Agenda of Regional Planning Committee

Meeting of the Regional Planning Committee

Date: Wednesday 1 June 2016

Time: 9:00am

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. Confirmation of Minutes of the Regional Planning Committee held on 20 April 2016

4. Matters Arising from Minutes of the Regional Planning Committee held on 20 April 2016

5. Follow-up Items from Previous Regional Planning Committee Meetings 3

6. Call for any Minor Items Not on the Agenda 7

Decision Items

7. Iwi - Hapu Engagement Plan for the Development of the Greater Heretaunga (TANK) Plan Change 9

8. Effectiveness of Regional Plans for managing Oil & Gas Activities 13

9. Tukituki Implementation Principles 19

10. Regional State and Trends of River Water Quality and Ecology 23

Information or Performance Monitoring

11. Ngaruroro Water Conservation Order 35

12. Verbal Update on the TANK Project

13. Verbal Presentation on the TANK Information Portal

14. June 2016 Resource Management Planning Project Update 49

15. March 2016 - May 2016 Statutory Advocacy Update 53

16. Presentation of Pataka - A Resource Management Tool

17. Minor Items Not on the Agenda 59

1. Free 2-hour on-road parking is available on Vautier Street adjacent to the HBRC Building

2. Public parking in the NCC lots either side of Vautier Street cost $4 for all day parking. This cost will be reimbursed by Council.

3. There are limited parking spaces (3) for visitors in the HBRC car park – entry of Vautier Street – it would be appropriate that the “visitors” parks be available for the members travelling distances from Waiora and CHB.

NB: Any carparks that have yellow markings are NOT to be parked in.

Regional Planning Committee Members

Name	Represents
Karauna Brown	Ngati Hineuru Iwi Inc
Nicky Kirikiri	Te Toi Kura o Waikaremoana
Nigel Baker	Ngati Tuwharetoa Hapu Forum
Peter Paku	He Toa Takitini
Rangi Spooner	Mana Ahuriri Incorporated
Tania Hopmans	Maungaharuru-Tangitu Trust
Toro Waaka (co-chair)	Ngati Pahauwera Development and Tiaki Trusts
Allen Smith	Te Tira Whakaemi o Te Wairoa
Alan Dick	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Christine Scott	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Dave Pipe	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Debbie Hewitt	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Fenton Wilson (co-chair)	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Peter Beaven	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Rex Graham	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Rick Barker	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Tom Belford	Hawkes Bay Regional Council

Total number of members = 17[1]

Quorum and Voting Entitlements Under the Current Terms of Reference

Quorum (clause (i))

The Quorum for the Regional Planning Committee is 75% of the members of the Committee

At the present time, the quorum is 13 members.

Voting Entitlement (clause (j))

Best endeavours will be made to achieve decisions on a consensus basis, or failing consensus, the agreement of 80% of the Committee members in attendance will be required. Where voting is required all members of the Committee have full speaking rights and voting entitlements.

Number of Committee members present Number required for 80% support

17 14

16 13

15 12

14 11

13 10

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 01 June 2016

Subject: Effectiveness of Regional Plans for managing Oil & Gas Activities

Reason for Report

1. The purpose for this paper is to present the findings of a review of the effectiveness of Regional Resource Management Plan (RRMP) provisions to manage actual and potential effects of oil and gas related activities in the Hawke's Bay region.

Background

2. In June 2014 the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (PCE) released her report titled “Drilling for oil and gas in New Zealand: Environmental oversight and regulation” (“the PCE’s report”). The PCE’s report made a number of recommendations to regional councils for the more effective management of oil and gas exploration and production activity.

3. Shortly following release of the PCE’s report, Council, in its 2015-25 Long Term Plan signalled that before 30 June 2016, it would:

3.1. complete a report on the effectiveness of the RRMP and Regional Coastal Environment Plan (RCEP) in relation to managing the effects of oil and gas exploration and development

3.2. complete a report to the Regional Planning Committee to consider whether a limited scope Regional Plan Change is necessary and appropriate to address any relevant recommendations from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s 2014 report.

4. The following two reports were commissioned to address the Long Term Plan commitments above:

4.1. “Policy Review: Oil and Gas Exploration Development for HBRC” commissioned from van Voorthuysen Environmental Limited (Attachment 1); and

4.2. “Review of the oil and gas exploration in the Hawke’s Bay region & assessment of relevance of PCE’s recommendations for Hawke's Bay regional plan” commissioned from Environmental Management Services Limited (EMS Limited) (Attachment 2).

5. Both reports (collectively referred to as “the reports”) are attached to this briefing paper. Key points arising from each of these reports are discussed following.

The Reports

6. The van Voorthuysen report was completed in October 2015. It reviewed the adequacy of the existing plan framework at a high-level as against the PCE’s recommendations. That report’s scope was not asked to examine the merits of the PCE’s recommendations. Subsequently, the report concluded by saying that if the Council wished to give effect to the PCE’s recommendations, then a limited scope plan change was necessary.

7. Although this report was helpful to a certain extent, it did not adequately answer the question of whether or not the PCE’s recommendations were appropriate when taking into account both the unique geology of Hawke’s Bay and our current planning framework.

8. More recently, HBRC contracted EMS Limited to carry out a more in-depth assessment (Attachment 2) of two matters.

8.1. Firstly, an overview of the history and current state of oil and gas exploration in the East Coast Basin (ECB), including within Hawke’s Bay; and a geological assessment of Hawke’s Bay as it relates to oil and gas reserves and prospectivity.

8.2. Secondly, consideration of whether or not the RRMP and associated consent decision-making processes already appropriately address matters identified in the PCE’s report. This examination would reveal the extent to which the PCE’s recommendations remain relevant in the Hawke's Bay planning context.

9. As a result of their examination, EMS Limited made several findings; the key findings being:

9.1. The PCE’s recommendation 2e states that councils should “classify drilling, fracking and waste disposal as ‘discretionary activities’”. EMS Limited are of the view that the existing rules in the RRMP are adequate as the key activities described by the PCE are already discretionary activities with the one exception being for the process for obtaining a bore permit, which is a controlled activity (switching to restricted discretionary if basic conditions are not met) and is not differentiated in the RRMP’s rules between drilling for water or drilling for oil and gas.

9.2. The inclusion of two further ‘Matters for Control’ in RRMP Rules 1 & 2 (those matters being “type of drilling fluid” and “casing”).

9.3. The possibility for the development of controls specific to oil and gas drilling within the area of the Heretaunga and Ruataniwha Plains aquifers. This suggestion also relates to the PCE’s recommendation 2b that councils “identify areas where oil and gas drilling can and cannot take place.” The RRMP does not currently identify areas where oil and gas drilling should be prohibited (although Hastings District Council have taken steps to do so as a land use control over the unconfined Heretaunga Plains aquifer by making oil and gas exploration, extraction and production in this area a prohibited activity). EMS Limited stated that they are “reluctant to recommend a similar action by the regional council in the absence of sound evidence that the effects of drilling either can or cannot be adequately managed and contained.”

Analysis

10. The current discretionary status for drilling, fracking and waste disposal provides HBRC adequate control (through the ability to set consent conditions) but does not automatically prescribe public notification and a hearings process. Requiring public notification and hearings for the activity of drilling a hole in the ground for oil and gas, and not for water, may be difficult to justify on the grounds of environmental risk management as the activity itself (i.e. drilling a bore) has what would be normally considered less than minor effects.

11. This is not to be confused with other activities associated with subsequent use of the bore (e.g. abstraction of water and/or discharge of contaminants into the ground).

12. It is possible that a section 32 analysis necessary for supporting a plan change will reveal that the cost to applicants of making this activity discretionary outweigh the benefits. The PCE’s recommendation about discretionary activity status is related to the PCE’s recommendation 2e which recommends councils “make explicit the circumstances when consents will be notified”. The existing regional plan already has guidance (in the Rule tables and Sections 8.2.2 and 8.2.3 of the RRMP) for when consents for various activities should be notified. There is also a well-developed body of RMA case law about the notification of resource consent applications.

