Agenda of Environmental Management Committee

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environmental Management Committee

Wednesday 08 September 2010

SUBJECT: Plan Effectiveness Reporting

REASON FOR REPORT

1. This paper outlines a proposal to modify the five yearly regional plan effectiveness reporting to focus on water quality and ecology issues rather than report on effectiveness of regional plans in their entirety.

Background

2. The Resource Management Act (RMA) requires Council to review the efficiency and effectiveness of policies, rules and other methods in its regional policy statement and regional plans. A report on plan effectiveness must be prepared at least every five years.

3. Plan effectiveness monitoring is an ongoing activity throughout the planning cycle to assess how well plans are working. Policy and plan effectiveness monitoring helps determine the need for further action, and possible changes and improvements in policy statements and plans, or in actions taken to implement them.

4. The previous plan effectiveness report (adopted by Council in 2004) focussed on effectiveness of the regional policy statement provisions in the then proposed Regional Resource Management Plan (RRMP).

5. In February 2010, the Council endorsed an indicative 2010-2013 work programme for the Council’s resource management policy activities. That work programme was developed with implicit acceptance that RRMP provisions do not currently fully address a number of emerging issues and some pressures on natural resources. The work programme features review and preparation of over a dozen plan changes focussing on urban growth management; stormwater management; on-site domestic wastewater treatment and disposal; Taharua and upper Mohaka River strategy; and freshwater flows and allocation.

Proposal

6. Staff are recommending a more focussed approach to plan effectiveness reporting. A focussed approach would differ from reporting the effectiveness of regional plans in their entirety. Reasons for this recommended approach include:

6.1. Council’s work programme has already been geared to address a number of gaps and issues where existing RRMP provisions are ineffective

6.2. Spending time and resources reporting on the effectiveness of plan provisions that have already been earmarked for review would be inefficient and add very little value.

7. The obvious theme that the work programme does not explicitly tackle is the issue of freshwater quality and ecology. While this issue is inextricably linked to freshwater quantity, the freshwater flows and allocation ‘bundle’ of plan changes must remain focussed on water quantity issues if those plan changes are to be prepared within desired timeframes.

8. The Council is already undertaking a number of studies and investigations relating to water quality and in-stream ecology. It would be timely and beneficial to assess the effectiveness of regional plans from this particular perspective. This particular focus would also utilise State of the Environment reports published earlier this year.

9. Land use, water abstractions, point and non-point source discharges all have an influence on water quality and ecology. The plan effectiveness report will need to consider land use changes, conditions of consents involving water takes, discharges, activities within stream beds, dams and diversions, land management incentive programmes and environmental education programmes. So while the report is focussing on water quality and ecology, the factors to be considered are in fact very broad.

10. The ‘Water Quality and Ecology State of the Environment’ reports should form the basis of this review and therefore it may be appropriate that the review is undertaken in part on a catchment basis. The plan effectiveness report would also look at Council’s responses to the issues or gaps identified across a range of interventions, including investments.

11. If a more focussed approach to the Council’s regional plan effectiveness reporting is endorsed by Council, it is intended that a report focussing on water quality and ecology issues could be completed by late 2010/early 2011. Staff would then present a paper to Council outlining any recommendations in response to that report.

DECISION MAKING PROCESS

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

12.1. Sections 97 and 98 of the Act do not apply as these relate to decisions that significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.

12.2. Sections 83 and 84 covering special consultative procedure do not apply.

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

12.4. Section 80 of the Act covering decisions that are inconsistent with an existing policy or plan does not apply.

12.5. Council can exercise its discretion under Section 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Act and make a decision on this issue without conferring directly with the community or others having given due consideration to the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the persons likely to be effected by or have an interest in the decisions to be made.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Environmental Management Committee recommends that Council:

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

2. Agrees that the report on effectiveness of the Regional Resource Management Plan be prepared with a focus on the theme of ‘water quality and ecology’ and not the effectiveness of the Plan in its entirety.

Gavin Ide

Team Leader Policy

Helen Codlin

Group Manager

Strategic Development

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environmental Management Committee

Wednesday 08 September 2010

SUBJECT: Approach for Processing Cost Objections Received Outside of Statutory Timeframes

REASON FOR REPORT

1. The Resource Management Act (1991) (RMA) sets out the ability of Council to charge an applicant for consent processing. In addition, the RMA gives consent applicants the right to object to those costs, within specific timeframes.

2. This report sets out a recommended approach for dealing with cost objections that are received outside of those statutory timeframes.

3. Council has considered 75 objections to costs charged for processing resource consents during the 2009-2010 financial year, with a total of $94,742 remitted from invoices as a result, and incurring a further $96,879 (non-recoverable) cost to Council to consider the objections.

4. Considering cost objections has a significant financial and cost burden on Council, as any costs incurred cannot be recovered and hence it is prudent to develop some consistent policy to determine when a cost objection will not be accepted so these cost implications are carefully managed.

Background

5. Section 36(1)(b) of the RMA allows a local authority to “fix charges... payable by applicants for resource consents, for the carrying out by the local authority of any 1 or more of its functions in relation to the receiving, processing and granting of resource consents”. HBRC requires payments of these fixed charges as deposits when resource consent applications are lodged (and at later stages in the consent process for notified applications). These fixed charges (deposits) are set out in Council’s Annual Plan.

6. Where the fixed deposit is not sufficient to cover all of the costs of processing the resource consent, section 36(3) allows the following:

“where a charge fixed in accordance with subsection (1) is, in any particular case, inadequate to enable a local authority to recover its actual and reasonable costs in respect of the matter consents, the local authority may require the person who is liable to pay the charge, to also pay an additional charge to the local authority”

7. In practice, for most resource consents, an invoice is sent to the applicant after the decision has been issued. The invoiced amount is determined by calculating the total costs incurred (based on those charge out rates and fee structure set out in the annual plan) and subtracting the fixed deposit paid.

8. The right of objection to resource consent processing charges is set out in section 36(6), which confirms that the right of objection applies to additional costs charged under section 36(3). It is worth noting that the right of objection is only against the additional costs, not the fixed deposit.

9. Section 357B requires that an objection to costs must be made “by notice in writing, not later than 15 working days after the decision or requirement is notified to the objector, or within any longer time allowed by the person or body to which the objection is made”.

10. As such, there is the ability for an objector to fail to adhere to the 15 working day timeframe, and still have an expectation that their objection will be accepted. In addition, section 37 allows for the consent authority to extend a time period specified in the Act, particularly if the applicant agrees to the extension.

11. There is a need for Council to find a balance between allowing an objector some consistency and flexibility in timeframes for lodging an objection, and at the same time, avoiding unreasonable delays and burdens on the region’s ratepayers.

12. Cost objections have a significant financial burden on ratepayers. When Council receives a cost objection for a consent processing charge, the costs associated with considering the objection and holding a hearing on the matter are not recoverable from the objector, regardless of whether the objection is found to be frivolous or vexatious. The costs will be borne by general rating sources, as will any costs that are remitted.

13. In addition, the cost objection process delays the ability of Council to recover any of the invoiced amounts from being paid until the objection has been resolved. For cost objections resolved in the 2009-2010 year, an average of 9 months elapsed from consent decision until the cost objection was resolved.

14. There is therefore a need for this council to ensure measures are in place to reduce the burden of cost objections on the general ratepayer. One step is to ensure that a fair process is in place to make sure that cost objections made outside of the statutory timeframe are accepted or rejected in a consistent manner.

Recommended Approach

15. It is recommended that consistent policy is developed to determine at what point a late (lodged more than 15 working days after receipt of the invoice) cost objection should be rejected.

16. It is recommended that this policy contain the following guidelines for considering timeframes associated with cost objections:

16.1. The general expectation is that cost objections must be lodged with Council in writing within 15 days of the invoice being received by the consent applicant

16.2. Cost objections may be accepted if they are lodged between 15 and 30 days after receipt of the invoice, but only if exceptional circumstances apply, such as the following:

16.2.1. The invoice was delivered to an incorrect address, or for some other legitimate reason the consent applicant did not receive the invoice

16.2.2. The consent applicant has been seriously ill, or other similar personal circumstances have inhibited their ability to meet the timeframe.

16.3. It is recommended that once 30 days (6 weeks) have passed from the delivery of the invoice no cost objections be accepted as a matter of policy.

Reasons for This Approach

17. The suggested approach achieves a balance between fairness to consent applicants, reducing the financial burden of cost objections on ratepayers, avoiding unreasonable delays, and ensuring Council’s legal requirements are met.

DECISION MAKING PROCESS

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

18.1. Sections 97 and 98 of the Act do not apply as these relate to decisions that significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.

18.2. Sections 83 and 84 covering special consultative procedure do not apply.

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

18.4. The persons affected by this decision are applicants for resource consents.

18.5. The options considered are to develop a policy on late cost objections, or to continue with the status quo and have to justify the decision each time a late cost objection is made.

18.6. Section 80 of the Act covering decisions that are inconsistent with an existing policy or plan does not apply.

18.7. Council can exercise its discretion under Section 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Act and make a decision on this issue without conferring directly with the community or others having given due consideration to the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the persons likely to be effected by or have an interest in the decisions to be made.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Environmental Management Committee :

2. Adopts the approach for accepting late cost objections, as set out in this report, for implementation by staff. In particular:

2.1. The general expectation is that cost objections must be lodged with the Council in writing within 15 days of the invoice being received by the consent applicant.

2.2. Cost objections may be accepted if they are lodged between 15 and 30 days after receipt of the invoice, but only if exceptional circumstances apply, such as the following:

2.2.1. The invoice was delivered to an incorrect address, or for some other legitimate reason did not receive the invoice.

2.2.2. The consent applicant has been seriously ill, or other similar personal circumstances have inhibited their ability to meet the timeframe.

2.3. Once 30 days (6 weeks) have passed from the delivery of the invoice cost objections will not be accepted as a matter of policy.

Emma O'Neill

Senior Consents Officer

Dave Moule

Manager Consents

Darryl Lew

Group Manager Resource Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environmental Management Committee

Wednesday 08 September 2010

SUBJECT: Ruataniwha Basin Transient Groundwater-Surface Water Flow Model

REASON FOR REPORT

1. This paper provides a summary of the development and results of the Ruataniwha groundwater model project, as well as a brief summary of preliminary results of isotope sampling in Ruataniwha.

2. A short presentation on the paper will be provided to the Committee by Husam Baalousha – Senior Groundwater Scientist.

Background

3. The Ruataniwha groundwater resource is found in gravels and minor volcanic ash within a fault bounded basin between the Ruahine ranges to the west and the townships of Waipawa and Waipakurau. The gravels were washed into the basin in the Quaternary Era from rivers draining the Ruahine ranges.

4. Two main water bearing formations, Young Gravels and the older Salisbury Gravels form the groundwater system in the basin, which covers an area of approximately 800 km² and extend to a maximum depth of 200 m at some locations in the basin. The gravels are discontinuously layered with clay to form a series of interconnected aquifers.

