Rangitiki Water Management Area Plan Change 12 Community Group - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
rangit iki water management area
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Rangitiki Water Management Area Plan Change 12 Community Group - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Apr 08, 2023 39 likes •857 views

Rangitiki Water Management Area Plan Change 12 Community Group Workshop 8, 24 Sept 2018 Moemoe Vision E ora ana te mauri o te awa Rangitaiki, e manaakitia ana e te iwi, e tiakina ana m ng whakatipuranga muri mai. Tihei Mauri Ora

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Rangitāiki Water Management Area

Plan Change 12

Community Group Workshop 8, 24 Sept 2018

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Moemoeā – Vision

E ora ana te mauri o te awa Rangitaiki, e manaakitia ana e te iwi, e tiakina ana mō ngā whakatipuranga ō muri mai. Tihei Mauri Ora A healthy Rangitāiki River, valued by the community, protected for future generations. Tihei Mauri Ora.

2

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Housekeeping

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

3

slide-4
SLIDE 4

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

4

slide-5
SLIDE 5

* Respectful of others * Respectful of cultural diversities * S

pecific and frank

* Inclusive * Focused * Honest * Timely * Prepared for meetings * Work together * S

tay on topic

* Hear others * Wait our turn * S

ay what we think

* S

hare our experience

* Participate fully * Keep a safe environment

Be… . And… .

Ko te wai ko au, ko au ko te wai I am the water and the water is me

5

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Agenda

National & Regional updates Progress and next steps Model Development Contact recreation /

  • E. coli

Ecosystem Health Sediment Nitrogen Phosphorus Mitigation approach

6

slide-7
SLIDE 7

National Update

  • NPSFM/NES changes early 2019
  • land use regulations?
  • intensification, feedlots, fodder crops
  • catchments at risk?
  • Zero Carbon Bill
  • will agricultural emissions be included?

7

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Regional Update

  • RPS Change 3: Rangitāiki River
  • Proposed Plan Change 9: Water

Quantity

  • Kaituna - He Taonga Tuku Iho

8

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Action in Rangitāiki Catchment

9

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Agenda

National & Regional updates Progress and next steps Model Development Contact recreation /

  • E. coli

Ecosystem Health Sediment Nitrogen Phosphorus Mitigation approach

10

slide-11
SLIDE 11

PC12 Timeline

Solution building Now-Feb 2019 Drafting Nov 2018

  • Mid 2019

Publish Draft Plan Change Mid 2019 Notify Proposed Plan Change Late 2019 Hearings 2020 Discussion document / public communications

11

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Calendar

12

Workshop 8: Sept 2018

  • Modelling results - baseline

and development

Workshop 9: Dec 2018

  • Groundwater quantity

Workshop 9a: Jan/Feb

  • Surface water quantity
  • HEP dam lake water quality
  • Modelling results –

mitigation

Workshop 10: Mar/Apr 2019

  • Policy Options

Workshop 11: June2019

  • Draft plan change

12

slide-13
SLIDE 13

13

National Objectives Framework

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Purpose today

  • Gauging your comfort with draft

measurable objectives

  • Present surface water quality

information from modelling

  • Further exploring issues and causes

14

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Outcomes sought today

For contact recreation, ecological health and

  • ther in-river values:
  • Understand / confirm key water quality issues
  • Confirm measurable objectives
  • Understand why we measure E.coli. Nitrogen,

Phosphorous and Sediment

  • Understand and comfortable modelling results
  • Feedback on approach to exploring mitigations

15

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Work in progress

Surface water quantity Report data

What minimum flows and allocation limits support habitat for key species and reliable supply? Lowland drainage network water quality, springs, tributaries, periphyton

16

slide-17
SLIDE 17

After this workshop – what next?

  • How much do we need to reduce sediment, nitrogen,

phosphorous and E.coli by?

  • Limit setting
  • What might happen if we manage contaminants

better? Will it be enough?

