Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

1 Wet Tropics Water Quality Improvement Plan Terrain NRM August 2014.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "1 Wet Tropics Water Quality Improvement Plan Terrain NRM August 2014."— Presentation transcript:

1 1 Wet Tropics Water Quality Improvement Plan Terrain NRM August 2014

2 2 What is the issue? Where do we need to target? What? And How? Wet Tropics WQIP Funding for ‘whole of region’ WQIP; component of NRM Plan All land uses in the Region will be considered Recognition of priorities - Reef Programme

3 3 Principles Landscape has been heavily modified since European settlement, results in changes to hydrological connectivity and ecological functions like material trapping, filtering and diversion Modifications include large scale changes in land use to activities that generate greater pollutant loads, particular in coastal areas One of the main consequences of these changes is degraded water quality; poses significant threat to the health of the Wet Tropics catchment waterways, coastal and marine ecosystems Two main management strategies: 1.Directly reduce pollutant runoff through management practice improvements 2.Restore the ecological function of the landscape through ‘system repair’ actions The combined outcome is beneficial to ecosystem condition and health; builds resilience to other pressures

4 4 Catchment waterway condition and ecosystem health Priority areas for intervention Protecting values Restoring landscape function Reef water quality and ecosystem health End of catchment pollutant load targets Management practice improvement Extension and education WQIP NRM Plan Implementation Strategies Assets Goals Actions Healthy Catchments – Healthy Waters – Healthy Reef Supported by Reef Programme, Reef Trust, Landcare, industry, community

5 5 Planning - Priority actions, setting goals and targets WQIP, NRM Plan, Reef Plan Monitoring and evaluation of progress: Paddock to Reef Industry BMP Supporting R&D eg. Innovation program, industry research Collaborative process to achieve water quality outcomes: involves many partners Iterative process: informing, and informed by each component On-ground implementation, eg. Reef Rescue, industry initiatives Australian Government Queensland Government Industry organisations Research organisations Extension staff Terrain NRM Catchment groups And many more! Partners and process Community Farmers Councils

6 6 Proof - Supporting Studies Freshwater ecosystems, catchment condition and system repair spatial prioritisation Regional prioritisation and ecological targets (State of Marine, Seagrass, Upper Herbert Sediment) Defining management options (Management Practice Review, Urban WQIP, INFFER) Foundation monitoring activities

7 7 Pollutants - what’s the story? Modelled estimates indicate Johnstone and Herbert basins are the highest contributors for all pollutant load constituents Relative risk assessment - the Russell-Mulgrave, Johnstone, Tully-Murray and Herbert basins are the highest priority areas for reducing pollutant loads to the GBR in the WT region Target land uses: –DIN and PSII herbicides – cane and bananas –TSS, particulate nutrients – grazing and urban

8 8 Priorities - Places & pollutants for load reductions Relative Priority DRAFT Management Priorities BasinPollutant ManagementKey land uses 1JohnstoneNitrogenSugarcane, bananas HerbertNitrogenSugarcane Tully MurrayNitrogenSugarcane, bananas Russell MulgraveNitrogenSugarcane HerbertPSII herbicidesSugarcane Tully MurrayPSII herbicidesSugarcane 2JohnstonePSII herbicidesSugarcane HerbertSediment / PhosphorusDry Grazing, mine tailings dams 3JohnstoneSediment / PhosphorusSugarcane BarronSedimentTableland cropping; urban Mulgrave RussellSedimentUrban BarronNutrientsSugarcane, urban DaintreeNutrientsSugarcane All basinsPhosphorusSugarcane, bananas, cropping, grazing 4Barron, DaintreePSII herbicidesSugarcane

9 9 Targets PollutantReef Plan 2013: Target reduction by 2018 Ecologically relevant targets: Target reduction by 2030 Total suspended sediments 20%50% fine sediment fraction Dissolved inorganic nitrogen 50%70-80% Russell-Mulgrave, Johnstone, Tully, Murray, Herbert 50% Daintree, Mossman, Barron PSII herbicides60%70-90% Russell-Mulgrave, Johnstone, Tully, Murray, Herbert Particulate nutrients20%50%

