Agenda of Regional Planning Committee

Meeting of the Regional Planning Committee

Date: Wednesday 23 November 2016

Time: 10.00am

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

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

Decision Items

5. Proposed Plan Change for Oil and Gas Exploration Activities 9

6. Water Conservation Order Application (Ngaruroro River): Update and Draft 15

7. NZ Petroleum & Minerals Proposed Block Offer 2017 and Offshore Seismic Survey 29

8. Tangata Whenua Representation on Council Standing Committees 39

Information or Performance Monitoring

9. Verbal Presentation of the Maungaharuru Tangitu Treaty Settlement

10. RMA Planning Cycle 41

11. Verbal Update on the Regional Planning Committee Terms of Reference Review

12. Update on the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri (TANK) plan change 43

13. Estuaries of the TANK catchments: Ahuriri and Waitangi Estuaries' Values, State and Trends 45

14. Lake Tutira Ecological Modelling Report 49

15. Recreational Water Quality 2015-16 Final Report 51

16. November 2016 Resource Management Planning Project Update 53

17. Statutory Advocacy Update 57

18. Minor Items Not on the Agenda 65

Parking

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

2. There is free all day parking further afield – on Munroe Street or Hastings Street by Briscoes.

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

4. If you do pay for parking elsewhere, please provide your receipt to the Receptionist for reimbursement – or include with your expenses claim for the meeting.

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

Regional Planning Committee Members

Name	Represents
Karauna Brown	Ngati Hineuru Iwi Inc
Nicky Kirikiri	Te Toi Kura o Waikaremoana
Matiu Heperi Northcroft	Ngati Tuwharetoa Hapu Forum
Peter Paku	He Toa Takitini
Rangi Spooner	Mana Ahuriri Incorporated
Tania Hopmans	Maungaharuru-Tangitu Trust
Toro Waaka	Ngati Pahauwera Development and Tiaki Trusts
Roger Maaka	He Toa Takitini
Allen Smith	Te Tira Whakaemi o Te Wairoa
Pare Hill	Te Uru Taumatua – Ngai Tuhoe
Alan Dick	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Debbie Hewitt	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Fenton Wilson	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Neil Kirton	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Paul Bailey	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 = 19

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 14 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

19 15

18 15

17 14

16 13

15 12

14 11

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 23 November 2016

Subject: Proposed Plan Change for Oil and Gas Exploration Activities

Reason for Report

1. At the Council meeting on 9^th November 2016, Council requested that the Regional Planning Committee (RPC) “consider proposing a plan change to the Regional Resource Management Plan (RRMP) to prohibit the drilling for oil and gas within the region’s productive aquifers and surface water bodies.”

2. This paper sets out several options for pursuing such a proposed plan change, and seeks further direction from the Regional Planning Committee (RPC) as to next steps.

Background

3. The effectiveness of the Regional Resource Management Plan (RRMP) in relation to managing oil and gas exploration activities had been considered by the Committee at two meetings earlier this year (1 June and 3 August 2016). Agreements had emerged from the Committee’s discussions that:

3.1. Two reports were received and noted regarding the effectiveness of the RRMP’s provisions for regulating oil and gas activities in the region;

3.2. An assessment of a plan change amending regulation of oil and gas activities in the region is not necessary until the 2020-21 review of the RRMP or an earlier related plan change is it presents (e.g. the TANK plan change) given the decline in industry interest in oil and gas exploration; and

3.3. Staff were requested to bring back to the RPC a statement of principles regarding potential oil and gas development in the region. NB: Those principles were presented to the Committee on 3 August 2016 but were not adopted.

4. Notwithstanding the Committee’s earlier discussions, the new Council at its meeting on 9 November, agreed that the Regional Planning Committee in effect, reconsider preparation of a plan change to the RRMP proposing prohibition of oil and gas exploration activities within the region’s productive aquifers and surface water bodies.

Prohibition on drilling for oil and gas within the region’s aquifers and surface water bodies

5. The Resource Management Act (RMA) has no statutory provisions that enable the Council to impose a moratorium or temporary prohibition on any activity regulated under the Act merely by passing a resolution. However, the Act does enable certain activities to be designated as prohibited activities by way of a change to the RRMP and such prohibitions can, and indeed must, be periodically reviewed.

6. Such a plan change requires that Council first consider the options and alternatives and their respective benefits and costs for achieving the outcome sought (i.e. a section 32 evaluation). The Council must consult a number of statutory agencies, iwi authorities and any other persons it considers appropriate regarding any plan change prior to public notification. Depending on what emerges from that consultation and s32 evaluation, the Council may then notify a proposed change for formal submissions and hearings. To justify such a prohibition within the RRMP the Council will at least need to demonstrate that the prohibition is necessary to manage the potential adverse effects on the environment and that the prohibition is consistent with the purpose of the RMA.

7. As advised to the RPC and previous Council earlier in 2016 staff consider that proposing a prohibition on drilling for oil and gas within the region’s productive aquifers is likely to be uncontroversial.

8. Central government, via New Zealand Petroleum and Minerals, has previously agreed to exclude the Heretaunga and Ruataniwha aquifers from exploration permit block offers and industry participants have informally indicated that they are comfortable with such exclusions. Furthermore, in the proposed block offer for 2017 the aquifers have again been excluded (this matter will be discussed further in separate RPC paper).

9. Options for progressing a potential plan change are set out in greater detail below.

Options for progressing a plan change

10. It is considered that there are three principal options for progressing with a plan change if indeed progressing a plan change is the Committee’s preference. Those three options are outlined below.

Option 1: Progress through the TANK plan change for TANK catchments, then other catchment-based plan changes as they are developed.

11. The TANK (Tutaekurī, Ahuriri, Ngaruroro, Karamu catchments) plan change is focussed on improvements to water quality, flows and allocations in the four catchments including the Heretaunga aquifer system, wetlands and estuaries.

12. As advised to the previous Council earlier in 2016 a prohibition on drilling for oil and gas within the Heretaunga Aquifer is likely to be supported by the members of the TANK Group who are working with Council staff to prepare a plan change for the Heretaunga/Ahuriri catchment area by the end of 2017. One option is to progress consideration of a prohibition on oil and gas drilling for the productive aquifers and surface water bodies within the TANK catchments and to consider similar prohibitions in other catchments as they are reviewed as part of the Council’s Progressive Implementation Programme for the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management 2014.