  • Mitigation package modelling
  • Costs and benefits, to whom, over what time?
  • Propose and discuss solutions
  • Options papers
  • Wider community engagement
  • Develop good practice rules and other actions

17

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Agenda

National & Regional updates Progress and next steps Model Development Contact recreation /

  • E. coli

Ecosystem Health Sediment Nitrogen Phosphorus Mitigation approach

18

slide-19
SLIDE 19

The SOURCE Model Development

Image from: https://ewater.org.au/products/ewater-source/

19

climate land use ecological assets dams and weirs irrigation cities

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Water quality modelling

Sediment Phosphorous E.coli Nitrogen Evaporation Runoff (attenuation) Rainfall

Infiltration function Soil sub-drainage function function

20

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Model components

Constituent Generation Decay E.coli Index

  • Slope

Elevation

  • Stocking Units (Domestic and Indigenous)
  • Vegetation Density

Total Nitrogen Agricultural Production Systems Simulator Catchment Renovation Factor Index

  • Slope
  • Stocking Units (Domestic and Indigenous)
  • Vegetation Density

Total Suspended Solids KLSC - (erodibility, slope, length & gradient, vegetation cover)

  • Dry Weather Concentration
  • R Threshold (rainfall)
  • Hill Slope Delivery Ratio

Total Phosphorous PLSC - (natural total phosphorus, slope, length & gradient, vegetation cover)

  • Total Nitrogen/Total Phosphorus Ratio
  • Acid Soluble Phosphorus

21

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Model Development

Scale – sub-catchment

Assumptions – parameter values

  • Measured data
  • NZ (textbook ) values
  • Catchment knowledge

22

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Upstream: Rangitaiki at SH5 Downstream: Rangitaiki at Te Teko

Calibration

23

23

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Model summary

Current Development D

  • All monitoring data has been used
  • Current land use has been “ground truthed”
  • Industry consulted during model build
  • Best practice modelling used
  • Modellers confident with calibration and

performance

  • Detailed report available soon

24

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Agenda

National & Regional updates Progress and next steps Model Development Contact recreation /

  • E. coli

Ecosystem Health Sediment Nitrogen Phosphorus Mitigation approach

25

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Contact recreation – what do we want?

You and RPS Change 3: Rangitāiki say:

Water quality should be safe for swimming where people swim … except after heavy rainfall Ensure that wherever practicable water… is safe for contact recreation (Policy RR 3B(a))

26

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Naturalised

Contact recreation – how safe is it now? Monitored sites map

Site

  • E. coli

Rangitāiki WMA State LT Trend Whirinaki

A

Rangitāiki at Murupara

A

Matahina Dam

A

Rangitāiki at Te Teko

A

At monitored sites

28

slide-28
SLIDE 28

Draft Measurable Objectives

  • 1. Maintaining E.coli

concentrations in Freshwater Management Units where E. coli concentrations are A or B band

  • 2. Arresting any worsening

trends.

29

  • E. Coli state bands

A For at least half of the time, estimated risk is <1 in 1000. Predicted average infection risk is 1% B For at least half of the time, estimated risk is <1 in 1000. Predicted average infection risk is 2% C For at least half of the time, estimated risk is <1 in 1000. Predicted average infection risk is 3% D 20-30%of the time, the estimated risk is >50 in 1000. Predicted average infection risk is >3% E For >30% of the time, estimated risk is ≥50 in 1000. Predicted average infection risk is >7%

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Model Scenario – naturalised state

Description Natural land cover. No productive/developed land use. No water takes or discharges. HEP scheme not operating. Existing major structural modifications remain in place (e.g., dams, channel straightened and cut to sea).

What contaminants would be generated “naturally”?

30

slide-30
SLIDE 30

Swimmable

Not Swimmable

A B C D E

Contact recreation – naturalised scenario?

31

slide-31
SLIDE 31

Model scenario – current state

Description

Current land use, Estimated current takes, Discharges, and Land use practice.

what contaminant loads and yields are generated from the catchment now?

32

slide-32
SLIDE 32

Development D

Swimmable

Not Swimmable

A B C D E

Contact recreation - how safe is it now?

Modelled current state

33

slide-33
SLIDE 33

Description

  • New wetlands in coastal areas replacing mainly dairy

farming

  • New forestry and scrub (mānuka) in low capability land in

the mid-upper parts of catchments

  • Pastoral and horticulture development on highest

capability land in the Kāingaroa Forest.

Model scenario – Development C

What contaminants would be generated if land use changes?

