+irrig) std mgmt 31 23 25 15 5 3 12Beef (dry) 41 27 15 13 10 5 8Beef (Irrig) 55 38 23 21 18 9 12Dairy (3 cows/ha+winteroff) 47 35 24 21 18 9 12Dairy (3 cows/ha+winteron) 55 38 23 21 18 9 12Dairy (4 cows/ha+winteroff) 66 50 35 30 26 13 17Dairy (4 cows/ha+winteron) 66 49 33 29 25 12 17Dairy (5 cows/ha+winteroff) 78 59 41 36 32 16 20Dairy support 51 34 19 16 13 6 9Dairy support (Irrig) 69 48 29 26 22 11 15Deer (dry) 10 9 8 8 8 4 4Deer (Irrig) 32 25 18 16 14 7 9Dryland Dairy 35 26 18 16 14 7 9Forestry - exotic (Dev) 1 1 1 1 1 1 0Sheep (dryland) 9 8 7 7 7 3 3Sheep (irrig) 27 21 15 13 12 6 7Sheep/Beef (10% beef+dry) 21 15 10 9 8 4 5Sheep/Beef (10% beef+irrig) 37 27 18 16 15 7 9Sheep/Beef (20% beef+dry) 27 19 12 10 9 4 6Sheep/Beef (20% beef+irrig) 42 30 19 18 16 8 10Sheep/Beef (50% beef+dry) 36 24 14 12 10 5 7Sheep/Beef (50% beef+irrig) 50 35 22 20 17 9 11Apples 8 8 8 6 6 3 4Summerfruit 8 8 7 5 6 3 4Berryfruit 12 12 12 8 12 6 6Vegetables 57 34 23 19 17 8 12Viticulture 5 6 20 12 18 10 12

DR

AF

T N

UM

BE

RS

Concluding thoughts

• Phosphate/Sediment controlled by FEP and GMP

• Soils are the key • Power of a consensus decision

ENDQuestions & discussion?

Possibly useful slides to have on hand…

Soils: S-Map + local hill estimates

Note narrow “ribbons” of XL, VL and L soils along river courses

Northern streams Otaio = 169 t/yrKohika = 96 t/yrHorseshoe = 51 t/yrMakikihi = 145 t/yr

Waihao Wainono Existing use = 680 t/yrHDI & WD = 227 t/yrFlexibility ‘bucket’= 214 t/yrTotal =1121 t/yr

Morven & Sinclairs Morven = 307 t/yrSinclairs = 61 t/yr

DRAFT N load estimates