Actions to Restore the Health and Wellbeing of the Waikato River – the Independent Scoping Study

RMLA conference, Hamilton 6th October 2011

Kit RutherfordNIWA, PO Box 11-115, Hamilton

k.rutherford@niwa.co.nz

http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/treaty/waikato-river-scoping-study/index.html

Context for the studyContext for the study

2010 Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Act

‘…ushers in a new era of co-management between the Crown and the five Waikato River Iwi to protect the Waikato River...’

Creates o a new co-management body – the Waikato River Authorityo a ‘clean up’ fund – administered by the WRA – $7m per year for 30 years

Waikato-Tainui

Maniapoto

Raukawa Te Arawa

Tuwharetoa

Waikato-Tainui has ‘settled’ with the Crown

Other 4 iwi are negotiating with the Crown

All 5 Waikato River iwi are involved in co-management

Scoping Study – WRISSScoping Study – WRISS

2009-20102009-2010Steered by the Guardians Establishment Committee (GEC)Steered by the Guardians Establishment Committee (GEC)Funded by the Ministry for the Environment (MfE)Funded by the Ministry for the Environment (MfE)

Key contributorsKey contributors• NIWA – lead • Diffuse Sources Limited • Tipa and Associates• AgResearch• Beca• Enveco• Nimmo-Bell & Company Limited• Market Economics Limited

Study briefStudy brief

1. What do we need to do?2. How much will it cost?3. How long will it take?

“…Identify priority actions and associated costs of those actions, necessary to rehabilitate the

… health and wellbeing …

of the Waikato River and its tributaries, wetlands and lakes for future generations

… to achieve Te Ture Whaimana o Te Awa o Waikato …”

Te Ture Whaimana o Te Awa o Waikato Te Ture Whaimana o Te Awa o Waikato

The vision and strategy

“…where a healthy Waikato River sustains abundant life and prosperous communities who in turn are all responsible for restoring and protecting the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River, and all it embraces, for generations to come…”

Developed by the GEC through consultation with iwi and the wider community

Waikato RiverWaikato River’s ’s health and wellbeinghealth and wellbeing

“…The Waikato River is our tupuna and looks over us throughout our lives. The river feeds us, nurtures us and takes care of us, healing our hurts and protecting us from harm. The river is our lifeline from which we take our name, our identity and our mana…“

• Some iwi regard the Waikato River as their tupuna (ancestor).

• The awa (river) represents the mana and mauri of the river iwi.

• ‘…If the river is degraded then the people suffer – their health and wellbeing is compromised...’

• Not just biophysical health (eg water quality, state of the fishery, landscape values etc).

• Also people’s relationship with the river (eg perceptions, use, guardianship)

Challenge – integrate Maatauranga Maaori and Challenge – integrate Maatauranga Maaori and Western Science and recommend priority Western Science and recommend priority actionsactions

• Both knowledge systems are concerned with observing, understanding and predicting the effects of various behaviours on future outcomes.

• But gathering that knowledge required unique methods/techniques.

• Both knowledge systems are used to identify priority actions.

Our approachOur approach• Consulted with iwi and the wider community• Collated input about aspirations and actions• Aspirations aligned closely with Te Ture Whaimana o Te Awa Waikato• c. 100 suggested actions

• Investigated the benefits, co-benefits, dis-benefits, practicality & costs• More detailed investigations of c. 65 actions• Identified our priority actions, benefits and costs• Provided information to help the WRA administer the CUT – 33 Technical Appendices

Ecological integrity … restored and protected.Abundance … treasured plant & animal species … restored and protected.Abundance … fish and other kai … restored and protected.

Water quality …improved.

Risk of illness minimised … recreation, food, water supply.

Aesthetic and landscape value … improved.Recreational value … improved.

Greater access … improve people’s use and enjoyment.Significant and historic sites … recognised, restored, protected.

Aspirations to achieve Te Ture Whaimana

Actions consider … prosperity … local community, region & New Zealand.

