Meeting of the Hawke's Bay Regional Council Maori Committee

 

 

Date:                 Tuesday 25 February 2014

Time:                10.15 am

Venue:

Council Chamber

Hawke's Bay Regional Council

159 Dalton Street

NAPIER

 

Agenda

 

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 3 December 2013

5.         Matters Arising from Minutes of the  Maori Committee held on 3 December 2013

6.         Follow Ups  from Previous Maori Committee Meetings

7.         Call for any Minor Items Not on the Agenda

Decision Items

8.         Submission to the Local Government Commission on the Draft Proposal for HB Local Government Reorganisation

Information or Performance Monitoring

9.         Update on Current Issues by the Interim Chief Executive

10.       Greater Heretaunga Ahuriri Plan Change TANK Group Update

11.       HB District Health Board "Healthy Homes" presentation

12.       The Establishment of Taiwhenua - verbal report by Dr Roger Maaka

13.       Statutory Advocacy Update

14.       Minor Items Not on the Agenda  

 

Please Note - Pre Meeting for Māori Members of the Committee begins at 9 am

 

 


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Maori Committee  

Tuesday 25 February 2014

SUBJECT: Short Term Replacements        

 

REASON FOR REPORT:

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.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

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, 25 February 2014 as short term replacements(s) on the Committee for ________________

 

 

 

 

Viv Moule

Human Resources Manager

 

Liz Lambert

Chief Executive

 

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.  


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Maori Committee  

Tuesday 25 February 2014

SUBJECT: Follow Ups  from Previous Maori Committee Meetings        

 

Introduction

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.

 

Recommendation

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

 

 

 

Viv Moule

Human Resources Manager

 

Liz Lambert

Chief Executive

 

Attachment/s

1View

Follow Up Items

 

 

  


Follow Up Items

Attachment 1

 

Follow Ups from Previous Maori Committee Meetings

 

 

3 December 2013 meeting

 

Agenda Item

Action

Person Responsible

Due Date

Status Comment

1.    

Ngati Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated Marine And Freshwater Fisheries Strategic Plan

Strategic Plan to be referred back to Ngati Kahungunu for further consultation

MM/VM

Ongoing

Verbal update at 25 February Committee meeting

2.    

Update on Current Issues

Copy of Amalgamation report to be circulated to Committee members

Copy of list of members on TANK Stakeholder Group

MD

Following meeting

Completed and sent out with unconfirmed mins

3.    

Air Quality Monitoring Report

Heatsmart Update on DHB findings

Vm/MH

23 February

Verbal report to be presented to 25 February meeting

 


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Maori Committee  

Tuesday 25 February 2014

SUBJECT: Call for any Minor Items Not on the Agenda        

 

Reason for Report

1.      Under standing orders, SO 3.7.6:

“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,

(a)     That item may be discussed at that meeting if:

(i)    that item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and

(ii)   the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but

(b)     No resolution, decision, or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”

2.      The Chairman will request any items councillors wish to be added for discussion at today’s meeting and these will be duly noted, if accepted by the Chairman, for discussion as Agenda Item 16

 

 

Recommendations

That Maori Committee accepts the following minor items not on the agenda, for discussion as item 16.

1.     

 

 

 

Leeanne Hooper

Governance & Corporate Administration Manager

 

Liz Lambert

Chief Executive

   


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Maori Committee  

Tuesday 25 February 2014

SUBJECT: Submission to the Local Government Commission on the Draft Proposal for HB Local Government Reorganisation        

 

Reason for Report

1.      At its meeting on 18 December 2013 Council resolved to lodge a submission to the Local Government Commission on its Draft Proposal for the reorganisation of local government in Hawke’s Bay, based upon reinforcing the need for any local government structure within Hawke’s Bay to have a specific focus on the management of natural resources in recognition of the region’s strong linkages to its primary production sector.

2.      A draft submission has been considered by the Environment and Services Committee and changes suggested at that meeting have been incorporated into the attached submission.  The draft submission has also been considered by the Regional Planning Committee and their feedback will be provided verbal at the meeting. (Attachment 1) The submission is being presented to Council on 26 February for final sign-off. Feedback is sought from the Committee to ensure that any relevant points the Committee wishes the Local Government Commission to address in its final proposal are included in the submission.

3.      Submissions close on 7 March 2014.

Decision Making Process

4.      Council is required to make a decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act).  Staff have assessed the requirements contained in Part 6 Sub Part 1 of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded the following:

4.1.   The decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.

4.2.   The use of the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.

4.3.   The decision does not fall within the definition of Council’s policy on significance.

4.4.   The persons affected by this decision are all those persons with an interest in the delivery of local government functions in Hawke’s Bay.

4.5.   Options previously considered by Council at its Corporate and Strategic Committee meeting 11 December 2013, and resolved at the Regional Council meeting 18 December 2013 included not lodging a submission.

4.6.   The decision is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.

4.7.   Given the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in the decisions made, Council can exercise its discretion and make a decision without consulting directly with the community or others having an interest in the decision.   Notwithstanding this, any person may make a submission on the Local Government Commission’s draft reorganisation proposal.

 

 

Recommendations

That the Maori Committee:

1.      Considers the key points to be presented in the submission to the Local Government Commission and provides feedback to assist in the finalising of the submission.

The Maori Committee recommends Council:

2.      Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted policy on significance and that Council can exercise its discretion under Sections 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Local Government Act 2002 and make decisions on this issue without conferring directly with the community and persons likely to be affected by or to have an interest in the decision due to the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided.

3.      Approves the submission, including any amendments agreed at the Maori Committee meeting, for lodging with the Local Government Commission.

 

 

 

 

Liz Lambert

Chief Executive

 

 

Attachment/s

1View

Updated Draft Submission

 

 

  


Updated Draft Submission

Attachment 1

 

Draft Submission

To:                  Local Government Commission

Subject:                     Draft Proposal for Local Government Reorganisation in Hawke’s Bay

Overview

The Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (HBRC) welcomes the opportunity to submit on the Local Government Commission’s draft proposal for local government reorganisation in Hawke’s Bay.

HBRC requests the opportunity to be heard in support of its submission by the Commission.

HBRC seeks to assist the Local Government Commission through its submission by noting a number of matters which we consider should be given greater consideration by the Commission in its decision making on whether or not to proceed to a final proposal and, if so, what that final proposal should look like. 

The Hawke’s Bay Regional Council is the only local authority within the area affected by the draft proposal that represents all the communities within that area. In our view this allows the regional council to provide a greater level of independence in respect of the communities of interest.

HBRC submitted an Alternative Proposal for local government reorganisation when this was called for by the Local Government Commission in March 2013. While the structure in our alternative proposal by HBRC has not been accepted as a reasonably practicable option our submission expresses concern that the principles outlined in that alternative proposal, which are a fundamental of good local governance, have not been addressed in any sense in the draft proposal.

The basic contention of this submission is to provide solutions for the Commission to consider in addressing these fundamentals of good local governance. 

Rationale

The underlying premise of HBRC’s submission is that form should follow function when it comes to determining local government structure. In HBRC’s view the draft proposal has not given adequate consideration of existing local government functions but rather focuses on what local government might potentially do in a unitary authority (noting that this is set out in the draft proposal without supporting evidence).

A provincial unitary council on the scale of Hawke’s Bay has not been contemplated before. The current proposals for Northland are also of a smaller scale. Two thirds of the new unitary Council’s population would be based in Napier and Hastings. Six of the nine elected councillors will represent the Hastings and Napier wards. Their interests and political mandates are likely to be influenced more by urban than rural concerns, and more by matters of a territorial authority nature than those of a regional council. With only ten politicians governing the Hawke’s Bay Council, the distance between them and the community, particularly in the rural area will increase. The specialist political representation and knowledge of rural and natural resources is likely to be lost to a significant degree.

Natural resource knowledge and management, providing an integrated approach and specialist expertise to natural resource management is a core function regional councils. This is particularly essential to Hawke’s Bay given the region’s significant natural resource base including large areas of land suitable for intensive agriculture or horticulture and given that the region’s economy is driven by primary production.

The region needs to retain a core focus on ensuring the investment funds deliver intergenerational work in the complex natural resource areas and the investment capital is used for critical regional scale infrastructure which unlocks sustainable economic opportunities. A dedicated focus on assisting the primary sector to build resilience, and if possible to expand, also needs to be retained in any future structure.

While it is accepted that any regional council regulatory functions would need to continue irrespective of structure the arguably more important contribution of the regional council is in undertaking scientific investigations of natural resources, particularly freshwater, and in adding value through the use of investment capital for critical regional scale infrastructure which unlocks sustainable economic opportunities.

Draft Proposal

Key elements of the draft proposal are:

·    Amalgamation of current councils into one unitary authority.

·    Inclusion of small area of Rangitikei district currently within Hawke’s Bay Regional Council into new council

·    Exclusion of two areas of Taupo district currently within Hawke’s Bay Regional Council from new council HOWEVER the new Hawke’s Bay council would be responsible for regional council functions in these areas (transferred from Bay of Plenty Regional Council)

·    Nine councillors would be elected from five wards. The Mayor would be elected at large

·    The council would have five community boards with 37 elected members.

·    A standing council committee comprising representatives of local iwi and elected members of council would hear the views of Māori

·    Existing council debt and financial arrangements would be ring-fenced for at least six years to the communities which incurred them or benefit from them. Current regional assets would be transferred to Hawke’s Bay Council.


Commentary

Regional Council functions

The regional council is particularly focussed on the issues of environmental management, rural land use and primary production, and how this is linked to the performance of the regional economy. This is built upon a focus on freshwater management and soil/land management. The 2011 National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPS) means that regional councils are and will be busy with a number of significant issues in its implementation, including:

·      Reviewing key planning documents in order to "give effect to" the NPS

·      Developing freshwater objectives and quality and quantity limits

·      Grappling with issues of "efficient allocation", "efficient use" and water permit transfer criteria

·      Reviewing discharge permit consent conditions

·      Increasing the involvement of iwi and hapū and improving the integrated management of fresh water.

This is leading to considerable policy and plan development by regional councils over the next few years on what are very contentious issues.  The work required to underpin the setting of limits is complex, quite sophisticated and is going to take the best part of a decade to work through.

Of concern to HBRC in the establishment of a unitary authority is the focus on territorial authority activities. While this is understandable, and is not a criticism, it does lead to questions around the ongoing financial sustainability of the programmes required to be undertaken over long term periods to validate the policies required to be developed, not just in the area of freshwater management but in the management of other public resources such as air, land and the coast.

In recognition of the responsibilities placed on regional councils to manage the “commons” without the ability to recover costs directly, regional councils were transferred ownership of port companies in the 1989 New Zealand-wide local government reorganisation. The Hawke’s Bay Regional Council relies on the dividend paid to it annually by the Port of Napier Ltd to allow it to undertake scientific investigations, environmental monitoring and land management activities that would otherwise have to be funded directly by the ratepayer. HBRC’s concern is that the funding of such activities is vulnerable to the more immediate needs often associated with urban based council activities.

The tone of regional council decisions is different to that of territorial authorities. Of necessity regional councils generally takes a long-term strategic look at its decisions as these involve long-term outcomes and significant, ongoing financial resourcing. In that regard HBRC believes that the formation of an elected rural and natural resources special purpose board with advisory and/or decision making functions should also be completed by the Commission, so that specialist governance input for regional council functions will be adequately provided to a future Hawke’s Bay Council.

We request that the dividend paid by the Port of Napier Ltd be “ring-fenced” for regional council environmental management functions in the final proposal. It is the Regional Council’s understanding that such “ring-fencing” can be undertaken in perpetuity and is not limited by a six-year maximum term.

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council seeks that any final proposal for local government re-organisation in Hawke’s Bay that excludes the retention of a stand-alone regional council includes provision for the ring-fencing of the dividend paid to the local authority by the Port of Napier Ltd for expenditure on the following functions:

·    Environmental air quality control

·    Natural resource environmental monitoring

·    Biosecurity

·    Harbourmaster functions/navigation and safety

·    Land management

·    Regional resource management planning

·    Coastal planning and management

·    Freshwater science investigations, including water allocation and water quality monitoring

·    Stormwater and wastewater regulations

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council seeks that any final proposal for local government re-organisation in Hawke’s Bay that excludes the retention of a stand-alone regional council includes provision for the establishment of an elected Natural Resources Board to provide specialist governance input for the regional council functions of the Hawke’s Bay Council.

A stand-alone regional council

The Draft Proposal rejects the concept of one Hawke’s Bay District Council and one Hawke’s Bay Regional Council on the basis that it would be seen as creating confusion in the public mind as to who had political mandate to speak for Hawke’s Bay. No other considerations that are required to be assessed by the Local Government Commission are presented in the draft proposal in relation to this option e.g. whether or not this option facilitates efficiencies and cost savings; productivity improvements and simplified planning processes.

Amendments to the Local Government Act in December 2012 mandate that any proposed reorganisation must ‘promote good local government’ by facilitating:

·    Efficiencies and cost savings;

·    Productivity improvements, both within the affected local authorities and for the businesses and households that interact with those local authorities; and

·    Simplified planning processes within and across the district or region through, for example, the integration of statutory plans or a reduction in the number of plans to be prepared or approved by the local authority.

In addition any proposed authority must –

·    Have the resources necessary to enable it to carry out effectively its responsibilities, duties and powers;

·    Contain within its district or region 1 or more communities of interest, but only if they are distinct communities of interest;

·    Enable catchment-based flooding and water management issues to be dealt with effectively by the unitary authority.

The legislation does not specify that the issue of political mandate to speak for an area is a criterion for the promotion of good local government. The draft proposal fails to address the matters that the Local Government Act 2002 specifies must be facilitated by any proposed reorganisation and therefore fails to give the submitting public of Hawke’s Bay an opportunity to explore the rationale for the rejection of a stand alone regional council.

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council seeks that any final proposal for local government re-organisation in Hawke’s Bay that excludes the retention of a stand-alone regional council includes a detailed analysis of the rationale for the Local Government Commission rejecting a stand- alone council in accordance with all the required provisions of the Local Government Act 2002.  

Community Boards

The effectiveness of the “local voice” in the draft proposal relies to a large extent on the existence of the community boards. The draft proposal notes that it may be possible that the passing of local government legislation amendments will allow for the provision of local boards in Hawke’s Bay. 

A unitary authority with community boards does not guarantee the effective representation of Hawke’s Bay’s communities or the delivery of local services based on communities’ needs. The existence of community boards is subject to a six-yearly representation review at which point the Hawke’s Bay Council could form a view to abolish or reconstitute them. In addition the powers and duties of a community board are largely determined by the governing body (the Hawke’s Bay Council). Such a hierarchical model does not guarantee the sustained, strong, localised governance needed in an area like Hawke’s Bay, nor does it enhance the relationship of the ratepayer to the authority that sets its rates.

Should the required legislation be passed to allow for local boards the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council requests that the Local Government Commission, as provided for in Clause 21 (1) C) of Schedule 3 of the Local Government Act 2002, identify another preferred option as the basis of a new draft proposal. We do not consider that the issuing of a modified draft proposal would be satisfactorily transparent. The public of Hawke’s Bay need to be able to know what a local board is and what it can do on their behalf, how it and its activities are funded, and the extend of its decision making powers.

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council seeks that a revised draft proposal be issued to enable public submissions to be lodged in the event that the Local Government Commission determines that it wishes to see the establishment of local boards for Hawke’s Bay, should the requisite legislation be passed. 

Māori representation

Underpinning the people, the economy and the environment is the development of an appropriate co-governance model.  A resilient and sustainable planning framework is coming out of the co-governance Regional Planning Committee of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, which maintains equal numbers of iwi (represented by mandated Treaty settlement groups) and elected regional representatives at the table, debating and making recommendations for future natural resource management. Through reforms to the Resource Management Act the Government is seeking to ensure that Māori interests and values are considered earlier in resource management planning processes with solutions developed up-front.

The draft proposal provides for the establishment of a standing committee to hear the views of Māori. The Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee, comprising equal representation of elected representatives and mandated treaty groups, will be in place legislatively by the time the Local Government Commission issues its final proposal. HBRC considers it essential that the final proposal, or a new draft proposal, includes clarification of the relationship between the Regional Planning Committee roles and responsibilities and that of the standing committee.

The Regional Planning Committee model, being based upon Treaty settlement groups, ensures that all appropriate iwi are represented at the decision-making table through their mandate. It also meets their needs as part of their cultural redress sought through Treaty claims on the management of natural resources.

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council seeks that any final proposal for local government re-organisation in Hawke’s Bay that excludes the retention of a stand-alone regional council includes clarification around the roles and responsibilities of the Māori Standing Committee and the legislated Regional Planning Committee. This is important as while the Māori Standing Committee will act in an advisory role only the Regional Planning Committee has a co-governance role. The expectations arising these two separate arrangements need to be made clearer to the public.

Taupo

The draft proposal creates an unacceptable level of uncertainty around the exclusion of two areas of Taupo district currently within the Hawke’s Bay Regional council area from the new unitary authority. These two areas are in the headwaters of the Mohaka River, Hawke’s Bay’s longest river. There is a small usually resident population within these two areas (2011 est: 90) and the land is predominantly high country indigenous bush and scrub, with the balance in forestry and farming. The total area is around 78,500 ha.

It is clear that in the draft proposal the Commission considers that community of interest has primacy over catchment. It proposes that these areas remain with Taupo district, and be included in the Bay of Plenty Regional Council area, but that the regional council responsibilities in those two areas then be transferred to the Hawke’s Bay Council under the final reorganisation scheme. No direction is given in the draft proposal about how such activities would be funded and by whom, whose resource management act provisions would apply and how any differences could be resolved.

We note that:

·    The LGC noted that for the purposes of effective catchment management, two small areas of Taupō district and one small area of Rangitikei district are presently included in Hawke’s Bay region. Following discussion with Hawkes Bay Regional Council (HBRC) officers, the LGC concluded that it would be important for these areas to remain under the authority of any new Hawke’s Bay unitary authority, at least for catchment and related purposes (Clause 175).

·    The LGC noted that the two small areas of Taupō district were in Hawke’s Bay region, in order that the Mohaka River catchments were contained within the boundaries of one regional council, i.e. HBRC. The LGC considered that it was important that these catchments were not divided, given the national significance of the river which has a conservation order on it, and which has been the subject of a Waitangi Tribunal recommendation relating to interests of Ngāti Pahauwera (Clause 177).

·    On the other hand, the LGC received correspondence from Taupō District Council opposing the separation of these two areas from Taupō district, on community of interest grounds (Clause 178). The LGC agreed there were strong community of interest arguments for these areas to be kept within the boundaries of Taupō district and also that this was likely to be supported by Ngāti Tūwharetoa (Clause 179).

