Agenda of Regional Planning Committee

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 03 August 2016

Subject: Statement of Principles Regarding Potential Oil and Gas Development in Hawke’s Bay

Reason for Report

1. The purpose of this paper is to report back to the Regional Planning Committee (RPC) with a statement of principles regarding potential oil and gas development in Hawke’s Bay in accordance with RPC 1 June 2016 recommendation “4. Requests that staff bring a statement of principles regarding potential oil and gas development in Hawke’s Bay to the Regional Planning Committee” to Council.

2. This paper presents some potential principles for the Committee’s consideration and input prior to being recommended to Council for adoption.

Background

3. 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 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 activities.

4. Meanwhile, Council had signalled, in its 2015-25 Long Term Plan, that before 30 June 2016 it would complete a report on the effectiveness of the Regional Resource Management Plan (RRMP) and Regional Coastal Environment Plan (RCEP) in relation to managing oil and gas activities, and report back to the RPC as to whether a limited plan change was necessary.

5. The following two reports (referred to as “the two reports”) were presented to the RPC at its meeting on 1 June 2016.

5.1. “Policy Review: Oil and Gas Exploration Development for HBRC” commissioned from van Voorthuysen Environmental Limited; and

5.2. “Review of the oil and gas exploration in Hawke’s Bay region & assessment of relevance of PCE’s recommendations for Hawke’s Bay regional plan” commissioned from Environmental Management Services Limited.

6. A key conclusion of the reports is that a series of changes to the RRMP are warranted, but that in light of the downturn in oil and gas exploration activity there are no imminent environmental risks and these changes can be made in conjunction with other plan changes in due course at lower cost.

7. Having considered those reports and the staff recommendations, the RPC agreed to recommend that Council:

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

7.2. Requests that staff bring a statement of principles regarding potential oil and gas development in the Hawke’s Bay to the RPC.

8. Both of those recommendations were subsequently adopted by the Council at its meeting on 29 June 2016.

9. This paper is intended to outline some potential principles and to seek feedback on them from Committee members.

The Principles

10. The Cambridge English dictionary defines a principle as, a basic idea or rule that explains or controls how something happens or works. Based on the RPC’s discussions at its last meeting, staff understand the principles are intended to explain or guide how the Council’s approach to regulating oil and gas activities in the region is chosen and implemented where existing regional plans and policies might be uncertain or unclear when applied to oil and gas activities.

11. The principles are developed to augment the Council’s existing tools (including the RRMP) – not to replace or override them - for managing the effects of actual and potential oil and gas exploration in the region. The principles themselves can hold no statutory weight under law but they signal to the community and the oil and gas industry the Council’s orientation toward managing oil and gas exploration and production.

12. It is noted that the RRMP does not specifically identify areas, such as the aquifers, where activities are prohibited. In order for such a prohibition to occur, Council under law is required to undertake a comprehensive section 32 analysis of options, alternatives and costs before any RRMP plan change can take place. This includes formal consultation with the public and statutory agencies and ministries, on any plan change proposal prior to notification.

13. For this reason it is not possible for any such non-statutory principles to constitute a de-facto prohibition on any activity. The RRMP’s rules remain as is – Council’s adoption of non-statutory principles does not (and cannot) override those rules. Only a proper public plan change process can alter the RRMP’s rules regulating oil and gas activities.

14. Suggested principles, with brief explanations are:

Principle 1: Council will adopt a precautionary approach towards proposed oil and gas activities where effects on the region’s resources are uncertain, unknown or little understood, and potentially significantly adverse

15. There are multiple interpretations of the precautionary approach, but one of the most widely used iterations comes from the 1992 United Nations Rio Declaration on Environment and Development which states that “where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of scientific evidence shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”

16. The principle is commonly used by environmental policy makers to inform decisions in situations where there is the possibility of harm resulting from a decision or a course of action, particularly when scientific knowledge on the issue is lacking. This principle has linkages with Principle’s 3 and 4.

Principle 2: Council will protect regional water resources, including rivers, lakes and aquifers, from the adverse effects of oil and gas exploration activities

17. A key concern frequently expressed by several interest groups and residents generally relates to the potential impacts of drilling activities on aquifers and drinking water supplies. As outlined in Principle 1, a precautionary approach will be adopted which will ensure rivers, lakes and aquifers are protected (insofar as the Council’s legal regulatory and decision-making powers allow) from the adverse effects of oil and gas exploration activities. This principle is also linked to Principle 4, and Council’s openness to new and emerging knowledge and technologies, but in a manner that is equally adaptive and flexible to new information.

18. As Council’s freshwater policy programme continues to develop and progress we will consider oil and gas issues as part of this work.

Principle 3: We will continue to be transparent and open in informing and engaging the community on oil and gas issues

19. Council recognises that there are concerns in the community about oil and gas exploration activities and the potential impacts upon the environment. It is important we continue to be transparent and open in engaging and informing our community about oil and gas issues in Hawke’s Bay, including clearly communicating opportunities for input into decision making. This extends to increasing community awareness about the effects of activities. This principle is not about requiring public notification of all resource consent applications for oil and gas activities. Decisions regarding public notification of resource consent applications remain subject to the range of pre-prescribed legal requirements (i.e. RMA) and policy requirements (i.e. RRMP) that this Principle cannot override.

Principle 4: We will be open to new and emerging knowledge and technologies and in a manner that is equally adaptive and flexible to new information

20. We will be open to change and be adaptive and flexible when approaching the issue of oil and gas exploration. Our understanding of the nature and impact of oil and gas exploration activities may change over time, as will the science associated with them. Our decision making will be evidence-based and flexible to provide for these changes and to ensure we are using the best available information and sound science for the region.

Principle 5: We will promote the sustainable management of the region’s natural and physical resources

21. Section 5(2) sets out the overriding purpose of the Resource Management Act (RMA); that is the promotion of the sustainable management of, social, cultural and economic wellbeing while ensuring sustainability, life supporting capacity and the management of environmental effects.

Principle 6: We recognise the multiple dimensions and roles of multiple agencies in regulating oil and gas exploration activities

22. Responsibility for regulating oil and gas activities is shared between multiple government agencies, together with Council and territorial authorities in the Hawke’s Bay region.

23. At a national level, the Crown Minerals Act and its associated minerals programmes and regulations control the allocation of permits and aspects of land access. Health and safety for well operations is regulated by the Health and Safety in Employment Act and other aspects are regulated under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. Furthermore, the Ministry for the Environment and Ministry of Innovation, Business and Employment are jointly working on the development of a national policy statement following publication of the PCE’s report and recommendations.

24. Council has responsibilities under the RMA to administer regional rules that control effects of oil and gas activities on the environment. City and district councils also have similar responsibilities under the RMA for controlling effects of land use activities.

25. This principle emphasises the many different aspects to oil and gas regulation, and that Council is one of many agencies with a part to play in the management of the industry.

Principle 7: Council will take a leadership role at a regional level in partnership with local authorities

26. As noted in relation to Principle 6, issues relating to oil and gas exploration span roles and responsibilities of each of the four territorial authorities, as well as the Regional Council. Principle 7 recognises the importance of consistency at a regional level. To promote consistency and information sharing in the development and management of approaches towards oil and gas exploration Hawke’s Bay, Council, in partnership with other local authorities, will take a leadership role. This principle is reinforced by the recognition that a range of agencies and organisations are involved with the regulation of the oil and gas industry (as outlined in Principle 6).

Principle 8: We are committed to working in partnership with tāngata whenua in managing oil and gas exploration

27. Management of natural and physical resources, including oil and gas, is one of our key responsibilities. Tāngata whenua are kaitiaki or guardians of the region’s natural resources and have a key role in the way these resources are managed both now and into the future. This principle emphasises our commitment to this partnership and we will work alongside tāngata whenua to ensure that they are actively engaged in policy making on these matters. For example Regional Planning processes and input to statutory advocacy matters such as submissions on Block Offers or national policy.

Principle 9: We recognise oil and gas resources form part of a broader set of energy resources in our region, both renewable and non-renewable

28. Oil and gas are not the only energy resources in Hawke’s Bay. We also have high sunshine hours which lend well to solar energy generation, and hydro generation from the Waikaremoana Power scheme is a significant contributor to the region’s electricity. There is also high potential for wind farms in the parts of the region. Additionally, the agricultural sector provides the area with potential bioenergy sources through fruit waste in orchards and wood from forestry.

29. We recognise that there are significant opportunities to capitalise on the non-renewable resources in our region. However, non-renewable resources will still play an important part of the region’s energy profile as we transition towards a lower carbon future.

30. To that end Council is currently progressing a separate piece of work that looks at the broader energy future of Hawke’s Bay, and includes the development of an energy strategy.

