Technical Leaders Group Meeting #7

NIWA Boardroom

Monday 8th December 2014: 9 am to 3 pm

Attendees

TLG:Bryce Cooper, Tony Petch, Liz Wedderburn, John Quinn, Mike Scarsbrook, Antoine Coffin, Graeme Doole

WRC Staff:Vicki Carruthers, Justin Connolly

Justine Young (1-2pm)

AGENDA

  1. Register of Interests- any changes to the current Register on the TLG site should be notified at the meeting.
  2. Update from the Chair (plus Attributes versus Current Status CSG#8 presentation from Mike)
  3. Community engagement: Large Stakeholder Forum confirmed for 25th March and four community meetings in April (topics are FMUs, problems/current state in each FMU, attributes we will use, what’s driving the problem in each FMU, how the modelling and research is going to help find the answers and develop options)
  4. Meeting the following CSG requests:
  5. Independent peer review of the base data used in the models by experts recognised by the sectors;
  6. A road map of all the technical work proposed
  7. How the various models will be used - what is the purpose of each model (pros/cons of each)
  8. Answering ALLoutstanding technical questions at CSG9 in February(Vicki to provide questions at meeting)
  9. HRWO Policy selection criteria – Justine, WRC to join us
  10. Technical work streams:
  11. Overall project plan, dependencies,priorities, timeframe, status of work briefs–Justin to lead(see wiring diagram and see summary table below). Outstanding matters, including:
  12. Progress on maatauranga Maori/knowledge network project
  13. Historic land use – link with AgResearch/NIWA work; resolution of who does this?
  14. Representative farms – are they representative enough?
  15. Sediment modelling work brief
  16. Algae effects onclarity – work brief required??
  17. Extra Work briefs for discussion–
  18. Groundwater model for the Waipa (see below from Tony)
  19. Faecal Source Tracking (see below – as previously sent by Mike)
  20. Possible work/work briefs on the horizon –
  21. Developing scenarios to test - ‘first cuts’ by the TLG
  22. Running scenarios through the EIJV extended model – who does this?
  23. Development of social impact criteria for assessing scenarios (Liz)
  24. Social Impact Analysis of scenarios (Liz)
  25. TLG “sign-off” on state of the rivers/issues document(s) – report to do arising from attribute work (for s32 purposes); awaiting WRC and Dairy NZ reports to be released?
  26. Inclusion of forestry economic analyses (proposed by Carter Holt)
  27. For noting - The Waipa catchment plan is on WRC website as a technical report – TR2014/33
  1. For noting - Waikato Lite project – (see attached)
  2. Notes of last meeting – To confirm (see attached)
  3. Any other business

Item 1

Register of interests: none received.

Item 2

Chair’s update: discussion includedwhether representative farms were validated and that CSG want to review models; have inherited EJV model done for different purpose and criticism from industry reflects this; concern expressed re lack of involvement of Beef and Lamb and independence of peer reviewers from industry; sheep and beef data ok, Hortdata not ok.

Attributes presentation: discussion includedquestioning use of last 5 years data; monitoring sites are representative and task is not just about fixing these sites but all of catchment; need to take flow into account; how to define state – annual median vs 95th %ile, number of years data used and using worst case year, how that relates to trends and proportion of sites exceeding median value, the need to align with NPS requirements (annual median); clarity -whether numbers are relevant for Waikato, need to have conversation with CSG on what is physically possible and that clarity scale might differ for different parts of catchment in relation to historical state and cultural expectations; use of language in relation to states; need to look at N and P in Waipa as contributor to Waikato; whether have clear separation of clarity between catchments based on soil characteristics an developed vs undeveloped; role of TLG in CSG’s decisions on state and the need to defend decisions in Environment Court

Agreed that

-Need to take leadership and give direction to CSG on lining up Vision and Strategy, values and attributes – provide scenarios as starting point

Action

(see item 6)

Item 3

Noted, no discussion

Item 4

Base data for arable research not indicative/representative. JV worked with HortNZ but mitigations too narrow. Need independent peer review of all sectors; sectors to provide base data or TLG needs to know whether data lack rigour or doesn’t look right.

Agreed that

-CSG 9 presentations will include summary of models, first cut of scenarios, framework for social impact assessment, workshop on attributes other than e.coli (who? And what do they want to cover?)