·    In order to meet the conflicting arguments, the LGC concluded that if one unitary authority were to be established for Hawke’s Bay, the two areas of Taupō district should be excluded from the new district but that responsibility for the regional council functions presently being undertaken by HBRC, should continue to be the responsibility of the new Hawke’s Bay unitary authority. This would involve including these areas in the Bay of Plenty region and transferring the regional council statutory obligations for these areas to the new Council under Section 24(1)(e) of the LGA (Clause 180).

Specifically, we are unclear how the transfer of statutory obligations from BOPRC to the Hawke’s Bay Council would work in practice and seek clarification on this matter, including but not limited to:

·    Funding - how the delivery of functions and services would be funded, including how rating would work practically. Our understanding is that rating functions cannot be transferred to another authority, so BOPRC would of necessity be the rating authority for these areas.

·    Governance arrangements – how representation of residents and ratepayers for regional council functions would operate, i.e. which Council(s) residents would vote for, in terms of regional council functions, and whether this would be the same Council that is delivering regional council functions and services in their area.

·    Resource Management Act – how roles and responsibilities under this Act would operate without creating inconsistencies and uncertainty. For example, if the two areas in question were to be covered by the Bay of Plenty Regional Policy Statement (which is currently based on entire catchments) and Bay of Plenty regional plans, while resource consenting and regulatory roles were transferred to the Hawke’s Bay Council.

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council seeks that any final proposal for local government re-organisation in Hawke’s Bay clarifies the transfer of statutory obligations from the Bay of Plenty Regional Council to the Hawke’s Bay Council.  It is extremely difficult for HBRC to determine a position of support for this aspect of the proposal until these points of clarification have been provided.

Further analysis

In our view the draft proposal issued by the Local Government Commission in November 2013 is inadequate in terms of detail. Before the Local Government Commission issues a final proposal, or a new draft proposal, it must do much more analysis of the current functions and responsibilities of the councils, the number of FTEs associated with performing those functions and the costs of transition and integration.

Robust data and evidence must be provided in support of the preferred option so that the public can understand what the true costs and benefits of the options are.

Much has been made of the costs and benefits of the creation of the Auckland super-city, with almost as many different accounts put forward as there are commentators. It would be of huge assistance to the people of Hawke’s Bay to have an assessment of the costs and benefits of the preferred option provided by the Commission to assist them make up their minds. 

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council requests that if the Commission determines that local boards are to be included in the local government structure in Hawke’s Bay, and include these in a re-issued draft proposal, it is critical that the cost and resources associated with local board plans and agreements and the administration and support services associated with them are quantified.

Transition arrangements

There is very little detail about the transition phase in the draft proposal and particularly about the resourcing requirements that may be required from councils. Given that HBRC operates in as lean and efficient way as possible this is a potential concern impacting on council functions during transition and the maintenance of current levels of service to Hawke’s Bay.

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council seeks that any final proposal for local government re-organisation in Hawke’s Bay that excludes the retention of a stand-alone regional council includes detail on the transition phase in order to understand what impacts this phase might have.

The draft proposal proposes that the Hawke’s Bay Council’s administrative headquarters would initially be located in Napier City. However if the transition board decides there is a more appropriate location it would make a recommendation to the new council on the future location of the headquarters. In our view the transition board should not be concerning itself with a recommendation to the new council on the future location of the headquarters. The transition period is brief enough as it is and it seems inefficient and not cost effective to establish the body in one location and potentially move it quickly to another. The new Council should have a period of bedding in and aligning a range of existing organisations into one body before considering the location of its headquarters.

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council seeks that any final proposal for local government re-organisation in Hawke’s Bay specifies the location of the council headquarters and service centres for a period of five years and removes responsibility for making a recommendation on this from the Transition Board. This time period is in line with the Commission’s proposal that Council services would continue to be provided for at least five years at service centres in existing council locations in Wairoa, Napier, Hastings, Waipawa and Waipukurau. This would allow for a comprehensive review of all physical locations of Council services at that time.

Conclusion

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council is of the view that the draft proposal for local government reorganisation in Hawke’s Bay does not provide sufficient certainty for the ongoing resourcing and prioritisation of natural resource management functions in Hawke’s Bay. This is critical for the ongoing economic development prospects of the region. It would be helpful for the Local Government Commission to give further consideration to a number of matters raised in our submission and we are willing to provide assistance in this if asked.

Given the concerns we have raised we are unable to support the draft proposal for Local Government Reorganisation in Hawke’s Bay in its present form.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Maori Committee  

Tuesday 25 February 2014

SUBJECT: Greater Heretaunga Ahuriri Plan Change TANK Group Update        

 

Reason for Report

1.      This paper provides an update on the TANK collaborative stakeholder group which is deliberating policies for the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri Plan Change. The TANK Group has published a report summarising its work to date which is attached to this paper.

2.      This update is similar to a report presented to the Regional Planning Committee meeting on 19 February.  Due to timing of that meeting and production deadlines for the Maori Committee meeting agenda, timing did not allow this paper to record the outcomes of the Regional Planning Committee’s discussion.  At the Maori Committee meeting, staff will present (any) recommendations made by the Regional Planning Committee on this TANK project update.

Background

The TANK Group

3.      The TANK Group was convened in October 2012 to discuss land and water management options for the Tutaekuri, Ahuriri, Ngaruroro and Karamu (TANK) catchments (surface and ground water). Collectively this area is referred to as Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri.

4.      The TANK Group is comprised of 30 people from a range of backgrounds. The TANK Group’s brief is to provide Council (via the Regional Planning Committee) consensus recommendations regarding objectives, policies, limits and rules for a plan change to the RRMP for the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri catchment area.

5.      As well as making recommendations on values and overall objectives, there are a number of key regional planning provisions that the TANK Group is tasked with making recommendations to Council on. These include:

5.1.      flow regime, including low flow restrictions on takes

5.2.      water allocation (including for municipal and domestic supply)

5.3.      security of water supply for water users

5.4.      policies, rules on groundwater /surface water connectivity

5.5.      surface water and groundwater quality limits

5.6.      tangata whenua involvement in freshwater decision making

5.7.      use of Mātauranga Māori in monitoring and reporting

5.8.      wahi tapu register

5.9.      policies, rules and incentives on:

5.9.1.   riparian management and stock exclusion

5.9.2.   water storage

5.9.3.   water efficiency

5.9.4.   water sharing/transfer

5.9.5.   nutrient loss/allocation

5.9.6.   good irrigation practices

5.9.7.   stormwater management

5.9.8.   other agricultural practices.

6.      The Group was initially scheduled to hold seven meetings through to July 2013 but due to the Plan Change timeframe extension (adopted in the 2013/14 Annual Plan process), the Group’s schedule was also extended. The Group has now held 11 meetings, the most recent being on 10 December 2013. This makes parts of the Group’s existing Terms of Reference obsolete meaning that this will be revised and updated.

The TANK Report

7.      At the 10 December TANK Group meeting, the Group approved its first report for public release. The TANK Interim Report summarises the TANK Group’s work between October 2012 and December 2013 and provides a platform for the group to proceed with future discussions. The Report was the result of extensive discussion amongst the group over a series of meetings as well as communications with the group’s networks over a three month period between September and December 2013.

8.      The TANK Report is not a Council report; rather it is the TANK Group’s report presented to Council and to be available to the wider public. It includes a set of ‘Interim Agreements’ which are “supported in principle” by most (but not all) parties on the Group, including the Regional Council (the Council being a stakeholder).

9.      The TANK Report was intended to be publicly released in early January, however in late December, Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated (NKII) expressed that they had a number of significant concerns and would not be endorsing the Report. Due to commitments associated with the Tukituki Board of Inquiry hearing, NKII noted that they would not be able to outline their specific concerns with the TANK Report until that hearing had concluded.

10.    Given that the TANK Group had undertaken significant effort over three months to get the Report to a form suitable for public release, a short-term resolution to the matter was to add a ‘Report Status’ section to record NKII’s concerns. Earlier concerns that had been raised by Hastings District Council and Matahiwi Marae were relocated to this new section from footnotes. As noted in the Report, these concerns will be the subject of discussion when the TANK Group reconvenes.

TANK Group and Ahuriri

11.    At the Council meeting on 28 November 2013, Council committed to engaging with Mana Ahuriri, the Crown and other parties in the formation and function of the Ahuriri Estuary Committee (AEC). An Agreement in Principle was signed that includes addressing the needs of Mana Ahuriri to have a joint management regime for the Ahuriri Estuary.

12.    Also on 28 November, Tim Sharp from Council’s Strategic Development Group, met Mana Ahuriri Iwi Inc Board to discuss the TANK Group and TANK Report. It was noted that any outcomes of the TANK process will need to be consistent with AEC. To achieve this most effectively, it may be pertinent that a member of the AEC be nominated to the TANK Group.

TANK Group next steps

13.    The intention is for the Group to continue to meet through to, and during, the drafting of the Plan Change. There is still a lot of ground to cover before the Group will be in a position to make well-informed decisions about the form and contents of the Plan Change. There is a wide range of science, cultural and economic information necessary to be provided to the TANK Group to assist their decisions. Much of this work is still to be done.

14.    In the immediate future, a number of approaches are currently under consideration for the TANK Group to proceed including:

14.1.    exploring the TANK Report ‘matters of concern’ which have been raised by some parties

14.2.    reviewing and summarising catchment-specific issues identified to date to hone in the areas the TANK Group needs to focus on

14.3.    reviewing the Tukituki Plan Change to see which approaches and provisions may be transferable into Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri

14.4.    applying the National Objectives Framework (NOF) to waterways in the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri area to determine whether preferred waterway ‘states’ (as described in the NOF) can be agreed by TANK members. However, the NOF is only proposed at this stage and hence it may be too early for the TANK Group to consider.

15.    To progress the discussions efficiently, it is intended that smaller groups will meet to discuss different topics (e.g. catchment-specific matters which may not impact on the full Group). The full Group is likely to meet every three months to review the findings of these smaller groups.

16.    It is recognised that the Tukituki BOI process has required the significant commitment of resources from many parties, many of whom are also involved with TANK (as well as other Council projects including the Taharua/Mohaka Plan Change). To provide a bit of breathing space, the TANK process has rescheduled its next meeting from early March to mid-April. This timing means the next meeting will be held after the Tukituki BOI draft decisions are made.

Tangata whenua representation on the TANK Group

17.    Some of the issues arising through the BOI hearing on the Tukituki Catchment Plan Change 6 regarding tangata whenua consultation have highlighted the importance of getting the tangata whenua representation on the TANK Group right.

18.    In the formation of the TANK Group, tangata whenua groups were invited to nominate a member to the TANK Group to ensure a broad cross-section of interests from a range of hapu, taiwhenua and iwi was represented. Tangata whenua members on the TANK Group are currently: Terry Wilson (Mana Ahuriri Iwi Incorporated); Ngaio Tiuka (Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated); Marei Apatu (Te Taiwhenua ō Heretaunga); Morry Black (Matahiwi Marae); Peter Paku (Ruahapia Marae); Jenny Mauger (Ngā Kaitiaki ō te Awa a Ngaruroro); Aki Paipper (Ngāti Hori ki Kohupātiki); and Joella Brown (Te Roopu Kaitiaki ō to Wai Māori).

Decision Making Process

19.    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.

 

Recommendation

That the Māori Committee receives the report titled ‘Greater Heretaunga Ahuriri Plan Change TANK Group Update.’

 

 

 

Tim Sharp

Strategic Policy Advisor

 

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

 

Helen Codlin

Group Manager

Strategic Development

 

 

Attachment/s

1View

TANK Report

 

 

  


TANK Report

Attachment 1

 

 

Collaborative decision making for freshwater resources in the

Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri Region

 

TANK Group Report 1

Interim Agreements

 

TANKlogo(onwhite).jpg

Naku te rourou nau te rourou ka ora ai te iwi

With your basket and my basket the people will live

 

                                                                                                      

         HBRC Plan No.

 


 

Status of this Report

This Interim Report summarises the TANK Collaborative Stakeholder Group’s work between October 2012 and December 2013 and provides a platform for the group to proceed with future discussions. It includes a set of ‘Interim Agreements’ which are “supported in principle” by most parties but not all. It is anticipated the areas of disagreement will be resolved as the TANK Group continues its collaborative process in 2014. The following parties have expressed their positions on this report:

·    Due to the local body election process, the Hastings District Council has expressed the need for further time to consider this report and intends to provide feedback to the TANK Group as soon as practicable in 2014. However, no obvious or significant issues have been identified based on initial consideration.

·    Matahiwi Marae has raised a number of concerns with specific aspects of this report. These specific concerns are noted in the report by way of footnote.

·    Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated do not endorse this report as there are a number of matters that they are not in agreement with, some of which are significant. These concerns will be raised in future TANK Group discussions with the aim of resolving them.

 


TANK Group comment

As a group of individuals representing a range of sectors, we appreciate the opportunity to work together to manage our most precious resource – water. We come from different backgrounds and represent different interests, but collectively as the TANK Group we have the same goal:

To enable present and future generations to gain the greatest social, economic, recreational and cultural benefits from our water resources within an environmentally sustainable framework.”

Most of the things we value have a connection with water: the environment, economy, our cultural identity and general health and wellbeing. To ensure that these values continue to be supported we have to work together. The collaborative process obliges us to listen carefully to one another, to learn from what we hear, and to find ways of reconciling our interests.

We recognise that the entire community’s interests are at stake and we owe thanks to our networks who have entrusted us to provide a sound and strong voice. We will continue to seek their feedback to make sure that we are effectively and appropriately representing their aspirations.

We realise the importance of our task. The Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri region is both the economic hub of Hawke’s Bay and the place where many of us choose to live. Yet some of our waterways are in a degraded state and the risk to our futures of water shortages is very real – as the 2013 drought showed.

Not only do we need water to live and prosper, but our waterways are essential to our very existence. The proverb Ko au te awa ko te awa ko au / I am the river and the river is me resonates with us all. Water is a taonga and collectively we see ourselves as being entrusted to protect our waterways and to use water efficiently to ensure that current and future generation’s aspirations are met.

This First Report summarises our work to date and includes some important agreements we have come to. Over the last twelve months we have learned a great deal about the complexities of water management and we have enjoyed working together to unravel the complexities. We have embraced this challenge and we look forward to continuing to working together to ensure our water and waterways are protected – now and in the future.


 

Table 1. The TANK Collaborative Stakeholder Group

Aki Paipper

Ngāti Hori ki Kohupātiki

Brett Gilmore

Hawke’s Bay Forestry Group

Bruce Mackay

Heinz-Wattie’s

David Carlton

Department of Conservation

Christine Scott

HBRC Councillor

Dianne Vesty / Leon Stallard

Hawke’s Bay Fruitgrowers’ Association

Hugh Ritchie

Federated Farmers

Ivan Knauf

Dairy sector

Jenny Mauger

Ngā Kaitiaki ō te Awa a Ngaruroro

Jerf van Beek

Twyford Irrigators Group

Johan Ehlers

Napier City Council

John Cheyne

Te Taiao Hawke’s Bay Environment Forum

Marei Apatu

Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga

Mark Clews

Hastings District Council

Mike Glazebrook

Ngaruroro Water Users Group

Mike Butcher

Pipfruit New Zealand

Morry Black

Matahiwi Marae

Joella Brown

Te Roopu Kaitiaki ō te Wai Māori

Neil Eagles

Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society (Napier)

Ngaio Tiuka

Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated

Nicholas Jones

Hawke’s Bay District Health Board

Peter McIntosh / Tim Hopley

Fish and Game Hawke's Bay

Peter Paku

Mana Whenua Ruahapia

Peter Beaven

HBRC Councillor

Phil Holden

Gimblett Gravel Winegrowers

Scott Lawson

Hawke’s Bay Vegetable Growers

Terry Wilson / Wayne Ormsby

Mana Ahuriri Iwi Incorporated

Tim Sharp

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council

Tom Belford

HBRC Councillor

Vaughan Cooper

Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society (Hastings)

Xan Harding

Hawke’s Bay Winegrowers

 

The TANK Group acknowledges the contributions of Adele Whyte, Dale Moffatt, Eileen von Dadelszen, Murray Douglas, Neil Kirton and Nikola Bass who were previous members of the group.

The Group also acknowledges the support provided by researchers in the Values, Monitoring and Outcomes Programme: Jim Sinner (Cawthron Institute), Suzie Greenhalgh (Landcare Research), Natasha Berkett (Cawthron Institute), Nick Craddock-Henry (Landcare Research) and Richard Storey (National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research) and the facilitation of Robyn Wynne-Lewis (Core Consulting).