5. There are 12 rivers and streams flow across the basin. Previous studies of river and stream flow gauging in the basin together with hydrogeological investigations have shown that the groundwater system in the basin is inextricably connected to the overlying rivers and streams in the basin. Essentially the basin is a closed system with little or minor lateral groundwater inflow or outflow. The main input into the basin is derived from rainfall within the basin and rivers seepage into the groundwater.

6. The total land area under irrigation in the Ruataniwha Plans has increased from 2200 hectares in 1995 to approximately 7000 hectares at present. Councils’ consents section is experiencing increasing demand for new takes in the basin as there is up to 32,000 hectares of irrigable land on the basin.

7. There has also been considerable land use intensification in the last 10 years resulting in a change in water use from 3 million cubic metres in 1990 to over 25 million cubic metres per year at present. The basin are prone to annual summer droughts so any future land use development is likely to be dependent on irrigation.

8. Surface water resources in the basin are already fully allocated under Council’s existing Regional Resource Management Plan and water users have looked to groundwater as an alternative supply. The effects of groundwater abstraction are now being expressed as declines in aquifer levels in parts of the basin.

9. Understanding the groundwater flow systems, interaction between surface and groundwater, potential effects of further groundwater abstraction on security of supply of existing water users and wider environmental effects are key issues that need to be investigated to enable sustainable management of the water resources in the basin.

10. As groundwater and surface water are highly interconnected, they should be managed as one entity within a framework of integrated water resources management in the basin.

11. An integrated groundwater- surface water transient model for the Ruataniwha Basin has been developed to help address these issues. The model considers all 12 rivers and streams within the basin, in conjunction with the groundwater system.

Model Development

12. The transient model of Ruataniwha Basin has been developed in three main stages; data collation, conceptualisation and calibration. Data collation includes collection of data on rivers flow, hydrogeological properties and groundwater abstraction. Model conceptualisation considers converting the hydrogeological system into a form of mathematical framework that can be understood by the numerical modelling software. Model calibration is a process of fine-tuning the model output to match the field measurements and to ensure reliability and robustness of the model.

13. Data used in the model comprises rivers flow data at 30 gauging sites in the entire basin, and spanning the time period from 1990 until present. Summer and winter variations of river flow have been considered for a better resolution of model output. Hydraulic properties of the subsurface were obtained from the aquifer-tests results and geological investigation in the basin.

14. Groundwater abstraction data over the last 20 years were based on compliance data, which covers part of the consented abstraction, and also from crop-water demand calculations. Groundwater abstraction has increased from 3 million cubic metres in 1990 to approximately 24 million cubic metres in 2009 (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Annual groundwater abstraction change from 1990 to 2010.

15. The initial head, which is required for the transient model, was obtained from the results of a previous steady state model. The steady state model was completed last year. It considered the groundwater system in the “natural” or pre-development conditions.

16. The conceptual model considers the outer boundaries of the model as no groundwater flow boundaries. The main gravel layers were included and considered. All layers were considered as variable confined/unconfined, which can be determined during model run. Rainfall recharge into the basin was simulated at the top layer, and recharge values were calculated based on rainfall, land slope and soil type. The model uses a finite difference grid with a cell size of 500 by 500 metres.

17. The transient model has been calibrated to ensure that it is usable. Calibration is an optimisation process, in which the difference between model results and field measurements is minimised.

18. Groundwater level data from the State of Environment (SoE) monitoring network and rivers' flow data was used for mode calibration.

Model Results

19. Model results include the transient groundwater level and flow velocity at the end of any time during the simulation period (1990-2009), and rivers/groundwater interaction. In addition, the model produces the long term water budget and drawdown distribution.

20. Groundwater level at the end of the simulation period shows that the groundwater flow is essentially from north-west to south-east direction (Figure 2). At depth, groundwater flow is horizontal at the western boundary of the basin, downward movement in the centre of the basin and upward groundwater movement at the eastern edge of the basin. Groundwater flow speed increases travelling down the basin to reach the maximum speed at the basin exit point as shown in Figure 2.

head_transient.tif

Figure 2. Simulated groundwater head and flow direction. The red colour means upward groundwater movement, the yellow colour means downward gradient and the blue means horizontal flow. Length of arrow is indicative of groundwater speed.

21. The gain/loss relationship between aquifers and rivers is complicated and varies spatially and temporally. As volume, the total volume of water gained by rivers and streams from the groundwater system is larger than rivers losses to the groundwater.

22. The average annual amount of river gain from the groundwater system is approximately 213 million m³, while the average annual river loss to groundwater is only 31 million m³. Based on these results, it can be concluded that rivers gain most of their water as they move downstream. Calibrated model shows that the average annual groundwater recharge is approximately 256 million m³.

23. The overall water budget shows that the main inflow component into the basin is the rainfall recharge, which constitutes 83.4% of the overall budget. The second largest component of inflow is the stream leakage (i.e. losses from streams to groundwater system), which is approximately 10.3% of the total budget. Storage losses constitute approximately 5.9% of the budget.

24. Groundwater abstraction constitutes only 3.4% of the total budget but storage losses constitute approximately 6.0% of the water budget. Even though groundwater abstraction is low compared to recharge, abstraction has resulted in a loss of 66 million cubic metres from storage since 1990 (Figure 3).

25. As a result of the sharp increase in groundwater abstraction over the last 10 years, storage, rivers/groundwater relationship, and springs flow have been impacted.

Figure 3. Cumulative changes in storage over the entire simulation period (1990-2009). Green line represents the storage gain and the red line represents the storage loss.

26. The impact of groundwater abstraction on rivers flow is shown in Figure 4. There is a clear decreasing trend in river gain, as shown in Figure 4. In the first 3000 days (around 8 years) the average rate of rivers gain is approximately 613544 m³ per day. This rate decreased to is 561738 m³ per day in the following years. This is probably because of increased pumping rate in the last 10 years. Stream losses to groundwater system (though small) have been slightly increasing over the last decade, as a result of groundwater abstraction (Figure 4).

27. The highest drawdown at the end of the simulation period occurs at Takapau area in the south, Ongaonga and Tikokino in the north, and upstream on the Mangaonuko River. Heavy groundwater abstraction in the last few years took place in these areas, which could explain why there is high drawdown there.

stream_loss_gain1.tif

Figure 4: The impact of groundwater abstraction on rivers/groundwater relationship.

28. Water resources development in the basin had a clear impact on spring’s flow, as shown in Figure 5. Spring flow varies over summer and winter and from one stress period to another. Decline in flow rate took place after less than 3000 days (approximately 8 years). In the first 8 years, the average spring’s flow rate dropped from 84000 m³/day to 80000 m³/day. The decline in spring’s flow is likely to be caused by groundwater development in the basin.

springs.tif

Figure 5. Changes in springs flow over simulation period.

29. The model will be used to examine a series of water resources management scenarios to inform allocation policy development for the groundwater resource in the basin. A number of scenarios that have been developed in consultation with staff from the planning, consents and water initiatives team. These scenarios include full uptake of existing consented allocation, increases in irrigation land to 14,000 hectares, and scenarios that reflect the Ministry for the Environment Low Flow Guidelines.

30. Results of the model will be communicated to key stakeholders in Ruataniwha community and water users groups through a series of seminars and workshops.

31. Accurate groundwater ages can significantly improve conceptual flow models and allow direct calibration of numerical flow models. It can also help identify sources of groundwater recharge and pathway along individual flow lines for certain points in the catchment, and delayed arrival of contaminants from the land into the water bodies.

32. Groundwater at its discharge point is a mixture of water from short and long flowlines, and therefore has a distribution of ages rather than one age.

33. A total of 25 bores in the Ruataniwha Basin have been sampled and analysed for tritium, CFC and SF6 concentrations. In addition, four rivers samples and two springs samples were collected to understand surface/groundwater interaction.

Figure 6: Preliminary results of ageing interpretation.

34. Interpretation of aging data (Figure 6) show that the water age in the basin vary between 1.5 years to more than 200 years, which reflects the complexity of the hydrogeology.

DECISION MAKING PROCESS

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

RECOMMENDATION

1. That the Environmental Management Committee receives the report titled “Ruataniwha Basin Transient Groundwater-Surface Water Flow Model”.

Husam Baalousha

Senior Groundwater Scientist

Graham Sevicke-Jones

Manager Enviromental Science

Darryl Lew

Group Manager Resource Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environmental Management Committee

Wednesday 08 September 2010

SUBJECT: High Flow Allocations

REASON FOR REPORT

1. To provide scientific support for a high flow allocation methodology as part of the development of the Regional Resource Management Plan.

Background

2. Water allocation beyond core allocation blocks has progressed in several catchments in a fractioned, consent-driven manner due to the lack of policy guidance. This research aims to inform policy development for high flow allocation that addresses the cumulative effect of multiple water takes on river hydrology, ensuring that water is made available but without negative impact on flow variability.

Objective

3. The objective of this investigation was to model high flow allocation in the Ngaruroro River during the primary water harvesting months of June to November and to determine any effects on instream values. In conjunction with modelling, assessments were made on naturalised Ngaruroro river flows to determine if there was any negative effect on flushing flows, ecological flow requirements, and water quality flow requirements.

4. An idealised schematic of water allocation, including high flow allocation is presented to show the concept used in this investigation (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Idealised water allocation structure, showing core and high flow allocation blocks and provision for protecting environmental flows.

Methods

5. A review of reports on water quality and instream ecology was conducted to determine the potential effects of high flow allocation scenarios on those parameters.

6. Modelling of allocation scenarios began by developing a daily average naturalised flow record for the Ngaruroro River at the Fernhill Bridge hydrometric station. Eight high flow allocation scenarios were then constructed and applied to the naturalised flow record for comparison.

7. Comparative analysis was completed using the software package “Indicators of Hydraulic Alteration v7” developed by The Nature Conservancy. The IHA was used to quantify how each allocation scenario altered the frequency or duration of biologically significant flow events in the natural flow regime.

Summary and Conclusions

8. Eight high flow allocation methods have been modelled and investigated to determine a suitable method of allocating flow during times of higher river flow (June to November) which has minimal impact on the river ecology and hydrology.

9. Hydrological analyses showed small variations between the naturalised and altered Ngaruroro River flow for each high flow allocation method. Results of the ecological analyses recommend that in order to maintain instream ecological values, the mean FRE3 value for the Ngaruroro River should not be changed by more than 10% of its naturalised flow value. All eight high flow allocation methods investigated alter the FRE3 value by less than 10%.

10. Additional ecological analyses including water quality and temperature assessments, instream habitat, and fish passage concluded that there would be no significant effects from any of the high flow allocation methods.

11. As part of the IHA analysis, a Range of Variability Approach (RVA) analysis investigated the degree of hydrologic alteration between the naturalised flow (pre-impact) and altered flow (post-impact) for 32 hydrological parameters that statistically characterise ecologically significant features of the flow regime.