13. It is also noted that focus of the TANK plan change is much broader then just consideration of the aquifer system, and extends to broader issues around the management of land and water in these catchments. If the proposed changes are contested, there may be an unspecified delay before the plan change (including any new oil and gas prohibition for the Heretaunga/Ahuriri waterways) comes into full effect. Additionally, the TANK plan change will not likely to be operative for another three to four years, (based on notification end of 2017, plus 12-18 months for submissions, hearings and decisions and a similar period of time for resolving any appeals). This means that the ‘status quo’ regulations for oil and gas activities in the Heretaunga/Ahuriri will remain until then.

14. There are pros and cons associated with progressing a region wide prohibition of oil and gas drilling activities as part of the TANK plan change itself. For example, there is some uncertainty as to the extent to which provisions of the RMA allow for region-wide prohibition on oil and gas exploration activities in a plan change that relates to a defined geographic area. If Council opted for this approach it is recommended that a legal opinion is sought for further analysis. A Queens Counsel has been identified and could undertake this work at a cost of between $10,000 and $15,000 should this approach be preferred by the Committee.

15. This uncertainty in part led staff to generate Option 2.

Option 2: Progress region wide alongside the TANK plan change

16. Rather than incorporating a region-wide prohibition in the TANK plan change, this option proposes running a regional wide oil and gas plan change alongside the TANK plan change process and timings (i.e. the timelines are run in parallel but content is mutually independent). Using the TANK plan change process timings may result in cost savings and efficiencies, as a result of being able to dovetail into current plan change processes (i.e. meetings and workshops, public notifications and advertising, costs associated with consultation and staff workloads). Similar timings would exist as outlined in paragraph 13.

Option 3: Progress discrete stand-alone plan change

17. The third option is to prepare a discrete plan change to the RRMP – not tied to any particular catchment-based plan change already in progress (such as the TANK plan change). The stand-alone plan change would be drafted to apply region-wide to the region’s productive aquifers and surface water bodies.

18. Given the inherent risks involved in the drilling for oil and gas and the potential impacts on regionally significant ground water resources staff consider a prohibition may not only be uncontroversial but also readily justifiable under the Act. The inclusion of surface water bodies, including lakes, rivers and estuaries may also be reasonably uncontroversial and may also be justifiable given the risks of containing contaminants in the event of well casing or well head failure.

19. However, proposing a prohibition on drilling within all catchments or aquifer recharge zones may be more difficult to justify as the risks are likely to be more readily managed at greater distance from groundwater or surface water resources, and the extent of any proposed prohibition is more likely to be legally challenged given the geographic extent of the relevant catchments.

20. If the Committee prefers a wide approach to any prohibition staff recommend seeking an opinion from expert RMA legal counsel on the extent to which such a prohibition might be justifiable under law. As noted above, it is likely that legal work would cost between $10,000 and $15,000.

21. As alluded to, preparation of a discrete plan change process requires significant resource due to the rigour required by the RMA. At present Council does not have in-house staff resource to carry this out as part of the current overall resource management policy work programme. This means that most of the necessary work will need to be contracted out.

22. Carrying out a standalone plan change may be quicker than incorporating it alongside the TANK plan change timelines, but will likely be costlier. In addition to the costs of engaging a contractor, the process to prepare the required legal and technical advice, particularly for the section 32 analysis and reporting on costs and benefits of a proposed plan change; undertake a first round of statutory agency consultation, and to receive and analyse submissions and to undertake the public hearings is estimated to cost between $100,000 and $150,000, including staff and hearings commissioners’ time.

23. Given prescribed timeframes in the RMA, the fastest that this could be realistically completed is six to nine months, but that will dependent on the number and complexity of issues arising during consultation and formal public submissions. $145,000 remains unspent in funds borrowed by the previous council in the 2015-2025 Long Term Plan to consider oil and gas regulatory matters.

Financial and Resource Implications

24. As noted above, $145,000 remains unspent in funds borrowed from within the current Long Term Plan, which was rolled forward into the current Annual Plan. There are costs associated with progressing a standalone plan change estimated between ($100,000 and $150,000), which include contractor’s costs and hearings time. This recognises that there is no in-house staff resource currently available internally to carry out this work. If the plan change is progressed as part of the TANK plan change, then the existing TANK plan change budget will need stretching to accommodate the extra element of oil and gas prohibition.

25. Legal advice for those matters identified above is estimated to cost between $10,000- $15,000. There will be costs associated with pre-notification consultation processes. It is likely that consultation process costs will be less for a specific-TANK catchment focus compared to a plan change proposing prohibition across the entire region’s productive aquifers and surface water bodies.

26. Regardless of whatever option might be preferred for preparation of a plan change at this time, the Council will still retain an ability to halt further drafting if issues emerge through the pre-notification consultation and s32 evaluation phases. In other words, a decision made today to initiate preparation of a plan change can be revisited, reassessed or even terminated if issues arise that warrant a change of approach.

Decision Making Process

27. 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:

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

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

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

27.4. Options for Council’s consideration are provided in the body of this report.

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

27.6. Given the nature and significance of the issues 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 “Proposed Plan Change for Oil and Gas Exploration Activities “staff report.

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 and persons likely to be affected by or to have an interest in the decision.

2.2. Agrees to either:

2.2.1. Progress a prohibition of oil and gas exploration activities within the Greater Heretaunga/Ahuriri catchment area’s productive aquifers and surface water bodies through the TANK plan change, and through other catchments as catchment- based plan changes progress; or

2.2.2. Progress a prohibition of oil and gas exploration activities within the region’s productive aquifers and surface water bodies alongside the TANK plan change process; or

2.2.3. Progress a prohibition of oil and gas exploration activities within productive aquifers and surface water bodies through a standalone plan change spanning the whole region.

2.3. Notes that there will be legal, administrative and resourcing costs associated with either option

2.4. Directs staff to report back to the Regional Planning Committee in early 2017 on details of a process to give effect to the Committee’s preferred option.