Financial and Resource Implications

31. There are no direct implications on current budgeted finances or resources if these principles are to be adopted. These principles can be used to guide other decision-making processes, but do not drive new actions and expenditure in and of themselves. For example, if these principles influenced Council to make a submission on a future proposed Block Offer process for exploration permitting coordinated by New Zealand Petroleum and Minerals, then that decision to lodge a submission would be subject to its own assessment of financial and resource implications at that time.

Decision Making Process

32. 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:

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

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

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

32.4. The persons affected by this decision are those with an interest in sustainable management of the regions natural and physical resources.

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

32.6. 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 “Principles for Oil and Gas Activities” report.

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

The Regional Planning Committee recommends Council:

3. 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.

4. Adopts the principles as set out in this report, with or without any amendments arising at the Committee meeting, to inform and guide future decision-making by the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council in relation to managing the effects of oil and gas activities within Hawke’s Bay. The principles will augment the Council’s existing plan provisions and other methods – not override or replace them.

Rina Douglas

Senior Planner

Gavin Ide

Manager

Strategy and Policy

James Palmer

Group Manager

Strategic Development

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 03 August 2016

Subject: Greater Heretaunga, Tukituki and Coastal SOE Water Quality and Ecology Reports

Reason for Report

1. Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (HBRC) 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 over time are occurring. Parameters include the physical and chemical attributes of the waterways such as nutrient levels (nitrogen and phosphorus), water clarity, suspended sediment, and dissolved oxygen levels. Parameters also include biological attributes such as faecal bacteria, periphyton (slime algae) and macroinvertebrate communities.

2. State of the Environment (SoE) monitoring and reporting is a key statutory function of the Regional Council. The parameters we monitor help us assess whether the life supporting capacity of the waterways is being maintained.

3. 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. SoE information is key for policy change processes, and serves as a contextual base to assess potential impacts of ongoing consent applications. Issues identified during State of the Environment Monitoring may lead to targeted investigations to explore the nature, extent and causes of suspected problems.

4. Here, water quality and ecology information collected from SoE Monitoring programmes between January 2004 and December 2013 is provided, covering the:

4.1. Hawke’s Bay Coastal Environment

4.2. Tutaekuri, Ahuriri, Ngaruroro and Karamu (greater Heretaunga / TANK)

4.3. Tukituki River.

Coastal Environment Report Key Points

5. The ‘State of the Hawke’s Bay Coastal Environment: 2008 – 2013’ report is the first report documenting the findings of the HBRC’s coastal SoE monitoring programme.

6. Hawke’s Bays coastal environments are subject to the combined pressures of activities occurring both on land and in the ocean. This report describes how Hawke’s Bay’s coastal environments are responding to these pressures, and details the state, and trends, within our current data for six coastal monitoring projects:

6.1. Nearshore water quality

6.2. Recreational water quality

6.3. Sediment quality

6.4. Estuarine ecology and sediment quality

6.5. Sandy beach ecology

6.6. Intertidal reef ecology.

7. The state of the majority of these environments is good with stable trends, with the following key exceptions:

7.1. There was evidence for increasing ‘muddiness’ at all estuarine monitoring sites, with an associated reduction in sediment-sensitive taxa (i.e. a deteriorating biological response)

7.2. 8 out of the 39 (20%) recreational water quality monitoring sites with sufficient data showed a deteriorating trend in faecal contamination, compared with 4 (10%) that showed an improving trend

7.3. Industrial and urban contamination was evident around slipways in the Napier Inner Harbour and near a stormwater outlet in the Ahuriri Harbour.

8. The most pressing issue for Hawke’s Bay’s coastal environments are associated with rainfall events carrying sediments and faecal matter to the coastal environment.

TANK Water Quality and Ecology Report Key Points

9. The report ‘Ngaruroro, Tutaekuri, Karamu and Ahuriri Estuary Catchments – State and Trends of River Water Quality and Ecology 2004-2013’ summarises state and trends in river water quality and ecology collected during the 2004 - 2013 river SoE monitoring period.

10. The report presents information on water quality and ecology parameters.

10.1. Nutrients (DIN, TN and DRP, TP)

10.2. Toxicity (nitrate and ammonia)

10.3. Water clarity

10.4. Bacteriological water quality (E. coli)

10.5. Dissolved oxygen

10.6. Temperature

10.7. Biological indicators (Algae and macroinvertebrates)

10.8. Compliance with NPS-FM attributes

10.9. Compliance with the RRMP.

11. The Ngaruroro and Tutaekuri catchment were in excellent condition in the upper catchment and showed some moderate nutrient enrichment and reduction in water clarity towards the lower reaches. Ecological parameters also showed a gradient from upstream to downstream, with increasing periphyton biomass, and declining MCI values towards the lower reaches. All tributaries except for the Taruarau had high nutrient concentrations, particularly phosphorus.

12. At all SOE sites in the Karamu and Ahuriri catchments nutrient concentrations were high (particularly phosphorus), and Macroinvertebrate Community Index (MCI) values indicated poor ecosystem health. Excessive macrophyte growth was observed at most sites. Karewarewa, Awanui and Taipo streams were identified as the sites most affected by poor water quality and ecology.

Tukituki Water Quality and Ecology Report Key Points

13. The report ‘Tukituki River Catchment – State and Trends of River Water Quality and Ecology 2004-2013’ summarises state and trends in river water quality and ecology collected during the 2004 - 2013 river SoE monitoring period.

14. The report presents information on water quality and ecology parameters:

14.1. Nutrients (DIN, TN and DRP, TP)

14.2. Toxicity (nitrate and ammonia)

14.3. Water clarity

14.4. Bacteriological water quality (E. coli)

14.5. Dissolved oxygen

14.6. Temperature

14.7. Biological indicators (Algae and macroinvertebrates)

14.8. Compliance with National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPSFM) attributes

14.9. Compliance with the Regional Resource Management Plan (RRMP).

15. The condition of sites within the Tukituki River catchment was highly variable. Effectively pristine conditions were observed in the upper Tukituki and Waipawa Rivers, as well as in the Makororo River. By comparison, extremely elevated phosphorus levels were observed in the Papanui and Mangatarata Streams, and moderately elevated nitrogen levels were observed in the Kahahakuri Stream. Similarly, MCI was highly variable across the catchment, with ‘excellent’ scores consistently observed in the Makaroro River and ‘poor’ scores consistently observed in the Papanui and Mangatarata Streams. MCI ranged from ‘poor’ to ‘fair’ at Red Bridge.

16. Notable points of concern and/or interest were:

16.1. 6 sites showed deteriorating trends in faecal contamination

16.2. 8 sites showed deteriorating trends in turbidity

16.3. Ammonia and DRP levels increased in association with wastewater treatment plant discharges on the Waipawa and Tukituki Rivers

16.4. 25 out of 30 sites showed DRP concentrations in excess (worse) than that recommended for limiting periphyton accrual

16.5. 20 out of 30 sites showed DIN levels in excess (worse) than that recommended for limiting periphyton accrual

16.6. 7 out of 16 sites had MCI scores in the ‘good’ to ‘excellent’ categories, with the remaining 9 scoring in the ‘fair’ to ‘poor’ categories.

Coastal Environment Report Summary

17. Hawke’s Bay has an extensive and varied coastal area that provides for a range of social, cultural, economic and environmental values. Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (HBRC) is responsible for promoting the sustainable management of the coastal marine environment. HBRC monitors the state of the environment to provide council with the information required to underpin decision making.

18. HBRC monitors water quality, sediment quality and ecology in a range of coastal environments.

Nearshore coastal water quality

19. Nearshore coastal water quality in Hawke’s Bay generally appears good. Land-based sediment delivery to the coast is generally high and variable, highlighting periods of fluvial sediment inputs and nearshore resuspension.

20. Nutrient levels are similar to or lower than other sites around the country. Relatively high levels of dissolved nutrients at Ocean Beach demonstrate that rivers are not the only inputs of nutrients and highlight the role of oceanic contributions.

Recreational water quality

21. The susceptibility of Hawke’s Bay’s recreational waters to faecal indicator bacteria is variable. Marine beaches tend to have a high level of compliance with Ministry for the Environment and Ministry of Health national guidelines and can be considered suitable for swimming most, if not all, of the time.

22. Rivers tend to have more variable recreational water quality, with heavy rainfall rendering some rivers unsuitable for swimming some of the time. Lagoons, at the bottom of the catchment, can exceed guidelines more frequently. This can be due to generally slower flows, with higher temperatures and extensive bird-life.

