Meeting of the Hawke's Bay Regional Council Maori Committee



Date:                 Tuesday 26 February 2013

Time:                10.30 am


Council Chamber

Hawke's Bay Regional Council

159 Dalton Street





Item      Subject                                                                                            Page


1.         Welcome/Notices/Apologies 

2.         Conflict of Interest Declarations

3.         Short Term Replacements  

4.         Confirmation of Minutes of the Maori Committee held on 4 December 2012

5.         Matters Arising from Minutes of the  Maori Committee held on 4 December 2012

6.         Call for General Business Items

7.         Action Items from Previous Maori Committee Meetings

Information or Performance Monitoring

8.         Update on Current Issues by the General Manager - Operations

9.         Naming of Clive River

10.       Biodiversity Strategy Update

11.       Science Reports

12.       Update on Regional Pest Management Strategy

13.       Statutory Advocacy Update

14.       General Business  



Maori Committee  

Tuesday 26 February 2013

SUBJECT: Short Term Replacements        



1.      Council has made allowance in the terms of reference of the Committee for short term replacements to be appointed to the Committee where the usual member/s cannot stand.




That the Maori Committee agree:

That ______________  be appointed as member/s of the Maori Committee of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council for the meeting of Tuesday, 26 February 2013 as short term replacements(s) on the Committee for ________________





Viv Moule

Human Resources Manager


Liz Lambert

General Manager (Operations)



There are no attachments for this report.  


Maori Committee  

Tuesday 26 February 2013

SUBJECT: Action Items from Previous Maori Committee Meetings        



1.      Attachment 1 lists items raised at previous meetings that require actions or follow-ups. All action items indicate who is responsible for each action, when it is expected to be completed and a brief status comment. Once the items have been completed and reported to Council they will be removed from the list.


Decision Making Process

2.      Council is required to make a decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained within this section of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded that as this report is for information only and no decision is required in terms of the Local Government Act’s provisions, the decision making procedures set out in the Act do not apply.



1.      That the Maori Committee receives the report “Action Items from Previous Maori Committee Meetings”.




Viv Moule

Human Resources Manager




Liz Lambert

General Manager (Operations)




Action items




Action items

Attachment 1


Actions from Maori Committee Meetings



4 December 2012 meeting


Agenda Item


Person Responsible

Due Date

Status Comment


Ngati Hori Management Plan

Council staff to prepare paper for Council’s consideration



Management Plan to be presented at E&S Meeting on 20 February 2013


















Maori Committee  

Tuesday 26 February 2013

SUBJECT: Naming of Clive River        



Reason for Report

1.      A number of tangata whenua have from time to time questioned the naming of the old Ngaruroro ‘channel’ as the Clive River.

2.      The correct name, or in this case loss of a name, is a particular concern for tangata whenua as the name is the link to the history and whanau/hapu/iwi association with that taonga.

3.      This report presents a compact outline of the history behind how this came about.

4.      In the main the ‘history’ is taken from Council documents and minutes and may not present the ‘total’ picture in terms of Maori involvement.


5.      In 1951 the Catchment Board was not officially responsible for drainage control. Local Councils had that control. A meeting was called by the Catchment Board with all Councils in the area to discuss a comprehensive Heretaunga Plains flood control scheme.

6.      In 1954 a number of options were presented to the local authorities.

7.      Between 1954 and 1959 after much discussion and debate, a model had been developed and a final option decided on.

8.      The then Minister of Works approved the chosen scheme in May 1961.

9.      Between 1961 and July 1966 a number of streams were stopbanked, new bridges completed and the diversion channel cut.

10.    In 1962 the Cartographic branch of the Lands and Survey Department sought a ruling from the NZ Geographic Board for names for the old channel. ‘Whakatu’ and ‘Clive’ were promoted along with 12 other options.