Authored by:

Rina Douglas

Senior Planner

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

Approved by:

James Palmer

Group Manager
Strategic Development

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 23 November 2016

Subject: Water Conservation Order Application (Ngaruroro River): Update and Draft

Reason for Report

1. This paper firstly provides a further update about the Ngaruroro and Clive Rivers Water Conservation Order (WCO) application and secondly, includes a draft submission to the Special Tribunal for the RPC to consider recommending to Council once the application is notified for submissions.

Summary

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 reports in February and June 2016 outlining issues that could arise should the Minister accept this application and a general description of the process and decision steps.

4. Concerns about the process of hearing the application in relation to the water management plan change process underway through the collaborative TANK project were raised with the Minister. The Council did not comment on the actual merits of the application, although it was concerned that its wide scope, associated with the limited range of matters that the Special Tribunal can take into account when considering the WCO application, also had the potential to adversely affect integrated decision making and sustainable management across connected water bodies and related land use.

5. Staff have since been made aware that the application has been accepted by the Minister, although no formal announcement has yet been made. Work is apparently underway in relation to the appointment of the members of the Special Tribunal.

6. This report provides further information about possible process management and is an opportunity for Council to consider its response should the application be publicly notified before the next RPC meeting in 2017. Should the application not be notified before the next RPC meeting, there will be further opportunity for refining and updating any submission to the Tribunal at subsequent RPC meetings if necessary.

7. It is anticipated that the WCO process will result in hearings commencing some time in 2017. Unfortunately, any hearings of the WCO are likely to commence ahead of the notification of the TANK plan change.

8. This report outlines possible Council direction in relation to a submission to the Special Tribunal (once the application is notified) in the event that this happens before the first meeting of the RPC in 2017.

8.1. This will ensure Council is well prepared to advocate for its own TANK process, at least as far as it relates to the management of waters (both in terms of quantity and quality) in the lower reaches of the Ngaruroro and Clive Rivers, their tributaries and connected groundwater.

8.2. This will also enable Council to maintain (and protect) existing community and key stakeholder engagement in the TANK process and provide reassurance to those stakeholders as to the ongoing utility of the TANK process.

9. Staff continue to advise the RPC and Council to maintain a productive dialogue with the WCO applicants, with a view to encouraging them to withdraw the WCO until the TANK plan change has been notified, or at least modify the application as it relates to the lower reaches of the Ngaruroro and Clive Rivers, their tributaries and connected groundwater. If this reduction in WCO scope does not eventuate, this report provides recommendations for a submission including suggestions to the Tribunal for managing process.

Process

10. As previously reported, the impact of a Special Tribunal process on the TANK collaborative process could be very significant depending on how the decision making process is to be carried out, and could potentially be damaging to the TANK collaborative group approach.

11. Staff are still attempting to work with the applicants to discuss the most appropriate process for this land and water decision making for the TANK catchments.

12. The consultants working with the WCO applicants advise there is provisional support from the applicants for jointly considering efficient process; and have stated “They are very keen to expend the limited energy and resource for best effect….”

13. At the time of writing there had been no discussion with applicants as a collective, although there have been on-going attempts to convene a meeting. However, further information may be tabled at the Committee meeting.

14. Staff have been in conversation with some TANK stakeholders, and several have stated support for working with the council to advocate for efficient process. Some have also expressed concern about the continuing viability of the TANK Group should WCO process and timeframes over-ride the TANK Group’s efforts.

15. Despite not yet having had the opportunity to discuss process challenges directly with the applicants, staff consider it will be helpful to TANK stakeholders if Council and the RPC further develop their understanding and agreement about their preferred process and a potential position in relation to the application.

16. Given the TANK process, and associated decision making and science programmes associated with it, Council could also begin to consider content for its own submission on the WCO and how this might influence the decision making process. In this way it can also provide leadership and guidance for other submitters in relation to their contributions to the WCO process.

17. This paper recommends that the Council’s submission be made publically available once it is ready for lodging with the Tribunal. It also recommends that Council encourages stakeholders to consider efficient and effective decision making processes and to take into account the Council’s submission on this matter when making their own submissions to the Special Tribunal.

Identifying and Providing for Outstanding Values

18. Part of the decision making challenge ahead for the TANK catchment is making a distinction between:

18.1. a national instrument (WCO) that provides for preservation or protection of water bodies in their natural state, or where waters are no longer in their natural state, where the values warrant protection because they are outstanding and

18.2. a regional plan that provides for the sustainable management of a water body in a way that enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being and for their health and safety. (note also that the regional plan is also required to recognise and protect outstanding values through the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPSFM))

19. The WCO application covers the entire Ngaruroro catchment from the headwaters to the sea. It also covers the entire Clive River main stem from the Raupare Stream confluence to State Highway 2 bridge (inland limit of the coastal marine area).

20. The Hawke's Bay Regional Policy Statement contains policies (see POL LW1A, LW1 and LW2) in relation to the identification and subsequent management of outstanding freshwater bodies. This was included to provide direction about how it would give effect to the NPSFM 2014.

21. Council has signalled its intention to amend the RPS to identify outstanding water bodies and guide the protection of the outstanding qualities of them before any further catchment based plan changes.

22. The requirements of the NPSFM, RPS, RRMP and a WCO process all overlap in relation to the identification of the significant values of the region’s water ways generally and the Ngaruroro and Clive in particular. They all also affect the water management decision making by the TANK Group.

23. There is a timing and sequencing issue arising in terms of giving effect to the RPS, further work by the TANK in relation to the RRMP plan change (and ensuring that outstanding values in the TANK catchments are provided for), and the WCO process. It will be necessary to manage each of these carefully to avoid overlapping and inconsistent decision making, and confusion for interested parties.

24. As noted in the June report (RPC01062016) there is a lack of clarity around implementation of the NPSFM 2014 and the provisions of a WCO in relation to provisions for and management of ‘outstanding values’. This confusion in the national legislation and water management instruments, is being addressed in a separate report regarding the MFE-funded work on outstanding freshwater bodies criteria and methodologies. That report addresses identification of NPSFM 2014 outstanding water body values (refer to the commitment in RPS Policy LW1A) and is programmed to be tabled in early 2017.