10 10 Can we meet the targets? Progress to date (mainly Reef Rescue $) – modelled reductions: –TSS 12% –DIN 12% –PSII herbicides 26% Scenarios of shifting to ‘All A class’ and ‘All B class’ scenarios in sugarcane show that we can meet the PSII herbicide reductions, but only 30% DIN reductions – but conservative estimate Data shows large proportion of farmers currently adopting C class practices; room for improvement

11 11 DAFF economic analysis Marcus Smith developed a spreadsheet tool – estimates costs associated with practice change and system change for DIN and PSII herbicide management Inputs informed by discussions with this group back in February

12 12 INFFER analysis Environmental decision support framework –7 Step process –Spatially explicit –Asset-based Incorporates a number of specific tools –Asset ID and initial project filtering process –Public:Private Benefits Framework –Benefit: Cost Ratio (BCR) –Project Assessment Form (PAF)

13 13 We used INFFER to … 1.Explore the links between nutrient, sediment and pesticide targets and farm level management practice targets, and the level of ecosystem protection that will be achieved from meeting these water quality targets. –Integration of information on GBR values, catchment modelling, ecosystem responses, adoption of improved management practices 2.Assess feasibility and cost-effectiveness of achieving water quality targets to protect the GBR –Incorporated results of cane economics analysis (Marcus Smith, QDAFF) Sufficient data only available for sugarcane analysis now. Used Supporting Studies and series of workshops to collect key information and review draft results

14 14 Cost effective options? Sugarcane Case – based on 5 years Annual cost ($M) Benefit: Cost Ratio (BCR) Predicted DIN reduction (RP Target 50%) Predicted PSII reduction (RP Target 60%) A. All A practice6.60.49~30%~95% B. 50% A: 50% B5.80.54~24%~79% C. All B practice2.61.3~19%~63%

15 15 How does it compare? Asset Cost BCRComment Gippsland Lakes, VIC $1343 million over 20 years - 40% P reduction by 2030 0.02Long-term payments for BMPs Significant land use change Corner Inlet, VIC $600 million over 20 years - Aspirational targets (30% TP, 30% TN, 20% TSS) 0.003Long-term payments for BMPs Significant land use change Bow River, Alberta $439 million over 20 years – TP 34,907 kg/year 0.01WWTP upgrade BMPs + wetland and riparian works

16 16 INFFER Conclusions Shift to A practice comes at a significant cost to growers. Annual costs = ‘stewardship’ payment to adopt & maintain A practice Shift to all A meets PSII target but achieves < 50% of DIN target Shift to B appears profitable so costs largely associated with extension Assumed that B class practice can be achieved with extension alone, while a shift to A class practices would require a combination of extension plus incentives. Realistic?? Tested some basin scenarios based on prioritisation – showed that a combination of A and B class practices in high priority basins, and B class elsewhere could deliver cost effective results with comparable load reductions

17 17 Summary and conclusions Benefit: Cost Ratio looks promising … but –Costs are likely to be overly optimistic –Some ‘heroic’ assumptions between land management practice change and pollutant reductions –Targets are not met … what might be the consequence for the GBR? –Integrated bioeconomic modelling could be used to better link catchment processes and economics of practice change This is only one part of the picture - only sugar cane has been considered; so we can assume combined action across land uses will improve outcome – not sure how much though First assessment of its type for the GBR … lots of knowledge gaps identified and significant assumptions were required!

18 18 Catchment waterways and landscape function

19 19 Using a series of tools to identify and assess values, threats and condition of catchment waterways 1.“Blue Maps” compiled by GBRMPA for the GBR Strategic Assessment. Provides an overview of values of the landscape prior to settlement in terms of ecological connectivity. 2.Resource condition assessment of the natural drainage systems across the Wet Tropics. CSIRO/TropWATER assessment to fill the gaps. 3.Ecological calculator to assess functionality of the wet tropics drainage system Values, threats and condition

20 20 Overarching framework

21 21 Management objectives matrix

22 22 Holistic approach - delivery mechanisms Financial incentives to encourage change – mostly around agriculture Specific restoration projects – grants Extension programs to facilitate technology transfer, education, communication, demonstrations and to provide support for community networks Technology change including improved land management options –strategic research and design (R&D) –participatory R&D with landholders –provision of infrastructure to support a new management options