23. Faecal source tracking has highlighted the role of avian and ruminant sources when guidelines are exceeded.

Coastal sediment quality

24. Coastal sediments form the basis for habitats that support diverse benthic communities. The quality of this sediment is integral to the health of the broader ecosystem. In general, nearshore sediments away from point source discharges are well sorted, with low levels of trace metal contaminants. However sediments adjacent to boat maintenance and repair facilities, and stormwater outlets, have ongoing contamination issues. Concentrations of trace metal and organic contaminants exceed sediment quality guidelines within the Inner Harbour and Ahuriri Estuary (Section 5).

Estuaries

25. Infauna (sediment-dwelling organisms) sensitive to muddiness 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%.

26. In general nutrient and trace metal contaminant concentrations appear below guideline values for the majority of sites with significant contamination confined to areas adjacent to point sources and stormwater discharges.

27. A Traits Based Index (TBI) was applied to the estuarine macroinvertebrate data, and corresponded well to ‘muddiness’. Overall scores were low, although further work needs to verify the TBI fit to Hawke’s Bay data.

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

Sandy beaches

29. Sandy beach ecosystems include a vast array of tiny organisms in the infauna that support coastal fisheries, cycle nutrients and filter large volumes of seawater. In Hawke’s Bay the infaunal community composition is highly variable, with relatively low numbers of species and individuals. The highest abundance species are amphipod crustaceans, which are likely to be a key food source for coastal ecosystems. Vehicle usage of Hawke’s Bays beaches is high and vehicles can have a deleterious effect on infaunal communities. The designation of many beaches as roads remains a resource conflict for much of New Zealand.

Intertidal reefs

30. Similarly to sandy beaches, intertidal reefs provide both physical protection to the land from the effects of the sea, and areas of high biomass and diversity, supporting a range of ecosystem services and functions. Hawke’s Bay’s reef structures vary in character, and are largely dependent on the underlying geology.

31. The absence of the common algae Hormosira banksii from Hardinge road reef is currently not understood, and further work is required to explain this. Blooms of the cyanobacteria Lyngbya sp. at Te Mahia reef may also require investigation.

Overall

32. In general, many areas of the Hawke’s Bay coastal environment are currently in a state that supports the values and objectives of these systems. However some areas are currently showing signs of stress, and further work is required to ensure that the services and functions that underpin these values are retained.

TANK Water Quality and Ecology Report Summary

33. For the TANK region, Hawke’s Bay Regional Council is working through a proposed plan change. This report informs the plan change process - and the requirement under the NPS to set water quality limits to protect in-stream community values. This report therefore includes more detailed information than other SOE reports, including results from additional sites intended to fill ‘gaps’ in knowledge and specific studies for these catchments.

34. The headwaters of the Ngaruroro and the Tuatekuri rivers begin in the forested areas of the Kaweka Range (north) and the Ruahine Range (south). The upper catchments are mostly in native vegetation, and land use in the middle catchments is mainly dry stock farming and a few dairy operations. In the lower reaches where the valley gradient is less steep, land use becomes more varied, including vineyards and orchards. Dry stock farming is found in the surrounding hills, and peri-urban and commercial development is also present.

35. The Karamu catchment extends south from Awatoto to Havelock North and west to the Raukawa Range. The Karamu catchment is the main region in Hawke’s Bay for orchards, cropping, and viticulture, while the southwestern half of the catchment mostly supports dryland sheep and beef. The exception to this pattern is the Poukawa Basin, which is a significant cropping area. Waterways in the Karamu catchment have been extensively modified for flood protection purposes.

36. The Ahuriri is Hawke’s Bay’s most urbanised catchment, and includes the settlement of Napier and surrounding suburbs, north to Bay View and south to Awatoto.

37. The Tutaekuri, Ngarururo and Karamu rivers meet the sea at the Waitangi estuary. The estuary includes a variety of habitats, including open water, intertidal flats, salt marsh, and two associated freshwater wetlands at Muddy Creek and The Horseshoe.

38. Due to significant differences in the stream ‘types’ of the Ngaruroro and Tutaekuri catchments in comparison to the Karamu and Ahuriri catchments the following SOE Technical report presents and discusses data on the Ngaruroro and Tutaekuri Rivers independent of the Karamu and Ahuriri.

39. The following conclusions can be drawn from the data, analysis and information presented in this report.

Ngaruroro and Tutaekuri catchments

40. The Ngaruroro main stem was in excellent condition in the upper to middle catchment. The lower reaches showed some minor enrichment in nutrients and a decrease in water clarity. Water quality parameters showed a minor upstream to downstream decline, which was reflected in the biological indicators of periphyton biomass and macroinvertebrate community. Overall water quality and ecology of the Ngaruroro River main stem was healthy. The Taruarau tributary also showed excellent water quality and ecological health.

41. The Ngaruroro tributaries (other than the Taruarau River) were enriched in nutrients, especially phosphorus, which was always above guideline levels. The influence of nutrient loads coming from the tributaries into the main stem had only a minor effect on the water quality in the main stem Ngaruroro, because large volumes of water with high water quality from the pristine upper catchment dilutes the influence of the tributaries.

42. The Tutaekuri main stem showed some enrichment in nutrients from upstream to downstream, particularly in phosphorus. Ecological parameters also showed a gradient from upstream to downstream, with increasing periphyton biomass, and MCI values declined from excellent to fair towards the lower reaches.

43. Tutaekuri tributaries had water quality issues similar to the Ngaruroro tributaries, with elevated nutrient concentrations. The high phosphorus concentrations were mostly above guidelines. MCI was good across all tributary sites and periphyton biomass was high in the Mangatutu Stream, and low in the upper Mangaone. The effect of tributary nutrient loads on main stem water quality was greater in the Tutaekuri than in the Ngaruroro, because the volume of water coming from the pristine upper catchment is lower and the dilution effect less than in the Ngaruroro.

44. Toxicity effects on aquatic organisms from nitrate and ammonia were not an issue anywhere in the Ngaruroro and Tutaekuri catchments, as concentrations were always low. In the case of ammonia levels were mostly below detection limit. Escherichia coli (E. coli) levels were very low in both catchments and were below the lowest guideline (‘alert’) level.

Karamu and Ahuriri catchments

45. Nitrogen concentrations are variable across sites, with very high concentrations in the Karewarewa, Awanui, Mangarau at Te Aute Road and Clive River. Phosphorus concentrations are very high and always above guidelines at all sites.

46. Water clarity was low and generally did not comply with the contact recreation guideline at most of the sites.

47. Median E. coli concentrations were at or below the MfE recreation guideline ‘Alert/Amber mode’ at most of the sites except the Karewarewa, Herehere and Taipo streams. The Herehere Stream had the highest median E. coli concentration, which was close to the MfE ‘Action/Red mode’.

48. Toxicity risk for aquatic organisms was generally low, with the exception of the Karewarewa, Awanui and Taipo streams. These had elevated ammoniacal-nitrogen at times, and nitrate-nitrogen concentrations that maintain 90% species protection but exceeded the 99% species protection threshold.

49. Biological indicators showed high macrophyte growth and poor MCI values that indicated the streams were severely impacted.

50. The poor MCI values triggered a targeted study to identify major stressors in the Karamu and Ahuriri catchments. High water temperature, low dissolved oxygen minima and poor habitat were identified to be major stressors in the streams where MCI was particularly low. Excessive macrophyte growth was a contributing factor to the severely low oxygen levels.

51. Overall, nutrient concentrations were high (particularly phosphorus), at all SOE sites in the Karamu and Ahuriri catchments, and MCI values indicated poor ecosystem health. Excessive macrophyte growth was observed at most sites, but the Karewarewa, Awanui and Taipo streams were the most affected sites.

Tukituki Water Quality and Ecology Report Summary

52. The Tukituki catchment extends from the Ruahine Ranges, where the Tukituki and Waipawa Rivers take their source, to the Pacific Ocean on the East Coast of Hawke’s Bay. The catchment covers an area of approximately 2,500 km² and encompasses five management zones: the Upper Tukituki/Waipawa, Ruataniwha North, Ruataniwha South, Papanui and Lower Tukituki corridor.

53. A key feature of the Tukituki catchment is the degree of interaction between surface and groundwater in the Ruataniwha Aquifer, which deeply influences both the hydrology and the water quality of streams and rivers within the Ruataniwha Plains, and of the middle and lower reaches of the Tukituki River itself. Spatial and temporal patterns of river flows and water quality in the Tukituki catchment cannot be understood without an appreciation of this groundwater influence.

54. The upper parts of the Ruataniwha Plains are identified as a groundwater recharge area, where rivers flowing down from the Ruahine Ranges and foothill lose flow to the aquifer, to a point where reaches of the Waipawa and Tukituki River are known to dry up in summer. By contrast, the lower parts of the Ruataniwha Plains are characterised by groundwater upwelling back into spring-fed streams and the main stems of the Tukituki and Waipawa Rivers, contributing a major part of the surface flows in these rivers during dry periods. With groundwater comes dissolved nutrients (in particular nitrate-nitrogen), which strongly influence the spatial and temporal patterns of water quality described in this report.