12. The RVA results showed that the four high flow allocation methods based on using the mean flow as the allocation threshold incurred the least hydrologic alteration on the Ngaruroro River flow.

13. Given the very similar results from the analyses for the eight methods and the only very minor effect they each have on the flow regime and instream ecology of the Ngaruroro River for the months of June to November, it comes down to a preference of what quantity of water should be made available for allocation. If the desire is to promote and encourage water harvesting for storage then Methods 2, 4, 6 and 8 would be preferable as they offer the greatest allocable volumes

14. The allocation scenarios investigated in this study have applied a flow share arrangement, for example, 50/50 - where 50% of the flow above a threshold is allocated up to a maximum allocation. This means that for every litre of water allocated a litre must stay in the river above the threshold. Consideration will need to be given to how this will be managed. Otago Regional Council found it a difficult proposition and instead nominated allocation blocks over and above certain threshold flows.

15. An example situation for the Ngaruroro River might be three allocations blocks:

a) A block – is the core allocation as defined by the minimum flow and the allocation limit

b) B block – the minimum flow for this would be the median/mean flow and an upper limit may be, for example, 3 m³/s above this, i.e. 3 m³/s available for allocation

c) C block – the minimum flow here could be the FRE3 value and an allocation limit could be, for example, 2 m³/s.

16. This effectively gives three allocation blocks with ‘gaps’ in between where flow is maintained. Allocation systems such as this are used in the Otago region. HBRC would need to ascertain whether the Ngaruroro River would require a similar system or if a straight flow sharing arrangement would work best.

Further Investigation

17. As an alternative to the recommended flow sharing allocation structure, block allocation is being modelled to determine the implications for water users and environmental flows.

18. High flow allocation scenarios (flow sharing and block) are also being modelled for the Tukituki catchment. Future modelling is tabled for other catchments including the Tutaekuri. This will allow the development of specific allocation structures which address the values of each catchment.

19. The modelling results for each allocation scenario will be put forward for consideration in the policy development process with recommendations for preferred scenarios. Recommended structures will allow optimisation of water allocation while still maintaining environmental flows.

20. Stakeholder consultation can then address each scenario in light of catchment-specific values before progressing to formation of high flow allocation policy in the Regional Resource Management Plan.

DECISION MAKING PROCESS

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

RECOMMENDATION

1. That the Environmental Management Committee receives the report titled “High Flow Allocations”.

Kolt Johnson

Scientist

Graham Sevicke-Jones

Manager Enviromental Science

Darryl Lew

Group Manager Resource Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environmental Management Committee

Wednesday 08 September 2010

SUBJECT: Understanding Flow Patterns Within the Ruataniwha Basin

REASON FOR REPORT

1. To gain an understanding of the physical hydrological system and to inform future water management decisions in the Ruataniwha Plains. This understanding is crucial for enabling an informed assessment of total water allocation and managing the river system.

Background

2. Previous concurrent gauging data for the Ruataniwha Plains have been recorded during 1973 and the summer of 1996/1997. These data were used historically to create maps of river flow patterns. Although of sufficient detail to provide insight into flow patterns, additional data were required to build statistical relationships and to investigate streams not previously studied.

3. The Ruataniwha Concurrent Gaugings Programme was developed to provide detailed hydrological data to inform review of current water allocation in the basin. The primary goals of this study were to describe in detail the gains and losses along streams in the Ruataniwha basin, establish flow correlations with recorder sites, and provide data for use in the Ruataniwha basin groundwater model. This will be used as an important component of establishing water allocation rules for both surface and groundwater in the Ruataniwha Basin.

4. Concurrent gaugings are stream flow measurements that are conducted at the same time at multiple points along a river system. Under steady state conditions, concurrent gaugings offer an instantaneous snapshot of the hydrology of a catchment. Over several repetitions, they can be used to form a picture of system-wide river flow patterns. If sufficient repetitions are completed, the data can be used to build statistical relationships between river segments and neighbouring catchments. This data can then be used to inform the water demand management process.

5. Consent conditions allow for temporary bans on consented water use for scientific investigations. Temporary bans to all consented water takes were issued before and during gauging runs to ensure that water abstraction did not affect river flows. Concurrent gauging runs were also conducted during fine weather to ensure rain pulses were not moving through the system.

Results

Surface Water Flow Patterns

6. Concurrent gaugings were conducted at 34 sites in the Ruataniwha Plains (Figure 1).

CCGG map

Figure 1: 2008/2009 concurrent gauging locations.

7. Drought conditions prevailed during the 2008/2009 summer over much of the Hawke’s Bay region. Zero flows were measured at certain locations in the Mangaonuku, Waipawa, and Tukituki rivers. Low flow patterns were able to be determined for all streams in the Ruataniwha Basin (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Surface water flow patterns from the 2008/2009 Concurrent Gauging Programme.

Mangaonuku

8. The Mangaonuku was gauged at three locations. Flow records indicate the Mangaonuku exhibits a strong baseflow over much of the hydrograph. Observations show that even at extreme low flows with no water in the upper river, groundwater gains sustain flow in the lower reaches. This is consistent with previous studies.

Waipawa

9. The Waipawa River was gauged at seven locations. The Waipawa experiences significant flow loss below SH 50. Loss from the river is believed to recharge the local groundwater system and then re-emerge as streamflow in tributary streams and the lower reach below the Mangaonuku confluence. The lower Waipawa above the Mangaonuku stream exhibits the most dramatic drying of the Ruataniwha rivers. During the concurrent gauging survey on 4 February 2009, the dry reach extended approximately 3.5 kilometres. A sharp increase in flow at SH2 is caused by flow from the Mangaonuku Stream, Cockrane’s Creek, and emergence of groundwater.

10. For the 2008/09 data, the sum of flows from the Waipawa and Makaroro above their confluence is approximately 5% less than the flow measured at Stewarts (below the confluence). This trend does not continue to SH50, which may indicate that there is an area of loss in the upper river that is not connected to the major loss area below SH50. Inspection of river profiles does not show any conspicuous gradient changes in the upper river which may influence this occurrence, so although there is a 5% difference, it is pragmatic to consider the reach above SH50 to be conservative flow, given the small magnitude of variation in the gauging data.

11. A gauging run conducted on 21 January 2009 measured the lowest flowing conditions in the lower river of 325 L/s. The concurrent flow at SH50 was 3865 L/s. A simple subtraction identifies the flow at which the lower river is expected to dry is 3545 L/s. This is confirmed using the correlation from all the concurrent data between the sites SH50 and End Plantation Road, which shows the Waipawa is likely to dry in the lower river when the flow at SH50 reaches 3500 L/s.

12. Flow patterns identified in the upper river during the 2008/09 gauging run appear to be different than during previous investigations. The majority of historical concurrent gaugings show loss in the upper river, but the 2008/09 series show slight gains on average (Table 1). It is important to note that the difference in flows is within gauging error (8%) for all but one gauging during the 2008/2009 run. Water take bans could influence a shift from small percentage loss to small percentage gain, but cannot reconcile the large losses seen in early data. It is unclear what has lead to this shift.

13. Previous studies also noted that flow loss is greater at high flows than at low flows. The 2008/2009 data do not show this trend.

Table 1: Difference in measured flow between Stewarts and SH50 on the upper Waipawa River.

Date	Waipawa River at Stewarts (L/s)	Waipawa River at State Highway 50 (L/s)	Flow difference (L/s)	% change
6/12/1978	5366	3525	-1841	-34.3%
19/12/1978	7298	6111	-1187	-16.3%
9/01/1979	2567	2154	-413	-16.1%
23/01/1979	1943	1472	-471	-24.2%
13/02/1979	1925	1456	-469	-24.4%
14/03/1979	3871	3499	-372	-9.6%
29/01/1980	3892	3568	-324	-8.3%
27/03/1980	9585	8975	-610	-6.4%
17/11/2003	4184	3941	-243	-5.8%
7/09/2004	8952	8665	-287	-3.2%
9/11/2004	4842	4119	-723	-14.9%
21/02/2005	2920	2926	6	0.2%
24/08/2005	5711	4969	-742	-13.0%
22/11/2005	4686	4114	-572	-12.2%
18/01/2006	4602	4358	-244	-5.3%
15/03/2006	2746	2529	-217	-7.9%

17/12/2008	3137	3300	163	5.2%
21/01/2009	3782	3865	84	2.2%
4/02/2009	2178	2191	12	0.6%
4/03/2009	7857	7553	-304	-3.9%
18/03/2009	3834	3894	61	1.6%
1/04/2009	3312	3489	178	5.4%
24/06/2009	5178	5787	609	11.8%

Tukituki

14. The Tukituki was gauged at six locations in the Ruataniwha and two in the lower reaches. Flow loss was evident below SH50. As the Tukituki nears the eastern margin of the Ruataniwha basin, the Tukituki receives significant flow from the Kahahakuri and Tukipo. With the exception of one gauging pair, the sum of the Tukituki (below the Tukipo confluence) and Kahahakuri flows is within gauging error (8%) of the flow measured at Tapairu Road (Table 2). This indicates that little groundwater is gained between the Kahahakuri confluence and Tapairu Road.

15. The gauging run on 4 February 2009 measured near-zero flow in the Tukituki at Ongaonga-Waipukurau Road. The point at which flow ceased was also marked by GPS, approximately 2 kilometers from the Tukipo confluence. With this measurement it is possible to estimate the flow at which drying is likely to occur in the Tukituki. The zero flow at Ongaonga-Waipukurau Road corresponded to 1100 L/s at SH50, and is a good estimate for the point at which flow will cease in the Tukituki before it reaches the Tukipo confluence. The correlation using all data between Ongaonga-Waipukurau Road and SH50 indicates that drying will occur in the lower reaches when flow at SH50 is approximately 1200 L/s, which is in reasonable agreement with the flows observed on 4 February 2009.

Table 2: Difference in flows along the Tukituki River between the Kahahakuri confluence and Tapairu Road.

	Kahahakuri Stream U/S Tukituki Confl	Tukituki River U/S Kahahakuri Confluence	Tukituki River at Tapairu Rd	Loss/Gain Between Confl. and Tapairu Rd	Percentage of Tapairu Flow
17/12/2008	1070.199	2180.543	3210.085	-40.657	-1.3%
21/01/2009	996.049	2772.336	3958.249	189.864	4.8%
4/02/2009	886.03	981.785	1730.299	-137.516	-7.9%
4/03/2009	1065.105	10823.333	12860.493	972.055	7.6%
18/03/2009	1069.354	4112.956	5416.09	233.78	4.3%
1/04/2009	1037.07	2375.349	2872.879	-539.54	-18.8%
24/06/2009	1155.019	4965.561	6035.39	-85.19	-1.4%

Kahahakuri

16. The Kahahakuri Stream was gauged at two locations in the lower reach. The spring-fed nature of this stream is evident in both its physical character (narrow, meandering, incised channel with riparian growth to water’s edge and cool temperature) and the high baseflow hydrology. The Kahahakuri shows consistent flow patterns regardless of regional flows. Correlations are poor with other sites in the catchment; however a good flow record is available for this stream.