Figure 1: TANK Group field trip, February 2013

 


 

Table of Contents

TANK Group comment v

1.      Executive Summary. 1

TANK Group Interim Agreements. 3

Regional Plan Changes. 3

Tangata whenua and Mana whenua. 3

Values. 4

Minimum flows. 4

Water allocation. 4

Groundwater. 4

Good irrigation practices. 5

Municipal water use efficiency – interim agreements. 5

Global consents and water sharing. 5

Staged reductions. 5

Water storage. 6

Nutrient management. 6

Stock exclusion. 6

Stormwater. 7

Wetland management. 7

Estuarine management. 7

Tūtaekuri 7

Ahuriri 8

Ngaruroro. 8

Karamū. 8

2.      Introduction. 10

3.      Context 13

Resource Management Act. 13

National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management. 13

National Environmental Standard for Sources of Human Drinking Water. 14

Hawke's Bay Land and Water Management Strategy. 14

Regional Resource Management Plan (including Regional Policy Statement) 14

Regional Plan Changes – interim agreement. 16

4.      The TANK Collaborative Stakeholder Group. 16

5.      Tangata whenua and Mana whenua. 18

Tangata whenua and Mana whenua - TANK Group Interim Agreements. 19

6.      The TANK Group decision making process. 21

7.      TANK Group Values, Objectives, Performance Measures and Management Variables. 25

Values. 25

Values – interim agreements. 27

Objectives. 27

Performance measures. 27

Management Variables. 29

8.      TANK region-wide topics. 30

8.1.       Minimum flows. 31

Minimum flows – interim agreements. 32

8.2.       Water allocation. 32

Water allocation – interim agreements. 33

8.3.       Groundwater investigations. 33

Groundwater – interim agreements. 36

8.4.       Measures for improving water use efficiency. 36

8.4.1.        Municipal water use efficiency. 36

Municipal water use efficiency – interim agreements. 37

8.4.2.        Good irrigation practices. 37

Good irrigation practices – interim agreements. 37

8.4.3.        Global consents and water sharing. 38

Global consents and water sharing – interim agreements. 39

8.4.4.        Staged reductions. 39

Staged reductions – interim agreements. 42

8.5.       Water storage. 42

Water storage – interim agreements. 43

8.6.       Nutrient Management 43

Nutrient management – interim agreements. 44

8.7.       Stock exclusion. 44

Stock exclusion – interim agreements. 45

8.8.       Stormwater management 45

Stormwater – interim agreements. 47

8.9.       Wetland management 47

Wetland management – interim agreements. 48

8.10.     Estuarine management 49

Estuarine management – interim agreements. 49

9.      Catchment specific topics. 49

9.1.       Tūtaekuri 50

Water quality. 52

Water quantity. 52

Tūtaekuri – interim agreements. 53

9.2.       Ahuriri 53

Water quality. 54

Water quantity. 55

Ahuriri – interim agreements. 56

9.3.       Ngaruroro. 56

Water quality. 58

Water quantity. 59

Ngaruroro – interim agreements. 60

9.4.       Karamū. 60

Water quality. 62

Water quantity. 63

Karamū – interim agreements. 65

10.        APPENDICES. 66

10.1.     Management Variables. 66

10.2.     Glossary. 68

10.3.     Key documents and technical reports. 70

Coast and Estuaries. 70

Groundwater. 70

Hydrology. 71

Policy and Planning. 71

Tangata whenua and Mana whenua. 71

Values. 72

Water Quality and Ecology. 72

 

Tables and Figures

Table 1. The TANK Collaborative Stakeholder Group. iv

Table 2: Hypothetical example of the decision making process. 22

Table 3: Hypothetical examples of the consequences of different Policy Options. 23

Table 4: Values, Objectives and Performance Measures identified by the TANK Group's. 30

 

Figure 1: TANK Group field trip, February 2013. v

Figure 2: Plan Change Timeline. 2

Figure 3 Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri Catchments. 12

Figure 4: Mike Glazebrook talking to the TANK Group at Te Tua Station; Field trip, February 2013. 17

Figure 5: Marae locations. 20

Figure 6: Developing an influence diagram.. 25

Figure 7: Example of an influence diagram (NB: this is not a complete influence diagram) 26

Figure 8: TANK Group discussions, October 2013. 27

Figure 9: Field trip to the Ngaruroro River, February 2013. 32

Figure 10: Groundwater takes in Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri 36

Figure 11: Good irrigation practices are a necessity in gravel-dominated soils like the Gimblett Gravels; Field trip, February 2013. 40

Figure 12: Theoretical staged reduction regime. 43

Figure 13: The TANK Group supports the preservation of Wetlands. 50

Figure 14: Marei Apatu describing mana whenua connections with the Ngaruroro River; Field trip, February 2013. 60

Figure 15: Aki Paipper discussing improvement measures being undertaken at Kohupātiki; Field trip, February 2013. 63

Figure 16: Consented water takes in the Karamū catchment 66


 

Abbreviations used in this report

RMA                   Resource Management Act 1991

NPSFM               National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2011

LAWF                 Land and Water Forum

HBRC                  Hawke’s Bay Regional Council

RRMP                 Regional Resource Management Plan

RPS                                 Regional Policy Statement

LAWMS              Land and Water Management Strategy

TANK                  Tūtaekuri, Ahuriri, Ngaruroro, and Karamū catchments, or collectively the                       Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri area

TANK Group      The Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri (TANK) Collaborative Stakeholder                              Group

 

 

 

 


TANK Report

Attachment 1

 

1.      Executive Summary

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (HBRC) is undertaking a change to the Regional Resource Management Plan (RRMP) with respect to water management for the Tūtaekuri, Ahuriri, Ngaruroro and Karamū catchments. The Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri Plan Change will seek to implement the Hawke’s Bay Land and Water Management Strategy and the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management and will address specific water allocation and water quality issues in the four catchments, including for wetlands and estuaries.

Council is working with a collaborative stakeholder group to determine how these water bodies should be managed. The TANK Group (named after the four catchments) comprises 30 Hawke’s Bay representatives from agricultural and horticultural sectors, tangata whenua, environmental and community interest groups, and government agencies. HBRC has given a good faith commitment to support any consensus recommendations from the TANK Group and to ensure the Plan Change is consistent with the Group’s recommendations.

The key aspects of the Plan Change that the TANK Group is tasked with making recommendations to Council on are:

·    Flow regime, including low flow restrictions on takes

·    Water allocation (including for municipal and domestic supply)

·    Security of water supply for water users

·    Policies, rules on groundwater /surface water connectivity

·    Surface water and groundwater quality limits

·    Tangata whenua involvement in freshwater decision making

·    Use of Mātauranga Māori in monitoring and reporting

·    Wahi tapu register

·    Policies, rules and incentives on:

riparian management & stock exclusion

water storage

water efficiency

water sharing/transfer

nutrient loss/allocation

good irrigation practices

stormwater management

other agricultural practices

This report summarises the TANK Group’s work between October 2012 and December 2013 and includes the Group’s provisional agreements listed below. The timeline for the Plan Change is outlined in Figure 2.

 

Figure 2: Plan Change Timeline


 

TANK Group Interim Agreements

The following Interim Agreements are supported ‘in principle’ by the TANK Group and most of their wider networks.[1] The Interim Agreements provide a platform for the TANK Group to proceed with further discussions and problem solving. For background and context around these agreements please refer to the detail in the body of the report. Many of the agreements are related to ‘next steps’ – and will be further developed by the group through 2014 and beyond as technical information becomes available and the Plan Change is drafted.

Regional Plan Changes

1.    The TANK Group will review the Tukituki Plan Change once it is completed and consider whether to use the same approaches where the same issues arise in the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri Plan Change so that, where appropriate, the RRMP is consistent across catchments.

Tangata whenua and Mana whenua

2.    The TANK Group recognises the following:

a.    That the relationship between tangata whenua and freshwater is longstanding and fundamental to their culture

b.    That water is valued by tangata whenua as a taonga of paramount importance

c.    That kaitiaki have obligations to protect and enhance the mauri of water and the associated environment

d.    That tangata whenua have an obligation to be involved in freshwater decision-making

e.    That the relationship between tangata whenua and mana whenua and their wāhi tapu, wāhi taonga and other taonga must be protected.

f.     Ngāti Kahungunu whānau, hapū and iwi have rights and interests in freshwater that extend beyond the “cultural” space.  While this has been discussed, exactly how this might manifest remains uncertain.[2]

Values

3.    The TANK group will use the values identified in each of the catchments to assess the consequences of policy options and seek to identify options that provide for each of these values.

4.    The TANK group will recognise spatial variation of catchments and their values in the limit-setting process, by setting objectives and limits for sites and reaches within catchments where appropriate.

Minimum flows

5.    Minimum flow setting needs to take into account the impacts on environmental, cultural, social and economic values using a variety of methodologies (e.g. Mātauranga Māori; economic models).

6.    The TANK Group supports the use of RHYHABSIM for minimum flow setting where appropriate, to assess the implications of different flow regimes on the level of habitat retention for agreed species.

Water allocation

7.    The TANK Group recognises that the RRMP needs to give effect to the NPSFM by ensuring that water is not over-allocated.

8.    The TANK Group believes that alternative methods for determining total water allocation limits should be explored as a possible substitute for a simple sum of all authorised abstractions.

9.    The TANK Group considers that monthly, rather than weekly, allocation volumes for water take consents are appropriate (as well as a ‘rate’ of take).

Groundwater

10.  The RRMP needs to be informed by a better understanding of the groundwater resources so that limits can be set. The TANK Group supports ongoing HBRC groundwater investigations and considers that these investigations should include:

a.        Water balance (How much water can sustainably be abstracted?)

b.        Aquifer recharge from surface water

c.         Relationship with surface water (stream connectivity, depletion effects and ecology)

d.        Areas of concern (quantity and quality)

e.        Specific detailed investigations into the effects of individual takes in the unconfined and semi-confined areas of the Heretaunga aquifer

f.         Nutrient and contaminant pathways

g.        The significance of stygofauna

11.  The TANK Group believes that supplementation of surface water flows from the confined aquifer should be explored.

Good irrigation practices

12.  The TANK Group considers that all water consent holders should be required to provide evidence to HBRC (at a frequency to be determined) that they are compliant with industry IGP irrigation practices.

Municipal water use efficiency – interim agreements

13.  The TANK Group considers that municipal water suppliers should have demand management and conservation strategies.

14.  The TANK Group believes that some restrictions on urban and permitted domestic water supplies are appropriate in certain circumstances, such as when other abstractors from the same or connected resources are experiencing significant water restrictions and/or bans.

Global consents and water sharing

15.  The TANK Group encourages HBRC to continue to work with water user groups to assist with setting up global consents.

16.  The TANK Group would like to see a process for instantaneous transfers of water consents[3] and will aim to identify the circumstances where this would be appropriate.

Staged reductions

17.  The TANK Group considers that HBRC should investigate the benefits of staged reductions of water abstraction in the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri region.  For staged reductions:

a.    A global consent for a surface water zone would be preferable

b.    Incentives will be needed to participate in a staged reduction policy (e.g. lower minimum flow restrictions)

c.    Telemetry will be required for all water users participating in a staged reduction policy.

Water storage

18.  The TANK Group believes farming practices which maximise water retention in the landscape is likely to reduce irrigation demand and hence reduce the need for large scale water storage in the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri region.

19.  To maintain current levels of food and fibre production, the TANK Group considers that water storage will be required if allocations are reduced and/or minimum flows are increased.

20.  The TANK Group encourages HBRC to make allocations at high flows more easily available on-farm and/or community storage and distribution[4] through the consenting process.

Nutrient management

21.  The TANK Group agrees that nutrient management is necessary to help maintain life-supporting capacity, avoid proliferations of undesirable algal growths, avoid toxicity to aquatic species and protect drinking water supplies.

22.  The TANK Group believes that all farmers should be required to provide evidence to HBRC that they are compliant with industry IGP nutrient management practices.

23.  The TANK Group considers that policy and management measures should target “hot-spot” areas where the values identified by the TANK Group are being compromised or at risk of being compromised by excessive nutrients. These areas need to be identified as well as the critical source areas for nutrients.

24.  The TANK Group agrees that farm environmental management plans, which may go beyond IGP, should be mandatory for all landowners in “hot-spot” areas.

25.  The TANK group recommends that monitoring of ground water nutrients take into account appropriate temporal lags between nutrient management practice and measured nutrient concentrations in ground water samples

Stock exclusion

26.  The TANK Group supports exclusion of cattle from waterways in the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri region.

27.  In catchments where stock (other than cattle) in streams is proven to be a problem, wider stock exclusion should be considered.

Stormwater

28.  The TANK Group recommends the re-establishment of the Regional Stormwater Working Group (with possible inclusion of some TANK members) to review and where necessary update the Regional Stormwater Strategy.

29.  The relevant agencies involved in stormwater management should investigate options including:

a.        Controls on zinc roofing e.g. require all new roofing to be painted

b.        Bylaws on design, operation and management of industrial sites

c.         Education and knowledge transfer

d.        New developments to be required to include sustainability attributes e.g. Low Impact Urban Design and Development

e.        Joining up networks with historical problems

Wetland management

30.  The TANK Group recognises the importance of wetlands in the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri region and believes that measures should be undertaken to support the preservation of remaining wetlands, consistent with other policy documents such as the Regional Policy Statement and the NPSFM.

31.  The TANK Group considers that wetlands should be identified and categorised to determine ecological significance and that wetlands deemed ecologically significant should be given protection that is consistent with the NPSFM. 

Estuarine management

32.  The TANK Group believes that the estuaries in the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri region should be managed so that popular activities including swimming and food gathering are able to be safely undertaken during normal climatic conditions (i.e. outside periods of high rainfall when bacteria concentrations are naturally high). Some areas may require improvements over an extended timeframe to meet community aspirations.

Tūtaekuri

33.  The TANK Group is concerned about the excessive periphyton growth in the lower Tūtaekuri and requests that HBRC investigate and report back to the Group on causes of these growths and possible measures to reduce them.

34.  The TANK group will consider whether to recommend confirming or amending the existing minimum flow and allocation.

Ahuriri

35.  The TANK Group considers the Ahuriri Estuary to be a site of ecological, cultural and recreational significance and recommends that all reasonable measures are undertaken to support these uses and values including restoring suitability for food gathering.  . 

36.  The TANK Group is concerned about sediment, nutrient, bacteria and contaminant inputs to the Ahuriri Estuary and requests that HBRC investigate and report back to the Group on sources of these and possible measures to reduce them.

37.  The TANK Group is concerned about poor water quality in the urban streams and requests that HBRC investigate and report back to the Group on causes of the poor water quality and possible measures to improve it.

Ngaruroro

38.  The TANK Group considers that management of the Ngaruroro catchment may be able to be based around four zones: upstream of Whanawhana; Whanawhana to Fernhill; Fernhill to the coast; and the Waitangi estuary.

39.  Further monitoring and investigations are recommended to better identify the sources of water clarity degradation and nutrients in the Ngaruroro catchment.

40.  Improved understanding of groundwater and surface water linkages and stream depletion effects is needed before adjustments to the existing flow regime can be agreed.

41.  The main minimum flow on the Ngaruroro River (2400 l/s at Fernhill) should be reviewed and assessed for how well it is providing for in-stream values including ecological, recreational and cultural values.

42.  Any changes to minimum flow and groundwater / surface water linkage rules need to consider impacts, especially security of supply and economic impacts, on water abstractors including irrigators and processors.

Karamū

43.  The TANK Group is concerned about poor water quality, sediment, excessive macrophytes and lack of riparian vegetation in the Karamū system and its effects on cultural, ecological and recreational values including food gathering. The Group requests that HBRC investigate and report back to the Group on causes of the poor water quality and possible measures to improve it.

44.  Improved understanding of groundwater and surface water linkages and stream depletion effects is needed before adjustments to the existing flow regime can be agreed.

45.  Any changes to minimum flow and groundwater / surface water linkage rules need to consider impacts, especially security of supply and economic impacts, on water abstractors including irrigators and processors.


 

2.  Introduction

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (HBRC) is undertaking a change to the Regional Resource Management Plan (RRMP) with respect to water management for the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri region in Hawke’s Bay. The area under review is the water catchments of Tūtaekuri, Ahuriri, Ngaruroro and Karamū (Figure 1) and includes the Heretaunga Plains, the major urban centres of Napier, Hastings and Havelock North and the estuarine and coastal receiving environments.

The Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri Plan Change will seek to implement the Hawke’s Bay Land and Water Management Strategy and the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management and will address specific water allocation and water quality issues in the catchment.

The Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri region is large and diverse, and the water related issues complex. Because of this complexity, the Council has asked a group of Hawke’s Bay residents to make recommendations on how these water bodies should be managed. The TANK Collaborative Stakeholder Group (named after the four catchments) comprises 30 Hawke’s Bay representatives from agricultural and horticultural sectors, tangata whenua, environmental and community interest groups, and government agencies.

The TANK Group has held 11 full day meetings plus other small group meetings and workshops over the past 14 months to discuss the issues and to seek sustainable solutions to the region’s freshwater challenges. HBRC has given a good faith commitment to support any consensus recommendations from the TANK Group and to ensure the Plan Change is consistent with the Group’s recommendations.

This report summarises the work of the TANK Group to date. The report documents a number of provisional agreements. These include statements of values, objectives and some performance measures. The merits of current and alternative policy options (for influencing outcomes) have also been discussed at length.  Without having comprehensively tested the consequences of adopting various options against objectives for each catchment, there has been agreement on the merits of a number of approaches that the group wish to document and use as a basis for further analysis and consultation. The group has also identified a number of information gaps that limit our ability to come to an agreement or to predict the consequences of implementing policy options. Priorities for research and monitoring are identified. Many of these agreements are related to ‘next steps’ – and will be further developed by the group through 2014 and beyond as technical information becomes available and the Plan Change is drafted. The purpose of this report is to:

·    Summarise land and water issues in the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri region

·    Inform interested parties about land and water management in the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri region

·    Summarise the process used by the TANK Group for identifying values and objectives and evaluating policy options for setting freshwater limits

·    Confirm agreements of the TANK Group to date and clarify areas for further discussion

 


TANK Report

Attachment 1

 

Figure 3: Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri Catchments

 


TANK Report

Attachment 1

 

3.  Context

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council is reviewing the current provisions of the Regional Resource Management Plan (RRMP) for the management of surface water and groundwater resources in the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri region. The Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri Plan Change will be required to give effect to, and be consistent with, the following higher level documents:

-     Resource Management Act

-     National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management

-     National Environmental Standard for Sources of Human Drinking Water

-     Hawke’s Bay Land and Water Management Strategy

-     Regional Policy Statement

-    HBRC’s Long Term Plan

 

In addition, the Plan Change must take into account iwi planning documents lodged with HBRC.

 

Resource Management Act

The Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) is the key legislation governing the management of New Zealand’s freshwater resources. Under the RMA, regional and unitary councils are responsible for making decisions on the allocation and use of water within their boundaries and for managing water quality. Central government can guide and direct regional councils under the RMA using tools such as national policy statements and national environmental standards.

National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management

The National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management (NPSFM) came into effect on 1 July 2011.  The NPSFM requires regional councils to set freshwater objectives, water allocation limits and water quality targets for every water body, so that overall quality of freshwater in the region is maintained or improved.  For the most part, it is the Regional Council’s responsibility to implement the NPSFM and the primary policy instrument for doing this is the regional plan.

The NPSFM requires councils to set objectives and apply corresponding limits/levels to types of water bodies or areas and/or to have catchment and sub-catchment specific objectives and limits/levels, where the characteristics of catchments and sub-catchments demand different priorities. These limits may relate to water quantity allocations, minimum flows, and a variety of water quality parameters.

Every regional council must implement the NPSFM as promptly as is feasible so that it is fully completed no later than 31 December 2030.  The Hawke’s Bay Regional Council has identified a programme of activities for the preparation of regional plan changes and the associated resource investigations. In September 2012, the Council adopted its programme of progressive implementation steps to fully implement the NPSFM by 2030. This includes a number of catchment based plan changes, one of which is the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri Plan Change.  The implementation programme builds on work and projects already underway before the NPSFM came into effect, as well as incorporating a number of new workstreams.

National Environmental Standard for Sources of Human Drinking Water

The National Environmental Standard for Sources of Human Drinking Water (the NES) 2008 aims to reduce risks to the quality of water bodies from which drinking-water supplies are taken. The NES requires regional councils to consider the effects of activities on these water sources in their decision making. Hence the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri Plan Change will need to be consistent with the NES.