Action

-Bryce to talk to Bill re what is required re data review

-Vicki to send list of questions and actions from CSG8 to Bryce

-Graeme to draft report on all models used (will need check off by model owners) and precirculate report to TLG; also to prepare a summary of models presentation for CSG9.

Item 5

Justine noted what CSG wants re policy options – will control process, want cover page and what end product will look like, want cause and effect re land and water, what practices cause more or less contaminant; each scenario to be run in policy choice framework; relationship between TLG outputs and PCF; policy to provide CSG with background document on pros and cons of policy options; allocation mechanisms is next level.

Agreed that

-Start with broad scenarios plus practices/mitigations to achieve scenarios

Item 6

6a: timeframe issue to go to HRWO committee in February 2015; current timeframe set before TLG set up i.e. no technical input

6a.i: iwi expectations on Maori indicators in scenarios but no data to support this and could take years to identify and collect data; plan B is to have relevant experts in workshops to provide support for approach on matauranga Maori;tension is the focus on four contaminants and that available indicators are not relevant for these; plan is to identify performance indicators and have some descriptors for cultural/social assessment and mitigations from cultural perspective but will not have this by June; note that NgaTohu o teWai is taking 3 years to do similar work

6a.iii: Representative farm typesare for N whereas sediment, P and e.coli data will apply across all types; difference in scale – N at farm level and P at catchment level/from critical sources

6a.iv and v: sednet available from Waipa study; in hydrolakes clarity is algal issue, not sediment; sediment is an issue outside of Waipa; don’t know contributions of sediment and algae to clarity in lower river; need hotspot sediment sites upstream of Karapiro; Rob Davies-Colley could advise re determinants of clarity; clarity work is not on timeline

6b.i: why work needed and whether will use resource needed for other work

6c.i and iii: need CSG9 to validate social indicators to test choice of limit against; Beat’s work will provide baseline; policy workstream is running in parallel and part of scenario assessment will be allocation methodology; test for scenarios is what would TLG feel comfortable about defending in court

6c.i: Proposed scenarios: bands versus absolute value; variation in data/dry years etc; should modelling target mid band

Scenario
1 / 2 / 3 / 4
  • Ecoli levels swimmable entire length (including tributaries) all of the time
  • Clarity suitable for swimming entire length
  • No further decline (bands vs absolute value) anywhere (including tributaries)
/
  • Ecoli swimmable all sites in summer months
  • Cyanobacteria
  • Clarity
  • FMU specific
/
  • Ecoli swimmable in mainstem during summer months
  • Wading and boating suitable elsewhere
  • Clarity suitable mainstem summer months
/
  • No further decline from current state plus/minus allowing for lags and legacies

  • All values above National Bottom Line

Add mahingakai to scenario table

Lakes scenario from Mike’s presentation - State D to C

6c.iv: need to determine baseline and methodology to do analysis; want to test framework with CSG

Agreed that

-Current time frames will not provide robustness required

-Do not need to redefine representative farm types– use representative farm types for N and redefined catchment characteristics data for P, sediment and e.coli

-Most important to document assumptions and reasons during scenario development

-Go to CSG 9 with 3-4 scenarios and validate scenario approach

-Hold groundwater model for Waipa brief for next TLG meeting, for Tony to explain/speak to

-Support faecal source tracking as key piece of work (6b.ii)

-Graeme will run scenarios through extended EJV model (6c.ii)

-TLG will have one document on attribute workshop, feedback and presentation (for s32 purposes)

Actions

-Bryce to draftand circulate scenarios

-Liz and Bryce to check on MfE study for land use change information (6a.ii)

-Antoine to advise on contractors

-Justin and Graeme to meet Sandy re sediment modelling

-Graeme to check out sediment base loads work brief

-Vicki to email docs which form basis of state/issues (6c.v)

-Bryce to finalise with CHH on getting meeting with Graeme and Liz on proposed works and how links (6c.vi)

-Bryce to talk to Rob Davies-Colley re clarity

Item 9

Not done

Item 10

-Noted email from Stephen Colson to Vicki offering chat on his FMU work with MfE – agreed to take this offer up

-noted email from Stephen Colson to Vicki about local government and industry interest in Opus report and suggesting meeting – Blair Keenan to incorporate this into his point source discharges review

Action

-Vicki to action the above with Stephen and Blair

Meeting closedabout 4.30 pm