55. This report is based on water quality and ecological data collected at 30 State of the Environment (‘’SOE”) and compliance monitoring sites across the five water management zones (Upper Tukituki/Waipawa, Ruataniwha North, Ruataniwha South, Papanui and Lower Tukituki Corridor) within the Tukituki catchment.

56. Of the 30 sites, 15 are located along the main stems of the two main rivers, the Waipawa and Tukituki rivers, from SH50 to Black Bridge providing a detailed understanding of longitudinal patterns, i.e. how water quality changes from upstream to downstream. The most upstream sites on the Waipawa and Tukituki Rivers are located at the points where the rivers cross State Highway 50 (SH50). These two monitoring sites are considered representative of the water quality exiting the Upper Tukituki/Waipawa Water Management Zone.

57. Many monitoring sites are concentrated near the western end of the Ruataniwha Basin, on the main stem of the Tukituki and Waipawa Rivers and on the main tributaries before their confluence the Tukituki and Waipawa Rivers. A number of these sites are located within flow gaining reaches, and both their hydrology and water quality are strongly influenced by groundwater. This includes the lower reaches of the Mangaonuku, Porangahau and Maharakeke Streams and the Kahahakuri Stream.

58. The Papanui Stream catchment forms a water management zone of its own. The Papanui at Middle Road site is located at the outflow of the catchment, before the stream descends into the floodplain of the Tukituki River. The Papanui Stream is strongly influenced by groundwater from the Otane/Papanui basin.

59. In this report, monitoring data relative to a number of water quality indicators are compared with ANZECC trigger values (as detailed in Section 2), which distinguish between ‘upland’ (elevation >150m) and ‘lowland’ elevation <150m) streams. Out of the 30 monitoring sites considered in this report, eight are classified ‘upland’ (Makaroro River, Waipawa River at SH50, Mangaonuku Stream, Makaretu River at SH50, Mangatewai stream at SH50, Tukipo River at SH50, Tukituki River at SH50 and Maharakeke Stream at Limeworks Station Rd), four sites (Maharakeke Stream U/S Makaretu River, Makaretu River U/S Maharakeke Stream, Tukipo River U/S Makaretu River and Tukituki River at Waipukurau Ongaonga Rd) are right on the 150m contour or just below it, while the remaining 18 sites are classified ‘lowland’.

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

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

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

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

60.4. Toxicants, such as excessive nitrate and ammonia

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

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

61. 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 temporal trends were performed to determine whether the water quality indicators have been improving or degrading over time. 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 2009-2013 period indicates the following.

Microbiological water quality

62. Data available for the 2009-2013 reporting period indicates that microbiological water quality was:

62.1. Suitable for secondary contact recreation at all sites, with 20 out of 22 sites in the NPSFM “A” grade and the remaining 2 sites (the Papanui and Makara Streams) in the “B” Grade.

62.2. Suitable for primary contact recreation (e.g. swimming) at 15 of the 22 sites where data were available (14 sites in NPSFM “A” Grade and 1 in the “B Grade”). The remaining seven sites (Waipawa at SH50, Makaretu at SH50, Tukituki at SH50, Papanui Stream, Waipawa at SH2, Porangahau Stream and Mangatarata Stream) did not meet the minimum acceptable state for full immersion activities.

62.3. Six sites showed significant deteriorating trends in E. coli numbers: the Mangaonuku Stream (21% annual average increase), Tukituki River 50m U/S oxi pond (61% annual average increase), Tukituki at SH2 (46% annual average increase), Tukituki River at Tapairu Rd (40% annual increase), Waipawa at SH2 (50% annual increase) and the Waipawa U/S Tukituki River (49% annual increase).

Dissolved Oxygen

63. Significant issues with dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations or saturation occur at only 4 of the Tukituki catchment sites. The Mangaonuku, Kahahakuri and Papanui streams are known to be influenced by anoxic groundwater inflows which is likely to have influenced some of the DO readings at these sites. The Papanui and Mangatarata Streams are slow moving streams with high macrophyte biomass. Respiration and decomposition of the macrophyte biomass, coupled with low re-oxygenation rates are also likely to have contributed to the low DO readings at these sites. It is important to note that the data were limited to ‘spot’ measurements, which were unlikely to capture the daily minima.

Water clarity and turbidity

64. None of the 24 SoE monitoring sites for which water clarity data were available met median water clarities of 3.5m (recommended guideline for significant trout fisheries), let alone 5m (the recommended guideline for “outstanding trout fisheries”), although the Makaroro River, the Mangaonuku Stream and the Tukituki River at Black Bridge did reach a water clarity of 5m or more at times. These included all Lower Tukituki River monitoring sites (from Tamumu Bridge to Black Bridge), and a number of tributaries including the Makaroro River and the Mangaonuku Stream (which had the clearest water of all sites), the Tukipo River, and the Porangahau, Maharakeke and Kahahakuri Streams.

65. No changes (improvements or deterioration) in black disc water clarity over time were detected at any of the Tukituki catchment sites, apart from the Mangatarata Stream (7.7% decrease per annum). Turbidity, however showed a deterioration at eight sites across the catchment (Mangaonuku Stream, Waipawa at SH2, Waipawa U/S Tukituki River, Tukipo River at SH50, Tukituki at SH2, Tukituki at Tapairu Rd, Tukituki at Tamumu Bridge and Tukituki at Red Bridge).

66. When compared with the rest of the region’s SoE sites, the Mangaonuku Stream ranked best in the catchment at 12 out of 98 regional sites for black disc water clarity, while the Mangatarata Stream ranked the worst in the catchment at 90 out of 98 regional sites.

Toxicants – Ammonia

67. Elevated ammonia levels were noticeable downstream of both the Waipawa and Waipukurau wastewater treatment plants, and in the Papanui Stream.

68. With regards to the NPSFM (2014) Attribute for Ammonia (Toxicity), 90% of the sites (27 out of 30) were graded in either Band A or band B for both Median and maximum concentrations in all individual years of record, meeting at least the 95% species protection level. The Tukipo River and the Tukituki river upstream and downstream of the oxidation pond discharge were graded in the “C” band for annual maximum concentrations in one or two individual years.

69. No significant and meaningful temporal trends in total ammoniacal nitrogen concentrations were identified in the Tukituki catchment, except at the Makaroro River where a deterioration of 10.3% per annum was identified.

Toxicants – Nitrate

70. All sites but 3 in the Tukituki catchment graded in either Band A or band B for both Median and 95^th percentile concentrations in all individual years of record, and were better than at least the 95% species protection level. The Porangahau and Mangatarata Stream were graded in “A” or “B” bands when considering median concentrations, but their 95^th percentile concentrations fell into “C” Band in at least one individual year. The Kahahakuri Stream had the highest nitrate nitrogen concentrations in the catchment, and was graded in Band C in most years for both median and 95^th percentile concentrations.

71. Improvements (decrease) in nitrate-nitrogen concentrations over time were detected in the Porangahau Stream, Tukituki River at Tamumu Bridge, Tukituki at Red Bridge and Tukituki at Black Bridge (Figure 3 11).

72. Comparison with other SoE monitoring sites in the Hawkes’s Bay region show Tukituki catchment sites to vary across the rankings from the best in the region (Mangamahaki Stream) to the third worst (Kahahakuri Stream), with two thirds of sites in the bottom 50% regionally.

Nutrients – Nitrogen

73. TN and DIN concentrations generally followed similar patterns across the catchment.

73.1. The three sites located within (Makaroro at Burnt Bridge), or considered representative of the Upper Tukituki water management zone (Tukituki at SH50 and Waipawa at SH50), had low nitrogen concentrations (both TN and DIN), and were better than the upland ANZECC trigger values and guidelines to control periphyton growth.

73.2. Within Zone 2 (Waipawa), the Mangaonuku Stream (an upland site) is strongly influenced by groundwater, and had elevated TN and DIN (dominated by nitrate-nitrogen) concentrations, well in excess of both the upland and the lowland ANZECC Trigger values. The four sites located on the Waipawa River main stem between SH2 and the confluence with the Tukituki had moderate TN and DIN concentrations, exceeding the lowland ANZECC trigger values, but meeting the PC6 target of 0.8 mg/L.