Hawke's Bay Land and Water Management Strategy

As well as giving effect to the NPSFM, the Council’s future work programme of plan changes will seek to implement relevant parts of the 2011 Hawke's Bay Land and Water Management Strategy (LAWMS).  The LAWMS provides a common focus for the management of land and water in Hawke’s Bay in order to achieve improved economic and environmental outcomes. The overall vision of the LAWMS is:

In Hawke’s Bay, land and water are highly valued, used wisely and sustainably managed

– by all, for all.

A range of outcomes are anticipated from implementation of the LAWMS.  Plans and policies prepared under the RMA are an important means to implement the LAWMS, albeit they are not the only tools to be used to implement the strategy.

Regional Resource Management Plan (including Regional Policy Statement)

The Regional Resource Management Plan (RRMP) provides a framework within which the sustainable management of the region’s natural and physical resources can be undertaken, and sets out a policy framework for managing resource use activities in an integrated manner across the whole of the Hawke's Bay region.

This RRMP has legal force under the RMA. That is, the regional rules contained within it have the force and effect of a regulation under the Act. The Regional Council must have regard to the provisions of the RRMP when considering applications for resource consents. In addition, territorial local authorities within Hawke's Bay must ensure that their district plans are not inconsistent with the provisions of this RRMP.

The RRMP currently contains broad freshwater management objectives, water quality guidelines (both at a regional and catchment specific level for a number of parameters) and water allocation limits and minimum flows for specific reaches of river in a number of catchments.  However, these need to better align with the NPSFM and also have appropriate regard to the LAWMS – both of which have emerged since the RRMP was finalised in 2006.

Over the past few years, the Council has been advancing a catchment-based approach to RRMP plan changes to address specific resource management issues in the region.  The NPSFM Implementation Programme continues that approach.  Change 5 to the Regional Policy Statement is the lead initiative of the Regional Council’s NPSFM Implementation Programme.  Change 5 goes some way to inform the establishment of freshwater objectives by setting out a framework within which values, objectives and limits can be developed and included in regional plans.

HBRC proposes to publicly notify a change to the relevant sections of the RRMP for the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri catchments by December 2016. 

The TANK Group believes that the catchment-based plan changes being undertaken for the RRMP need to be consistent wherever possible. Many of the people involved in the plan change deliberations are the same across the Hawke’s Bay catchments and many of the same issues are being addressed.

The first catchment under review is the Tukituki (Plan Change 6) and plan change deliberations are well advanced. The TANK Group considers that re-litigation of many of the issues in the Tukituki may not be necessary and that agreements reached in Plan Change 6 may be able to be used in the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri Plan Change. However, it is also possible that the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri Plan Change could improve the approaches taken in Plan Change 6 and the TANK Group wishes to keep these options open.

 

Regional Plan Changes – interim agreement

1.        The TANK Group will review the Tukituki Plan Change once it is completed and consider whether to use the same approaches where the same issues arise in the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri Plan Change so that where appropriate the RRMP is consistent across catchments. 

 

4.  The TANK Collaborative Stakeholder Group

Collaboration is at the core of this Plan Change process. The aim is to provide the Council with consensus stakeholder recommendations regarding objectives and policies for the plan change (and perhaps other related actions). For its part, the Regional Council has given a good faith commitment to implement consensus recommendations providing that they are consistent with the higher level documents noted above. It is hoped that this process will produce policy recommendations to the HBRC that are broadly supported by the community and underpinned by science.

 

Using a collaborative approach to freshwater planning is a key recommendation of the Land and Water Forum (2012) which notes that although collaborative planning is unlikely to be cheaper in the short term, significant benefits are likely. The process should help to increase the quality of and commitment to freshwater planning and policy documents, increase the agility of the planning framework, and streamline consent requirements for proposals that accord with agreed objectives.  The Land and Water Forum believes that if done well –and effectively “dovetailed” with existing legal processes – a collaborative approach to freshwater governance has the potential to lead to longer term solutions that are more resilient and adaptive to change, and avoid more costly, drawn-out and divisive decision-making processes. In the longer term, then, a collaborative plan and policy making process may be faster, more efficient and more equitable than the status quo process. 

 

The members of the Greater Heretaunga-Ahuriri Collaborative Stakeholder Group (TANK Group) reflect a broad range of interests in freshwater management in the TANK catchments, and provide a cross-section of values, understanding and perspectives.  The goal is for the group to be as representative as possible while accepting that it needs to be kept to a size that can work effectively together. To extend the collaborative dialogue further, TANK members are engaging 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. Interested members of the public can contact their representative or any of the Regional Councillors on the TANK Group if they would like to know more or express a view.

Figure 4: Mike Glazebrook talking to the TANK Group at Te Tua Station; Field trip, February 2013

 

TANK Group members are expected to represent the interests of their organisations and networks in the search for consensus. Each member has to consider whether supporting a consensus, even if the recommendations are not everything they or their organisation would like, is better than the uncertain outcome they would face if they choose instead to contest the issues through an adversarial process. Thus, rather than simple advocacy for particular views, TANK Group members are expected to genuinely explore, consider, and deliberate on solutions that accommodate the broad range of interests that the Group members represent, and to refrain from divisive tactics. To this end, the group has a protocol for collaborative deliberation and an independent facilitator.

 

 In this process, the TANK Group and Regional Council are being supported by a team from Landcare Research, the Cawthron Institute and the National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), funded through a research grant from central government. Their objective is to learn how to design and support collaborative processes that accommodate diverse values and deliver improved outcomes from freshwater management, so that these lessons can be shared with other communities and councils around New Zealand.

5.  Tangata whenua and Mana whenua

Since the time of Kupe, tangata whenua have long valued the life-sustaining capacity afforded from the region’s rich and diverse waterways. The taonga tuku iho (treasures handed down by our ancestors) of whenua (land), nga wai katoa (all waters), mahinga kai and all living things, have, from mai rā anō (time immemorial) influenced the location of whānau, marae, hapū and iwi, and integral to their identity.  For example the names of many marae are linked to these waterways, Kohupātiki, Ruahāpia, Waipatu, Waiōhiki and Mangaroa to name a few.  

 

It is recognised that a small number of individuals do not speak on behalf of all tangata whenua who have interests in these combined catchments, and also acknowledged that some marae / hapū are not represented or have been unable to fully engage in the process thus far. The current participants have made a conscious attempt to consider and put forward the general interests of the relevant whānau, hapū and iwi. This has involved a number of hui amongst tangata whenua to discuss the key issues and ultimately assist in contributing to the TANK process.  It has been expressed that too many waterways of significance to tangata whenua have been included in this process, thus limiting the effectiveness of appropriate input and consideration. Also, localised issues, around specific marae or in relation to particular hapū, have not been discussed in detail as yet. That will be the focus of ongoing work, and there is recognition that many more discussions are needed to bring forward an enduring and robust outcome. When considering options for improved freshwater management, tangata whenua have looked at how the following key Māori values can be incorporated into the Plan Change:

-     Whakapapa

-     Mana

-     Wairua

-     Mauri

-     Taonga

-     Kaitiakitanga

These values are common throughout Ngāti Kahungunu and may differ slightly in terms of expression from hapū to hapū or from whānau to whānau; they are by no means an exhaustive list of values.  History and experience has demonstrated that there has been difficulty in their effective and meaningful application, interpretation and implementation within the resource management framework in general. From the tangata whenua discussions it has been recognised a ‘gaps analysis’ is necessary to identify where there are weaknesses in terms of advocacy to bolster existing plan provisions or to draft new provisions that would be enduring and able to leverage tangata whenua aspirational goals around freshwater use, governance, management and kaitiakitanga. For example, the current definition of Mauri in the RRMP glossary does not encapsulate the full meaning in accordance with tikanga Māori.  Consequently there is a risk that during plan implementation, some elements of Mauri are not given appropriate weight in decision-making processes.

 

This collaborative stakeholder process has had a number of benefits; it has identified the need to promote an understanding of tangata whenua values amongst other stakeholders, resource users and managers. Despite these values being expressed for a very long time, how they relate to each other and the holistic relationship tangata whenua have with the natural environment is not always well understood. For example, tangata whenua value the entire river, not merely specially designated areas; ngā wai are seen as inseparable.

 

Tangata whenua have also expressed that they have interests over and above the cultural or environmental considerations which are commonly recognised, i.e. economic and social considerations. Historically, the waterways provided an asset base and sustained tangata whenua socially and economically; this relationship has been adversely affected and there is a desire for it to be resurrected so it becomes more meaningful and less abstract. Ngāti Kahungunu tangata whenua, whānau, hapū and iwi maintain that they have never relinquished their rights and interests to these taonga (waterways).

Tangata whenua and Mana whenua - TANK Group Interim Agreements

2.        The TANK Group recognises the following:

a.      That the relationship between tangata whenua and freshwater is longstanding and fundamental to their culture

b.      That water is valued by tangata whenua as a taonga of paramount importance

c.      That kaitiaki have obligations to protect and enhance the mauri of water and the associated environment

d.      That tangata whenua have an obligation to be involved in freshwater decision-making

e.      That the relationship between tangata whenua and mana whenua and their wāhi tapu, wāhi taonga and other taonga must be protected.

f.      Ngāti Kahungunu whānau, hapū and iwi have rights and interests in freshwater that extend beyond the “cultural” space.  While this has been discussed, exactly how this might manifest remains uncertain.[5]


TANK Report

Attachment 1

 

Figure 5: Marae locations

1.   


TANK Report

Attachment 1

 

6.  The TANK Group decision making process

The TANK group is identifying and assessing the issues and options for freshwater management in the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri catchments. In many ways, the group is performing the “section 32 analysis” (consideration of alternatives, costs and benefits) required under the Resource Management Act.

To do this, the TANK Group is utilising a Structured Decision Making process. This consists of group members identifying their “Values” and “Objectives”, as well as “Performance Measures”, and “Management Variables” (see Table 2 for a hypothetical example), which are used to identify “Policy Options” and estimate the “Consequences” of these options (see Table 3 for a hypothetical example). These terms are briefly defined as:

-      Values:  Activities, uses or sources of value (from freshwater systems), “things that matter”.

-      Objective:  A desired outcome in a thing that matters (e.g. increase the suitability of water for swimming, generally or in a particular location).

-      Performance measures:  A specific metric for consistently assessing the consequences of taking an action or set of actions (i.e. criteria for evaluating options). These may later be used to measure and report on the actual outcomes achieved once policies are implemented.

-      Management Variables:  Aspects of freshwater management that can be directly controlled or indirectly influenced by the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (e.g. allocation limits) in order to achieve management objectives.

-      Policy Option:  An action or set of actions, using the Management Variables available, that could be taken to advance the achievement of one or more objectives.

-      Consequence:  An expected result of taking an action or set of actions, i.e. of implementing an option.

Using this framework, the TANK Group has begun the process of identifying and assessing options for the four catchments. Some policy options will be generic across the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri area (e.g. a target for security of supply for water users), whereas others will be specific to a catchment or reach (e.g. a flow setting or water quality limit based on a particular use or value). Each option is assessed to estimate its likely consequences in terms of stakeholder values as represented by the performance measures. The group then tries to refine the policy options to find ways that better meet the full set of values, so that everyone has a reason to support it.

Table 2: Hypothetical example of the decision making process

 

Table 3: Hypothetical examples of the consequences of different Policy Options

To support the Structured Decision Making process, the TANK Group has also been developing models called Bayesian Belief Networks (BBNs). These networks are used to try and capture our understanding of the cause-effect relationships between management variables and performance measures, often using “intermediate variables” for complex, indirect relationships. The BBNs can be used in a diagrammatic form (called an “influence diagram”) or they can be developed to show how much one component, or “node”, affects another, and to reflect uncertainty. This is achieved by attaching probabilities based on available science (or best judgements where scientific knowledge is not available) to different possible states of each node, for example the probability of Trout fishing (the node) being “poor”, “fair”, “good”, or “excellent”. Once the BBNs are agreed upon they can be used by the Group to estimate the consequences of alternative policy options.  In this way the BBN itself does not make the decision, but rather supports decision-making, and also helps to show how decisions were made and what assumptions were made in the process. 

The TANK Group created BBNs (in influence diagram form) in small group sessions based around tangata whenua, social, ecological, and economic themes (Figure 6). Figure 7 shows the relationships between the fundamental “objectives”, “sub-objectives”, “performance measures”, and “management variables” (note Figure 7 is a small, incomplete part of the overall BBN included for indicative purposes only).. These were then merged with BBNs of the other three themes to show how all of these matters are connected. The next step is to quantify this comprehensive BBN for each of the catchments so the group can use it to assess consequences of policy options.  The TANK group is not proposing to use the BBN to automatically generate optimum or preferred policy choices. Rather it is hoped that the BBNs will assist in making judgements transparent to all stakeholders as well as allowing TANK group members to understand the consequences of different judgements about cause-effect relationships and their probabilities.

Figure 6: Developing an influence diagram


TANK Report

Attachment 1

 

Excerpt from an influence diagram

 
Rounded Rectangle: Sub-Objectives Rounded Rectangle: Performance Measures
Rounded Rectangle: Management Variables
Rounded Rectangle: Objectives
 

 

 

 


Figure 7: Example of an influence diagram (NB: this is not a complete influence diagram)


TANK Report

Attachment 1

 

7.  TANK Group Values, Objectives, Performance Measures and Management Variables

This section outlines the Values, Objectives, Performance Measures and Management Variables being developed by the TANK Group as part of the Structured Decision Making process for freshwater limit setting. Some have been discussed in detail and agreement has been reached by the Group (as noted in the text); others are still being refined as more information becomes available. 

 

Figure 8: TANK Group discussions, October 2013

Values

Any freshwater policy setting process needs to take into account multiple community values and interests. The TANK Group has identified important freshwater values for the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri region, many of which apply throughout the region. The list of values considered important by TANK stakeholders are either properties of freshwater or well-beings supported by the use of fresh water and include (in no particular order):

·    Life-Supporting Capacity

·    Human health and wellbeing

·    Food and fibre production and processing

·    Industrial & commercial use

·    Mauri, Wairua  and Taonga

·    Kaitiakitanga and Mana

·    Whakapapa and Wahi tapu

·    Habitat /Indigenous biodiversity

·    Food gathering

·    Swimming and wading (Primary Contact recreation)

·    Kayaking and boating (Secondary Contact recreation)

·    Trout fishing

·    Amenity & tourism

·    Household and urban water supply (for drinking and other uses)

There are other values to consider when developing freshwater management policies, which while not freshwater “values” in the sense of the list above, are important aspects to take into account. These include:

·    Urban development

·    Flood protection

·    Urban stormwater management

·    Net benefit of policies

·    Costs to ratepayers

The values associated with water are numerous and seeking win-wins across all values is challenging – but not impossible. All of the above values are important and the TANK Group believes that the RRMP can and should aim to support them. However, the individual catchments have very different characteristics, and thus the significance of values varies. The TANK Group has discussed the spatial variation of values and identified where values are competing, which is where pressure on freshwater is greatest and the management response is most difficult (see Section 8: Catchment specific topics). The freshwater limit setting process needs to take account of this variation across the region.


 

Values – interim agreements

3.        The TANK group will use the values identified in each of the catchments to assess the consequences of policy options and seek to identify options that provide for each of these values.

4.        The TANK group will recognise spatial variation of catchments and their values in the limit-setting process, by setting objectives and limits for sites and reaches within catchments where appropriate.

 

Objectives

Once Values were identified, the TANK Group undertook the task of developing Objectives for supporting them. Objectives can be high level or ‘fundamental objectives’ and also ‘sub-objectives’ which support fundamental objectives. The TANK Group has identified Objectives which will underpin its recommendations for the Plan Change. These are shown in Table 4.

Performance measures

To determine whether the Group’s Values and Objectives are likely to be met via policy options, the impacts are estimated with Performance Measures. The Performance Measures that the TANK Group is using were initially identified through the influence diagrams described above, and then further refined by thinking about how they could be defined and linked to Management Variables through other parts of the complete “system”, i.e. the relationships between people and the environment.

The TANK Group’s Values, Objectives and related Performance Measures are brought together in Table 4.


TANK Report

Attachment 1

 

Table 4: Values, Objectives and Performance Measures identified by the TANK Group

VALUES

OBJECTIVES

PERFORMANCE MEASURES

·    Life-Supporting Capacity

·    Mauri  and Taonga

·    Habitat /Indigenous biodiversity

·   

Safeguard the life-supporting capacity and enhance the mauri of waterways

·    Macroinvertebrate assemblage incl. community index score

·    Mauri

·    Richness and abundance of native fish

·    Area of wetlands

·    Condition of wetlands

·    Mahinga kai quality and availability

·    Richness and abundance of native birds

·    Food gathering

·    Household and urban water supply (for drinking and other uses)Human health and wellbeing

Improve the health of Hawke’s Bay communities

·    Reported cases of water-borne disease/yr

·    Potable water quality in groundwater

·    Potable water quantity (days of restrictions/yr)

·    Potable water quantity (Number of people with vulnerable supplies)

·    Food and fibre production and processing

·    Amenity & tourism

·    Household and urban water supply (for drinking and other uses)

Improve the Hawke’s Bay economy

·    Number of jobs in water-dependent sectors

·    Total profit in water-dependent sectors

·   
Certainty of water supply for water-dependent sectors (Number of years with <5 days full water restrictions)

·    Net benefit of policy measures

·    Food gathering

·    Swimming and wading (Primary Contact recreation)

·    Kayaking and boating (Secondary Contact recreation)

·    Trout fishing

·    Amenity & tourism

Improve recreational freshwater opportunities

·    Number of sites*days suitable for swimming

·    Water flows for whitewater boating

·    Water flows for flat-water boating

·    Aesthetics of waters

·    Angler days

·    Income from freshwater related tourism

·    Kaitiakitanga

·    Mana

·    Mauri  and Taonga

Recognise and provide for tangata whenua values and interests in freshwater and improve opportunities for Māori to access and use freshwater resources

·    Tangata whenua involvement in governance

·    Use of Mātauranga Māori in environmental monitoring and reporting

·    Māori water allocations

·    Whakapapa and Wahi tapu

Increase identification, recognition and protection of wahi tapu and wahi taonga.

·    Wahi tapu register

·    Tangata whenua involvement in governance


TANK Report

Attachment 1

 

Management Variables

The TANK Group has also identified a long list of Management Variables that could be incorporated in policy options to help achieve desired objectives. Some of these are within the control of HBRC while others are steps that landowners, city and district councils, industry bodies and others could initiate themselves. Within the things that HBRC can do, some are central to the Plan Change for the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri area – such as minimum flows, allocation limits, water quality limits and measures to achieve these – while other Management Variables are things that HBRC could do outside the RRMP, such as removing barriers to fish passage, increasing its technical assistance to farmers, assisting with water storage proposals or funding riparian planting[6].