13. Staff recommend the question of discretion for the drilling of bores and the associated level of public notification and participation in the decision-making process be considered as part of a review of the RRMP in 2020-21, or at any other earlier plan change as it presents.

14. EMS Limited has also recommended that the RRMP is amended to include “type of drilling” and “casing” as specific matters for control in relation to consents for bore drilling. Staff believe it would indeed be useful to be more explicit about the types of matters our consenting processes cover, but that this is a relatively minor matter as in practice the well casing and types of drilling fluid used would be subject to HBRC oversight even under the rules at present. On this basis we recommend these minor changes be considered as part of a review of the RRMP in 2020-21, or at any other earlier plan change as it presents.

15. In relation to the possibility of controls for drilling within the area of the Heretaunga and Ruataniwha aquifers, staff acknowledge public concerns previously expressed, particularly by the ‘Guardians of the Aquifer’ group, about drilling in or near the aquifers. If a precautionary approach was favoured by the Regional Planning Committee, the RPC might wish to recommend to the Council that a prohibited activity status be investigated for oil and gas drilling on or near the aquifers.

16. It should be noted that New Zealand Petroleum and Minerals (NZP&M) have sought to be sensitive to public concerns and had excluded the known aquifers from their last Block Offer process in the area. At present HBRC staff are aware of no current oil and gas exploration permits over the aquifer area.

17. Staff agree with EMS Limited’s finding that the current decrease in oil and gas exploration activity, along with the new Hastings District Council controls, allows time for a more considered assessment of this issue and the development of an appropriate policy response and be considered as part of a review of the RRMP in 2020-21, or at any other earlier plan change as it presents.

18. It is also recognised that the PCE made a range of recommendations that are less contentious and more mechanical in terms of council processes, for example Recommendation 2d: “require consent applications to be ‘bundled together’” and Recommendation 2f: “conduct joint hearings whenever possible.” Those types of consent processes can already occur by HBRC and territorial authorities as a matter of course when relevant – they do not require a plan change to be achieved.

19. Several other recommendations from the PCE also don’t require changes to the RRMP and are rather a question of council practice, such as Recommendation 5: “require regional councils to be responsible for HSNO on oil & gas sites” and Recommendation 2c: “set core requirements for environmental monitoring”. Staff will examine these issues if and when interest in drilling for oil and gas in the region grows again.

20. Additionally, the PCE also recommends that councils “identify and plan for cumulative effects”. With respect to using water resources for drilling activity current provisions in the RRMP adequately provide for cumulative effects to be managed. Landscape impacts and the cumulative effect on noise, dust and light from a large number of drilling sites and associated infrastructure, such as experienced in Taranaki, are the domain of territorial authorities and their district plans. However, in the near term there is no prospect of this being an issue for the Hawke’s Bay region. If and when such a prospect appears likely, HBRC staff will engage with counter parts in territorial authorities to ensure these cumulative effects are appropriately managed.

21. Finally, the PCE also recommended that councils “consider how solid waste from the east coast can be disposed of”. The RRMP already classifies disposal of solid drilling waste as a discretionary activity, so can be managed on a consent application by application basis. Given the limited prospects for a resurgence in drilling and exploration activity in the Hawke’s Bay region within the next decade staff recommend that work on a plan to manage large volumes of ongoing drilling waste be considered a low priority for HBRC at this time.

Central Government response to PCE’s report and recommendations

22. In recent weeks, HBRC planning staff made renewed enquiries to Ministry for the Environment (MfE) officials about Government’s possible response to the PCE’s report, particularly her recommendation for a National Policy Statement. MfE officials have advised HBRC planning staff that work has stalled on national policy direction for the time being due to a lack of resource.

23. Given this, there clearly remains a degree of uncertainty about what and when any form of national direction on oil and gas-related regulation might emerge. Staff will maintain regular liaison with MfE officials on any central government policy direction proposals regarding regulation of oil and gas exploration and development activities as it might relate to functions of regional councils.

Conclusions

24. Based on the detailed analysis contained in the reports, it is considered that the RRMP already sufficiently addresses the PCE’s substantive recommendations. We consider there to be no immediate haste to change the RRMP. This is reinforced by EMS Limited’s analysis which demonstrates that geological unsuitability of large parts of Hawke’s Bay for oil and gas drilling, and sharp decline in fortunes in the industry means that there is adequate time for a considered assessment of whether or not a plan change is still needed.

25. As noted above, the next scheduled review of the RRMP is in 2020-21. This would be a suitable time to assess the merits of amending the RRMP. Alternatively, there may be other earlier plan changes which are also considered appropriate. In addition, these reports are not section 32 reports. Therefore, a full evaluation under section 32 of the Resource Management Act to assess the costs and benefits of a plan change is still required.

26. We would also make several general observations regarding the PCE’s report. Firstly, we note that the recommendations are occasionally unclear. This means that both reports have had to speculate on the actual intent behind the recommendations. Additionally, the PCE has advocated for a national response to oil and gas issues in the form of a National Policy Statement – the form and timing of which remains very uncertain.

27. Oil and gas matters also sit within the broader context of the development of an Energy Strategy for Hawke’s Bay. This strategy will consider aspirations for energy usage and advancement of renewables in the region. The strategy is not anticipated to have any significant impact upon the matters contained in this report.

Public opinion

28. The issue of oil and gas exploration in Hawke’s Bay has generated significant public interest. Common concerns relate to potential impacts upon the aquifers from drilling and fracking activities, and also the levels of regulatory control placed upon such activities.

29. The Guardians of the Aquifer hold particular concerns that drilling activities will contaminate drinking supplies. They are seeking a discrete plan change under the RRMP that would change drilling on or near the water catchment from a controlled activity to a prohibited activity.

Financial and Resource Implications

30. There are a range of implications if it was deemed necessary to commence an immediate discrete plan change on any or all of the matters discussed in this report. At present there is no budget allocated for such an undertaking. However, there is approximately $150k left in the budget which was set originally aside for assessment of the PCE’s report and is currently in use for preparation of a Regional Energy Strategy. Furthermore, increased resource within the Strategic Development Group to carry out this work.

31. As noted above, a full section 32 analysis would be required to be undertaken in support of any regional plan change. This would include a thorough evaluation of the appropriateness, costs and benefits of such a plan change. Furthermore, it is not guaranteed that a section 32 evaluation will find in favour of a plan change proposition. It should also be noted that the reports by van Voorthuysen Ltd and EMS Ltd are a helpful start, but are insufficient alone to pass as a s32 analysis if a plan change was indeed to be prepared and notified.

32. Finally, at this stage it is difficult to provide an estimate of how much any such plan change would cost. This is determined by the scale and complexity of such a proposed change, alongside its pace of preparation relative to other workstreams already prioritised and resourced.

Decision Making Process

33. 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 in relation to this item and have concluded:

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

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

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

33.4. The persons affected by this decision are those persons with an interest in sustainable management of the region’s natural and physical resources.

33.5. Options include reconsidering the need for a regional plan change to address some or all of the recommendations made by the PCE, and EMS Limited; and prioritising any such plan change as an immediate need or something to be considered as part of the 2020/21 review of the RRMP.

33.6. The decision is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan. The 2015-25 Long Term Plan does not state a regional plan change will be prepared, rather that a review of the existing plan provisions’ effectiveness will be reported on by 30 June 2016.

33.7. 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.

Recommendations

1. That the Regional Planning Committee receives and notes the:

1.1 “Policy Review: Oil and Gas Exploration Development for Hawke’s Bay Regional Council” report prepared by van Voorthuysen Environmental Limited dated October 2015

And the

1.2 “Review of Oil and Gas Exploration in the Hawke's Bay Region & Assessment of Relevance of PCE’s Recommendations for Hawke's Bay Regional Plan” report prepared by Environmental Management Services Limited dated May 2016.