73.3. In Zone 3 (Tukituki), the Makaretu at SH50 was the only upland site better than the ‘upland’ ANZECC trigger value of 0.167 mg/. The remaining 3 upland sites (Mangatewai at SH50, Tukipo at SH50 and Maharakeke at Limeworks Station Rd) were worse than this value. The Mangatewai at SH50 and the Maharakeke at Limeworks Station Rd were mostly worse than the PC6 target of 0.8 mg/L;

73.4. In Zone 5, the median DIN concentration in the Papanui Stream was better than both the ‘lowland’ ANZECC trigger value and the PC6 target of 0.8 mg/L.

73.5. In the Tukituki River main stem, the DIN concentrations were low upstream of the Waipukurao Ongaonga Rd site, which is located upstream of the groundwater upwelling area and the confluence with the main tributaries. Downstream of the groundwater upwelling, DIN concentrations increased from SH2 to downstream of the Waipukurau oxidation pond discharge.

73.6. DIN concentrations between SH2 and Taiparu Road were mostly worse than the ANZECC trigger value for lowland rivers and the PC6 0.8 mg/L target. At Taiparu Road, DIN concentrations were lower and gradually decreased towards Red Bridge, presumably as a result of dilution with the Waipawa River and in-river attenuation of DIN by a combination of utilisation by plants and microorganisms and de-nitrification.

73.7. DIN concentrations were better than the PC6 target at Taiparu Road and all sites further downstream on the lower Tukituki River. The eastern catchment tributaries (Mangatarata, Mangamahaki and Makara Streams) were all better than both the lowland ANZECC trigger value the Tukituki Plan Change 6 (PC6) target of 0.8 mg/L.

74. Overall, 6 out of 22 lowland sites (Makaretu River U/S Maharakeke Stream, Tukituki at Ongaonga Rd, Papanui Stream, Mangatarata Stream, Mangamahaki Stream and the Makara Stream) were better than the ‘lowland’ ANZECC trigger value of 0.444 mg/L for DIN, with all remaining lowland sites (n=16) in the catchment were worse than this value.

75. About one third of all Tukituki catchment sites met the Biggs (2000) suggested guideline for DIN for periphyton growth management for a 20 day accrual period, while two thirds of the sites met the Tukituki Plan change 6 target.

76. Improvements in DIN and TN concentrations were seen at the Porangahau Stream in the Tukituki River at Tamumu Bridge. Improvements in DIN concentrations were also detected at the Tukituki at Red Bridge and Black Bridge.

77. Compared with other SoE sites in the region, Tukituki catchment sites are spread across the regional rankings. The Mangamahaki Stream ranked 2^nd of all regional sites for DIN. The Makara Stream, Makaroro River, Mangatarata Stream and the Tukituki River at SH50 were ranked in the top 25% regionally. At the other end of the scale, the Kahahakuri Stream ranked in the bottom 3, and the Mangaonuku Stream, the Maharakeke Stream (both sites) and the Tukituki River 400m d/s Oxi Ponds are in the bottom 10 sites regionally.

Nutrients – Phosphorus

78. TP and DRP concentrations generally followed similar patterns across the catchment:

78.1. Median DRP concentrations were generally moderately elevated across the Tukituki catchment (greater than 0.011 mg/L) with all but a handful of sites worse than both the upland and lowland ANZECC trigger values. The highest DRP concentrations were recorded in the Mangatarata and Papanui Streams (0.167 and 0.154 mg/L, respectively).

78.2. DRP concentrations were very low at the three sites within (Makaroro River), or considered representative of (Waipawa at SH50 and Tukituki at SH50), Water Management Zone 4 (Upper Tukituki/Waipawa), and were considerably better than the ‘upland’ ANZECC trigger value of 0.009 mg/L, as well as the Biggs (2000) suggested guideline for DRP for periphyton growth management.

78.3. In Zone 2, both the Mangaonuku Stream and the Waipawa River main stem upstream of the oxidation pond discharge had median DRP concentrations 20 to 40% worse than the ANZECC trigger value for lowland rivers. There was an obvious increase in median DRP concentration downstream of the oxidation pond discharge, presumably associated with the discharge.

78.4. In Zone 3, the Tukituki at Waipukurau Ongaonga Road and the Makaretu River u/s Maharakeke confluence were the only two sites better than both the upland and the lowland ANZECC trigger values. All other sites were worse than both the upland and the lowland ANZECC trigger values. In the Tukituki River main stem, there was a distinct increase in DRP concentrations associated with the Waipukurau oxidation pond discharge.

78.5. The Papanui Stream (in Zone 5) and the Mangatarata Stream had very elevated median DRP concentrations (0.154 and 0.167 mg/L respectively), i.e. approximately 15 times the ANZECC trigger values for lowland rivers.

78.6. In the lower Tukituki River, median DRP concentrations decreased with distance downstream of the oxidation ponds, and was almost as good as the ANZECC trigger value for lowland rivers at Red Bridge.

79. Deteriorations in DRP concentrations were seen at the Mangaonuku Stream, the Waipawa River 50m U/S oxi pond and the Waipawa River U/S Tukituki River.

80. The Tukituki at Waipukurau Ongaonga Rd and SH50, the Waipawa River at SH50 and the Makaroro River were ranked in the top 25% regionally. At the other send of the scale, the Mangatarata and Papanui Streams and the Tukituki River downstream of the Waipukurau oxidation pond were in the bottom 10 sites regionally.

Nutrient ratios

81. With 6 exceptions, all sites in the Tukituki catchment have nutrient ratios indicative of phosphorus-limited conditions. The Makaroro River, the Mangatewai Stream at SH50, and to a lesser extent the Makaretu at SH50 have nutrient ratios indicative of co-limited conditions. The Papanui, Mangatarata, Mangamahaki and Makara Stream have nutrient ratios indicative of predominantly N-limited conditions.

82. It is important to note however that nutrient ratios should be considered in parallel with the actual nutrient concentrations, to provide an indication of the likely strength of any nutrient limitation. For example, concentrations of both DRP and DIN are elevated in the Mangatewai, Porangahau and Maharakeke Streams, and in the Papanui and Mangatarata Stream, concentrations of both TN and DRP are elevated, meaning that any nutrient limitation is likely to be very weak or absent (unlimited conditions) in these streams. By contrast, in the Mangamahaki and Makara Streams, DIN concentrations are very low and DRP concentrations only moderately elevated, meaning that nutrient limitation of periphyton growth is likely to be strong in these streams.

Biological indicators

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

84. Sites on the Makaroro River, the upper and middle Waipawa and Tukituki mainstems (SH50 and SH2), as well as the Tukipo and Makaretu Rivers at SH50 had median MCI scores indicative of “good” quality. The Porangahau and Kahahakuri Stream and the lower Tukituki River had MCI scores of “fair” quality.

85. Three sites, the Papanui and Mangatarata Streams and the Tukituki River at Black Bridge have much lower MCI scores indicative of poor water quality. The Tukituki at Black Bridge is known to be influenced by saline water and so the MCI scores here are not comparable to purely freshwater sites in the catchment.

86. 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.

87. Available data indicate that the Waipawa River at SH50, the Tukituki River at SH50 and Tapairu Rd and the Makaretu River at SH50 have generally low median periphyton biomass, well below both the 120 mg/m² ‘recreational’ and 50 mg/m² ‘biodiversity’ thresholds on at least 90% of monitoring occasions.

88. Median biomasses in the Tukipo River at SH50 and the lower Tukituki River sites (Tamumu Bridge, Red Bridge and Black Bridge) were also better than the 50 mg/m² ‘biodiversity’ threshold, but higher biomasses, sometimes well in excess of the 120 mg/m² ‘recreational’ threshold occurred at these sites at times.

89. Median biomasses in excess of the 50 mg/m² ‘biodiversity’ threshold but less than the 120 mg/m² ‘recreational’ threshold were recorded at all other monitoring sites where data was available (Mangaonuku Stream, Waipawa at SH2, Porangahau Stream and Mangatarata Stream). Biomasses in excess of the 120 mg/m² ‘recreational’ threshold were recorded more regularly in the Mangaonuku and Mangatarata Streams, and the Waipawa River at SH2.

Decision Making Process

90. 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:

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

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

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

90.4. The persons affected by this decision are all persons 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

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

90.6. 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 “State of the Hawke’s Bay Coastal Environment: 2008 – 2013”, “Ngaruroro, Tutaekuri, Karamu and Ahuriri Estuary Catchments – State and Trends of River Water Quality and Ecology 2004-2013” and “Tukituki River Catchment – State and Trends of River Water Quality and Ecology 2004-2013” reports.