Tukipo

17. The Tukipo was gauged at five locations, with two additional gauging sites on its tributary, the Mangatewai Stream. The data show that the Tukipo consistently gains flow through its entire length. This is in contrast with previous runs that indicate there is a losing reach in the vicinity of Fairfield Road. It is important to consider that previous gauging studies did not enforce irrigation bans, so there is the possibility that those data are influenced by abstraction. The general gaining trend measured during the 2008/2009 study is consistent over all seven runs and is considered to be an accurate depiction of natural conditions and most useful for water resource analyses.

Makeretu, Porangahau, and Maharakeke

18. The Makeretu is the southernmost of the Ruataniwha streams that flow from the Ruahine Range. Three gauging locations were chosen on the Makeretu. The Porangahau is a tributary of the Maharakeke, which then enters the Makeretu at the end of its course. One gauging site was located on the Porangahau and two on the Maharakeke Stream.

19. Recent gauging data show the general trend in the Makeretu is slightly gaining above SH50, and slightly losing below SH50. It is important to note that the distances between gauging sites are substantial. Concurrent gaugings from 1996 and 1997 indicate that a short losing reach occurs approximately 7 kilometers from the Tukipo confluence. Along with the 1973 gaugings, they also indicate an overall gain in flow from Pagett’s Road to the Tukipo confluence, a trend not evident in the recent data. Further investigation will be required if it is to be determined that this change represents a long-term shift in flow patterns.

20. The Porangahau and Maharakeke data show a consistent gaining flow trend. The site at SH2 measures all flow in the Maharakeke and Porangahau Streams, which was compared to the sum of the two inflows to determine the percent change in flow. In this case, flows were consistently higher than the sum of both upstream sites indicating significant gaining conditions. The two gaugings upstream of the confluence have been compared to the downstream gauging at SH2 (Table 3). There is considerable distance between gauging sites but the magnitude of flow gain is high, indicating the source is groundwater discharge.

Table 3: Gauging data for the Porangahau and Maharakeke Streams.

	Maharakeke St. at Limeworks Stn Rd.	Porangahau St. at Oruawhara Rd.	Maharakeke St. at State Highway 2 Br.	Gain/Loss (L/s)	% change from Limeworks + Oruawhara Rd.
17/12/2008	94	59	198	45	29%
21/01/2009	78	36	117	3	3%
4/02/2009	72	28	111	11	11%
4/03/2009	140	51	262	71	37%
18/03/2009	127	55	219	37	20%
1/04/2009	99	39	177	39	28%
24/06/2009	149	68	331	114	53%

Lower Tukituki

21. Surface water flow patterns in the lower Tukituki River are less affected by groundwater discharge than in the Ruataniwha Plains. Aquifers in this area are thin, surficial river gravels of limited aerial extent and provide a negligible contribution to baseflow. Concurrent gauging data are available for the sites Shagrock, Patangata, and Red Bridge. Shagrock and Patangata are located downstream of the confluence of the Waipawa and Tukituki Rivers, which allows for measurement of all flow exiting the Ruataniwha basin. Red Bridge is located approximately 14 kilometers from the Tukituki river mouth and is used as a gauge for the total amount of water exiting the system. The data for these sites indicate an average flow increase of 5%. There are no concurrent gauging data for the lower tributary catchments, so definite figures of tributary inflow cannot be calculated. These catchments have limited water resources and were not included in the concurrent gauging programme. However, estimates of flow based on isolated gaugings indicate that tributaries account for all of the increase measured at Red Bridge.

Conclusion and Further Work

22. A detailed assessment of gain and loss from rivers has been mapped in the Ruataniwha Basin. The flow patterns discerned from these data corroborate major historical patterns; loss in the mid-reaches of the Waipawa and Tukituki Rivers and significant gains in the Mangaonuku and Kahahakuri Streams.

23. Changes from historical flow patterns have also been observed. The Tukituki River below the Kahahakuri confluence was measured as stable (no major gain or loss), where historical data show gaining conditions. Stable flow was also measured in the upper Waipawa and Tukituki rivers, which were previously observed as losing reaches

24. Additional field work will be required to confirm if the changes observed during the Concurrent Gauging Program represent a shift in long-term flow patterns.

25. The data from the Concurrent Gauging Program were incorporated in the Ruataniwha Transient Groundwater Model and aided in its successful development.

26. Correlations between sites have been drawn which aid in calculating flow statistics (like the mean annual low flow) for a number of sites with poor flow records.

27. Concurrent data in the absence of abstraction have shown an accurate depiction of the total contribution of streamflow from each tributary catchment. This will be used to inform the distribution of water allocation (core, high flow, and dam-fill) throughout the Ruataniwha Basin.

28. This information will be used to inform policy development which will address equitable distribution of water allocation in the Ruataniwha Basin.

DECISION MAKING PROCESS

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

RECOMMENDATION

1. That the Environmental Management Committee receives the report titled “Understanding Flow Patterns Within the Ruataniwha Basin”.

Kolt Johnson

Scientist

Graham Sevicke-Jones

Manager Enviromental Science

Darryl Lew

Group Manager Resource Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environmental Management Committee

Wednesday 08 September 2010

SUBJECT: Triennial Report on Hearings and Appeals

REASON FOR REPORT

1. This report provides an overview of the Hearings Committee’s activities for the past term (October 2007 to September 2010).

Committee Terms of Reference

2. The Terms of Reference for the Hearings Committee outlines the core functions, powers and/or duties pursuant to Section 34(1) of the Resource Management Act (RMA) and Section 82 of the Biosecurity Act that the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council delegates to the committee. The predominant function of the Hearings Committee is to hear and make decisions on publically notified resource consent applications and plan changes.

3. The Terms of Reference authorises the Hearings Committee to resolve and settle appeals and references through formal hearings or mediation before the Environment Court or any other judicial body. The committee also hears and makes decisions on objections against costs.

4. The Terms of Reference also identifies the membership and hearing panel composition, chairman, deputy chairman, meeting frequency and required qualifications.

5. A copy of the Hearings Committee’s Terms of Reference (as amended and adopted by Council at the meeting held 25 March 2009) is included as Attachment 1 to this paper.

Hearings

Proposed Plans

6. Proposed plan matters heard by the Hearings Committee during 2007-2010 period are set out in Table 1. During this period, there were no statutory documents prepared under the Biosecurity Act.

7. It must be noted that hearings on the Proposed Regional Coastal Environment Plan spanned two Council terms. To maintain continuity, the previous Council had resolved that members of the RCEP Hearings Committee be appointed as commissioners, (chaired by Adrienne Williams) to hear the remainder of topics heard in late 2007/early 2008 – regardless of 2007 local body election results. Councillors Christine Scott and Ewan McGregor were members of the RCEP Hearings Committee and both still provide direction to staff as and when required on proposals to settle RCEP appeals.

Table 1: Proposed Plan matters heard by Hearings Committee 2007-2010

	Proposed Regional Coastal Environment Plan (RCEP) & Change 1 to RRMP	Air Quality (Change 2 to RRMP & Variation 2 to RCEP)
No. of submissions (no. indiv. points)	203 (1642)	195 (1170)
No. of further submissions	33	23
No. of days hearing submitters	13	2, 3, 4 Nov 2009
No. of docs tabled by submitters	130	26
No. of presentations by submitters	96	28
Total no. of meeting days	24	8
No. of recommendations to Council	1642	66
No. of appeals (no. of indiv. decisions appealed)	12 (383)	5 (11)

8. In the instances of all plans referred to in Table 1, all recommendations and associated reasons made by the Hearings Committee to the Council were adopted by the Council.

Resource Consents

9. Resource consent matters heard by hearing panels made up from members of the Hearings Committee or independent commissioners during the 2007-2010 period are set out in Table 2.

Table 2: Resource consent matters heard by Hearings Committee 2007-2010

Dates	No. of Hearings	No. of Individual Applications	Context / Comments (Only bulk of hearings listed)
01 July 2007 – 30 June 2008	5	99	Includes the Karamu Stream water take replacement hearing (25 individual consent applications); and Tukituki River water take replacement hearing (70 individual consent applications)
01 July 2008 – 30 June 2009	5	76	Includes the Ngaruroro River water take replacement hearing (67 individual consent applications)
01 July 2009 – 30 June 2010	4	33	Includes the Hastings District Council stormwater consent hearing (15 individual consent applications); and The Mexted & Williams coastal subdivision hearing (11 individual consent applications)
01 July 2010 – to date	3	161	Includes the Twyford / Raupare Stream water take replacement hearings (150 individual consent applications); and The lapse date extension hearing (11 individual consent applications)
Totals	17	369

APPEALS

10. Proposed plan matters heard by the Hearings Committee and subsequently appealed to the Environment Court are also set out in Table 1 above. The September 2010 Environmental Management Committee meeting agenda includes a paper that provides a status report of those currently unresolved plan appeals.

11. Resource consent matters heard by the Hearings Committee and subsequently appealed to the Environment Court are set out in Table 3, and again the September 2010 Environmental Management Committee meeting agenda includes a paper that provides a status report of currently unresolved consent appeals.

12. It is noteworthy that while a large number of appeals on consent decisions have been made in the last 3 years, to date no appeal has been successful in overturning a Hearing Panel’s decision. It is also noteworthy that no mediated outcomes entered into by staff have resulted in materially different outcomes than those of the Panel’s decision. This is a clear indication that the Hearings Panel’s decisions are lawful and are striking the correct balances between environmental protection, cultural considerations and economic and social benefits.

Table 3: Resource consent matters appealed to Environment Court 2007-2010

Date	No. of Appeals	Context / Comments
01 July 2007 – 30 June 2008	24	Includes the 21 appeals on the Tukituki River water take decisions
01 July 2008 – 30 June 2009	75	Includes the 19 appeals on the Karamu Stream water take decisions; and The 56 appeals on the Ngaruroro River water take decisions
01 July 2009 – 30 June 2010	14	Includes the 11 appeals on the Mexted & Williams coastal subdivision decisions; The 2 appeals on the Affco NZ Limited discharge permit decision; and The appeal on the Garrity Land Company Limited groundwater take decision.
01 July 2010 – to date	Nil	No appeals lodged since 01 July 2010.
Total	113

13. It is also important to note that the Hearings Committee has also considered numerous cost objections under Section 357B of the RMA. While it has been established that Council has received 97 cost objections since 1 July 2007, it has been difficult to quantify how many then proceeded to a hearing. Furthermore, some of these objections are still being resolved. The majority of cost objections are resolved and settled at the Council Officer level, however for the purposes of this paper it is acknowledged that the Hearings Committee has heard and made decisions on several cost objections over and above those consents and appeals hearings identified above (for example, objections to costs on the Karamu Stream and Ngaruroro River water take decisions).

