Freshwater Futures Community Group 3/04/2018 Rangitaiki Workshop 7 Welcome Freshwater Futures Community Group Tiaki pumautia te wai e hoki mai ai ng ā rawa ki a t ā tau katoa Treat the water wisely and it will return to us Rangit ā iki- Workshop 7 1 2 Housekeeping Agenda Welcome • Fire protocol National and regional update am tea • Toilets Mitigation bundles and baseline profit Plan Change 9 - upper Rangit ā iki issues lunch • Meals • Recording and sharing notes Introduction to environmental flow setting in rivers • Make yourself at home Introduction to groundwater environmental level setting 3 4 Purpose of this group Outcomes sought today To help Council implement the National Policy • Feedback on make up of mitigation bundles: Statement for Freshwater Management: • Are they about right? • confirm values, express preferred objectives • Have we missed anything significant? • provide feedback on limits for freshwater quality and • Feedback on baseline profit estimates quantity within this Water Management Area • Are they about right? • provide input to solutions for managing activities to • Groundwater modelling- preferred approach meet those limits identified. • advise Council in their decision-making for Plan Change 12 • Improve understanding about scope of work and upcoming discussions 5 6 1
Freshwater Futures Community Group 3/04/2018 Rangitaiki Workshop 7 Calendar to completion Workshop 5: Aug 17 Workshop 6: September 17 • Toward Objectives • Development Scenarios National and • Use Values • Use Values (con't) • Management Options & Assessment Criteria regional updates Workshop 8: ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ May/June 18 Workshop 7: April 18 • Mitigation Costs • Draft Objectives • Mitigation Bundles • Modelling Results - baseline and development • Flow setting results Workshop 9: ≈ ≈ ≈ Aug/Sep 18 ≈ • Modelling Results - mitigation • Limits • Solutions building and assessments 7 7 8 National Update Regional Update • More NPSFM changes indicated RPS Change 3: Rangit ā iki River • • Minister Parker: • Te Maru O Kaituna - river document • National options to halt declining water quality now – land use intensification regulations? • Plan Change 9: Water Quantity • Allocation options for nitrogen and • Draft regional targets for swimmable phosphorous rivers and lakes (primary contact) • Swimmable rivers and lakes 9 10 Draft regional targets for swimmable rivers 2017 swimming categories 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 12 2
Freshwater Futures Community Group 3/04/2018 Rangitaiki Workshop 7 Water quality for swimming map Project update 13 14 Process QUANTITY Allocation limit Reliability/variable flow restrictions In-river Preferred Minimum flow values state Limits and Draft plan Draft management Objectives change options Allocation limit Nutrients Minimum level Water quality and Sediment Use Values Bacteria quantity demand QUALITY Attributes and bands Scenario modelling VALUES ATTRIBUTES OBJECTIVES LIMITS METHODS Flows and levels and assessment 15 16 Water quality modelling Modelling results pending May/June Management or Land (and water) use mitigation practices REFERENCE STATE Sediment CURRENT Phosphorous PRACTICE E.coli CURRENT ‘GOOD MANAGEMENT PRACTICE’ ADDITIONAL FUTURE Nitrogen MITIGATIONS Water quality, flow and resource use estimates 17 18 3
Freshwater Futures Community Group 3/04/2018 Rangitaiki Workshop 7 Mitigation bundles & Scenarios: exploring alternative futures baseline profit Management or Land (and water) use mitigation practices REFERENCE STATE CURRENT PRACTICE CURRENT ‘GOOD MANAGEMENT PRACTICE’ ADDITIONAL FUTURE MITIGATIONS Water quality, flow and resource use estimates 19 20 Reminder about what we’ve We have asked Perrin Ag Consultants & Landcare Research to… done to date on this… • 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 Attempted to group into Good Management practice & additional mitigation, and Brainstormed establish current level of mitigation practices implementation (Workshop (Workshop 5) 6 and online survey) 21 22 We are still in an exploratory stage, Linking up the catchment model not coming up with options yet and economic analysis Estimation of 0. Mitigation mitigation costs Exploratory Current M1 M2 M3 stage practice B0 B. Current land & (status B1 B2 B3 water use Mitigation bundle cost quo) estimates (expressed Development as profit/ha for C. Future land C0 C1 C2 C3 different land uses) & water use D. Future land D0 D1 D2 D3 Mitigation Water quality & water use Cost outcome Solution-building stage: ? ? Current -- • Revisit desired water quality objectives, bearing in mind freshwater values, methods and their costs ? ? M1 $ • Revisit methods to achieve desired water quality objectives (including point sources) M2 $$ • Drill into a narrower range of scenarios in more detail M3 $$$ 23 24 4