34

slide-34
SLIDE 34

Swimmable

Not Swimmable

A B C D E

Contact recreation – what if land use changes? Modelled Development C

35

slide-35
SLIDE 35

Description

  • New wetlands in coastal areas, but less than in

scenario C

  • New dairy on land deemed to be suitable
  • New forestry and scrub in low capability land in the

mid-upper parts of catchments

  • Pastoral and horticulture development of highest

capability land in the Kāingaroa Forest.

Model scenario – Development D

What contaminants would be generated if land use changes?

36

slide-36
SLIDE 36

Naturalised

Swimmable

Not Swimmable

A B C D E

Contact recreation – what if land use changes? Modelled Development D

37

slide-37
SLIDE 37

Swimming summary

  • Safe for swimming at monitored sites
  • Modelling indicates catchments are safe for swimming

now and if land use changes as estimated

  • We need to ensure E. coli concentrations don’t increase

beyond their current band You and RPS Change 3: Rangitāiki say:

Water quality should be safe for swimming where people swim … except after heavy rainfall Ensure that wherever practicable water… is safe for contact recreation (Policy RR 3B(a))

38

slide-38
SLIDE 38

Agenda

National & Regional updates Progress and next steps Model Development Contact recreation /

  • E. coli

Ecosystem Health Sediment Nitrogen Phosphorus Mitigation approach

39

slide-39
SLIDE 39

Ecosystem Health – what do we want? You and RPS: Rangitāiki have said:

Water quality and quantity provides for:

  • ecosystem health for

significant indigenous species; and

  • mahinga kai and species

that are important for fishing which are safe to eat. Habitats that support indigenous species and linkages between ecosystems within the Rangitāiki River catchment are created, enhanced where degraded, and protected where significant)

40

Tuna within the Rangitāiki catchment are protected …

…ensure that wherever

practicable water… sustains customary food sources

slide-40
SLIDE 40

Ecosystem Health – what do we want? Attributes …

Rivers

  • Invertebrates
  • Periphyton
  • Macrophytes
  • Nitrate (toxicity)
  • Ammonia (toxicity)
  • Dissolved oxygen
  • pH
  • Sediment

41

Ecosystem Health – what do we want?

Lakes

  • Trophic level
  • Lake SPI
  • Phytoplankton
  • Total Nitrogen
  • Total Phosphorus
  • Ammonia (toxicity)
  • Dissolved oxygen
slide-41
SLIDE 41

Ecosystem Health – what do we want?

Measurable objectives …

Band Generally means … A Healthy, resilient, near natural B Slight effects compared to natural C Moderate effects / risk, contaminants well above natural D High degradation / risk compared to natural

Draft

  • bjectives set

at A or B

Also – arrest worsening trends

42

slide-42
SLIDE 42

Naturalised

Ecosystem health – how is it now?

Site Nitrate (toxicity) Ammonia (toxicity) Rangitāiki WMA State 2017 LT Trend State 2017 LT Trend Whirinaki

A

 A 

Rangitāiki at SH5

B A

Otamatea

B A

Rangitāiki at Murupara

A

A

Aniwaniawa

A A

Matahina Dam

A A

Rangitāiki at Te Teko

A

A

43

slide-43
SLIDE 43

Ecological Health -

Invertebrate Indices

45

slide-44
SLIDE 44

Dissolved Oxygen

A B C D Results below point sources for last year

  • Below Fonterra – ‘B/C’ Band

(Fair)

  • Below Murupara –’A’ Band

(Good)

46

slide-45
SLIDE 45

Ecological Health – Dam TLI

47

slide-46
SLIDE 46

Ecological Health – Dam dissolved oxygen

48

slide-47
SLIDE 47

Ecosystem Health – what affects it? Water quality – Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Sediment Water quantity Loss of habitat - riparian vegetation, channelising, disturbance, shade/temperature Loss of connectivity – obstacles Harvesting Off-shore pressures

49

slide-48
SLIDE 48

Ecosystem Health – the main contaminants Nitrogen: estuary nutrient overload, algal growth and loss of oxygen, algal growth in lowland canals, can be toxic to aquatic life Phosphorous: estuary nutrient overload, algal growth and loss of oxygen, algal growth in lowland canals Sediment: estuary sedimentation/smothering; deposition in lower catchments - maintenance