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. Approves the following reports for publication and release:

2.2.1. State of the Hawke’s Bay Coastal Environment: 2008 – 2013

2.2.2. Ngaruroro, Tutaekuri, Karamu and Ahuriri Estuary Catchments – State and Trends of River Water Quality and Ecology 2004-2013

2.2.3. Tukituki River Catchment – State and Trends of River Water Quality and Ecology 2004-2013

Andy Hicks

Team Leader

Water Quality and Ecology

Anna Madarasz-Smith

Senior Scientist

Coastal Quality

Oliver Wade

Environmental Scientist WQ&E

Alexandra Haidekker

Water Quality & Ecology Scientist

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 03 August 2016

Subject: Working Toward Tukituki Plan Change 6 Implementation

Reason for Report

1. The Tukituki Plan Change became operative on 1 October 2015 following its adoption by the Council in August.

2. Policy TT16 of this plan change requires Council, to establish and then support a multi-stakeholder group with the purpose of developing an Implementation Plan (IP) and providing input into the development and delivery of specific implementation or monitoring projects and programmes.

3. A number of the provisions are linked to future dates and significant preparatory work is required in order to be ready for the implementation and enforcement of those provisions. New monitoring programmes are also required in order to ensure that the effectiveness of the plan in relation to the objectives can be assessed.

4. The purpose of this report is to brief the Committee on the work that is ongoing in the development of the IP and to have the Committee review and provide feedback on to the proposed direction and intent for policy implementation as detailed in the attached Programme Towards Implementation document.

Policy TT16 - Tukituki Implementation Plan

5. Policy TT16 requires Council to prepare an overall IP for giving effect to the new policy provisions that apply within the Tukituki Catchment.

6. It requires that this Implementation Plan is developed in collaboration with iwi and hapu and other affected or interested stakeholders.

7. In developing this plan staff engaged Mr Cameron Drury from Cheal Consultants to assist. Mr. Drury has previously worked for HBRC and has extensive practitioner experience in this area. Staff have formed a ‘Core Working Group’ of practitioners who have being meeting regularly for some months. Mr Heath has facilitated this group. Mr. Drury has recently been working with this group to bring together the thinking to date. This has been the basis of the attached document.

8. Staff are of the view that there are many aspects of the policy implementation that are clear and obvious, for example the dates and limits around water quantity changes throughout the catchments surface and ground water. There are also aspects that are unclear or for which there are a range of options that might be pursued. Farm Environment Management Plans are a good example of this.

9. At this stage rather than end up paralyzed in trying to rationalize a preferred option for the many unknowns, staff have pursued an approach that sets out the thinking and ‘direction of travel’ for matters that are currently uncertain. We have then used this as a starting point to engage in discussion with those who have an interest in this with the view that over the next 12-24 months the detail and structure around these aspects is provided and documented.

10. For the reasons noted above we have deliberately called this document Programme Towards Implementation rather than call it the final IP. We expect to continue the work and discussions with our community on these matters sufficient to produce the final IP in advance of Councils deliberations on the next (2018-28) Long Term Plan. This will allow a structured discussion around resourcing that will be required to successfully deliver policy implementation within this catchment.

11. In developing our thinking, staff have engaged with a range of stakeholders, partners and tangata whenua on these matters in an effort to seek feedback on our thinking and intent. Those parties are noted in the attached document.

12. Thus far there have not been any issues raised that staff consider are suggesting that an alternative approach is warranted or any matters need to be revisited.

13. It is important to note that Policy TT16 sets out expectations for collaboration with iwi and Tukituki hapu. It states that this will be based on tikanga Maori and that an engagement plan is to be developed in consultation with specified groups, being Te Taiwhenua o Tamatea, Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga, Te Taiwhenua o Te Whanganui a Orotu and Ngati Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated. Staff have engaged with all these parties and socialised the Programme Towards Implementation document with them. They have all been provided with copies and asked to provide feedback. In addition a number of hui have been held.

14. Prior to the work presented to you today, staff sought nominations from the organisations noted above so that an engagement plan could be developed. The engagement plan is intended to set out who Council should be consulting with over the development of the final IP as well as its delivery.

15. While individuals were nominated, the organisations expressed a desire to first work together (without Council) through issues arising from the Tukituki Catchment Proposal process. As final decisions on Plan Change 6 were still pending at that stage, and no attempts were made to progress those discussions. Now that Tukituki Plan Change 6 decision is final and has been adopted by Council, staff will be re-engaging on the final IP and engagement plan with these groups.

16. The document is structured into ten key sections, being:

16.1. Engagement and collaboration

16.2. Regulation

16.3. Water quality and Farm Plans

16.4. Water allocation

16.5. Communication

16.6. Information programmes and projects

16.7. Non – statutory approaches and projects

16.8. Plan performance and effectiveness

16.9. Reporting

16.10. Data collection and management.

17. The detail of each section is not reported in this paper and will be addressed in the presentation that will accompany this at the meeting. Mr. Drury will present this and will be available, along with key staff to answer any questions on the day.

18. Staff are keen to emphasize that this is a ‘living’ document and as we learn more and evolve our thinking we will look to modify and adapt our approaches. The intent being that ultimately all of this will be incorporated into the final IP.

19. What staff are very keen to hear from the Committee about is matters that you feel are missing or not addressed and where you see that the intent as set out in the document is manifestly wrong and why you think this.

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

20.5. Options that have been considered include to not produce this interim document but delay any discussion pending the preparation of the final Implementation Plan.

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

20.7. 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 report “Working Towards Tukituki Plan Change Implementation”.

2. That the Regional Planning Committee advises staff if they disagree with the approaches or there are matters missing from the proposed implementation approach as outlined in the report titled “Working Towards Tukituki Plan Change Implementation”.

3. The Regional Planning Committee recommends that Council:

3.1. 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 under Sections 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Local Government Act 2002 and make decisions on this issue without conferring directly with the community and persons likely to be affected by or to have an interest in the decision.

3.2. Subject to any changes identified at the July Regional Planning Committee meeting, adopts the report “Working Towards Tukituki Plan Change Implementation”.

Nathan Heath

Acting Manager

Land Management

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager

Resource Management

Attachment/s

Programme Towards Implementation

Under Separate Cover

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 03 August 2016

Subject: Tukituki Implementation Delivery

Reason for Report

1. This report is intended to share the progress made by staff and the community in the last year on our operational requirements as we seek to give effect to the Tukituki Plan Change 6 (PC6). A presentation will be provided with this item from a number of staff involved.

Internal Processes and Structure

2. Working towards the implementation of PC6, has presented many new and unique challenges for staff both in terms of what is now required to deliver on the contents of the plan but also in terms of how we need to work together in an integrated way to successfully coordinate actions.

3. PC6 has introduced a number of new tasks for Council that have little or no precedent, for example working in priority sub-catchments, permitted activity compliance checking and the accreditation of farm plan providers. These new functions test the boundaries of our organisational structure as they tend to require input and deliberation from more than one group or team.

4. A “Core Team” of staff was formalised who collectively coordinate the actions of the broader implementation team via the “Key Practitioners Group”. The group is made up of representatives from Science, Policy, Consents, Data Management and Land Management. Members of this group meet regularly with the Group Manager – Resource Management to discuss decision items, progress and logistical issues.

Continuous Improvement

5. As identified in the “Working towards Implementation” plan a significant priority and component of the work program for the next 12 months is in the development of the Tukituki Catchment Implementation Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting and Improvement (MERI) plan. As outlined in that report our obligations to formally report on policy effectiveness, program effectiveness, further state of the environment monitoring and incorporate an iwi driven mauri monitoring framework for the Tukituki alone is significant and given this will be required for all catchments going forward a vitally important piece of work to get right to ensure we don’t exceed our capacities to deliver and that it leads to information that is informative and influential.

Integrated Research Project

6. Over the last 12 months a multi-disciplined team of researchers from Landcare Research and staff from HBRC have been working on developing a methodology for building a MERI plan. The project will continue through the next financial year with the key outcomes being the development of a suite of social, cultural and economic indicators to complement the biophysical ones already in place and the testing of the methodology used to identify MERI requirements in other sub-catchments and catchments.

Science and Monitoring

7. The science team have undertaken targeted investigations in three priority subcatchments: the Papanui, Porangahau and Maharakeke to identify hotspots and explore potential mitigation options

8. 10 extra monitoring sites have been added to the existing SOE network, which among other things is to make DRP and DIN compliance reporting more straightforward at a subcatchment scale. This increases the number of sites in the Tukituki catchment routinely monitored by council from 17 to 27. Only a subset of parameters will be analysed at these extra 10 sites to keep monitoring costs down.

9. Existing SOE data has been used to characterise the condition of subcatchments within the Tukituki as preliminary approach to evaluate compliance with targets

10. An information pamphlet is being developed to help landowners and their farm environmental management plan providers to prioritise on-farm mitigation efforts.

