within CLUES has been broadly applied throughout New Zealand (Elliott et al., 2005), particularly for estimation (Elliott et al., 2014), and its development involved E. coli extensive communication with the developers of the original estimation procedure in the U. S. A. (Elliott et al., 2014). The suitability of this approach for estimating baseline microbial loads and its previous application, both in the study region and throughout New Zealand, are key reasons why this method has been selected. Another key justification for using the CLUES model is that there appears to be no alternative estimation procedures that are readily available for predicting concentrations in the New Zealand water-management E. coli context. In addition, alternative means of estimating loads—such as generating mean E. coli loads per land use type and then aggregating these up to the catchment level utilising data regarding the amount of area present in each land use (NIWA, 2010)—are less structured (and hence are necessarily more heuristic) and also create the possibility that values observed on-farm are inconsistent with those concentrations observed at monitoring stations throughout the catchment. The current sets of mitigation options evaluated in the model are very focused on the management of nitrogen loss. These mitigations generally have less effect on the loads of other contaminants (phosphorus, sediment, and Levels of current adoption, potential E. coli). adoption, cost, and the efficacy (proportional reduction in contaminant loss associated with the use of the mitigation) of these additional mitigations are the focus of an upcoming workshop and subsequent work streams. Critical information here concerns the level of effectiveness of the given mitigation practices, as these will modify the baseline loads that have been estimated for agricultural land across the catchment, and thus modify the concentrations of the contaminants observed in the waterways. The focus of the upcoming workshop (28–29 January 2015) is to: Brainstorm practices available to reduce the loading of a certain contaminant to water ways. Evaluate the list of practices that has been generated, and delete those that are regarded as unlikely to be broadly suitable for mitigation purposes. Identify the extent to which these practices could be broadly adopted for mitigation purposes.
within CLUES has been broadly applied throughout New Zealand (Elliott et al., 2005), particularly for E. coli estimation (Elliott et al., 2014), and its development involved extensive communication with the developers of the original estimation procedure in the U. S. A. (Elliott et al., 2014). The suitability of this approach for estimating baseline microbial loads and its previous application, both in the study region and throughout New Zealand, are key reasons why this method has been selected. Another key justification for using the CLUES model is that there appears to be no alternative estimation procedures that are readily available for predicting E. coli concentrations in the New Zealand water-management context. In addition, alternative means of estimating E. coli loads—such as generating mean loads per land use type and then aggregating these up to the catchment level utilising data regarding the amount of area present in each land use (NIWA, 2010)—are less structured (and hence are necessarily more heuristic) and also create the possibility that values observed on-farm are inconsistent with those concentrations observed at monitoring stations throughout the catchment. The current sets of mitigation options evaluated in the model are very focused on the management of nitrogen loss. These mitigations generally have less effect on the loads of other contaminants (phosphorus, sediment, and E. coli). Levels of current adoption, potential adoption, cost, and the efficacy (proportional reduction in contaminant loss associated with the use of the mitigation) of these additional mitigations are the focus of an upcoming workshop and subsequent work streams. Critical information here concerns the level of effectiveness of the given mitigation practices, as these will modify the baseline loads that have been estimated for agricultural land across the catchment, and thus modify the concentrations of the contaminants observed in the waterways. The focus of the upcoming workshop (28–29 January 2015) is to: Brainstorm practices available to reduce the loading of a certain contaminant to water ways. Evaluate the list of practices that has been generated, and delete those that are regarded as unlikely to be broadly suitable for mitigation purposes. Identify the extent to which these practices could be broadly adopted for mitigation purposes.
21%20-%20Draft%20Doole_HRWO%20Economic%20Model%20Justifications.docx