The Management Variables directly linked to the Plan Change, i.e. those which the Council is asking the TANK Group to make recommendations on, are as follows:

·    Flow regime

·    Water allocation (including for municipal and domestic supply)

·    Security of water supply setting

·    Policies, rules on groundwater /surface water connectivity

·    Surface water and groundwater quality limits

·    Rounded Rectangle: The TANK Group 
will make recommendations to Council on these Management Variables 


Tangata whenua involvement in freshwater
decision making

·    Use of Mātauranga Māori in monitoring and reporting

·    Wahi tapu register

·    Policies, rules and incentives on:

riparian management & stock exclusion

water storage

water efficiency

water sharing/transfer

nutrient loss/allocation

good irrigation practices

stormwater management

other agricultural practices


 

8.  TANK region-wide topics

 Managing the four catchments holistically is important due to the interconnected nature of the  rivers, streams and groundwater (the Heretaunga aquifer underlies the four catchments and the Ngaruroro and Tūtaekuri Rivers contribute to both surface water and groundwater in the Karamū catchment). Although the limits will vary by catchment or by management zone within or across catchments, the approaches taken to set them will be the same.

This section summarises TANK Group discussions on topics which apply to all four catchments. Many of the topics concern Management Variables which, when set in policy, will have an effect on a range of Values and Objectives. The consequences of these policy settings on the Values and Objectives will be assessed using the Performance Measures noted above.

 

Text Box: Figure 1: Field trip to the Ngaruroro River, February 2013

8.1.     Minimum flows

Minimum flows are a Management Variable which will have an effect on a range of Values and Objectives including those associated with life-supporting capacity, mauri, habitat, recreation and the economy. As a result there are multiple Performance Measures which the TANK Group will use to assess the impacts of minimum flows including richness and abundance of native fish, mahinga kai quality and availability, potable water quantity, flows for boating and number of jobs in water-dependent sectors.

The determination of minimum flows needs to include assessments of impacts on fish habitat and other ecological, cultural and recreational values, as well as the impacts on irrigators, processors, and the wider community. Much of this work is still to be undertaken, so the TANK Group is not currently in a position to make any definitive recommendations. However, some agreements have been reached.

The pressures associated with minimum flow setting vary throughout the four catchments:

·    In the Ahuriri there is no surface water abstraction and therefore there are few problems for setting minimum flow limits

·    Methodologies for setting minimum flows in systems like the Karamū are not well developed

·    The Tūtaekuri minimum flows provide high levels of ecological habitat retention and security of supply for irrigators

·    In the Ngaruroro, much is still to be understood about the current minimum flow and any need for change.

 

RHYHABSIM (River Hydraulics and Habitat Simulation model) is a method used by scientists to estimate the quantity of fish habitat in a river as a function of flow. When using RHYHABSIM to inform decisions about minimum flows, the key factors are the species of interest and the level of habitat retention required.  The TANK Group supports the use of RHYHABSIM but considers it important to also translate the application of minimum flow thresholds into an equivalent predicted impact on fish abundance. It is also important to know how other human influences (e.g. nutrients) affect fish populations.

As noted above, full impact assessments across the four well-beings (using Performance Measures) need to be undertaken to support minimum flow setting.

Minimum flows – interim agreements

5.        The minimum flow setting needs to take into account the impacts on environmental, cultural, social and economic values using other methodologies (e.g. Mātauranga Māori; economic models).

6.        The TANK Group supports the use of RHYHABSIM for minimum flow setting where appropriate, to assess the implications of different flow regimes on the level of habitat retention for a range of species.

 

8.2.     Water allocation

Water allocation is a Management Variable linked to minimum flow which will have an effect on a range of Values and Objectives including those associated with human health and access to public water supplies, kaitiakitanga and mana, and food and fibre production and processing. As a result there are multiple Performance Measures which the TANK Group will use for assessing the impacts of water allocation including potable water quantity, certainty of water supply for water-dependent sectors, and Māori water allocations.

The rate of take is the key parameter for managing the allocation of surface water resources because of the direct effect that taking from rivers has on the flow in the river. For the allocation of groundwater, it is the annual volume that is a key management parameter. The rate of take for groundwater is relevant when assessing interference effects on other groundwater users.

The current RRMP allocation framework HBRC provides for 95% security of supply to water users. It provides an allocation limit for a river that is the difference between the 7-day average flow that is exceeded 95% of the time over the summer months and the minimum flow. On average, this means that water users are likely to be under restriction no more than 5% of the time, i.e. have 95% security of supply. Up until 1999 (proposed RRMP notified) consents were granted on existing use determined by the crop and area of land to be irrigated. Since the RRMP was notified, water allocation for irrigation has been largely based on the crop water requirements for a 1 in 5 year drought event using the Morgan methodology.

The NPSFM requires that the Regional Council not over-allocate water. Determining actual allocation status is difficult without detailed abstraction data. As more water use is metered and telemetered, Council is able to get a better understanding of the status of water allocation. By the methodology used in the RRMP, the Tūtaekuri catchment is under-allocated, the Ngaruroro fully allocated and the Karamū over-allocated by virtue of many reaches having a zero allocation limit. However, these are conservative estimates as they assume all consented water is used concurrently when it is unlikely that all irrigators will irrigate at full capacity at the same time. Recently collected telemetry data shows that this is not the case. Some members of the TANK Group believe actual water use is less than the allocation limit and therefore current takes are not putting the catchments into an actual over-allocation state. The suggestion is that a different methodology for determining the allocation limit may be required.

Consented water allocations in Hawke’s Bay are given a maximum rate of take (instantaneous) and a weekly or monthly allocation volume. The maximum rate of take is supported by the TANK Group but weekly allocations are, in practice found to be impractical to manage at a user level. As such, monthly allocations are supported by the TANK Group.

Water allocation – interim agreements

7.        The TANK Group recognises that the RRMP needs to give effect to the NPSFM by ensuring that water is not over-allocated.

8.        The TANK Group believes that alternative methods for determining total water allocation limits should be explored as a possible substitute for a simple sum of all authorised abstractions.

9.        The TANK Group considers that monthly, rather than weekly, allocation volumes for water take consents are appropriate (as well as a ‘rate’).

 

8.3.     Rounded Rectangle: What do we need to know about groundwater?
•	Water balance 
•	Aquifer recharge 
•	Relationship with surface water
•	Quality / quantity concerns
•	Effects of takes 
•	Nutrient and contaminant pathways
•	The significance of stygofauna
Groundwater investigations

There are around 2000 groundwater takes in the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri region (Figure 10). Improved understanding of groundwater resources and functions is a fundamental requirement to inform the setting of many of the Management Variables identified including flow regime, water allocation and policies, and rules on groundwater /surface water connectivity.


TANK Report

Attachment 1

 

Figure 10: Groundwater takes in Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


TANK Report

Attachment 1

 

To give effect to the NPSFM, a sustainable level of groundwater abstraction needs to be determined and an allocation limit set. 

Concerns raised in TANK Group discussions are that the existing groundwater model does not predict likely effects of any changes in groundwater use and is limited in its capacity to inform the setting of an allocation limit. The connectivity between surface water and groundwater and the effect of river flow on aquifer recharge has not been well understood in the past but information collected over recent years is helping with that understanding. It is anticipated that HBRC will have developed a coupled surface water / groundwater model for assessing connectivity and stream depletion effects to inform Plan Change decisions.

To improve water supply security, the TANK Group wants HBRC to explore whether it is feasible to supplement surface water flows (where restrictions occur) from the confined aquifer (where there are no restrictions). This was trialled to good effect in the Raupare in the summer of 2012/13.

The TANK Group notes that investigations in New Zealand and Australia suggest that stygofauna may provide essential ecosystem services that contribute to ground water dynamics and nutrient attenuation.  The group believes more research should be undertaken to understand the importance of these organisms as well as factors that might affect their capacity to maintain ground water quality, groundwater flow and effects on groundwater dependent surface water ecosystems. The Group notes that Napier City Council and Hastings District Council take water that is more than a year old to ensure pathogens are not present.

There are many hundreds of groundwater takes in the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri region whose stream depletion effects need to be determined. The TANK Group considers that the 400m stream depletion rule in the RRMP is too coarse, arbitrary, and not effects-based. The approach taken in the Tukituki Plan Change 6 may be an improvement and the TANK Group will consider supporting that approach for the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri Plan Change. 


 

Groundwater – interim agreements

10.      The RRMP needs to be informed by a better understanding of the groundwater resources so that limits can be set. The TANK Group supports ongoing HBRC groundwater investigations and considers that these investigations should include:

a.      Water balance (How much water can sustainably be abstracted?)

b.      Aquifer recharge from surface water

c.      Relationship with surface water (stream connectivity, depletion effects and ecology)

d.      Areas of concern (quantity and quality)

e.      Specific detailed investigations into the effects of individual takes in the unconfined and semi-confined areas of the Heretaunga aquifer

f.      Nutrient and contaminant pathways

g.      The significance of stygofauna.

11.      The TANK Group believes that supplementation of surface water flows from the confined aquifer should be explored.

 

8.4.     Measures for improving water use efficiency

Measures for improving water use efficiency are Management Variables which will have an effect on a range of Values and Objectives including those associated with public and commercial water supplies, kaitiakitanga, habitat and the economy. Performance Measures which the TANK Group will use for assessing the benefits of water use efficiency measures will include potable water quantity, richness and abundance of native fish, certainty of water supply and number of jobs in water-dependent sectors.

8.4.1.     Municipal water use efficiency

It is important that water efficiency measures are adopted by all sectors and all sections of the community, as all water use has a depletion effect on the region’s water resources. While irrigation is the largest water use in the region, municipal takes are also substantial. Irrigators are exploring options for making water go further including good irrigation practices, global consents and staged reductions for water abstraction. The TANK Group believes that suppliers of municipal water for urban and industrial use should also be exploring water efficiency measures and that these suppliers should have demand management and conservation strategies. Strategies could include procedures for low flow restriction periods and educational initiatives for the community.

Municipal water use efficiency – interim agreements

12.      The TANK Group considers that municipal water suppliers should have demand management and conservation strategies.

13.      The TANK Group believes that some restrictions on urban and permitted domestic water supplies are appropriate in certain circumstances, such as when other abstractors from the same or connected resources are experiencing significant water restrictions and/or bans.

 

8.4.2.     Good irrigation practices

Most crops in the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri region are dependent on irrigation water and the 2013 drought saw many growers on the Heretaunga Plains facing water restrictions and crop loss. Some of the issues associated with water shortages in the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri region could be mitigated if good irrigation practices were adopted by all irrigatorsMost industries have Industry Good Practice (IGP) programmes established which include irrigation practices.  The TANK Group believes that all water consent holders should be adhering to their own industry IGP programme, and that evidence of this should be provided to the Regional Council.

 

Good irrigation practices – interim agreements

14.      The TANK Group considers that all water consent holders should be required to provide evidence to HBRC (at a frequency to be determined) that they are compliant with industry IGP irrigation practices.

 

Figure 11: Good irrigation practices are a necessity in gravel-dominated soils like the Gimblett Gravels; Field trip, February 2013.

8.4.3.     Global consents and water sharing

Global consents involve the combining of a number of consents into a single consent and allocation of water (rate and volume).

Global consents are already possible within existing RRMP rules and HBRC is participating with growers to assist in setting them up, e.g. with Twyford Irrigators Group and Ngaruroro Water User Group. However, there are difficulties of getting growers who have adequate supply to join a global consent when they perceive there to be little individual benefit.

For a global consent, all takes need to be telemetered and transfer of water can only be between homogeneous systems and not from groundwater to surface water.


 

Global consents and water sharing – interim agreements

15.      The TANK Group encourages HBRC to continue to work with water user groups to assist with setting up global consents.

16.      The TANK Group would like to see a process for instantaneous transfers of water consents[7] and will aim to identify the circumstances where this would be appropriate.

 

8.4.4.     Staged reductions

The current regime for water restrictions in the RRMP is that when rivers drop to minimum flow levels, most abstractors are required to cease abstraction. The TANK Group believes that while this “on-off” policy may be appropriate for some catchments, in others it may be too blunt and other, more sophisticated mechanisms should be explored.

Water consent holders seek flexibility in the exercising of their consents including options to utilise staged reductions, i.e. reduce water takes at different stages to help to delay or prevent rivers from reaching minimum flow restrictions. In dry years irrigators could work out the most appropriate system of cutbacks for a river or stream taking into account the water requirements of different crops.

Avoiding bans on irrigation is only one side of the coin. There are multiple benefits of staged reductions including to in-stream values because under a staged reduction regime, river flows stay at higher flows for longer.

The benefit of staged reductions for irrigators will depend on a number of hydrological factors. These include the rate of flow recession (how quickly flow drops in a drought), the rate of take, and the lag between point of take and stream flow. With a fast rate of flow recession and small net take, staged reductions will result in only a short extension of irrigation season prior to ban. For a slow rate of recession and large net take, the stage reduction will result in a greater extension of irrigation season prior to ban.

Due to the varying benefits, staged reductions should be assessed on a catchment by catchment basis once information is gathered on how rivers or aquifers would respond. For staged reductions to work, all abstractors of water from a zone with a staged reduction policy will need to be managed under a single global consent and all takes will need to be telemetered.

Figure 12 represents a theoretical model of how a stage reduction policy might work. The nature and number of thresholds and the staged reduction values have been chosen simply to help explain the concept and could be very different in the final event, should such a policy be pursued.

The green downward sloping curve represents the river flow reducing over time due to no rainfall. The minimum flow restriction would begin on the 22nd day of no rain (@ approx 4200 L/s) and all abstraction would cease. Under a staged reduction regime, irrigators begin to reduce their water abstraction when the river drops to MALF or 6000 L/s by 30%. This change in river flow is represented by the multi-coloured staggered line in the graph. As the takes are reduced, the river level rises and then starts to fall again in the absence of rain. At the next threshold, 90% of MALF or 5400 L/s, water abstraction is reduced by a further 30% and the river level rises again. Further reductions occur at 80% of MALF. At 70% of MALF, the minimum flow is reached and no takes are permitted.

In this theoretical situation, total water restrictions without staged reductions would have started on the 22nd day without rain. With staged reductions, this has been put off to the 38th day.

 

Rounded Rectangle: How would staged reductions work?
A river could have a range of trigger flows.
At the first trigger flow, everybody cuts back irrigation by 20%.
At the second trigger flow, everybody cuts back irrigation by a further 20%.
And so on until the final trigger flow, which is the minimum flow, where irrigation must cease.

 


TANK Report

Attachment 1

 

 

Figure 12: Theoretical staged reduction regime


TANK Report

Attachment 1

 

Staged reductions – interim agreements

17.      The TANK Group considers that HBRC should investigate the benefits of staged reductions of water abstraction in the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri region.  For staged reductions:

a.   A global consent for a surface water zone would be preferable

b.   Incentives will be needed to participate in a staged reduction policy (e.g. lower minimum flow restrictions)

c.   Telemetry will be required for all water users participating in a staged reduction policy.

 

8.5.     Water storage

Water storage is a Management Variable which will have an effect on a range of Values and Objectives including those associated with social, economic and recreational opportunities. Numerous Performance Measures will be used by the TANK Group for assessing the impacts of water storage including mauri, area of wetlands, certainty of water supply for water-dependent sectors, and potable water quantity.

There is general agreement that Hawke’s Bay receives plenty of rainfall but there is not always water where and when people need it. Water storage increases the security of supply for abstractors so that they can continue using water when they would otherwise be on a ban, and potentially provides for the augmentation of river flows to retain or improve water quality and ecological values. Water storage is also recognised as a way in which communities can build resilience around drivers such as climate change and increase economic prosperity. Iwi would like to have their own storage for community supply as well as for improving habitat e.g. for tuna.

Water storage does not just mean large scale run-of river dams, although this is one approach. What is meant by water storage includes “water harvesting” and could include the following (none of which are prohibited in the current RRMP):

·    Water harvested at high flows

·    On farm-storage

·    A number of distributed dams across a catchment that integrate storage needs

·    Greater storage within soil itself such as within the humus layer

·    Techniques that utilise gradient to optimise rainfall retention

The TANK Group believes that in the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri region, large scale storage is only likely to be needed if existing minimum flow and allocation regimes change.

Water storage – interim agreements

18.      The TANK Group believes farming practices which maximise water retention in the landscape is likely to reduce irrigation demand and hence reduce the need for large scale water storage in the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri region.

19.      To maintain current levels of food and fibre production, the TANK Group considers that water storage will be required if allocations are reduced and/or minimum flows are increased.

20.      The TANK Group encourages HBRC to make allocations of high flows more easily available for on-farm and/or community storage and distribution[8] through the consenting process.

 

8.6.     Nutrient Management

Nutrient management is a Management Variable associated with water quality limit setting which can involve policies, rules and incentives on nutrient loss, riparian management & stock exclusion.  Values and Objectives associated with nutrient management include safeguarding the life-supporting capacity and mauri of waterways, improving social freshwater opportunities and the Hawke’s Bay economy. Performance Measures which will be used by the TANK Group for assessing the impacts of nutrient management policies include mauri, macroinvertebrate community index score, mahinga kai quality and availability, angler days, potable water quality and total profit in water-dependent sectors.

There are some water bodies (or parts of) in the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri region where nutrients are elevated and causing increased algal growth, e.g. in the middle and lower Tūtaekuri. The majority of nutrients are coming from runoff and leaching from farms and “critical source areas” are being identified. On-farm nutrient management is necessary to reduce nutrient runoff, maintain life-supporting capacity, help avoid proliferations of algal growths (and others such as cyanobacteria) and also to avoid toxicity to aquatic species and protect drinking water supplies.

Like water use efficiency, many nutrient issues could be mitigated if good agricultural practices were adopted by all landowners. The TANK Group believes that all farmers should be adhering to their own industry IGP programme, and that evidence of this should be provided to the Regional Council.

As well as adherence to IGP, all landowners within prioritised catchments should be required to develop and implement farm management plans which include nutrient budgeting. Evidence of compliance with farm management plans should be provided to the Regional Council and disincentives placed on landowners who fail to demonstrate adherence to their farm management plans.

Nutrient management approaches being developed for the Tukituki Plan Change 6 (e.g. stock exclusion rules and identification of critical source areas for nutrients) may be able to be adapted for the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri region.

(NB. Macrophyte growth in lower Karamū may be enhanced by nutrients but the issues are complex and the most appropriate way to suppress growth may be through riparian shading).

Nutrient management – interim agreements

21.      The TANK Group agrees that nutrient management is necessary to help maintain life-supporting capacity, avoid proliferations of undesirable algal growths, avoid toxicity to aquatic species and protect drinking water supplies.

