South Canterbury Coastal Streams (SCCS) limit setting process Predicting consequences of future scenarios: Overview Report Report No. R15/29 ISBN 978-0-478-15141-1 (print) 978-0-478-15142-8 (web) 978-0-478-15142-5 (electronic) N Norton M Robson February 2015 Report No. R15/29 ISBN 978-0-478-15141-1 (print) 978-0-478-15142-8 (web) 978-0-478-15142-5 (electronic) PO Box 345 Christchurch 8140 Phone (03) 365 3828 Fax (03) 365 3194 75 Church Street PO Box 550 Timaru 7940 Phone (03) 687 7800 Fax (03) 687 7808 Website: www.ecan.govt.nz Customer Services Phone 0800 324 636 South Canterbury Coastal Streams (SCCS) limit setting process: Overview report Executive summary Between 2012 and 2015, Environment Canterbury ran a collaborative and community-centred process to set water quality and quantity limits in the South Canterbury Coastal Streams (SCCS) catchments. The collaborative process built upon an earlier process known as the ‘preferred approach’ developed in the Hurunui catchment and evolved in the Selwyn Te Waihora and Hinds Plains catchments. The Lower Waitaki Zone Committee (ZC), supported by community groups, was the recipient of a large body of technical information, and was responsible for recommending water quality and quantity limits to the Environment Canterbury Commissioners. To inform decisions on these limits, a set of seven exploratory scenarios was developed to examine the social, cultural, economic and environmental consequences of different futures for the catchment. This information was used by the ZC, community and stakeholder participants to debate the merits of the scenarios. Based on the seven exploratory scenarios and feedback from the community and ZC, a draft ‘Solutions Package’ of regulatory and non-regulatory actions, plus catchment water quality and quantity limits and associated allocation systems, was developed with the ZC and presented to the wider community for discussion in November 2013. The draft Solutions Package was revised as discussions evolved during 2014. The ZC reached agreement on the key aspects of their final Solutions Package (the ZCSP) and made recommendations to the Environment Canterbury Commissioners by way of their Zone Implementation Programme (ZIP) Addendum in July 2014. The ZIP Addendum was formally received by the Environment Canterbury Commissioners and Waimate and Waitaki District councils by September 2014. Further discussions were held on refinements to some of the minimum flow and allocation regimes in the period to March 2015. The ZIP Addendum recommendations and all of the technical information and community feedback that underlies them have been used to prepare the Proposed Variation 3 to the Proposed Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan (LWRP) – Section 15 – Waitaki and South Coastal Canterbury. This report summarises the technical work used to support the policy development process. The Summary Matrix on the next page summarises how each scenario and the ZCSP is predicted to perform against the aspirations of the ZC (i.e. the ZC outcomes) for the catchment, and against current state. The Summary Matrix is a high level, quick reference guide for comparing the relative merits of scenarios across a range of social, economic, cultural and environmental indicators, and also indicates the level of uncertainty with predictions; the matrix is based on the assessments summarised in this report and described in detail in Appendices 4 to 22. It is not possible to achieve all the desired ZC outcomes to the maximum level simultaneously, at least not in the near future based on current technology. Difficult decisions have been necessary to build a ZCSP that achieves most of the outcomes to a high level of attainment through time, and progressively improves those outcomes that are not met initially. Overall, it is predicted that the ZCSP will achieve a net environmental improvement through time, as illustrated by the colour-coded Summary Matrix comparison between ‘current state’ (far left coloured column) and the progressively improving future situation under the ZCSP (far right three columns). There is uncertainty arising from many sources in the assessments on which decisions have been based, which is normal for land and water resource management. Uncertainties have been identified and reduced where possible, and the remaining unavoidable uncertainties communicated so that they could be incorporated into the decision-making process. It is likely there are sources of uncertainty that are unknown and unidentified. It is possible that future advances in technology will allow ZC outcomes to be achieved to a higher level than the technical assessments predict. It is also possible that some outcomes will not be achieved to the extent predicted and thus review of the