14. It is important to acknowledge the substantial workload associated with the resource consent application, plan change, appeal, and cost objection hearings referred to above, and the immense pressure this places on Council staff and the Hearings Committee. The provisions of the RMA in relation to hearings are very stringent with respect to decision making and the associated timeframes which need to be adhered to. The process can absorb a significant amount of resourcing and the issues to be considered can be very complex.

15. It is recognised that the non-recoverable costs associated with hearings to consider appeals and cost objections can be significant, however there are substantive savings associated with resolving issues and mediating outcomes without the need to proceed to the Environment Court. The efforts of Council staff and the Hearings Committee are acknowledged in this respect.

DECISION MAKING PROCESS

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

RECOMMENDATION

1. That the Environmental Management Committee receives the report titled “Triennial Report on Hearings and Appeals”.

Dave Moule

Manager Consents

Gavin Ide

Team Leader Policy

Darryl Lew

Group Manager

Resource Management

Helen Codlin

Group Manager

Strategic Development

Attachment/s

1 View

Hearings Committee Terms of Reference

Hearings Committee Terms of Reference

Attachment 1

HEARINGS COMMITTEE

TERMS OF REFERENCE

To exercise the following delegations

1. To consider and recommend to Council processes, policies and guidelines to ensure effective management of resource consent and plan development processes.

2. Pursuant to Section 34(1) of the Resource Management Act (RMA) the Hawke's Bay Regional Council delegate the following functions, powers and/or duties under the RMA:

i) To hear and make recommendations on submissions received on any statutory documents prepared by Council which have been subject to a formal submission process under the Resource Management Act 1991.

ii) To hear and make decisions on applications arising out of the Council's regulatory responsibilities as follows:

· notified applications where submissions have been made and submitters wish to be heard;

· reviews of conditions (s.128) where consent holder and/or submitters wish to be heard

· notified applications where submissions have been made and where the Committee considers it necessary to hold a hearing;

· objections to decisions made under delegated authority by staff, where they wish to be heard (s.357);

· where the staff recommendation is to decline any application for reasons other than inadequate information;

iii) To determine other related discretionary process matters that may be associated with a hearing such as waivers of time, as appropriate under the Resource Management Act 1991.

iv) To hear and make decisions on objections against costs under Section 36(6) of the Act and objections to the levying of Financial Contributions under Section 108 of the Act.

v) To hear and make decisions on lapsing of consents under Section 125 of the Act where a decision of an officer acting under delegated authority is subject to an objection.

3. Pursuant to section 82 of the Biosecurity Act (BA) the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council delegate the following functions, powers and/or duties under the BA:

i) To hear and make decisions on submissions received on any statutory documents prepared by Council which have been subject to a formal submission process under the Biosecurity Act.

ii) To authorise the resolution and settlement of appeals and references through formal hearings or mediation before the Environment Court or any other judicial body which relate to the preparation of any statutory documents prepared under the Biosecurity Act by the Council and to either generally or from time to time delegate to officers the authority to resolve and settle appeals and references through formal mediation.

4. The Hawke’s Bay Regional Council delegate to the Hearings Committee Chairman, the appointment of Hearings Committee members to a Hearing Panel to undertake the functions set out above in 2(ii), 2(iii), 2(iv) and 2(vi) and the appointment of the Chair of the Hearing Panel.

*MEMBERS:*	Four elected and accredited Members of Council; and up to three members of the Maori Committee, nominated by the Chair of the Maori Committee.
*HEARING PANEL COMPOSITION:*	The Hearing Panel sitting to make decisions relating to 2(ii), 2(iii), 2(iv) and 2(vi) above shall comprise any combination of: · Up to three accredited members of the Hearings Committee · Up to three accredited Commissioners · If considered advisable in any particular case by the Chairman of the Committee, an accredited member of the Council’s Maori Committee. Also when appropriate, the Chair of the Standing Committee when hearings directly relate to policy originating from that Committee.
	The Hearing Panel Chair has a Casting vote.
*CHAIRMAN:*	Cr Christine Scott
*DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:*	A member of the Committee as elected by the Council being: Cr E McGregor
*MEETING FREQUENCY:*	As is required
*STAFF EXECUTIVE:*	Group Manager Environmental Management
*QUALIFICATIONS:*	Except as indicated above, (relating to the Chair of a Standing Committee, all Members of the Panel must be accredited pursuant to section 39B of the Resource Management Act 1991.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environmental Management Committee

Wednesday 08 September 2010

SUBJECT: Status of Environment Court Appeals

REASON FOR REPORT

1. This report provides an overview of appeals currently being dealt with in relation to proposed plans and resource consents. The paper also outlines any recently mediated resolutions. In March 2010, a similar paper focussing only on resource consent appeals was presented to the Committee.

2. Dealing with appeals requires significant resources in terms of staff time, expert witnesses and legal costs, especially as appeals are often technically and legally complex. Consequently, it is desirable to resolve these appeals as expeditiously as possible, while still achieving good environmental outcomes that are consistent with Council’s plans and policies, and upheld the intent of Hearing Panel decisions.

Proposed Plan Appeals

3. During the 2007-2010 period, Council heard submissions and issued decisions on two key proposed planning documents as set out in the table below.

Plan	Decision Date (no. of decisions)	No. of appeals (no. of appeal points)	No. of appeals unresolved as at 30 Aug 2010
Proposed Regional Coastal Environment Plan and Change 1 (Geographic coverage of RRMP)	19 July 2008 (1642)	12 (383)	8 (172)
Change 2 and Variation 2 (Air Quality)	17 March 2010 (66)	Change 2: 3 Variation 2: 2 (11)	Change 2: 3 Variation 2: 2 (11)

Air Quality

4. The five appeals in total on air quality decisions were lodged by three appellants (Horticulture New Zealand, Napier City Council and Solid Energy NZ Limited). Individual points of those appeals relate to 11 decisions out of a total of 66 decisions made. A summary of those appeals was provided at the Environmental Management Committee meeting in May 2010.

5. All three appeals currently remain unresolved. Staff have had positive discussions with each of the appeal parties. Staff managing those appeals are confident that all five appeals could be satisfactorily resolved without a formal court hearing. Any unresolved matters are planned to be addressed at an Environment Court assisted mediation session scheduled for 14-15 September 2010.

6. In the 2010/11 Annual Plan, provision has already been made for foreseeable technical advice and legal services expenditure associated with resolving appeals on Change 2 and Variation 2 relating to air quality.

Regional Coastal Environment Plan

7. Eight appeals remain partly unresolved from the original twelve appeals lodged. The table below summarises the status of each appeal.

Appellant	Overall status	Notes
Federated Farmers NZ	Settled	Settlement included minor amendments to air discharge rules and requirements for ‘management plans.’
Ocean View Estate Ltd.	Settled	Settlement amended location and extent of Coastal Hazard Zone 3 at appellant’s Mahanga property.
Shoal Beach Ltd.	Settled	Settlement amended location and extent of coastal hazard zones at Shoal Beach, Aramoana.
Te Awanga Society Inc.	Settled	Entire appeal was struck out by Environment Court.
Minister of Conservation	Settled in part	Draft Consent Order currently in circulation amongst parties for agreement and signatures. Settlement likely without Court hearing.
Ravensdown Fertiliser	Settled in part	Part settlement included minor amendments to air discharge rules and requirements for ‘management plans.’ Further Draft Consent Order currently in circulation amongst parties for agreement and signatures which would settle all remaining matters.
Winstone Aggregates	Settled in part	Unresolved matters relate to location and extent of coastal hazard zones at Awatoto; associated coastal hazard objectives, policies and rules; gravel extraction and deposition along Napier foreshore.
Peter Fenwicke et. al.	Unresolved	Negotiations pending independent review by Prof Paul Komar. Draft Komar report reviewing Mahanga Beach hazard assessments by Tonkin and Taylor Ltd and appellants has been circulated to parties for comment. Parties had previously agreed Komar findings will be binding on outcome for location and extent of coastal hazard zones at Mahanga.
Hill Country Corp. Ltd.	Unresolved	Negotiations pending independent review by Prof Paul Komar. Draft Komar report reviewing Ocean Beach hazard assessments by Tonkin and Taylor Ltd and appellants has been circulated to parties for comment. Parties had previously agreed Komar findings will be binding on outcome for location and extent of coastal hazard zones at Ocean Beach.
Napier City Council	Unresolved	Draft Consent Order currently in circulation amongst parties for agreement and signatures. Unresolved matters relate to stormwater discharges and gravel extraction/deposition along Napier foreshore.
Ngati Kahungunu Iwi Inc.	Unresolved	Draft Consent Order currently in circulation amongst parties for agreement and signatures. Unresolved matters relate to stormwater discharges linked in with NapierCC appeal.
Port of Napier Ltd.	Unresolved	Draft Consent Order currently under preparation awaiting location details of existing port structures. Settlement likely without Court hearing.

8. Assuming all parties were to agree and sign each of the draft consent orders currently in circulation, only 33 of the original 383 appeal points would remain unresolved. Those 33 points can generally be grouped into four topics:

8.1 stormwater discharges (currently ‘on hold’ pending Regional Stormwater Working Group discussions and outcomes)

8.2 Napier foreshore gravel extraction and deposition activities (i.e. for Westshore Beach renourishment and Winstone’s extraction at Awatoto)

8.3 location and extent of coastal hazard zones at Awatoto

8.4 coastal hazard-related objectives, policies and rules.

9. In the most recent status report on RCEP appeals submitted to the Environment Court on 3 September 2010, Council’s lawyers requested that another 1-2 days be scheduled for Court-assisted mediation later this year to deal with topics (b), (c) and (d) above in particular.

10. In the 2010/11 Annual Plan, provision has already been made for foreseeable technical advice and legal services expenditure associated with resolving remaining appeals on the Proposed Regional Coastal Environment Plan.

Resource Consent Appeals

Ngaruroro River Catchment Appeals

11. Decisions on the 68 Ngaruroro River catchment water permit applications were released on 9 April 2009. Fifty appeals were lodged with the Environment Court with respect to Council’s decisions on the various Ngaruroro water takes by Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga, and four appeals were lodged by three applicants who were granted consents to take water from the Maraekakaho Stream Management Zone.

12. A paper entitled ‘Maraekakaho and Ngaruroro Mediation Outcomes’ was presented to Council on Wednesday 25 August 2010, which surmised the outcomes of mediation with respect to these appeals.

13. The Ngaruroro and Maraekakaho resource consent appeals by Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga are very close to being resolved, with agreements between the parties having been reached for 44 of the 50 consents. It is understood that five parties are still to contact Simpson Grierson (Council’s Counsel) with regard to the appeals. Three appeals have been filed with the Environment Court but require Fish and Game New Zealand (Hawke’s Bay Region), as a section 274 party to the appeals, to sign the joint memorandums in support of the draft consent orders. Two appeals were withdrawn by Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga at the mediation meeting. The appeals are not legally settled until an Environment Court judge agrees to and signs the Consent Orders.

