Community Group Combined Kaituna/ Maket and Pongakawa/Waitahanui - - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Freshwater Futures Community Group

Combined Kaituna/ Maketū and Pongakawa/Waitahanui - Workshop 7

Welcome

Tiaki pumautia te wai e hoki mai ai ngā rawa ki a tātau katoa Treat the water wisely and it will return to us

Housekeeping

• Fire protocol
• Toilets
• Meals
• Recording and sharing notes
• Make yourself at home

Agenda

lunch am tea

Welcome National and regional update Mitigation bundles and baseline profit Introduction to environmental flow setting in rivers Next steps

Outcomes sought today

Feedback on make up of mitigation bundles:

• Are they about right?
• Have we missed anything significant?

Feedback on baseline profit estimates

• Are they about right?

Improve understanding about scope of work and upcoming discussions

Purpose of this group

To help Council implement the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management:

• confirm values, express preferred objectives
• provide feedback on limits for freshwater quality and

quantity within this Water Management Area

• provide input to solutions for managing activities to

meet those limits

• advise Council in their decision-making for Plan

Change 12

Calendar to completion

7

Workshop 5: Aug 17

• Toward Objectives
• Use Values

Workshop 6: September 17

• Development Scenarios
• Use Values (con't)
• Management Options & Assessment Criteria

Workshop 7: April 18

• Mitigation Bundles

Workshop 8:  May/June 18

• Mitigation Costs
• Draft Objectives
• Modelling Results - baseline and

development

• Flow setting results

Workshop 9:  Aug/Sep 18

• Modelling Results - mitigation
• Limits
• Solutions building and

assessments

National and regional updates

National Update

• More NPSFM changes indicated
• Minister Parker:
• National options to halt declining water quality

now – land use intensification regulations?

• Allocation options for nitrogen and

phosphorous

• Swimmable rivers and lakes

Regional Update

• Te Maru O Kaituna - river document
• RPS Change 3: Rangitāiki River
• Plan Change 9: Water Quantity
• Draft regional targets for swimmable

rivers and lakes (primary contact)

Draft regional targets – part of the bigger picture National targets – 80% of specified rivers and lakes swimmable by 2030 and 90% by 2040

2017 swimming categories

Water quality for swimming map

Draft BOP targets are 95.7% of specified rivers and 85% percent

• f specified lakes swimmable by 2030.
• our region’s contribution to the national targets
• reported on MfE’s website on 31 March
• already better than the national targets –

allows us to continue with work underway and planned based on MfE’s high level modelling

• f work already underway
• regional targets need to be finalised by 31 Dec

Project update

Process

In-river values Preferred state

Use Values Water quality and quantity demand Draft Objectives Limits and management

• ptions

Draft plan change Attributes and bands Flows and levels Scenario modelling and assessment

Water quality modelling

Sediment Phosphorous E.coli Nitrogen

CURRENT PRACTICE

Management or mitigation practices

‘GOOD MANAGEMENT PRACTICE’ ADDITIONAL MITIGATIONS

Land (and water) use

REFERENCE STATE CURRENT FUTURE

Modelling results pending May/June

Water quality, flow and resource use estimates

Mitigation bundles & baseline profit

CURRENT PRACTICE

Management or mitigation practices

‘GOOD MANAGEMENT PRACTICE’ ADDITIONAL MITIGATIONS

Land (and water) use

REFERENCE STATE CURRENT FUTURE

Scenarios: exploring alternative futures

Water quality, flow and resource use estimates

So we’ve already done…

Brainstormed mitigation practices (Workshop 5)

Attempted to group into Good Management practice & additional mitigation, and establish current level of implementation (Workshop 6 and online survey)

We asked PerrinAg & Landcare Research to

• Advise on mitigation bundles based on

cost and effectiveness, building on earlier work

• Estimate the cost of implementing these

mitigation bundles and their effectiveness

Linking up the catchment model and economic analysis

Estimation of mitigation costs

Mitigation bundle cost estimates (expressed as profit/ha for different land uses)

Mitigation Water quality outcome Cost Current

• M1

$ M2 $$ M3 $$$

We are still in an exploratory stage, not coming up with options yet

0. Current practice Mitigation M1 M2 M3

• B. Current land &

water use B0 (status quo) B1 B2 B3 Development

• C. Future land &

water use C0 C1 C2 C3

• D. Future land &

water use D0 D1 D2 D3

Exploratory stage

? ? ? ?