11.    The NZ Geographic Board at that time appears to have gone with the name ‘Whakatu’.

12.    It was 1968 before a sufficient flood enabled flood waters to scour the new diversion channel.

13.    The old channel was finally blocked off in 1969.

14.    The ‘old channel’ was then the primary and improved outlet for the Raupare and Karamu streams and their tributaries.

15.    In October 1974 at a meeting of the NZ Geographic Board despite the earlier 1962 meeting and view, ‘Clive’ was adopted as the official name.

16.    In 1975 the Geographic Board formally adopted the name “Clive River’ for the old course of the Ngaruroro. (NZ Gazette 1975(62) Page 1632).

For Consideration

17.    Should the Committee wish to pursue the renaming, the Council should be kept informed.  In addition, the Maori Committee may choose to seek Council’s support of the ‘case’ for the renaming of the river once fully developed and agreed by the Committee.




1.      That the Maori Committee receives the report on the ‘Naming of the Clive River’.





Viv Moule

Human Resources Manager


Liz Lambert

General Manager (Operations)



There are no attachments for this report.


Maori Committee  

Tuesday 26 February 2013

SUBJECT: Biodiversity Strategy Update        


Reason for Report

1.      This report updates the Committee on progress with the development of the Hawke’s Bay regional biodiversity strategy.


2.      The 2012-22 Long Term Plan (LTP) outlines Council’s intent to prepare a regional biodiversity strategy which will include a wide range of stakeholders in its preparation and the ultimate commitment to a regional strategy.

3.      The specific LTP outputs are as follows:

3.1.      2012-13 finalise scope of strategy and begin preparation of draft strategy

3.2.      2013-14 Consult on the draft strategy and prepare the final biodiversity strategy

3.3.      2014-15 prepare the programme for work relevant to HBRC for inclusion in the next long term plan

4.      Staff have been active in the early development of the strategy development process and have convened the first meeting of the Biodiversity Strategy Steering Group (BSG).

Progress to Date

5.      Towards the end of 2012 there were a range of activities undertaken by the core working group (CWG) in preparation for the first BSG meeting. These included:

5.1.      A Landcare Research biodiversity outcomes based workshop to set some initial context on higher level strategy outcomes for discussion at the BSG.

5.2.      An initial analysis of where the key areas for alignment may be with other national or regional biodiversity related initiatives

5.3.      Collating draft stakeholder GIS data relevant to regional biodiversity current state to present an initial snapshot at the first BSG meeting.

5.4.      Preparation of a draft CWG and BSG terms of reference for discussion at the first BSG meeting

5.5.      Initial broad areas for early BSG advice including the scope of the strategy, and the role (if any) of a biodiversity accord and regional biodiversity forum in more integrated regional biodiversity management.

5.6.      Identifying the potential BSG participants.

6.      The first meeting of the BSG was held on 5 February 2013.  Councillors McGregor, Remmerswaal and Kirton are Council representatives on the BSG.

7.      The BSG agreed to have Campbell Leckie facilitate their meetings.  Campbell did a great job with the first meeting.

8.      The BSG endorsed the attached terms of reference with some amendments (including the need to change the high level objectives noted below) and asked that the strategy scope be expanded to include some reference to the likely impact of climate change.

9.      The BSG provided input to the high level strategy objectives and are to hold an additional meeting in April to refine these to allow the CWG to continue with the strategy development for further discussion.

10.    A 2-page summary of the strategy development process is being developed to allow the parent organisations of the BSG participants to more clearly understand the significant and intent of the strategy development.

Decision Making Process

11.    Council is required to make a decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act).  Staff have assessed the requirements contained within this section of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only and no decision is to be made, the decision making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 do not apply.



