1

Wet TropicsWater Quality Improvement Plan

Terrain NRMAugust 2014

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

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

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

Planning - Priority actions,

setting goals and targets

WQIP, NRM Plan, Reef Plan

Monitoring and evaluation of

progress:

Paddock to Reef

Industry BMPSupporting

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 GovernmentQueensland Government

Industry organisations

Research organisationsExtension staff

Terrain NRM

Catchment groups

And many more!

Partners and process

Community

Farmers

Councils

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

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

Priorities - Places & pollutants for load reductions

Relative Priority

DRAFT Management Priorities

Basin Pollutant Management Key land uses

1 Johnstone Nitrogen Sugarcane, bananas

Herbert Nitrogen Sugarcane

Tully Murray Nitrogen Sugarcane, bananas

Russell Mulgrave Nitrogen Sugarcane

Herbert PSII herbicides Sugarcane

Tully Murray PSII herbicides Sugarcane

2 Johnstone PSII herbicides Sugarcane

Herbert Sediment / Phosphorus Dry Grazing, mine tailings dams

3 Johnstone Sediment / Phosphorus Sugarcane

Barron Sediment Tableland cropping; urban

Mulgrave Russell Sediment Urban

Barron Nutrients Sugarcane, urban

Daintree Nutrients Sugarcane

All basins Phosphorus Sugarcane, bananas, cropping, grazing

4 Barron, Daintree PSII herbicides Sugarcane

9

TargetsPollutant Reef 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, Herbert50% Daintree, Mossman, Barron

PSII herbicides 60% 70-90% Russell-Mulgrave, Johnstone, Tully, Murray, Herbert

Particulate nutrients 20% 50%

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

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

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

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

Cost effective options?SugarcaneCase – 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 practice 6.6 0.49 ~30% ~95%

B. 50% A: 50% B 5.8 0.54 ~24% ~79%

C. All B practice 2.6 1.3 ~19% ~63%

15

How does it compare?Asset Cost BCR Comment

Gippsland Lakes, VIC

$1343 million over 20 years - 40% P reduction by 2030

0.02 • Long-term payments for BMPs• Significant land use change

Corner Inlet, VIC

$600 million over 20 years -Aspirational targets (30% TP, 30% TN, 20% TSS)

0.003 • Long-term payments for BMPs• Significant land use change

Bow River, Alberta

$439 million over 20 years – TP 34,907 kg/year

0.01 • WWTP upgrade• BMPs + wetland and riparian

works

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

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

Catchment waterways and landscape function

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

Overarching framework

21

Management objectives matrix

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

Example management optionsKey principles: Extension and training – plus…

Pollutant Examples of focus actions Priority land uses

Priority basins

DIN • Optimise fertiliser (N) application • Target the amount used and timing• Adoption of industry BMP frameworks as a

minimum, push for B and A practices

CaneBananas

Russell-MulgraveJohnstoneTully-MurrayHerbert

PSII herbicides

• Target timing of herbicide application• Residual use in plant crops and ratoons• Row spacing

Cane Russell-MulgraveJohnstoneTully-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

Grazing Herbert (grazing)

• Developing areas – Erosion and sediment control plans, Water Sensitive Urban Design

• Mature urban – stormwater management

Urban BarronRussell-Mulgrave (urban)

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

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

Participate• Draft Plan available early Sept• We want to discuss the system repair priorities in

each basin - next 3-6 months

27

Any questions?

• More info: http://www.terrain.org.au/Projects/Water-Quality-Improvement-Plan

Thank you!