22.      The TANK Group believes that all farmers should be required to provide evidence to HBRC that they are compliant with industry IGP nutrient management practices.

23.      The TANK Group considers that policy and management measures should target “hot-spot” areas where the values identified by the TANK Group are being compromised or at risk of being compromised by excessive nutrients. These areas need to be identified as well as the critical source areas for nutrients.

24.      The TANK Group agrees that farm environmental management plans, which may go beyond IGP, should be mandatory for all landowners in “hot-spot” areas.

25.      The TANK group recommends that monitoring of ground water nutrients take into account appropriate temporal lags between nutrient management practice and measured nutrient concentrations in ground water samples.

 

8.7.     Stock exclusion

Stock exclusion is a Management Variable which will have impacts on ecological, recreational, cultural and economic Values and Objectives. Performance Measures for assessing the impacts of stock exclusion policies include mauri, macroinvertebrate community index score, mahinga kai quality and availability, angler days, potable water quality, total profit in water-dependent sectors and net benefit of policy measures.

The TANK Group considers that stock exclusion rules should be consistent across catchments and that many of the Plan Change 6 policies may be appropriate for the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri region Plan Change. However, the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri area is also very different to the Tukituki – the most obvious being that there is more flat land – and there may be some variation which better suits the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri catchments.

The main difficulty around assessing stock exclusion options for managing nutrients in the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri catchments is that nutrient limitation (N or P) in waterways is still to be determined and problem areas have not been identified.

It is agreed by the TANK Group that all cattle should be excluded from waterways but the challenge is around how to manage sheep. In the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri region there are a lot of flatland farmers (e.g. orchards & vineyards) who use livestock at discrete times of the year such as to control weeds in winter and to help reduce leaf area in summer. It is estimated that there are 500kms of drains through orchards & vineyards in the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri region and that fencing them all off may be impractical, expensive and may not deliver the benefits expected.

Stock exclusion – interim agreements

26.      The TANK Group supports exclusion of cattle from waterways in the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri region.

27.      In catchments where stock (other than cattle) in streams is proven to be a problem, the stock exclusion should be considered.

 

8.8.     Stormwater management

Stormwater management is a Management Variable which will impact on a range of Values and Objectives including life-supporting capacity, mauri, wahi taonga, human and ecological health and the Hawke’s Bay economy. Performance Measures which will be used by the TANK Group for assessing the impacts of stormwater management policies include macroinvertebrate assemblage incl. community index score, mahinga kai quality and availability, and net benefit of policy measures.

The TANK Group has discussed both rural and urban stormwater issues which are quite different in the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri area. Rural issues are primarily sediment, pathogens and nutrient related while urban issues include these as well as heavy metals, oils and illegal discharges (e.g. paint, animal waste). Flat grades of land in urban areas result in infrequent flushing flows, meaning that contaminants can persist in these systems. 

Catchments with high levels of urban development, like the Ahuriri and Karamū catchments, also have high volumes of surface runoff due to large areas of impervious surfaces. Surface runoff invariably includes high levels of pollutants to receiving environments with flat grades and infrequent flushing flows, such as the Ahuriri Estuary and the Karamū Stream network which results in a gradual decline in the health of these receiving environments. 

Fish passage is restricted throughout much of the stormwater network and the TANK group believes that there are opportunities to improve these systems for fish passage.

Many of the issues associated with the stormwater networks are complex and date back many decades. Napier City Council, Hastings District Council and HBRC all manage stormwater and it will require collective action to effectively mitigate the adverse effects of stormwater discharges in the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri catchments. While the issues are complex, the TANK Group believes there are potentially some “easier” wins including:

Controls on zinc roofing e.g. require all new roofing to be painted

Bylaws on design, operation and management of industrial sites

Education and knowledge transfer

New developments to be required to include sustainability attributes e.g. LIUDD Low Impact Urban Design and Development

“Harder” issues identified include:

The volume of water getting into the stormwater system

Rural stormwater overwhelming the urban system

Drains which have a base flow i.e. are not stormwater

Joining up disjointed or incomplete older networks exist

Improving fish passage

In 2009 a collaborative stormwater working group, which included representatives from HBRC, territorial authorities, HBRC’s Māori Committee, Fish and Game and the Department of Conservation drafted a Regional Stormwater Strategy. The Strategy identifies key outcomes of less flooding, reduced contamination, improved environments and resilient communities. The Strategy was released for public consultation where it received positive support.

The Regional Stormwater Strategy has not been adopted by any of the Councils to date as it was recognised that it needed to be integrated into catchment approaches to water management.

The TANK Group considers the Regional Stormwater Strategy to be a good starting point for improved stormwater management.

Stormwater – interim agreements

28.      The TANK Group recommends the re-establishment of the Regional Stormwater Working Group (with possible inclusion of some TANK members) to review and where necessary update the Regional Stormwater Strategy.

29.      The relevant agencies involved in stormwater management should investigate options including:

a.      Controls on zinc roofing e.g. require all new roofing to be painted

b.      Bylaws on design, operation and management of industrial sites

c.      Education and knowledge transfer

d.      New developments to be required to include sustainability attributes e.g. Low Impact Urban Design and Development

 

8.9.     Wetland management

There are few remaining wetlands in Hawke’s Bay and the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri area is no different. Remaining wetlands are important for a range of values including biodiversity, cultural, and recreation values and the ecosystem services they provide such as absorbing nutrients and trapping sediment. Regional Councils are required by the RMA to sustainably manage these areas through rules and policies in Regional Plans. Wetlands in the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri area include Ahuriri Estuary, Waitangi Estuary, Lakes Poukawa, Rūnanga, Ōingo and Te Rotokare, Pig Sty Swamp and Pekapeka.  Most of these wetlands are recognised in the RRMP as “priority wetlands” and the Ahuriri Estuary is recognised in the Regional Coastal Environment Plan as a “Significant Conservation Area”.  The braided river sections of the Ngaruroro and Tūtaekuri Rivers, which are classified as wetlands provide important habitat for riverine birds. 

Figure 13: The TANK Group supports the preservation of Wetlands.

Wetland management – interim agreements

30.      The TANK Group recognises the importance of wetlands in the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri region and believes that measures should be undertaken to support the preservation of remaining wetlands, consistent with other policy documents such as the Regional Policy Statement and the NPSFM.

31.      The TANK Group considers that wetlands should be identified and categorised to determine ecological significance and that wetlands deemed ecologically significant should be given protection that is consistent with the NPSFM. 

 

8.10.  Estuarine management

The estuaries in the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri region are areas which support significant ecological, cultural and recreational values. Swimming and food gathering opportunities are compromised in the estuaries by elevated faecal indicator bacteria concentrations which may stem from a number of sources including stormwater, overland flow or accidental sewage discharges. The importance of estuarine sites in Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri region for human activities is such that the TANK Group believes measures should be undertaken to ensure that these activities can occur during normal conditions (i.e. outside periods of high rainfall when bacteria concentrations are naturally high). 

Estuarine management – interim agreements

32.      The TANK Group believes that the estuaries in the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri region should be managed so that popular activities including swimming and food gathering are able to be safely undertaken during normal climatic conditions (i.e. outside periods of high rainfall when bacteria concentrations are naturally high). Some areas may require improvements over an extended timeframe to meet community aspirations.

 

 

9.      Catchment specific topics

The four individual catchments have very different characteristics, which result in different pressures and responses. The TANK Group has identified important values that exist in these catchments and the issues that arise from activities that put pressure on these values. As noted above, where values are competing is where pressure on freshwater is greatest and the management response is most difficult. Values associated with consumptive water use are often in direct competition with in-stream values. The management response is further complicated by the fact that, although the values are in competition for freshwater, they also complement each other. Human health and wellbeing, for example, is supported by the economic benefits derived from industrial and commercial activities, and, without life-supporting capacity, water is not suitable for production and processing.

HBRC monitors water quality and river flow at a wide range of sites in the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri area and has produced comprehensive reports on the state and trends of water quality across the region. The most recent reporting phase was in 2009 as part of the 5-yearly State of Environment (SOE) monitoring. The next phase is due to be completed in June 2014. While it is likely that there will be little change in state or trends (because there has been little land use change in the last five years in the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri region) the TANK Group may not be able to progress discussions on water quality limits until the 2014 SOE is published. However, some high level agreements have been reached which are noted in this section.

Access to water is a critical component in unleashing the productive capacity of the versatile Heretaunga Plains soils for food and fibre production. The prosperity of the region’s rural and urban populations is dependent upon the land based primary industries and some significant processing industries rely on a secure supply from primary produce and access to reliable and clean process water. In combination, the wealth created by these productive and processing industries flows on into most other sectors of the economy. In short, the ability of the community to enjoy and appreciate the natural and physical attributes of the region, including water bodies, is dependent upon the ability to work in the region and freshwater is central to that. It is important therefore that the right balance between protection and use is found and agreed upon.

9.1.    Tūtaekuri

The Tūtaekuri catchment is 83,105 hectares and includes Puketapu as well as a number of other small settlements. The Tūtaekuri River forms part of the boundary between Napier City and Hastings District. Three marae are closely connected to the Tūtaekuri: Waiōhiki, Timikara and Moteo Hamuera (Timikara and Moteo Hamuera Marae are in the Ngaruroro catchment but are on the banks of the Tūtaekuri).

The Tūtaekuri River begins in native vegetation high in the Kāweka Range and then passes through commercial pine forest as a clear, fast flowing rocky river. The river has good quality habitat for most of its length with a regular occurrence of riffles, pools and bends and a predominantly cobble streambed. 

Dry stock farming dominates the middle catchment although approximately 7000ha of dairy farming has been established over the last 10-15 years, mostly around Pātoka. Downstream of the Mangaone River confluence, the Tūtaekuri valley widens and flattens, and the river takes a more semi-braided morphology. Landuse here is predominantly vineyards and orchards, with dry stock farming in the surrounding hills as well as peri-urban/commercial development.

The Tūtaekuri has been a life source for Ngāti Parau, Ngāti Hinepare, Ngāti Maahu and Ngāi Tawhao hapū. Valued as a taonga, the original name of Te Wai o Mahurangi was changed to Tūtaekuri after the process of preparation of food for travellers from the Wairoa region. The entrails (tūtae) of animals, which included fresh water mussels, birds, tuna and dogs (kuri) were cast into the river and carried to the sea. This is how the river acquired its new name Tūtaekuri (entrails of the dog). Historically the Tūtaekuri acted as a pathway for travel and trade from the mountains to the sea. Pā sites along the Awa were fought over many times, in part due to its prime location and the valuable resources it provided. Still seen today, Otātara Pā is a sign of how Tūtaekuri and its people lived side by side.  Waiohiki and Moteo are the predominant Marae along the river today. 

The catchment holds significant ecological value associated with the aquatic and riparian ecosystems and indigenous fauna and flora. Seven native fish species with populations which are classified as declining at a national level are found in the Tūtaekuri and it is an important catchment for lamprey and koaro.

There are a number of freshwater wetlands in the catchment which support a wide range of bird and fish species, the largest being the ecologically significant Lake Te Rotokare.  The lower braided reach of the Tūtaekuri supports a high population of banded dotterels.

The catchment supports a significant brown and rainbow trout fishery with good angling opportunities in the Mangatutu and the Tūtaekuri mainstem. Trout populations are self sustaining with spawning occurring in a number of tributaries.

Other recreational activities in the catchment include tramping, swimming and kayaking. In the upper reaches, the Donald River is highly valued for whitewater kayaking while flatwater kayaking occurs in the lower catchment near Puketapu. Popular swimming locations are found near Puketapu and at Guppy Rd near Taradale where the recreational grade is recorded as fair due to occasional bacterial contamination. The lower section of the Tūtaekuri is fenced to keep cattle out and to support the high recreational value of the river.

Water quality

HBRC monitors ecological health and water quality at seven sites in the Tūtaekuri catchment, of which three are long-term data records covering 20 years of quarterly samples, and four additional sites since 2012. The four sites on the Tūtaekuri mainstem are Lawrence Hut, upstream of the Mangaone River confluence at Rissington, Puketapu and Brookfields Bridge. The three remaining sites are in the two biggest tributaries, the Mangatutu (one) and the Mangaone (two).

From 2009 SOE reporting, most parameters indicate good water quality in the Tūtaekuri catchment. The microbiological water quality is generally excellent.  Water clarity outside periods of high river flow is generally excellent at the top of the catchment although declines in the lower catchment. The generally low ammonia concentrations are unlikely to cause any acute or chronic toxic effects on the aquatic biota.

The key issue for the catchment is the common occurrence of nuisance levels of periphyton (algae) in the lower Tūtaekuri River during extended periods of low river flows which occur despite the nutrient concentrations being below recommended guidelines (RRMP guideline for DRP and ANZECC guidelines for SIN). The Mangaone and Mangatutu Rivers show an increased concentration of nutrients, particularly DRP, and are likely to be contributing to the excessive periphyton growths in the Tūtaekuri mainstem. The lower Tutaekuri also exhibits reduced MCI scores and HBRC is investigating the likely cause of this decline and the sources of nutrients. 

The 2009 SOE report showed no clear indication towards a single nutrient limiting periphyton growth in the Tūtaekuri catchment, indicating that the limitation status can potentially switch often and at different flow conditions during the course of a year. There is only a weak link between river flows and a trend towards P- or N-limitation. Therefore a single nutrient management option was not recommended for managing periphyton growth in the Tūtaekuri catchment.

It is anticipated that 2014 SOE reporting will identify the sources of nutrients, and clarify the nutrient limitation status of the river during periods of active algal growth.  

Water quantity

HBRC monitors water flow in the Tūtaekuri catchment at three sites: Lawrence Hut, Brookfields Bridge and the Mangaone River at Rissington. Most surface water takes are linked to the 2800 l/s minimum flow at Ngaroto Rd. This minimum flow provides greater than 90% habitat retention for longfin eel, rainbow trout and torrentfish.

Security of water supply is excellent with the approximately 100 consent holders in the catchment never having been subject to low flow restrictions. There may be scope for granting additional water permits but this will need to take into account other potential changes to the flow regime (e.g. groundwater / surface water connectivity).

Tūtaekuri – interim agreements

33.      The TANK Group is concerned about the excessive periphyton growth in the lower Tūtaekuri and requests that HBRC investigate and report back to the Group on causes of these growths and possible measures to reduce them.

34.      The TANK group will consider whether to recommend confirming or amending the existing minimum flow and allocation.

 

9.2.    Ahuriri

The Ahuriri catchment is 14,564 hectares and includes Napier and surrounding suburbs north to Bay View and south to Awatoto. Wharerangi and Te Maara Marae are in the catchment. The catchment includes a number of urban and peri-urban streams as well as the Ahuriri Estuary.

Because of the nature of the Ahuriri catchment, the most significant freshwater management issues are urban-based. The Napier City stormwater network which protects the urban and industrial areas from flooding generally flows into the Ahuriri Estuary, a site of ecological, cultural and recreational significance. Despite extensive modification, reclamation, drainage, and discharges from the stormwater network, the estuary is recognised as a regionally and nationally significant area with high wildlife and fisheries values. In the Regional Coastal Environment Plan, the Ahuriri Estuary is classified a Significant Conservation Area which affords the estuary particular protection mechanisms.

As one of the few sheltered, tidal lagoon estuaries within Hawke’s Bay, Pandora Pond provides for a number of recreational opportunities including swimming, kayaking, sailing, and waka ama.  On an exposed coastline such as Hawke’s Bay, this is an important area for contact recreation and is one of the highest profile uses of the estuary, along with bird watching.

The seven hapū of Mana Ahuriri have a long-standing cultural connection with Te Whanganui a Ōrōtū (of which Ahuriri Estuary is a part) where they have resided since well before European settlement (likely to be as far back as 12th century AD). Historically this area was a main source of food for the hapū. There are also a large number of wāhi tapu in the area. The timing of their negotiations with the Crown to settle their Treaty claim has the parties signing an Agreement in Principle in December 2013. Key to their reaching a durable settlement will be the recognition of their mana in Te Whanganui a Orotū, and the estuary. Mana Ahuriri are seeking to have their kaitiaki status over the estuary effectively recognised, and to ensure that there is a coordinated and comprehensive approach to the estuary’s management involving all stakeholders with management responsibilities and interests in the estuary. The current proposal is that the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri Plan Change would be required to have regard to an Estuary Management Plan developed with Mana Ahuriri.

Water quality

HBRC monitors at two long-term sites in the Ahuriri catchment for the SOE programme: the Taipo Stream at Church Rd and the Awatoto Drain.

A comprehensive water quality and ecology study was carried out in 2008/09 which looked at 13 sites in 7 streams.  This study found that most parameters indicate poor water quality in the Ahuriri catchment. The urban streams in this catchment are significantly more polluted and macroinvertebrate communities in significantly poorer health than the rural streams. Some of the industrial streams show regular exceedances of environmental guidelines for zinc. During summer, water temperatures in the urban streams regularly exceed 25 C which can potentially lead to fish kills in the streams if occurring for extended periods.

Most Ahuriri streams have elevated nutrient and suspended solid concentrations, with dissolved phosphorus concentrations being particularly high – always well above ANZECC and RRMP guidelines. Some of the urban streams such as Saltwater Creek, Purimu Stream and Cross Country Drain have particularly high phosphorus concentrations while Georges Drive Drain and Saltwater Creek have elevated ammoniacal nitrogen and suspended solid concentrations. E. coli concentrations in the Napier catchment streams are highly variable with very high concentrations reached in some streams.

Extensive monitoring is undertaken by HBRC in the Ahuriri Estuary as part of its SOE monitoring. The estuary is currently classified as being in ‘fair’ condition for contact recreation.  However, elevated bacterial concentrations occur at times, especially after heavy rain, which can increase the risk of illness for recreational users.

Clarity is good in Pandora Pond and nuisance algal growths are rare. Concentrations of contaminants in estuary sediments are mostly at levels below guidelines, however sites adjacent to stormwater discharges have shown levels that can exceed environmental guidelines, and where adverse biological effects can be expected to occur occasionally.

Current information suggests that shellfish gathered from the estuary may be unsuitable for human consumption because of elevated faecal indicator bacteria concentrations which may stem from stormwater, overland flow or accidental sewage discharges. The inflow of stormwater derived from urban drains and the proximity of shellfish beds to these inflows indicate that the estuary should not be regarded as a safe shellfish resource.  Faecal source tracking will help identify the sources of faecal contamination and assist with targeting appropriate management strategies.

Toxic metal contamination of shellfish and fish species is currently not at levels expected to pose immediate health risks although the indirect effects of contaminants on the abundance and distribution of edible resources is an area identified for further investigation.