14. The four appeals on the resource consents within the Maraekakaho Stream Management Zone are also close to resolution, with Simpson Grierson having been instructed to sign the joint memorandums in support of the draft consent orders. It is understood that there are approximately 11 draft consent orders left to file with the Environment Court. Simpson Grierson has indicated that they would expect to have the consent orders back from the Environment Court in approximately one month, depending on the Judge’s availability.

AFFCO Appeal

15. AFFCO was granted resource consent to discharge stormwater and wastewater into the Wairoa River on 24 July 2009. An appeal of four conditions of the consent was received on 17 August 2009 from the applicant. Mr David Renouf became a section 274 party to the proceedings.

16. A mediation meeting was held with AFFCO on 21 October 2009. During the meeting Council staff were informed by AFFCO that there had been confusion regarding the data required by the previous consent, and that inadvertently the wrong data for ammonia levels had been supplied by the company with the resource consent application. Had there been a proper understanding as to the basis upon which ammonia levels had been reported, the recommendation on the application at the hearing would have been materially different. Staff are currently working on identifying the next steps to take in these proceedings, as advised by Simpson Grierson.

17. AFFCO currently have a mean wastewater faecal coliform level of 110,000 cfu/100 ml. AFFCO are appealing a consent condition requiring a reduction to 2,460 cfu/100 ml by December 2012. This will require a wastewater plant upgrade which will cost AFFCO approximately $1 - 2 Million.

18. The Department of Conservation (DoC) has become a section 274 party to the appeal.

19. The first court assisted mediation is scheduled for 9 September 2010, in Napier.

Garrity Land Company Ltd Appeal

20. Garrity Land Company Limited applied to take water from well 2015, which was considered by this Council to be hydraulically linked to the over-allocated Tutaekuri-Waimate Stream. This application was declined resource consent in the decision issued on 21 December 2009. The applicant lodged an appeal, which Council received on 28 January 2010. Mediation with a court appointed mediator was held on 12 April 2010. In an effort to resolve the appeal, the Council offered the applicant a 5 year consent term. A five year consent term would allow the Council to undertake a detailed investigation of the Moteo Valley and gain a detailed understanding of the groundwater-surface water interaction that occur within it. The need for this work has already been acknowledged by Council’s Science Team and will be brought forward into the LTCCP.

21. The applicant initially accepted this offer of settlement, and a draft resource consent document and consent order were being progressed, however on 30 August 2010, the new appellant (due to change of ownership) withdrew their appeal. Environment Court Judge Thompson has confirmed the appeal as withdrawn and has closed the file.

Mexted, Williams and van Breda Malherbe Appeal

22. Resource consent was granted on 26 January 2010 by a joint hearing committee (Wairoa District Council and HBRC) for various applications relating to a proposal to subdivide and develop six lots at the northern end of Judges Parade, Mahanga. An appeal was received on 19 February 2010 from Mahanga E Tu Incorporated, a submitter in opposition to the proposal. Mediation with a court appointed mediator was held in Wairoa on 21 June 2010.

23. An offer of settlement was made by the applicant as a result of discussions at the mediation, however this has been rejected by the appellant, and it is likely that a hearing will be required before the Environment Court to resolve the substantive issues of the appeal. Currently an application by the applicant for security of costs is being considered by the Court.

Cost Implications

24. It is important to recognise the significant limitations the Resource Management Act (RMA) imposes on local authorities with respect to recovering costs associated with appeals or direct referrals to the Environment Court and cost objections. There are no provisions in the act to enable Councils to recover the actual and reasonable costs incurred as part of these processes. Council has no control over the initiation of these processes and has no choice but to participate in accordance with due process as required by statute.

25. The Consents team at HBRC has faced several complex appeals and cost objections this last financial year (2009 / 2010) which has had a substantial impact on bottom line cost recovery. This is largely due to the complexity and the consuming nature of appeals, which often necessitate representation from legal providers and external experts to mediate or litigate Council’s decisions.

26. The impact of such factors needs to be acknowledged and contextualised with respect to financial performance. The following table provides a breakdown of those appeals referred to above in respect of the costs borne by Council in administrating its functions under the RMA represented as non-recoverable costs.

Non-Recoverable Costs Associated with Resource Consent Appeals

01 July 2009 – 31 August 2010

APPEAL	COST (GST exclusive) Includes staff time, legal fees, and consultant costs
Ngaruroro River Catchment Appeals	$72,157
Affco Appeal	$40,548
Garrity Land Company Ltd Appeal	$22,254
Mexted, Williams and Van Breda Malherbe Appeal	$14,087
Total	$149,046

27. Given the significant financial exposure for Council that cannot be forecast or estimated, staff will continue to regularly update Council on appeals and their associated costs.

DECISION MAKING PROCESS

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

RECOMMENDATION

1. That the Environmental Management Committee receives the report titled “Status of Environment Court Appeals”.

Dave Moule

Manager Consents

Gavin Ide

Team Leader Policy

Darryl Lew

Group Manager

Resource Management

Helen Codlin

Group Manager

Strategic Development

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environmental Management Committee

Wednesday 08 September 2010

SUBJECT: Foundation for Research Science and Technology Science Programmes

REASON FOR REPORT

1. This report provides the Committee with an update on the recent successful applications to the Foundation for Research Science and Technology (FRST) for Freshwater Research proposals that have direct benefit to improving the scientific knowledge base within Hawke’s Bay.

Background

2. FRST, through a contestable freshwater research grant scheme, provides $16.4 million per annum for the development of science and technology in the freshwater area. The following table sets out the successful proposals that will be funded over the next 3 to 6 years.

Lead Organisation	Proposal Short Title
AgResearch Ltd	• Clean Water, Productive Land
Institute of Environmental Science and Research Limited	• Groundwater assimilative capacity
Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Limited - Trading as GNS Science	• Tracer validation of hydrological systems
Landcare Research New Zealand Ltd	• Freshwater Values, Monitoring and Outcomes • Restoring Wetlands
Massey University	• Integrated Freshwater Solutions
National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd	• Aquatic Rehabilitation • Environmental Flows • Framework for Interoperable Freshwater Models • Management of Cumulative Effects of Stressors on Aquatic Ecosystems • Waterscape

3. Hawke’s Bay Regional Council Science team has been actively working with the partners of these projects to encourage as much of this research and technology as possible to reflect the Hawke’s Bay environment. To this end at least three of the proposals will have a direct benefit to the Hawke’s Bay environment with a component of the research being directly undertaken in Hawke’s Bay. Staff within the Science section of the council will work in partnership with these organisations to enable the successful uptake of the research into Hawke’s Bay. These organisations have acknowledged the contribution the Hawke’s Bay Science team can make to these proposals, which was instrumental in influencing the use of Hawke’s Bay as a study area.

4. The three projects with a significant component being undertaken in Hawke’s Bay are:

4.1 Waterscape ($1.4 million per annum for three years)

4.2 Environmental Flows ($2.4 million per annum for 6 years)

4.3 Cumulative Effects ($2.4 million per annum for 6 years).

5. Waterscape is a 3 year programme to develop a scientific basis for the integrated management of surface water and groundwater. The research proposal has five objectives with the first four objectives addressing a component of the hydrological landscape where the research partners and end users have identified that improved knowledge of water storage, partitioning or movement is required in order to quantify the water resource. The last objective looks at integrated water cycle management and modelling to ensure linked management and simulation models resulting from the other objectives are developed to an “end-user-ready” standard and applied to priority impact studies in Hawke’s Bay (and nationwide). One of the study areas for this project will be in the Ruataniwha area. Programme partners are NIWA, Cawthron Institute and University of Otago.

6. Environmental Flows is a 6 year programme and is designed to provide the predictive relationships, risk and uncertainty assessments, and tools required by decision makers. It will contribute to: improved health and viability of freshwater systems; greater certainty regarding the protection of habitats, biodiversity, threatened species, ecosystem services, and cultural and amenity values; and capability to account for cumulative effects of multiple water management activities in water allocation planning and decision making. The questions to be answered are:

6.1 What are the cumulative effects of complex water management?

6.2 What are the flow variability requirements for aquatic ecosystem processes, ecosystem services (for society), threatened species, and other instream values?

6.3 How does the river-aquifer exchange affect flow regimes and ecosystems?

6.4 What are the flow requirements of Maori aquatic values?

6.5 How will climate variability affect flow regimes and aquatic ecosystems, and how can effects of water use and climate variability be distinguished?

6.6 How can scientific knowledge and technical tools be used and integrated most effectively to inform water policy and water allocation decision making?

One of the study areas for this project will be in the Ruataniwha area. Programme partners: NIWA, GNS Science and Aqualinc Research.

7. Management of cumulative effects of stressors on aquatic ecosystems is a 6 year programme and is designed to provide knowledge and science based tools for better management of aquatic ecosystems. A central focus will be on determining contaminant load limits for receiving water bodies, interactions between multiple contaminant stressors and ecosystem “tipping points”. One of the study areas for this project will be in the Tukituki River. Programme partners are: NIWA, Cawthron Institute, Environment Canterbury, Tipa and Associates and ESR.

8. The research that is undertaken within the Hawke’s Bay region will operate in association with the council’s existing programmes and will greatly assist in the development of comprehensive water management for the region, providing for long term sustainable solutions. Additional benefits include increasing the council’s own capability and enabling alternative and adaptive solutions to existing issues we currently face within water management.

DECISION MAKING PROCESS

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

RECOMMENDATION

1. That the Environmental Management Committee receives the report titled “Foundation Research Science and Technology Science Programmes”.

Graham Sevicke-Jones

Manager Enviromental Science

Darryl Lew

Group Manager Resource Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environmental Management Committee

Wednesday 08 September 2010

SUBJECT: Air Emission Inventory – Napier, Hastings and Havelock North 2010

REASON FOR REPORT

1. This paper is to provide a summary of the air emission inventory undertaken in Napier, Hastings and Havelock North during the winter of 2010 by Environet Ltd on behalf of the Council.

2. The executive summary of the report “Air Emission Inventory - Napier, Hastings and Havelock North 2010” is attached to this paper.

Background

3. An air emission inventory (AEI) is a tool the Council can use to determine and quantify contributions to ambient air quality within air sheds or the region as a whole. A regularly updated AEI provides this Council with a means to assess the effectiveness of policies, rules and non-regulatory approaches aimed at improving air quality in Hawke’s Bay and to identify air quality issues that still need addressing.

4. In 2005 the Council commissioned Environet Ltd to undertake an AEI covering the entire Hawke’s Bay region. The AEI carried out during the 2010 winter is an update of the 2005 AEI but focuses on designated air sheds within the region and more specifically Airzone 1 in Napier and Hastings, including Havelock North (see maps in Attachment 2). While air quality in Hawke’s Bay is generally good, Airzone 1 areas in Napier and Hastings have failed to meet the National Environmental Standard (NES) for particulates (PM₁₀) since it was introduced in 2004. The NES for PM₁₀ requires concentrations to not exceed 50 µg/m³ (24 hour average) on more than one occasion in any 12 month period, although this standard is currently under review by the Ministry for the Environment.