People have a secure supply of water … from the Waikato River.

Spiritual values … restored and protected.

People feel engaged … river… actions to restore and protect.Management … conducted in a holistic, integrated way.

Two issuesTwo issues

1. Water quality1. Water quality2. Traditional fisheries2. Traditional fisheries

Wai

pa R

iver

Lake Taupo

Water clarity

Bathing guideline – black disc 1.6m

Severely degraded in thelower Waipalower Waikatofloodplain lakes

Good in the upper Waikatohydro lakes

0.4 m BD

Affected by erosion & phytoplankton

Cumulative effects from upstream‘toilet end’ of the river

N P

sediment

1. Dairy Free Drain

2. Dairy poor drain

3. Dairy peat

4. Sheep/beef, class 3 farm

5. Sheep/beef, class 4 farm

6. Sheep/beef, class 5 farm

7. Forestry

8. Horticulture & cropping

Figure 5.3: Estimates of the key sources of contaminants discharged from farms within the Waikato River catchment.

Agricultural sourcesAgricultural sources

Wai

pa R

iver

Lake Taupo

Original source – steep, mudstoneIncluding sheep/beef pasture

Sediment stores from historic erosionriver banks, floodplainre-worked by floods

Drainage – peat soils – colour

Possible actions

* In the first 20 years before harvesting. Once harvesting starts there is a net return** Co-benefits for pathogens, temperature, ecology, landscape*** Co-benefits for pathogens

Actions on dry stock farms Cost ($M)

Dry stock farms

Fence (single e-wire) and plant poplars on 1st and 2nd order streams***

93

Fence (8-wire post and batten) and plant 10 m native buffer on 3rd order and larger streams **

66

Retire and afforest 68,000 hectares of steep hill country pasture 91*

Earthflow remediation 15

Fencing hill-country streams is expensive

Sheep/beef farming on steep, erodible land has low profitability

Conversion to forestry has long-term financial benefitsShort-term cash-flow problems – planting costs & low initial income

Carbon credits have the potential to add to financial benefits

Conversion to native forest has low financial benefits but other co-benefits

Re-planting alone may not protect river banks in flood-prone rivers - both reforestation and river bank protection required

Nitrogen

Eutrophic – 300 mgN/m3

Moderate phytoplankton in the hydro lakes. Occasional blooms

High chlorophyll in floodplain lakes. Frequent blooms

BGA toxicity

Contributes to degradation of colour & clarity

Mostly from diffuse sourcesPathway – drainage, sub-surface flow

Hard to intercept (eg in riparian buffers)

Wai

pa R

iver

Lake Taupo

Phosphorus

Eutrophic – 30 mgP/m3

Some significant point sources

Mostly from diffuse sourcesPathway – erosion, surface flow

Easier to intercept

Naturally high on the volcanic plateau Binds to & releases from sediment

Debate whether to control N or PConsensus in New Zealand – control both

N P

sediment

1. Dairy Free Drain

2. Dairy poor drain

3. Dairy peat

4. Sheep/beef, class 3 farm

5. Sheep/beef, class 4 farm

6. Sheep/beef, class 5 farm

7. Forestry

8. Horticulture & cropping

Figure 5.3: Estimates of the key sources of contaminants discharged from farms within the Waikato River catchment.

Agricultural sourcesAgricultural sources

Model farms3 dairy (free-draining, poor-draining, peat soils), 3 sheep-beef (Class 3, 4 and 5)1 forestry1 horticulture-cropping

Losses to waternitrogen (N) – OVERSEER phosphorus (P) – OVERSEER sediment – USLE faecal microorganisms – CLUES

Farm profitability – FARMAX

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

-100 -50 0 50 100 150

N re

ducti

on, T

onne

s pe

r cat

chm

ent

Expenditure, $M

Cumulative abatement, tonnes N

Cumulative abatement, (no organic dairy): T N/catchment

Cumulative abatement (organic dairy option)

Waikato Catchment Model

Predict the effects of the hydro dams & landuse on:

• Nutrients• Phytoplankton chlorophyll• Clarity• Colour

Red – currentGreen – priority actions

Dairying makes a major contribution to regional and national income.