  • f canals/drains; river clarity

50

slide-49
SLIDE 49

Ecosystem health summary

Current Development D

  • N toxicity not currently an

issue

  • N and P loads impacting

HEP lakes

  • Matahina stratification
  • Ecological health in some

streams compromised

  • How much do we need to

reduce contaminants by and where? Limit setting, management of hot spots

Tuna within the Rangitāiki catchment are protected, through measures including enhancement and restoration of their habitat and migration paths Habitats that support indigenous species and linkages between ecosystems within the Rangitāiki River catchment are created, enhanced where degraded, and protected where significant …ensure that wherever practicable water… sustains customary food sources

51

slide-50
SLIDE 50

Agenda

National & Regional updates Progress and next steps Model Development Contact recreation /

  • E. coli

Ecosystem Health Sediment Nitrogen Phosphorus Mitigation approach

52

slide-51
SLIDE 51

Average annual modelled TSS load (t/yr)

Total suspended solids load

SH5 Murupara Matahina

5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

Rangitaiki River

SH5 Murupara Matahina

5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

Rangitaiki River

SH5 Murupara Matahina

5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

Rangitaiki River

SH5 Murupara Matahina

5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

Rangitaiki River

Current State Development C Development D Natural load

53

slide-52
SLIDE 52

Average annual modelled TSS load (t/yr)

Total suspended solids load

Upper catchment Mid catchment Lower catchment

5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

Whirinaki River

Upper catchment Mid catchment Lower catchment

5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

Whirinaki River

Upper catchment Mid catchment Lower catchment

5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

Whirinaki River

Upper catchment Mid catchment Lower catchment

5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

Whirinaki River

Current State Development C Development D Natural load

54

slide-53
SLIDE 53

Total suspended solids yield – Naturalised

55

slide-54
SLIDE 54

Total suspended solids yield – Current State

56

slide-55
SLIDE 55

Total suspended solids yield – Development C

57

slide-56
SLIDE 56

Total suspended solids yield – Development D

58

slide-57
SLIDE 57

Sediment summary

Tuna within the Rangitāiki

catchment are protected, through measures including enhancement and restoration of their habitat and migration paths Habitats that support indigenous species and linkages between ecosystems within the Rangitāiki River catchment are created, enhanced where degraded, and protected where significant …ensure that wherever practicable water… sustains customary food sources

59

  • Sediment loads

impacting HEP lakes

  • If land use changes as

estimated, little change in sediment load

  • How much do we need

to reduce sediment by and where? Limit setting, management

  • f hot spots
slide-58
SLIDE 58

Agenda

National & Regional updates Progress and next steps Model Development Contact recreation /

  • E. coli

Ecosystem Health Sediment Nitrogen Phosphorus Mitigation approach

60

slide-59
SLIDE 59

Average annual modelled TN load (t/yr)

Total nitrogen load

SH5 Murupara Matahina

500 1000 1500 2000

Rangitaiki River

SH5 Murupara Matahina

500 1000 1500 2000

Rangitaiki River

SH5 Murupara Matahina

500 1000 1500 2000

Rangitaiki River

SH5 Murupara Matahina

500 1000 1500 2000

Rangitaiki River

Current State Development C Development D Natural load

61

slide-60
SLIDE 60

Average annual modelled TN load (t/yr)

Total nitrogen load

Upper catchment Mid catchment Lower catchment

500 1000 1500 2000

Whirinaki River

Upper catchment Mid catchment Lower catchment

500 1000 1500 2000

Whirinaki River

Upper catchment Mid catchment Lower catchment

500 1000 1500 2000

Whirinaki River

Upper catchment Mid catchment Lower catchment

500 1000 1500 2000

Whirinaki River

Current State Development C Development D Natural load

62

slide-61
SLIDE 61

Total Nitrogen yield – Naturalised

63

slide-62
SLIDE 62

Total Nitrogen yield – Current State

64

slide-63
SLIDE 63

Total Nitrogen yield – Development C

65

slide-64
SLIDE 64

Total Nitrogen yield – Development D

66

slide-65
SLIDE 65

Nitrogen summary

Tuna within the Rangitāiki

catchment are protected, through measures including enhancement and restoration of their habitat and migration paths Habitats that support indigenous species and linkages between ecosystems within the Rangitāiki River catchment are created, enhanced where degraded, and protected where significant …ensure that wherever practicable water… sustains customary food sources