1.      That the Maori Committee receives the report.




Iain Maxwell

Group Manager

Resource Management





Hawke's Bay Biodiversity Strategy Terms of Reference (TORs) draft




Hawke's Bay Biodiversity Strategy Terms of Reference (TORs) draft

Attachment 1


Hawke’s Bay Biodiversity Strategy      |       Steering Group
Terms of Reference

1.   Purpose

The purpose of this document is to describe the Context, Role and Operating Procedures for the Biodiversity Strategy Steering Group (BSSG) that is being convened to develop a regional biodiversity strategy for Hawke’s Bay by December 20132014

2.   Study Area

The Hawke’s Bay Biodiversity Strategy or HBBS is a non-statutory undertaking with a study area confined to Hawke’s Bay Regional Council’s physical and biological legal boundaries.  However, the group’s activities may extend outside HBRC boundaries to achieve regional outcomes and objectives.

3.   Introduction

One action from the adopted Hawke’s Bay Land and Water Management Strategy is to develop a ‘Regional Biodiversity Strategy’ with relevant agencies such as the Department of Conservation, Fish and Game NZ, QEII Conservation Trust, Nga Whenua Rahui and territorial authorities. These agencies and stakeholders recognise the value of stronger alignment of individual activities and a clearer   common purpose in responding to biodiversity challenges in the region. There are a range of initiatives that can be and are being undertaken by these organisations and others which contribute to the maintenance and enhancement of indigenous biodiversity.  As such, the HBBS will be led by a Steering Group comprising members of these groups.

There is increasing recognition that well-connected natural ecological systems of sufficient scale are needed to support sustainable and diverse species within the Hawke’s Bay landscape. People living in the region want to ensure our natural landscape values are protected for generations to come.

The broad agreement and the collaboration of all stakeholders through a shared biodiversity strategy is vital.  This will help to achieve the necessary changes in land and water management required for sustainable indigenous ecosystems in the region.

A jointly developed Regional Biodiversity Strategy will set:

·    long term goals to achieve effective habitat protection to enable successful and diverse ecological systems; 

·    a region wide approach to biodiversity, with strategies to achieve those goals;

·    priority areas for action and/or any funding commitment required; and

·    the respective contributions of all stakeholders toward achieving those goals. 


 To that end, HBRC is facilitating a collaborative multi-agency approach to engage the wider community in developing a cohesive biodiversity strategy.

Understanding the region’s current level of biodiversity will involve the identification and mapping of areas of significant indigenous biodiversity.  An agreed baseline inventory for biodiversity components will be established in 2012-13, and as part of the State of the Environment monitoring programme data will be collected to update the a regional biodiversity information database, which would also be contributed to by other organisations.

The costs associated with the development of a biodiversity inventory and strategy are $87,500 in Year 2102/13 and $15,500 in Year 2013/14.

4.   Strategy and Key Drivers

The Hawke’s Bay Biodiversity Strategy (HBBS) will provide a framework to stock take and guide activities protecting and managing biodiversity in Hawke’s Bay.  It is envisaged that the parent agencies of the BSSG will support the strategy by signing an accord committing them to action to deliver the strategy objectives.

The vision is to improve the region’s biodiversity by the year 2035, or as a minimum to maintain current biodiversity levels.

This work will also set long term goals to achieve effective habitat protection, enable successful and diverse ecological systems, identify priority areas for action and the additional funding required.

A Core Working Group has been established to draft the technical elements of the strategy. This group consists of DOC, Fish and Game, QE II Trust, HB Forestry, Nga Whenua Rahui and HBRC staff.



5.   Project Timeframe

Council’s long term plan outlines the following specific outputs for the biodiversity strategy:

·    2012-13 finalise scope of strategy and begin preparation of draft strategy

·    2013-14 Consult on the draft strategy and prepare the final biodiversity strategy

·    2014-15 prepare the programme for work relevant to HBRC for inclusion in the next long term plan

6.   Role of the Steering Group

The role of the BSSG will be:

·    To provide governance to the Core Working Group in the development of the Hawke’s Bay Biodiversity Strategy;

·    To report progress milestones back to HBRC Councillors;

·    To clarify areas of  uncertainty or disagreement;

·    To assist with community engagement and communication; and

·    To keep their individual BSSG member organisations aware of biodiversity strategy development progress and engaged in strengthening.