Management practice synthesis

Urban GuidelinesIndustry 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 WQIPsHealthy Waters Management

Process

2006-2012 2013-2014

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 ProgrammeWater Quality Grants

& Extension, Reef Trust

Marine status assessmentFreshwater condition

assessmentBasin pollutant load profiles

Upper Herbert sediment analysis

Reef Plan & ecologically relevant pollutant load

reduction targetsCatchment waterways values/threats matrix

Monitoring Strategy

M&E StrategyP2R Program

Herbert WQ Monitoring Program

Seagrass scoping studyRussell Mulgrave I5 station

29

Asset Identification

Q1.1

Asset Significance

Q1.2

ThreatsQ1.3-1.6

GoalQ2.1

WorksQ2.2

Effectivenessof works

Q2.6

Spinoffs from works

Q2.7

Time lagsfrom works

Q2.5

AdoptionQ3.3-3.5

Socio-economicrisks

Q3.6-3.8

NRMBenefits

PolicyInterventions/mechanisms

Q4.1

CostsQ4.2

1. The Asset 2. Goal, Works3. Socio-

economics4. Budget

Title

5. Project info

Summary

Outputs

30

BCR = ──────────────────────────────────────────────────

Project cost

Potential project benefits

E(prop’n of required adoption)

(1 Risk of failure

) Discountfactor fortime lags

V W V: asset value

W: effectivenessof works

A B A: adoption

B: compliance

F P GF: feasibility

P: socio-politicalG: long-term funding

1/(1 + r)L

L: time lag to benefitsr: discount rate

C + PV(M+E) G C: project cost

M: annual maintenance costE: polluter-pays compliance costs

PV: summed present value over 20 yearsG: long-term funding

31

Basin scale costs to shift to A practicesBasin 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

Johnstone 19,023 16,170 14 4.7 0.9

Tully-Murray 24,468 20,798 18 6.0 1.2

Herbert 60,674 51,573 44 14.7 2.9

Russell-Mulgrave 20,240 17,204 14 4.7 0.9

Daintree-Mossman

6,855 5,827 5 1.7 0.3

Barron 6,677 5,675 5 1.7 0.3

Total 137,937 117,246 100 33.3 6.6

32

Basin Values  Key issues Threats

Daintree-Mossman Connectivity

Supporting ecological processes

Fish BarriersWeedsFragmentation of riparian vegetation

Loss of longitudinal and lateral connectivityImpacts of non-native plants and animals including translocated species

Barron, Northern Beaches and Trinity Inlet

Connectivity 

Fish BarriersAcid Sulfate SoilsFragmentation of riparian vegetation

Loss of longitudinal and lateral connectivityDecline in water quality and soil chemistry 

Russell-Muglrave Connectivity 

Fish BarriersAcid Sulfate SoilsFragmentation of riparian vegetation

Loss of longitudinal and lateral connectivityDecline in water quality and soil chemistry

Johnstone Connectivity 

Fish BarriersAcid Sulfate SoilsFragmentation of riparian vegetation

Loss of longitudinal and lateral connectivityDecline in water quality and soil chemistry

Tully-Murray Connectivity 

Fish BarriersAcid Sulfate SoilsFragmentation of riparian vegetation

Loss of longitudinal and lateral connectivityDecline in water quality and soil chemistry

Herbert Connectivity 

Fish BarriersLow DO Fragmentation of riparian vegetation

Loss of longitudinal and lateral connectivityDecline in water quality and soil chemistry

Places – Systems Repair

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

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

Basin prioritisation resultsScenario – 5 years BCR Predicted DIN

reduction (% of anth load)

A - all A practice across region 0.49 28

C – All B practice across region 1.30 19

D - All A practice in Johnstone, Tully-Murray and Herbert only 0.52 22

E - All A practice in the Johnstone and the Tully-Murray only 0.62 11

F - All A practice in Johnstone and Herbert only 0.79 17

G - All A practice in the Johnstone only 0.90 5

H - All A practice in the Herbert only 0.57 11

I – All A in Russell Mulgrave, Johnstone, Tully-Murray, Herbert 0.49 26

J – All B in Russell-Mulgrave, Johnstone, Tully-Murray, Herbert 1.90 15

K – All A in Daintree-Mossman, Barron 0.47 2

L – All B in Daintree-Mossman, Barron 0.98 1

27%