2. The Regional Planning Committee recommends that Council:

2.1. Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy, and that Council can exercise its discretion and make decisions on this issue without conferring directly with the community.

2.2. Agrees that the current provisions of the Regional Resource Management Plan adequately address the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s substantive recommendations and that no immediate plan change is required to Hawke's Bay regional plans.

2.3. Agrees that an assessment of a plan change is not necessary until the 2020-21 review of the Regional Resource Management Plan, or an earlier related plan change as it presents.

Rina Douglas

Senior Planner

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

James Palmer

Group Manager
Strategic Development

Attachment/s

1	van Voorthuysen Plan Effectiveness Report		Under Separate Cover
2	EMS Review of Oil and Gas Exploration in Hawke's Bay		Under Separate Cover

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 01 June 2016

Subject: Tukituki Implementation Principles

Reason for Report

1. Council is soon to consider a paper that describes the work occurring and the work required to achieve implementation of the Change 6 policy and rule framework for the Tukituki catchment. To frame this discussion it is important to consider the overarching principles that will apply to the approach taken to allow staff to deal with the inevitable ambiguity that will arise in this journey.

Discussion

2. Over the past 12 months staff have been working through the development of a working document that outlines the intended approach to implementation of the broad policy and rule frame work embodied in Change 6 for the Tukituki catchment. This document is deliberately entitled Working Towards Implementation as it reflects that the formal Implementation Plan was required by Policy TT16 to be delivered by the end of 2014 but for a variety of reasons this was a timeframe that was ever going to be achieved.

3. Staff are of the view that the final and comprehensive Implementation Plan should be completed at the latest in early to mid-2018 to allow the implications of this to Councils work plan to be understood and then adequately resourced through the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan.

4. In developing this work it has become evident that aspects of the framework are clear and are able to be easily developed into an approach and that there are other aspects that are at best ambiguous and the approach to implement are uncertain and unclear. Staff are comfortable with this challenge.

5. In developing an approach for the matters that are ambiguous decisions will need to be made and approaches developed. Staff are seeking guidance from Council on a range of overarching principles that will guide and shape the thinking and discussions with external parties as we continue to develop the formal Implementation Plan.

6. We acknowledge that the principles may need to adapt over time and/or be added to as we further understand the challenges and risks/opportunities in various approaches to implementing this policy. This paper is intended to outline the thinking of staff thus far and to seek feedback on what is missing or needed to be improved.

The Principles

7. The Cambridge English dictionary defines a principle as, a basic idea or rule that explains or controls how something happens or works. Staff envisage that the principles would explain or control how the approach to policy and rules for the catchment are put into practise, how they are enforced and how they are developed.

8. Principles identified are:

8.1. We are adaptive and we will innovate – much of the policy we understand well and the approaches are prescriptive and clearly laid out. Much of it is not so and will require thought and discussion to find the right approach. This will require us to be flexible (adaptive) and to look for alternatives (innovate).

8.2. We aim to be enabling – within the purpose of the RMA it promotes sustainable management and sustainable management allows for the use of natural and physical resources to enable communities to provide for social, cultural and economic wellbeing’s while ensuring sustainability, life supporting capacity and the management of effects. The fact that the RMA is intended to be an enabling piece of legislation is therefore important and a crucial principle.

8.3. We recognise that landowners and occupiers are critical for making a difference – the vast majority of the actions (either regulatory or non-regulatory) required to achieve policy outcomes for this catchment need to be ‘delivered’ by landowners and occupiers. They are the critical piece of the puzzle to successful implementation and therefore effectiveness of the policy.

8.4. We are outcome focused – throughout the implementation journey it is important that we retain a focus on the big picture and what the policy seeks to achieve, the objectives. If we continually ask the question, ‘will this take us towards the desired outcome (objective)’ as we make choices.

8.5. We will focus on areas of risk that have high initial return – our current understanding of the catchment and the water quality issues clearly identifies where the priorities are and where we should focus our efforts. This approach, to prioritise where we focus our efforts is a key principle as we build capability and develop the work programme

8.6. We will not drive people out of business – the policy and rule framework for the catchment will require a change to the way that some enterprises are managed. This has the potential to impact income and the profitability of an enterprise. We do not believe that the Board of Inquiry, nor Council would intend that the implementation of PC6 in the catchment unnecessarily drove people out of business. It is accepted that business approaches may need to change and the introduction of Industry Good Practise will incur cost, but that this should not be required to such a level as to make a business unprofitable thereby driving people out of business.

8.7. Our communication is open and honest – it is important that we communicate openly with landowners and occupiers, tangata whenua and the broader community about our success and failures. In doing so we look to create an environment of continual improvement and acceptance that we may need to make mistakes to move forward.

8.8. Our solutions/approaches are relevant, enduring and workable – given that some aspects of the policy implementation are unclear and we need to work through how these will work solutions and new approaches are inevitable. In creating new approaches and solutions we should be mindful that they should be able to be continued to be resourced and supported by Council and landowners/occupiers so that they continue and remain effective.

8.9. We recognise tangata whenua as a partner in implementation – Policy TT16 requires that we establish and maintain a special relationship with iwi and hapu within the catchment to develop the implementation plan and ongoing monitoring of cultural values and mauri. In order that we do this well we will require a solid and enduring relationship with Maori within the catchment.

9. We recognise that other stakeholder groups can contribute knowledge, resources and processes, and we will partner with these groups – There are a broad range of groups, both statutory and non-statutory who have an interest in the successful implementation of policy. We should work constructively with them and use their knowledge to improve our approaches where appropriate.

Decision Making Process

10. Council is required to make every decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements in relation to this item and have concluded:

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

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

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

10.4. The persons affected by this decision are all persons with an interest in the management of the Tukituki catchment.

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

10.6. 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.

Recommendations

1. That the Regional Planning Committee:

1.1. Receives and notes the “Tukituki Implementation Principles” report

1.2. Identifies any principles that are missing or that need to be improved.

2. The Regional Planning Committee recommends that Council:

2.2. Subject to matters raised at the RPC meeting, adopts the Tukituki Implementation Principles for development of the PC6 implementation plan.

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager
Resource Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 01 June 2016

Subject: Regional State and Trends of River Water Quality and Ecology

Reason for Report

1. This report provides the Committee with three technical State of the Environment reports and seeks their recommendation to Council for formal approval for publication and release. The draft reports have been distributed to Councillors and Regional Planning Committee members in hard copy only, and will be available upon request once they have been approved for publication by Council and finalised.

2. The Council undertakes routine water quality and ecology monitoring around the region to assess the current state of freshwater resources, and identify whether changes in key parameters are occurring over time.

3. State of the Environment monitoring and reporting is a key statutory function of the Regional Council, and the parameters we monitor help us assess whether the life supporting capacity of the waterways is being maintained. Parameters examined include the physical and chemical attributes of the waterways such as nutrient levels (nitrogen and phosphorus), water clarity, suspended sediment, and dissolved oxygen levels. Biological attributes such as faecal bacteria, periphyton (slime algae) and macroinvertebrate communities are also examined.

4. At a broad scale, the information can be used to assess policy effectiveness. The monitoring is of particular interest to tangata whenua, our partners and other stakeholders, as well as interested members of the general community. State of the Environment information is important to inform proposed policy changes, and serves as a contextual base to assess potential impacts of ongoing consent applications.