7.   Membership

BSSG members have been selected to reflect the broad interests in biodiversity and to provide a cross-section of values, understanding and perspectives. It is expected that members will engage with their organisations and wider social networks to explain what is happening in the collaborative process and to get feedback from them on the matters under consideration. 

If someone considers that an important sector, interest or perspective is not represented in the group, we will consider adding another member, taking into account the availability of potential members and the need to keep the group to a size that can work effectively together.

The members of BSSG group have, in the main, been nominated by their respective sector or group to be their mandated representative. Where members have not been given the mandate of their sector or group, they will participate as individuals and are expected to also convey ideas and perspectives from their wider networks. In meeting three, each member will declare whether they are mandated representatives or not. At the end of the process, each member will declare whether they can support the proposed agreement and promote it to their organisations and networks (see definition of consensus below). Members will also be asked, at that point, whether their organisations (where relevant) would formally endorse the consensus agreement.

The BSSG includes:




Point of contact



Tony Billing




Rowan Little or Philip Mackay




Peter Freeman




Helen O’Shaughnessy


Fish & Game

John Cheyne


Forest & Bird


Neil Eagles

John Cheyne

Federated Farmers

Bruce Wills



Nga Whenua Rahui

Mike Mohi



Ngati Kahungunu II



Mike Mohi

Maori Trustee



Mike Mohi


Dave Carlton




Anna Lambourne








Gillian Mangan


Te Taiao HB Environment Forum


Vaughan Cooper

John Cheyne

HB Forestry

Brett Gilmore



QEII Covenant Trust

Troy Duncan


HBRC Councillors

Neil Kirton

Liz Remmerswaal

Ewan McGregor



Farm Forestry Committee

Marie Taylor







Animal Health Board

Frank Pavitt



KEY – also a member of the HBBS Core Working Group


8.   Protocols for Collaborative Deliberation

 This process is not just another consultation exercise – it is a new way of decision-making. Rather than simply advocating for a particular point of view, participants will be expected to explore, consider and deliberate on solutions that accommodate diverse views and interests, and to refrain from tactics that are divisive.

The protocol includes:

·    Members must be willing to participate cooperatively for the greater good of sustainable biodiversity in Hawke’s Bay.

·    Members must commit to open, honest and collaborative deliberations. To this end, we will follow the Chatham House Rule. This means that participants are free to discuss aspects of the process with other parties (excluding the media, see next point) but shall not attribute speakers or their affiliations to discussed options or opinions. The list of participants will be made public though.

·    Contributions made within the Group will be “without prejudice”. That is, nothing said within the Group may be used in a subsequent process except for any recommendations and agreements reached by the Group.

·    Members agree to refrain from discussion and debate through the media or public websites etc. If newsletters or group emails are used to communicate with networks, members are expected to show restraint and respect for other views and avoid promoting discord within the group. Any public statement about discussions or decisions by the group must be agreed by the group and made through an agreed spokesperson. This also applies to researchers, council staff and others who attend the meetings in support of the HBBS.

9.   Councillor and Council Staff Involvement

Three HBRC Councillors and an officer from each territorial authority have been appointed to the BSSG. While these Councillors and officers have particular statutory and non-statutory responsibilities outside this process, within the BSSG they have the same rights and responsibilities as all other members. In addition to bringing their particular knowledge and perspectives, these Councillors and officers will represent the interests of the wider Hawke’s Bay community.

The HBRC Councillors are also members of the Regional Planning Committee which comprises all Councillors (9) and representation of eight of the nine Treaty Claimant Groups in Hawke’s Bay. This Committee provides the co-governance structure to recognise mana whenua’s kaitiaki role in managing the natural resources of the Hawke’s Bay rohe. This Committee is tasked with making resource management policy recommendations to the Council.

These Councillors and officers accept their mandate to support any consensus decision reached by the BSSG but recognise that they cannot speak on behalf of the Treaty Claimant Group representatives of the Regional Planning Committee, or in the case of officers cannot commit their Councils to any consensus without a formal resolution from their elected members.