ZCSP and regional plan is important so that Environment Canterbury Technical Report i South Canterbury Coastal Streams (SCCS) limit setting process: Overview report any necessary adjustments can be made in future. This is a normal situation and a reason for the regular review cycle of regional planning and resource management in general. From a technical perspective the process was successful to the extent that it produced a transparent, objective, technical assessment of the effects of various future scenarios across multiple values (environmental, social, cultural and economic), and communicated those effects, along with the uncertainty associated with predictions, to willing community participants (Part 1 of this report). There was then community debate on the merits of different options, and a transparent process whereby the ZC selected a preferred pathway forward – that pathway is the ZCSP as documented in the ZIP Addendum. Part 2 of this report provides a technical assessment of the extent to which the proposed ZCSP is likely to achieve outcomes over time. ii Environment Canterbury Technical Report Report Technical Canterbury Environment The Summary Matrix uses a five-class colour-coded presentation system (see Section 2.10.3 for detail) to estimate the likelihood that the Zone Committee outcomes would be achieved under each of the seven exploratory scenarios, and with the Zone Committee Solution Package (ZCSP), as shown below. The that each outcome will be achieved (where there is likelihood Almost certainly Probably Possibly Unlikely Highly unlikely an absolute indicator to assess – see [A]); or The colour classes indicate either … The of each scenario (where the indicator only allows Very high Very Low relative merit High Medium Low assessment relative to current – see [R]). (maximum) (minimum) S outh Canterbury Canterbury outh Coastal Streams (SCCS) limit setting process: Overview report Overview setting process: (SCCS) limit Streams Coastal Notes: # See Appendix 1 for an explanation of the link between ZC outcomes and technical indicators, and the rationale for scoring ‘current state”. Acronyms shown in this table are defined in the Glossary (EBIT, GDP, GMP, MALF, TLI, SFRG, MAV, QMCI). Cells showing half colours indicate significant negative and positive impacts for different users as follows: *Those over the cap for nitrogen allocation will be required to undertake potentially significant mitigation or land use change. **Those over the cap for nitrogen allocation, and those shifting to alternate water sources with changes to the surface water allocation and environmental flow regimes, may face significant costs. Arrows (↑↓) indicate relative change (more/less likely to deliver an outcome) compared to Scenario 1a but not sufficient change to justify shifting to a new colour class. ↑QN indicates an improvement in terms of water quantity (ecological flows); ↓QL indicates a decline in terms of water quality; ↑Wain indicates improvement in Wainono Lagoon but not in all rivers; ↑Hook = improvement in Hook River. Half yellow/red cells indicate significant negative impacts at the local scale in some catchments (red), but small impact at the scale of the whole SCCS area iii South Canterbury Coastal Streams (SCCS) limit setting process: Overview report Environment Canterbury Technical Report iv South Canterbury Coastal Streams (SCCS) limit setting process: Overview report Acronyms used in this report Some of these terms are also defined in the Glossary at the end of this report. CWMS Canterbury Water Management Strategy EBIT Earnings before Interest and Tax (see Glossary) FDE Farm Dairy Effluent (ponds) FTE Full Time Equivalents (of employed people) (see Glossary) GDP Gross Domestic Product (see Glossary) GIS Geographic Information System GMP Good Management Practice (see Glossary) HDI Hunter Downs Irrigation (Scheme) LSR Land Surface Recharge (see Glossary LUT Look-up Table (of nitrate losses for different land uses, soil types and climates) pLWRP Land and Water Regional Plan (proposed) MALF Mean annual 7 day low flow (see Glossary) MAV Maximum Acceptable Value (of the NZ drinking-water standards) (see Glossary) MGIS Morven Glenavy Irrigation Scheme MGM Matrix of Good Management (Project) (see Glossary) MFM Maximum Feasible Mitigation (see Glossary) NARG Nitrogen Allocation Reference Group NOF National Objectives Framework NPSFM National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (2011 & 2014) NRRP Natural Resources Regional Plan QMCI Quantitative Macroinvertebrate Community Index (see Glossary) SCCS South Canterbury Coastal Streams SFRG Suitability for Recreation Grade (see Glossary) TLI Trophic Level Index (see Glossary) TN Total nitrogen TP Total phosphorus TWWG Tangata Whenua Working Group WD Waihao Downs