23 23 Example management options Key principles: Extension and training – plus… PollutantExamples of focus actionsPriority land uses Priority basins DINOptimise fertiliser (N) application Target the amount used and timing Adoption of industry BMP frameworks as a minimum, push for B and A practices Cane Bananas Russell-Mulgrave Johnstone Tully-Murray Herbert PSII herbicides Target timing of herbicide application Residual use in plant crops and ratoons Row spacing CaneRussell-Mulgrave Johnstone Tully-Murray Herbert Suspended sediment Retention of ground cover at the end of dry season Stocking rates consistent with regional benchmarks and property characteristics Strategies implemented to recover land in poor or very poor condition GrazingHerbert (grazing) Developing areas – Erosion and sediment control plans, Water Sensitive Urban Design Mature urban – stormwater management UrbanBarron Russell-Mulgrave (urban)

24 24 Opportunities Work with industry to ensure that what we propose is realistic and reflects your strategies Use the WQIP and supporting studies to inform the detailed strategy for the training & extension program Opportunity to align a number of initiatives – water quality grants, training and extension, reverse auction, P2R Provides a strong foundation to guide future investment – Reef Trust, Reef Programme, Reef 2050 Long Term Sustainability Plan? Looks broader than just agricultural land uses – scope to target issues in the catchment; people relate to that

25 25 Challenges Meeting the targets! Understanding social and economic influences Quantifying holistic benefits – conceptual only; both required to reduce water quality pressures on the GBR and build the resilience of the coastal and inshore ecosystems to other pressures such as a changing climate Knowledge gaps eg. techniques for the restoration of coastal ecological functionality and the associated benefits, economics and data for other industries Need a solid foundation for decisions about tradeoffs…one investment option versus another

26 26 Participate Draft Plan available early Sept We want to discuss the system repair priorities in each basin - next 3-6 months

27 27 Any questions? More info: Thank you!

28 Management practice synthesis Urban Guidelines Industry Working Groups Catchment spatial prioritisation (FNQROC, GBRMPA BlueMaps), Pollutant relative risk assessment Draft WQIP June – Sept 2014; stakeholder engagement System understanding: Regional water quality issues, sources, impacts Draft EVs & levels of protection – catchment and marine Community desires for waterways Management Goals and Targets Relevant environmental health / WQ indicators Environmental health / WQ guidelines Compare current condition objectives; assess threats Identify management options Consider social, ec & environmental impacts WQIP Implementation Plan Monitor Interpret and Report Review and Improve Douglas, Barron, Tully WQIPs Healthy Waters Management Process 2006-20122013-2014 Wet Tropics Water Quality Improvement Plan, 2013-2014 Define priority areas and issues for management Cane INFFER analysis: Targets, loads, costs, social factors Inform Reef Programme Water Quality Grants & Extension, Reef Trust Marine status assessment Freshwater condition assessment Basin pollutant load profiles Upper Herbert sediment analysis Reef Plan & ecologically relevant pollutant load reduction targets Catchment waterways values/threats matrix Monitoring Strategy M&E Strategy P2R Program Herbert WQ Monitoring Program Seagrass scoping study Russell Mulgrave I5 station

29 29 Asset Identification Q1.1 Asset Significance Q1.2 Threats Q1.3-1.6 Goal Q2.1 Works Q2.2 Effectiveness of works Q2.6 Spinoffs from works Q2.7 Time lags from works Q2.5 Adoption Q3.3-3.5 Socio-economic risks Q3.6-3.8 NRM Benefits Policy Interventions/ mechanisms Q4.1 Costs Q4.2 1. The Asset 2. Goal, Works 3. Socio- economics 4. Budget Title 5. Project info Summary Outputs