5. Here, water quality and ecology information collected from State of the Environment Monitoring programmes between January 2004 and December 2013 is provided for three sub regions:

5.1. Waikare, Aropaoanui and Esk

5.2. Wairoa and Northern Coastal

5.3. Porangahau and Southern Coastal

6. Key points of concern that have emerged from the SOE monitoring are:

6.1. Significant deteriorating trends in E coli at four sites in the Porangahau and Southern Coastal catchments

6.2. Mahiaruhe and Sandy Creek nutrient levels remain high, with TN levels significantly increasing in the Mahiaruhe (downstream of Lake Tutira)

6.3. Waingongoro Stream stands out as having noticeably high nutrient levels

6.4. Widespread sediment related issues throughout the Porangahau, Wairoa, Northern Coastal and Southern Coastal catchments

Waikare, Aropaoanui and Esk Catchments: State and Trends of River Water Quality and Ecology

7. This report summarises states and trends in river water quality and ecology in the Waikari, Aropaoanui and Esk catchments. The report is 1 of 6 State of the Environment (SOE) reports for the Hawke’s Bay region summarising river water quality and ecology data. The reports form the detailed regional 5 yearly review of surface water quality and ecology and are an update from the previous round of reports completed in 2009.

8. The combined Esk, Aropaoanui and Waikari catchments form the smallest of the sub regions in this technical report series, covering a total area of 761 km², with the Waikari the largest (at 324 km²) and Aropaoanui the smallest (168 km²) of the 3 catchments.

9. There are currently 7 SOE monitoring sites in the Esk, Aropaoanui and Waikari catchments, which were used for analyses in this report:

9.1. Two sites on the Esk River: at Berry Road in the upper catchment and at Waipunga Bridge on the lower River

9.2. Three sites in the Lake Tutira/ Aropaoanui catchment: at Sandy Creek, which used to flow into the lake but is now diverted directly to the lake outlet, the Mahiaruhe Stream, where the second monitoring site is located and on the lower Arapaoanui River, just inland from Waipatiki Beach

9.3. Two sites in the Waikari catchment: on the Anaura Stream, an upper catchment tributary and on the lower Wakari River mainstem.

10. Water quality and ecological indicators monitored as part of the SOE monitoring programme may be considered in the following groups.

10.1. Microbiological water quality indicators, such as Escherichia coli (E. coli), which provides an indication of the level of health risk to recreational users of the water

10.2. Basic physico-chemical indicators, such as temperature, dissolved oxygen and pH

10.3. Indicators associated with the visual appearance of the water, such as visual water clarity and turbidity

10.4. Toxicants, such as nitrate-nitrogen and ammoniacal nitrogen

10.5. Nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, as controlling factors, or indicators of risk of eutrophication (excessive plant/algae growth)

10.6. Biological indicators of eutrophication (periphyton biomass) and ecological health (macroinvertebrate communities).

11. The various water quality and ecological indicators were compared with appropriate environmental guidelines and trigger values to provide an indication of the state of water quality. Statistical analyses of trends through time were performed to determine whether the water quality indicators have been improving or degrading. For the relevant indicators, and where data were available, the various indicators were compared with the Regional Plan (RRMP) Guidelines, and with the National Policy Statement for Freshwater management (NPS-FM) (2014) Attribute States. Monitoring data collected during the 2004-2013 period indicate the following:

Microbiological water quality

12. All 7 monitoring sites fall into the NPSFM “A” Attribute State, indicating that water quality is generally suitable for secondary (e.g. wading, boating) contact recreation at all sites across the Esk, Aropaoanui and Waikari catchments. All 7 sites are also generally suitable for primary contact recreation, with 4 sites presenting a low risk (NPSFM “A” grade), and 3 (Sandy Creek, Mahiaruhe Stream and the Aropaoanui River) presenting a moderate risk (NPSFM “B” grade) to water users.

Dissolved Oxygen

13. Data available do not point to any significant issues associated with dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration or saturation at any of the sites, although it should be noted that the data are limited to ‘spot’ measurements, which are unlikely to capture the daily minima.

Water clarity and turbidity

14. Water clarity is generally relatively low in the Esk, Aropaoanui and Waikari catchments. Water clarity meets the ANZECC guideline for recreational waters of 1.6 m only at the Aropaoanui River and the Waikari River. Sandy Creek and the Mahiaruhe Stream have the worst water clarity of all sites in this sub-region.

15. The sites examined in this study rank in the middle of other sites in the Hawke’s Bay region for water clarity and turbidity.

16. A deterioration in water clarity (black disc) over time was detected at only 1 site (Mahiaruhe Stream) while deteriorating trends in turbidity (i.e. an increase over time) were detected at 3 sites, including the Esk River at Berry Road, Mahiaruhe Stream and the Aropaoanui River.

Toxicants

17. Nitrate nitrogen and ammoniacal nitrogen concentrations were always low at all sites, well below guideline values indicating that the risk of toxic effects from either nitrate or ammonia can be considered low at all SOE monitoring sites in the Esk, Aropaoanui and Waikari catchments. All sites fall within the NPSFM “A” Attribute State for nitrate and “A” or “B” Attribute State for ammonia.

18. Nitrate concentrations improve (i.e., reduce) over time at the 2 sites in the Waikari catchment, with no change at any of the sites within the other 2 catchments.

Nutrients

19. Nutrient concentrations vary in the following ways.

19.1. Nitrogen concentrations, both Total Nitrogen (TN) and Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen (DIN), were generally moderate and better than the relevant ANZECC trigger values, with the exception of Sandy Creek and the Mahiaruhe Stream

19.2. Median Total Phosphorus (TP) concentrations were better than the ANZECC trigger values at all sites except Sandy Creek and Mahiaruhe Stream. However, only the Anaura Stream was better than the ANZECC trigger value for Dissolved Reactive Phosphorus (DRP) concentrations

19.3. The Anaura Stream had the lowest nutrient (N and P) concentrations of all sites

19.4. Sandy Creek and the Mahiaruhe Stream had the highest nutrient concentrations (both nitrogen and phosphorus), were often worse than ANZEEC trigger values and RRMP guidelines

19.5. Nutrient concentrations at the 2 Esk River sites were very similar, indicating no change in nutrient status along the course of the Esk River

19.6. DIN/DRP ratios suggest co-limited conditions occur at all sites except the Aropaoanui River and the Anaura Stream. Nitrogen-limited conditions were likely to occur at times in the Aropaoanui River, whilst a mix of co-limited and P-limited conditions were likely to occur in the Anaura Stream. In Sandy Creek and the Mahiaruhe Stream, any nutrient limitation was likely to be very weak or absent (unlimited conditions). By contrast, moderate to strong co-limitation of periphyton growth was likely in the Aropaonui, Esk and Waikari main stems. Strong nutrient limitation of periphyton growth (a mix of co- and P-limited conditions) was likely in the Anaura Stream.

20. Compared with other SOE sites in the region, most Esk, Aropaoanui and Waikari sites ranked in the bottom 40% for the region for both DIN and DRP.

21. Nutrient concentrations were generally stable over time across the study area, although improvements in DIN were detected in the Aropaoanui River, Anaura Stream and Waikari River. No changes in DRP (improvements or deterioration) occurred at any sites in the Esk, Aropaoanui and Waikari catchments. Significant improvements in TN and TP were observed, but only in the Esk River at Berry Road and Anaura Stream, and for TP in the Aropaoanui River. TN concentrations significantly increased in the Mahiaruhe Stream, which is the combination of Sandy Creek and the outlet of Lake Tutira.

Biological indicators

22. MCI scores at both Esk River sites, in the Aropaoanui River and the Anaura Stream were indicative of good water quality, while those in Sandy Creek and the Mahiaruhe Stream and the Waikari River had in-stream macroinvertebrate communities indicative of ‘fair’ water quality. The Mahiaruhe Stream had the worst median MCI score and was the only site where MCI scores indicative of ‘poor’ water quality (<80) were observed.

23. Periphyton biomass was generally under both the 120 mg/m² ‘recreational’ and 50 mg/m²‘biodiversity’ thresholds in the Anaura Stream, Sandy Creek and Aropaoanui River, indicating good water quality. However, Sandy Creek and the Mahiaruhe Stream are unsuited to periphyton development.

