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

of 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

of work already underway

• regional targets need to be finalised by 31 Dec

Project update

Process

In-rivervalues

Preferred state

Use Values

Water quality and

quantity demand

Draft Objectives

Limits and management

options

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 analysisEstimation 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

De

ve

lop

me

nt

C. Future land &

water useC0 C1 C2 C3

D. Future land &

water useD0 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

• Drill into a narrower range of scenarios in more detail

Basis for mitigation bundles

Effectiveness (reduction in contaminant

loss)

Nil Low Med High

Co

st

(% r

ed

ucti

on

in

pro

fit)

High M3

Med M2

LowM1

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 costings1. 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

out 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