Regional Council staff including the Group Manager Resource Management (GM RM or a delegated authority) will facilitate the Hawke’s Bay Biodiversity Strategy.  Other regional council support will be provided through the GM RM including financial advice, media assistance, engineering, technical, planning and regulatory advice.

10.       Role of Facilitator

Meetings of the BSSG will be led by an independent facilitator, who will:

·    Ensure a fair and equitable group process

·    Foster an atmosphere of respect, open-mindedness and group learning

·    Design an enjoyable and productive process to enable the group to achieve its task

·    Facilitate input from all members of the group, so that every voice is heard

·    Provide guidance on collaborative deliberation techniques, including constructive ways to voice disagreements and negotiate potential conflicts.

11. Draft Meeting Schedule for BSSG

HBRC has committed to delivering a draft Biodiversity Strategy by December 2013. However, the timeframe will require flexibility to ensure that all relevant information has been considered for the development of a robust and enduring strategy.  The function of the BSSG will be reviewed in December 2013.

Following is the schedule for meetings of the BSSG. It is intended that the meetings will follow this schedule but it may be necessary to vary as needs arise.

·    Meeting 1:            5 February 2013

·    Meeting 2:            June 2013

·    Meeting 3:            September 2013

·    Meeting 4:            January 2014

·    Meeting 5:            May 2014

·    Meeting 6: August 2014             (final meeting)


Campbell Leckie, Land Services Manager, HBRC ph: 833 8099 0272147436 email:


Maori Committee  

Tuesday 26 February 2013

SUBJECT: Science Reports         


Reason for Report

1.      This report and the associated summaries will update the Committee regarding the status of two coastal environments and the outcomes of targeted investigation of a persistent recreational water quality issue, and the outcome of a follow-up survey of sediment contaminants in the Napier Inner Harbour.


2.      Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (HBRC) has responsibility under the RMA, the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement and the Regional Coastal Environment Plan to safeguard the integrity, form functioning and resilience of the coastal environment and to sustain its ecosystems. 

3.      HBRC fulfils this responsibility in part through operation of routine monitoring programmes.  The monitoring programmes provide data regarding the quality of marine and fresh waters across the region, contaminants in sediments, as well as the ecological status of specific near shore environments, including reefs and soft-sediments (sandy beaches).  Assessment of these data provides information regarding the state and trend of these resources and the ecological and human health risk posed by various contaminants.  

4.      The recreational water quality monitoring programme provides information regarding the human health risks associated with contact recreation.  Historical monitoring identified that the quality of water near the mouth of the Puhokio Stream (Waimarama) persistently failed to meet recreational quality guidelines.  The microbiological quality of water in this catchment was assessed in 2011/12 under three different flow conditions.  Although the above average rainfall during this year made detection of specific contaminant sources impossible, the data indicated that faecal bacteria were generally of non-bovine ruminant origin.  This result was consistent with the widespread contamination, suggesting that runoff from extensive sheep grazing was the source of the faecal indicator organisms.  The investigation also demonstrated the value of molecular techniques, such as polymerase chain reaction DNA analysis for microbial source tracking purposes.

5.      Historical monitoring identified that sediments in Napier Inner Harbour were contaminated with materials derived from stormwater and ship maintenance activities.  A 2011/12 survey of sediment contaminants indicated that although contaminant concentrations had decreased in some areas of the port, concentrations of selected contaminants continued to exceed guideline threshold values.  Periodic surveillance monitoring and intervention by HBRC compliance team is recommended.

6.      Routine monitoring of sandy-beach ecosystems at Opoutama and Pourerere indicated that the population composition and species observed at these two beaches did not indicate human-induced impacts.  The results also confirmed that detection and discrimination of human-impacts from variability induced by natural conditions was difficult, requiring monitoring over a sufficiently long period, coupled with well-designed and consistent monitoring techniques.