5. The results of the 2005 AEI showed that domestic heating contributed 87-88% of PM₁₀ emissions in Napier and Hastings, compared to just 2-3% from the industrial and commercial sectors. Since 2005 the Council has launched Heat Smart Hawke’s Bay, a financial assistance programme to help people move towards cleaner methods of warming their homes. To date, 249 applications for clean heat conversions and 269 applications for insulation have been approved. More recently, changes to the operative Regional Resource Management Plan 2006 in relation to air quality introduces new measures to help achieve the NES for PM₁₀ in the Napier and Hastings air sheds, with particular emphasis on controlling emissions from domestic heating. The success of those measures, once fully implemented, can be assessed with the aid of future AEI updates.

AEI Methodology

6. AEIs are used to identify sources of contaminants contributing to air quality within an area and to estimate the amount of the contaminants being emitted over a period of time. Quantities are estimated using average emission rates for an activity based on the amount of material used, and, where available, actual emission data, such as from stack monitoring (MfE, 2001a). The technique does not involve directly measuring the nature and sources of particles in the air.

7. PM₁₀ is considered the main contaminant of concern in Hawke’s Bay but other contaminants included in the 2005 and 2010 AEIs were; carbon monoxide (CO), sulphur oxides (SO_x), nitrogen oxides (NO_x), volatile organic compounds (VOC) and carbon dioxide (CO₂). Sources of emissions considered in the AEIs were domestic heating, motor vehicles, industrial and commercial activities and aviation and shipping.

8. The contribution of domestic heating to emissions was determined through a survey on heating methods and fuel use by households in Napier, Hastings and Havelock North. Emission factors were applied to the results of the survey to quantify the contaminants being emitted.

9. Assessing emissions from motor vehicles involved collecting data on vehicle kilometres travelled (VKT) from a road network model. The VKT were multiplied by emission factors from the Vehicle Fleet Emission Model to provide an estimate of the amount of each contaminant being emitted from this source.

10. Industrial and commercial emitters were largely identified through information on consented activities provided by HBRC staff. Site specific emission data was available in some instances, otherwise a survey was used to obtain activity data, such as fuel used or materials produced, which then formed the basis of emissions estimates. In addition, all schools in the study area were contacted to determine their source of heating.

11. Marine and aviation sources were considered in Napier only. Emissions from commercial shipping were determined by identifying the number and types of vessels transiting the Port of Napier and applying emission factors to the associated horsepower involved. A similar approach was taken to determine contributions from aviation to air quality, with emission factors being applied to the take-offs and landing cycles of the different types of aircraft transiting Hawke’s Bay Airport.

Results

12. The relative contributions of sources to daily wintertime emissions of contaminants in Napier, Hastings and Havelock North are shown in Attachment 3. Motor vehicles are the dominant source of NO_x while domestic heating accounts for the most CO, SOx, CO₂, VOCs and PM₁₀ in all three areas.

13. In the Napier Airshed, total emissions of PM₁₀ on an average winter’s day have decreased approximately 32%, from 2067 kg/day in 2005 to 1288 kg/day in 2010. Domestic home heating remains the greatest contributor to PM₁₀ emissions (92%) in winter but the quantity emitted has decreased 27% since the 2005 AEI. Motor vehicle emissions are the largest source of PM₁₀ emissions during summer.

14. In the Hastings Airshed, total emissions of PM₁₀ on an average winter’s day have decreased from 1599 kg/day in 2005 to 1306 kg/day in 2010, a decline of approximately 18%. Domestic heating contributes 95% of the PM₁₀ but the amount emitted from this source has dropped 11% since 2005.

15. In Havelock North, PM₁₀ emissions have declined 42% during winter with 311 kg/day being emitted in 2010 compared to 456 kg/day in 2005. Home heating emissions have reduced by 32% but still contribute 97% of the total.

16. The reduction in the quantities of PM₁₀ being emitted are attributable to changes in domestic heating, regulatory controls on outdoor burning during the winter months, industrial fuel switching and a reduction of emissions from motor vehicles as a result of improvements in engine technology.

17. The AEI identified a trend in domestic heating towards electricity since 2005. Between 59-66% of households across the air sheds now use electricity as a method to heat their main living area compared to 35-47% in the previous AEI. Heat pumps were the favoured means of electrical heating. Households that burn wood or coal to heat their main living areas have dropped in Napier from 58% in 2005 to 41% in 2010, in Hastings from roughly 70% to 52% and from 70% to 55% in Havelock North. Note that some households may use more than one form of heating to warm their homes.

Conclusion

18. The primary air quality issue in Hawke’s Bay is the level of PM₁₀ concentrations in the Napier and Hastings urban centres during winter. The greatest contributor to PM₁₀ in the region, and to a number of other contaminants, is domestic heating. AEIs undertaken in the region during 2005 and 2010 indicate the amount of PM₁₀ being emitted is declining.

19. The AEIs showed a movement away from the burning of wood and coal towards cleaner forms of heating. This trend has been assisted by growing community awareness of air quality issues and the Council’s regulatory and non-regulatory approaches to curb PM₁₀ emissions. In particular, the Heat Smart Hawke’s Bay financial assistance programme has helped a number of households achieve that transition. Further reductions in emissions are required however, given that the PM₁₀ standard of 50 µg/m³ (24 hour average) has been exceeded on three occasions in Napier and 15 in Hastings this winter.

DECISION MAKING PROCESS

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

RECOMMENDATION

1. That the Environmental Management Committee receives the report titled “Air Emission Inventory – Napier, Hastings and Havelock North”.

Kathleen Kozyniak

Scientist, Climate & Air

Graham Sevicke-Jones

Manager Enviromental Science

Darryl Lew

Group Manager

Resource Management

Attachment/s

1 View	Executive Summary from the Air Emission Inventory - Napier, Hastings and Havelock North
2 View	Air Shed Maps
3 View	Relative Contaminant Contributions to Winter Emissions

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environmental Management Committee

Wednesday 08 September 2010

SUBJECT: Environmental Education in Schools Update

REASON FOR REPORT

1. This report has been prepared to inform the Committee of the key school education achievements undertaken by the Community Engagement Coordinator since January 2010, as well as some of the planned future programmes.

Background

2. The Community Engagement Plan states that the Community Engagement team operates strategically to raise the Regional Council’s profile, reputation and the level of participation in and beyond the regional community.

3. Council’s focus on external partnerships and relationships in terms of its many activities, programmes and events signals the evolution of ‘environmental education’ toward a strategic leadership role that seeks long-term solutions to achieve community outcomes.

General Information

4. Major Environmental Education Achievements

4.1 NZAEE International Conference

4.2 Enviroschools Programme and partnership agreement

4.3 Stepout Newsletter

4.4 Great Drain Game

4.5 Kids 4 Drama Programme

5. Minor Environmental Education Achievements

5.1 Conservation Week (schools action week)

5.2 Teacher Training workshops

5.3 Youth Environment Council

5.4 World Environment Day - Karamu Planting

6. Future Programmes

6.1 Community Engagement Calendar 2011

6.2 Air Quality Education Resource

New Zealand Association of Environmental Education International Conference

7. The 4 day New Zealand Association of Environmental Education (NZAEE) biennial conference was held at Lindisfarne College in January 2010 and hosted by Emily Rockwell on behalf of HBRC.

8. This was a working conference and used the knowledge and experience of the delegates to work collaboratively and make recommendations on how to move the field of environmental education forward nationally. There was also a focus on measurement and evaluation.

9. The conference comprised of workshops, fieldtrips and discussions including keynote speakers John Minto, social change activist, Meteria Turei, co-leader of the Green Party and Roger Maaka, Dean of Maori Studies at EIT.

10. The conference hosted over 180 delegates including overseas delegates from Malaysia, Germany, Australia, South Africa, Thailand, England, USA, India, Brunei and Papua New Guinea.

Enviroschools Programme and Partnership Agreement

11. Council and the Nina Brathwaite Trust have entered into a 3 year 40/60 financial partnership to support the Enviroschools Programme. As a result of this partnership, and commitment from Council the programme is thriving better than ever. We have taken on an additional 5 schools and are looking at ways to accommodate more schools as interest in the programme continues to rise.

12. As the Regional Coordinator for the Enviroschools programme, Emily Rockwell’s responsibilities include:

12.1 Promoting collaboration and networking between all agencies involved in the Enviroschools Programme. This includes ensuring the region has a strategic plan that matches the support needs of schools with regional capacity.

12.2 Providing professional development opportunities for participating schools, including networking events for students and teachers, and workshops for teachers, other school staff and Boards of Trustees.

12.3 Coordinating the Enviroschools Awards process, celebration events, new schools induction process and annual review of schools’ needs in collaboration with the Enviroschools facilitators.

12.4 Taking opportunities to raise the profile of Enviroschools activities in the wider community.

12.5 Coordinating Enviroschools facilitators within the region.

13. As a result of the extra $5000 funding from the Nina Brathwaite partnership agreement, Wairoa schools will be given the opportunity to participate in the programme. This was previously unavailable. Community Engagement staff have been discussing the idea of growing the Enviroschools Programme with staff at the Wairoa District Council.

Step Out Newsletter

14. This quarterly newsletter is produced for teachers and includes community initiatives, specific local environmental information, education activities, school project success stories and programmes from other Council partners. It is posted out to every educational institution (early childhood – secondary schools) in the region.

15. Staff have found this to be a key tool to inform schools of Council projects, initiatives and activities.

Great Drain Game

16. This interactive resource teaches primary and intermediate students the difference between sewer and stormwater drains. It emphasizes the importance of “Only rain down the outside drains” to prevent stormwater pollution.

17. Staff trialled a new presentation format at Havelock North Intermediate School which was well received. Staff presented to the whole intermediate school at once, saving time and resources.

18. The total number of students who participated in the Great Drain Game during 2009/2010 was1291.

Kids 4 Drama Programme

19. Council staff have coordinated a 3 year contract agreement between HBRC and Kids 4 Drama, with support from NCC, HDC, WDC and CHBDC. This delivers the Waste Wise Show to all 109 primary and intermediate schools in Hawke’s Bay. The environmental issues and messages to be addressed are agreed by all Councils the year prior to each show.

20. Issues will include, but are not limited to waste reduction, litter elimination, increasing water quality and behaviour change.

21. During the first 2 weeks of August, the Kids 4 Drama production group visited 30 Hawke’s Bay schools. Staff have since received feedback from most of those schools. When asked, “Has your school (as a whole) taken any actions as a result of the programme?” responses included:

21.1 Recycling is seen as a reward, not a punishment now!

21.2 It supports actions already in our school

21.3 We started recycling in the staffroom and restarted our school worm farm!

22. A full summary of the evaluation feedback is available from staff upon request.

Conservation Week (schools action week)

23. Since 1992 the Department of Conservation, Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and Pan Pac Forest Products Ltd have celebrated Conservation Week by taking school groups to visit two local sites of great conservation importance - White Pine Bush Scenic Reserve and Tutira Country Park.