Priority Sub-catchments

11. The priority sub-catchment programme is about recognising where our investment will have the greatest effect and where the greatest amount of work is required. Water quality investigations that underpinned the development of PC6 identified five ‘priority sub-catchments’ with significant water quality issues. The priority sub-catchments are Papanui, Porangahau, Maharakeke, Tukipo, and Kahahakuri.

12. There is an understanding that the levels of regulation prescribed by PC6 will not be enough to meet water quality targets in these sub-catchments. These are only reasonably likely be achieved through an integrated catchment management approach that includes a significant component of non-regulatory action. This includes the development of a sub-catchment management strategy that identifies wider community outcomes around freshwater management and guides a course of actions toward achieving them.

13. The key to the success of a priority catchment approach looks to be:

13.1. Detailed sub-catchment soil and water investigations and monitoring to better understand the source/cause of water quality issues

13.2. Support and buy in from landowners and the wider catchment community

13.3. A monitoring, evaluation, review and improve (MERI) framework to evaluate programmes and adapt where necessary.

Papanui Pilot Programme

14. The Papanui Sub-Catchment is considered to be the most challenging in terms of achieving water quality targets. Levels of dissolved reactive phosphorus (DRP) are ten times over the limits set for the Tukituki catchment. The Papanui contributes as much as 23% of the DRP load in the lower Tukituki River despite making up only 6% of the total catchment area.

15. Given that the Papanui requires the greatest amount of work, it was logical that it should be selected for a pilot programme that would guide our approach in other priority areas. The pilot programme can be broadly divided into two major areas of work: Catchment characterisation (science investigations and monitoring), and; the development of a sub-catchment management strategy to address water quality issues but also identify wider community values and outcomes and guide actions for achieving these.

Papanui Science and Sub-catchment Characterisation Work

16. Much of the science investigations to date have focused on improving our understanding of the complexities around the sources and pathways, of nutrient loss. There is also ongoing work to understand the effects of land use on water quality and habitat quality in the catchment’s waterways (and how this can be improved):

16.1. An initial catchment characterisation report on catchment geology and land use

16.2. Surface water monitoring involved the sampling and gauging of 34 sites over a twelve month period

16.3. A draft Papanui phosphorus study report completed (Uytendaal)

16.4. Groundwater monitoring and isotope analysis. (This included the establishment of 6 new monitoring bores)

16.5. Investing in extending the coverage of S-Map has improved the scale and quality of local soil mapping

16.6. The development of a Phosphorus loss risk matrix, a Phosphorus mitigation model has been trialled on three properties

16.7. Sampling of heavily cropped organic soils to better understand Phosphorus retention/loss characteristics

16.8. A Stream Ecological Valuation (SEV) survey – draft report completed (Forbes)

16.9. Working with CHBDC to improve the performance and monitoring of the Otane Oxidation plant

16.10. Cawthron have a project underway to identify where riparian planting will have the greatest benefit to water and habitat quality

16.11. Lysimeter work at Pukehou.

17. The draft Papanui Catchment Management Strategy was published in November 2015. It is the culmination of a significant body of work that included: 9 catchment focus groups held since 2014; 3 wananga attended at local marae; 2 Field days; 3 Catchment newsletters; Meetings with community leaders and historians

18. The strategy lists six key outcomes and outlines actions for achieving them:

18.1. A well informed community

18.2. Active and willing participation across a range of levels

18.3. Enhanced mauri in streams and waterways

18.4. Improved health of the catchments waterways

18.5. The proven success of non-regulatory Integrated catchment management

18.6. The capacity for agricultural production in the catchment is maintained for the economic wellbeing of its community.

Priority Catchments (Landowner Engagement)

19. An ‘awareness raising campaign’ (newsletters, public meetings etc.) has resulted in a noticeable improvement in landowner knowledge of water quality issues and awareness of their obligations under the Plan Change. This includes:

19.1. Sub-catchment specific ‘water quality information’ booklets published for the Papanui, Porangahau/Maharakeke and Tukipo sub-catchments.

19.2. Ongoing one-on-one engagement with landowners in priority catchments. The majority of 100ha + land owners/managers in the Papanui, Porangahau and Maharakeke have been personally contacted to discuss Plan Change 6 and or FEMPs.

19.3. Database designed and developed to improve our information capture (i.e. landowner details, FEMP progress etc).

19.4. Working with key landowners (e.g. Brownrigg Agriculture, feedlot owners, Silver Fern Farms etc.) who are most able to influence water quality outcomes.

Figure 4 Papanui (left), and Porangahau and Maharakeke (right).

Green = visited on farm, Amber = phone conversation, Red = yet to contact

Encouraging Early Uptake of Stock Exclusion and (Effective) Farm Environmental Management Plans (FEMPs)

20. A major focus of the priority catchment programme is to accelerate the uptake of stock exclusion and FEMPs. Stock exclusion will have the single greatest impact on reducing sediment and E-coli contamination of waterways, while FEMPs are key to individualizing catchment wide actions and the vehicle for achieving catchment outcomes.

20.1. 62 FEMPs completed or underway in priority catchments

20.2. A 25% subsidy (up to the value of $1000) was offered for priority catchment landowners who completed their FEMP early

20.3. An on-farm workshop held to ensure that FEMP providers (and workshop facilitators) are familiar with sub-catchment issues and outcomes and that FEMPs are tailored accordingly

20.4. Four beef and Lamb FEMP workshops held in priority catchment

20.5. A sample of 20 small blocks completed as part of a project to help determine the most efficient way of dealing with small blocks.

Figure 5 Papanui (left), and Porangahau and Maharakeke (right).

Green = farm plan completed or underway

Wider Community Engagement

21. A second objective of the Priority Sub-Catchment Programme is to engage with local marae and facilitate wider community engagement.

21.1. The establishment of a riparian ‘demonstration site’ near Otane provided an opportunity for the Otane School to get involved. A planting day was held in June.

21.2. Pukehou Primary School have a riparian project underway as part of their Enviro-Schools programme.

21.3. A badly degraded section of stream near Takapau has been cleared in preparation for a marae based restoration project.

21.4. Pukehou primary and Te Aute college were given copies of the Papanui strategy for use as a learning resource.

21.5. Supporting local marae in the development of a mauri monitoring framework.

21.6. Warwick Hesketh has presented at two wananga in Takapau.

Farm Environmental Management Plans (FEMPs)

22. The use of Farm Environmental Management Plans (FEMPs), also referred to in other regions as Farm Environmental Plans (FEPs), has a growing national focus.

23. FEMPs however are not currently an existing part of regular business practice for the vast majority of farmers and growers in the Tukituki, so in conjunction with building landowner awareness we have also had to start to create an FEMP service industry. Although we are not alone in this given the national focus on farm planning, the use of FEMPs in Tukituki has some differences from other regions.

It’s not all about Nitrogen (N)

24. The inclusion of an Overseer Nutrient Budget and the comparison of its calculated N loss figure to each property’s Tukituki LUC Natural Capital Leaching Rate is a requirement of an FEMP. However it is also required that the identification of areas of risk and mitigation of phosphorus, sediment and bacteria are also addressed.

It’s not all about dairy

25. Of the approximately 1150 landowners in the Tukituki requiring FEMPs, only 46 are dairy farmers, making up around 5% of the land area. There are 750 Sheep and Beef properties, 84 Horticultural properties, and 279 ‘other’ properties which includes lifestyle.

26. In respect to the completion of FEMPs the mix of landowner types is important in that the predominant sheep and beef industry is in the early stages of being aware of their requirements and is fragmented in comparison to others, without a strong existing culture of compliance and farm assurance schemes.

Building Capacity and Capability

27. Given the number of FEMPs required in the Tukituki, there is a need to build the capacity of providers, however we also need to build the capability of FEMP providers as:

27.1. Schedule XXII of Plan Change 6, which sets the requirements of an FEMP, outlines the significant amount of detail that has to be covered including comprehensive mapping, a Phosphorous Management Plan, objectives for Nutrient, Irrigation, Soils, Wetlands, Riparian, Collected Animal Effluent and Livestock Management as well as a Nutrient Budget.

27.2. Despite its complexity, it is not desired that an FEMP is a tick box or compliance exercise and it should be farm and industry specific while targeting the overarching freshwater objectives.

27.3. Landowners have made it clear that given the significant amount of time and cost involved in completing an FEMP, they don’t want the “FEMP industry” to be the most important part of the process and it is HBRC’s role to monitor.