24. Both sites on the Esk River and the Waikari River site had higher median periphyton biomass levels, exceeding the threshold for the protection of aquatic biodiversity values, but within or just exceeding the threshold for the protection of aesthetics and recreational values. At all 3 sites, periphyton biomass at times largely exceeded the 120 mg/m² ‘recreational’ threshold. The highest levels (represented by 90^th percentile whiskers) were observed in the Waikari River.

25. Data at all sites were limited to annual measurements (1 to 5 annual measurements available at each site), and are insufficient to provide a robust indication of periphyton biomass patterns at these sites, particularly if, or how often “nuisance” levels of periphyton growth occur.

Wairoa and Northern Catchments: States and Trends of River Water Quality and Ecology

26. This report summarises states and trends in river water quality and ecology in the Wairoa River catchment. The report is 1 of 6 State of the Environment (SOE) reports for the Hawke’s Bay region summarising river water quality and ecology data. These reports form the detailed regional 5 yearly review of surface water quality and ecology and are an update from the previous round of reports completed in 2009. The six SOE reports cover the following sub regions.

27. The Wairoa River is located in the northern part of Hawke’s Bay Region, draining to the sea at the township of Wairoa, and is Hawke’s Bay’s largest catchment at 3,670 km². The upper boundaries of the catchment lie in the indigenous forest of Te Urewera National Park, and include Lake Waikaremoana. The subregion also includes a number of coastal catchments, including those of the Waihua, Kopuawhara and Opoutama Streams and the Mahia Peninsula.

28. There are 12 SOE monitoring sites in the Wairoa River/Northern Coastal catchment. The water quality and ecological data collected at these sites form the basis for the analysis presented in this report.

29. Ten of the SOE sites are within the Wairoa River catchment. They consist of 3 small streams located in the upper catchment above Lake Waikaremoana in Te Urewera National Park (Mokau, Te Kumi and Aniwhaniwa), and another small stream (Te Iringaowhare), which contributes to the Waiau River. Four further sites are mid-sized rivers, with an upstream catchment size of approximately 500 km². Of these, the Waikaretaheke River is located below the outlet of Lake Waikaremoana, and the Ruakituri, Hangaroa and Mangapoike Rivers drain the north-eastern area of the Wairoa catchment. Further downstream is an SOE site located on the Wairoa River itself, upstream of the Wairoa Township. This site is influenced by the tide.

30. The 2 other monitoring sites are located on the Kopuawhara and the Opoutama Streams, which drain north and south of the tombolo which connects the Mahia peninsula to the rest of Hawke’s Bay. These are small lowland streams with catchment areas of 68 km² (Kopuawhara), and 14.8 km² (Opoutama).

31. Water quality and ecological indicators monitored as part of the SOE monitoring programme may be considered in the following groups.

31.1. Microbiological water quality indicators, such as E. coli, which provides an indication of the level of health risk to recreational users of the water

31.2. Basic physico-chemical indicators, such as temperature, dissolved oxygen and pH

31.3. Indicators associated with the visual appearance of the water, such as visual water clarity and turbidity

31.4. Toxicants, such as nitrate-nitrogen and ammoniacal nitrogen

31.5. Nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, as controlling factors, or indicators of risk of eutrophication (excessive plant/algae growth)

31.6. Biological indicators of eutrophication (periphyton biomass) and ecological health (macroinvertebrate communities).

32. The various indicators were compared with appropriate guidelines to provide an indication of the state of water quality. Statistical analyses of trends through time were performed to determine whether the water quality indicators have been improving or degrading over time. For the relevant parameters, and where data were available, the various indicators were compared with the Regional Plan (RRMP) Guidelines, and with the National Policy Statement for Freshwater management (NPS-FM) (2014) Attribute States. Monitoring data collected during the 2009-2013 period indicates the following.

Microbiological water quality

33. All 12 monitoring sites fall into the NPSFM “A” Attribute State, indicating that water quality is generally suitable for secondary (e.g. wading, boating) contact recreation at all sites across the Wairoa and Northern Coastal catchments. In addition, 7 out of the 12 sites are suitable for primary contact recreation, with 6 sites presenting a low risk (NPSFM “A” grade), and one (the coastal Kopuawhara Stream) presenting a moderate risk (NPSFM “B” grade) to water users. The microbiological water quality is at times unsuitable for primary contact recreation at the remaining 5 sites, including the Wairoa River main stem upstream of Wairoa and some of its tributaries (Ruakituri, Hangaroa and Mangapoike Rivers), and the coastal Opoutama Stream. Microbiological water quality was generally stable over time across the catchment.

Dissolved Oxygen

34. Data available do not point to any significant issues associated with dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration or saturation at any of the sites, although it should be noted that the data are limited to ‘spot’ measurements, which are unlikely to capture the daily minima.

Water clarity and turbidity

35. Water clarity is generally relatively low and turbidity relatively high in the Wairoa and Northern coastal catchments. Unsurprisingly, the sites within or close to the upper, forested reaches of the catchment in the Waikaremoana area present the best water clarity, and sites further down the catchment, in particular the Wairoa River main stem, the poorest water clarity. It is interesting to note that the Te Kumi stream does not meet the RRMP guideline of 1.6 m clarity approximately one third of the time, indicating that the guideline can regularly be breached even under natural conditions in a catchment dominated by tertiary sedimentary geology.

36. Compared with other SOE sites in the region, most sites rank relatively poorly, with half of the Wairoa and Northern Coastal catchment sites in the bottom 25% of the Hawke’s Bay region for water clarity and turbidity.

37. No significant temporal trends were detected in water clarity, but declining (trends in turbidity i.e. an increase over time) were detected at three sites, including the Te Kumi and Aniwhaniwha Stream in the Waikaremoana area. The presence of temporal trends at 2 essentially undisturbed sites signals that natural factors such as climatic patterns may at least in part explain the trends detected.

Toxicants

38. Concentrations of nitrate nitrogen and ammoniacal nitrogen are always low at all sites, well below both trigger or guideline values, indicating that the risk of toxic effects from either nitrate or ammonia can be considered low at all SOE monitoring sites in the Wairoa and Northern Coastal catchments. All sites fall within the NPSFM “A” Attribute State for nitrate and “A” or “B” Attribute State for ammonia. Improving trends (i.e. a reduction over time) in nitrate concentrations were detected at 3 sites, including 2 sites in the Waikaremoana area and the Northern Coastal site on the Opoutama Stream. The presence of temporal trends at 2 essentially undisturbed sites signals that natural factors such as climatic patterns may at least in part explain the trends detected, although other factors such as changes in agricultural practices may also have played a role in the Opoutama catchment.

Nutrients

39. Nitrogen concentrations, both Total Nitrogen (TN) and Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen (DIN), were generally relatively low and meet the ANZECC trigger values in the Wairoa and Northern Coastal catchments. The highest DIN concentrations were measured in the Opoutama Stream, followed by the Mangapoike River.

40. Similarly, phosphorus concentrations, both Total Phosphorus (TP) and Dissolved Reactive Phosphorus (DRP), were generally relatively low and meet the ANZECC trigger values and RRMP guidelines, except in the Te Iringaowhare Stream, a small tributary of the Waiau River.

41. Compared with other SOE sites in the region, the majority of Wairoa catchment sites rank highly, with 9 of the 12 sites in the top third of sites in the region for both DIN and DRP.

42. Nutrient concentrations were generally stable over time across the study area, although improvements in both DIN and DRP were detected in the Te Kumi Stream (in the Waikaremoana area) and Opoutama Stream. Significant improvements in TN and TP were also detected, but only in the Te Kumi Stream. As already indicated above, the presence of temporal trends at 2 essentially undisturbed sites signals that natural factors such as climatic patterns may at least in part explain the trends detected, although other factors such as changes in agricultural practise may also have played a role in the Opoutama catchment.