Water quantity

The major issue from a water quantity perspective in the Ahuriri catchment is the large volumes of stormwater as noted in section 7.8. There is only a very moderate amount of freshwater abstraction for irrigation and there are no minimum flow limits for review. The groundwater allocation limit which will be set for the Heretaunga aquifer may impact on the few groundwater abstractors in the catchment. From a freshwater management regime perspective there a no major issues which require addressing in the Plan Change.


 

Ahuriri – interim agreements

35.      The TANK Group considers the Ahuriri Estuary to be a site of ecological, cultural and recreational significance and recommends that all reasonable measures are undertaken to support these uses and values including restoring suitability for food gathering. 

36.      The TANK Group is concerned about sediment, nutrient, bacteria and contaminant inputs to the Ahuriri Estuary and requests that HBRC investigate and report back to the Group on sources of these and possible measures to reduce them.

37.      The TANK Group is concerned about poor water quality in the urban streams and requests that HBRC investigate and report back to the Group on causes of the poor water quality and possible measures to improve it.

 

9.3.    Ngaruroro

The Ngaruroro catchment is 201,246 hectares and includes Maraekākaho, Fernhill, Omāhu and Pākowhai as well other small settlements. There are five marae in the catchment: Omāhu, Rūnanga, Te Awhina, Timikara and Moteo (although, as noted in the Tūtaekuri section, Timikara and Moteo are on the banks of the Tūtaekuri).

Beginning high in the Ruahine Range, the Ngaruroro River is a fast flowing rocky river through predominantly native vegetation with some pasture down to Whanawhana. Below Whanawhana down to Maraekakaho, the river is semi-braided, flowing in a relatively wide and flat channel bordered by steep hill country and high river terraces. The land use in this part of the catchment is predominantly dry stock farming with land use changes occurring in the last 15 years. There are two large intensive dairy operations, one on either side of the Ngaruroro River downstream of Whanawhana.

Downstream of Maraekākaho, the river runs through plains and low rolling hill country and land use becomes more varied including viticulture and cropping. The river channel is wide and flat, with a low gradient leading to a semi-braided morphology, constrained on each side by stopbanks. The area is a zone of groundwater recharge losing approximately 5m3/s, or 20% of its median flow, to groundwater between Ohiti and Fernhill. The aquifer is of major importance to the region providing water for multiple uses including irrigation, processing and industrial use as well as an untreated water supply for Hastings and Napier.  The Ngaruroro River then flows eastwards to an estuary shared with the Tūtaekuri River. It flows into the Pacific Ocean on the East Coast of Hawke’s Bay, South of Napier.

Like the awa, tangata whenua descend from the Ruahine, Kaweka, Kaimanawa ranges. The connection for tangata whenua with the awa is longstanding, as evidenced by the marae located beside the awa – Runanga, Te Awhina, Ōmahu, Kohupātiki. There are two recognised names for the awa. One is Ngaruroro moko tuararo ki rangatira, given by Ruawharo, one of the tohunga or priests aboard the Takitimu waka when it arrived in Hawke's Bay hundreds of years ago. The other is Ngā ngaru ō ngā upokororo meaning “the shoaling waves of the grayling”, given by the tohunga, Tamatea. Tangata whenua are acutely aware that this name refers to a fish which is now extinct and, as tangata kaitiaki, they seek to ensure no further loss of taonga species.

The Ngaruroro catchment supports a significant brown and rainbow trout fishery. The angling activity is spread throughout the catchment, with the Ngaruroro mainstem above the Taruarau confluence and the Taruarau itself the most sought after fishery. The trout populations in the catchment are self sustaining, with trout spawning occurring in the mainstem and a number of tributaries.

Recreational activities occur in many parts the catchment. The Ngaruroro down to Whanawhana is highly prized for whitewater kayaking particularly around Kuripapango and flat-water kayaking occurs throughout the river down to the coast. Jet-boating is popular from Maraekakaho to Whanawhana. Popular swimming locations are found at Kuripapango, and at Chesterhope and Fernhill Bridges where the recreational grade is recorded as fair.

The catchment also holds significant ecological value associated with the aquatic and riparian ecosystems and indigenous fauna and flora. Significant wetlands include Lakes Runanga, Ōingo, Hurimoana, Kautuku and Potaka along with Pig Sty Swamp and Waitangi wetland.  These support a large range of fish and bird species some of which are threatened. Nineteen native fish species (eight with populations which are classified as declining at a national level) can be found in the catchment and it is a stronghold for longfin eel, banded kokupu, lamprey, koaro, dwarf galaxiid and inanga in the Waitangi Estuary. The upper reaches are a stronghold for whio (blue duck) and the lower braided reaches support a very high population of banded dotterels.

Figure 14: Marei Apatu describing mana whenua connections with the Ngaruroro River; Field trip, February 2013.

Water quality

HBRC monitors ecological health, water quality and flow at eleven sites across the Ngaruroro catchment. Seven of these sites are on the Ngaruroro River main stem, and two on the Waitio and Tūtaekuri-Waimate tributaries. NIWA also monitors water quality and flow at two sites.

From 2009 SOE reporting, most parameters indicate very good water quality in the Ngaruroro catchment – better than national guidelines. Nutrient concentrations are very low in the Ngaruroro at Whanawhana and in the Taruarau at Taihape Road, increase travelling downstream, but always remain below guideline levels in the mainstem. Current ammonia concentrations are unlikely to cause any acute or chronic toxic effects on the aquatic biota. Some periphyton growth occurs at low flows, especially in the middle and lower reaches during summer.

There are “hot spots” of excess nutrients in tributaries of the Ngaruroro: the Tūtaekuri-Waimate and Waitio tributaries have elevated DIN concentrations and DRP is usually above guideline limits. Data for other tributaries is being collected for reporting in June 2014, but there is already an indication that nutrient concentrations in Maraekakaho are in the range of the Waitio and Tūtaekuri-Waimate, and the Poporangi has the highest nutrient concentrations of the assessed tributaries, with DRP being generally well above guideline limits. 

There is no clear indication of one nutrient limiting periphyton growth in the Ngaruroro River meaning that controlling the inputs of both nutrients is important. Improved riparian management on these tributaries may assist.

Water clarity is excellent in the upper reaches but begins to decline fairly high up in the catchment suggesting that erosion from pastoral and commercial forestry land above Whanawhana is a contributing factor. Below Whanawhana the decline in water clarity is gradual, and the cause cannot be narrowed down to a single factor.

Because of the variation between reaches of the catchment, including natural features and resource pressures, the TANK group consider that water quality in the Ngaruroro should be addressed by looking at the upper, middle and lower reaches and Waitangi estuary separately.

Water quantity

HBRC monitors water flow in the Ngaruroro catchment at three sites on the Ngaruroro mainstem: Kuripāpango, Whanawhana and Fernhill. Most surface water takes are linked to the 2400 l/s minimum flow at Fernhill. This minimum flow provides approximately 85% habitat retention for longfin eel, 60% for rainbow trout and 50% for torrentfish.

There are approximately 250 water take consents in the Ngaruroro catchment, over two thirds being from groundwater. Most of these consents expire in 2026. Security of water supply in the Ngaruroro catchment varies depending on crop, location, type of water take (surface water, groundwater) and consent details (allocation, minimum flow restriction).


 

Ngaruroro – interim agreements

38.      The TANK Group considers that management of the Ngaruroro catchment may be able to be based around four zones: upstream of Whanawhana; Whanawhana to Fernhill; Fernhill to the coast; and the Waitangi estuary.

39.      Further monitoring and investigations are recommended to better identify the sources of water clarity degradation and nutrients in the Ngaruroro catchment.

40.      Improved understanding of groundwater and surface water linkages and stream depletion effects is needed before adjustments to the existing flow regime can be agreed.

41.      The main minimum flow on the Ngaruroro River (2400 l/s at Fernhill) should be reviewed and assessed for how well it is providing for in-stream values including ecological, recreational and cultural values.

42.      Any changes to minimum flow and groundwater / surface water linkage rules need to consider impacts, especially security of supply and economic impacts, on water abstractors including irrigators and processors.

 

9.4.    Karamū

The Karamū catchment is 51,462 hectares extending south from Awatoto to Havelock North and west to the Raukawa Range. The Karamū Stream and its tributaries drain the Poukawa Basin, the Kohinurakau, Kaokaoroa and Raukawa Ranges and a large part of the Heretaunga Plains.

The catchment covers the majority of the Heretaunga Plains which has been developed extensively for agriculture and comprises some of the most productive cropping areas in New Zealand. The Karamū catchment is the predominant region in Hawke’s Bay for orcharding, cropping, and viticulture while the southwestern half of the catchment primarily supports dryland sheep and beef with the exception of the Poukawa Basin, which is a significant cropping area.

Text Box: Figure 2: Aki Paipper discussing improvement measures being undertaken at Kohupātiki; Field trip, February 2013.

Waterways in the Karamū catchment have been extensively modified for flood protection purposes. The current Karamū Stream was once a former course of the Ngaruroro River, until 1867 when a large flood changed the course of the river. Flooding of the productive, southern area of the Heretaunga Plains has been an issue since the time of settlement. In 1969, as part of the Heretaunga Plains Flood Protection scheme, the Ngaruroro River was diverted to the north, leaving the Karamū and Raupare streams to feed the lower Karamū Stream or, as it is also known, the Clive River and Ngaruroro Tawhito (the ‘old’ Ngaruroro).

There are twelve marae in the Karamū catchment: Kahurānaki, Houngarea (Mawhai), Mihiroa, Tarāia, Mangaroa, Korongatā, Te Aranga o Heretaunga, Te Awao te Hauora, Waipatu, Ruahāpia, Matahiwi and Kohupātiki. Specific concerns of all marae and hapū are being documented and will be the focus of ongoing work.  Ngāti Hori ki Kohupātiki have well documented concerns as reported in the Ngāti Hori Freshwater Management Plan. Prior to the 1969 diversion, the Ngaruroro was very much part of daily life for mana whenua and was a major mahinga kai for fish, waterfowl and plants. Kohupātiki Marae, one of the Ngāti Hori marae, is situated on the true left bank of the lower Karamū Stream / former Ngaruroro and Ngāti Hori ki Kohupātiki’s knowledge of the awa and the species it supports comes from an unbroken and ongoing relationship lasting hundreds of years. Today, the area is highly modified and indigenous biodiversity is scarce. Taonga species such as pātiki and matamata, which once thrived in the area, have been mostly lost. Ngāti Hori is concerned about the continued deterioration of the Karamū River and decline in their customary fisheries, especially the pātiki which are fundamental to the identity of Kohupātiki as a marae. There are, however, areas of riparian vegetation in the upper reaches of this sub catchment which provide increased habitat quality for aquatic communities. Longfin and shortfin eels, as well as the non migratory Crans bully and upland bully have been collected in fish surveys.

There are a number of freshwater wetlands in the catchment which are ecologically significant, the largest being Lake Poukawa and Pekapeka Swamp.  They support a significant number of bird species, some of which are threatened. 

Water quality

HBRC monitors water quality at eight long-term SOE sites across the Karamū catchment in the Poukawa, Karewarea, Mangarau (2 sites), Herehere, Ruahapia, Awanui Streams and the Clive River. An additional short-term concurrent gauging programme with water quality samples was carried out at 14 sites in 2010.

Lowland streams with close connection to the sea are an important habitat for many native fish species, yet poor water quality and loss of habitat can greatly reduce this value. Water quality and ecology in the Karamū Stream system is relatively degraded compared to other catchments in the region. Water quality in the Karamū catchment is generally poor with a high level of total nitrogen (TN), nitrate-nitrogen (NO3) and particularly high levels of total phosphorus (TP), and soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP).

Dissolved oxygen measurements show large variations, with many concentrations being below recommended guidelines for lowland rivers. Between February and April 2013 extremely low dissolved oxygen levels were recorded – even to complete oxygen depletion in some streams. Over this period, temperatures stayed fairly low in some streams, but in others temperatures rose to 26°C. Extreme variability in temperature and oxygen as well as extremely low oxygen values are a significant threat to aquatic life.  The cause of these extreme conditions has to be analysed, as several factors like macrophyte proliferation, groundwater influx, organic load/metabolism, flow conditions or direct sunlight are influencing temperature and oxygen conditions.

The Karamū system has a very poor macroinvertebrate community, indicating a low life supporting capacity but the main drivers for this have yet to be determined. Stream Ecological Valuation studies carried out in 2010 and 2011 suggested that enhancement of riparian vegetation was a management option that biotic values would most benefit from.

Some streams in the Karamū catchment show high levels of E.coli concentrations which is likely to be contributing to very poor recreational water quality recorded in the Clive River at the Boat Ramp.

Clarity is low but the Karamū streams show acceptable compliance with guidelines and the sites generally comply with guidelines for suspended solid concentration except in a few reaches.

It has to be determined what the main drivers are for these conditions, in order to be able to suggest management options.  As the Karamū catchment mainly consists of lowland type streams, with many of them being groundwater fed, characteristics are naturally different from most of the Tūtaekuri and Ngaruroro catchments. For example, macrophyte proliferation, which can cause oxygen deficiency at night, occurs typically in slow flowing, lowland streams with infrequent flushing flows like the Karamū and requires different management than periphyton cover. The control of dissolved nutrient concentration is not considered to be appropriate for the management of macrophytes in streams with low levels of physical disturbance whereas macrophytes are highly dependent on light availability, stream bed substrate and flow velocity. This could lead to other management options like riparian management to shade out the plants, which would also help to enhance life supporting capacity by improving stream habitat. 

Water quantity

HBRC monitors water flow in the Karamū catchment at a range of sites. Like other catchments, security of water supply varies depending on a range of factors including location, type of water take (surface water, groundwater) and consent details (allocation, minimum flow restriction). By far the majority of the 1200 water takes in the catchment are from groundwater and not subject to minimum flow restrictions (Figure 16). The green line in the chart is consented groundwater permits and the red line is surface water.

Total Karamu.gif

Figure 16: Consented water takes in the Karamū catchment

Improved understanding of the connection of groundwater with surface flows has seen some groundwater takes linked to Ngaruroro River minimum flow restrictions where formerly they were not. This has reduced security of supply for some consent holders particularly those in the unconfined and semi-confined aquifer zones in the Twyford region. Other groundwater takes are due to be assessed for surface water connection over the next two years.

Water takes linked to minimum flows on some of the smaller tributaries like the Karewarewa Stream regularly experience water restrictions while larger tributaries like the Raupare provide a more secure supply.

As with the other catchments, minimum flow sites and limits in the Karamū catchment are under review and the connectivity of groundwater with surface waterways is being investigated. Approximately 200 consents to abstract groundwater in the unconfined aquifer zone are due to expire in 2019 (the remainder by 2025) and it is anticipated that the groundwater model being developed in conjunction with industry and technical experts will help to inform Plan Change decisions.

 

 

Karamū – interim agreements

43.      The TANK Group is concerned about poor water quality, sediment, excessive macrophytes and lack of riparian vegetation in the Karamū system and its effects on cultural, ecological and recreational values including food gathering. The Group requests that HBRC investigate and report back to the Group on causes of the poor water quality and possible measures to improved it

44.      Improved understanding of groundwater and surface water linkages and stream depletion effects is needed before adjustments to the existing flow regime can be agreed.

45.      Any changes to minimum flow and groundwater / surface water linkage rules need to consider impacts, especially security of supply and economic impacts, on water abstractors including irrigators and processors.

 


 

10.   APPENDICES

10.1.         Management Variables

The full list of Management Variables identified by the TANK Group is in the following table. These have been grouped into three sets: those that will likely need to be included to meet both HBRC and stakeholder objectives from the TANK process (green); those that could be done by HBRC if needed to meet the objectives (orange); and those that other parties could offer as part of a package to achieve those objectives (blue).

Measures likely to be needed in the TANK process

Flow regime

Water allocation (including for municipal and domestic supply)

Security of water supply setting

Policies, rules on groundwater /surface water connectivity

Surface water and groundwater quality limits

Tangata whenua involvement in freshwater decision making

Use of Matauranga Māori in monitoring and reporting

Wahi tapu register

Policies, rules and incentives on: riparian management & stock exclusion; water storage; water efficiency; water sharing/ transfer; nutrient loss/ allocation; good irrigation practices; stormwater management; other agricultural practices

Measures that could be included in the TANK process

Rules to protect wetlands

Terrestrial predator control policy

Incentives/funding by HBRC

Education/technical assistance by HBRC

Fish barrier removal

Rules on good forestry practices

Gravel extraction/raking for flood protection

Stopbank management

HBRC river access policy (with DoC)

Weed management practices

Hazard identification and risk management in built environment

Rules on discharge of organic/animal waste

Rules on toxic discharges

Rules on cumulative effects of septic tanks

HBRC policies on audited self-management

Auditing of farms for compliance/mgmt practice

Appropriate land use for type of land

HBRC decrease compliance costs

Help tangata whenua involved in freshwater governance

Communicate opportunities to participate in freshwater governance

Increase HBRC knowledge of Mauri of freshwater and coastal resources

Help tangata whenua increase capacity to fulfil kaitiaki roles

HBRC liaise with mana whenua, e.g. On consent applications

Things that other parties could do

Industry initiatives

Maintain stormwater retention ponds

Create freshwater reserves

Community initiatives for education

Stormwater rubbish control

Finance and promote reticulated community water schemes

Promote rainwater collection systems on individual properties

Territorial authority initiatives for education

Install household water meters

Territorial authority policies on water efficiency

Industry audited self-management

Reuse of grey water

 


 

10.2.         Glossary

Aquifer: An underground deposit of water-bearing sand, gravel or rock capable of yielding supplies of water.

Catchment: The total area draining into a river, reservoir or other body of water.

Community water storage: storage and distribution networks designed to supply water for more than one person ranging from small on-farm storage to large scale community-wide storage.

Ecosystem: A system formed by all plants, animals, and micro-organisms in a particular area interacting with the non-living physical environment as a functional unit.

Farm: In this report includes any land based activity for the production of food and fibre such as forestry, orchards, vineyards, cropping etc.

Farm management plan: A plan to integrate the farm business within the physical capability of the farms land and water resources. May include separate policies on the management of irrigation, effluent, fertiliser, riparian and soils.

Industry Good Practice (IGP): a quality assurance programme that provides a traceable, accountable system from crop to customer.

Kaitiakitanga:  guardianship or caretaker role (in particular, of natural resources).

Mahinga kai: food gathering places, cultivated gardens.

Mana: prestige, authority, status, spiritual power (e.g. of water)

Mana whenua:   those who descend through a hapū or ancestor who hold the tikanga or customary rights over a specific area.

Mātauranga Māori: Māori knowledge originating from Māori practices, observations, science, ancestors, including the Māori worldview.