25. This outstanding water bodies report will contain advice about identifying the region’s outstanding water bodies including in relation to outstanding values in the TANK area. The NPSFM requires that outstanding values are identified and protected. Any decisions made in the TANK process must also protect those values. This will need to feed into and align with future recommendations for changes to the RPS in respect of Policy LW1A.

Issues to be Addressed in a Submission

26. There are a number of issues and interests arising through the WCO application for the Ngaruroro that have special relevance for the Council as resource manager.

Sustainable Management of Resources

27. The Council is progressively implementing the NPSFM 2014. As part of this, the Council is updating and reviewing provisions for the sustainable management of the freshwater in the interlinked TANK catchments (including the Ngaruroro and Clive Rivers and associated groundwater). As noted above, the review is being done through the TANK collaborative process and is working through the issues and options surrounding identifying water body values, the objectives necessary to provide for them and the limits and methods that will ensure the objectives will be met.

Sustainable Management - Upper Ngaruroro River and Tributaries

28. The RPS currently recognises the range of values of the Ngaruroro River. It particularly acknowledges higher levels of significance for particular values including;

28.1. Regionally significant native water bird populations and their habitats,

28.2. The high natural character values of the Ngaruroro River and its margins upstream of Whanawhana cableway, including the Taruarau River

29. The upper Ngaruroro is also generally recognised as having high value for recreational activities, though these are not particularly referred to in the Council’s RPS.

30. Much of the upper catchment is Crown land managed by the Department of Conservation or Maori Trust land, with a limited amount of private land in the lower Taruarau catchment. Potential threats to the Ngaruroro water body values include hydroelectric power generation proposals. Some land use change is also possible.

31. The Ngaruroro catchment has been the subject of numerous hydroelectricity generation investigations in the past although none has advanced much beyond an initial assessment of hydrology, geology, dam locations, and feasibility.

32. Opportunities for land use change, such as conversion of land to farming or forestry, are restricted given the land tenure, topography, and access difficulties in the upper catchment.

33. The upper catchment river natural values are of a highly significant nature; the catchment is largely in an undeveloped state with near pristine water quality and there is a limited range of other land and water use values and opportunities that conflict with the existing intrinsic, recreational and natural values of the water body. These characteristics mean there is likely to be less regionally significant impact on the use and development aspirations or opportunities that exist in this part of the catchment.

34. For these reasons, staff are recommending that the Council support a WCO process to assess and confirm the significance of the Upper Ngaruroro values and the manner in which they should be protected or otherwise provided for.

35. Council should maintain a neutral position in relation to the actual merits of the application and act as a ‘friend’ of the Tribunal in providing any relevant data or information that might assist in the Tribunal’s decision making.

Sustainable Management - Lower Ngaruroro and Clive Rivers

36. There is however, a much wider range of values in the Ngaruroro River downstream of the Whanawhana cableway and the Clive River with some instream and abstractive values both having particularly high regional and potentially national significance. The importance of their sustainable management under Part 2 of the RMA for the local and regional economy and community wellbeing supports a recommendation that Council advocate in its submission that the management of these be addressed by the TANK process in advance of any WCO hearing. Any findings of the TANK process can then (via the RPC) be provided to, and be further resolved where necessary, by the WCO Tribunal.

Environmental monitoring information, data and modelling

37. The Council holds extensive records, such as hydrological information about water flows and groundwater levels, water use information, biodiversity and ecosystem data and land information. It is also working closely with local marae/hapū to ensure Māori values are properly identified and incorporated into its water management planning. Further model development is currently in progress and critical to assisting the TANK plan change decision making. This information is also able to assist the Tribunal in its decision making.

38. In addition to the information collected routinely as part of its resource management role, the Council has recently committed significant resources into development of ground and surface water models that will help predict water quality and quantity outcomes as a result of various land and water management regimes. This work was aimed at assisting the TANK decision making particularly in relation to

38.1. the minimum flow management regime for the Ngaruroro River below Whanawhana,

38.2. flows in the groundwater fed creeks in the lower catchment including the Karamu River (a tributary of the Clive River),

38.3. groundwater levels in the aquifers connected to both these rivers,

38.4. farm scale processes of nutrient generation and catchment scale processes of surface and groundwater flow of nutrients,

38.5. simulation of temporal and climate variations,

38.6. the impact of different combinations of allocation limit and flow management regimes on the security of supply of water to permit holders.

39. The TANK group is using these models to test the outcomes arising from different land and water management scenarios it is considering for the catchment.

40. In addition to the environmental modelling, the Council is working with Ngati Kahungunu and local marae/hapū to identify and incorporate māori values for water in the TANK catchments in its water management planning. It has also commissioned an economic and social impact study that will examine the wider consequences of different management regimes for the Ngaruroro River and Heretaunga Plains on the social, economic and cultural well-being of the affected community.

41. This impact study will be an essential input into decision making and will not only underpin the section 32 analysis required for the TANK process, could also inform any decisions needed as part of assessing the WCO application.

42. The submission can explain these modelling and analysis streams of work and underline their importance and relevance to the decision making process.

Management of the stability and flood flow capacity of the river

43. The Council has functions and duties under the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act and operates and maintains flood defence systems (including stop banks) around the Ngaruroro Rivers to protect people and property from erosion and flooding. The Council should seek that its ability to carry out these functions and duties are not undermined or reduced in any way by any provisions in any Order.

River Stability and Flood Carrying Capacity

44. The HBRC manages the river stability and flood carrying capacity of the Ngaruroro through the Heretaunga Plains Flood Control Scheme.

45. The Heretaunga Plains Scheme covers the low lying historic river plains of the Tutaekuri, Ngaruroro and lower Tukituki Rivers. It includes all of Hastings, Flaxmere and Havelock North urban areas, as well as most of the Napier urban area. The area directly benefiting from the Scheme covers approximately 39,000 hectares with a population of around 127,000 people living within the Scheme boundaries - approximately 82% of the Hawke's Bay population

46. The objective of the Scheme is to ensure that the Heretaunga Plains’ communities are very rarely affected by significant flooding, and that waterways within the Scheme are highly valued community assets.

47. The WCO application does not acknowledge this aspect of river management. It is important for the Council and its community that the scheme objectives are acknowledged, accounted for and continue to be enabled as a result of making decisions about the management of the Ngaruroro River.