7.      Similar conclusions were reached following routine monitoring of marine fauna resident on inter-tidal reefs at Kairakau, Hardinge Road and Te Mahia.  The data derived from the second year of monitoring did not allow differences in community composition or species numbers arising from human activities to be distinguished from those caused by seasonal, annual or spatial differences across the reefs.

8.      Effective resource management depends heavily on the quality of data and information available to quantify the state of the resources, identify trend and generally demonstrate that policy and regulation is achieving the desired effects. 

9.      The results from the four reports summarised in the attachments demonstrate the value of having high quality baseline data.  In the case of Pukokio Stream, routine monitoring identified and confirmed a persistent water quality problem.  Surveys of sediment contamination in the Napier Inner Harbour confirmed ongoing discharge of contaminants from stormwater and commercial activities.  Faunal composition and species data obtained from surveys of representative rocky reefs and sandy beach environments provide baseline data which will allow meaningful future assessment of the state and trend in the quality of these habitats.

10.    Provision has been made for future monitoring of these environments using robust and scientifically defensible techniques in the long-term plan (rocky reefs, sandy beaches and sediment quality - project 331).  Not all reef and sandy beach sites are monitored each year – they are subject to an intermittent monitoring programme which will provide adequate data provided the monitoring effort is sustained.  Recreational water quality is funded through project 315 (surface water quality).

Decision Making Process

11.    Council is required to make a decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act).  Staff have assessed the requirements contained within this section of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only and no decision is to be made, the decision making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 do not apply.



1.      That the Maori Committee receives the report.




Neale Hudson

Manager Environmental Science


Iain Maxwell

Group Manager

Resource Management




Napier Inner Harbour




Environmental assessment of Intertidal reefs at Kairakau




Puhokio Stream




Soft Sediment Ecological Monitoring




Napier Inner Harbour

Attachment 1


Napier inner harbour: Resurvey of antifoulant and trace metal contamination of sediments.

EMT 12/05: Plan No. 4340

Previous investigations (2005 and 2008) identified that the sediments of the Napier Inner Harbour were of a poor quality, with concentrations of a number of metal and organic contaminants exceeding the Australian and New Zealand Environment Conservation Council (ANZECC (2000)) guideline values.  Sediments within the inner harbour are exposed to a variety of contaminants derived from point sources of contamination, such as boat maintenance yards and storm water discharges.

To assess the impact these discharges were having on sediment quality, a follow-up survey was conducted during December 2011. Sediments were sampled from the five locations within the inner harbour sampled previously. Although the concentrations of most contaminants had reduced slightly relative to those observed in previous surveys, sediment contaminant concentrations at some sites continued to exceed guideline values for a number of variables, including tributyl tin, DDT, Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, copper and zinc.

Contaminant concentrations were highest at sites adjacent to boat maintenance facilities. An anticipated environmental outcome of the Regional Coastal Environment Plan (RCEP) is ‘avoidance of residue from boat maintenance operations entering the coastal environment’, with evidence of achieving this outcome ‘contaminant levels not exceeding national guideline values’. These results indicate that at present this environmental outcome is not being achieved.  Currently these boat maintenance facilities operate as permitted activities.  These survey results indicate that continuation of these activities could require resource consent. This will allow a more stringent set of mitigation and prevention measures to be put in place.

This report recommends:

§  Further investigation of the areas of highest contamination in order to identify the sources and extent of the contamination.

§  That the compliance team works with the relevant facility owners to improve their management practices and reduce the impact of their facilities on the environment


Environmental assessment of Intertidal reefs at Kairakau

Attachment 2


Environmental assessment of intertidal reefs at Kairakau, Hardinge Road and Te Mahia.

EMT 12/03: Plan Number 4338

The composition of reef animal communities is determined by a range of natural physical factors (such as topography and wave climate), as well as varying levels of exposure to human impacts.  Communities are also subject to seasonal and longer-term trends (such as climate variability and climate change).  Separating these influences and quantifying their relative impacts requires a long-term monitoring programme that incorporates a systematic stratified sampling approach. 