Nitrogen loss from dairy pasture is hard to reduce.

Significant increases in nitrogen concentration in streams, lakes

Dairy expansion is occurring in the upper catchment. more nitrogen in the hydro-lakes, more phytoplankton,

bigger & more frequent algal blooms?

Actions on dairy farms Cost ($M)

Dairy farms

Improved nutrient management 11**

Improved effluent management 36

Run-off diversion 5

Creation of wetlands over one percent of catchment 45§

E-fence and plant 5 metre buffers on all streams 263

Use of nitrification inhibitors 138

Improved management of cropping land -20*

Herd shelters (keeping cattle inside in winter) 1,090§

Possible actions

* Cost savings from erosion control** Some cost savings from better use of P fertiliser § Not a priority action

Waikato River Authority & Regional Council Drystock farming •Finance retirement/reforestation on a large scale. Unlikely.•Promote retirement of unproductive hill-country farms. Rules? Incentives?•Lobby for carbon credits? Dairy farming•Consolidate onto ‘best’ dairying land•Control expansion into upper catchment – hydro lakes•Control expansion onto steeper farmland – greater risk of runoff

Fencing of cattle out of streams – no brainer, patchy. Enforcement?Replanting of stream banks. • Dissemination of information on methods, benefits, costs etc• Co-ordination & funding of Landcare & Streamcare Groups. Incentives? Rules? Enforcement?

1,000 §Retrofitting urban stormwater controls195Colour removal from Kinleith pulp and paper mill365*Land disposal of treated human sewage

Point source discharges

Cost ($M)

Actions to improve water quality

* Costs subject to engineering feasibility

Whitebait Fishery

1931-1950 46 tonnes1980s 10 tonnes2000 3 tonnes

Spawning habitat – estuary Fencing, re-planting, Protection

Adult habitat – wetlands, lakesCulvertsFencing, re-planting

AdministrationDoC, WRCQuota, monitoringTraditional fishing sites

Action to restore the whitebait fishery Cost ($M)

Restore and protect iinanga spawning habitat 5.9

Restore kookopu habitat in hill country streams 9.9

Replace or retrofit road culverts that are barriers to migration 4.7

Modify farm culverts that are barriers to migration 30.3

Install 'fish-friendly’ tide gates to restore iinanga habitat 6.9

Restore iinanga habitat in streams and drains 44.3

Remove flood control structures in the Aka Aka/Otaua region 220.2§

Re-introduce giant kookopu into restored urban streams 0.2

Create a single whitebait management agency 7.5

§ not a priority action

Tuna Fishery

1980s 400 tonnescurrent 100 tonnes

Quota system in place customary allowancePuhi a traditional kai

Longfin eel becoming rare

Migration – hydro damselver transferadult spawners – problem

Migration – pumping stationsOverfishing

Actions to restore the tuna fishery Cost ($M)

Develop and implement a management plan 15

Upstream elver transfer 6.7

Aquaculture of elvers to sub-adults, then release 17.3

Create farm ponds and wetlands in the Lower Waikato 177

Install and maintain fish-friendly flood control pumps 96.5

Install and maintain intake screens and bypasses at the hydro dams 600§

§ not a priority action

Lake restorationFloodplain lakes – WhangapeHydro lakes – Whirinaki Arm of Ohakuri

Invasive speciesAquatic weedsPest fish – koi

ToxicityAlgal bloomsGeothermal arsenic, mercury

Adaptive managementMonitoringReport cards

….

Pulling it all togetherPulling it all togetherScenario modellingScenario modelling

S1 current initiativesS2 + proven technologyS3 + unproven

Summary of the improvement in health and wellbeing of the Waikato River with increasing net cost. Bars represent the range in aspiration scores for each scenario.