Submission Regarding Decision Making Process

48. Assuming the scope of the WCO application as it is currently worded remains unchanged, key process, including decision making points that could be recommended to the Tribunal, are:

48.1. Notification of the WCO

48.2. Submissions made by Council and stakeholders, with Council’s submission containing:

48.2.1. Information about the work underway in relation to identification of outstanding water body values and any TANK group to input into this work

48.2.2. A request that the Tribunal commence hearing submissions only in relation to submissions on the Upper Ngaruroro

48.2.3. A request that the Tribunal acknowledge and allow for the TANK process to continue decision making about water management in lower Ngaruroro and Clive rivers as programmed.

48.2.4. A suggestion that the Tribunal await recommendations from TANK Group, via the RPC, on management of TANK water bodies. The Tribunal will receive information about areas of consensus and those issues remaining unresolved by the TANK process will be specified.

48.3. WCO Tribunal to commence hearings in relation to the Upper Ngaruroro (and to await outcomes from TANK process in relation to lower reaches and Clive River)

48.4. TANK process continues and delivers recommended draft plan change to RPC (with areas of consensus and outstanding issues identified).

48.5. RPC recommends draft plan change to Council for release to the Tribunal.

48.6. WCO Tribunal continues hearings in relation to remainder of application

48.7. Tribunal releases report and decisions.

48.8. Council to complete decision making for RRMP plan change for TANK catchments

49. This suggested decision making timing and structure:

49.1. supports the collaborative decision making already committed to and encouraged by Council

49.2. enables the areas of contest to be reduced through consensus decision making

49.3. allows the science programme to support the Tribunal decision making in a way that is coordinated and consistent with the TANK and the wider community process

49.4. builds on and is complementary to the relationship building and commitment shown by the TANK approach to the decision making

49.5. avoids loss of investment already made into the TANK process to date

49.6. reduces costs otherwise arising through adversarial WCO hearing process

49.7. minimises risks of inconsistent and overlapping decision making.

50. While the Council cannot manage this process directly it can work with the applicants prior to the Special Tribunal notifying the application as noted above. Council can also seek to advise the Tribunal about the issues and potential solutions through its own submission to any notified WCO application when it is made.

Options

51. Council to consider and make decisions about the content of a potential (draft) submission to the Special Tribunal in advance of the application being notified. This is because the Tribunal may proceed to notify the application and make decisions about hearings as soon as it has been appointed and Council should prepare for this eventuality. It also allows for other stakeholders to consider the Council’s position in relation to efficient and effective process when making their own submissions.

52. A draft submission is attachment 1 to this report. It may need to be further amended should the notified application vary from the current version and this could be addressed by committee members appointed to finalise the submission should it be notified before the next RPC meeting.

53. The other option is for the RPC to wait until the WCO application has been notified before making any decisions about a submission. The disadvantages of waiting are that it is still not certain as to when this might occur, and whether there will be sufficient time for the RPC to consider the content of their submission within any time provided for making submissions.

Financial and Resource Implications

54. There are no direct financial implications as a consequence of this recommendation, although the way in which the Special Tribunal responds to submissions and manages the WCO process may well have implications, included unbudgeted financial and time consequences for the science and policy teams of Council. Any such implications will be further reported as necessary

Decision Making Process

55. 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:

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

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

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

55.4. Options for Council’s consideration are provided in the body of this report.

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

55.6. 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. In any event, when the WCO application is notified, any person may lodge their own submission on the application.

Recommendations

1. That the Regional Planning Committee receives and notes the “Water Conservation Order Application (Ngaruroro River): Update and Draft Submission” staff report.

2. The Regional Planning Committee recommends that Council:

2.2. Adopts the submission in attachment 1, as a draft to be further amended by delegated committee members, and which is to be lodged with the Special Tribunal to hear the Water Conservation Order application for the Ngaruroro and Clive Rivers (once it is notified).

2.3. Advises the TANK Group of the submission recommendations and also makes the submission publicly available once the submission has been finalised.

Authored by:

Mary-Anne Baker

Senior Planner

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

Approved by:

James Palmer

Group Manager
Strategic Development

Attachment/s

Report to RPC - WCO update and draft submission

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 23 November 2016

SUBJECT: NZ Petroleum & Minerals Proposed Block Offer 2017 and Offshore Seismic Survey

Reason for Report

1. New Zealand Petroleum and Minerals (NZP&M) has extended invitations to the Hawke's Bay Regional Council, other local authorities and tangata whenua groups to provide comments on its proposed Block Offer 2017 for petroleum exploration. The deadline for comments to be lodged is 18 November 2017, however, staff have requested and been granted a one week extension (until Friday 25 November) to enable this matter to be considered by the Regional Planning Committee.

2. Staff have prepared draft comments (see Attachment 2) for the Committee to consider. Given there is only a matter of days between this Committee meeting and deadline for comments, there will be no opportunity for referring on to the Council meeting (30 November) for further and final consideration.

3. It is worth noting that these draft comments are virtually identical to the Council’s comments made in respect of the 2015 and 2016 proposed Block Offers which related to slightly different parts of the offshore Pegasus Basin.

Proposed Block Offer 2017

4. NZP&M (a branch of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment) administers the Block Offer 2017 process and is seeking the Council’s comments on specific areas of consultation in and near the Hawke's Bay region (see location map in Attachment 1).

5. The Block Offer process is a process through which the Government seeks to attract companies that have a demonstrated ability to prospect, explore and mine petroleum in a “safe and environmentally responsible way”. Exploration won’t necessarily be undertaken in all the blocks on offer.

6. The Block Offer 2017 requires bidders to submit ‘staged work programme bids’ – where bids are submitted to undertake a work programme to explore for petroleum resources. The specific exploration activities^{^[1]} to be undertaken in a permitted area are not determined as part of the Block Offer process. The Government is consulting on a total 508,691 square kilometres across two onshore block areas, one onshore/nearshore block area and four offshore block areas. The areas being consulted on generally exclude any existing permits, and do not include any World Heritage sites, Marine Reserves or areas listed in Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991.

7. In relation to the Hawke's Bay region, the proposed area for consultation is the Offshore Pegasus East Coast basin (75,180 km²) (see Attachment 1).