24. During the past 18 years more than 3500 students have taken part in this programme, planting thousands of native trees around Lake Tutira.

25. This year over 200 students – Peterhead School, Bledisloe School, Rareka School, Arthur Miller school and TKKM o Ngati Kahungunu o Te Wairoa were guided around a remnant of native forest at White Pine Bush Scenic Reserve, planted native trees and learned about erosion control at Lake Tutira Country Park.

Teacher Training workshops

26. Staff provide a teachers’ training workshop each school holiday for teachers of early childhood, primary, intermediate and secondary schools. Teachers have provided feedback to staff that having the workshops during school holidays is most preferred. This allows teachers to participate in the training without having to get a relieving teacher to cover their class, thus saving schools money.

27. Other teacher workshops are offered specifically to Enviroschools teachers, caretakers, principals, Board of Trustees and students (where appropriate). The aim is to offer specific topics of discussion that are relevant and encourage collaboration between Enviroschools.

Youth Environment Council

28. Staff facilitate the Hawke’s Bay Youth Environment Council (HBYEC) comprises local high school students who are environmental leaders within their schools. The aim of this group is to represent and be the ‘voice’ of youth (12–18 year olds) of the Hawke’s Bay region with regard to environmental issues, awareness and education. Most of the students join the group during year 11 or 12 and finish during year 13, giving them 2 years to gain knowledge and leadership experience.

29. Currently we have representatives from Havelock North High, William Colenso College, Napier Girls High, Iona College and Taradale High School.

30. This group meets fortnightly with Council staff to discuss events and projects within their specific schools, plan regional events and discuss national initiatives.

31. They are currently planning a Secondary Schools Climate Change seminar for 15 September 2010. 3 students from each of the 23 high schools in Hawke’s Bay and guest speakers have been invited.

World Environment Day - Karamu Planting

32. Community Engagement staff worked with the Engineering and Operations staff to plan the third annual Karamu public planting week. The planting days, based at Karamu Stream, ran from Wednesday to Friday 9-11 June, and again on Sunday 13 June 2010. The success of this week relied on the participation of schools, community groups, local businesses and local families. We successfully planted over 2500 plants (carex grasses, flax and cabbage and Karamu trees) adding to the enhancement and biodiversity of the Karamu catchment.

Future programmes

Community Engagement Calendar

33. The Community Engagement team is planning to communicate the majority of Council’s 2011 activities in the form of a wall calendar. Staff hope that this new tool will allow/encourage ratepayers to plan well in advance to get involved in Council’s various activities.

Air Quality Education resource

34. Community Engagement staff are working in collaboration with Healthy Homes staff, policy and environmental science staff to create an Air Quality Education resource. We hope to have this available for both schools and the wider community by September/October 2010.

DECISION MAKING PROCESS

RECOMMENDATION

1. That the Environmental Management Committee receives the report titled “Environmental Education in Schools Update”.

Emily Rockwell

Community Engagement Coordinator - Schools

Drew Broadley

Community Engagement and Communications Manager

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

Statutory Advocacy Update

Attachment 1

24 Aug 2010 - Statutory Advocacy Update

Received	TLA	Map Ref	Activity	Applicant/ Agency	Status	Current Situation
12 July 2010	NCC		Resource Consent – Land use The application seeks to locate two existing facilities to one building located at 82 Taradale Road, Napier, where an extensive refurbishment and revitalisation project is proposed.	Department of Corrections Consultants – MWH	Limited Notified Discretionary	13 July 2010 · Council submitted in opposition to the application. Decision requested was that the application be declined unless the bus stop the applicant wishes to remove is replaced with a new in-set bus stop on Taradale Road, midway between Carnegie Road and Austin Street,
24 May 2010	NCC	1	Resource Consent - Subdivision The application seeks to subdivide an area of land currently zoned as main rural on Franklin Road, Bayview into 6 lots and undertake earthworks.	Gerald Howe Consultant – Alan Petersen	Notified Restricted Discretionary	2 August 2010 · Policy staff have met with the applicant’s consultant. Options and scenarios for wastewater consenting and servicing are under consideration. 14 July 2010 · Council submitted in opposition to the application seeking that the application be declined unless all of the 6 Lots were fully serviced. 12 June 2010 · Comment has been sought from the Regulation and Engineering teams. The stormwater solutions for the site are acceptable due to the free draining nature of the soils. The same soil types present an issue with on-site wastewater disposal and insufficient treatment. Coupled with the proximity of the subdivision to the coastal marine environmental it is likely that the Council will submit against the application. Submissions close on 24 June.
6 May 2010	NCC		Resource Consent – Subdivision The application seeks to subdivide land currently zoned rural to provide for a 277 lot residential subdivision. The property fronts onto Te Awa Avenue, Napier but has a legal address of 90 Kenny Road and 123 Te Awa Avenue.	Te Awa Estates Limited Consultant – Rowan Wallis	Notified	14 July 2010 · Hearing held at NCC. Regional Council has agreed to the stormwater management plan proposed by applicant and NapierCC, so submission in opposition to proposal has been withdrawn. Napier CC Hearings Commissioner decision is pending. 7 July 2010 · The applicant and NCC agreed at a prehearing meeting the a stormwater management plan that would include the construction of a new pumping station and the decommission of the Kenny Road pumping station. 4 June 2010 · The Council submitted in opposition to the subdivision seeking the application be declined or alternatively be granted subject to conditions that would require the relocation and upgrading of the Kenny Road Pumping Station.
12 February 2010	HDC	2	Plan Change 50 – Irongate Industrial Zone and Associated Notice of Requirement The change seeks to rezone approximately 78.4 ha of Plains Zone land to Deferred Industrial 2 Zoe (Irongate) in and around the Irongate Road and Maraekakaho Road junction. New standards are introduced which facilitate development of dry industries in the Irongate Industrial Area, and a structure plan to stage development. The Notice of Requirement includes an infrastructure corridor, road widening, stormwater attenuation and roundabout to support and enable the Proposed Plan Change.	HDC	Notified	28 July 2010 · Notice of hearing received. Hearing to be held 10 August. Officers report supports HBRC submission no further action required at this time. 26 March 2010 · Summary of submissions received. No action required. 12 March 2010 · Submission lodged supporting application in entirety. 16 February 2010 · Comment has been requested from Council’s Engineering team regarding the stormwater solutions; and from Environmental Regulation regarding Resource Consents required to undertake the designation.
18 January 2010	CHBDC	3	Plan Change 1 – Fault lines This change identifies more accurately the fault lines that Waipukurau, Waipawa and Otane and introduces new rules which reflect the expected level of risk associated with earthquakes.	CHBDC	Notified	15 March 2010 · CHBDC is accepting further submissions. No action required. 16 February 2010 · Submission lodged in support of the Plan Change. 4 February 2010 · This Plan Change is a result of work undertaken by Geological Nuclear Science (GNS) to locate and define fault lines in Central Hawke’s Bay at the instigation of HBRC and CHBDC. · The Study “Earthquake Fault Trace Survey: Central Hawke’s Bay District” (GNS Science Consultancy Report 2006/98) has been received and accepted buy Council Staff. · As HBRC instigated the work it is likely that a submission will be lodged in favour of the Plan Change.
26 June 09	HDC	NA	Plan Change 49 – Rural Zone Subdivision The plan change seeks to amend the rules regarding the creation of lifestyle sites to ensure that the issues associated with applications for multiple lifestyle sites being created at once can be managed more effectively.	HDC	Notified	3 February 2010 · Further submissions closed 29/010/10. · Council spoke with HDC staff no need for further submission as original submission supports PC in its entirety. 7 August 2009 · Council has submitted in support of PC49 as it considers that the PC will contribute to the sustainable management of the rural zone by restricting the current rate of rural subdivision for residential purposes. 17 July 2009 · PC 49 under evaluation.
20 January 2009	HDC	4	Proposed Private Plan Change The plan change will seek to rezone land at Elwood Road, Tomoana from Plains to Industrial. The subject land comprises 16.4286 hectares and is legally described as Lot 3 DP 27427 and Lot 1 DP 27890. The site directly adjoins land zoned Industrial 2 known as the Tomoana Industrial Area.	Elwood Road Holdings Consultant - MWH	Pre-Application	3 June 2010 · Council receives the applicant’s stormwater and water proposal for its comments. A meeting between Council and the applicant is scheduled for in late June. 23 March 2009 · Council provided comments to MWH on stormwater and the historical Tomoana Freezing Works Offal Disposal sites (Pye holes). 20 January 2009 · MWH request Councils comments on the proposed Plan Change
14 March 2008	NCC	5	Plan Change 2 – Business Park Zone The plan change proposes to rezone 30 hectares located immediately north of Prebensen Drive and west of the Hawke’s Bay Expressway Legal Description (Lot 114 DP 377350) and backing onto the Southern Marsh, part of the Ahuriri Estuary.	NCC	Notified	31 May 2010 · Council’s Engineering Team has assessed the stormwater management plan and found the contaminant solution acceptable. Council’s concerns have been satisfied. 30 April 2010 · Council receives the stormwater management plan for the business park. 23 April 2010 · Letter received confirming Councils submission and inviting further submissions. No further submission is lodged. 14 March 2008 · The Council opposes the Plan Change due to concerns related to the discharge of contaminants from stormwater into the Ahuriri Estuary.

Agenda Item	Action	Person Responsible	Due Date	Status Comment
4 Matters arising from 12 May meeting	· Stream Ecological Valuations for the Karamu Stream Catchment – forward a copy of the report to HDC	D Lew		Copy sent.
7 Options for Use of Water from Lapsed Consents	· Staff to provide Council with a ‘broader’ analysis of the potential scale of the over allocated catchments and how many consents might lapse, and the implications for the Region	D Lew	28 July	Statistical analysis was included in the 28 July EMC Recommendations to Council paper.
15 Taharua Catchment Update	· Staff to provide total project costs for the 09/10 financial year	H Codlin		Costs for the 09/10 year were in the order of $350,000
16 Low Flow Monitoring Report	· Staff to provide an analysis of supply security and whether Council’s policy of having a 95% security is being met on a catchment by catchment basis.	D Lew	10 Nov	Statistical analysis to be provided at 10 November EMC

GENERAL SUBJECT OF THE ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED	REASON FOR PASSING THIS RESOLUTION	GROUNDS UNDER SECTION 48(1) FOR THE PASSING OF THE RESOLUTION
HAIL Update	7(2)(b)(ii) To protect information which otherwise would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information.	The Council is specified, in the First Schedule to this Act, as a body to which the Act applies.

Item	Topic	Councillor / Staff
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.