30 30 BCR = ────────────────────────────────────────────────── Project cost Potential project benefits E(prop’n of required adoption)  (1  Risk of failure  )  Discount factor for time lags V  W V: asset value W: effectiveness of works A  B A: adoption B: compliance F  P  G F: feasibility P: socio-political G: long-term funding 1/(1 + r) L L: time lag to benefits r: discount rate C + PV(M+E)  G C: project cost M: annual maintenance cost E: polluter-pays compliance costs PV: summed present value over 20 years G: long-term funding

31 31 Basin scale costs to shift to A practices Basin Total cane area (ABS data) Area (ha) to be shifted to A practice % of overall cost to be borne Upfront costs (C) $M over 5 years Annual maintenance costs (M) $M/yr Johnstone19,02316,170144.70.9 Tully-Murray24,46820,798186.01.2 Herbert60,67451,5734414.72.9 Russell-Mulgrave20,24017,204144.70.9 Daintree- Mossman 6,8555,82751.70.3 Barron6,6775,67551.70.3 Total137,937117,24610033.36.6

32 32 BasinValues Key issuesThreats Daintree-Mossman Connectivity Supporting ecological processes Fish Barriers Weeds Fragmentation of riparian vegetation Loss of longitudinal and lateral connectivity Impacts of non-native plants and animals including translocated species Barron, Northern Beaches and Trinity Inlet Connectivity Fish Barriers Acid Sulfate Soils Fragmentation of riparian vegetation Loss of longitudinal and lateral connectivity Decline in water quality and soil chemistry Russell-Muglrave Connectivity Fish Barriers Acid Sulfate Soils Fragmentation of riparian vegetation Loss of longitudinal and lateral connectivity Decline in water quality and soil chemistry Johnstone Connectivity Fish Barriers Acid Sulfate Soils Fragmentation of riparian vegetation Loss of longitudinal and lateral connectivity Decline in water quality and soil chemistry Tully-Murray Connectivity Fish Barriers Acid Sulfate Soils Fragmentation of riparian vegetation Loss of longitudinal and lateral connectivity Decline in water quality and soil chemistry HerbertConnectivity Fish Barriers Low DO Fragmentation of riparian vegetation Loss of longitudinal and lateral connectivity Decline in water quality and soil chemistry Places – Systems Repair

33 33 Catchment and Coastal Ecosystems Catchment waterways and the processes that supports them are of high significance to the region – ecological, social and economic Coastal ecosystems modified – loss of connectivity and system function, eg. fish habitat and breeding cycles – also critical for marine animals Pressures include vegetation removal, poor water quality, hydrological barriers, feral pigs, acid sulfate soils, fragmentation of riparian vegetation, low DO Priority is to protect high value waterways

34 34 Assumptions Adoption of practices related to DIN reduction (rate, timing and placement of fertiliser): A (8%), B (20%), C (70%) and D (2%). –This equates to the following areas in each practice class: A - 10,720 ha, B - 26,800 ha, C - 93,800 ha and 2,680 ha. Therefore the following practice change transitions are required for DIN: C to A - 20,000 ha and B to A - 94,000 ha. PSII herbicides practice adoption: A (5% ), B (20%), C (65%) and D (10%). –This equates to the following areas in each practice class: A - 6,700 ha, B - 27,000 ha, C - 87,000 ha and D - 13,000 ha. For PS II herbicides the following practice change transitions are required: D to A - 13,000 ha, C to A - 87,000 ha and B to A - 27,000 ha.

35 35 Basin prioritisation results Scenario – 5 yearsBCR Predicted DIN reduction (% of anth load) A - all A practice across region0.4928 C – All B practice across region1.3019 D - All A practice in Johnstone, Tully-Murray and Herbert only0.5222 E - All A practice in the Johnstone and the Tully-Murray only0.6211 F - All A practice in Johnstone and Herbert only0.7917 G - All A practice in the Johnstone only0.905 H - All A practice in the Herbert only0.5711 I – All A in Russell Mulgrave, Johnstone, Tully-Murray, Herbert0.4926 J – All B in Russell-Mulgrave, Johnstone, Tully-Murray, Herbert1.9015 K – All A in Daintree-Mossman, Barron0.472 L – All B in Daintree-Mossman, Barron0.981 27%

Download ppt "1 Wet Tropics Water Quality Improvement Plan Terrain NRM August 2014."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google