8. Some of that proposed offshore area lies beyond the region’s 12 nautical mile limit. Provisions of the Hawke's Bay Regional Coastal Environment Plan (RCEP) do not apply beyond the 12 nautical mile limit (approximately 22 kilometres offshore).

9. The Minister says feedback from iwi and local authorities ensures that any areas of sensitivity are carefully considered before the 2017 tender round is finalised.

10. NZP&M describe the purpose of the Block Offer as being “to allocate petroleum exploration permits. In most cases, the sensitivity of specific sites is dealt with after a permit is granted. Protections in the regulatory framework include consents required under the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012.”

11. Staff have drafted comments on the Block Offer 2017. Those comments are set out in Attachment 2. These reiterate many of the comments Council made on last year’s proposed offshore East Coast Block Offer. It is recommended that the RPC considers and discusses those draft comments before being finalised and submitted before the 25 November extended deadline.

12. Following consultation with iwi/hapu about Block Offer 2017, and feedback from local authorities, NZP&M will prepare a report for the Minister. The Minister will then make a final decision on the blocks to be included in the Block Offer 2017. No further consultation will be undertaken with iwi/hapu and councils on the Block Offer 2017 and subsequent decisions on the granting of petroleum exploration permits.

Offshore seismic surveying

13. There have been accounts brought to the attention of this report’s authors that a vessel is working (or soon to commence work) offshore from the Eact Coast of NZ undertaking geological investigations using seismic surveying techniques. It is understood that the surveying is planned to occur outside of the 12 nautical mile limit.

14. Seismic surveys are designed to produce detailed images of rock types, and this information can be used to locate and size potential oil and gas reservoirs.

15. Beyond the 12 nautical mile limit, seismic surveys are managed under the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012 (the EEZ Act). The EEZ Act and associated regulations are administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Conservation. The Regional Council has no regulatory powers or duties for activities occurring beyond the 12 nautical mile limit and there is no statutory requirement to consult the Council on these activities.

16. A key part of regulations administered by the EPA and DOC regulation relates to management of impacts of seismic surveying on marine mammals. To that end surveyers are required to submit a range of pre-survey requirements, including a Marine Mammal Impact Assessment (MMIA). The purpose of this is to prove that operations will use best available techniques to minimise disturbance to marine mammals and other protected species.

17. Good practice guidelines have been developed by the Department of Conservation for managing impacts of seismic surveying activities on marine mammals. In addition, qualified MIMA observers are required to be onboard seismic vessels throughout the duration of the survey.

18. Should the Committee be concerned about the potential impacts of seismic surveying within the Exclusive Economic Zone on the regional marine environment then staff recommend highlighting these concerns in the aforementioned submission on the Block Offer 2017.

19. In the event the vessel undertaking the seismic surveying off the East Coast wishes to berth at the Port of Napier for supplies staff advise that maritime law and international maritime obligations require the Port to receive the vessel and as owner of the Port the Council does not have the ability to ban the vessel from berthing. Only the New Zealand Government has the power to ban vessels from landing at New Zealand ports and even then the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea tightly prescribes such circumstances and associated processes.

Decision Making Process

20. 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:

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

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

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

20.4. Options for the Committee to consider are outlined in the report.

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

20.6. 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

That the Regional Planning Committee:

1 receives and notes the ‘NZ Petroleum and Minerals Proposed Block Offer 2017 and Offshore Seismic Survey’ report from staff.

2 considers the draft comments (Attachment 2) and agrees that the Committee’s co-chairs work with staff to finalise comments on the proposed Block Offer 2017 for lodgement by the Friday 25 November 2016 deadline.

Authored by:

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

Approved by:

James Palmer

Group Manager
Strategic Development

Liz Lambert

Group Manager
External Relations

Attachment/s

1	2017 Proposed Block Offer Map
2	Draft Submission on BO2017

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 23 November 2016

Subject: Tangata Whenua Representation on Council Standing Committees

Reason for Report

1. It has been Council best practice for a number of years to appoint two members from the Maori Committee to each of the two Standing Committees of Council – the Environment and Services, and Corporate and Strategic Committees (and their predecessors). The Maori Committee appointees to these committees have speaking and voting rights.

2. With the establishment of the Regional Planning Committee (RPC) by legislation discussions have been held informally between representatives of the tangata whenua members of the RPC and members of the Maori Committee to gain a better understanding of their respective roles. One of the matters for discussion was to have only one Maori Committee member on the council’s Standing Committees and to have a RPC tangata whenua member on those committees also.

Discussion

3. It is understood that there was informal agreement reached by the RPC and Maori Committee representatives for this to occur. The mechanism by which this will happen is for Council to amend its Terms of Reference for those Committees.

4. In addition, at the workshop being held by tangata whenua members of the RPC on 22 November there will be a discussion on their appointments to the respective committees and they may well be in a position to make formal recommendations to Council via the meeting today.

5. The first meeting of the Maori Committee for this triennium is scheduled for 6 December, at which time the Maori Committee will make recommendations on its appointments.

6. The Terms of Reference for both the Environment and Services Committee and the Corporate and Strategic Committee include the following wording:

Members All Councillors, being (names inserted)

Two appointed members of the Maori Committee, being (names inserted)

7. It is recommended that the following amendments to the Committee membership be proposed to the Environment and Services Committee and the Corporate and Strategic Committee meetings on 13 December, for confirmation at the 14 December Regional Council meeting.

7.1. Members: All Councillors; One appointed tangata whenua member of the Regional Planning Committee, being (name inserted) and One appointed member of the Maori Committee, being (name inserted)

Decision Making Process

8. 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:

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

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

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

8.4. Options that have been considered include making no change to the Terms of Reference.

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

8.6. 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

That the Committee:

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 and persons likely to be affected by or to have an interest in the decision.