67

  • N loads impacting HEP

lakes

  • N toxicity not an issue right

now

  • If land use changes as

estimated, Development C = lower nitrogen

  • Development D = more

nitrogen in some areas

  • How much do we need to

reduce nitrogen by and where? Limit setting, management of hot spots

slide-66
SLIDE 66

Agenda

National & Regional updates Progress and next steps Model Development Contact recreation /

  • E. coli

Ecosystem Health Sediment Nitrogen Phosphorus Mitigation approach

68

slide-67
SLIDE 67

Average annual modelled TP load (t/yr)

Total phosphorus load

SH5 Murupara Matahina

25 50 75 100

Rangitaiki River

SH5 Murupara Matahina

25 50 75 100

Rangitaiki River

SH5 Murupara Matahina

25 50 75 100

Rangitaiki River

SH5 Murupara Matahina

25 50 75 100

Rangitaiki River

Current State Development C Development D Natural load

69

slide-68
SLIDE 68

Average annual modelled TP load (t/yr)

Total phosphorus load

Upper catchment Mid catchment Lower catchment

25 50 75 100

Whirinaki River

Upper catchment Mid catchment Lower catchment

25 50 75 100

Whirinaki River

Upper catchment Mid catchment Lower catchment

25 50 75 100

Whirinaki River

Upper catchment Mid catchment Lower catchment

25 50 75 100

Whirinaki River

Current State Development C Development D Natural load

70

slide-69
SLIDE 69

Total Phosphorus yield – Naturalised

71

slide-70
SLIDE 70

Total Phosphorus yield – Current State

72

slide-71
SLIDE 71

Total Phosphorus yield – Development C

73

slide-72
SLIDE 72

Total Phosphorus yield – Development D

74

slide-73
SLIDE 73

Phosphorus summary

Current

  • P loads impacting HEP

lakes

  • If land use changes as

estimated, some increases and decreases in P loads

  • How much do we need

to reduce phosphorus by and where? Limit setting, management of hot spots

Tuna within the Rangitāiki catchment are protected, through measures including enhancement and restoration

  • f their habitat and migration paths

Habitats that support indigenous species and linkages between ecosystems within the Rangitāiki River catchment are created, enhanced where degraded, and protected where significant …ensure that wherever practicable water… sustains customary food sources

75

slide-74
SLIDE 74

Conclusions – do these seem about right?

76

  • Contaminant loads impacting HEP dams
  • Algal growth generally not an issue
  • Phormidium (blue-green algae) can be an issue –

more work pending

  • Contaminant ‘hotspots’ (aka yield) are around

developed areas in both WMAs

  • Focus on arresting increasing concentrations of

contaminants and reducing load to HEP dam lakes

slide-75
SLIDE 75

Agenda

National & Regional updates Progress and next steps Model Development Contact recreation /

  • E. coli

Ecosystem Health Sediment Nitrogen Phosphorus Mitigation approach

77

slide-76
SLIDE 76

CURRENT PRACTICE

Management or mitigation practices

MITGATION M1 M2 M3 ?

Land (and water) use

NATURALISED CURRENT FUTURE

Catchment modelling

Water quality, contaminant sources, flow and resource use estimates

78

slide-77
SLIDE 77

Mitigation bundles

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

79

slide-78
SLIDE 78

Modelling Approach M1 Apply everywhere for all land uses, i.e., expected good practice M2 Apply if and where more contaminant reduction is needed M3 Land use change/

  • ther

Only if and where M1-M3 are not enough

80

slide-79
SLIDE 79

Where we’ve been….

National & Regional updates Progress and next steps Model Development Contact recreation /

  • E. coli

Ecosystem Health Sediment Nitrogen Phosphorus Mitigation approach

81

slide-80
SLIDE 80

Summary

Key areas of agreement Notable points of disagreement Actions Any burning questions still unanswered? Kia kotahi te papaki o ngā hoe o te waka Let the paddles of the vessel strike in unison

82

slide-81
SLIDE 81

Next steps

Workshop 9: December 2018

83