Industry Groups

28. Industry involvement is desirable in FEMP implementation as:

28.1. Can use national processes and adapt to specifics of HBRC requirements giving economies of scale

28.2. Industry takes responsibility for requirements and less HBRC resources required e.g. training and management of FEMP providers, auditing of FEMPs, data collection

28.3. Less landowner/levy payer resources and time required if can make part of existing farm assurance or compliance work

28.4. May assist with “buy-in” if viewed as industry good and not just compliance.

Key Industry Activities to Date

29. Dry stock

29.1. Beef and Lamb NZ FEMP template approved as meeting Schedule XXII requirements. Adapted from national Land and Environment Plan (LEP)

29.2. 5 workshops held (Delivered in a group setting, not one-on-one). Significant HBRC staff involvement in organisation and running of events

29.3. NZ Deer Farmers Association involved in organising one of the workshops specifically for deer farmers

29.4. 78 attendees (including 14 rural professionals or non-Tukituki farmers)

29.5. 16 FEMPs produced.

30. Dairy

30.1. Dairy NZ FEMP template approved as meeting Schedule XXII requirements. Adapted from national Sustainable Milk Plan (SMP)

30.2. In conjunction with Fonterra and DairyNZ work including data sharing carried out and a letter sent to all Tukituki dairy farmers to outline their LUC Natural Capital Leaching Rate

30.3. Worked with HBRC compliance and Fonterra to simplify Nutrient Budgeting process for farmers. Aim is one high quality “actual” nutrient budget carried out by Fonterra annually rather than up to 3 of mixed quality

30.4. 5 FEMPs completed to develop process for 2016-17.

31. Arable, Horticulture and Viticulture

31.1. FAR FEMP template approved as meeting Schedule XXII requirements. Adapted from national template initially developed for use in ECan

31.2. Designed for delivery via workshop or as one-on-one

31.3. HortNZ investigating practicalities of FEMP module being added to existing NZ or GlobalGAP quality assurance programme

31.4. With co-funding from HBRC, carried out “Hawkes Bay Horticultural Nutrient and Financial Benchmarking Results” survey of vegetable growers and orchardists to begin to understand nutrient losses and financial performance

31.5. Initial discussions held to assist with development of Viticulture specific FEMP

32. Other Industry Involvement

32.1. Two Overseer Nutrient Budget Working Group meetings organised and held to assist with Nutrient Budgeting specific issues. Involved industry and fertiliser Co-operative representatives including 4 of the 8 technical expert users who are involved in reviewing the OVERSEER® Best Practice Data Input Standards

32.2. HBRC staff involved in national FEMP and Nutrient Budgeting working groups aiming to give national consistency

32.3. With no industry organisation for lifestyle blocks, carried out a project to compare the relative intensity of lifestyle block land uses against the relative complexity of the FEMP requirements under Schedule XXII.

33. Private Providers

33.1. Individuals or companies who wish to become providers have a role in FEMP implementation alongside industry programmes in that:

33.2. Certain industries may not have the resources or willingness to become involved in industry run FEMP schemes, leaving landowners without a suitable delivery process

33.3. Where workshop only FEMP delivery is provided by industry, this may not suit the complexity or time available for certain businesses

33.4. If private providers have a certain skill-set outside of the FEMP process, e.g. farm advisory or health and safety, the landowner may be able to get added value.

Building Capability of Private Providers

34. HBRC staff have assisted in building providers capability by:

34.1. One on One interaction with providers. This has involved reviewing FEMPs in both template and draft formats, assisting with landowner liaisons and on farm visits in conjunction with providers. Estimated 70 face to face interactions plus calls and emails

34.2. Given the need to stimulate an industry, overall aim has been to work alongside providers and landowners to develop implementation

34.3. Factsheets for priority catchments, stream health, stock exclusion rules and nutrient budgeting

34.4. Training day November 2015 for approximately 40 rural professionals. Emphasis on freshwater objectives, subcatchment issues and stream habitat health from HBRC Environmental Science Staff. Professor Rich McDowell from AgResearch and Lincoln University spoke on Phosphorous Mitigation, with two farms visited

FEMP Provider Approval and Accreditation

35. An FEMP Flexigroup was set up involving HBRC staff from Land Management, Consents, Environmental Science and Client Services. Work involved developing procedures for:

35.1. Reviewing templates to assess compliance with Schedule XXII

35.2. Reviewing draft and submitted FEMPs to assess appropriateness

35.3. FEMP Providers Approval Process. This involving a minimum of three FEMPs to be submitted and reviewed by the Flexigroup. To date 4 approved

35.4. Approved Nutrient Budget Provider Registration with associated Input Standards. A simpler process than for FEMPs with existing national qualifications and input standards. To date 20 Approved.

35.5. Consideration of a more formal accreditation process for both Nutrient Budget and FEMP providers, involving auditing and disciplinary measures.

Promoting the Early Uptake of FEMPs by Landholders

36. FEMPs are required by 30 June 2018. During 2015 there was a limited awareness of FEMP requirements from landowners due in part to:

36.1. Media focus on the RWSS

36.2. Uncertainty over the final form of Plan Change 6

36.3. A lack of urgency given the timeframe, with the bulk of landowners expected to leave the process until the last minute

36.4. The normal workload of running a rural business being viewed as more important.

37. Although awareness and landowner demand for FEMPs is still less than desired, demand for FEMPs has increased by:

37.1. Land Management staff contacting and visiting landowners specifically to discuss the Tukituki plan change and encouraging them to contact an FEMP provider

37.2. Approximately 200 face to face Tukituki landowner contacts

37.3. Emphasis placed on land owners >100ha in the Papanui, Maharakeke and Porongahau subcatchments, where our water quality challenges are the greatest, to make best use of limited resources

37.4. Predominately dry stock landowners contacted given the strength of the dairy industry in self-management and the limited horticulture in the priority catchments.

37.5. Financial incentives for landowners in priority catchments. 25% funding of completed FEMP

37.6. Increased Communications and extension work with CHB show and CHB mail specifically utilised.

FEMP Progress

38. 69 FEMPs received from 13 different industry groups and providers.

39. 8 additional/other providers well advanced in developing initial FEMPs.

Resource Consent Requirements Progress

40. The Councils consents team have now replaced or reviewed all 72 surface water take consents in the catchment, and conditions of these consents now include the new minimum flow limits (from 2018), and the requirement for telemetry.

41. The consents team have reviewed or replaced the Ruataniwha Basin and Otane groundwater take consents to set annual volumes on each consent; to ensure that the allocation limits are not exceeded for each of the allocation zones; require installation of telemetry; and, where applicable; set minimum flows on stream depleting takes which will come into effect in 2018 unless they take steps to reduce stream depletion (e.g. deeper wells).

42. Groundwater Allocation Zones 2 and 3 (Ruataniwha Basin North and South) are now fully allocated, and no further groundwater can be allocated from these zones, unless under the Tranche 2 framework.

43. Council have advised Lower Tukituki groundwater take consent holders (18 of them) who hold groundwater take consents, that they have been assessed as potentially affecting the river. This included that they will, in time, become subject to minimum flows. There are options on this, including drilling of deeper bores (i.e. screened deeper than 40 m) or having their effects re-assessed by a groundwater scientist. Some consent holders have already had further assessment work undertaken and have been able to demonstrate that their take is not likely to affect the river such that minimum flows are necessary.

44. Council has issued one “Crop Survival Water” consent and have contacted consent holders to gauge interest in a group approach to managing this resource. This concept allows for abstraction of 200 L/s to continue when the river is on minimum flow ban for use to prevent the death of trees, vines and crops. A number of consent holders are keen to explore this opportunity further and work continues to develop a framework for allocation under a group approach.

45. A number of Tranche 2 groundwater consent applications have been received and assessed, but are currently ‘on hold’. There is some complexity with these applications, particularly around quantifying and managing the river flow augmentation requirement to mitigate the effects of these groundwater takes.

Other Regulatory Highlights

46. Council has produced of an information booklet outlining what people need to know about the rules of Plan Change 6. A copy of this has been sent to every person that owns a property over 4 ha in the Tukituki Catchment, and it has been handed out at public meetings. It is also available on the HBRC website. It has recently been revised and an updated copy will be printed by the end of August.

47. Council consent officers have met with Horizons Regional Council and DairyNZ to agree an approach that ensures that dairy farmers whose farms straddle the Horizons/HBRC boundary in Central Hawke’s Bay complete a single farm plan and nutrient budget that meets the requirements of both councils.

Decision Making Process

48. 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

1. That the Regional Planning Committee receives and notes the “Tukituki Implementation Delivery” report.

Nathan Heath

Acting Manager

Land Management

Jeff Cooke

Data Coordinator

Charlotte Drury

Principal Consents Planner

Andy Hicks

Team Leader

Water Quality and Ecology

Shane Lambert

Senior Planner

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager

Resource Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

1	Summary of Regional Planning Committee Annual Activity Report 2016
2	Regional Planning Committee Annual Report Script

1	Statutory Advocacy Update
2	Stat Ad Map

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