2. The Regional Planning Committee recommends that Council:

2.1. Accepts the following amendment to the membership as stated in the Terms of Reference for the Corporate and Strategic, and the Environment and Services committees to:

2.1.1. One appointed tangata whenua member of the Regional Planning Committee, being (name inserted) and One appointed member of the Maori Committee, being (name inserted)

2.2. Accepts the appointment of …. as the tangata whenua Regional Planning Committee representative on the Corporate and Strategic Committee

2.3. Accepts the appointment of …. as the tangata whenua Regional Planning Committee representative on the Environment and Services Committee

Authored and Authorised by:

Liz Lambert

Group Manager
External Relations

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 23 November 2016

Subject: Update on the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri (TANK) plan change

Reason for Report

1. The purpose of this report is to update the Regional Planning Committee on the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri (TANK) plan change. In particular, the report covers the progress of the TANK Collaborative Stakeholder Group and the commissioning of socio-economic work commissioned to inform the section 32 analysis (costs and benefits of different policy options). There is a separate report on the status of the Ngaruroro Water Conservation Order.

Background

2. The Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri area, consisting of the Tūtaekuri, Ahuriri, Ngaruroro and Karamū (TANK) catchments are being considered together reflecting the inter-connectedness of the Heretaunga Plains aquifer and surface water resources in these catchments.

3. A collaborate stakeholder group, consisting of 30 members from tāngata whenua (representing nga hapū and marae), primary sector, council and environmental interests was convened in October 2012 to represent the diverse interests in the TANK catchments. It is intended that by investing time and effort into a collaborative planning approach upfront will reduce areas of contention when the plan is notified.

4. The role of the TANK Collaborative Stakeholder Group is to provide the Regional Planning Committee (RPC) with consensus recommendations regarding objectives, policies and methods including rules for a new chapter of the Regional Resource Management Plan (RRMP). The RPC has agreed to have particular regard to any TANK consensus outcome, if one emerges. The plan change is on track to be recommended by the TANK Group to the RPC in December 2017.

TANK Group

5. Meeting 24 of the TANK Group was held on 4 November 2016. The meeting went well with good participation and discussion. It covered groundwater management along with the state and trend of grounwater quality, followed by a discussion on how to reduce sediment in surface water.

6. Sediment is emerging as on of the critical management issues in the TANK catchment. The TANK Group are working towards setting an objective for reducing sediment loss and agreeing the best package of mitigation measures to acheive that objective. Measures include stock exclusion and vegetation and will have co-benefits of reducing nutrients and E.coli in freswater. Council is investigating ways to better understand the impact of sediment on the coastal marine enviroment to inform the TANK Group’s decision-making.

7. At the meeting it was also agreed to commission a report on the potential growth and demand for water bottling in the region. This will be reported back to the TANK Group early in the new year.

8. As per the work programme (adopted by the RPC in April 2016), small working groups have been established to enable more detailed examination of specific topics. To date, the following working groups are up and running: Stormwater, Community Engagement, Mana Whenua and Economic Assessments. Wetlands and Water Augmentation have been identified as potential working groups to convene in the new year.

Socio-Economic Impact Assessments

9. A key output of the Economics Assessments Group to date, is the commissioning of four separate but inter-related pieces of work to assess the social, cultural and economic impacts of different freshwater policy options in the TANK catchments.

10. The four parts include:

10.1. Part One: On-farm Modelling Assessment (Heretaunga Plains)

10.2. Part Two: On-farm Modelling Assessment (Pastoral Country)

10.3. Part Three: Regional Economic Impact Study

10.4. Part Four: Social Impact Assessment

11. A panel comprising HBRC staff and two representatives from the Economic Assessments Working Group, has evaluated responses against criteria agreed by the Working Group, shortlisted candidates, held interviews and at the time of writing, is in the process of negotiating with the preferred providers.

12. This work will inform the TANK Group’s decision-making and form the basis of the section 32 report. S32 requires new proposals to be examined for their appropriateness in achieving the purpose of the RMA, and the policies and methods of those proposals to be examined for their efficiency, effectiveness and risk.

Decision Making Process

13. Staff have assessed the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only, the decision making provisions do not apply.

Recommendation

That the Regional Planning Committee receives and notes the “Update on the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri (TANK) Plan Change” report.

Authored by:

Desiree Cull

Programme Leader

Approved by:

James Palmer

Group Manager
Strategic Development

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 23 November 2016

Subject: Estuaries of the TANK catchments: Ahuriri and Waitangi Estuaries' Values, State and Trends

Reason for Report

1. This report summarises the findings of the report titled ‘The estuaries of the TANK Catchments: Ahuriri and Waitangi estuaries and was prepared to inform the policy team and wider TANK stakeholder group around the state and trends that may impact on the desired values for these areas.

2. The report summarises the water and sediment quality, ecology and habitat aspects of the Ahuriri and Waitangi estuaries.

3. Copies of the full report have been provided to the tangata whenua representatives in hard copy, and to Councillors electronically, and will be available to others upon request early in December.

Background

4. Although management of estuaries largely comes under the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS), there is an increasing awareness that stressors that arise from activities on land need to be managed under the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPSFM). By managing upstream, to provide for the values associated with the downstream estuarine environment.

Estuarine Water Quality

5. Several variables are used to assess the overall health of the estuarine waters in both the Ahuriri and Waitangi estuaries. These include measures of sediments (clarity, turbidity and suspended sediments), nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus species), oxygen (dissolved oxygen), and productivity (chlorophyll a). Assessment of these variables indicates large concentrations of sediments and nutrients being directed to the estuaries. This is resulting in high levels of productivity (algal blooms) and low dissolved oxygen concentrations, particularly within the Ahuriri Estuary.

6. This indicates that sediment and nutrient inputs into these systems are compromising the aquatic ecosystems values of these estuaries.

Contact Recreation and Food Gathering

7. The Pandora Pond at the Ahuriri Estuary is currently classified as being in ‘Good’ condition for contact recreation. Rivers feeding into the Waitangi Estuary are classified as ‘Good’ – Tutaekuri River at Guppy Road, ‘Fair’ – Ngaruroro River at Chesterhope, and ‘Poor’ – Clive River at Guppy Road, based on microbiological water quality.

8. All other water quality attribute states suggested that they are not adversely affecting contact recreation values, although turbidity and chlorophyll levels at Clive River are likely to impinge on values at this site.

9. Shellfish collection at Ahuriri Estuary is not recommended due to faecal levels. Other edible species (e.g. fish) do not appear to be impacted.