This report details the second year of monitoring of selected intertidal reefs within Hawke Bay. The objective of the monitoring is to track long term trends in reef community composition and health.  By allowing the health of reefs in the region to be determined, this programme will enable the effectiveness of Council policy in promoting the sustainable management of the coastal area to be assessed. This report presents the findings of monitoring intertidal rocky reef communities were at Kairakau, Hardinge Road and Te Mahia. 

Assessment of the data derived from monitoring undertaken in 2011/2012 indicated that:

§  Animal community structures differed between the mid- and low-intertidal zones in response to varying degree of exposure to atmospheric influences. 

§  The communities found at each reef were different, probably in response to differences in topography and wave climate, as well as varying levels of exposure to human impacts. 

§  The limited data available at present do not allow the cause of the community composition to be explained fully at present.  This information will only become available over time.

Consistency among surveys is required to allow meaningful comparisons between data obtained in different years and seasons, to identify trends within the reef ecosystem communities and to determine the state and health of reef systems within the Hawke’s Bay region.

The report recommends:

§  Continued long-term monitoring at Kairakau, Hardinge Road and Te Mahia reefs using the sampling methodology outlined in the report.

§  Increased monitoring frequency (to quarterly frequency) to allow seasonal changes in community structure to be determined.

§  That sampling locations are accurately geo-referenced to allow spatial changes to be identified and assessed over time.

§  Extending the selection of monitoring at sites at each reef to allow a broad-scale assessment of the proportion of eel grass bed cover.

§  Increased monitoring of reef colonisation at Hardinge Road by invasive species (with a focus on Undaria pinnatifada).

Puhokio Stream

Attachment 3


Puhokio Stream Investigation: Bacteria source determination 2011/12.

EMT: 12/04. Plan No. 4339.

Bathing water is monitored for faecal bacterial contamination at 32 sites around Hawke’s Bay as a part of the annual Recreational Water Quality monitoring programme. The mouth of the Puhokio Stream at Waimarama beach has regularly exceeded the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) and Ministry of Health (MoH) guidelines for concentrations of E. coli and enterococci and is graded as “very poor’ in terms of the MfE/MoH “Suitability for Recreation Grades” (SFRG). 

A 2003 investigation of bacteriological water quality in the Puhokio Stream attributed the persistently poor water quality to the generally degraded nature of the catchment rather than any point source discharges. During 2011, Microbial Source Tracking (MST) tools were trialled by the Cawthron Institute during a survey of water quality in the Puhokio Stream. These molecular tools indicated that the faecal contamination was of ruminant but non-bovine origin. A subsequent sanitary survey of the stream identified a series of wool sheds sited close to the stream bank as potential sources of contamination.

The 2010/11 Recreational Water Quality report recommended that the Puhokio Stream catchment should be sampled more intensively (including upstream and downstream of the wool sheds), and that MST procedures (Polymerase Chain Reaction - PCR) be applied in the event of a large exceedance of guideline values.

During 2011/12, intensive sampling of the Puhokio Stream was undertaken during low, medium and high flow conditions.

The study found that:

§  E. coli concentrations were highest following heavy rainfall.

§  E. coli concentrations were generally proportional to the amount of antecedent rainfall – this is consistent with the mobilisation of particulate materials, which behave in a similar manner to microbial contaminants.

§  The flux (instantaneous load) of microbes is likely to be far higher following rainfall, which means that coastal receiving waters will receive large numbers of faecal indicator organisms during rainfall events.

§  High faecal concentrations in the Puhokio Stream could be caused by:

−   diffuse source pollution from the entire catchment (which is characterised by intensive sheep farming), as well as

−   potential point sources such as wool sheds.

§  In general, faecal contamination of the Puhokio Stream was lower in 2011/12 than previously observed and MST techniques were not applied.