43. DIN/DRP ratios indicate that, with 4 exceptions (the Waiau and Mangapoike Rivers, and the 2 Northern Coastal streams), most sites in the Wairoa catchment have nutrient ratios indicative of co-limited conditions. Given that concentrations of both DIN and DRP are low to moderate at these sites, this means that both nutrients are likely to provide a degree of limitation to periphyton growth. The more elevated DIN/DRP ratios indicate a dominance of P-limited conditions in the Mangapoike River and the two Northern Coastal streams. By contrast, the nutrient ratios indicate that the Waiau River is dominated by N-limited conditions, this being the result of very low DIN but moderately elevated DRP concentrations.

Biological indicators

44. MCI scores at 5 of the 12 sites (the 3 Waikaremoana area sites, the Waiau and Ruakituri Rivers) are comparable with those measured at ‘reference’ sites, indicate reference or close to reference conditions. Scores at 3 additional sites (Waikaretaheke River, Te Iringaowhare and Kopuawhara Stream) indicate generally good water quality. The Hangaroa, Mangapoike and Opoutama Streams have generally lower MCI scores, indicative of “fair” water quality. The Wairoa River upstream of Wairoa is the only site with MCI scores indicating poor water quality, although interpretation of the MCI score at this site is complicated because the site is influenced by tides.

45. Periphyton biomass levels across the catchment are generally low, and with 2 exceptions, are below both the 120 mg/m² ‘recreational’ and 50 mg/m²‘biodiversity’ thresholds. Data at the 2 sites where median biomass exceeds 50 mg/m²(Waiau and Ruakituri Rivers) are insufficient to provide a robust indication of periphyton biomass patterns at these sites, in particular if - or how often - “nuisance” levels of periphyton growth occur.

Porangahau and Southern Coastal Catchments: State and Trends of River Water Quality and Ecology

46. This report summarises states and trends in river water quality and ecology across the Porangahau River and Southern Coastal catchments. The report is one of 6 State of the Environment (SOE) reports for the Hawke’s Bay region summarising river water quality and ecology data. The reports form the detailed regional 5 yearly review of surface water quality and ecology and are an update from the previous round of reports completed in 2009.

47. The Porangahau and Southern Coastal catchments are located in the southern part of the Hawke’s Bay region and cover a combined total area of 1360 km².

48. There are 8 SOE monitoring sites in the Porangahau/Southern Coastal catchments:

48.1. Three sites on the Porangahau River: Taurekaitai Stream, Mangaorapa Stream and the Porangahau River main stem

48.2. Five sites in the Southern Coastal catchment: the Mangakuri River, Pouhokio Stream, Waingongoro Stream and Maraetotara River at Waimarama Road and at Te Awanga.

49. The Porangahau River and Mangakuri Stream flow into the Pacific Ocean on the east coast of southern Hawke’s Bay. They are spring fed systems with slow water velocities that are usually dominated by aquatic macrophytes. The soft sedimentary geology of the catchments provide for extensive reaches of fine sediment (muddy) substrate which may be interrupted occasionally by small pebble reaches. The Pouhokio and Waingongoro streams flow into the Pacific Ocean to the north of Waimarama, while the Maraetotara River flows into the Pacific Ocean to the north of Cape Kidnappers, at Te Awanga.

50. The Pouhokio, Waingongoro streams and Maraetotara River are also spring fed systems but with moderate water velocities that are usually dominated by cobble/gravel substrate with periphyton communities. During low flow periods aquatic macrophytes increase their coverage from the stream edges and can form mats in slower velocity areas of the streams. As in the Porangahau catchment, the soft sedimentary geology of the catchments provides for extensive reaches of fine sediment substrate in slower velocity areas.

51. With the exception of the Maraetotara site at Waimarama Road, all sites have extensive stream bank erosion caused by stock access and freshes that can come through during storm events.

52. Water quality and ecological indicators monitored as part of the SOE monitoring programme may be considered in the following groups.

52.1. Microbiological water quality indicators, such as Escherichia coli (E. coli), which provides an indication of the level of health risk to recreational users of the water

52.2. Basic physico-chemical indicators, such as temperature, dissolved oxygen and pH

52.3. Indicators associated with the visual appearance of the water, such as water clarity and turbidity

52.4. Toxicants, such as nitrate-nitrogen and ammoniacal nitrogen

52.5. Nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, as controlling factors, or indicators of risk of eutrophication (excessive plant/algae growth)

52.6. Biological indicators of eutrophication (periphyton biomass) and ecological health (macroinvertebrate communities).

53. The various water quality and ecological indicators were compared with environmental guidelines and trigger values to provide an indication of the state of water quality. Statistical analyses of trends through time were performed to determine whether the various water quality indicators have been improving or degrading over time. For the relevant indicators available, data were compared with the Regional Plan (RRMP) Guidelines, and with the National Policy Statement for Freshwater management (NPSFM) (2014) Attribute States. Monitoring data collected during the 2004-2013 period indicate the following.

Microbiological water quality

54. All 8 monitoring sites fell into the NPSFM ‘A’ Attribute State for median E. coli concentrations, indicating that water quality was generally suitable for secondary contact recreation such as wading or boating at all sites across the Porangahau and Southern Coastal catchments. When considering primary contact recreation (e.g. swimming), 6 of the 8 sites presented a low risk (NPSFM ‘A’ grade), but 2 sites (Taurekaitai Stream and Mangakuri River) presented a high risk (NPSFM “C” grade) to water users.

55. Annual E. coli concentration trends increased over time by 26% at Porangahau River and by 17.8% at Taurekaitai Stream, both in the Porangahau catchment. They also increased by 11.4% at Mangakuri River and by 19.1 % at Maraetotara River at Waimarama Rd in the Southern Coastal catchments. These were the only worsening water quality trends identified in this report.

56. All SOE sites in the Porangahau River and Southern Coastal catchments were in the worse 50% of all Hawke’s Bay regional sites. The Taurekaiatai Stream was the worst SOE site of the 8 considered in this report, and was in the worse 5% regionally.

Dissolved oxygen

57. There were no significant issues associated with DO concentration or saturation at any of the sites, except in the Taurekaitai Stream, where occasional low DO concentrations/saturations occurred. However, the data were limited to ‘spot’ measurements, which are unlikely to capture the daily minima.

Water clarity and turbidity

58. Water clarity was generally low in the Porangahau and Southern Coastal catchments. Sites on the Maraetotara River at Waimarama Rd and Te Awanga had the highest median black disc sighting distances (both at 2.2 m), and were the only sites to meet ANZECC guideline for recreational waters of 1.6m. Median water clarity at all sites (including the Maraetotara River) was well below the recommended minimum 3.5 m for ‘significant trout fisheries’.

59. Most sites - except the 2 on the Maraetotara River at Waimarama Rd and at Te Awanga - were in the worse 50% of the Hawke’s Bay region for water clarity and turbidity.

60. No significant trends through time in either black disc water clarity or turbidity were identified in the Porangahau and Southern Coastal catchments.

Toxicants

61. Concentrations of ammoniacal nitrogen were always low at all sites, and were lower than both ANZECC and RRMP guideline values (where high values are bad), indicating that the risk of toxic effects from ammonia can be considered low at all SOE monitoring sites in the Porangahau and Southern Coastal catchments. All sites fall within the NPSFM ‘A’ or ‘B’ Attribute State for ammonia.

62. Concentrations of nitrate nitrogen for all sites, except the Waingongoro Stream, ranged from 0.020 to 0.800 mg/L, well below any toxicity threshold. For example, a median concentration of 1.0 mg/L is the 99% species protection level under the NPSFM. The results were within the NPSFM ‘A’ Attribute State for nitrate (toxicity), indicating minimal risk of toxic effects to aquatic life.