Freshwater Futures Community Group 3/04/2018 Rangitaiki Workshop 7 Initial assessment Basis for mitigation bundles Effectiveness (reduction in contaminant loss) Nil Low Med High (% reduction in High M3 profit) Med M2 Cost Low M1 Nil � Based on previous studies and literature � Practices with prohibitive cost and nil or highly uncertain effectiveness not included 25 26 Mitigation bundles Activity- Mitigation Bundles and costings M0: existing mitigation practice M1: low barrier to adoption, low cost (<10% of profit), at 1. Please sit in the sector that you’re most least low effectiveness in reducing contaminant involved with loss 2. We will work through all five sectors in turn M2: moderate barrier to adoption, medium cost (between 10% and 25% of profit), at least medium starting with dairy pastoral effectiveness in reducing contaminant loss 3. Discuss the Mitigation bundles M1, M2 and M3: high adoption barrier, high cost (>25% profit) but M3 for dairy pastoral only in sector groups high effectiveness in reducing contaminant loss 4. Note down groups’ comments for later M4: total land use change feedback 27 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 5
Freshwater Futures Community Group 3/04/2018 Rangitaiki Workshop 7 Baseline financial Activity: Feedback modelling Share back your groups’ top three changes and why. 31 32 Baseline profit estimates Plan Change 9 (Rangit ā iki) Land use (farming/growing Earnings before interest and Tax (EBIT) system) per hectare per year Sheep & beef (Rangit ā iki Stn) $177 Deer (Rangit ā iki Station) $57 Dairy (unirrigated) $2,561 Dairy (irrigated) $2,301 Kiwifruit (Gold) $57,818 Kiwifruit (Green) $17,218 33 34 Introduction to LUNCH environmental flow setting 35 36 6
Freshwater Futures Community Group 3/04/2018 Rangitaiki Workshop 7 Q5 37 38 Flow duration curve 40 Mean Annual Low Flow What might different New diagram coming In river values? minimum Ecology, mahinga kai, fishing etc flows and allocation Water users? limits mean Water available for use, reliability for …. 41 42 7
Freshwater Futures Community Group 3/04/2018 Rangitaiki Workshop 7 How will we figure this out? What is EFSAP? EFSAP E nvironmental Estimates how: • Instream physical More detailed studies F low habitat for selected species changes with S trategic Engagement different water quantity limits. A llocation • Reliability of supply Set minimum flows and limits changes with different P latform water quantity limits. Methods to achieve 43 44 Weighted Usable Area Indicator species Rangit ā iki WMA Rainbow Trout, Longfin Eels, Koaro 45 46 Habitat protection levels How does EFSAP work? % of habitat protected at primary flow Target Species Shortjaw Kokopu 100 Spatial framework (REC; Snelder & Biggs, 2002) Giant Kokopu 100 Generalised models = point observations fitted to generally derivable predictors (e.g. catchment characteristics) Other Kokopu 95 Dwarf galaxias 95 Generalised hydrological estimates Koaro (adult) 90 – Mean flow (Woods et al., 2006) Inanga 90 – 7-day mean annual low flow (MALF; Booker & Woods, In review) – Flow duration curve (proportion of time flow equalled or Trout angling 95 exceeded) (Booker & Snelder, 2012). Annual and monthly. 90 Trout spawning/rearing Generalised model of river width (W) as a function of river Bullies, excl. bluegill 90 discharge (Q) (Booker & Hicks, 2013) Smelt 80 80 Eels juvenile Generalised model of habitat for species as a function of specific discharge (Q/W) (Jowett et al., 2008) Eels adult 75 – Range of fish species Torrentfish 60 47 48 60 Bluegill bullies 8
Recommend
More recommend
