Freshwater Futures Community Group Tiaki pumautia te wai e hoki mai - - PDF document

▶
freshwater futures community group
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Freshwater Futures Community Group Tiaki pumautia te wai e hoki mai - - PDF document

Mar 04, 2024 113 likes •284 views

Freshwater Futures Community Group 3/04/2018 Rangitaiki Workshop 7 Welcome Freshwater Futures Community Group Tiaki pumautia te wai e hoki mai ai ng rawa ki a t tau katoa Treat the water wisely and it will return to us Rangit iki-

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Freshwater Futures Community Group Rangitaiki Workshop 7 3/04/2018 1

Freshwater Futures Community Group

Rangitāiki- Workshop 7

1

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

2

Housekeeping

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

3

Agenda

lunch am tea

4

Welcome National and regional update Mitigation bundles and baseline profit Plan Change 9 - upper Rangitāiki issues Introduction to environmental flow setting in rivers Introduction to groundwater environmental level setting

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?
  • Groundwater modelling- preferred approach

identified.

  • Improve understanding about scope of work

and upcoming discussions

5

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

6

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Freshwater Futures Community Group Rangitaiki Workshop 7 3/04/2018 2 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

7

National and regional updates

8

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

9

Regional Update

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

rivers and lakes (primary contact)

10

Draft regional targets for swimmable rivers and lakes

  • National targets
  • 80% of specified rivers and lakes swimmable by

2030 and 90% by 2030

  • Draft regional targets for BOP
  • To be finalised 31 Dec 2018
  • 95.7% of specified rivers and 85% percent of

specified lakes swimmable by 2030

  • already better than the national targets
  • continue with planned and current work

programme

  • continue working on WMA objectives and limits
  • Report on MfE’s website 31 March 2018.

11

2017 swimming categories

12

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Freshwater Futures Community Group Rangitaiki Workshop 7 3/04/2018 3 Water quality for swimming map

13

Project update

14

QUANTITY QUALITY

VALUES ATTRIBUTES OBJECTIVES LIMITS METHODS

Minimum flow Allocation limit Reliability/variable flow restrictions Sediment Bacteria Nutrients Minimum level Allocation limit

15

Process

16

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

17

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

18

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Freshwater Futures Community Group Rangitaiki Workshop 7 3/04/2018 4

Mitigation bundles & baseline profit

19

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

20

Reminder about what we’ve done to date on this…

21

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 have asked Perrin Ag Consultants &

Landcare Research to…

  • Advise on mitigation bundles for agricultural

land use based on cost and effectiveness, building on earlier work

  • Estimate the cost of implementing these

mitigation bundles and their effectiveness

22

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

  • utcome

Cost Current

  • M1

$ M2 $$ M3 $$$

23

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

24

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 objectives

(including point sources)

  • Drill into a narrower range of scenarios in more detail
slide-5
SLIDE 5

Freshwater Futures Community Group Rangitaiki Workshop 7 3/04/2018 5

Basis for mitigation bundles

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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 out of the

question?

  • 4. In which order would the mitigations be

applied?

29 30

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Freshwater Futures Community Group Rangitaiki Workshop 7 3/04/2018 6

Activity: Feedback

Share back your groups’ top three changes and why.

31

Baseline financial modelling

32

Baseline profit estimates (Rangitāiki)

Land use (farming/growing system) Earnings before interest and Tax (EBIT) per hectare per year Sheep & beef (Rangitāiki Stn) $177 Deer (Rangitāiki Station) $57 Dairy (unirrigated) $2,561 Dairy (irrigated) $2,301 Kiwifruit (Gold) $57,818 Kiwifruit (Green) $17,218

33

Plan Change 9

34

LUNCH

35

Introduction to environmental flow setting

36

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Freshwater Futures Community Group Rangitaiki Workshop 7 3/04/2018 7

37

Q5

38

Flow duration curve

40

Mean Annual Low Flow

New diagram coming

41

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

42

In river values?

Ecology, mahinga kai, fishing etc

Water users?

Water available for use, reliability

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Freshwater Futures Community Group Rangitaiki Workshop 7 3/04/2018 8

How will we figure this out?

43

EFSAP

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

What is EFSAP?

44

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 Rainbow Trout, Longfin Eels, Koaro

45

Weighted Usable Area

46

Habitat protection levels

Target Species

% of habitat protected at primary flow

Shortjaw Kokopu 100 Giant Kokopu 100 Other Kokopu 95 Dwarf galaxias 95 Koaro (adult) 90 Inanga 90 Trout angling 95 Trout spawning/rearing 90 Bullies, excl. bluegill 90 Smelt 80 Eels juvenile 80 Eels adult 75 Torrentfish 60 Bluegill bullies 60

47

How does EFSAP work?