63. The Waingongoro Stream had the highest nitrate-nitrogen concentrations of all 8 sites at 1.91 mg/L, which is between the toxicity threshold for 99% and 95% species protection levels. This site was within the NPSFM ‘B’ Attribute State for nitrate (toxicity), indicating some growth effect on up to 5% of species.

64. Trend analysis of these SOE monitoring sites shows improvements (decreases) in nitrate-nitrogen at the site on the Porangahau River main stem, but no change at any sites within the other catchments.

65. The Porangahau catchment sites and the Mangakuri River were in the better 30% of the SOE monitoring sites for the Hawke’s Bay Region, whilst the remaining Southern Coastal sites (Pouhokio stream, both Maraetotara River sites and Waingongoro Stream) were in the worse 40% of regional SOE sites.

Nutrients

66. Nutrient concentrations have the following patterns.

66.1. Both Total Nitrogen (TN) and Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen (DIN), were generally low in the Porangahau catchment and the Mangakuri River, and below the ANZECC upland and lowland trigger values. Dissolved Reactive Phosphorus (DRP) and Total Phosphorus (TP) were also generally low at these sites, except in the Taurekaitai Stream, where moderately elevated concentrations of DRP were measured.

66.2. Either or both nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) concentrations were low at all these sites, indicating strong nutrient limitation of periphyton growth. The Mangakuri River and the Porangahau River were co-limited, whilst the Taurekatai Stream was likely to be N-limited and co-limited. The Mangaorapa Stream was likely to have P-limited conditions, with some co-limited conditions. These sites ranked in the top third of sites regionally for both nitrogen and phosphorus.

66.3. The Mangaorapa Stream in the Porangahau River catchment, had the lowest N & P concentrations of all sites.

66.4. The Pouhokio Stream and the Maraetotara River were characterised by low to moderate concentrations of P, generally meeting the ANZECC trigger values, and moderately elevated N concentrations, generally exceeding or just meeting ANZEC trigger values. Nutrient ratios indicated that these sites were likely to be dominated by strongly P-limited conditions. These sites were in the worse half of SOE sites regionally for DIN, but in the upper half with regards to DRP.

66.5. Concentrations of both N & P were elevated in the Waingongoro Stream, exceeding ANZECC trigger values and RRMP guidelines. Periphyton growth at this site was unlikely to be limited by nutrient supply.

66.6. Neither N nor P was increasing in concentration at any of the sites. Decreases in nutrient concentrations over time were identified:

66.6.1. Significant improvements in DIN at the Taurekaitai Stream and Porangahau River

66.6.2. Significant improvements in DRP at the Pouhokio Stream and Waingongoro Stream

66.6.3. Significant improvements in TN and TP at the Porangahau River, as well as in TP at the Pouhokio Stream.

Biological indicators

67. MCI (macroinvertebrate community index) scores provide an integrated indicator of the general state of water quality and aquatic health.

68. MCI scores <80 indicated ‘poor’ water quality at all sites in the Porangahau catchment, whilst those in the Southern Coastal catchment had in-stream macroinvertebrate communities indicative of ‘fair’ water quality. The Maraetotara River at Waimarama Road was the only site with a median MCI score above 100, indicating ‘good’ water quality. MCI scores ranged from 76 to 101 and were in the lower half (46^th to 81^st percentile) of all regional SOE monitoring sites.

69. Periphyton is the brown or green slime or filamentous material coating stones, wood, or other stable surfaces in streams and rivers. It is a natural component of riverine environments, however, excessive (‘nuisance’) growths can affect both human use of the river and ecological values.

70. Periphyton biomass was:

70.1. generally low in the Taurekaitai Stream and the Mangakuri River, which was comparable to the Ngaruroro reference sites

70.2. generally low to moderate in the Porangahau River, the Mangaorapa Stream and the lower Maraetotara River (at Te Awanga), although a few samples came close to or slightly exceeded the 120 mg/m² ‘recreational’ threshold

70.3. more elevated at the 3 remaining sites (Pouhokio Stream, Waingongoro Stream and Maraetotara River at Waimarama Road), with individual samples significantly exceeding the 120 mg/m² ‘recreational’ threshold, clearly indicating that excessive (nuisance) periphyton growths occurred on occasion at these sites.

71. Data were insufficient to provide a robust indication of periphyton biomass patterns at these sites, and additional monitoring would be useful to better characterise these patterns, such as examining how often nuisance levels of periphyton growth occur.

Decision Making Process

72. Council is required to make every decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements in relation to this item and have concluded:

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

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

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

72.4. The persons affected by this decision are all person with an interest in the region’s management of natural and physical resources under the RMA, particularly those interested in water quality and ecology, and particularly residents in the three subregions covered by these reports

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

72.6. 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.

Recommendations

1. That the Regional Planning Committee receives and notes the:

1.1. Waikare, Aropaoanui and Esk Catchments: State and Trends of River Water Quality and Ecology report

1.2. Wairoa and Northern Catchments: States and Trends of River Water Quality and Ecology report

1.3. Porangahau and Southern Coastal Catchments: State and Trends of River Water Quality and Ecology report.

2. The Regional Planning Committee recommends that Council:

2.2. Approves publication and release of the:

2.2.1. Waikare, Aropaoanui and Esk Catchments: State and Trends of River Water Quality and Ecology report

2.2.2. Wairoa and Northern Catchments: States and Trends of River Water Quality and Ecology report

2.2.3. Porangahau and Southern Coastal Catchments: State and Trends of River Water Quality and Ecology report.

Andy Hicks

Team Leader - Water Quality and Ecology

Dr Stephen Swabey

Manager, Science

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager
Resource Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 01 June 2016

Subject: Ngaruroro Water Conservation Order

Reason for Report

1. This paper firstly provides an update about the Ngaruroro and Clive Water Conservation Order (WCO) application and secondly, outlines possible process options that could efficiently and effectively serve the needs of both the conservation order and regional plan outputs.

Background

2. An application for a WCO for the Ngaruroro and Clive Rivers was lodged with the Minister for the Environment in December 2015.

3. The RPC received a report in February 2016 outlining issues that would arise should the Minister accept this application. The concerns were raised in relation to the process of hearing the application, not the actual merits of the application.

4. The Minister was informed of these concerns (which are appended in attachment 1 for reference.)

5. There is no time limit by which the Minister must make his choice. While a response from the Minister on whether the application would be accepted or not was expected by the end of April, no information is yet available about the application’s fate.

6. In the meantime, staff have been in contact with Ministry officials and the applicants in an effort to assist all parties in developing a process that will allow the necessary decision making to be done in such a way as to meet the needs and requirements of a Water Conservation Order process as well as the TANK plan change process. These discussions are an attempt to address the issues raised in the February report.

7. This paper explains the suggestions and potential approach to the WCO and TANK plan change processes arising from those discussions.

8. No decision by the RPC is required as there is no information yet about the WCO on which to base any recommendations. However, this paper suggests a cost effective and efficient approach that the RPC will receive further information on as more information becomes available.

Decision Steps in Regional Plans and WCOs Processes

Identifying the Values and their Significance

9. The WCO process requires identification and assessment of the values of the rivers to which an application applies. A Conservation Order is designed to preserve in a natural state any water body that is outstanding. It can also protect characteristics that a water body has or contributes to and which are considered outstanding as a habitat, fishery, or for scenic, scientific and social values.

10. A regional plan development process that will give effect to the NPSFM 2014 must also identify and appropriately provide for the values a community holds for its water bodies. These values must include the specified compulsory national values of ecosystem health and human health for recreation plus any others which might be determined by the community.

11. In addition, the plan must also protect the significant values of outstanding water bodies.

12. Attachment 2 provides a summary of the values and their significance as identified in the WCO application. Attachment 2 also provides a brief description of the matters considered in assigning significance and criteria that were used in the application. The TANK Group could use (assess and review) this information in making any recommendations about the values of these rivers

Mechanism for protection

13. Once identified and agreed as outstanding, values of freshwater bodies can be provided for in either in a conservation order or through a regional plan. Terrestrial landscapes and natural features are typically identified and provided for in district plans.