Mauri: dynamic inner power and energy from the realm of the creator that emanates outwards from within provided it is accompanied by rightful action. Mauri comes from a natural balance, from the spiritual realm before it enters the natural world and thus only people can harm mauri (e.g. through unsustainable practices).

MCI – Macro Invertebrate Community Index: An index of the proportion of sensitive to tolerant species (in relation to the quality of a water body), among the community of benthic invertebrates that can be seen with the naked eye.

Minimum flow: Limits the amount of abstraction during low river flows. A minimum flow determines when consent holders have to reduce, and ultimately stop, abstracting.

Nutrient Limitation: The capacity of nitrogen and/or phosphorus to limit plant or algae growth.

Periphyton: A group of organisms in aquatic environments adapted to living on inert stable surfaces such as rocks, cobbles and logs. Organisms include fungi, bacteria, protozoa and algae.

Primary contact recreation: activities in which the user comes into frequent direct contact with water, such as swimming and waterskiing.

RHYHABSIM: River HYdraulics and HABitat SIMulation; a computer model which predicts how instream habitat availability for selected species varies over a range of flows.

Secondary contact recreation: activities that generally have less-frequent body contact with the water, such as boating and fishing

Stock Exclusion: Any method or activity that prevents farmed animals from having direct access to a stream or its margins.

Stygofauna: fauna that live in groundwater systems or aquifers.

Tangata kaitiaki: those who undertake a guardianship or caretaker role (in particular, of natural resources).

Tangata whenua: in relation to a particular area, means the iwi or hapū that holds manu whenua over that area.

Taonga: treasure, anything highly prized.

Tikanga: customary right, rule, plan, method.

Wāhi tapu: Sacred site, as defined locally by the hapū who are the tangata kaitiaki for the wāhi tapu.

Water allocation limits: The amount of water available to be extracted from a water source for use (e.g. for public supply, irrigation etc). The total allocation is limited to protect in-stream values and provide security of supply to water users.

Water Quality: The chemical and physical attributes of water such as turbidity, phosphorus and nitrogen concentration, temperature, dissolved oxygen and major ion concentrations.

Water Quality Limit: A limit identified for a particular water quality variable or attribute to meet a specific management objective.

Wetland: Permanently or intermittently wet land, shallow water and land-water margins. Wetlands may be fresh, brackish or saline and are characterised in their natural state by plants and or animals that are adapted to living in wet conditions. Wetland functions include nutrient filtering, sediment trapping, preventing flooding, carbon sequestration, habitats, recreation, education, cultural value.

Whakapapa: genealogy.

 

10.3.         Key documents and technical reports

Coast and Estuaries

Lamason, A. 2006. Waitangi Estuary Ecological Monitoring. HBRC Internal Report, EMI 0709, Plan No. 3948.

Madarasz, A.  2006.  Ahuriri Estuary: Environmental Assessment and Monitoring. EMI 06/16. HBRC Plan No. 3872.

Madarasz, A.  2006.  Nearshore Coastal Water Quality in Hawke's Bay.  EMI 05/16.  HBRC Plan No. 3792

Madarasz-Smith, A. 2008. Estuarine Ecology Programme: Environmental Assessment of Ahuriri and Porangahau Estuaries 2008.  Hawke's Bay Regional Council EMT 08/20, HBRC Plan Number 4061.

Madarasz-Smith, A. 2010.  Results of the Recreational Usage Survey 2010.  Hawke's Bay Regional Council. EMT 10/22 HBRC Plan Number 4209

Strong, J.  2005.  Antifoulant and Trace Metal Contamination of Sediments from the Napier Inner Harbour. Prepared for Hawke's Bay Regional Council. EMI 0511. HBRC Plan No. 3687.

Strong, J.  2006.  Antifoulant and Trace Metal Contamination of Sediments from the Napier Inner Harbour - Stage Two. Prepared for Hawke's Bay Regional Council. EMI 06/13. HBRC Plan No. 3863

Groundwater

Dodson, M. 2011. Assessment of Nitrogen and E. Coli Groundwater Quality in the Hawke’s Bay Region, 2008. Hawke’s Bay Regional Council Environmental Management Group Technical Report. EMT 10/20. HBRC Plan No. 4204.

Harper, S. 2008. Twyford Consent Area Technical Report – Groundwater Impact Assessment. Hawke's Bay Regional Council Environmental Management Group Technical Report. EMT 10/02. HBRC Plan No. 4170.

Harper, S, 2008. Groundwater Quantity - State of the Environment - 5 yearly Report - 2003 to 2008. Hawke's Bay Regional Council Environmental Management Group Technical Report. EMT/10/01. HBRC Plan No. 4167.

Larking, R. & Baalousha, H. 2008.  Nitrate in Groundwater in Hawke's Bay Region. EMI 0727. HBRC Plan No. 3984.

Minni, G., Cameron, S., Meihac, C., & Zemansky, G. 2010. Steady State Groundwater-Stream Interaction Model for Determination of the Effects Of Groundwater Abstraction On Spring-Fed Stream Flow in the Lake Poukawa Catchment, Hawke's Bay. GNS Science Report.

Minni, G., Cameron, S., Meihac, C., & Zemansky, G. 2010.  Pseudo-transient groundwater- Stream Interaction Model for Determination of the Effects Of Groundwater Abstraction On Spring-Fed Stream Flow in the Lake Poukawa Basin, Hawke's Bay. GNS Science Report.

Reid, D., & Scarsbrook, M, 2009. A review of current groundwater maangement in Hawke's Bay and recommendations for protection of groundwater ecosystems. Prepared for Hawke's Bay Regional Council. NIWA Report No. HAM2009-153.

Hydrology

Christie, R. 2010. Maraekakaho Stream Minimum Flow - Scientific Evidence. Hawke’s Bay Regional Council Environmental Management Group Technical Report. EMI 10/25,  HBRC Plan No. 4224.

Harkness, M. 2010. Ngaruroro River High Flow Allocation: June to November Period. Prepared for Hawkes Bay Regional Council, MWH, Wellington.

Harkness, M. 2010. Ngaruroro River Flow Naturalisation. Prepared for Hawkes Bay Regional Council, MWH, Wellington.

Johnson, K.  2008.  Ngaruroro River RHYHABSIM modelling updates.  EMI 0816, HBRC Plan No. 4051

Johnson, K. 2011. Lower Ngaruroro River Instream Flow Assessment. Hawke’s Bay Regional Council - Environmental Management Group Technical Report.  EMT 10/38, HBRC Plan No. 4249.

Lew, D.D.F., et al.  1997.  Flow Naturalisation for Six Hawkes Bay Rivers. Prepared for Hawkes Bay Regional Council.  Opus International Consultants Ltd.  EMI 9718, HBRC Plan No. 3636

Waldron, R.  2008.  Analysis of Karamū Catchment Flow Regimes and Water Supply Security under a Range of Water Allocation.  EMT 08/04, HBRC Plan No. 4013.

Waldron, R. et al.  2007.  Paritua/Karewarewa Stream - Hydrology.  EMI 0730, HBRC Plan No. 3992

Policy and Planning

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council. 2006. Hawke’s Bay Regional Resource Management Plan. HBRC Plan No 3881. Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, Napier.

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council. 2011. Hawke’s Bay Land and Water Management Strategy. HBRC Plan No 4287. Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, Napier.

MfE, 2006. Your Guide to the Resource Management Act, 3rd ed. Ministry for the Environment, New Zealand.

MfE, 2008. National Environmental Standard for Sources of Human Drinking Water. Ministry for the Environment, New Zealand.

MfE, 2010. National Environmental Standard on Ecological Flows and Water Levels: Discussion Document. Ministry for the Environment, New Zealand.

MfE, 2010. National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management. Ministry for the Environment, New Zealand.

Tangata whenua and Mana whenua

Ataria, J., Tremblay, C., Tremblay, L., Kaukau, M., Kemp, R., Mauger, J., Black, M.  2008. He Moemoea mō Te Whanganui-a-Orotū: A Vision Plan and Health Assessment for the Napier Estuary. Landcare Research Contract Report (LC0708/061): Prepared for Ngā Pae o Te Māramatanga. 77 pp.

Durette, M. 2009. An integrative model for cultural flows: Using values in fisheries to determine water allocations. Synexe Working Paper 2009/01.

Durette, M., Nesus, C., Nesus, G., & Barcham, M. 2009. Māori perspectives on water allocation. Wellington: Ministry for the Environment.

Kusabs, I. 2008. An assessment of fisheries values and comments on the impact of river diversion and potential for future restoration. Report prepared for Ngāti Hori. Rotorua, New Zealand.

Ngati Hori. 2013. Ngati Hori Freshwater Resources Management Plan: Operation Patiki.

Whyte, A., Tiuka, N. 2008. Kahungunu ki uta, Kahungunu ki tai, Marine & Freshwater Fisheries Strategic Plan; Nga Tini a Tangaroa o Ngati Kahungunu Iwi Inc.

Values

Booth, K., Bellamy, S., England, A., Hales, W., Kelly, B., Mahoney, M., Reed, C., & Sevicke-Jones, G. 2012. Whitewater Kayaking in Hawke’s Bay: Application of the River Values Assessment System (RiVAS), Land Environment and People Research Paper 12. Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand.

Booth, K., Coubrough, L., & Winlove, T. 2012. Salmonid angling in Hawke’s Bay: Application of the River Values Assessment System (RiVAS), Land Environment and People Research Paper 16. Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand.

Booth, K., Clode, G., Davis, P., Haidekker, S., Reed, C., Sharp, T., & Winlove, T. 2012. Natural character in Hawke’s Bay: Application of the River Values Assessment System (RiVAS and RiVAS+), Land Environment and People Research Paper 15. Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand.

Booth, K., Madaraz-Smith, A., Mauger, J., Paipper, A., Petuha, E., & Sharp. T.  2012. Swimming in Hawke’s Bay: Application of the River Values Assessment System (RiVAS and RiVAS+), Land Environment and People Research Paper 17. Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand.

Hughey, K., Booth, K., Deans, N., and Baker, M. 2009. River values assessment system (RIVAS) – The method. Draft report. Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand.

Hughey, K., Cheyne, J., Dickson, R., Forbes, A., Hashiba, K., Rook, H., Sharp, T., Stephenson, B., & Welch, B. 2012. Birdlife in Hawke’s Bay: Application of the River Values Assessment System (RiVAS and RiVAS+), Land Environment and People Research Paper 14. Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand.

Water Quality and Ecology

Alexander, S.  2011.  Recreational Water Quality in Hawke's Bay: Review of the 2010-2011 Recreational Water Quality Monitoring Programme.  Hawke's Bay Regional Council EMT 11/01, HBRC Plan number 4257

Aussiel, O. 2009. Water Quality in the Tutaekuri Catchment: State Trends and Contaminant Loads. Prepared for Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, Aquanet, Palmerston North.

Aussiel, O. 2009. Water Quality in the Ngaruroro Catchment: State Trends and Contaminant Loads. Prepared for Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, Aquanet, Palmerston North.

Aussiel, O. 2011.  Effects of Domestic and Industrial Stormwater Discharges in the Hawke's Bay Region: State of Knowledge Report. Prepared for Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, Aquanet, Palmerston North.

Cameron, D 2010. Stream Ecological Valuation: Upper Karamū Waterways. Prepared for Hawke's Bay Regional Council, MWH Wellington, MWH Z1800405.

Cameron, F. 2008. Wetland Monitoring Review: A Review of Hawke's Bay Regional Council's Wetland Monitoring. Hawke's Bay Regional Council EMT 08/09, HBRC Plan Number 4076.

Cameron, F. 2010. A Report on the Known Barriers to Fish Passage in Hawke's Bay. Hawke's Bay Regional Council EMT10/04, HBRC Plan Number 4174.

Flavall, S., R. 2000). Fisheries Resource Inventory Ngaruroro River. Unpublished. Fish &  Game New Zealand, Hawke’s Bay Region Report.  

Forbes, A. 2011. Stream Ecological Valuation: Ruahapia and Raupere Streams.  Prepared for Hawke's Bay Regional Council, MWH, Wellington, MWH Z1800401.

Haidekker, S. 2009. Kopuawhara and Opoutama Catchments: Surface Water Quality and Ecology State of the Environment Report 2009.  Hawke's Bay Regional Council EMT 10/09, HBRC Plan Number 4184.

Lee, A. 1994. Heretaunga Ecological District: Survey Report of the Protected Natural Areas Programme. Napier, Department of Conservation: 140

Miskelly, C., Dowding, J., Elliott, G., Hitchmough, R., Powlesland, R., Robertson, H., Sagar, P., Scofield, R., Taylor, G., 2008.  Conservatiuon Status of New Zealand Birds.  Notornis 55: 117-135.

O’Donnell, C. 2004. River Bird Communities. Freshwaters of New Zealand. New Zealand Limnological Society and New Zealand Hydrological Society. 1; 18.1-18.19.

Parrish, G. R. 1988.  Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat of Hawke’s Bay Rivers.  Science and Research Series No. 2.  Department of Conservation, Wellington.

Roper, M. 2004. Fisheries Resource Inventory Tutaekuri River. Unpublished. Fish & Game New Zealand, Hawke’s Bay Region Report.

Rutherford, K. 2009.  Catchment Sensitivity, Nutrient Limits, Nutrient Spiralling and Forecasting Future Landuse Impacts in Hawke's Bay.  NIWA Report No HAM2009-001

Stansfield, B. 2010. Stream Ecological Valuations: Selected Sites within the Napier and Heretaunga Catchments. Hawke's Bay Regional Council EMT 10/19, HBRC Plan Number 4201.

Stansfield, B. 2009. Clive and Urban Stream Catchments: Surface Water Quality and Ecology State of the Environment Report 2009.  Hawke's Bay Regional Council EMT 09/26, HBRC Plan Number 4154.

Stansfield, B. 2009. Urban Streams of the Napier Catchment. Hawke's Bay Regional Council EMT 10/16, HBRC Plan Number 4198.

Stevenson, B., 2010 Baseline Study and Assessment of Effects on Braided Riverbed Bird Communities (Ngaruroro River) Unpublished report for HBRC

Stevenson, B., 2011 Baseline Study and Assessment of Effects on Braided Riverbed Bird Communities (Tutaekuri River) Unpublished report for HBRC


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Maori Committee  

Tuesday 25 February 2014

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 between 20 November 2013 to 4 February 2014.

2.      The Statutory Advocacy project (‘Project 192’) 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.      The summary plus accompanying map outlines those proposals that the Council’s Statutory Advocacy project is currently actively engaged in.

Decision Making Process

5.      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.

 

Recommendation

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

 

 

 

Esther-Amy Bate

Planner

 

Helen Codlin

Group Manager

Strategic Development

 Attachment/s

1View

Statutory Advocacy Update

 

 

2View

Statutory Advocacy Map

 

 

  


Statutory Advocacy Update

Attachment 1

 

Statutory Advocacy Update (as at 4 February 2014)

Received

TLA

Map Ref

Activity

Applicant/ Agency

Status

Current Situation

21 January 2014

NA

1

Application under Coastal and Marine (Takutai Moana) Act 2011

Nga whanau o Moeangiangi Pt 42N has made an application for a Protected Customary Rights Order and a Customary Marine Title Order for an area lying between Waipatiki and Mohaka.  This application is made under section 100 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011.

Nga whanau o Moeangiangi
Pt 42N
(Wayne T Taylor)

Notified

4 February 2014

·  Public notice has been given by the High Court that an application has been made.  Staff are currently reviewing the application to determine if it is necessary for HBRC to join the High Court proceedings.

·  Deadline for joining High Court proceedings is 17 February 2014.

5 December 2013

NCC

2

Plan Change 10 to the Operative City of Napier District Plan.

A community driven Plan Change to harmonise district wide provisions between the Napier District Plan with the Hastings District Plan, incorporate the Ahuriri Subdistrict Plan and update provisions as a result of recent Napier City Council policy changes and decisions into the Napier District Plan.

NCC

Notified

4 February 2014

·  NCC has notified Plan Change 10.  Staff are currently working through the document to identify areas that may require a submission from Regional Council.

·  Submissions close on Friday 14 February 2014.

·  Previously informal comments were made by staff on draft content relating to HPUDS and RPS Change 4.

8 November 2013

HDC

3

Proposed Hastings District Plan

Review of the Hastings District Plan in its entirety.  Includes the harmonisation of district wide provisions between the Napier District Plan with the Hastings District Plan where relevant..

HDC

Notified

4 February 2014

·  HDC has notified the Proposed Hastings District Plan.  Staff are currently working through the document to identify areas that may require a submission from Regional Council.

·  Submissions close on Friday 14 February 2014.

·  Previously HDC released a Draft District Plan Review on which the Regional Council provided comments.  Various informal comments were made by staff on draft content, particularly relating to natural hazards, HPUDS and RPS Change4, riparian management.

1 August 2013

NA

4

Application under Coastal and Marine (Takutai Moana) Act 2011

Rongomaiwahine has made an application for a Protected Customary Rights Order and a Customary Marine Title Order in the general Mahia Peninsular area under section 100 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011.

Rongomaiwahine (Pauline Tangiora)

Notified

8 November 2013.

·  Council has opposed the grant of the orders unless the nature and geographical extent of the orders is specified with sufficient detail to enable the Council to appropriately understand the effect of the orders sought.

 


Statutory Advocacy Map

Attachment 2

 


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Maori Committee  

Tuesday 25 February 2014

SUBJECT: Minor Items Not on the Agenda        

 

Reason for Report

This document has been prepared to assist Committee members note the Minor Items Not on the Agenda to be discussed as determined earlier in Agenda Item 6.

Item

Topic

Councillor/Committee member / Staff

1.   

 

 

2.   

 

 

3.   

 

 

4.   

 

 

5.   

 

 

 

    



[1] Due to the local body election process, the Hastings District Council has expressed the need for further time to consider the report and intends to provide feedback to the TANK Group as soon as practicable in 2014. However, no obvious or significant issues have been identified based on initial consideration.

[2] Tangata whenua have not claimed ownership but merely state that their relationship with nga wai has not been appropriately recognised in its use and management.

[3] Matahiwi Marae note that they support instantaneous transfers of water consents as long as they do not result in an increase in adverse environmental effects.

[4] Matahiwi Marae note that they wish to see the results of feasibility assessments and the quantification of effects before they support high flows being more easily available for community storage and distribution.

[5] Tangata whenua have not claimed ownership but merely state that their relationship with ngā wai has not been appropriately recognised in its use and management.

[6] The full list of Management Variables is documented in Appendix 1.

[7] Matahiwi Marae note that they support instantaneous transfers of water consents as long as they do not result in an increase in adverse environmental effects.

[8] Matahiwi Marae note that they wish to see the results of feasibility assessments and the quantification of effects before they support high flows being more easily available for community storage and distribution.