Table 6.7: Total direct costs and benefits ($2010 million)

Total Present value* Scenario 2 CAPEX 630 520 OPEX 2,050 710 Total 2,680 1,230 Benefit 1,030 330 Net cost 1,660 900 Scenario 3 CAPEX 3,170 2,480 OPEX 6,420 1,980 Total 9,590 4,460 Benefit 5,570 1,280 Net cost 4,020 3,180

Notes: 1 *Discount rate eight percent. 2 Figures may not add due to rounding.

Scenario 1 Actions already underway – no additional cost

Table 6.8: Cumulative and average net economic impacts, 2011–2040

Cumulative net economic impacts

Average net economic impacts per year

Value added $2007million3

Jobs MEC1 Years

Value added $2007million3

Jobs MEC1 Years

Scenario 2 Waikato Region 1,260 13,900 42 460 Rest of New Zealand -1,009

(0.005% GDP) -15,850 (0.003% employment)

-34 -530

Total 251 -1,950 8 -65 Scenario 3 Waikato Region 600 11,600 20 390 Rest of New Zealand -4,730

(0.082% GDP) -68,300 (0.085% employment)

-158 -2,280

Total -4,130 -56,700 -138 -1,890

Notes: 1 Modified Employment Count (MEC). This includes both employment counts and working proprietors. 2 Figures may not add due to rounding.

$2007million – The IO modelling is based on an IO table for the year ending March 2007 developed by Market Economics Limited. This is the latest year for which all economic data required to produce an updated IO table are available. A regional table was also produced from the 2006/2007 national table.

We can estimate the costs of restoration, and some monetary benefits

Some benefits currently cannot be ascribed a monetary value (e.g., recreation, wellbeing)

Estimates suggest non-market values are comparable with the costs of restoration

Further work (e.g., on willingness to pay) is required

There are significant costs associated with continued degradation‘…to do nothing is not an option…’

Non-market Values

Predicted progress for each aspiration, compared with the current state, assuming full implementation of the recommended priority actions.

Holism

Engagement

Significant sites

Access

Spiritual values

Recreation

Aesthetics

Human health

Water quality

Fisheries and kai

Taonga species

Ecological integrity

Water supply

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50

Years

Annu

al e

xpen

ditu

re $

m

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

annual expenditure cumulative benefits

Main Findings

1. The priority actions will restore the Waikato River so it almost meets the objectives of Te Ture Whaimana.

2. Assessment supported by the international case studies and restoration projects elsewhere in New Zealand.

3. Estimated net expenditure required is $2,240 million (PV $1,400 million).

4. The CUT cannot/should not fund all priority actions.

5. Expenditure on restoration is estimated to • stimulate the local economy but redistribute capital & employment• transfer capital & employment from the rest of New Zealand• the percentage changes are small

1. Some benefits cannot be ascribed a monetary value but NMV are estimated to be comparable with the costs of restoration

2. There are information needs including • site selection & engineering design• making ‘how to’ guides available to stakeholders, and • research on fish and non-market values.

3. The project combines • maatauranga Maaori • social and biophysical science• economics

to identify the actions required to meet the aspirations of • Maaori• wider community

for improving the ‘…health and wellbeing…’ of the Waikato River.

Key to successKey to success‘…A key to the success of restoration will be to change people’s attitudes and behaviour. This requires a significant effort to engage with the community, industry and local government. If people understand and support the objectives of restoration then it is more likely to be successful…’

‘…communities …are responsible for restoring and protecting…’ (Te Ture Whaimana)

Understanding and support comes through ‘hands on’ involvement in restoration and protection and making greater use of the river, river banks, lakes, wetlands…

AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements

• Waikato-Tainui• Raukawa• Tuwharetoa• Maniapoto• Te Arawa River Iwi• The wider Waikato community through consultation• Guardians Establishment Committee• Ministry for the Environment

“Tooku awa koiora me oona pikonga he kura tangihia o te maataamuri. The river of life, each curve more beautiful than the last.”