14. A Conservation Order provides a high (national) level of recognition and a high level of protection to the rivers it applies to. It provides a longer term protection mechanism for water bodies compared to a regional plan.

15. The ability to amend a WCO is greatly restricted for two years following the Order being made. After that any applications to amend an Order are treated as if they are an application for an Order.

16. A regional plan can also recognise and provide for outstanding values and in fact is specifically required by the NPS to protect significant values of outstanding water bodies. A plan must include methods, including rules that ensure objectives for those water bodies can be met.

17. A plan can be reviewed and refined by the council, and a review is required every ten years, although a council may review a plan at any time (a review may not result in a change).

Types of protection or management measures

18. There are no prescribed forms of ‘protection’ in the RMA nor NPSFM2014, therefore decision-makers have some discretion about exactly what policy method(s) are used for ‘protection’.

19. Both the Plan and a Conservation Order could impose restrictions or prohibitions relating to:

19.1. the quantity, quality, rate of flow, or level of the water body

19.2. the maximum and minimum levels or flow or range of levels or flows, or the rate of change of levels or flows to be sought or permitted for the water body

19.3. the maximum allocation for abstraction or maximum contaminant loading consistent with the purposes of the order, and

19.4. the ranges of temperature and pressure in a water body.

20. A Conservation Order imposes restrictions on the exercise of a regional council’s powers as they relate to water. Those restrictions are typically in relation to:

20.1. What a plan can or cannot include or do

20.2. What decisions a council can or cannot make regarding certain types of resource consent applications.

21. In contrast, a regional plan imposes the restrictions on resource users.

22. An order may specify specific restrictions on some types of activities, but it cannot affect or restrict any consent already granted or any lawful use established before the order is made. Any new resource consent application (including those made to replace an existing consent) will be subject to an Order.

23. A council cannot grant water permits or discharge permits contrary to any provisions in an Order.

24. A regional plan can be more adaptive, integrated and include a wider range of both regulatory and non-regulatory measures to achieve specified objectives. A plan has a potentially wider scope as it manages land use activities as well as water use and discharge activities. A plan may also establish rules that apply to existing water or discharge consent holders, or impose new restrictions or rule requirements for permitted water take or contaminant discharge activities that otherwise require consent.

Process for decision making

25. There is an overlapping requirement in both a conservation order and plan development process to identify water body values – especially outstanding values. Staff consider that the decision making required to identify and agree on outstanding water bodies is part of the TANK plan change process in any case.

26. The TANK Group will need to examine the case for ‘outstanding’ classification for the Ngaruroro River values and in particular identify any significant values of outstanding water bodies, if there are any ‘outstanding freshwater bodies’ within the TANK area.

27. It is still the view of staff that the preferred process would be to have the WCO application process follow the TANK plan change process. Many of the reasons for this preference were outlined in recent letters to Ministers (i.e. concerns in Attachment 1).

28. However, should the WCO application be accepted by the Minister, parties involved will need to consider how to manage commitments and involvement in both TANK and WCO processes in a way that reduces complexity and overlap and not increase costs for any parties wishing to be involved.

29. Upon notification of the Order and call for submissions by the Special Tribunal, all parties will need to make submissions to the Tribunal so that they can be part of the WCO process as well as the regional plan process.

30. The Special Tribunal has authority to manage timeframes and hearings of submissions in any way it sees fit. It is within the council’s, (and other parties’) scope to bring the Tribunal’s attention to the TANK plan change process and suggest the Tribunal co-ordinate their hearings with the TANK plan change process.

31. In this way the Special Tribunal can take advantage of the TANK project’s work to understand and provide for outstanding values, as well as include outputs of the science programme in deciding on the measures to be included in the Order. Nonetheless, the Special Tribunal is not obliged to coordinate or join the WCO and TANK hearing processes.

Outstanding Values

32. There are as yet no recognised criteria for determining ‘outstanding’ in either a WCO or a regional plan context. The Council is working closely with the Ministry and Auckland Council on a Ministry funded project to develop criteria for outstanding (hopefully in a way that reduces the tension between how this term is used in the NPSFM and in the RMA itself).

33. Those Tribunals which have previously made decisions on the existing conservation orders all considered various characteristics, thresholds and evidence about water body values that contributed to its outstanding classification. There is no “template” for decisions on WCOs and no consistent methodology as each application is heard on a case by case basis.

34. However, it is reasonably clear that “outstanding” does mean out of the ordinary – and for a conservation order this is at a national scale. For the NPSFM, it is less clear about the scale at which ‘outstanding’ is to be considered – in either case, there will be a need to decide where the water body is deserving of national recognition through a WCO.

35. The evidence submitted with the Ngaruroro WCO application, while still needing wider assessment, does indicate that the natural and social values of the upper Ngaruroro River are clearly at a very high level of significance.

36. There is potentially much wider debate on the significance of the values in the lower Ngaruroro and Clive rivers.

37. Decisions in relation to both the significance of the values and the measures required to provide for them will be able to take advantage of the science and policy programme currently set up to support the TANK plan change process.

38. There was a concern expressed in the previous report to the RPC about the nature of ‘collaboration’ by the TANK Group where some of its members are party to the WCO application. There is still a need for either a Tribunal process or the TANK plan change process for a decision to be made on the level of significance of the river values. Despite the parties having established positions, it is still considered possible for the TANK collaborative process to reduce the areas of contention and thus assist in reducing the costs of either a Schedule 1 RMA hearing or a Special Tribunal hearing process.

Recommendation for WCO or Plan mechanism

39. Should the TANK Group agree and confirm that all or parts of Ngaruroro and Clive Rivers do have outstanding values that warrant protection at a national level through an order, it could make a recommendation to the Regional Planning Committee and the Council to that effect. The Council (and any other submitters) could provide this information to the Tribunal in support of submissions. Note that this could also be an outcome if the Conservation Order application is not accepted by the Minister in immediate future.

40. A community approach to a water conservation order application is unique and possibly optimistic, however, the process of arriving at this level of community support is a powerful and cost effective approach to establishing WCOs.

41. Staff are not as optimistic about the fate of the application for the lower Ngaruroro and Clive rivers. Any such conclusion is obviously yet to be considered by the Regional Planning Committee and Council, so that view remains a staff view. It is likely that if the applicants persist with this part of the application, a Special Tribunal hearing process will eventually be required. The TANK Group could nonetheless agree some aspects of the lower reaches are outstanding and deserving of particular attention in a regional plan.

Conclusions

42. Any duplication of decision making processes through both regional plan development and Special Tribunal (should the Minister form one) will increase costs and complexity and should be avoided.

43. Staff will continue to advise to the RPC, ministry officials, applicants and stakeholders a combined a WCO and TANK plan change process that reduces costs and confusion, and which take advantage of and is aligned with the TANK plan change process.

44. This TANK plan change process, as well as taking a collaborative approach to decision making, is also supported by an extensive science programme that will assist the Special Tribunal in its own deliberations.

Decision Making Process

45. Council is required to make every decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements 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 Regional Planning Committee receives and notes the “Ngaruroro Water Conservation Order Update” report.

Mary-Anne Baker

Senior Planner

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

James Palmer

Group Manager
Strategic Development

Attachment/s

1	RPC Concerns Expressed to Minister
2	Water Body Values & Significance as per Ngaruroro WCO Application

[1] Ngai Tuhoe has chosen not to appoint a member to the Committee at this time, although they have the right to at any time. Once the Regional Planning Committee Bill is passed He Toa Takitini will have the ability to appoint a second member to the Committee, bringing the total number of appointees to 18.

Item	Topic	Councillor / Staff
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.