Solution-building stage:

• Revisit desired water quality objectives, bearing in

mind freshwater values, methods and their costs

• Revisit methods to achieve desired water quality
• bjectives
• Drill into a narrower range of scenarios in more detail

Basis for mitigation bundles

Effectiveness (reduction in contaminant loss) Nil Low Med High Cost (% reduction in profit) High M3 Med M2 Low M1 Nil

• Based on previous studies and literature
• Practices with prohibitive cost and nil or highly

uncertain effectiveness not included

Initial assessment

Mitigation bundles

M0: existing mitigation practice M1: low barrier to adoption, low cost (<10% of profit), at least low effectiveness in reducing contaminant loss M2: moderate barrier to adoption, medium cost (between 10% and 25% of profit), at least medium effectiveness in reducing contaminant loss M3: high adoption barrier, high cost (>25% profit) but high effectiveness in reducing contaminant loss M4: total land use change

Activity- Mitigation Bundles and costings

• 1. Please sit in the sector that you’re most

involved with

• 2. We will work through all five sectors in turn

starting with dairy pastoral

• 3. Discuss the Mitigation bundles M1, M2 and

M3 for dairy pastoral only in sector groups

• 4. Note down groups’ comments for later

feedback

Activity- Discussion questions

• 1. Are the mitigations in the right

bundles? Why/ Why not?

• 2. Are there any sector appropriate

mitigations missing that should be added?

• 3. Are any of the listed mitigations
• ut of the question?

Activity: Feedback

Share back your groups’ top three changes and why.

Baseline financial modelling

LUNCH

Activity: Water Quantity

• 1. Each take a dipper of water

from the vase.

• 2. When everyone has taken their

water what happens to the stream?

Activity: Water Quantity

• 3. What should we do if there is not

enough water for all users?

• 4. Can we think together and come

up with better options for our community?

Activity: Water Quantity

• 5. What are the consequences of

your options? Think about : Environment, Culture, Economy, and Recreation

Introduction to environmental flow setting

What we’ll cover

• 1. River flow patterns and why we need to

manage minimum flow and allocation

• 2. How we will work towards setting

minimum flows and allocation limits

• 3. Introduction to EFSAP modelling as a

tool that will help us

• 4. Some terms and concepts

Q5

Flow duration curve

• Shows us how much of the time a river has less than a particular flow
• In the example below, the river is below 2m3s-1 about 10% of the time and

below 10m3s-1 about 80% of the time

What might different minimum flows and allocation limits mean for ….

In river values?

Ecology, mahinga kai, fishing etc

Water users?

Water available for use, reliability

How will we figure this out?

EFSAP

More detailed studies Engagement Set minimum flows and limits Methods to achieve

What is EFSAP?

Environmental Flow Strategic Allocation Platform

Estimates how:

• Instream physical

habitat for selected species changes with different water quantity limits.

• Reliability of supply

changes with different water quantity limits.

Indicator species

Rangitāiki WMA Longfin Eels, Koaro, Rainbow trout

Weighted Usable Area

Example output

% Reliability at minimum flow – how often will water takes be restricted if minimum flow is x?

Example output

% Habitat change for different species at a particular minimum flow

Scenario Example

What minimum flow and allocation limits would achieve: ≤15% median loss of habitat ≥95% reliability at minimum flow and

Reliability

Allocation (%MALF)

Minimum Flow (% MALF)

10 70 10 70

Habitat protection

10 70 10 70

Allocation (%MALF)

Minimum Flow (% MALF)

Combined Objectives

10 70 10 70

Allocation (%MALF)

Minimum Flow (% MALF)

How well do you now feel you understand …

• 1. River flow patterns and why we need to

manage minimum flow and allocation

• 2. How we will work towards setting minimum

flows and allocation limits

• 3. What EFSAP modelling is and how it will help

us

• 4. Terms and concepts
• minimum flow, allocation limit, reliability, flow

duration curve, habitat protection level

Feedback… any key changes

What’s next?

Where we’ve been today

lunch am tea

Welcome National and regional update Mitigation bundles and baseline profit Introduction to environmental flow setting in rivers Next steps

Any:

• general comments
• questions

Summary

Key areas of agreement Notable points of disagreement Actions Any burning questions still unanswered?

Next steps

Workshop 8: May/June 18

– Mitigation Costs – Draft Objectives – Modelling Results - baseline and development – Flow setting results

• In closing…
• Any feedback to us on this session?
• Next session May/June
• Talk to others ……
• The key highlight/achievements from this

session

• Ask - what would they have added to the

session?

Thanks once again