48

Spatial framework (REC; Snelder & Biggs, 2002) Generalised models = point observations fitted to generally derivable predictors (e.g. catchment characteristics) Generalised hydrological estimates

– Mean flow (Woods et al., 2006) – 7-day mean annual low flow (MALF; Booker & Woods, In review) – Flow duration curve (proportion of time flow equalled or exceeded) (Booker & Snelder, 2012). Annual and monthly.

Generalised model of river width (W) as a function of river discharge (Q) (Booker & Hicks, 2013) Generalised model of habitat for species as a function of specific discharge (Q/W) (Jowett et al., 2008)

– Range of fish species

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Freshwater Futures Community Group Rangitaiki Workshop 7 3/04/2018 9

49

Example output

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

50

Example output

% Habitat change for different species at a particular minimum flow

Scenario Example

51

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

Reliability

52

Allocation (%MALF)

Minimum Flow (% MALF)

10 70 10 70

Habitat protection

53

10 70 10 70

Allocation (%MALF)

Minimum Flow (% MALF)

Combined Objectives

54

10 70 10 70

Allocation (%MALF)

Minimum Flow (% MALF)

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Freshwater Futures Community Group Rangitaiki Workshop 7 3/04/2018 10

Reliability at minimum flow

55 56

Reliability at management flow

Banded kokopu habitat protection

57

All objectives met!

58

Introduction to groundwater level setting

59

Purpose

Provide information Discuss

  • ptions

Seek community group views

60

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Freshwater Futures Community Group Rangitaiki Workshop 7 3/04/2018 11

Groundwater

61

Aquifer types

62

Groundwater Objectives

Groundwater available for use Safeguard groundwater levels Protect spring flow/baseflow Prevent saline intrusion

63

Groundwater limits

Resource assessment

Initial modelling Dec 2018 Enhanced modelling in 3+ years Current limits based on water balance and PC9 allocation approach Consider options for alternative limits before modelling is complete

64

Water balance

Recharge (rainfall – evapotranspiration) Groundwater balance (recharge – baseflow to streams) Determine limits (% of recharge/groundwater balance) Does not establish measurable relationship between limits and groundwater levels or local effects of takes

65

Mid-Upper Rangitāiki

66

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Freshwater Futures Community Group Rangitaiki Workshop 7 3/04/2018 12

Geology

67

Allocation zones

68

Rangitaiki Plains Geology

69 70 71 72

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Freshwater Futures Community Group Rangitaiki Workshop 7 3/04/2018 13

73 74 75 76 77

Rangitaiki Plains – groundwater allocation zones

78

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Freshwater Futures Community Group Rangitaiki Workshop 7 3/04/2018 14

Options for groundwater allocation limits

79

PC9 approach 35% of groundwater balance (recharge – baseflow to stream) Alternative approach 50% of groundwater balance

Potential hydrological alteration

Low (up to 10% of recharge) Medium (11% to 25% of recharge) High (over 25% of recharge)

80

Risk of effects

81

Allocation limit Potential for hydrological alteration PC9 Alternative % of recharge Mid- Upper Lower Mid-upper Lower Up to 10% Low 10-12% 0- 0 - 11% to 25% Medium 14-18% Over 25% High 31% 44%

Options assessment

PC9 approach Alternative approach Advantages

  • Low risk Upper Rangitāiki
  • Low/medium Rangitaiki

Plains

  • Maintains status quo
  • Accommodates existing

takes except 4 Rangitāiki Plains zones

  • Minimises allocation

clawback potential

  • Accommodates existing takes

except 4 Rangitāiki Plains zones

  • Less development constraint

Disadvantages

  • Does not accommodate

Rangitāiki Plains 4 zones

  • Greater development

constraint

  • Medium risk Upper Rangitāiki
  • Medium/high risk Rangitāiki

Plains

  • Increase allocation clawback

potential

82

Which groundwater data

  • ption would the group

prefer to take?

PC9 approach OR Alternative approach

83 84

Feedback… any key changes

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Freshwater Futures Community Group Rangitaiki Workshop 7 3/04/2018 15

What’s next?

85

Where we’ve been today

lunch am tea

86

Welcome National and regional update Mitigation bundles and baseline profit Plan Change 9 - upper Rangitāiki issues Introduction to environmental flow setting in rivers Introduction to groundwater environmental level setting

87

Any:

  • general comments
  • questions

Summary

88

  • 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

89

  • 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?

90

Thanks once again