2. Waikato River Restoration Report Card
CSG7 – Reporoa 31 Oct 2014 John Quinn – TLG Acknowledging: Cheri van Schravendijk-Goodman (WRRT); Erica Williams (NIWA); Bruce Williamson (Diffuse Sources Ltd); Eva Abal (Uni Queensland/Internat’ Water Centre)

3. Aims of presentation Familiarise CSG with Report Cards Project
Part of broader WRA supported awa restoration activities
RCs planned for release early/mid 2015
Complementary process to HRWO
Broader suite of values included
Cultural, social, economic, habitat, key species …
Introduce reports produced - may be useful to CSG
Harmonising with HRWO and NPS drivers
Report Card grades and WOF states
RC Reporting Units and Freshwater Management Units
Processes need to keep in touch

4. Why produce a report card?
“Many management and restoration programs don't get monitored or don't inform the managers, public or politicians”…
Report Cards are means for improved -
Communication - large and often complex information to a broad audience; simple messages
Accountability - basis for promoting social change and measuring effort
Monitoring and adaptive management
Identification of key regions or areas of concern
Engagement – communities involved in the design of the framework, their application and review

5. Report cards are growing in popularity internationally
Educational report cards are a common experience (A to F easy to understand)
Peer pressure is a powerful motivator
Report cards synthesise large amounts of data e.g.
Australia ( Moreton Bay, Gippsland Lakes, Great Barrier Reef)
United States (Chesapeake Bay, San Francisco Bay)
Papua New Guinea (Strickland River)
BUT….None underpinned by cultural values – biophysical only

6. Important points…
Report cards are “showpiece” at the top of the cake – easy for public to pick up and understand key messages
Underpinned by:
Numerous data sources,
Contribution from a wide variety of partners to meet the result
Aspiration to further “drill down” into in a variety of ways, e.g., tuna, kākahi, access etc

7. Waikato River Restoration Report Card Project: WRA 12-053
NIWA, WRRT, Diffuse Sources Ltd
River iwi advisory roopu
(includes Dylan Tahau, Charlotte Severne, Rangi Mahuta, Ben Ormsby, Bella Tait, Linda Te Aho, Naomi Symonds)
Aims
Create a report card that will measure the success of current and future Waikato River restoration actions
Develop a report card framework that WRA can use to assess success and prioritise future actions

8. Whakapapa of the project (2014)
2013 Report Card project
TAURA Framework
Advisory Roopu (River Iwi)
REPORT CARD v.1
Waikato River Independent Scoping Study (WRISS)
Consultation
PHOTO SOURCE:

9. Reports of potential use to CSG
Monitoring Requirements for WRA projects (Dec 2013)
Review of existing WRA project monitoring
75 projects funded in WRA rounds 1 and 2
Review of WRC State of the Environment monitoring
Recommends monitoring for different project types
Knowledge Networks to Support Report Cards (April 2014)
Summarise drivers, controls and effects of HRWO’s 4 contaminants
Tuna (shortfin and longfin eels) fishery
Whitebait fishery
Waipa hill farm streams: nutrients, sediment and clarity.
Waikato mainstem - Taupō Gates to Ohakuri & Karapiro to Ngaruawahia
Lake Hakanoa

10. Knowledge Network example: Hakanoa - shallow riverine lake
External
drivers
Internal
Biota
Community
values

11. Hypothetical example of how RC could look
Taura
A Healthy Waikato River Catchment
Kai
Fisheries and kai (e.g., tuna, whitebait, kōura, ducks)
Water Quality
Water quality (e.g., N, P, SS, E. coli)
Sites of Significance
Sites of significance (e.g., waahi tapu, place names, historic sites, puna)
Ecological Integrity
Ecology
Biodiversity
Physical character
Experience
Access
Human health (e.g., contaminants)
Contact recreation (e.g., E.coli)
Rubbish
Intergenerational response
Information / enabling tools
Education
Water Security
Water allocation / flow
Efficiency and use
Environmental flows, hydro ramping
Economics
Economics (e.g., GDP)
Effort
Effort (e.g., $ invested) D
Data poor D- B A C- C+
No Data
Taura meaning strand, implying that each of these strands are important and required to be woven together to represent a healthy Waikato River and community)

13. Hypothetical example of how RC could look
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Waikato River
Kai
Water Quality
Sites of Significance
Ecological Integrity
Experience
Water Security
Economics
Effort
Karāpiro to Ngāruawāhia
Narrative 1
Narrative 2
Karāpiro to Ōhakuri
Narrative 1
Narrative 2
Ngāruawāhia
to Te Pūaha
Narrative 1
Narrative 2
Ōhakuri to Huka Falls
Narrative 1
Narrative 2
Tuakau
Huntly
Lower Waikato Lakes
Narrative 1
Narrative 2
Hamilton
Karāpiro
Arapuni
Tokoroa
Ōhakuri
Lower Waipā
Narrative 1
Narrative 2
Atiamuri
Taupō-nui-a-Tia
Narrative 1
Narrative 2
Waikare
Waahi
Ōtorohanga
Upper Waipā
Narrative 1
Narrative 2
Huka Falls
Taupō
Rotokawau
Rotopiko
Te Kuiti
Tributaries
Mainstem

14. Next/current steps Refining the indicators needed to tell the story …
Reducing the number of indicators, achieving the right balance
Make the most of long term datasets being collected by WRC and others (e.g. WRC biophysical databases & Waikato Progress indicators (
Identifying data gaps that need to be addressed to meet needs of the people and the Awa
Indicator data integration across sites within RC Reporting Units (c.f. FMUs)
Amalgamation indicators into taura scores

15. Balance and distribution of indicators e.g. Ecological Integrity
Report card
Reporting Units
Adding in ‘urban tributaries’ to capture towns and cities impacting on Awa

16. Next steps Identifying Reporting Units…
High variation from upstream to Te Puuaha
How ‘break into’ manageable and robust monitoring units?
Harmonise with HRWO FMUs?
“Releasing/launching” the Card
Buy-in
Launch process – with WRA

17. Harmonising Report Cards & HRWO
Report card grades (currently A, B, C, D & F) and Waikato Objectives Framework Attribute States (A , B, C & D)
Work to harmonise
RC reporting units and HRWO FMUs
HRWO’s 4 contaminants (Sed, N, P & E. coli) included in RC water quality and experience Taura
Other Taura address broader river related values