10. This indicates that at some sites of the TANK estuarine catchments, the values of contact recreation and food gathering are adversely affected, particularly by faecal inputs.

Estuarine Sediment Quality

11. Sediments of the Ahuriri and Waitangi Estuary are demonstrating moderate (mid-Ahuriri) to high (Upper Ahuriri and Waitangi) levels of sediment stress. This stress relates mostly to silt/clay (mud) concentration within the sediment matrix, but also to nutrient levels in the sediments. Increasing trends in mud content were observed at some of the sites with moderate sediment stress, highlighting a need for remedial action to avoid these becoming highly sediment stressed.

12. Both Waitangi and Ahuriri estuaries have areas where contaminants from surrounding land use (industry/residential) are elevated. In the Ahuriri Estuary this is proximate to the Thames/Tyne stormwater discharge, in the Waitangi Estuary this is in the subtidal sediments of the Clive River.

13. These data indicate that sediment and nutrient inputs into these systems are compromising the aquatic ecosystems values of these estuaries.

Estuarine Ecology

14. Infauna (sediment-dwelling organisms) sensitive to elevated mud concentrations indicate that Hawke’s Bay estuaries may be experiencing moderate to high levels of sediment stress, with some sites also showing increasing trends in mud concentrations. Increasing mud concentrations are impacting on the benthic communities at monitoring sites with species intolerant to higher mud fractions being largely absent from sites where mud concentration exceeds 25%.

15. An overall reduction in sediment volumes entering the estuaries would increase the health of Hawke’s Bay estuary systems.

Estuarine Habitats and Ecosystems

16. Both estuaries are significantly altered from their original form by both natural and man-made events. This reduces resilience to other stressors which for these estuaries include; grazing, sedimentation, invasive species, human disturbance and stormwater discharges.

Fish

17. Both the Waitangi and the Ahuriri Estuary play a critically important role in the life-cycles of many fish species. These include many that are commercially important to the Hawke’s Bay coastal fishery, as well as important to cultural and recreational fishers.

18. Habitat alteration and loss are likely to have reduced the functional capacity of the estuaries for these life-stages, and water quality (particularly dissolved oxygen and nitrate concentrations) is likely to be limiting/toxic for some fish species.

19. Improvement in both understanding of fish distribution and abundance, crucial habitat needs, and reductions in sediment and nutrient loads would promote fish habitat and quality.

20. In general, the report highlights several areas where scope exists to improve the values associated with the Ahuriri and Waitangi estuaries, through upstream freshwater management.

Decision Making Process

21. Staff have assessed the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only, the decision making provisions do not apply.

Recommendation

That the Regional Planning Committee receives and notes the “Estuaries of the TANK catchments: Ahuriri and Waitangi Estuaries' Values, State and Trends” report.

Authored by:

Anna Madarasz-Smith

Senior Scientist - Coastal Quality

Oliver Wade

Environmental Scientist - Water Quality and Ecology

Heli Wade

Research Analyst

Dr Andy Hicks

Team Leader - Water Quality and Ecology

Approved by:

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager
Resource Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 23 November 2016

Subject: Recreational Water Quality 2015-16 Final Report

Reason for Report

1. To inform council of the results from the 2015/16 recreational water quality (“Rec”) monitoring programme. The Rec programme provides information to the general public and other stakeholders about whether it is safe to swim at popular bathing sites around the region.

2. Copies of the full report have been provided to the tangata whenua representatives in hard copy, and to Councillors electronically, and will be available to others upon request early in December.

Background

3. The Recreational Water Quality Monitoring programme is an annual summer programme undertaken by Hawke’s Bay Regional Council in conjunction with the Public Health Unit of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board and Territorial Local Authorities.

4. The 2015/2016 season (November to March) measured the microbiological water quality of 38 popular bathing areas was assessed. The results were compared with the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) and Ministry of Health (MoH) Microbiological Water Quality Guidelines (2003). Trends in water quality over time were also analysed.

Discussion

Marine sites

5. All of the 17 marine sites achieved 100% compliance with national guidelines, which is defined as when two consecutive samples collected within 24 hours fall within guideline values. This indicates that most coastal beaches are suitable for contact recreation most - if not all - of the time.

River sites

6. Tutaekuri River at Guppy Rd was 100% compliant with contact recreation guidelines.

7. Tukituki River at SH2, Tukituki River at Walker Rd (rainfall related), and Ngaruroro River at Chesterhope Bridge were worse than the contact recreation guidelines on one occasion (95% compliant).

8. Nuhaka River at Opoutama Rd was worse than the contact recreation guidelines on two occasions during rainfall events (90% compliant).

9. Wairoa River was worse than the contact recreation guidelines 4 times (80% compliant). Consequently, faecal source tracking samples were taken which indicated a ruminant source of contamination (i.e. cows, sheep etc.), with possible contribution from an avian source.

Estuarine sites

10. Pandora Pond and Porangahau Estuary were 100% compliant with national guidelines for both enterococci and E.coli.

11. Waipuka Stream and Kairakau Lagoon exceeded the contact recreation threshold 3 times (85% compliant). Consequently, faecal source tracking samples were taken which also indicated a ruminant with avian contribution as the likely sources of faecal contamination

Shellfish gathering

12. Two of the 8 shellfish gathering sites (Mahia Beach opp. Mahia Golf Club and Kairakau Beach) monitored in Hawke’s Bay were 100% compliant with MfE and MoH guidelines. Three sites failed to comply with 1 of the guideline requirements, and Porangahau Estuary, Te Mahia and Maungawhio Lagoon failed to comply with both. Mahia Beach has been compliant for 5 consecutive years.

Decision Making Process

Recommendation

That the Regional Planning Committee receives and notes the “Recreational Water Quality 2015-16 Final” report.

Authored by:

Shane Gilmer

Resource Technician - Water Quality and Ecology

Anna Madarasz-Smith

Senior Scientist - Coastal Quality

Dr Andy Hicks

Team Leader - Water Quality and Ecology

Approved by:

Dr Stephen Swabey

Manager, Science

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager
Resource Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

[1] Activities generally include seismic surveys, sampling, aeromagnetic surveys, geological mapping, geochemical surveys, geophysical surveys, compiling reports and analysing data, and exploratory drilling (which is not the same as petroleum production).