These observations are based on a limited number of samples and should be repeated under various flow conditions if a more accurate estimate of the contributions of faecal contaminants from potential point sources and tributary streams is required.

The report recommends:

§  Continued sampling of Puhokio Stream as part of the annual Recreational Water Quality monitoring programme.

§  Use of MST techniques to investigate the sources of microbial contamination in the event of an exceedance of guideline values.

Soft Sediment Ecological Monitoring

Attachment 4


Soft-Sediment Ecological Monitoring: Opoutama and Pourerere beaches 2011/12.

EMT 12/22: Plan No. 4117

Sandy beaches ecosystems are vulnerable to the effects of both on-beach and adjacent land-based activities. They can be placed under pressure by increasing sedimentation, overharvesting, physical modification, and from the habitat reduction and alteration associated with coastal development. Sandy beaches form an extensive component of the Hawke’s Bay coastline.

Monitoring of Hawke’s Bay’s beach ecosystems was undertaken at Opoutama and Pourerere beaches in order to fulfil requirements outlined in the “Coastal Monitoring Strategy for Hawke’s Bay: 2006-2011”.

A low abundance of animals and a low number of taxa were observed at both Pourerere and Opoutama. The infaunal community (organisms that live within the bottom substratum of a body of water, especially within marine sediments) at Opoutama was more diverse than at Pourerere. Biological summary indices indicate higher diversity within the low-shore area of both beaches.

Inter-year variability between beaches and sites is large in terms of numbers and species. This natural variability has an overriding impact on the species of infauna found and explains more of the variation between communities than either tidal area or development status.

Infaunal patterns appear consistent with medium to high-energy beaches, and conformed to expected patterns based on beach type.  At present there is no evidence of human-induced impact at either beach.  These data will become increasingly valuable as coastal development occurs at these sites.

This report recommends that:

§  Sampling at Opoutama beach should continue until the new wastewater treatment plant is operational.

§  Sampling at Pourerere beach should be discontinued in accordance with the long-term project plan.

§  Sampling and assessment of Blackhead, Ocean Beach and Mahanga beach should commence in accordance with the long-term project plan.



Environment and Services Committee  

Tuesday 26 February 2013

SUBJECT: Statutory Advocacy Update         


 Reason for Report

1.      This paper reports on proposals forwarded to the Regional Council and assessed by staff acting under delegated authority as part of the Council’s Statutory Advocacy project.  There were no new proposals forwarded to the Regional Council between 1 December to 31 January 2012.

2.      The Statutory Advocacy project (‘Project 196’) centres on resource management-related proposals upon which the Regional Council has an opportunity to make comments or to lodge a submission.  These include, but are not limited to:

2.1.      resource consent applications publicly notified by a territorial authority

2.2.      district plan reviews or district plan changes released by a territorial authority

2.3.      private plan change requests publicly notified by a territorial authority

2.4.      notices of requirements for designations in district plans

2.5.      non-statutory strategies, structure plans, registrations, etc prepared by territorial authorities, government ministries or other agencies involved in resource management.

3.      In all cases, the Regional Council is not the decision-maker, applicant nor proponent.  In the Statutory Advocacy project, the Regional Council is purely an agency with an opportunity to make comments or lodge submissions on others’ proposals. The Council’s position in relation to such proposals is informed by the Council’s own Plans, Policies and Strategies, plus its land ownership or asset management interests.


4.      Council is required to make a decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act).  Staff have assessed the requirements contained within this section of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only and no decision is to be made, the decision making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 do not apply.



1.    That the Maori Committee Committee receives the Statutory Advocacy Update report.




Esther-Amy Bate




Helen Codlin

Group Manager Strategic Development


There are no attachments for this report.  


Tuesday 26 February 2013

SUBJECT: General Business        



This document has been prepared to assist Councillors note the General Business to be discussed as determined earlier in Agenda Item 6.



Councillor / Staff


Karewarewa Stream Issues

Iain Maxwell